The Economist is a Rothschild organ, it speaks the Rothschild view presented to the world, but the view is always in the "passive voice."  When Rothschild family leadership speaks in the active imperative -- agenda, policy, operational strategies -- it is behind closed doors.

 

An Economist article in the "passive voice" of propaganda posing as economics journalism, because it is intended to sell the clandestine agenda, policy, operational strategies gives us a good idea of what the Rothschild game plan really is.

 

First they do not own the domino effect that the trilateralist regional economic plan has created, Where Iceland, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Belgium, France and Germany are sharing in a chain reaction -- and that is because the chain reaction is a product of Rothschild policy and agenda.

 

Of course the Economist does not admit a roaring world-wide depression.  Their latest articles discuss the possibility of a "euro-zone" recession -- which they can do because they follow the arcane rules of economics that allows recession to be measured by a single money-measure national-accounting number, the growth of euro-zone GDP  -- which is prepostrous as a measure of depression (an actual fall in output, living standards, business health, budgets over the general population).  Why prepostrous?  Because in a depression assets are not destroyed they merely change hands from borrower to creditor, so that the losses of the John Doe familiy are balanced by the gains of Goldman-Sachs which is part of the "service economy."  Two people are both alive with blood flowing in their veins.  One person knocks out the other and takes all of his blood and stores it in a refrigerator in his basement for his own future use if he needs it.  The total amount of blood between the two people remains unchanged.  There is no recession in blood -- but one person is certainly experieincing an absolute depression of life functioning.

 

The other stupid measure the Economist gives lip service to is "consumer confidence" as if this measure is somehow a causal factor, as if depressions are brought on by a lack of positive thinking about capitalism. The Econmist duly reports that "The European Commission's index of consumer confidence fell in November for the fifth month in a row."  How utterly passive is the Economist article in "trying to figure out" where things are headed.  For them recessions are caused when the little people get greedy and borrow too much causing prudent international lenders to lose confidence and prudently react by withholding further lending until fiscal tightening and liquidation of all investments with assets going to the creditors brings capital markets back to stability of increasing yields.    Who imagines that the Rothschilds value such passive analysis as anything but disinformation, the presentation of a false brain -- putting on a show of benign super-ego concern  that fronts for the evil id brain one that is always hidden and always at work fine-tuning new attrocities to maximize yield.

 

"European banks’ loans exceed their deposits, so they rely on wholesale funds—short-term bills, longer-term bonds or loans from other banks—to bridge the gap. But investors are becoming warier of lending to banks that have euro-zone bonds on their books and that can no longer rely on the backing of governments with borrowing troubles of their own. Long-term bond issues have become scarce and American money-market funds, hitherto buyers of short-term bank bills, are running scared."

 

The Economist is also used to issue threats.  Defaults will get disorderly and borrowing costs even more punative -- meaning lots of collateral damage to those who otherwise can be protected --  if there are runs on bank deposits or a revolt against austerity -- all spoken in the passive voice.  It isn't us who will beat you to the ground a bloody pulp, it is Adam Smith's Invisible Hand - for them the hand of god.

 

They also put their destructive policies and use of force in passive terms:

 

"Banks are frantically shedding assets both to raise cash and to ration their capital in order to meet European Union minimum capital-adequacy targets by next June. "

 

What this really means is that banks, following Rothschild policy, are calling in loans, creating this deliberate depression (whether it qualifies as a recession or not -- since the financial sector makes money on the bailout and quantative easing that is pumped to the financial sector alone.)

 

The fact is that the euro and the domestic US dollar (which must be viewed separatey from the expatriate dollar that remains the world's reserve currency and circulates on an entirely different loop than the domestic US dollar.  The two money supplies (Euro and domestic American dollar) are being contracted in tandem  -- to conceal that is happening from those used to gauging the health of one currency by its relationship to the other.

 

 

" But businesses and householders at home will also soon be hurt by scarcer credit and rising interest rates, as the banks’ higher funding costs are passed on."

 

The Economist talks about governments having to "cut back," to "tighten their belts,"  in most cases to increase "after elections" because to the Economist it is a foregone conclusion that the elections will not end the austerity forced on us by all this "lack of confidence" that is going around.

 

"France’s budget plans are close to being agreed on; further cuts are likely but will be delayed until after the elections in spring. Italy has yet to vote through a much-revised package of cuts. Spain’s incoming government has promised further spending cuts, especially in regional outlays, in order to meet deficit targets agreed with Brussels."

 

Notice the Rothschild owned Economist viewpoint here:

 

"Even so, it seems plain that fiscal tightening will weaken growth. Take the plans that countries presented to the European Commission and add what has been advertised since, and the squeeze across the euro area comes to around 1.25% of GDP next year, reckons Laurence Boone, chief European economist at Bank of America. That alone is enough, says Ms Boone, to chop around a percentage point off GDP growth in 2012. Germany will be the least affected of the zone’s four biggest economies, followed by France. Spain and Italy will be hurt most. ... In September the IMF forecast that the zone’s GDP would grow by 1.1% in 2012 but estimated that if European banks were deleveraging quickly (as they are now), the economy could shrink by around 2%.  . . .  Investors will be even less willing to finance banks, as more garden-variety loans to businesses and householders turn bad. As unemployment rises, tax receipts will go down and welfare payments up, making it harder for governments to rein in their deficits and hit the targets they have set, and causing bond markets to question their solvency more pointedly still."

 

Notice, for them, in passive for-public-consumption voice, these conditions "seem" to indicate a weakening of growth.  They wouldn't dare admit to knowing that production will contract, because then one must ask, "When did you know, Mr. Rothschild?  And knowing, what did you do to stop it or to warn of it, Mr. Rothschild?"

 

But of course the "Julie Andrews model" of "confidence in confidence" (as I call it)  is the phony economic model -- the tea-leaf reading of the effect of our spirits on those impersonal market forces that Rothschilds always pretend to be reading, but never writing or dictating.

 

Hear the passive voice in this statement:

 

"The euro zone’s businesses and consumers will be drawn into the downward spiral of confidence. In the autumn of 2008 companies learned that credit lines could not be relied on when banks were fighting for survival. When banks are short of liquidity, firms have to watch their own cashflow closely. That implies leaner stocks and reductions in discretionary spending, such as capital projects "

 

There is no mention of the deliberate contraction of credit to create world deflation to give the biggest creditors (Rothschild, Schiff, Rockefeller, et al.)  big windfall gains in the lump real-asset value of the IOUs they hold.  There is no analysis of the problem of net asset drain resulting from a money supply entirly made up of bank credit loans that Rothschild can order contracted at will.  We sit at the gaming table thinking it is a game of chance, when every throw of the dice or spin of the wheel has a precise pre-arranged outcome --  but all we know about economics is what we read in the Economist, or the Wall Street Journal, or Barons, or Forbes or listen to on Bloomberg or all of those economy experts who make their money selling advertizing to gold dealers.

 

Again, the Economist pretends to be reading the market signs, just like you are me when we look at the sky and try to figure out what the weather is going to be in the next few days.

 

"September’s sharp decline in industrial orders is an early sign that companies are cutting back. Andreas Willi, head of capital-goods research at JPMorgan, notes that SKF, a Swedish firm that is the world’s largest maker of ball bearings and a bellwether of industrial demand, gave analysts a cautious assessment of its future revenues in mid-October. That guidance suggests a further softening of investment demand. Consumers are also likely to defer big purchases as long as the crisis is unresolved and credit is scarce."

 

As if the exact decline was not a result that was planned for in the programming of this world-wide depression, this drying-up of purchasing power (which is the true cause of the psychological and non-causal by-product known as "loss of confidence" ) -- that was not modeled with a very high degree of precision, weeks or months ago -- with course corrections along the way, to be sure.

 

Of course in Julie Andrews world, booms too are caused by "confidence"  Are you not outraged that the Rothschilds who control everything with absolutely corrupted absolute power turn things around by blaming us for their increases or decreases of "confidence."  We did it.  They merely exercised caution in response to our excesses, our exuberance in the presence of purchasing power that only came for a short while as international capital and then fled taking with it all the compound interest it cost nations to have the use of it.  Here is how the Economist tells it:

 

During the credit boom, cheap capital flowed into Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain to finance trade deficits and housing booms. As a result, the net foreign liabilities—what businesses, householders and government owe to foreigners, less the foreign assets they own—of all four are close to 100% of GDP. (By comparison, America’s net foreign liabilities are 17% of GDP.) Much of their debt is being financed by local bank borrowing or bonds sold to investors in creditor countries, such as Germany. Ireland is unusual in that a large chunk of what it owes is in the form of equity (all those American-owned [ read "Jew-owned"]  factories and offices) and so does not need to be refinanced.

Now the Economist sets up the reader for "the solution."

But first in selling is to establish the need:

With a few exceptions, the benchmark cost of credit in each euro-zone country is related to the balance of its international debts. Germany, which is owed more than it owes, still has low bond yields; Greece, which is heavily in debt to foreigners, has a high cost of borrowing ...  The higher the cost of funding becomes, the more money flows out to foreigners to service these debts. ... The euro zone is showing the symptoms of an internal balance-of-payments crisis, with self-fulfilling runs on countries ...  If a messy default is forced upon a euro-zone country, it might be tempted to reinvent its own currency. Indeed, it may have little option. That way, at least, it could write down the value of its private and public debts, as well as cutting its wages and prices relative to those abroad, improving its competitiveness. . . .  Austerity, high unemployment, social unrest, high borrowing costs and banking chaos seem likely either way.  . . .   The prospect that one country might break its ties to the euro, voluntarily or not, would cause widespread bank runs in other weak economies. Depositors would rush to get their savings out of the country to pre-empt a forced conversion to a new, weaker currency. Governments would have to impose limits on bank withdrawals or close banks temporarily. Capital controls and even travel restrictions would be needed to stanch the bleeding of money from the economy. Such restrictions would slow the circulation of money around the economy  . . . External sources of credit would dry up because foreign investors, banks and companies would fear that their money would be trapped.

 

Now the show them the "product:"

 

"A government cut off from capital-market funding would need to find other ways of bridging the gap between tax receipts and public spending. It might meet part of its obligations, including public-sector wages, by issuing small-denomination IOUs that could in turn be used to buy goods and pay bills. . . . When cash is scarce, such scrip is readily accepted by tradesmen.  . . . In August 2001 the Argentine province of Buenos Aires issued $90m of small bills, known as patacones, to employees as part of their pay. The bills were soon circulating freely: McDonalds even offered a “Patacombo” menu in exchange for a $5 pata c ón. Argentina broke its supposedly irrevocable currency peg to the dollar a few months later.

I instantly recognize the rememdy the Rothschild-serving  IMF foisted on Argentia, a second rate currency prone to inflation that the peons (and vestigial  middle-class) can use -- in Argentina it was called the "Argentino"  -- in America a currency called "the Amero" has long been waiting in the wings -- and Austrian Economists and anarcho-capitalist and soi-disant libertarians have been calling for repeal of legal tender laws and the enactment of "competing currencies"  with gold in the mix  and a creditors right to demand in contract that he be paid in gold, whereas wages and salaries and pensions will be paid in the Amero.  The unseen hand of the Rothschild, disguised as Smiths invisible one, having written moves on  and you and I are powerless to cancel even half a line of this Rothschildian high comedy with you and I mere clowns whose buffetings and bashings are viewed as well deserved "They had it coming for being too ambitious" and don't really matter.

The two-tier currency idea is further developed:

"Scrip of this kind becomes, in effect, a proto-currency. In a stricken euro-zone country, it would change hands at a discount to the remaining euros in circulation, foreshadowing the devaluation to come.  To pre-empt further capital outflows, a government would have to pass a law swiftly to say all financial dealings would henceforth be carried out in a new currency, at a one-for-one exchange rate with the euro. The new currency would then “float” (ie, sink) to a lower level against the abandoned euro. The size of that devaluation would be the extent of the country’s effective default against its creditors."

Notice that the Euro is still there and debt is still denominated in it.  Thus the new second-class currency will fall against it.  And that fall will be measured -- and people earning the second-class currency will have their debts adjusted to make sure the creditors are not being "stiffed" by devaluation.

Always the Rothschilds decide when to wield the axe:

". . . the likeliest trigger for a disintegration of the euro is unknowable. But there are plenty of candidates. One is a failed bond auction that forces a country into default and sends a shock wave through the European banking system. Italy has €33 billion of debt coming due in the final week of January and a further €48 billion in the last week of February (see chart 3). Since bond investors are turning their noses up even at offerings from thrifty Germany, the odds against Italy’s being able to raise the money it needs early next year are uncomfortably short."

"Another danger is a disagreement between Greece and its trio of rescuers (the EU, the IMF and the ECB) over the conditions of its bail-out. The risk of a mishap will be greater after the Greek elections in February if the country’s political mood sours yet further. Perhaps the spark will come from another source: the bankruptcy of a bank; fresh trouble in Portugal; or a chain of events that starts with France losing its AAA rating and ends with runs on banks across Europe. The exposure of French banks to Italy and to other countries that have been in bond traders’ sights for longer implies that contagion would quickly spread to the euro’s core (see chart 4). Widespread defaults in the periphery would wipe out a big chunk of Germany’s wealth and begin a chain of bank failures that could turn recession into depression."

"The few left in the euro (Germany and perhaps a few other creditor countries) would be at a competitive disadvantage to the new cheaper currencies on their doorstep. As well as imposing capital controls, countries might retreat towards autarky, by raising retaliatory tariffs. The survival of the European single market and of the EU itself would then be under threat."

And the axe will fall unless you do this:

"Such a disaster can still be averted. The ECB might launch a programme of bond-buying on the pretext that a deep recession in the euro area threatens deflation. If done on the scale that the Bank of England has undertaken, it could restore stability to Europe’s panicky bond markets. If bond purchases were made in proportion to the size of each euro member’s economy, that might go some way to overcoming German misgivings that the central bank was being used to provide favourable financing to profligate countries.  . . .  But any lasting stability for the euro must lie with governments, particularly in the degree to which they are willing to give up fiscal sovereignty in return for pooling liabilities.  . . . On November 23rd the European Commission laid out three approaches for issuing Eurobonds, two of which imply mutual guarantees."

And after this bond buying comes the debt-prison lockdown:

" Germany’s Council of Economic Experts recently proposed a “European Redemption Pact”. This scheme would place the debt, in excess of 60% of GDP, of all euro-zone governments not already in IMF rescue plans into a jointly guaranteed fund that would be paid off over 25 years. Modelled in part on the federal government’s assumption of the debt of America’s states begun by Alexander Hamilton in 1790, the fund would provide joint liability for these debts under strict conditions. These would require euro-zone countries to introduce debt brakes into their constitutions, like the one Germany and Spain already have; give priority to paying off the mutualised bonds; set aside a specific tax revenue to do so; and pledge foreign-exchange reserves as collateral.  At its peak, the redemption pact would be huge: the joint liability would amount to €2.3 trillion.  . . .  time is running out. And the scale of the impending catastrophe demands radical answers.

So that is your future direct from the Rothschild's who pretend they are reading tea-leaves when in fact the who thing has been orchestrated to rob Europe blind  -- or is it  blind Europe robbed?

 

All of which sheds light on the economic quack remedies of Ron Paul:

 

All of which is preface to the following critique of Ron Paul's latest campaign policy statement "We know what to do":

 

"We know what to do - we did it once after the Civil War period, we went from a paper standard back to the gold standard, and the event wasn't that dramatic. But today the big problem is that both the conservatives and liberals have an big apetite for big government for different reasons, therefore they need the Fed to tie them over and monetize the debt. So if you don't get rid of that appetite it's going to be more difficult, but the transition isn't that difficult. You have to get your house in order; you have to balance the budget, you have to not run up debt, and you have to promise not to print any more money... I would like to have a transition period and just legalize gold money, gold and silver as legal tender, and work our way back... We want to legalize the use of gold and silver as the constitution dictates, rather than punishing the people who try to do that... I am quite convinced that the system we have will not be maintained - that's what these last 4 years was all about, and that's what the turmoil in Europe is all about."

Ron Paul is the man who also said:

"Credit is too available  -- too easily available and that's part of the problem if not the major part of the problem and it causes the business cycle.   In a capitalistic society one should work for subsistence and what's left over becomes capital and that's what they save."  

I am a liberal, as were Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, James Madison.  Ron Paul is a libertarian of the Austrian School monetary persuasion.  In other words, he is a Hamiltonian.  Libertarians are the blood enemy of populists.   Populists do not believe in forcing our children into austerity, into what Ron Paul calls "getting rid of our appetite" for economic output, for what he and Malthus, Ricardo  and Hamilton and David Rockefeller want for us -- a subsistance income.  (You must realize that "subsistence" is a precisely defined and very well-known technical term in economics.  It means the minimum of necessities needed to sustain a labor force  including what it takes to keep our brats alive so they can replace us in production when we drop.  This "allowance" will ensure that population does not exceed its bounds with unneeded extra poor creating eyesores in the environment. etc.  I am not kidding when I tell you that Ron Paul's prescription comes from that school of thought, the ideology of the the Rockellers and Rothschilds.  You have no idea how far they have taken this reasoning and how much further they are intent on taking it.  For example, we have been dumbed down and your initiative has been robbed from you so that you can neither understand nor effectively counter their moves against you.  Not only are you going to be given inferior money while they us gold -- they are taking the English language -- now the lingua franca  of trade and of science and making it the secret language of the ruling elite -- while native speakers are being "de-Englished" by a tower-of Babel" degradation of English through dumbdown education, literature, media, entertainment -- so the once English speaking peoples -- the commoners -- will be reduced to a pigeon hip-hop English that is good for nothing but ordering drinks and picking up single mothers at bars.  While the elites will speak English as the esoteric language  -- like Latin in the dark ages was spoken only by the priests -- and the commoners who became priests would be locked in monstaries, as often as not with a vow of silence, as they transcribed books for the elites.  This is coming back again.  You don't see it.  But I do.  And the best example of it is the Julie Andrews economics of the Economist and the draught of poison disguised as medicine that Dr. Ron Paul is pouring into your drink -- as if austerity to pay our debt to Rothschild and submission to a gold standard where Rothschild owns all the gold and lends it only at compound interest and controls the price of it  or as if competing currencies and the repeal of the legal tender act to allow "competing currencies" and a "Eurobond" and an "Amerobond" debt consolidation scheme with the turning over of debt collection to international rather than national agencies  -- as if any of that is a good idea.

Populists offer a different plan, one that is based on a far more accurate and honest assessment of what is happening and who is behind it.

Yet no one but a few dozen people seem interested.

You are so filled with the Sound of Music piped by Rothschild mouthpieces that you cannot hear the man who wants to help you out of Rothschild global debt-slave plantation.

 

All Economist quotations from: http://www.economist.com/node/21540259

 

Dick Eastman

Yakima, Washington

 

• Go Back

Related in this Category