Smoking gun of the world system?

[username18333]

Most people who follow the news know that banks need the state (to prop them up with taxpayer money, to apply loose regulation, etc.) but the state needs the banks to prop up state-issued money and debt.  This is key.  Many people think that if the government would just take back the power and wealth from the banks, all would be fine.  The truth is that it doesn't want to, unless the public wakes up.

Europe and it's individual countries have been enjoying the US taxpayer paying for most of their security for the last many decades. I've long thought that the US should only have a few strategic bases in partnership with the host country and that would go a long way to help spending being cut in the US. However, Europe's version of socialism would cost significantly more if they had to foot the bill for defense that currently the US is paying for and has for quite a while.

(Red colorization mine.)

The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain.

Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes.

You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.

These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.

The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.

If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.

(Red colorization mine.)

“Tax revenue” is a form of collateral for the loans provided to governments by central banks.

(Blue colorization added.)

[Bit_Happy]

Well, I don't like all such conspiracy theories. There is no world coalition who rules the world. I would not say, that there isn't a group who tries to reach it, but the world is so complex and it needs so many actors that it is not possible.

There is a very big coalition who rules the world by fiat money system. A coalition I'm talking about very well mentioned by M. Rothbard "Anatomy of the State" article. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is reality. And yes this big coalition also confuse people's minds by promoting the 12 families or Illuminati conspiracies. They are (statists) very successful to design societies by manipulation.

In "reality": The top ~3 or 4 families promote "the 12 or 13 families/bloodlines" conspiracy theories, just to keep us confused. 

[BobK71]

...
You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.

These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.

(Red colorization mine.)

Unfortunately, the idea that the government (ie without the central bank) can produce its own money and owe no interest is not really viable.  The state knows, in its heart of hearts, through the course of history, that with such a direct license to print money, it would quickly succumb to the temptation to print, and lose the confidence of the public in the currency, in which case the power would be gone.

Instead, it enlists innovative bankers, in it for their private profit, to come up with novel ways to convince people that the money is a safe place for their savings.  The huge pool of money in the world doesn't look so big when there are so many highly-valued financial assets (stocks, real estate, bonds, interest yielding bank deposits, what have you) out there that you can buy with the money.  If money could only buy real goods and services, it would be clear that there's too much money compared to what it could buy.  Never mind that the value of these assets are also propped up by all sorts of public policy.  The idea is to make things complicated enough that most people don't see through the scheme.

Monetary creation, quite simply, is an addictive drug.  The best money creators (Britain and the US) are able to find ways to slow the addiction down with central-bank-maintained discipline, at least initially.  But it makes no difference in the end, as all they can/could do is to enable the money bubble to blow bigger before its collapse.