Fiat Moneys Created by the Goldsmith Owned Central Banks- Goldsmiths Part XXXIV
Politics / Fiat Currency Feb 19, 2009 - 12:23 AM GMTBy: Robert_Bradshaw
The London Financial Times of Feb 11, 2009 had a provocative article by Martin Wolf on “Why Obama's New Tarp will fail to rescue the banks.” Wolf opened his presentation by asking— “Has Barack Obama's presidency already failed?”
Wolf then added: “ In normal times, this would be a ludicrous question. But these are not normal times. They are times of great danger. Today, the new US administration can disown responsibility for its inheritance; tomorrow, it will own it. Today, it can offer solutions; tomorrow it will have become the problem. Today, it is in control of events; tomorrow, events will take control of it. Doing too little is now far riskier than doing too much. If he fails to act decisively, the president risks being overwhelmed, like his predecessor. The costs to the US and the world of another failed presidency do not bear contemplating…
“If Mr Obama does not fix this crisis, all he hopes from his presidency will be lost. If he does, he can reshape the agenda. Hoping for the best is foolish. He should expect the worst and act accordingly.”
The Relevant Backdrop
In the Goldsmiths, part I, and again in Understanding Money and War I (both of which can be accessed at www.analysis.news.com ) , I wrote extensively about the wisdom of the goldsmiths--like the Rothschilds and others--who cunningly crafted the idea of central banks (like the Bank of England, the Bank of France, the ECB and the US Federal Reserve).
Understanding Money and War I puts the issue into perspective by describing the work of the early goldsmiths to store and safeguard gold for the public by saying: “ When gold was stored with the goldsmith, he would write a receipt for it which was given to the gold owner. Since the gold owner could get his gold upon surrender of the receipt, the receipt was as good as gold.
“Soon, these gold receipts became a medium of exchange, just like coins. As these receipts represented money in the society at large, goldsmiths found that they could write more receipts than they had of gold. By issuing these receipts, they could then buy goods and services on the open market or make investments however they chose. Thus, these gold receipts were some of the earliest forms of paper money.
“Since many of the goldsmiths were crooked as snakes, they often issued far more receipts than they had of gold. And, if the people became suspicious and made a run on the goldsmith, when he lacked physical gold to cover his outstanding receipts, he could end up being hung or having his head chopped off. Hence, goldsmithing could be a very dangerous business.
“In time, the goldsmiths thought of a workable solution on how they could issue forms of receipts as paper money and make the local governing politicians responsible if something went wrong and the public wanted to hang someone. If the local government people were responsible, then the people being cheated could take their anger out on the governing politicians/kings, rather than on the goldsmiths who were operating from behind the thrones/scenes.
“This process paved the way for the establishment of privately owned central banks (as stock corporations) in various nations whereby these banks were given complete authority over the nations' money—to print it and distribute it almost however they saw fit.”
Soon, the Rothschilds and their fellow goldsmiths owned both the large international banks and the national/central banks in nations. With this scam in place, the goldsmiths could issue all of the paper receipts/money they desired without fear of having to be held accountable if there was a public run on their banks. Under this plan, if something went wrong, the public could get mad at and take its vengeance out on the governing kings and politicians. Goldsmiths would never have to answer for their crimes of using their money powers to steal from the people.
The Blame
And that backdrop is precisely what has been underway in modern America since 1913 with the organization of the Federal Reserve Bank. In the so-called great depression of the early 1930s, who gets the blame for it in history books? Well, history has written about the evils, mistakes and incompetence of President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress; but nothing is said about the Rothschilds and other owners of the Federal Reserve Bank.
When Franklin Rosenfedt/Roosevelt came along in 1933, and actually started a massive irresponsible spending of money, he has been credited with rescuing the United States from the depression caused by Hoover. A student of history will never be able to read this story and attach blame to the big banks and their privately owned central bank, the Federal Reserve Bank.
It should not take a genius to understand at once how this cunning, clever goldsmith planning has paid off in the last several centuries. Many of us learned about the French Revolution of the late 18 th century. We all know about King Louie, Marie Antoinette, and their colleagues who had their heads chopped off by the guillotine. But who ever heard of the role of the Rothschilds and other plutocratic bankers operating from behind the scenes to bring on the revolution, anarchy and blood in the streets.
In 2003, I wrote extensively about the stupidity of the moron George W. Bush (in volumes I and XXXIV at www.ageend.com ). I said then that the fat cats were planning economic problems which could be blamed on Bush and the Republicans. And sure enough, this is what happened.
In my forecast on the Cabal, at www.analysis-news.com , I linked the IQ of the new President Obama to that of Bush and concluded that Obama is also scheduled to take much blame for the mess created by the greedy goldsmiths who have been ripping off the United States since 1913. As Martin Wolf wrote, this future is already on the drawing boards. Obama either gets the mess corrected and resolved at once or he too will share in the blame with Bush.
In a way, it is fair and just that both Bush and Obama (and their predecessors, all the way back to Woodrow Wilson who signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913) accept the blame for the mess that is now on America and indeed on much of the rest of the world. But the history books should be honest and truthful enough that the full story is told about the role of the goldsmiths--like the Rothschilds and others--who have played the primary role for the mess that the world is in today.
So when people get cheated out of their money, inheritances and future, who do you think that they will blame and take their wrath out on? Do you actually believe that the people will get mad and start in on the Rothschilds, Lazards, Warburgs, Oppenheimers, Rockefellers, etc; or do you suppose that they will take their wrath out on Bush, Obama, Blair, Brown, and so forth?
Well, per the cunning and clever maneuvering of the goldsmith fat cats, the blame will be placed on the governing politicians. Bush, Blair, Obama and Brown are going to go down in history as incompetent morons and stupid idiots. Maybe this is all poetic justice since the politicians allowed the goldsmiths to rip us off and steal from us (as they have been doing for ages).
More from Wolf
Going on in Wolf's dissertation, in the London Financial Times, he broached the present US plans to further bail out the big banks. He said that the “ banking programme seems to be yet another child of the failed interventions of the past one and a half years: optimistic and indecisive. If this ‘progeny of the troubled asset relief programme' fails, Mr Obama's credibility will be ruined...
“The correct advice remains the one the US gave the Japanese and others during the 1990s: admit reality, restructure banks and, above all, slay zombie institutions at once. It is an important, but secondary, question whether the right answer is to create new ‘good banks', leaving old bad banks to perish, as my colleague, Willem Buiter, recommends, or new ‘bad banks', leaving cleansed old banks to survive. I also am inclined to the former, because the culture of the old banks seems so toxic.
“By asking the wrong question, Mr Obama is taking a huge gamble. He should have resolved to cleanse these Augean banking stables. He needs to rethink, if it is not already too late.”
I take it from Wolf's comments that if the Obama team fails to rescue/straighten out the banks, then Obama will be ruined. Well, when one realizes that the goldsmith plutocrats, who own the US money and the US central bank, also own the US media (and the same in Britain and around much of the rest of the world), this makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't a thinking reporter with the London Financial Times express concern over the banks?
The Bottom Line
In other words, the focus of this piece from London is not so much over correcting any of the problems inherent when Britain in 1694, France in the early 1800s and the US in 1913 stupidly and irresponsibly turned their money over to gang of crooked, thieving goldsmiths (for them to use our money to continuously rip us off and steal every nickel and dime possible from us).
Well, the focus in the US, Britain and Europe is all in the same direction. Whatever is left of value in the fiat moneys created by the goldsmith owned central banks will now be used to bail out and rescue the big banks from their incompetent investment practices of creating and sustaining the huge blocs of toxic investments over the years.
Between the unaccountable Federal Reserve (which can spend money without US Congressional appropriation) and the US government, the US has already spent several trillions of dollars trying to bail up and help the banks.
In the week of February 8 th , US Treasury Secretary Geithner cited a new Obama plan to give another two trillion dollars to the big banks. Of course, this give away to the banks will not end until the US is finally acknowledged as being bankrupt and there is nothing more of value that can be plundered and given to the banks.
In other words, never mind what the basic problem is and/or who caused it, the solution is to further bail out and assist the goldsmith owned banks so that they can recover and again resume their historic practice of cheating and stealing from the public (with the provision that if something goes wrong and the people want to raise up and hang someone, let them hang the governing politicians).
______________________________________________________________________
The above article has been published by the Analysis of News to better inform people on the activities of the plutocratic financial market manipulators and what they are doing to deceive us and cheat us out of our last nickels and dimes whenever we try to play on their field.
Subscribers receive the analysis of news by email weekly. And when warranted, because of any urgent news reports, flash reports are sent by email at once to subscribers. To enter your subscription now, please check the How to Subscribe item at the left menu of the website at www.analysis-news.com .
Click here to go to the home page of www.analysis-news.com .
By Robert Bradshaw
Robert Bradshaw is a retired CPA and editor of Analysis of News at www.Analysis-News.com.
© 2009 Copyright Robert Bradshaw - All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.
Stock Market Bottom, Why Buffett, Grantham, and China Are All Buying
Looking back, the signs of a market tops and bottoms are so obvious. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that. When you're in the middle of it all though, it's not nearly as easy to see.
During the peak over the past couple of years a lot of records were made.
For instance, CEOs booking eight and nine figure paydays. The average bonus at Goldman Sachs passing $600,000. Thousands of part-time real estate flippers getting rich a bit too easily.
There were lots of them.
But a lot of that money was spent – err – squandered. It wasn't saved. The smart money was saving. In fact, many of the world's greatest investors were gladly selling out to the herd when things were getting a bit too crazy. Others were just waiting everyone out.
After all, that's what the smart money does. They use the good times to save up and use the bad times to buy away. That's why I like to say, to the saver goes the spoils. And right now, as the indices are retouching their liquidity crunch lows, the savers are moving.
I'm not going to give you some long-winded ants and grasshoppers speech here, it's all pretty basic. Savers have money when no one else does. And spenders, who overspent buying assets, have to sell out to pay down debts, cover living expenses etc. (that is, of course, as long as the government doesn't step in and change the rules to reward the spenders and punish the savers – a.k.a. bailouts).
That's how savers buy low/sell high. It's the essence of investing successfully. Yet so many people have a tough time following it.
Regardless, the savers appear to be changing their ways a bit. Some of the world's biggest savers are buying.
They're seeing the signs of a bottom (emphasis on signs – it's still a bit early to be calling a true bottom yet) and tapping into their reserves. They're taking this opportunity to buy assets which would have cost five or ten times as much less than a year ago.
Who are some of these savers, you ask?
Well, they're some of the best investors in the world.
For instance, Warren Buffett only opened up new positions last year in two stocks (keep in mind, he hasn't been buying many stocks lately – he's been making loans mostly). GMO's Jeremy Grantham has quietly spotted something he's “definitely” about to start buying. And the big money at China committed to plunge $25 billion into this asset without drawing much attention.
So let's take a look at what spoils these savers are going after.
Buffett's Bet on Wet
Warren Buffett's track record speaks for itself. He entered this crisis with more than $40 billion at his command and he's been gobbling up some fantastic deals ever since. Many of those deals, as we noted, were fantastic deals with unique structures (e.g. Goldman Sachs “ synthetic convertible preferred ” financing) and individual investors should not follow in behind with common shares.
Despite a number of great deals Buffett led his holding company, Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK-A) , into over the past few months, he managed to buy into two positions that regular investors can to.
One of them was Constellation Energy Group (NYSE:CEG) . This well-publicized deal was part of a takeover deal. And it fell through when a higher bidder came along.
The other company Buffett was buying in the last quarter was common shares of Nalco (NYSE:NLC) . Nalco is a relatively small water services company (market cap $2.7 billion). It's nothing near the size of the Coca-Cola's and the Johnson & Johnson's Buffett's known for buying. But it has everything else Buffett looks for like solid cash flow, years of growth ahead of it, a “moat” protecting it from competition, etc..
Although only about 8.7 million shares of Nalco (currently trading for around $11.60) were picked up by Berkshire, it was good to see it uncover some value in the market somewhere. Who would have thought it would be on a global water infrastructure company ?
It's not only Buffett continuing to bet big though. Some other big savers have been waiting to for this opportunity.
Jeremy Grantham: “…I'm definitely a buyer”
By avoiding stocks for the last decade or so, Jeremy Grantham has been labeled a perma-bear. Now that the S&P 500 has fallen back to 1997 levels, he has been more or less vindicated.
So he's been on the sidelines for a lot of the recent run and saving up for an opportunity like this. Now he's starting to get “a bit interested” in oil and we're close to the point where he says he will “definitely be a buyer.”
In a recent interview Grantham revealed ( view video here ) his thoughts on oil:
I thought that after 100 years at $16 a barrel, it had jumped to maybe $36 or $37 in real terms. And I think it has probably jumped again. It will be revealed in 20 years to what level. But my guess is $60, $65, maybe even $70.
But what people underestimate, even in the oil industry , is how volatile the asset class is. In other words, if the trend is $65, it is fairly routine for oil to sell below half, say $30, and more than double, say $145.
And people never get that. So you don't want to be too quick to buy into weakness or sell into strength, necessarily. But it can go a long way. But below 40, I must say, I do get a bit interested. And below 30, I'm definitely a buyer.
Now, I realize we've spent quite a bit of time delving into how much demand will be eroded by the economic downturn and there's no reason at all to rush out and load up on oil, but he does raise some good points.
Oil is very volatile. It overshoots to the upside and to the downside. And now is probably one of the times it is overshooting to the downside.
The odds of a quick rebound in oil prices are still extremely low. There are massive stockpiles of oil sitting around ready to be sold on any uptick in prices. For instance, Frontline (NYSE:FRO) reported, “Trading companies are storing an additional 80 million barrels aboard 35 supertankers and a handful of smaller tankers, the most in 20 years.”
That's a lot of oil to work through before oil prices can move up more than 10% or 15%.
From a long-term perspective, which Grantham certainly has, it'd be tough to get burned too badly buying oil under $30, which we're not far away from. Grantham's not the only one getting interested in oil now. China's preparing for its post-crisis needs as well.
China Shopping Spree Continues
It's no secret Russia is facing some problems. Nouriel Roubini, noted economist and front man for this crisis, has spoken at length at the problems Russia's resource-based economy will be facing in the months ahead. Even Russia's vast foreign currency reserves probably won't be enough to allow the Russian ruble to ride out the storm very easily.
Despite it all, Russia still has what a lot of other countries want: oil and natural gas. And in bad times China has shown it's more than willing to write some big checks to secure oil.
Even though oil prices have fallen another 10% in the past few weeks, the country hasn't changed course. Yesterday China announced an oil-for-loan deal with Russia.
Under the terms of the deal, state owned China National Petroleum (CNPC) will loan two state-owned Russian oil companies (Rosneft and Transneft) a total of $25 billion in exchange for 20 years of guaranteed delivery of about 300,000 barrels of oil per day. This deal would have been almost impossible to complete a year ago. Let alone, at the relatively small cost of $25 billion.
Once again, a saver like China reaps the benefits patience and prudence can provide.
Searching for a Market Bottom
Now, I'm not about to tell you we've hit an official bottom. Grantham and Buffett will be the first to admit they're probably a bit early.
At the Prosperity Dispatch , our 100% Free e-letter, we've been over many signs of a market bottom . And we're seeing more and more every day.
For instance, the latest one comes from a new book from Michael Panzer, When Giant's Fall: Economic Road Map to the End of the American Era .
The book calls for the equivalent of economic Armageddon. According to its publisher, the book will show, among other things, the “ growing conflict and wars, shortages, logistical disruptions, and a breakdown of the established political and monetary order.”
I haven't read the book and haven't decided whether it will go on the “must read” list. But its publication does show us one very important thing.
You see, book publishers are in business to make a profit. They want to sell books that people want to read. As a result, they have to publish on “hot topics.” They want to sell to the masses – a.k.a. the herd .
So the important thing to note here is not whether the book's predictions are right or wrong, it's whether it sells well.
Remember, the doomsday books sell well when times are bad. They become top sellers when times are really bad and a bottom must be near. The opposite is true during good times. The overly positive books sell great when expectations are high.
I mean, imagine how many copies of the tech bubble classic, Dow 36,000, you'd be able to sell now. Not many.
Now, I'm not about to go “all in” (or think of telling anyone else to) just because a new book predicting a disastrous period is ahead of us. I will, however, add it to the list of “we should have known that was the bottom” candidates.
Its times like these, we can't forget our mantra since all of this really kicked off last summer:
This may be the buying opportunity of a life time. Don't forget there is the possibility for the buying opportunity in five life times to come along soon.
Despite it all, it is good to see some really smart money get interested and some really big money start getting put to work.
Good investing,
Andrew Mickey
Chief Investment Strategist, Q1 Publishing
Q1 Publishing is committed to providing investors with well-researched, level-headed, no-nonsense, analysis and investment advice that will allow you to secure enduring wealth and independence.
© 2009 Copyright Q1 Publishing - All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.
Q1 Publishing Archive |
© 2005-2022 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.
