Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Bank of England - Straight Answers on Money Printing

As many readers will be aware, I have been pressing the Bank of England (BoE) on details of the Quantitative Easing (QE - Printing Money) policy that they are undertaking. As I mentioned in my posts there were several changes taking place that would allow for the BoE to directly finance government borrowing with printed money. However, I do not like conspiracy theory, and would rather seek clarification of the situation, and therefore wrote two letters to the BoE to this end. I now have had a response from the BoE.

I will let you make your judgement on the responses overall. However, there are three possible interpretations of the answers as follows:
  1. I asked the wrong questions, or asked in the wrong way.
  2. The answers are clear and represent policy
  3. The answers are not telling the truth
My own view is that I believe the answers to be truthful, and they appear to be clear and seek to answer my questions. I do have a few doubts about my questions, but think that they were well enough phrased to have some confidence. The questions and letter follow, with the answers from the BoE in blue text.

------------------------------
In the letter written by the Governor, he mentions a figure of £150 billion being available for the purchase of assets. Can you clarify whether this figure is an additional facility over and above the £50 billion that was previously available in the APF? In other words, can you confirm that this £150 billion is all central bank created money?

This is not an additional sum - the MPC has now been authorised to use the APF to purchase eligible assets financed by central bank money up to a maximum of £150bn. The issuance of Treasury Bills for the purchase of assets will cease and funding will be through the creation of central bank money. Up to Friday 6th March, the sum of commercial paper purchased through the issuance of TBills, less redemptions valued at initial purchase price, was £985mn. Any purchases from Friday 6 March would be purchased using central bank money.
Can you give a projected split / proportion of which type of assets will be purchased in the period March-May, and the period June-August 2009? Please give totals or ranges under consideration, and any projected figures that you are using as the most likely scenario?
At last Thursday's meeting the MPC decided to undertake a programme of asset purchases worth £75bn. The Committee recognised that it might take up to 3 months to carry out this programme of purchases, so it is only possible to talk in terms of March-May. Over that period the MPC anticipate that the majority of the purchases by value will be gilts, with the remainder purchases of private assets. The first gilt purchase operation will be held on Wednesday 11 March. The total size of that operation will be £2bn. Subsequent auctions will normally take place every Monday and Wednesday (to be clear, next week there will be just one operation, on Wednesday). The Bank will announce on its wire service pages each Thursday the size of gilt operations to be held the following week. There is more information in the Market Notice published 5 March 2009: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/markets/marketnotice090305.pdf
Can you give a clear description of how the split/proportion of assets to be purchased under QE has been determined?

The Governor stated in his letter to the Chancellor dated 17 February 2009, that in recognition of the importance of supporting the flow of corporate credit, up to £50bn of the £150bn total should be used to purchase private sector assets. The Bank currently accepts commercial paper issued by UK corporates, both at issuance and in the secondary market and is consulting on proprosals to purchase: Corporate Bonds, paper issued under the Government's Credit Guranatee Scheme, syndicated loans and asset backed securities with viable securitisation structures. It will be up to the Bank executive to decide what mix to buy, and how much, up to the £50bn authorised. The Bank will not necessarily use all of the full amount. Purchases of commercial paper are very much supply driven, hence the Committee's acknowledgement that in order to meet their objective of £75bn worth of purchases, the majority by value over the next three months will be of gilts.
Can you confirm that, under no circumstances, will the BoE be making direct purchases from the DMO of gilts? This question includes a request for confirmation that you will not be using a proxy to act on your behalf in DMO auctions, or a proxy used for direct purchases.

The Bank of England will not make direct purchases from the DMO, nor will it use a proxy to purchase assets from the DMO on the Bank's behalf.
Can you confirm that there will be no use of the provision of the Bank of England Act of 1998 15.2 (a) and (b) as a reason for non-disclosure of any purchases made through the APF, or any other provisions of the act? In other words, will there be full disclosure of what has been purchased, how it was purchased, and in what amount? I note that the MPC has no obligations to report this information, and the readers of Cynicus Economicus would therefore be reassured by a formal statement committing to such a policy.

The Bank intends to operate in an open and transparent manner. As indicated in the Market Notice of 5 March 2009, the Bank will announce on its wire services pages each Thursday the size of auctions to be held the following week and the stocks to be purchased. The results of the competitive auction will be anounced on the Bank's wire services pages as soon as possible after their end. The Bank will publish, for each stock offered, the amount purchased, in terms of total proceeds; the total size of offers received; the weighted average price; the highest accepted price; and the lowest accepted price. The Bank will publish each Friday at 10am the total amount of gilts purchased in these operations that week, in terms of the total proceeds; and the sum of gilts purchased, less maturities, to date.
And as indicated in the Governor's letter to the Chancellor dated 17 February 2009, the Bank will continue to operate the APF in an open and transparent manner, including publishing a quarterly report of the transactions undertaken, and where appropriate, information on specific transactions and operations. The amount of commercial paper purchased is already reported at 10am each Friday. To aid transparency, purchases financed by central bank money will be identified separately from earlier purchases using TBills. I hope that satisifies your concerns in this regard.
------------------------

I am still not of the view that the policy is as transparent as it should be, but am largely satisfied with these answers (comments welcomed). From the above it is still possible, as I highlighted in other posts, for secondary purchase of gilts by the BoE to be used to stimulate the purchase of new issues gilts at DMO auctions. However, from their answer, they appear to be in a position where they will not take a role in this process over and above what is stated.

The alternative method for the BoE purchases to drive purchases of new issues of debt is through an indirect method. This method is for a government entity (e.g. the Treasury) to ask for a bank to sell their holdings of gilts to the BoE and then replace these with purchase of new gilts. Under normal circumstances this would be an improbable scenario, but now that the government has significant influence/power over certain banks, it becomes possible. However, having said all of this, it can only be speculation at this stage.

In the end we are left with what appears to be a non-conspiracy (at least on the part of the BoE), and speculation about other means by which the same outcome might be achieved. None of this conclusively proves that nothing is happening, but I am inclined to believe that the BoE is taking no greater role than they discuss.

In the event that the Treasury, for example, is asking a bank/several banks to use the method of recirculation of gilts that I have described, I am finding it difficult to find a way that might confirm or disconfirm such a thesis. Such a scheme might be enacted with a 'nod and wink' with very few ways of finding out what was being undertaken. The best hope, if such a scheme is being enacted, is a 'whistle blower' leaking what is going on. Such a person might be inclined to whistle blow resulting from a sense that what was being undertaken was wrong. Another possibility is that an 'insider' in the bond market might see unusual patterns of trading. This is far beyond any understanding of the market that I have, as my knowledge is very limited.

I still hold with my argument that, without some form of money printing, it is increasingly difficult to believe that the ongoing and escalating borrowing of the government might be financed out of ordinary bond sales. With governments all over the world competing for finance, and the dire warnings about the UK economy (e.g. the IMF), it is difficult to see who might want to purchase gilts. As such, I remain suspicious (to say the least) but am left with few avenues of further inquiry. Quite simply, I am left with speculation.

I will try to keep an eye on the situation, and perhaps a new approach might occur to me in the future. In the meantime, I can offer no 'smoking gun', no evidence, and nothing that should sway you to a conclusive view on the issue. For the conspiracy theorists out there, I am sorry that I can find no evidence of a conspiracy, but my aim in this blog is not sensationalism, but my best understanding of the situation.

Note 1: Thanks to the BoE for taking the time to reply to my questions.

Note 2: A heated debate on the last post.

Lemming, ended with a very tough question, which is to ask how the BBC fits with the view of minimal government involvement. This is tough because, like many, I have a curious affection for the BBC, and believe that many people share this affection. I am not 'offended' by the BBC. There are a set of principles that suggest that it is an unnecessary government intervention meeting a widespread desire for the retention of the service. Similar might be said of other services....

I will confess that, in this case, I find myself trying to square a circle. I mentioned in my post that each case intervention by government should be taken on its relative merits as to whether government should be involved, or to what degree. Curiously this is one of those questions I have debated with myself, and to which I have no satisfactory answer- but where I should be able to provide a satisfactory answer. Perhaps in this one case I am being inconsistent, or perhaps I have simply not found a way to determine the arguments either way. I am sorry that in this case, I can not give a satisfactory response, as I simply seem to be bereft of reasoned argument. Apologies.

27 comments:

  1. Telegraph article on QE:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4967505/Inflation-will-kill-the-gilt-rally-in-the-end.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm sorry to say I believe thiscould see the fullfilment of your three month prediction.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have just regained contact with this blog after an absence since the new year, (no I haven't been inside) so you will have to forgive me if I'm going over old ground here.

    For months I've been asking the question where has all the hosed money gone? I haven't heard the talking heads asking this question.

    Apparently, the billions that have been pumped into the banks has been syphoned off by foreign withdrawals just as quickly as it was being pumped in. Thanks for that.

    Why is Brown so full of himself these days? Is he da Man?

    I wish I had the confidence in the BBC that you express.

    Another thing, why does the government borrow money when it can print its own?

    Have the powers that be (TPTB)figured out a plan B yet? Or is all of this brouhaha about reverting back to what was?

    BTW, I'm still reading that the world's economy has been taken down deliberately for the ushering in of the NWO.

    If all of this is old stuff, then ignore it.

    I've got a lot of catching up to do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Whilst I can see how some of these answers to you questions could invoke some feeling of there being a conspiracy theory I do believe that it is extremely unlikely. In my experience of working within large multinational corporations it has been shown time and time again that things which tend to look suspiciously opaque and underhand are actually confused, ill-planned and executed and just the result of plain incompetence. If there was a big master-plan I'm sure a financial meltdown wouldn't have been part of it. Gordy Brown is much too incompetent to have masterminded anything - he still believes that the the past decade of good times was all his doing, and this subsequent crisis is the fault of bad lenders. We're doomed, Captain Mannering....

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Federal Reserve Is Bankrupt.

    When the Bank Of England breaks, the economy will drown in debt.

    http://www.rense.com/general85/fedd.htm

    ReplyDelete
  6. Congratulations on getting some answers out of the BoE. It's a pity these answers were not available before they started on the policy, but at least they are clearer now.

    It makes me wonder if they were still in discussions about the policy and ways to report it right up to the moment it was announced and thus the policy statement hadn't been distributed to the people who provide answers to questions until now.

    I can understand the BoE being cautious about revealing details about a policy that hasn't been formally ratified, I just wish they had had full details announced before the policy came in to effect to head off speculation, rather than a few days after just as they announce the first auctions

    Still a few questions to answer about how the transparency can be guaranteed, like you, I hope that if they did try to do trades behind our backs that a whistleblower would step up before it got too damaging.

    Anyway, great post CE, thank you for the time and effort you have put into helping uncover the truth, maybe now you can relax a little and concentrate on examining other issues like the lack of confidence in Europe and UK and the effects of other policies on the global economy now that Buffet and the IMF have painted a gloomy picture.

    Lefty Feep

    ReplyDelete
  7. The journalist's 'club' is a fully paid up member of the NWO cabal under the umbrella of the MSM. (Local and national press) television, radio, magazines, film (Hollywood)

    The MSM is a vital constituent of the NWO cabal. Essentially they are fifth columnists whose function is to confuse, alarm, mislead, obscufate and sedate the populace.

    The BBC is second to none in this regard. Listen to what they don't say, it's usually more important than what they do say.

    Other major players in the NWO cabal are, politicians, banksters, Trilateral Commission, CFR (Council of Foreign Relations) UN, IMF, WTO and a host of others.

    MO is action, reaction, solution.

    This meltdown is a classic example.

    Their aim, one World government, a fusion of a Marxism and Capitalism.

    Of course you don't have give any of it credence, but don't let it catch you unaware, keep an open mind.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In reply to the note on the BBC: The answer to your contradiction is to look at the BBC's competition.

    This, is largely funded by emotive advertising. Emotive advertising is nothing more than a market distortion. So it is little surprise that companies existing solely from the funding of economic parasites are so bad as to make a bureaucratic monolith 'dear old auntie' look good.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Cynicus

    Don't forget that the UK banks are being mandated to hold more Gilts. It is now out for consultation and should be enacted fairly soon.

    I have changed my name from Death to Bubble Addicts to Lotus Birth. I feel it is now time to get constructive.

    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
  10. Josiah Stamp's GhostMarch 11, 2009 at 1:01 PM

    Chomsky's critique of the media stands true to form in this current situation. If this if were not the case, this blog and others like it would be in the MSM and not on a (well read) blog outside it.

    The media, with the odd exception, attracts people of a certain background and social grouping. Birds of a feather and all that. It might seem startingly obvious, but the effects are important and deeply embedded in what is and is not said.

    Anyhow baqck to the banking. As I once said,

    "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again.However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."

    ReplyDelete
  11. One of my favourite quotes that I find I can apply particularly often to everyday situations is provided by Robert J. Hanlon:

    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

    I'd be surprised if this doesn't scale up nicely to corporations and governments.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jeremy
    an extension to that Hanlon quote is Grey's Law.

    "any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice".

    a lot of citizens now find they preferred the good old days when the terror alert was a yellowy orange

    ReplyDelete
  13. So let me get this straight:-

    There is a secret shady organisation dedicated to ruling the world or subverting it to their aims. The commentor on here tells us that this 'secret organisation' includes:-

    >>Other major players in the NWO cabal are, politicians, banksters, Trilateral Commission, CFR (Council of Foreign Relations) UN, IMF, WTO and a host of others.<<

    Im pretty sure you've just described the people and organisations that DO rule the world.

    Here comes the New World Order, sams as the Old World Order.

    ROFL.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You might want to take a gander at this article on the beeb.

    ReplyDelete
  15. On Henry Hazlitt’s Taxes Discourage Production

    Hazlitt argues that taxes take money away from the private sector and significantly prevent private sector growth:

    the capital available for risk-taking itself shrinks enormously. It is being taxed away before it can be accumulated. In brief, capital to provide new private jobs is first prevented from coming into existence, and the part that does come into existence is then discouraged from starting new enterprises

    Yet again this book fails to convince. In a modern economy, the central bank can increase the money supply in response to demand from private enterprise for investment capital.

    In the US, banks can obtain money through the discount window at the Federal Reserve or the Fed can engage in open market interventions to increase banks’ capital.

    The claim that the money supply is significantly reduced through taxes ignores the actions of Central banks.

    If a businessman applied for a loan that was a good investment, then a bank could obtain the money from the Central bank


    But the larger the percentage of the national income taken by taxes the greater the deterrent to private production and employment. When the total tax burden grows beyond a bearable size, the problem of devising taxes that will not discourage and disrupt production becomes insoluble.

    According to this thesis, the country which extracts the highest amount of wealth from its economy as taxes would have the worst growth and its population would eventually be impoverished by the lost private sector economic growth.

    We can easily find statistics on government revenue as a percentage of GDP:


    Country %
    Denmark 48.9 2007
    Sweden 48.2 2007
    Belgium 44.4 2007
    Finland 43.0 2007
    France 43.6 2007
    Austria 41.9 2007
    Netherlands 38.0 2007
    Spain 37.2 2007
    Brazil 36.6 2008
    Luxembourg 36.9 2007
    United Kingdom 36.6 2007
    Germany 36.2 2007
    New Zealand 36.0 2007
    Canada 33.3 2007
    Australia 30.6 2006
    Norway 43.4 2007
    Switzerland 29.7 2007
    South Korea 28.7 2007
    USA 28.3 2007
    Japan 27.9 2006
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

    Denmark and Sweden take nearly half of their countries’ GDP as taxes. These tax rates have existed for decades. Logically, these countries, then, should have per capita GDPs far less than low-tax countries like Japan or Germany.

    They do not. In fact, they are wealthier, as can be seen here:

    Rank Country Per Capita GDP
    6 Norway $ 57,500 2008 est.
    10 United States $ 48,000 2008 est.
    18 Netherlands $ 41,300 2008 est.
    19 Switzerland $ 40,900 2008 est.
    21 Canada $ 40,200 2008 est.
    22 Sweden $ 39,600 2008 est.
    23 Australia $ 39,300 2008 est.
    24 Austria $ 39,200 2008 est.
    25 Denmark $ 38,900 2008 est.
    27 Finland $ 38,400 2008 est.
    28 Belgium $ 38,300 2008 est.
    30 United Kingdom $ 37,400 2008 est.
    32 Spain $ 36,500 2008 est.
    34 Japan $ 35,300
    36 Germany $ 34,800

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

    I see no reason whatsoever why higher taxes should significantly diminish private sector growth, if money supply is expanded as businesses require it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. For most of human history men have been going out on hunting trips and killing as much stuff as possible - more, by any means, is always better, regardless of long term consequences.

    You don't need a nonsense conspiracy theory to 'explain' the present chaos. The driver of capitalism, and its crises, is the male psyche.

    Dress it up how you like, but we're just that sort of monkey.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have listened to a lot of material from the NWO guys and I have reached the same conclusion about them as I did long before about religious people - here is my attempt to disseminate my accumulated wisdom on the subject so that you might save yourselves!...

    1. I think most of them they genuinely believe what they say to be true - they are not bad people and genuinely want to help you.

    2. When they communicate their message they do so through an unimaginably large number of 'facts' that they claim to be related but never adequately explain why they are related (they do this because this is how it was explained to them) - just ask them what the crux of their belief is and they'll carry on talking for hours about all manner of things because there is no crux.

    3. People end up believing them because when the brain is presented with too many pieces of information that are difficult to relate, the logical sequential processing part can't reason about them quickly enough and the more emotional part of the brain kicks in and starts providing 'answers' using the more primitive pattern-matching methods.

    4. When people adopt a viewpoint they find it hard to objectively accept counter-opinions and this reinforces their belief system. You may be familiar with the experiment in the US where republicans and democrats were asked to watch party political broadcasts while in an MRI scanner. Their brain switched off large parts of its activity when presented with the broadcast from the party they did not support - this is a survival mechanism because it is presumably rather dangerous to keep changing your mind if you've got a 300lb gorilla bearing down on you.

    5. There is no point trying to reason somebody out of a position that they were not reasoned into in the first place - I think that's a quote from Richard Dawkins actually but I couldn't agree more - don't waste your time!

    The best defence against an attack of information overload is stereotyping. For example, I know that if I see two stangers coming up to my door with a bible then everything they are about to say is total rubbish before I even open the door.

    An alternative strategy is intricate dissection of their assertions but this takes a lot of patience because every attempt to question a simple assertion is greeted with a mind boggling array of new assertions and eventually it will probably drive you insane! Also, it tends to be a complete waste of time because of (5) above and you only stand to lose because although stereotyping is frowned upon, we do it for a very good reason - because it is surprisingly accurate and the intuition that the person was about to waste your valuable time and possibly send you potty was probably right.

    Incidentally, I think a lot of traders fall into the category of the religious with their technical analysis and superstitions!

    I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing because the world relies on most people being fairly stubborn and continuing the status-quo just to get things done efficiently. We can't reinvent the wheel everyday.

    On the NWO stuff specifically though, I would advise avoiding going down that path because speaking from experience it's easy to get suckered into believing some of that stuff without demanding proof and it will waste your time and make you worry about the future needlessly - a bit like religion! Maybe NWO conspiracy is a new religion? - Alex Jones has millions of followers.

    ReplyDelete
  18. On The NWO Conspiracy

    The New World Order conspiracy is popular out on the American far right.

    Alex Jones is a big player in these NWO conspiracies. You can go to Youtube and see him interview David Icke, someone who believes that the world is run by alien reptilian humanoid lizards who shapeshift.

    I'll leave you to make your own judgements on people who think that alien lizardmen run the world!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jeremy said March 12, 2009 5:34 AM

    NWO

    Hi, What is it you are saying about the NWO? Did I miss something?

    You have elucidated and analysed most eloquently at considerable length the psyche of the proponents of the NWO and you have reduced them to nutcases.

    But you have said precisely nothing about the NWO.

    What is it about the NWO that you reject or do not understand?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Cynicus,
    Duringthe course of the last few posts and again, you did a fantastic work.
    It is a privilege (...and a pleasure) to read your blog.

    Another piece of the picture:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3T8nKCSM8xA&refer=home

    Teaser:
    “China is worried that the U.S. may solve its problems by printing money, which will stoke inflation,” ...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Anon,

    I reject everything about it. My point was that there is no clearly explained case anywhere - just an impression painted with many tiny blobs of information. So many blobs that if you ever wanted to validate the claims you would have to devote your life to it.

    Nobody can give you an 'elevator pitch' that shows NWO to be true because they don't know themselves therefore there is nothing to accept or understand - the individual blobs in themselves are meaningless.

    The Alex Jones show is a continuous stream of completely unrelated items ranging from claims about water contamination through to 9-11 conspiracy theories. Nothing is substantiated.

    Also, I wasn't meaning to say that they were nut-cases - all our brains are similar and we are all susceptible to these religious inclinations.

    ReplyDelete
  22. From today's FT, the Chinese art of portentous understatement:

    The Chinese government is the largest foreign holder of US public debt and Chinese officials have shown increasing signs of concern that the sharp increase in US government spending will lead eventually to inflation and a collapse in the dollar.

    “We have lent a huge amount of money to the United States,” Mr Wen (Chinese Premier) said. “Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am a little bit worried. I request the US to maintain its good credit, to honour its promises and to guarantee the safety of China’s assets.”

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8a84c6b2-0f83-11de-ba10-0000779fd2ac.html

    ReplyDelete
  23. Josiah Stamp's GhostMarch 13, 2009 at 3:47 AM

    I think the best conspiracies are the ones in plain view, indeed it's amusing that some of the claims made are *at root* quite true.

    - Who would disagree that a few bankers (Rothschild etc.) have a large degree of unacceptable power and influence over billions of peoples lives?

    - Who would argue that the vast wealth in the world is concentrated in the same hands as those same people who have large amount of power and influence?

    -Who would argue that closed shop institutions like Bilderberg exist so that people of power can sit in a room and talk about policy decisions affecting billions of people with NO democratic re-course?

    -Who would argue that any democratic practice during this economic crisis has been non-existent?

    -When Gordon Brown talks about a NWO (as he has done on several occasions) where is the explanation of what this is and how it plays out in democratic terms?

    -Does anyone know what his NWO actually consists of?

    The list goes on. These are mainly entirely accepted values when they are at face value, anything but normal or acceptable practice. The media has made a circus out of greedy bankers at the expense of a real critique of the system or indeed those maintaining it. And why wouldn't they? For they are of a similar ilk, they are cronies, they are rich and upper middle class people with all manner of contacts and friends in the circles above them. The owners of papers and media institutions are confined to a few powerful people - once again with vested interests and friends at the top.

    The 'conspiracy' is right there in front of our eyes, yet so engrained is it in out psyche that for the most part is accepted as an unalterable fact of life.

    ReplyDelete
  24. re: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7936520.stm

    I wonder whether you can help me out with something? I've been following how the printed money will be used. According to the above link it looks like the RBS will use much of the printed money to finance lending in Scotland. Is my reading of this correct? If so why the bias in Scotland? Why use RBS and not Northern Rock? I'm concerend that Gordon Brown and Alaistair Darling are using the printed money for political reasons: to favour their own consituency. This true?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jermy Orme said

    March 13, 2009 2:12 AM

    Anon here. Hi again, thanks for responding to my March 12-3:26 PM

    Let me say from the outset that it is not my intention here to try and convince readers of the existence of an unelected, unaccountable loose association (acting in concert) of powerful world elites commonly known as NWO.

    So where am I coming from?

    When I first encountered Cynicus's blog, I was struck by the quality of Cynic's work, output and expertise (I myself am no economist).

    However, I felt there was an important ingredient missing with which to tie in the economic gymnastics with the prevailing World political back-cloth.

    To cut to the chase, this economic meltdown, it's origins,(off shoring American industry to Asia) service economies, sub prime lending, increasing money supply, non sensible remedies to try and keep the whole scam afloat, just didn't and still does not, add up.

    To me, the whole thing just does not ring true.

    As Cynic says, I just don't buy it! (But he can't put his finger on it)

    For brevity. To me, there are things happening in the world that are very worrying, most of it very close to home (UK)

    Most of these 'worrying things' came on the national scene at the same time as new Labour, Blair and Brown.

    Between them, in a few short years, they have transformed Britain beyond my recognition. (and not for the good either)

    It was this deteriorating situation that forced me to start searching for answers.

    The first question I asked myself was, why were new Labour politicians not protecting our borders? Why were our politicians glad handing through the front door millions of strangers into our midst.

    Questions began to pile up, the answers I was coming up with pointed to something sinister - what did it all mean?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Josiah Stamp's Ghost,

    In reply to your points:

    - Who would disagree that a few bankers (Rothschild etc.) have a large degree of unacceptable power and influence over billions of peoples lives?

    Only if you assert that these bankers intimately control governments.

    - Who would argue that the vast wealth in the world is concentrated in the same hands as those same people who have large amount of power and influence?

    Only if you assert that they control governments.

    -Who would argue that closed shop institutions like Bilderberg exist so that people of power can sit in a room and talk about policy decisions affecting billions of people with NO democratic re-course?

    They can only talk to each other at these places. Laws must still pass through the democratic process.

    -Who would argue that any democratic practice during this economic crisis has been non-existent?

    What could have been done? It is too inefficient to vote on every decision. You can vote for whether you liked Brown's handling of the situation in a year or so.

    -When Gordon Brown talks about a NWO (as he has done on several occasions) where is the explanation of what this is and how it plays out in democratic terms?

    I guess that's what they'll be discussing at G20.

    -Does anyone know what his NWO actually consists of?

    Probably not even him.

    ReplyDelete

You are more than welcome to comment on the posts, but please try to stay on topic....I will publish all comments, excepting spam and bad language, and my moderation of the comments is just to exclude these.

Please allow up to two days for the comment to appear.

I have had a request for an email address for the site and have created the following:

cynicuseconomicus[at]yahoo.com

I have ommitted the @ symbol to avoid spam....

For general purposes I would suggest using the comment form, but will occasionally look at this email account. Please be clear what is for publication and what is not, though I will also not guarantee publishing of email comments, unlike the comments through the form! Thanks.