Sunday, 30 June 2013

Is it time to call 'Fraud' on media and public servants proven to have been 'making money' for just parroting hand me downs they had no understanding of?

Is it time to call 'Fraud' on the majority of media and public servants proven to have been 'making money' for just parroting 'hand me downs' they had no understanding of ?
Iain Parker June 30 2013

Chris Trotter - New Zealand political commentator - had an article published nationwide by Fairfax Newspapers - June 28 2013 - 
( http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/making-money.html?showComment=1372377634650 ) – which proposed – in the main;
“The funny thing about money – given how vital it is to our lives – is that hardly anyone knows anything about how governments create their currencies, and even fewer understand why banks are allowed to ‘make’ money at all. Indeed, a recent British survey revealed that most people assume that a bank’s lending cannot exceed the value of its deposits. The idea that banks can, by means of a simple accounting entry, create hundreds of millions of dollars, tends to be greeted with considerable scepticism.
end quote

New Zealand Prime Minister and former international investment banker - John Key -17 November 2012 - said;
“Our (Govt) debt to GDP levels by then will top at just under 30 percent - in other words - um - we'll be relatively lowly indebted compared to countries like America and Europe. But - I put it to you - we are a small open economy. We have high levels of private sector debt. We- mum and dad - have borrowed that debt effectively from foreigners - because their local bank has sourced that from foreigners.

Chris Trotter has portrayed himself as having a better understanding than most of the internal dynamics of just from where - and what - currently circulates as New Zealand's money supply - and sadly he is correct - but still his article contained many misleading inaccuracies:
Chris Trotter said;
“But the truth of the matter is that only two things in this world “make” money: governments and banks. (If you’re ‘making’ money and you’re NOT one of those two things, then you’re a counterfeiter.)”
end quote

This statement displays a lack of knowledge of the fundamentals of money as a 'system' - as invented and intended - many thousands of years ago. The 'money system' was invented to improve upon barter – or raid - as an easier 'means of distribution' of 'goods or services' if scarce in your realm of influence. 

A 'money system' is a 'circulatory arterial system' made up of several layers. An accountancy system of 'contracts of credit' for 'future exchange of goods or services'. A 'monetising' of 'natural resource collateral' on the other side of a 'balance sheet' that must 'circulate' in the correct amounts - under the correct pressure - to keep the 'economic body' healthy. 

When size and trust allow it can be 'accounted' in the heads of trading partners as 'memories' only. But when on a larger more complex scale - involving more traders - a 'ledger entry accountancy system' is employed to keep the layers of the system in 'balance' and a 'token of exchange' is agreed upon as a 'go between' transferred to 'clear' - 'contracts of credit' - when the 'physical real trade' is proven complete. 

At this time - having served the 'productive purpose' for which it was authorised - having allowed the 'production' and 'distribution' of a 'goods' for 'consumption' - or built a 'physical asset' providing an ongoing 'service' - if there is no other 'real' productive purpose for it in the economy - in the interest of keeping the economy healthy - the 'token of exchange' needs to be 'retired from circulation' to maintain 'value' and 'confidence' in the system.

If a trade means immediate swapping of real physical goods or services available without trading partners leaving the line of sight of each other – no 'token of exchange' is required as the 'contract of trade' is immediately 'cleared' by whats clearly 'real' and 'readily available'.

When 'trade' requires a 'delayed clearing' of the 'contract of trade' out of line of sight of a 'trading partner' – a 'contract of credit' is required to be 'cleared' at a later time. It is this 'contract of credit' that is the 'essence of money' of which a physical 'token of exchange'- is agreed upon by trading partners - as a 'go between' - that 'represents' the 'contract of credit' - to be transferred at a later time to 'clear' it - after the delayed 'real physical trade' is 'proven complete'. 'Money' is a 'transfer'-'payment'-'settlement'- 'clearing house'- system.

If a person trades their 'services' for 'tokens of exchange' agreed upon by a wider community to 'represent' and be 'accepted' later as 'payment' to 'clear' other 'contracts of trade' - you have in-fact 'traded' and 'cleared' a 'negotiable contract of credit' within a 'money system'.

Thus 'money' is in-fact 'created' every day - in many forms - outside of governments and banks without being 'counterfeit'.

Chris Trotter seems to have confused 'counterfeit' with 'fiat'.

'Ponzi counterfeit money system fraud' is when a trading partner - or an administrator of a 'money system' - pursues short-term 'profits' from the soliciting of - or authorisation of - 'contracts of credit' - knowing that the 'clearing' of them was never possible in the normal course of business or within the boundaries of sustainable 'natural collateral'. They have 'made money' which they gained use of first while having no consideration for keeping in balance what is 'fiscally possible' with what is 'physically possible'.

'Fiat' is when a government decrees what form the 'token of exchange' will take - to be - 'lawfully accepted' as 'legal tender' in its boundaries of influence to 'clear' 'contracts of credit'.

The New Zealand Government currently decrees that we surrender the administration of 'our money system' to a foreign international private central banking network to 'issue' entirely as interest bearing loans. The interest and fees the private bankers charge are supposed to add up to fair reward - after running costs - for their acumen in keeping the 'money system' in 'sustainable balance'.

Despite history being littered with chapter upon chapter of slave-minded selfish monopolist's subverting and perverting the social intent of money as invented - the New Zealand Government swallowed the spin - that these private institutions - if allowed to administer the money system - they would do it for the greater good of humanity and not keep repeating their pyramid scamming crimes.

Surprise - surprise they did it again. 

It is the New Zealand Government that are currently far more 'a party to counterfeit fraud' -on a global grand scale never seen before - far in excess of any of its citizens and businesses of legitimate enterprise – who are in-fact being eaten alive by the financial trickery sector it co-ops.

Chris Trotter said;
A reasonable policy, you might have thought, in the light of New Zealand’s over-valued dollar and the damage it is doing to the economy. But, no. The Green co-leader’s QE proposal was decried by politicians, journalists, bloggers and bank economists, as tantamount to “printing money”.
end quote

It is not dropping the value of the New Zealand dollar that will alleviate the distress of the average battler – but addressing the ever growing internal and external inequities caused by the entirely interest bearing – private loan based – money supply system – that we currently suffer.

Sadly it was both the Likes of Chris Trotter and Russel Norman's inability to articulate the various forms of 'monetary easing' that have incorrectly seen them all being referred to as 'printing money' - that might have seen a great opportunity missed to educate wider society to the pyramid aspects of the current private money supply system we suffer. 

Far more born of private bankers 'printing debt' as our money – than would be the government administration of a 'non interest bearing primary money system' of 'sovereign dollars' to fund our 'primary economic base of necessity of life infrastructure' to then be provided as a 'national dividend' as a 'public service' at the 'cheapest possible cost'.

Chris Trotter said;
“Sadly, the cacophony of ill-informed criticism directed at Dr Norman’s QE proposal was sufficient to bring about its withdrawal.
As I watched the Greens back away from their perfectly reasonable and generous plans, I wondered why we have heard no similar outcry against the QE being practised by this country’s Australian-owned banks.
Every month, New Zealand’s privately-owned financial institutions conjure billions of dollars out of thin air in the form of mortgages. No printing presses are required to ‘make’ this money – a computer does the job in a fraction of a second. And, when the mortgage is granted on an existing property, adding nothing to the nation’s stock of material assets, is the effect inflationary?”
end quote

New Zealand banks are not Australian owned. If you go to their annual reports – Shareholding Interests sections - where their 20 largest majority stakeholders are documented – you will inevitably find both New Zealand banks and their so-called Australia parents are in-turn majority stakeholder owned by the same very few private institutions that just happen to be the very same few private institutions who are the international money 'wholesalers' who hold the very few international banking lisences in existence. 

If you follow the ownership trail to the very end - they in-turn belong to the family trust funds of the worlds ultra-inter-generational-wealth-families.

The internal domestic banks of New Zealand & Australia earn profits by soliciting loans at a higher interest rate than they know they can refinance with at a 'discount' cheaper interest rate with the international 'money wholesalers' – who truly are the institutions - and their owners - as 'market liquidity underwriters' - who can buy into everything below them for nothing – but no body can buy into them – you have to be born into them.

As for the massive increase of money as debt supply of recent decades not showing up in the Consumer Price Index official measure of inflation - despite household debt v expendable income rising from 30% odd to 160% odd over the same period - this below government interaction re the subject makes very clear how the figures were 'doctored' to hide the greedy private banker fueled housing bubble beyond what our economy - or those on the average wage - could ever sustain in the normal coarse of business;
20 February 2012 Deirdre Kent put this Official Information Act question to New Zealand Minister of Statistics;

- Despite the fact that section prices tripled in fifteen years to 2007, land is not now included in the Consumer Price Index. This means that the official measure of inflation is unreliable as it is far lower than the actual figure.

and received this reply;

Today I received a letter back from the Minister of Statistics, Hon Maurice Williamson. I had heard that land went out of the CPI but couldn’t remember when or why so I sent in an Official Information request. The Minister dates the letter 14 Mar 2012 and says;
Dear Ms Kent
Thank you for your letter of 20 February regarding the exclusion of the price of land from the Consumers Price Index (CPI) basket of goods.
I am advised by Statistics New Zealand that land (i.e. residential section) was included in the CPI until the June 1999 quarter. Following a review of the CPI in 1997 land was excluded, taking effect from the September 1999 quarter.
The 1997 review by an external advisory committee confirmed the CPI’s main purpose as being informing monetary policy setting, and that the CPI should be focussed on the concept of acquisition. The reason given for excluding land from the CPI from 1999 was that it was considered to represent the investment component of home ownership (with dwellings representing the shelter component).
The September 1999 quarter CPI information release explained it as follows: A dwelling provides shelter over a long period of time. Over time land is not consumed and so can be considered to represent the investment component of home ownership. As investment expenses are outside the scope of the CPI the rebased CPI excludes expenditure on residential sections.
Information on the sale of land is available from QV (www.qv.co.nz) and the Real Estate Insititute of New Zealand (www.reinz.co.nz).
I trust this information meets your needs and thank you again for taking the time to write.
Yours sincerely
Hon Maurice Williamson
Minister of Statistics.
End quote

I have recently waded my way through the transcripts of the 2013 Budget Debate speeches of the five Members of Parliament spread throughout my Taranaki region – Andrew Little – Johnathan Young - Shane Ardern – Chester Burrows – Tariana Turia – all of whom - if they have any knowledge of the internal dynamics of how New Zealand is currently funded – and the detrimental impact upon every aspect of daily life of every citizen – they sure are not letting on. Most blame the Global Financial Crisis as to why they cant deliver upon election promises and most lashed out at the Green Party's Russel Norman for talking 'voodoo economics' when mentioning having a 'real' conversation about how our nation is 'really' funded.

The exchange between New Zealand Prime Minister John Key and Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff  (November 9 2010) regarding the NZ dollar was very enlightening:
Labour leader Phil Goff earlier reiterated his party’s proposals on monetary policy, saying it should not just be reliant on the current objectives and the current tools.
“Clearly the [NZ] dollar is at such a high level that it’s helping to destroy the manufacturing industry in this country at the moment,” Goff said.
“We have to take that seriously and I would expect the government, with its army of bureaucrats, to have some answers, so far we've seen none,” he said.

John Key later retorted that Goff was talking about "the same army of bureaucrats that worked for Labour when it was in power".

Matt Taibbi - http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog?page=3 - who is now widely acknowledged in international circles as one of the hardest working investigative journalists looking into international financial system corruption – described in a recent speech how he had begun as a political reporter until one day he turned to a fellow Capital Hill reporter and asked if they were 'frauds' for just writing what they were told without knowing if its actually how it works. I would recommend any New Zealand media commentator watch that speech here;
Matt Taibbi 2013 Public Banking Institute Conference Speech (first 30 odd secs are a bit shaky)

and several of his now world renowned articles:
If true, that would leave us living in an era of undisguised, real-world conspiracy, in which the prices of currencies, commodities like gold and silver, even interest rates and the value of money itself, can be and may already have been dictated from above. And those who are doing it can get away with it. Forget the Illuminati – this is the real thing, and it's no secret. You can stare right at it, anytime you want.”

I don't often get angered by the things press spokespeople say. Most of these people have difficult jobs and are often forced to be the public faces of policies they had nothing to do with creating.
But in this case, S&P just a few weeks before had sworn before a judge that its reassurances about objectivity, integrity and independence were not legally binding, vague, and so generalized as to be essentially meaningless.

Yet when I contacted this company, they sent me exactly, and I mean exactly, the same reassurances about objectivity, integrity, and independence that they themselves had laughed at as "mere puffery," "vague," and "so generalized that a reasonable investor would not depend" on them.

Then they went on to deride the plaintiffs in their lawsuit for not being smart enough to do their own research and make their own assessments about the meaning of an S&P rating, and the value of its reassurances of independence and integrity. Yet us reporters are apparently still expected to take such assurances at face value, which if my math is correct means that in their eyes, we must be even dumber than the investors in the products they rate. What a bunch of assholes!”
end quote

And of course New Zealand media and public servants if you want to know the truth from a New Zealand perspective – my very own;
http://publiccreditorbust.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/universal-public-credit-public-policy.html


Saturday, 29 June 2013

International Green Movement replacing International Labor Movement in challenging pyramid aspects of current private international supply side of money.

Preamble and declaration of principles of the Knights of Labor of America - 1885 - went on to become the founding ideal of the International Labor Movement throughout the world - actually implemented at times in every nation of Anglo-Saxon influence - but seemingly now long since forgotten by Labor Party's in them all;
http://www.chicagohistory.org/hadc/visuals/V0010.htm
TO THE PUBLIC:
The alarming development and aggressiveness of great capitalists and corporations, unless checked, will inevitably lead to the pauperization and hopeless degradation of the toiling masses.
It is imperative, if we desire to enjoy the full blessings of life, that a check be placed upon unjust accumulation, and the power for evil of aggregated wealth.
This much-desired object can be accomplished only by the united efforts of those who obey the divine injunction, "In the sweat of they face shalt thou eat bread."
Therefore we have formed the Order of Knights of Labor, for the purpose of organizing and directing the power of the industrial masses, not as a political party, for it is more - in it are crystallized sentiments and measures for the benefit of the whole people, but it should be borne in mind, when exercising the right of suffrage, that most of the objects herein set forth can only be obtained through legislation, and that it is the duty of all to assist in nominating and supporting with their votes only such candidates as will pledge their support to those measures, regardless of party. But no one shall, however, be compelled to vote with the majority, and calling upon all who believe in securing "the greatest good to the greatest number," to join and assist us, we declare to the world that are our aims are:
And we demand at the hands of Congress:
The establishment of a National monetary system, in which a circulating medium in necessary quantity shall issue direct to the people, without the intervention of banks; that all the National issue shall be full legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private; and that the Government shall not guarantee or recognize any private banks, or create any banking corporations.
That interest-bearing bonds, bills of credit or notes shall never be issued by the Government, but that, when need arises, the emergency shall be met by issue of legal tender, non-interest-bearing money.
end quote

The International Green Movement are now stepping up to champion equal economic opportunity where it appears the International Labor Movement now fear to tread;

GREENING THE DOLLAR MONETARY REFORM PLANK
Approved by the Platform Committee on July 11th, 2008 in Chicago.
http://www.monetary.org/greening-the-dollar-green-party-monetary-reform-plank/2008/07
To reverse the privatization of control over the money issuing process of our monetary system; and to reverse its resulting concentration of wealth and income; and to place it within a more equitable public system of governmental checks and balances; and to end the regular recurrence of severe and disruptive banking crises (such as the current so called “Sub Prime” mortgage crisis) the Green Party will move to:
A) Nationalize the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, reconstituting them and the Federal Reserve Systems Washington Board of Governors under a new Monetary Control Board in charge of the U.S. Treasury’s Comptroller of the Currency division, presently responsible for U.S. Government oversight of banking. All new money is to be created and initially put into circulation only by the U.S. Government. The private creation of money, or credit which substitutes for money will cease.


B) The Monetary Control Board will redefine bank lending rules and procedures to end the privilege banks now have to create money when they extend their credit, by ending the fractional reserve system in an elegant, non disruptive manner. Banks will be encouraged to continue as profit making companies, extending loans of real money at interest, but no longer creating what passes for money by loaning their credit.

C) The new money that must be regularly added to the system as population and commerce grow will be created and spent into circulation by the U.S. Government on infrastructure, including the “human infrastructure” of Education and Health Care. This begins with the $1.6 trillion the American Society of Civil Engineers warns us is needed to bring existing infrastructure to safe levels. Per capita guidelines will assure a fair distribution of such expenditures across the U.S.A., creating good jobs; revitalizing regional and local economies and the local governmental bodies serving them, from school boards to states.

(As this money is paid out to various contractors, they in turn pay their suppliers and laborers who in turn pay for their living expenses and ultimately this money gets deposited into banks, which are then in a position to make loans of this money, according to the new regulations).
end quote

NDP convention in 1995 and the Canadian Green Party convention last year both passed resolutions calling for a return to government borrowing from the Bank of Canada instead of the private banks. It would be in accordance with those resolutions for both parties to put this key monetary policy reform on their parliamentary agendas.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/ugently-needed-change-monetary-policy

An Ugently Needed Change in Monetary Policy
Borrowing from Bank of Canada would make governments debt-free
by George H. Crowell
National Office | The Monitor
Issue(s): Government finance
June 1, 2011

Through the publicly-owned Bank of Canada, which was established in 1935, the federal government can borrow money, essentially interest-free, and make such funds available not only for its own use, but also for provincial and municipal governments. Such borrowing helped Canada get out of the Great Depression, and to finance our participation in World War II. Continuation of this practice until the early 1970s played a key role in creating Canada’s post-war prosperity, as well as launching Medicare and other national social programs.

For the past four decades, however, our governments at all levels have increasingly been borrowing instead from the private banks, and paying steep interest on those mounting debts. Each year, governments across Canada now pay some $60 billion in interest on their debts – interest payments that need not be incurred.

This enormous debt burden deprives our governments of revenue that could be used for much-needed improvements to social and economic services – and also to help civil society groups that work for the public welfare. Such organizations depend largely on government funding, but are repeatedly told there is never enough money available.

Governments themselves also use their deliberately incurred borrowing debts as an excuse for cutting public programs and services instead of preserving and expanding them. At the same time, however, they keep cutting the tax rates on wealthy individuals and corporations who don’t need tax relief – and many of whom evade the taxes they owe, anyway, through tax loopholes or by hiding their wealth in offshore tax havens. There also doesn’t seem to be any shortage of funds for unnecessary new prisons, for unjustifiable military interventions, or the wasteful purchase of new weaponry.

One of the organizations that has tirelessly called for a return to government borrowing from the Bank of Canada is the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER). Since its formation in the 1980s, COMER has produced reams of statistics, reasons and arguments for reviving the lending powers of the Bank of Canada. It has shown how the massive interest-bearing debt now carried by our federal and provincial governments could gradually be replaced with interest-free debt.

Such a change in monetary policy, combined with crucial changes in tax policy, would make available tens of billions of dollars that are urgently needed to rebuild our public infrastructure, protect our environment, and strengthen Medicare and other social programs so vital in meeting human needs. Such expanded government spending on worthwhile projects would also create jobs, stimulate additional economic activity, and significantly increase tax revenue.

To start a campaign for the monetary reforms needed to achieve these national gains, COMER recently issued a “call for the renaissance of the Bank of Canada.” The call is directed at civil society organizations. It urges them to join with COMER in demanding that the federal government revive the power of the Bank to provide funding to all levels of government, mainly with interest-free loans, as was done between 1935 and the early 1970s. These loans, of course, would be for needed public investments, primarily to protect and improve social programs and repair and build public infrastructure. (Go to the COMER website – www.comer.org -- to read the full text of the call.)

COMER has been dismayed that civil society groups have not pushed for these changes in monetary policy on their own, since it could make abundant funding available to meet a wide range of the social and environmental needs for which they advocate. This is perhaps because they are unaware of this possible answer to their funding shortages. The COMER campaign hopes to raise their awareness as it calls for their endorsements.

Of course the COMER people have to be realistic. They know the monetary policy changes they propose challenge the power of the private banking system, and they know this system has the support of the new majority Harper government. But the enhanced status of the NDP in the new Parliament (and the election of the first Green Party candidate, leader Elizabeth May) heightens the prospect that a revival of the Bank of Canada’s lending powers will be more frequently and effectively raised in the House of Commons. (Maybe every time the Conservatives cite the debt as an excuse for cutting social programs and services.)

Significantly, the NDP convention in 1995 and the Green Party convention last year both passed resolutions calling for a return to government borrowing from the Bank of Canada instead of the private banks. It would be in accordance with those resolutions for both parties to put this key monetary policy reform on their parliamentary agendas.

Indeed, it may be essential for the opposition to take this stand in the House, if only to deter Harper from making the Bank of Canada even less beneficial to the public interest. This could happen if Harper decides to act on his earlier support for the creation of a common U.S.-Canadian currency, or to bring Canada into a proposed new global currency system – both, of course, controlled by the private bankers. Such a loss of monetary policy independence would gravely impair the Canadian campaign for monetary justice.

Right now, however, the renaissance of the Bank of Canada, though very difficult, is not beyond achievement. Particularly if the campaign garners the support it deserves from the civil society groups that now suffer so much from the Bank’s disuse.

(George Crowell is a retired University of Windsor professor who has been working with COMER on monetary policy since 1994.)
end quote

Recently - for a period of time - The New Zealand Green Party joined the growing International Green Movement in challenging the pyramid aspects of the current internatonal supply side of money  - but unfortunately have since - at present - backed down for political expedience after coming under pressure for their stance - ironically much of it from the New Zealand Labour Party;

Russel Norman – New Zealand Green Party Co-leader - made headlines this week – 19 June 2013 Greens-U-turn-wont-quiet-John Key - for doing a public backflip on looking into alternative ideas to what is currently said to be “Generally accepted worldwide best practice monetary policy” – and New Zealand media - in the main - painted him as a loser.

Russel Norman already having displayed a sense of growing environmental and social injustice - had “come out” - asking hard questions of the current money system orthodoxy after his 21 Feb 2013 International Finance Agreement Amendment Bill third reading - now law - in which Russel Norman admitted to having only recently gained an understanding of just how New Zealand money supply originates and under what terms and conditions;
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/7/a/8/50HansD_20130221_00000020-International-Finance-Agreements-Amendment.htm
Russel Norman;
"The other thing that comes out of, I think, the IMF that surprises a lot of people is when the IMF says things like most of the money that is generated is generated by the private banks. Most of us, I think—and I was certainly one of these people, until reading IMF papers—always assume that the Government created the money. That is just because I actually did not follow it closely enough, whereas the IMF is very clear that it is the private banks that create most of the money. What the IMF—or, at least, some of the researchers within the IMF—is now saying is that the Government should use its ability to create money, so that there is some publicly created money as well as the privately created money, most of which is created by the private banks.
This, of course, is a pretty radical proposition, and the IMF, in putting forward this proposition, has certainly been shaking the policy debates around monetary policy all over the world, except in New Zealand, of course, where we are kind of locked into some weird backwater where the Government does not want to have a debate around any of this kind of stuff. But if you read the international literature, it is pretty good."
end quote

I myself was very disappointed that Russel Norman it seemed – after all was said and done – had “come out” before having done sufficient personal research to defend the subject when attacked in public by proponents of the current system - despite how far the debate has moved internationally at the very highest levels of the international supply side of money – about the pyramid aspects of it. But I do not concur with those making comment that anyone admitting such a lack of knowledge of monetary matters so late in the piece should be the leader of any political party.

I say this because there are already plenty of so-called public representatives who have a full knowledge of the pyramid aspects of New Zealands money system arrangements - that have - for various reasons - chosen to make it very much an officially sanctioned cover up that does not take to much looking to prove.

New Zealand Prime Minister and former international investment banker John Key -17 November 2012;
“Our (Govt) debt to GDP levels by then will top at just under 30 percent, in other words, um, we'll be relatively lowly indebted compared to countries like America and Europe, but I put it to you we are a small open economy, we have high levels of private sector debt, we, mum and dad, have borrowed that debt effectively from foreigners because their local bank has sourced that from foreigners.”
end quote

Private corporations now govern America by buying influence over political process. Read this 31 May 2013 New Zealand Parliamentary report to understand how these influences pass down due to the fact that what currently circulates as our entire money supply originates as loans owed to those very same foreign corporations;
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/Documents/Reports/b/4/2/50DBSCH_SCR5862_1-Public-Finance-Fiscal-Responsibility-Amendment-Bill.htm
"The Act does not mention monetary policy. The majority of us understand that in doing so, the bill aims to ensure that governments take explicit note of the fact that fiscal policy and monetary policy are interdependent; and that different fiscal strategies can prompt different monetary policy responses."
end quote

Its become apparent from official documents that the reason our so-called public representatives don't tell us we are being governed under conditions of receivership by foreign creditors is because quote "The majority of us understand" - Well I say New Zealand wider society are far more suffering an officially sanctioned cover up by parliament than any fully informed resignation to what is economic slavery by way of predatory lending from institutions who knew it was never mathematically repayable from the day it was issued.

This is not only evident in the above mentioned report - but throughout the parliamentary debate regards International Monetary Fund(IMF) regulations becoming automatic New Zealand law without passing through NZ parliament for debate;
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/d/f/f/00DBHOH_BILL11131_1-International-Finance-Agreements-Amendment-Bill.htm

Hon BILL ENGLISH: “I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Our commitments to the IMF are effectively premiums to an insurance policy against damage to our economy from an unstable world....... New Zealand has already agreed to these changes, and adopting the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill simply puts that agreement into practice......The bill also creates a regulation-making power in the principal Act so that further updates to the articles can be made by regulation. This power will simplify the process by which New Zealand meets its obligations. Once changes to the articles are agreed to by the requisite majority of members of the international financial institutions, New Zealand will be bound by the amendments, which means that we are required to bring our domestic legislation into line with our international obligations.”

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : “I rise to speak to this bill, the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill, on behalf of the Labour Party. The Labour Party will be supporting this bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The Labour Party supports the function of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and broadly agrees with the Minister of Finance that these are good institutions that assist the conduct of international economic affairs in a way that benefits New Zealand as well as other countries......I think New Zealanders will have more confidence in our participation in these international fora if they think that Governments are being transparent about changes to those international agreements and the effect of those changes on New Zealand. There is already enough suspicion out there as to the effect of international agreements. We breed further suspicion if we are not open and transparent about changes to those rules......For those reasons, amongst others, the Labour Party opposes future changes to this legislation by way of the statutory regulation-making power that this amendment Act creates. We believe that future amendments ought to come back to this Parliament. If we look back in the history, it has not been an onerous task for New Zealand to amend this legislation through annual amendments or anything like that. It is relatively rare that we have amendments to this International Finance Agreements Act, which dates back to 1975. “
end quotes

You will note that immediately Russel Norman broached the control of the issuance of money subject - most every other New Zealand political party Economic Executive – all of who are - in the main - foreign financial institution higher educated - immediately attacked Russel in the most vicious way as a 'fringe nutter' preaching 'voodoo economics' - this despite Brazil, Russia, India, China, Japan, Argentina etc currently practicing public credit creation and every Anglo-Saxon nation in the past - at which times they enjoyed no better equitable prosperity - having issued 'sovereign dollars' free of private banker interest & fees to fund their primary economic base of necessities of life to be supplied as a public service at the cheapest possible cost.

Russel Norman made clear his views again - and clearly had not yet buckled - in this 27 May 2013 article;
http://publiccreditorbust.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/new-zealand-green-party-join.html
"In the debate around monetary policy, it is often forgotten that the default position is that the private banks create most of the money and lead the increase in the monetary supply. They then charge interest to the users of the money that they have created......The debate should be: what constraints should apply to the private creation of money given the banks’ irresponsible behaviour in the past; and should the public institutions be expanding money supply as a policy tool, to what extent, and to what purpose? Should the state be allowed to also increase the money supply for public purposes such as refilling the Natural Disaster Fund and to see what effect it can have on reducing the very damaging high NZ dollar?
The answers to these questions aren’t black and white but for my pick I think we need to restrain the banks lending into the housing bubble and use a trial public creation of money to restock the Natural Disaster Fund – both to be prepared for future disasters and to see what impact it would have on the dollar.
It is of course difficult to have a rational conversation around these issues in the current political context (ie Key’s scaremongering) but it is an important conversation for rational adults to have. We do have an out of control current account deficit and if we want to be masters of our own destiny we need to change policy settings as under Key’s plan our deficit and debt increase dramatically."
end quote

What is made clear from Russel Norman's musings of our current money supply being 'partly funded offshore' is that he does not yet fully comprehend just how it works - and is very poor at being able to articulate the various forms of monetary easing - those that only favour the private bankers and those that dont.

New Zealand mainstream media senior editors have let New Zealand down no less than Russel Norman who they set out to ridicule.

TV3 Patrick Gower & TV1 Corin Dann just might be the highest paid clowns in New Zealand's economic circus! Radio New Zealand Jim Mora - I am quessing one of the lowest paid clowns - knows who the ring master is - but chooses to sweep it under the carpet?

New Zealand Prime Minister and former international investment banker John Key 17 November 2012;
“Our (Govt) debt to GDP levels by then will top at just under 30 percent, in other words, um, we'll be relatively lowly indebted compared to countries like America and Europe, but I put it to you we are a small open economy, we have high levels of private sector debt, we, mum and dad have borrowed that debt effectively from foreigners because their local bank has sourced that from foreigners.”

TV3 Patrick Gower;
"The Prime Minister lost use of one of his favourite political weapons today, thanks to a policy U-turn by the Greens over printing money to improve the exchange rate."
"Known as 'quantitative easing', it's been done by some of the world's big economies."
http://www.3news.co.nz/Greens-U-turn-wont-quiet-Key/tabid/1607/articleID/302045/Default.aspx

TV1 Corin Dann;
"It is after all exactly the policy that's been used by the US Central bank for the last couple of years to prevent deflation and keep the US economy afloat."
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/corin-dann-greens-had-drop-money-printing-5469780

RNZ Jim Mora;
"Banks have ended up in the position, as Bernard Hickey has said a time or two on the panel, where they have the franchise on the creation of money"
http://publiccreditorbust.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/westpac-new-zealand-senior-economist.html

You lazy fools - its not 'exactly' the same at all - you have the same problem in reporting on this matter as Russel Norman did trying to sell it as policy - you have not done you research - because if you had you would discover the truth is not hard to find - as documented beyond any reasonable doubt in my research here;
http://publiccreditorbust.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/universal-public-credit-public-policy.html

What dictates if Quantitative Easing benefits your nation or only private bankers - is if the money trail of your central bank traces back to your public institutions being the lender of last resort or if your public institutions have contracted out that privilege and become just a conduit of the international private banking network.
QE occurs when even if interest rates are heading to zero the economy remains flat because society has no more compacity to borrow money into circulation - so the lender of last resort then simply gets to type some money into their computer and start directly buying distressed assets of all kinds out in the market as direct stimulus. If your central bank - as is the case in New Zealand - has just become a conduit for private banking institutions - the private banking institutions gain heaps for nothing - but if your money issuance trial leads to a public institution - such as in the case of Japan who's government is typing the money into their account and buying up distressed assets - it will internally re-balance your economy.

Japan is now an enviable position it tries to play down for some very interesting reasons;
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/mythjapan.php
Properly directed, the national debt becomes the spending money of the people. It stimulates demand, stimulating productivity. To keep the system stable and sustainable, the money just needs to come from the nation’s own government and its own people, and needs to return to the government and people.

The IMF is all good with what Japan is doing and what Greens were discussing;
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/IMF-backs-Japans-monetary-easing-30207337.html
Tokyo - "The International Monetary Fund on Friday endorsed the aggressive monetary easing measures taken by the Bank of Japan in April."

The issuance of Sovereign Public Credit - backed by the natural reserves of the nation - is not done to lower the exchange rate - but about addressing our ever increasing internal & external systemic inequities!


New Zealand Green Party backs down on challenging pyramid aspects of current international supply side of money.

Russel Norman – New Zealand Green Party Co-leader - made headlines this week – 19 June 2013 Greens-U-turn-wont-quiet-John Key - for doing a public backflip on looking into alternative ideas to what is currently said to be “Generally accepted worldwide best practice monetary policy” – and New Zealand media - in the main - painted him as a loser.

Russel Norman already having displayed a sense of growing environmental and social injustice - had “come out” - asking hard questions of the current money system orthodoxy after his 21 Feb 2013 International Finance Agreement Amendment Bill third reading - now law - in which Russel Norman admitted to having only recently gained an understanding of just how New Zealand money supply originates and under what terms and conditions;
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/7/a/8/50HansD_20130221_00000020-International-Finance-Agreements-Amendment.htm
Russel Norman;
"The other thing that comes out of, I think, the IMF that surprises a lot of people is when the IMF says things like most of the money that is generated is generated by the private banks. Most of us, I think—and I was certainly one of these people, until reading IMF papers—always assume that the Government created the money. That is just because I actually did not follow it closely enough, whereas the IMF is very clear that it is the private banks that create most of the money. What the IMF—or, at least, some of the researchers within the IMF—is now saying is that the Government should use its ability to create money, so that there is some publicly created money as well as the privately created money, most of which is created by the private banks.
This, of course, is a pretty radical proposition, and the IMF, in putting forward this proposition, has certainly been shaking the policy debates around monetary policy all over the world, except in New Zealand, of course, where we are kind of locked into some weird backwater where the Government does not want to have a debate around any of this kind of stuff. But if you read the international literature, it is pretty good."
end quote

I myself was very disappointed that Russel Norman it seemed – after all was said and done – had “come out” before having done sufficient personal research to defend the subject when attacked in public by proponents of the current system - despite how far the debate has moved internationally at the very highest levels of the international supply side of money – about the pyramid aspects of it. But I do not concur with those making comment that anyone admitting such a lack of knowledge of monetary matters so late in the piece should be the leader of any political party.

I say this because there are already plenty of so-called public representatives who have a full knowledge of the pyramid aspects of New Zealands money system arrangements - that have - for various reasons - chosen to make it very much an officially sanctioned cover up that does not take to much looking to prove.

New Zealand Prime Minister and former international investment banker John Key -17 November 2012;
“Our (Govt) debt to GDP levels by then will top at just under 30 percent, in other words, um, we'll be relatively lowly indebted compared to countries like America and Europe, but I put it to you we are a small open economy, we have high levels of private sector debt, we, mum and dad, have borrowed that debt effectively from foreigners because their local bank has sourced that from foreigners.”
end quote

Private corporations now govern America by buying influence over political process. Read this 31 May 2013 New Zealand Parliamentary report to understand how these influences pass down  due to the fact that what currently circulates as our entire money supply originates as loans owed to those very same foreign corporations;
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/Documents/Reports/b/4/2/50DBSCH_SCR5862_1-Public-Finance-Fiscal-Responsibility-Amendment-Bill.htm
"The Act does not mention monetary policy. The majority of us understand that in doing so, the bill aims to ensure that governments take explicit note of the fact that fiscal policy and monetary policy are interdependent; and that different fiscal strategies can prompt different monetary policy responses."
end quote

Its become apparent from official documents that the reason our so-called public representatives don't tell us we are being governed under conditions of receivership by foreign creditors is because quote "The majority of us understand" - Well I say New Zealand wider society are far more suffering an officially sanctioned cover up by parliament than any fully informed resignation to what is economic slavery by way of predatory lending from institutions who knew it was never mathematically repayable from the day it was issued.
This is not only evident in the above mentioned report - but throughout the parliamentary debate regards International Monetary Fund(IMF) regulations becoming automatic New Zealand law without passing through NZ parliament for debate;
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/d/f/f/00DBHOH_BILL11131_1-International-Finance-Agreements-Amendment-Bill.htm
Hon BILL ENGLISH: “I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Our commitments to the IMF are effectively premiums to an insurance policy against damage to our economy from an unstable world....... New Zealand has already agreed to these changes, and adopting the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill simply puts that agreement into practice......The bill also creates a regulation-making power in the principal Act so that further updates to the articles can be made by regulation. This power will simplify the process by which New Zealand meets its obligations. Once changes to the articles are agreed to by the requisite majority of members of the international financial institutions, New Zealand will be bound by the amendments, which means that we are required to bring our domestic legislation into line with our international obligations.”

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : “I rise to speak to this bill, the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill, on behalf of the Labour Party. The Labour Party will be supporting this bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The Labour Party supports the function of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and broadly agrees with the Minister of Finance that these are good institutions that assist the conduct of international economic affairs in a way that benefits New Zealand as well as other countries......I think New Zealanders will have more confidence in our participation in these international fora if they think that Governments are being transparent about changes to those international agreements and the effect of those changes on New Zealand. There is already enough suspicion out there as to the effect of international agreements. We breed further suspicion if we are not open and transparent about changes to those rules......For those reasons, amongst others, the Labour Party opposes future changes to this legislation by way of the statutory regulation-making power that this amendment Act creates. We believe that future amendments ought to come back to this Parliament. If we look back in the history, it has not been an onerous task for New Zealand to amend this legislation through annual amendments or anything like that. It is relatively rare that we have amendments to this International Finance Agreements Act, which dates back to 1975. “
end quotes

You will note that immediately Russel Norman broached the control of the issuance of money subject - most every other New Zealand political party Economic Executive – all of who are - in the main - foreign financial institution higher educated - immediately attacked Russel in the most vicious way as a 'fringe nutter' preaching 'voodoo economics' - this despite Brazil, Russia, India, China, Japan, Argentina etc currently practicing public credit creation and every Anglo-Saxon nation in the past - at which times they enjoyed no better equitable prosperity - having issued 'sovereign dollars' free of private banker interest & fees to fund their primary economic base of necessities of life to be supplied as a public service at the cheapest possible cost.

Russel Norman made clear his views again - and clearly had not yet buckled - in this 27 May 2013 article;
http://publiccreditorbust.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/new-zealand-green-party-join.html
"In the debate around monetary policy, it is often forgotten that the default position is that the private banks create most of the money and lead the increase in the monetary supply. They then charge interest to the users of the money that they have created......The debate should be: what constraints should apply to the private creation of money given the banks’ irresponsible behaviour in the past; and should the public institutions be expanding money supply as a policy tool, to what extent, and to what purpose? Should the state be allowed to also increase the money supply for public purposes such as refilling the Natural Disaster Fund and to see what effect it can have on reducing the very damaging high NZ dollar?
The answers to these questions aren’t black and white but for my pick I think we need to restrain the banks lending into the housing bubble and use a trial public creation of money to restock the Natural Disaster Fund – both to be prepared for future disasters and to see what impact it would have on the dollar.
It is of course difficult to have a rational conversation around these issues in the current political context (ie Key’s scaremongering) but it is an important conversation for rational adults to have. We do have an out of control current account deficit and if we want to be masters of our own destiny we need to change policy settings as under Key’s plan our deficit and debt increase dramatically."
end quote

What is made clear from Russel Norman's musings of our current money supply being 'partly funded offshore' is that he does not yet fully comprehend just how it works - and is very poor at being able to articulate the various forms of monetary easing - those that only favour the private bankers and those that dont.

New Zealand mainstream media senior editors have let New Zealand down no less than Russel Norman who they set out to ridicule. 

TV3 Patrick Gower & TV1 Corin Dann just might be the highest paid clowns in New Zealand's economic circus! Radio New Zealand Jim Mora - I am quessing one of the lowest paid clowns - knows who the ring master is - but chooses to sweep it under the carpet?

New Zealand Prime Minister and former international investment banker John Key 17 November 2012;
“Our (Govt) debt to GDP levels by then will top at just under 30 percent, in other words, um, we'll be relatively lowly indebted compared to countries like America and Europe, but I put it to you we are a small open economy, we have high levels of private sector debt, we, mum and dad have borrowed that debt effectively from foreigners because their local bank has sourced that from foreigners.”

TV3 Patrick Gower;
"The Prime Minister lost use of one of his favourite political weapons today, thanks to a policy U-turn by the Greens over printing money to improve the exchange rate."
"Known as 'quantitative easing', it's been done by some of the world's big economies."
http://www.3news.co.nz/Greens-U-turn-wont-quiet-Key/tabid/1607/articleID/302045/Default.aspx

TV1 Corin Dann;
"It is after all exactly the policy that's been used by the US Central bank for the last couple of years to prevent deflation and keep the US economy afloat."
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/corin-dann-greens-had-drop-money-printing-5469780

RNZ Jim Mora;
"Banks have ended up in the position, as Bernard Hickey has said a time or two on the panel, where they have the franchise on the creation of money"
http://publiccreditorbust.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/westpac-new-zealand-senior-economist.html

You lazy fools - its not 'exactly' the same at all - you have the same problem in reporting on this matter as Russel Norman did trying to sell it as policy - you have not done you research - because if you had you would discover the truth is not hard to find - as documented beyond any reasonable doubt in my research here;
http://publiccreditorbust.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/universal-public-credit-public-policy.html

What dictates if Quantitative Easing benefits your nation or only private bankers - is if the money trail of your central bank traces back to your public institutions being the lender of last resort or if your public institutions have contracted out that privilege and become just a conduit of the international private banking network.
QE occurs when even if interest rates are heading to zero the economy remains flat because society has no more compacity to borrow money into circulation - so the lender of last resort then simply gets to type some money into their computer and start directly buying distressed assets of all kinds out in the market as direct stimulus. If your central bank - as is the case in New Zealand - has just become a conduit for private banking institutions - the private banking institutions gain heaps for nothing - but if your money issuance trial leads to a public institution - such as in the case of Japan who's government is typing the money into their account and buying up distressed assets - it will internally re-balance your economy.

Japan is now an enviable position it tries to play down for some very interesting reasons;
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/mythjapan.php
Properly directed, the national debt becomes the spending money of the people. It stimulates demand, stimulating productivity. To keep the system stable and sustainable, the money just needs to come from the nation’s own government and its own people, and needs to return to the government and people.

The IMF is all good with what Japan is doing and what Greens were discussing;
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/IMF-backs-Japans-monetary-easing-30207337.html
Tokyo - "The International Monetary Fund on Friday endorsed the aggressive monetary easing measures taken by the Bank of Japan in April."

The issuance of Sovereign Public Credit - backed by the natural reserves of the nation - is not done to lower the exchange rate - but about addressing our ever increasing internal & external systemic inequities!  

Saturday, 15 June 2013

New Zealand Green Party join the International Green Movement push for money system reform.

Russel Norman

Private money ‘printing’ takes off again

by Russel Norman

In the debate around monetary policy, it is often forgotten that the default position is that the private banks create most of the money and lead the increase in the monetary supply. They then charge interest to the users of the money that they have created.
The public authorities create very little money. The notes and coins created by the Reserve Bank are only a small fraction of the ‘money’. See this interesting Seven Sharp story if you want to see a MSM story about how this works – essentially banks can lend out far more money than they have as deposits.
So quantitative easing, or as John Key likes to call it “money printing”, is simply government extending to itself the right that it has given to the private banks to increase the money supply – except doing it for public purposes rather than simply private gain.
So what is happening with money supply in NZ?
We can measure the increase in the money supply by looking at two indices produced by the Reserve Bank – M3 and M1. M3 is the broad definition of money and M1 is the narrow definition (official definitons at the end of the post). They are graphed here (also CPI):
M1 M3 CPI 1988 2013


The first point to note is that all of this huge increase in the money supply, what Key would call ‘money printing’, happened without the government engaging in any kind of government led increase in the money supply. It was private led increase in money supply.
Secondly, as you can see there was a huge increase in money supply through the early 2000s – it peaked at an annual 17% increase in the 2006 year alone! Presumably the big increase in bank lending into the housing market (partly funded offshore) through the early 2000s let to this surge in money supply  This lending was grossly irresponsible by the banks and led to a doubling of house prices in 5 years.
Thirdly, this growth in M3 dropped off as the GFC hit and it shrank through 2009.
And fourthly it has now taken off again and has been increasing at an annualised rate of around 7%, linked to the new housing bubble as the banks create money to expand the bubble.
So the debate shouldn’t be whether NZ should be ‘printing’ money, in fact the private banks are increasing the money supply dramatically (partly funded offshore) – our money supply (M3) has increased by $28.5 billion in the 2 years to March 2013.
The debate should be: what constraints should apply to the private creation of money given the banks’ irresponsible behaviour in the past; and should the public institutions be expanding money supply as a policy tool, to what extent, and to what purpose? Should the state be allowed to also increase the money supply for public purposes such as refilling the Natural Disaster Fund and to see what effect it can have on reducing the very damaging high NZ dollar?
The answers to these questions aren’t black and white but for my pick I think we need to restrain the banks lending into the housing bubble and use a trial public creation of money to restock the Natural Disaster Fund – both to be prepared for future disasters and to see what impact it would have on the dollar.
It is of course difficult to have a rational conversation around these issues in the current political context (ie Key’s scaremongering) but it is an important conversation for rational adults to have. We do have an out of control current account deficit and if we want to be masters of our own destiny we need to change policy settings as under Key’s plan our deficit and debt increase dramatically.
Notes
M1 – Includes notes and coin held by the public plus chequeable deposits, minus inter-institutional chequeable deposits, and minus central government deposits.
M3 -The broadest monetary aggregate. It represents all New Zealand dollar funding of M3 institutions and any Reserve Bank repos with non-M3 institutions. M3 consists of notes & coin held by the public plus NZ dollar funding minus inter-M3 institutional claims and minus central government deposits.

Wednesday, 12 June 2013

The Essence of Money as the token that represents contracts of credit.

My Letter to Editor published in Taranaki Daily News Monday June 10 2013 re former investment banker and current New Zealand Prime Minister John Key SkyCity casino deal and the essence of money;
Cheap Money
Interesting times, Gordon Brown(All the wowser whining is a load of pathetic piffle, May 18) claims former investment banker John Key was the politician living in the 'real world' when it came to the alternative loan arrangement for SkyCity to build a $420 million convention centre in Auckland to be repaid out of an indirect gambling tax, as they were the “only one with the cash.”
Apart from recent statements from the very highest levels of the international supply side of money about just how illusory that world is, I wager that SkyCity tendered the job factoring in an interest rate they, just like our domestic trading banks do, knew they could refinance at a cheaper rate with the international money as debt “wholesalers”.
International trading bank lisence-holding “money wholesalers” have extraordinary privileges of receiving fees and interest upon a money system that is a ledger-entry accountancy system of credit contracts of the future exchange of goods and services, of which “money” is a costless token of exchange transferred to complete and clear the credit contract.
For any money system to remain honest those administering it must ensure that the authorised contracts of credit dont exceed the ability of real resources to clear them; even more important under the entirely interest bearing, private-institution-loan-based money supply system New Zealand politicians have absurdly contracted us to.
Especially when those institutions, in pursuit of short-term profit, have been proven to have issued us, and many other nations, more credit contracts than the “real” economy could ever clear.
Iain Parker
Stratford