Monetary Reform: Worldwide Awareness Is Growing.

By Jerry Alatalo

egular readers at The Oneness of Humanity are likely more informed on the topic of monetary reform and public banking than the average citizen… It’s easy to say that as there are over 160 postings in the Money and Banking category on this site. This post will serve as a tune up of sorts for regular visitors and as an introduction for those who are 1st-time visitors or unfamiliar with our content.

We are always thankful to come across others’ serious studies related to this important, yet greatly neglected subject, and with gratitude share the following 1-hour work (one of a 4-part study) from American academics Carl Herman and Jim Fetzer.

Given the clearly tremendous importance of money on Earth, as an issue of scientific and/or academic study the subject of money is perhaps best described in practical terms as esoteric or somehow hidden from the majority. Unfortunately, the level of knowledge on monetary science is extremely low among the populations of all countries – commonly perceived as an arena reserved only for intellectually gifted, very small groups of men and women, whom also possess and utilize supernatural financial powers.

The general societal perception when it comes to banking, monetary reform, “high” finance and economics is an image of “hallowed, sacred ground” walked upon by only the so-called elites or .01% elect of the human race. One of the few things in life people are reasonably sure of is change or constant evolution, and it is occurring in a big, positive way as planetary awareness about money science grows.

Thankfully high quality teachers like Carl Herman, Jim Fetzer and others are making good efforts to fully inform men and women using easily understood teaching about this vital topic. There are more new-paradigm developments for which people can feel thankful, in particular the rapidly growing interest in these subjects of study around the world.

For those new to this site and the subject of monetary reform, gather paper and pen for taking notes. Class is ready to begin…

***

(From the introduction to Part 2…)

Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher in Government, Economics, and History, also credentialed in Mathematics. Jim Fetzer is the McKnight Professor of Philosophy Emeritus of the University of Minnesota Duluth; Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Editor, Assassination Science; and Co-Editor, Assassination Research.

Jim and Carl contribute nearly 100 years of academic training and professional experience in this four-part series to reveal among the most obvious lies of omission and commission keeping Americans ignorant of ongoing .01% U.S. rogue state empire.

Jim and Carl factually assert an Emperor’s New Clothes condition that Americans can easily see for themselves, if they care to look.

Part 1: U.S. illegal: History as a rogue state empire
Part 2: Enslaving Americans with debt: Basic math to see the problems and obvious solutions (video posted below, find Parts 1, 3 and 4 at Carl Herman’s channel)
Part 3: U.S. public education: Bullshit to train stupefied work animals
Part 4: Practical philosophy for virtue and a future brighter than we can imagine

(Thank you to Carl Herman at YouTube)

Advertisements

Hillary Clinton Releases Wall Street Transcripts.

By Jerry Alatalo

aaa-3Alphabet IN REALITY…?

No, Hillary Clinton hasn’t released her Goldman Sachs speech transcripts. She stated in a debate with Senator Bernie Sanders weeks ago, when asked, if she’d publish them: “I’ll think about it.” Apparently she and her campaign advisers are still “thinking about it” and haven’t made an “executive decision” on the increasingly controversial issue.

Clinton supporters seem somehow able to overlook the clearly problematic nature of persisting in withholding exactly what Ms. Clinton said during those three particular speeches, for which Goldman Sachs paid her $225,000 each. Ms. Clinton has gone so far as saying she’d release her paid Wall Street speech transcripts when every other presidential candidate does.

One starts to think about whether a law which mandates presidential candidates disclose transcripts of their paid speeches should become enacted; perhaps if such a law were operative in 2015 a number of candidates could have been “weeded out” far earlier after the American people analyzed their – in the case of Ms. Clinton and Goldman Sachs – “secret messages” to the country’s most wealthy and powerful.

Considering that Hillary Clinton’s giving three speeches to people associated with the powerful investment banking firm Goldman Sachs was legal and for which she, presumably, would not in any way offer up self-incriminating facts or evidence leading to her prosecution for financial or other crimes, this issue becomes more disturbing and absurd with each passing day of the presidential campaign.

There are parallels which arise when contemplating the massively awkward attempt by the Hillary Clinton campaign to deflect attention and/or obfuscate away from taking the right action expected by Americans from a possible president of the United States. The image of then-President Bill Clinton under oath during the Monica Lewinsky affair comes to mind, when he told interrogators: “It all depends on what the meaning of is, is.”

Those old enough to remember can recall the furious, Oscar-worthy Bill Clinton shaking and pointing his finger at reporters and blasting: “I did not have sex with that woman – Miss Lewinsky!”, and see an evasion-of-truth correspondence to now when Ms. Clinton responds with “everybody does it”, “I’ll release the transcripts when everyone does”, “I’ll think about it”, or other transparency-bankrupt “explanations” for keeping the truth from the American people.

It might be overly speculative to propose that Ms. Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speech transcripts will rise to the #1 position on the list of issues which determines the nominee of the Democratic party for President of the United States – her or Bernie Sanders. However, considering the fact that nearly every serious American citizen perceives a great U.S. president as someone who is absolutely honest and operates with total transparency, this “awkward” matter for Hillary Clinton, becoming more and more bizarre and incomprehensible with each passing day of the campaign, could very well decide the outcome of the 2016 race for the nation’s highest office.

Given the speeches were legal and put Ms. Clinton at no risk of criminal prosecution, one could surmise the nature of the addresses were of the “Romney-esque” variety – the private speech Mitt Romney gave to wealthy supporters during the 2012 presidential campaign against Barack Obama, recorded secretly by an employee working at the venue, the video then released to the public, and which effectively destroyed Romney’s chances to become elected president.

Ms. Clinton is now certainly between a rock and hard place with regard to the Goldman Sachs transcripts, facing the unfortunate reality that either option for dealing with the matter results in her campaign’s loss of momentum. The proverbial “genie is out of the bottle” and the Clinton campaign must now decide which option has consequences which are less harmful.

If she continues to withhold the transcripts, Bernie Sanders will gain voters by mentioning them everywhere he speaks, lowering the integrity-perceptions of Hillary Clinton in the minds of American citizens. If she releases the transcripts, Americans will be allowed the opportunity to read them and understand fully Ms. Clinton’s real political philosophy – and she suffers the same fate as Mitt Romney in 2012.

Given the widespread negativity and resentment toward Wall Street corruption across America, the stakes for this presidential campaign could not be higher.

In the eyes of Wall Street’s shrewdest, money-hungry and opportunistic sharks and gamblers, including Goldman Sachs big shots themselves, they see in the 2016 presidential race that their one sure “bet” – the “Big Short” transaction for this time – is on the Hillary Clinton campaign going down in the flames of self-destruction.

(Thank you to Bernie 2016 at YouTube)

Greece: Island Of Democracy.

by Jerry Alatalo

DrachmaReading articles on the situation in Greece has led to looking at possible connections between a Citigroup-written Dodd-Frank-rollback provision snuck into the December 2014 “Cromnibus”, must-pass spending bill in the United States Congress – and how Greece ran up its debt. Could it be that Citigroup and other Wall Street megabanks placed huge derivatives bets on Greece continuing to pay its creditors, saw the rise of Syriza in Greece and a strong possibility the party would win the January 2015 Greek election, and that Syriza would fight further austerity to the point of default?

Who knows what top managers at Citigroup were thinking when they arranged for members of the US Congress to insert Citigroup’s derivatives/swaps bailout provision in the spending bill. Maybe the move was specifically in response to political developments in Greece and large “bets” which had the real chance of losing Citigroup and others great sums of money. Maybe the provisions became inserted because of growing awareness by Wall Street of imminent changes in the world’s finance/banking system, and coming monumental losses from losing “bets” on derivatives contracts. No matter the real reasons, some estimates of global derivatives totals include the word quadrillion – one thousand trillion.

What the specific reasons for Citigroup, its lobbyists in Washington, and collaborative (colluding?) members of Congress were for successfully inserting the derivatives provisions can only become known by the American people through asking those individuals responsible for getting it passed into law. At any rate, it’s interesting to go back to December 11, 2014 and listen to Senator Elizabeth Warren, unsuccessfully, try to keep the provision out of the spending bill.

The Citigroup provision passed in December 2014 specifically takes aim at Dodd-Frank legislation having to do with “Prohibition of government bailouts of swaps entities”.

Here’s some of what Senator Warren said before the vote on “Cromnibus” in December 2014:

“If big Wall Street banks want to gamble with their own money and live with the consequences of those risks, that’s how markets are supposed to work. But they shouldn’t get to gamble with government insured money and they shouldn’t get to run up to the government when the deal goes sour”.

“House Republicans are moving quickly to try to jam this bill through today before their own members have had a chance to digest this Wall Street bailout provision”.

Ms. Warren pointed out that a “fact sheet” on the provision was intentionally confusing, written to obfuscate, and designed for diverting attention so to increase the odds of passage.

“A vote for this bill is a vote for future taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street. When the next bailout comes, a lot of people will look back to this vote to see who was responsible for putting the government back on the hook to bail out Wall Street”.

“This fight isn’t about conservatives or liberals; it’s not about Democrats or Republicans. It’s about money and it’s about power right here in Washington. This legal change could trigger more taxpayer bailouts and could ultimately threaten our entire economy, but it will also make a lot of money for Wall Street banks. This change will be a huge boon to just a handful of our biggest banks – Citigroup, JP Morgan, Bank of America…”

“The American people sent us here – Republicans, Democrats and Independents – they sent us here to stand up for them, to stand up for taxpayers, to protect the economy. I urge my Republican colleagues in the House to withhold their support from this package until this risky giveaway is removed from the legislation. It is time for all of us to stand up and fight!”

Members of Congress weren’t convinced by Elizabeth Warren, the Cromnibus spending bill passed along with the Citigroup provision. If Wall Street banks lose big money on derivatives/swaps bets, the American people will become forced to bail them out.

(Thank you to Senator Elizabeth Warren at YouTube)

———-

That December 2014 event is interesting to consider in contrast to what economist Michael Hudson said recently on the situation in Greece.

“At the G8 meetings in 2011, President Obama went over along with Tim Geithner (then Treasury Secretary) and said ‘our big campaign contributors are on Wall Street, and they’ve made huge bets that Greece could pay’. If Greece doesn’t pay then these gamblers and derivatives players are going to lose their bets. You’ve got to sacrifice Greece, and you’ve got to drive it into poverty, and lend the Greek government the money to pay the bondholders so our Wall Street banks won’t lose money”.

“So the European Central Bank told the International Monetary Fund (IMF), ‘if you want to be a player you’ve got to ignore what the staff said’, and they did. (The IMF staff had determined Greece was unable to pay back more loans) The European Central Bank, the IMF paid over $100 billion euros to the bondholders, so Greece, instead of owing private bondholders, they owed the IMF and European Central Bank. Now the European Central Bank wants to get paid, but the debts can’t be paid”.

“So the European Central Bank says, ‘Ok, Greece. Sell us your islands, sell us your ports, sell us your land, sell us your raw materials… This is foreclosure time, and if you can’t pay we want everything in the public domain. And you also have to impose austerity. You only have a 60% unemployment rate for youth. You’ve got to increase the unemployment rate to 80%, double the emigration, in order for us to make the loans to your government – that will turn right around to pay us!’

“It’s either austerity or we will ‘smash and grab’. Take your pick”.

Bill Black added:

“…Crony capitalism. You can’t keep a country – at least there’s no economically rational basis for doing so, and of course it’s completely inhumane – to keep a country in a condition where it constantly will be in ever-greater debt. And that’s precisely what the Troika wants to do, and as Michael said, German politicians have openly demanded that Greece begins selling islands. In other words, selling the nation. Just a complete disruption of sovereignty”. 

****

(Thank you to TheRealNews at YouTube)

———-

Greece’s Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras was recently quoted as saying:

“My personal view is that their plan is not to push Greece out of the Euro zone. Their plan is to end hope that there can be a different kind of policy in Europe”.

Greece missed the June 30 deadline on its $1.6 billion payment. Has anyone seen those 85 people who own as much wealth as half the world’s population? If anyone does see them, ask them if they could “pass the hat” for the birthplace of democracy. If you think that’s going to happen, I’ve got some islands in Greece to sell you…

2016 Presidential Race: Bernie Sanders Urges Historic Bank Reform.

by Jerry Alatalo

Book5Alphabet You wonder if the announced candidates for President of the United States will become asked for their opinions on Bernie Sanders’ legislation to break up America’s largest banks. Nah… probably not. Why would the hosts of “Face the Nation”, “Meet the Press”, along with Fox News, CNN and other network talk shows ask Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and all candidates for president about some “boring” proposed law just because it’s historic? President Teddy Roosevelt breaking up Rockefeller’s Standard Oil monopoly kind of historic. The kind of legislation that future schoolchildren read about in their history books kind of historic.

Network news talk show hosts aren’t going to waste viewers valuable time getting into “boring” statistics that Vermont’s Bernie Sanders spoke about in announcing the financial legislation, like: 14 individuals over the past two years saw their wealth increase by $157 billion – equal to the combined total wealth of 130,000,000 (130 million) Americans. What American citizen has any interest in hearing about wealth inequality that is historic? That future school kids read about…?

If those talk show hosts were questioned why they won’t ask their guests’ opinions on banking laws Sanders and Brad Sherman of California are pushing for, they’ll probably respond with – if totally honest, “Owners of the network sit on the Boards of Directors and are stockholders of the largest banks, along with the boards of those banks’ largest corporate customers, and they spend a lot on advertising… you know, so if I asked about Sanders’ and Sherman’s legislation it could get somewhat uncomfortable for me, you know what I mean? You know… right?”

In 1999, Bernie Sanders opposed, unsuccessfully, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act – enacted into law after the Great Depression to prevent another one – which opened the way for highly risky financial speculation using complex financial instruments such as derivatives, and responsible for the worldwide economic collapse of 2008. Worldwide derivative exposures are estimated in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. During that same time, Sanders opposed Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, President Bill Clinton’s (his wife’s name is Hillary) chief economic adviser Larry Summers and Wall Street lobbyists as they pushed an agenda of “wonderful” financial sector deregulation.

2016 Presidential candidate/Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Representative Brad Sherman of California are trying to prevent another occurrence of world depression.

****

Press release: | www.sanders.senate.gov

Sanders Files Bill to Break Up Big Banks

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

WASHINGTON, May 6 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today introduced legislation to break up the nation’s biggest banks in order to safeguard the economy and prevent another costly taxpayer bailout. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) proposed a companion bill in the House.

“No single financial institution should have holdings so extensive that its failure could send the world economy into crisis,” Sanders said. “If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.”

The biggest banks in the United States are now 80 percent bigger than they were one year before the financial crisis in 2008 when the Federal Reserve provided $16 trillion in near zero-interest loans and Congress approved a $700 billion taxpayer bailout.

“Never again should a financial institution be able to demand a federal bailout,” Sherman said. “They claim; ‘If we go down, the economy is going down with us,’ but by breaking up these institutions long before they face a crisis, we ensure a healthy financial system where medium-sized institutions can compete in the free market.”

The 2008 financial crisis had a devastating impact on the U.S. economy. It cost as much as $14 trillion, the Dallas Federal Reserve calculated. The Government Accountability Office pegged the cost at $13 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the crisis nearly doubled the national debt and cost more than the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

The six largest U.S. financial institutions today have assets of some $10 trillion, an amount equal to almost 60 percent of gross domestic product. They handle more than two-thirds of all credit card purchases, control nearly 50 percent of all bank deposits, and control over 95 percent of the $240 trillion in derivatives held by commercial banks.

The Sanders and Sherman legislation would give banking regulators 90 days to identify commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds, insurance companies and other entities whose “failure would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either the financial system or the United States economy without substantial government assistance.”

The list would have to include Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, State Street and Wells Fargo. These eight institutions already have been deemed “systemically important banks” by the Financial Stability Board, the international body which monitors the global financial system. Under the legislation, the U.S. Treasury Department would be required to break up those and any other institutions deemed too big to fail by the treasury secretary. Any entity on the too-big-to-fail list would no longer be eligible for a taxpayer bailout from the Federal Reserve and could not use their customers’ bank deposits to speculate on derivatives or other risky financial activities.

(Thank you to Bernie Sanders at YouTube)