"Despite the fact that you have productivity risings since World War II, the real economy and your wages have become an S curve, tapering off. What has grown, in keeping with productivity, is the magic of compound interest. This growth in compound interest has absorbed all of the increase in productivity, and it's accrued to the 1%, not to the 99%." --Michael Hudson in the above talk
"Rapacious usury has increased the evil which, more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different form but in the same way, practiced by avaricious and grasping men." --Pope Leo XIII, encyclical Rerum Novarum
There is an interesting thing to notice in past condemnations of
usury by the Church and state rulers. For instance, during the reigns of
Edward the Confessor and Henry II, the penalty against usury was
extended not just to the usurer himself - who would face exile from the
country among other punishments - but, in a way, to his heirs, his children. The usurer's estate
was forfeited and his will was made invalid.
The penalty was directed to the usurer and then went further by enforcing disinheritance upon his heirs.
It was not just about ridding money and assets that were attained unjustly. They
knew and understood that because it is in essence tethered to money,
which only and ever transfers hands, the corruption of usury is totally
uninterrupted along its course from generation to generation; that where
money was increased by usury, the same money will bring the same
incentive to increase at usury, such that you can remove the usurer, but
his money goes on into the future bringing the same sinful incentive to
those who have inherited it; and you can remove his money, but the
indebtedness of those to whom he lent remains after he is gone, and with the payment of
their debts, the same increase begins all over again.
Indebtedness, being future tense, has no conceivable end, unless it is broken in certain ways.
And
that's not to mention the craft of employing usury - the tricks of the
trade - that was passed along from father to son. The corruption of the
activities of man starts all over again. That is why
usury is so vile: it is attached to that which inherently flows speedily
and uninterruptedly from person to person.
This is
also why the poison craft of usury - which is the very foundation of our
monetary system today, and thus by extension, our economy - is wielded
from families, passed down the generations: the Rockefellers, the
Rothschilds, the Morgans, etc.
Why do you think the
people of the Old Testament declared a jubilee every fifty years? It
wasn't only to exemplify mercy. It was because the people of those times
- to whom the sin of usury and the knowledge of its far-reaching
corruption was already ancient news - understood that if bankers (in
those days known by other names) had more than fifty years in which to continually practice
their lending, they could overthrow the ruling king completely and
bring the civilization to total ruin and total enslavement.
History ancient and not so ancient is filled with many examples of just such ruin happening to nations.
With
this year 2013, we have the 100th. "anniversary" of the institution of
the federal reserve system, which is the same system basically that
every country, more or less, around the world has been enslaved with.
Bill
Still has done a documentary - I believe his forth - on the secret
inception of the Fed. The documentary is called Jekyll Island. It's in
post-production right now, and the release is aimed for the end of
February.
“Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit; and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again...If you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit.” --Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1940
"Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws." --Mayer Amsched Rothschild
I would be interested to see a country made up of nice little local co-ops, all very Shire-like, starting without any mega-corporations at all, no Wal-marts or anything, but just local co-ops and such things - but that country were to use the same money-as-debt that we use right now (only from nice local banks).
I would be immensely interested to see how quickly "Wal-mart" would spring up and all the co-ops get nationalized or federalized or some such thing in the above scenario.
Monetary reform is that part of the economics discussion where a few rather eccentric people find they cannot get very far past some very basic principles, and they say that if you do not fix the money itself (the "life-blood" of an economy) then there's no point in talking about the other stuff; but if you do fix the money itself (which is to say, the principles behind its creation and issuance), then a great deal of all that other stuff will start taking care of itself.
Many other people believe the opposite of this. They say that if we fix all this other stuff, then the money will fix itself - and that we shouldn't idolize money. In short, they treat it as it is treated in the market where, naturally, what it is does not need to be thought about.
We did not arrive at money the way one arrives at something at a remove - such as, say, a man will come upon a woodpile or a lake, or a mine of gold. There is no such thing as a static wealth object. Money comes from man, and it is corrupted by man. The very purpose of money is to benefit the common good. That's not a fancy or a welfare notion. That is the very reason man came up with money.
When it is corrupted, such as its very creation and issuance being the instrument of private profit (usury), it does not just cease to benefit the common good, but becomes the working device that drains and robs the productions and labours of man. Money as debt: for every amount that goes out, there is a back-syphoning.
We have to pay for our money? How absurd is that?
As James Roberston said,
If we were starting for a people just at the beginning of the constitution of a society, and someone suggested, 'Well, the best way of creating the money, and putting it in, is to combine it with the function of providing a competitive profit-making market for borrowing and lending' - it would be regarded as idiotic!
And that's just what we have.
"The good news is that the solution isn't new or radical. America used to do it...throughout American history politicians have fought with big bankers over it. But this aspect of our history has now been erased from history books." --Bill Still
Seriously, take the time to watch this phenomenal documentary, then come back to it later and watch it again.
This is this blog's three hundred and thirty third drawing post.
That's 3-3-3.
And what does that mean?
Everyone who looked at that drawing was like:
Anyways, since this post will receive more hits than any of the others, I thought I would take this opportunity to draw your attention to some artists that I like to keep updated on: