6139008-History-of-Money

natural resources as current income rather than as the liquidation of an asset. This violates both basic accountingprinciples and common sense. Similarly, saving doesn't add much to the GDP; economists actually chide Japan for its highsavings rate. But maxing out on credit cards makes it soar.Fourth, the GDP ignores totally the distribution of income, the social costs of inequality and poverty. Changes in GDP areinsensitive to income inequality, poverty and the distribution of personal consumption and wealth. Even assuming that theGDP represents a rising tide of beneficence, it can’t have that effect unless all share. If the economy is getting bigger, butthe benefits are going mainly to those who need it least, the result is material accretion but not economic advance. This istrue even in conventional economic terms. For a Mark McGuire or a Michael Jordan, another thousand dollars is merely tipmoney. For a family struggling on the minimum wage, a tenth that amount can mean the difference between macaroniand chicken for many nights.Fifth, the GDP contains intermediate and regrettable expenditures that do not contribute to economic welfare. Theseinclude elements of government spending such as defense spending. It also includes personal spending such as cost ofcommuting to work, costs related to crime, environmental protection and automobile accidents.Sixth, GDP includes expenditures on education, health care, social services and environmental protection that do notnecessarily reflect the outcomes or returns on investment from such expenditures. Such outcomes might include physicalwell-being e.g. life expectancy, intellectual and labor market skills, educational attainment, and the quality of theenvironment.Seventh, GDP does not directly measure investment in social capital.Rowbotham (1998) mentions an ecological monetary reform as follows: “Money is capable of doing what we want it to do,rather than (as at present) making us do what it wants us to do. Money is capable of reflecting reality and conveying thepolicy we want. The true worth of money as an invention, frankly, has never been fully explored. The range of reformfacing us, once we decide to correct the overbearing mathematical defect of debt, are as rich as the diverse opportunitiesand material benefits our economies can possible offer. In fact, in a sense they are the one and the same thing.”How Did The Illuminati Get Us Into This Mess?Governments got us into this mess by violating four common sense rules regarding their fiscal and monetarypolicies. These rules are:1. No sovereign government should ever, under any circumstances, give over democratic control of itsmoney supply to bankers. It is the job of the people’s Treasury to create money interest-free anddebt-free.2. No sovereign government should ever, under any circumstances, borrow any money from anyprivate bank.3. No national, provincial, or local government should borrow foreign money to increase purchasesabroad when there is excessive domestic unemployment.4. Governments, like businesses, should distinguish between "capital" and "current" expenditures,and when it is prudent to do so, finance capital improvements with money the government hascreated for itself.5. People must be educated on these issues.6. Political donations must be controlled to avoid politicians selling their souls to the devils.There is an infinite difference between a person who has the power to create money from nothing and lendsit to you at interest, and the one who doesn’t have this power and who would be thrown in jail if he tried todo it, and the one who issues a bonded note in lieu of commodity that is kept in safe keeping. A few wordsabout the first three of these rules, as the fourth rule has been discussed extensively elsewhere.1. There is persistent pressure from central bankers and academic economists to free central banks from the obligation toconsider the effects of their actions upon employment and output levels so that they can concentrate on price stability.This is a very bad idea indeed. Dominated by bankers and economists, central banks are entirely too prone to giveexclusive attention to creditor interests to the exclusion of worker interests. Amending central bank charters to give themindependence from democratic oversight, or to set up "price stability" as their only goal would complete their subjection tobanker interests. Canada's WILLIAM LYON MACKENZIE KING 1935 prior to the “nationalization” of the Bank ofCanada: "Once a nation parts with control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury,once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government andrecognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile".2. Anyone who understands that banks create the money they lend can see that it makes no sense for a sovereigngovernment, which can create money at near zero cost, to borrow money at high cost from a private bank. The fact thatmost governments do borrow from private banks is one of the greatest errors of our times. If a government needs moneycreated to pay for public spending it should create the money itself through its own bank; or spend the money debt andinterest free as the United States did during the Revolution and again during the Civil War. If a government does not wishto "monetize" its deficits during periods of unusual need such as wartime, it should either make up the deficit with highertaxes or borrow only from the non-bank public-which cannot create the money it lends to the government.The Hidden History Of Money & New World Order Usury Secrets Revealed at last! Page 144