Is This The Day Europe Gets Its Future Back?

[Raúl Ilargi Meijer]

Theodor Horydczak U.S. Supreme Court interiors, Washington DC 1931 Is This The First Day Of Europe’s Future? Will Today Give Europe Back Its Future? I
[See the full post at: Is This The Day Europe Gets Its Future Back?]

[Birdshak]

I read Shock Doctrine. Made me want to dig a hole and crawl in. What can we buy imported from Greece, yogurt? My wife makes Greek yogurt by hanging regular yogurt in cheesecloth. The extra liquid drains out, taking with it the tart flavor, and leaving the good stuff.

[Professorlocknload]

Austerity is the illusion.
Devaluation is the reality.
The way it’s been since 1913.

[John Day]

“The way it’s been since 1913”
Professor, and other “commentariat” members, David Stockman put together an excellent view of what has happened with wars and finance since 1913, and in quite a clever way, blaming it all on Woodrow Wilson.
This twist is quite odd, and yet his essay pointing out the details of the slaughters of “The Great War” and the sequel, and the inevitable lurches out of “sound money” and sound fiscal policy of nations is exquisite in it’s detail.
I know Wilson was played, and this is common knowledge.
Stockman has put something very insightful out there, and with a lot of circulation.
He knows how this went down, but could he print it that way?

The Epochal Consequences Of Woodrow Wilson’s War

[TheTrivium4TW]

There is no long term future for a society in the “bonds” (oh, the oligarchs must laugh every time the word “bond” is said aloud!) if Debt Money Tyranny.
It really is too bad that so many of the Prussian operant conditioned “intelligentsia” can’t quite grasp the applied 5th grade math that underlies the absolute proof of the debt money fraud.

If the international banking cartel lends $20 government/society (or $20 trillion – the math doesn’t change, people!) @ 5% interest, in one year government/society owes the private international banking cartel $21 due to double entry bookkeeping adjustments that add $1 interest liability to government/society and $1 interest asset to the international banking cartel (to add to their $20 “bond” – oh, the laughs must be good at the oligarch parties… “bonds” tying down society in Gulliver the Bankster’s Travels).

How can a $21 debt be paid when the borrower only has $20 and the lender possesses the only $1 available to pay back the debt (and they are not giving that $1 back, they are busy swindling the chumptocracy out of the original $20, too!).

Oh, and a “bailout” is when the $20 is created and stuffed in an international banking cartel corporate “front pocket” and society is sent the $21 bill EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDNI’T RECEIVE THE $20 PROCEEDS FROM THE DEBT.

I know, this is sooooooo simple the mind is repelled.

But.
It.
Is.
True.

Hiding won’t help.

[TheTrivium4TW]

Prof L&L, the normalcy bias will confuse one who doesn’t comprehend the power structure and the incentives operating on the power structure.
The power structure robs from the little people, they don’t bail them out.
If you don’t get that one single concept, you’ll never comprehend the game afoot.
You do get the bubble phase, the error is in extrapolating that out beyond the debt implosion “event horizon.”
The debt bubble’s purpose was to create the bust – it is a feature, not a bug.

[advanceheating]

Hi Trivium,

Since the popularity of the Grignon animations “Money as Debt” many observers of the global economy have adopted his view that lending creates unrepayable debts, along the lines of your example of a $20 loan creating a $21 debt.

However the assertion is a fallacy, and the Grignon videos (and arguments to the same effects by others) are flawed. I created a small simulation in a spreadsheet to model the supposèd creation of unrepayable bank credit.
/debt… and it just doesn’t work out as claimed. I’ve not yet found anyone to prove otherwise, and will happily share the spreadsheet with you. The examples you gave are “so simple the mind is repelled”, but it’s easy to be repelled for the wrong reasons, ie. by mistakenly thinking their true! So:

Yes, it is possible to take out unrepayable loans, but this is also possible even if they are issued at 0% interest. We must not make the mistake of thinking that interest makes loans unrepayable.

Yes, bankers do charge money for lending money, but this is no different to a singer charging her audience for a concert. Neither banker nor singer creates money, or necessarily creates unrepayable debts for anyone. An opera singer can put.the whole world into her debt just as a banker can. It’s just that the bankers are better at it.

My concern is that this false idea about loans have creating unrepayable debt, is that it is a deliberated falsehood to distract the public anger away from the far simpler truth. Every debt has an equal an opposite credit, every debtor a matching creditor. Every article written about our “debt problems” can be written in equally validate terms about our “credit problems”. You can no more have technically unrepayable debt, than you could have technically unspendable credit.

If it is indeed true that the creditors of 95% of all world debt will fit on the seats of a double decker bus, and those individuals were driven to say Trafalgar Square for a little chat with the People, then it might be clearer to all just how very simple the mechanism of debt is. And how simply those few creditors of the world can help resolve the misery.

In fact, despite efforts since 2012 to discredit the disclosure, we do occasionally see some spare change from the back of the sofa being handed back by the creditors:

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldhansrd/text/120216-0002.htm#column_1016

I can be reached on [email protected] if you want the spreadsheet.

George

[Author]

Posts