From 1935 until 1974, the Canadian government created the new money it required through the Central Bank of Canada, then spent it into circulation, including building the world’s third largest navy, recovering from the Great Depression, and financing its WWII contribution, without significant debt.
After that period, the creation of money was devolved almost solely onto private banks, with government borrowing money from them instead (which is how most money is now created), at interest. The result was significant debt, with interest costs ballooning to ten times or more of the principal borrowed.
Whereas previously $40 billion in new money resulted in $40 billion injected directly into bureaucracy, infrastructure, health care, public services, employment and so forth, it now results in an additional $400 billion of debt through the magic of compound interest, the re-payment of which is extracted by force from taxpayers, who are also obliged to pay for the mechanisms of force used against them.
Creating money through private banks contravenes both the Canadian Constitution of 1867 and the US Constitution. Obviously, private banking powers (the IMF, the World Bank, the BIS) provided government with a significant ‘incentive’ (threat? ideology?) to choose this path, but in reality the majority of new money goes to the owners and executives of the world’s financial cartels and corporate conglomerates, instead of being spent into circulation.
The question ‘why has wealth inequality risen so dramatically in recent decades?’ has its answer right there, as plain as the nose on your face. It is literally that simple.
As well, the interest due (money) must also be created, generating a situation in which the money supply always increases, leading in turn to a need for constant economic growth, and the likelihood of inflation.
Justification as always comes through the ‘trickle-down’ theory, which states that if the super-wealthy have enough riches, a sufficient trifle will inescapably drip onto the rest of the population. Except, as corporate and other cash balances show, it doesn’t.
The ‘this money is capital necessary for investment’ argument fails as well, since investment cannot take place when the citizens have no money to spend on goods and services, and indeed no investment is in fact taking place despite unprecedented cash balances and profits by banking, corporate and large private interests.
Add the cost of bail-outs to the taxpayers’ bill, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that our own governments are actively complicit in the redistribution of wealth, in defiance of both free-market AND socialist political imperatives. Oddly enough, or perhaps not, there’s no mention of this fact in the ‘social contract’ which none of us signed but are forced to comply with, even as the terms of the ‘contract’ are routinely rewritten for the convenience of our rulers.
The MSM has been hugely effective in helping acclimate the citizenry to this Ponzi scheme run by our bureaucrats. Indeed, given the concentration of media ownership in the Western world (Canada in particular), this was and is inevitable.
The American Federal Reserve is the U.S. equivalent of the Bank of Canada but is privately owned and operated by banking cartels, and instead of being by-passed as in Canada, it actively calls the shots in the money creation scheme, without any oversight or accountability. The outcome is the same, or perhaps worse, since monetary policy is entirely governed by an institution whose obligation to ordinary citizens is precisely zero.
Consider this: a deposit at a local bank is redeemable on demand. But, if all the people who had deposits in that bank asked for them back on the same day, only about 10%, and probably a lot fewer, would actually get their money before the bank collapsed and closed its doors for good.
In the real world, knowingly making contracts which cannot be honored is called fraud. In the fractional reserve banking scheme, it is fraud whose purpose is to transfer wealth to the people who run the system.
Government, thanks in part to the break-down of families and the loss of traditional values and ethics, has degenerated into a mechanism intended to redirect the flow of wealth.
Men need to ask themselves an important question: why does this vast, entangled and corrupt mechanism utilize the irrational ideology of feminism as one of its tools? Because it enables and enhances the disempowerment of the only citizens (ordinary men) who might otherwise, with some hope of success, object.
