How
Shadow International Banking Became Shadow International Government.
New
Zealand as a case study of a population kept in the dark.
Researched
and highlighted by Iain Parker 27-3-2011.(updated
11-8-2013)
(Authors
comments in italic.)
I
compiled this document to help racial, religious and political
understanding of the impact of international high finance upon global
social and economic development. By presenting what appears
incomprehensible - then sadly from the very mouths of the major
players - proving irrefutably its true - but most importantly
presenting tried and tested viable alternatives.
To
provoke thought:
Winston
Churchill said:
“The
farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to
see.”
Samuel
Johnson said:
“Integrity
without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful”
-
At the Mercy of Debt Merchants by Alfred Pearson 1969 -
“It
is one of the paradoxes of civilization that money is the one thing
that is needed, and used, by more people than anything else, while it
is at the same time, the least understood by them. There
is no object more desperately sought for every minute of a person’s
life. Man will labor until aching muscles prevent sleep, he will put
his life at stake, and he will steal and commit murder in order to
acquire it. How strange that he evinces such little interest in
understanding what money is, how it is created, and who controls the
amount in circulation……. History
reveals a constant struggle by governments, and their citizens, to
limit the power wielded by private bankers. So
powerful have the bankers been, and so beholden have governments been
to the bankers, that at no time has any major nation been successful
in setting up an honest and adequate money system that was solely
under the jurisdiction of the sovereign people.
Unfortunately,
it has always been the ignorance of the people and the supine
indifference of their representatives and government that have
permitted a minority to usurp the issuance and control of money–a
function that belongs exclusively and absolutely to the people
through their government.”
1764
– Benjamin Franklin is
asked by officials of the Bank of England to explain the prosperity
of the colonies in America.
He
replies,
“That
is simple. In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called
Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of
trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the
producers to the consumers. In this manner creating for ourselves our
own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no
interest to pay no one.”
As
a result of Franklin’s statement, the British Parliament hurriedly
passed theCurrency
Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their
own money and ordered them to pay all future taxes in gold or silver
coins. Referring
to after this act was passed, Franklin would state the following in
his autobiography, “In one year, the conditions were so reversed
that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an
extent that the streets of the colonies were filled with the
unemployed…The
colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other
matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies
their money which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The
viability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money
permanently out of the hands of King George III and the international
bankers was the prime reason for the revolutionary war.“
1809
Thomas
Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill
(America);
“If
the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of
their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will
deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up
homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing
power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to
whom it properly belongs.”
1815 Nathan
Mayer Rothschild of European private central banking imfamy makes his
famous statement,
“I
care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the
Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s
money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British
money supply.“
1844 Robert
Fitzroy, Third
Governor of New Zealand recalled
to London by the Colonial
Office for
issuing New Zealands own money supply.
The
Encyclopedia of New
Zealand 1966;
“Fitzroy then
turned his attention to the Government’s finances. When he arrived
the total assets amounted to only £2,770, and the liabilities to
about £24,000, while the revenue for 1844 was
expected to fall short of the expenditure by about £8,000. He
made attempts to borrow or to secure advances, but on these proving
unsuccessful his only alternative to stopping payment was to issue
paper money. In doing so he trusted that the current depression would
pass and that the development of the country’s resources would in
the end enable it to maintain itself unaided.The
first issue of currency debentures was made in April 1844; by
November 1845 debentures totalling £37,000 had been issued. Fitzroy
took a serious risk in issuing such a large amount, but his
confidence was justified – inflationary tendencies were not
seriously noticeable and the most grave distress was averted.This
did not prevent local grumbling, and in issuing the debentures
FitzRoy was fully aware of the British Government’s inevitable
disapproval, despite the fact that it had given him no practicable
alternative.”…….. It goes on to say………… “Already
the Colonial Office had resolved to replace Fitzroy. This was due to
a strong agitation in England led by the New Zealand Company,
culminating in an attack on Colonial Office policy in the House of
Commons in March 1845. The
Government bowed to the storm and in May announced FitzRoy’s
recall, giving as their reasons his failure to keep the Government
fully informed of events, his neglect to raise a militia (which in
fact he had done in March 1845),his
contempt for instructions in issuing paper money,
and his waiver of the Crown’s right of pre-emption. He was also
charged with lack of judgment and firmness in handling the native
question.”
The
Truth About New Zealand by A.N. Field 1939;
Pg
2 -3 To this moneyed interest in his day Wakefield successfully
appealed for the means to conduct his scheme. In
1838
a New Zealand Association was formed with Sir Francis Baring, M.P., a
financier of the first water, as
its chairman, and the next year the association blossomed out at a
meeting in a Covent Garden banking-house into the New Zealand Company
with a board representative of both finance and philanthropy. The
first chairman was the Earl of Durham, a Radical peer, who was
presently succeeded in the chair by Mr. Joseph Somes, the greatest
ship- owner in the world at this date.
The
company founded an enduring settlement which remains as its monument,
and it also achieved its object of making money. It began by selling
in London a hundred thousand acres of town lots and country estates
in New Zealand at a time when it had not acquired a single acre of
land there. Just
ahead of its first shiploads of emigrants it sent out an expedition
which succeeded in inducing a number of Maori chiefs in return for
presents of trading truck to place their marks on a document
allegedly selling the company a million acres of land. When
the company finally surrendered its charter to the Crown in 1850 it
had not given legal title to one solitary piece of land to even one
individual among the twelve thousand it had emigrated to New
Zealand.
Six
years later (1856) the colonists in their first Parliament were
obliged to raise a loan in London to extinguish the company’s claim
on the colony for £200,000, which claim the Crown Commissioner on
the company’s board had discribed as established “by gross
frauds, concealments, and misrepresentations, practised chiefly on
Earl Grey and Sir Charles Wood, Chancellor of the Exchequer.” Thus
was the public debt of New Zealand born.
1861 President
Abraham Lincoln (16th President of the United States from 1860 till
his assassination in 1865) approaches the Rothschilds to try to
obtain loans to support the ongoing American civil war.
The
Rothschilds agree provided Lincoln allows them a Charter for another
United States central bank and are prepared to pay 24% to 36%
interest on all monies loaned.Lincoln
was very angry about this high level of interest and so he printed
his own debt free money and informed the public that this was now
legal tender for both public and private debts.
1862 By
April $449,338,902 worth of Lincoln’s debt free money had been
printed and distributed. He went on to state, “We gave the people
of this republic the greatest blessing they ever had, their own paper
money to pay their own debts.”
That same year The Times of
London publishes a story containing the following statement, “If
that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North
American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then
that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay
off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary
to carry on its commerce.
It will become prosperous beyond
precedent in the history of civilized governments of the world. The
brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That
government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the
globe.”
1863 Letter
from Rothschilds to prospective US affilliates in New York
Letter
to: Messieurs. Iklheimer, Morton and Vandergould, No. 3 Wall St., New
York, U.S.A.:
Dear
Sirs: A Mr. John Sherman has written us from a town in Ohio, U.S.A.,
as to the profits that may be made in the National Banking business
under a recent act of your Congress (National Bank Act of 1863), a
copy of which act accompanied his letter. Apparently this act has
been drawn upon the plan formulated here last summer by the British
Bankers Association and by that Association recommended to our
American friends as one that if enacted into law, would prove highly
profitable to the banking fraternity throughout the world.
Mr.
Sherman declares that there has never before been such an opportunity
for capitalists to accumulate money, as that presented by this act
and that the old plan, of State Banks is so unpopular, that the new
scheme will, by contrast, be most favorably regarded, notwithstanding
the fact that it gives the National Banks an almost absolute control
of the National finance. The few who can understand the system will
either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its
favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on
the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of
comprehending the tremendous advantages that capital derives from the
system, will bear its burdens without complaint and perhaps without
even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.
Please advise us fully as to this matter and also state whether or
not you will be of assistance to us, if we conclude to establish a
National Bank in the City of New York… Awaiting your reply, we
are.
Your
respectful servants.
Rothschild Brothers.
London, June 25,
1863
The
Truth About New Zealand by A.N. Field 1939;
CHAPTER
ll
THE
POWER BEHIND THE THRONE
In
186o
two banks were doing business in New Zealand, the Union Bank of
Australia which had opened up in the colony in 184o, and a more
recent arrival, the Oriental Bank, managed in New Zealand at this
time by Mr. Falconer Larkworthy. Among the customers of the Oriental
Bank was Mr. Thomas Russell, solicitor, of Auckland. Mr. Russell, a
young man of thirty, born in humble circumstances, had built up an
extensive connection in Auckland, and in this year he induced Mr.
Frederick Whitaker to go into partnership with him. This was an
important happening for Mr. Russell and for New Zealand. Mr. Whitaker
was an English barrister who had arrived in New Zealand via Sydney;
He had been a member of the Governor’s Council from the foundation
of the colony, and in 186o held the office of Attorney-General in the
Ministry. Mr. Larkworthy in his memoirs (Ninety-One Years, Mills &
Boon, 1924) says that Mr. Russell guaranteed his new partner no less
than £5000 a year as his part-share of the profits. Law business was
largely moneylending, and that one law firm should be able to make
money at this rate speaks for itself as to the extent to which the
handful of colonists were submerged in debt.
In
the next year the Oriental Bank decided to retire from New Zealand,
and the Bank of New South Wales entered the colony by buying its
business. The
new bank looked askance at Mr. Russell’s large and speculative
account, and Mr. Russell, in high indignation, persuaded Mr.
Larkworthy to join with him in establishing a local bank, the Bank of
New Zealand.
No……
Pg
8 …. sooner had the new bank opened its doors than rich goldfields
were discovered in Otago, and by the simple process of printing notes
and using them to buy gold from the diggers, the bank was soon in
possession of the sinews of war. It got on its feet at once, and
became a flourishing success.
The
connection between the Bank of New Zealand and the Government of New
Zealand was close and intimate from the start. The bank got the
Government account almost immediately, and retained it until the
establishment of the Reserve Bank in 1934. Mr. Whitaker (Sir
Frederick after 1884) was solicitor to the bank from 1861 until 1889,
and during the first thirty years of the bank’s existence he was
twice Premier of the colony, five times Attorney-General in different
Ministries to 1890, and once Postmaster-General, Mr. Russell himself
was also in Parliament for six years from 1861, and during part of
the Maori war period held the important post of Minister of Colonial
Defence.
The
Maori war broke out in 186o in Taranaki in consequence of the
Government taking possession of land which the Maoris contended they
had not sold to the Crown. The Government’s legal advisers, Mr.
Whitaker being Attorney-General, held that the Crown had acquired
title. Sir George Grey, hurriedly sent back to New Zealand as
Governor on the outbreak of war, made inquiry into the matter after
his arrival, and the documents and plans produced showed that the
legal advice on which the Government had acted was definitely bad,
and the Maori contentions in accord with fact. This discovery was
made too late to quench the flames, and the blaze presently spread
from Taranaki northwards to the Waikato and other parts of Auckland
province. Ten thousand British troops were called in, and the
campaigns extended over ten years,……
Pg
9 …. costing the colony between three and four million pounds. The
Hon. John Fortescue in volume xiii of us monumental History of the
British Army (Macmillan, 1930) records that many Imperial officers
were of opinion that the military in these campaigns were being made
use of for the purpose of effecting decidedly sordid land-grabbing
operations.
Sir
George Grey in his earlier first Governorship had been against a
premature grant of representative government to the colony on the
ground that the excessive claims of various colonists to Maori lands
would lead to war between the two races; that to prevent the
settlements from being wiped out, Imperial troops would have to be
despatched: that the colonists had no means to pay the cost of any
such campaign; “that, on the contrary, these expenses must be paid
by Great Britain, whilst the minority [of colonists] to whom the new
powers are to be entrusted will benefit largely from such
expenditure, and will have a direct interest in rendering it as great
as possible.” (Despatch of May 3, 1847).
In
1863 Mr. Russell became Minister of Defence in command of the
channels through which the Maori war expenditure flowed. His partner,
Mr. Whitaker, a few months later became Premier, and the two carried
on in office until towards the end of 1864. Sir George Grey in a
despatch of August 26, 1864, described his misgivings as to the
position in which he found responsible government in New Zealand at
this date. The inhabitants of the various scattered settlements knew
no more of what was transpiring than Ministers thought fit to tell
them. Of a Ministry of five members, one was absent in England, two
others seldom at the seat of Government in Auckland, the remaining
two being “two partners who comprise one of the leading legal firms
in the town of Auckland”. On the advice tendered him by these two
Ministers the Gov- ….
Pg
10 … ernor was supposed to act in “affairs involving largely the
interests of Great Britain in the employment of her military and
naval forces, and the expenditure of their funds.”
The
Ministry thus composed floated New Zealand’s second loan—the
first recourse to borrowing since 1856. The amount authorised by
Parliament was three millions for Maori war purposes, and the first
million of scrip was disposed of in London through the agency of Mr.
Russell’s Bank of New Zealand, the Treasury netting £810,000 in
cash, and flotation costs absorbing not far short of 4/- in the
pound. The proceeds of this war loan appear to have passed through
the Treasury so rapidly that there was no time to keep track of how
the money went. The next Premier, Mr. Weld, is quoted in Saunders’
History of New Zealand as saying in a speech at Christchurch: “Under
the Whitaker Ministry a million and a half was paid out without any
details being recorded.”
One
item in the war expenditure was a contract for the supply of hay to
the Imperial troops. The contractor was a small farmer at Auckland.
who was brother-in-law to Mr. Russell, Minister of Defence and ruler
of the bank. The Weld Ministry cancelled the contract on the ground
that the price was excessive. It was then discovered that the
contractor had bought all the hay in the market (apparently having
ample financial resources) and the Cyclopaedia of New Zealand relates
that the Government was in the end obliged to buy from him at double
the original price. Following on this transaction, Mr. Russell became
sleeping partner with his relative in a property of about thirty
thousand acres in the South Island, of which the relative, being a
highly competent farmer, made a great success.
This
incident is mentioned as, according to Mr. Larkworthy’s memoirs, it
headed Mr. Russell on to…
Pg
11 … his colossal land speculations in the North Island–which
speculations a benevolent Liberal-Labour Government at the turn of
the century spent ten years in liquidating as a liability saddled by
it on the backs of the taxpayers, there being no longer any prospect
of Further profit for Mr. Russell or his bank in the ventures.
This
heavy military expenditure in the adjacent portions of the North
Island put the City of Auckland firmly on its feet as a banking and
commercial centre. An additional lucrative branch of business not
revealed in the official figures was the supply of arms and munitions
necessary to enable rebellious Maoris to hold the field against the
British military throughout this prolonged period. The profits on the
other side of the account being so great, there was room for
considerate treatment of the Maori in view of his more restricted
financial resources. The veil over the terms of these transactions
has never been lifted.
Pg
12
CHAPTER
lll
FRUITS
OF VICTORY
Relations
between Sir George Grey and the Whitaker Ministry were never cordial.
Breaking point came when Ministers asked the Governor to approve a
plan to confiscate eight million acres of Maori lands, regardless of
whether the local Natives had been in arms against the Crown or not.
Sir George Grey flatly refused to agree, and the Ministry fell.
A
large but greatly reduced area was eventually confiscated under the
succeeding Weld Ministry. This Ministry in 1865 gave way to one under
Mr. Stafford. Mr. John Bridges, acting-general manager of the
National Bank, in 1875 deposed in evidence before a Parliamentary
Committee that the Weld Government fell following a decision by five
members of Parliament who were also directors of the Bank of New
Zealand, that a remittance urgently needed to pay interest on the
public debt would be given by the bank to a Stafford Government, but
not to the Weld Government. Mr Bridges said he was Wellington manager
of the Bank of New Zealand at the time, and he had personally
conveyed the decision to Mr. Weld. (The seat of Government had been
removed from Auckland to Wellington in 1865.)
A
rising star in the political firmament at this time was Mr. Julius
Vogel, a journalist who had formed one of the numerous company of
Jews which flocked into New Zealand following on the discovery of
gold in 1861. Establishing in Dunedin the colony’s first daily
newspaper, Mr. Vogel presently entered politics, and by 1869 was
Colonial Treasurer, succeeding to the…
Pg
13 …. Premiership in 1873 and holding office for three years.
Friendly relations existed between Mr. Russell and Mr. Vogel, warm
discussion taking place in Parliament in consequence of the Premier’s
unannounced departure for England in company with Mr. Russell in
1874. Mr. Vogel was on the opposite side from Mr. Whitaker, and from
1869 to 1890 when one was out of Cabinet the other was commonly
in.
Mr.
Bridges, in his evidence in 1875 just referred to, said that for a
period of years up to 1873 when he resigned the Wellington
managership of the Bank of New Zealand, Mr. Vogel had had a private
account with the hank there, with an overdraft limit of £200, and
that “frequently”, “much more than five or six times a year”
as far as he could remember, the limit would be reached, and the
indebtedness thereupon wiped out by transfer to the head office of
the bank at Auckland. The bank sent a letter to the Parliamentary
Committee saying there was nothing improper in this as Mr. Vogel had
another account at Auckland; but it presented no evidence, nor did
the Committee re-examine Mr. Bridges, whose charges it affirmed to be
“absolutely unwarranted and without foundation”—the usual
termination of Parliamentary inquiries touching the Bank of New
Zealand.
The
law with respect to the sale of the confiscated Maori lands after the
war laid it down that they must be offered at public auction at an
upset price of 5s. per acre. In 1876 the Vogel Government in face of
this law obligingly permitted Mr. Russell and some of his banking
friends to purchase the Piako block of over 80,000 acres, privately
and without competition, for 2s. 6d. per acre, the transaction taking
place after the Government had decided to build a railway through the
middle of the block. This property was presently floated off as the
Waikato Land Association, nominal capital £600,000, of which
£300,000 …
Pg
14 … was allotted to the vendors in fully-paid shares as payment
for their valuable property.
The
Patatere block of about 250,000 acres, south of the Piako, was
presently acquired by Messrs. Whitaker and Russell on similarly
inexpensive terms, and in 1882 floated off into the Auckland
Agricultural Company, nominal capital £800,00. A South Island
provincial newspaper proprietor who had the audacity to refer to this
transaction in his journal as “another swindle”, was summoned to
the bar of Parliament and also sued for libel by Mr. Whitaker, the
jury unkindly returning a verdict for the defendant newspaper.
“Either Mr. Jones ought to be placed in gaol or I should be turned
out of Parliament,” said Mr. Whitaker. Neither event
transpired.
Mr.
Russell also floated another large block of 150,000 acres, east of
the Piako, into the Thames Valley Land Company, nominal capital
£500,000.
These
ventures by no means exhausted the interests of the partners. Mr.
Russell at the time of founding the bank had also played a leading
part in the important New Zealand Insurance Company. He and Mr.
Whitaker were interested in some 13,000 acres of coal-bearing land
later floated off into the Waikato Coal Company. Extensive Whitaker
interests in gold-bearing land at the Thames, and in timber
properties, became the subject of acrid debate in Parliament.
Second
only to the bank itself in importance was the great New Zealand Loan
and Mercantile Company formed by Mr. Russell in 1864 with a share
capital of half a million, and with about two millions more raised by
selling 4% debentures to widows, spinsters, clergymen, etc., in
England, the money so obtained being loaned to farmers in New Zealand
at from 8 to 10%, according to statements in Parliament. The company
was formed to take over the accounts of farmers who had got so deeply
into the books of the…
Pg
15 … banks
as to have small chance of ever getting off again.
These
loan companies held security over their farmer-debtors’
possessions, sold their produce, and supplied their farm and
household needs, paying over such cash balances as might remain from
time to time after deduction of charges levied at their discretion
and interest compounded as often as the law allowed. Farmers who got
into the hands of such concerns were apt to find themselves there for
life.
Within
a few years of its establishment about half the banking in New
Zealand was done by the Bank of New Zealand, and its offspring the
loan company had Farmers and sheep-station owners in its debt from
end to end of the colony. Criticism of the doings of the bank was
heard from time to time in Parliament in the first thirty years of
its existence, numerous inquiries were held, but invariably the
result was the same—complete
exoneration of the bank and the Government of the day. Now
and then even the docile Government majority on a Parliamentary
inquiry would timorously add a rider that although everything under
inquiry was perfectly proper, it was highly desirable that the same
thing should never be done again. Evidence was tendered at times
showing the charges levied by the bank for operating the Government
account as of an exorbitant character, and alleging that the other
banks were never given opportunity to tender for the account on level
terms.
When
the Bank of New Zealand, potent dispenser to industry of the means of
payment, desired a particular course of action to be followed,
Parliament was Seldom prepared to say it nay. An early instance of
its power was in the consolidation of the provincial loans in 1867.
Floated at heavy discounts and almost unmarketable, it was felt that
these loans were an injury to the credit of the colony. The
Government had no responsibility for the loans, but decided to
get…
Pg
16 … them out of the way by buying up the scrip at market price,
finding the money for the purpose by sale of Government stock.
Pg
17 – Speaking
in Parliament in 1883 during Mr. Whitaker’s second Premiership Sir
George Grey said;
“I
conscientiously believe that two
or, three great’ establishments,
all reallyunder
one directorate, do’
exercise in the Legislature of this country an undoubted and
dangerous influence. I sincerely believe that I is existing
Government is maintained in its place by those bodies… I say that
even among the voters it will be a long time before that independence
can come about which ought to prevail, because I fear many of them
are in some manner entangled with engagements’ which will place
them at the mercy of those persons who rule those different great
bodies of which I speak.
I
go further and say-and in saying this I know, of course, that I
create, and must create, a great many enemies-I
firmly believe that the same persons by monetary influence control a
great portion of the press “One
great central power in New Zealand oppresses it from end to end. That
central power is moved by the Premier, and the Premier is the
solicitor of these great moneyed corporations. Is it just? Does
it give the people of New Zealand a fair chance? Is
it not hard for a man to know that if he cries for justice some debt
upon his estate may he made the cause of his ruin instantly? Is it
right for us to feel degraded by knowing that such is the case here?
… As
long as this continues I see’ no hope for ourselves or our
country.”
Theodore
‘Teddy’ Roosevelt 26th President
of the United States of America said in a speech titled – The
Progressive Covenant With The People – August
1912;
“Political
parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the
will of the people. From these great tasks both of the old parties
have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general
welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests, which use
them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind
the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government
owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the
people. To
destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance
between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of
the statesmanship of the day.”
Twice
PrimeMinister of Canada – William Lyon Mackenzie King – spanning
most of period 1921
– 1948 said in 1935;
“Once
a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it
matters not who makes that nation’s laws. Usury, once in control,
will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and
credit is restored to government and recognized as its most
conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of
Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”
Michael
Joseph Savages (First New Zealand Independent Labour Party
PrimeMinister 1935-40) said in his 1920
maiden speech to Parliament;
“The
Government should create a state bank , and use the public credit for
the public good as an alternative to borrowing overseas”
1927 Sir
Josiah Stamp, President
of the Bank of England,
in an informal talk to 150 University of Texas students 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.”
What
were these esteemed leaders referring to at the same period
of time yet oceans apart and what relevance it still has upon our
society today?
Address
by President of St Louis Federal Reserve Bank, Delos C Johns,
Mississippi University July 28 1952:
“I
mentioned one road to financial independence of the executive as the
power to issue money. At this point it is tremendously important to
recognize that in this country money is created without actually
issuing currency or coin. This fact is not widely enough understood.
Money can be, and in this country usually is, created through the
expansion of bank credit. And this bank deposit money, which
circulates in the form of checks, is just as much money as currency.
Indeed bank deposits constitute the great bulk of our money supply,
and an over-expansion of check-book money may cause the value of the
money unit to fall just as surely would an over issue of
currency.”
Michael
Moore past New Zealand Prime Minister 1990 and World Trade
Organisation Governor-General 1999 – 2002 was known to sometimes be
very contradictory. On page 68 of his 1998
book – A Brief History Of The Future – he wrote the two below
lines following each other in the same paragraph ;
“There
has to be more transparency, openness and accountability.
Diplomacy is frequently best done in secret”Former
New Zealand Reserve Bank Governor 1988-2002 Don Brash has said;
(Nov
1996 reply to information request letter to David Coote)
"Commercial
bank deposits are created by banks’ lending. When a bank makes a
loan, it will, in the first instance , deposit the proceeds to the
borrowers account. Of course, the the borrower invariably raises
funds to spend them, so the proceeds (deposit) typically will end up
in a bank account of someone other than the borrower – often at
another bank than that which made the loan. However,
it remains that bank loan transactions ultimately lie behind the
deposit balances that banks hold. By
influencing interest rates, the Reserve Bank is able to influence the
rate of growth in bank lending and hence the rate of (bank deposit)
money growth."(Feb
2012)“ Every form of recognised money today is the obligation of
some central bank”
(April
2009 ) “Banking
crises are not new of course –
they have been a recurring feature of the economic landscape for many
decades, indeed for centuries. There have been scores of banking
crises even since 1945, though of course none with such far-reaching
impact as the present one.”
“There was also a failure to
understand the complexity of, and risks involved in, many of the
products which were widely traded in recent years. This failure was
almost certainly widespread both in senior management and on bank
boards.”
What
on earth did these international diplomats mean?
New
Zealand Prime Minister and former international investment banker
John Key -17 November 2012;
“Our (Govt) debt to GDP levels by
then will top at just under 30 percent, in other words, um, we'll be
relatively lowly indebted compared to countries like America and
Europe, but I put it to you we are a small open economy, we have high
levels of private sector debt, we, mum and dad, have borrowed that
debt effectively from foreigners because
their local bank has sourced that from foreigners.”
Article
by Financial Commentator Nikki Alexander 2009
The
Systemic Usury Parasite
In
1913 our sovereign authority to create interest-free money was
unconstitutionally transferred to a transnational private banking
cartel that has systemically infected our economy with a staggering
national debt in the tens of trillions of dollars. Eighty-five
cents of every dollar is now consumed as “interest” by the
systemic usury parasite, draining its host of vital resources and
collapsing our economy in bankruptcy. Ours is not the only nation to
succumb to systemic parasitism.
The
Systemic Usury Parasite has infected 170 countries, feeding itself
through the central bank syndicate, a shareholder-owned consortium of
private banks. Each central bank parasite has an exclusive monopoly
on its host government’s monetary system, with the power to create
public debt and expand or contract the host’s economy at will.
Coordinating their monetary policies with each other through the Bank
for International Settlements, the central bankers meet behind closed
doors, appoint their own governors and set their own rules. Their
books are not subject to audit by the individual governments that
host them. The Bank for International Settlements originated as a
Nazi money laundering operation and serves today as the cashiers
window for the global casino. The IMF and World Bank tentacles of
this parasite, infect unsuspecting governments with insurmountable
debt, forcing these nations through “structural adjustment”
policies to rob their taxpayers, slash beneficial social programs,
transfer public assets to private owners and sell the nation’s
treasures to transnational predators at fire sale prices. Government
treasuries are the parasite’s host. Why rob just one bank when you
can rob the whole nation? And why rob just one country when you can
rob them all? Flushing the global economy of this systemic parasite
begins with understanding how its debilitating web of debt is
manufactured.
Although
governments have inherent authority to create their own money, they
foolishly borrow it from central banks, with interest. A central bank
fabricates fiat notes (paper money) and credit by “lending” them
into existence, in return for treasury bonds of the host government ~
taxpayer IOUs. This “money” has no pre-existing substance in
reality and is conjured up through accounting entries. It is
literally created out of nothing. The central bank first lends these
accounting entries to its private owners and then to
its down-line commercial banks with interest. The
commercial banks are permitted to lend nine times the amount of their
borrowed accounting entries held “in reserve”. This nine-fold
multiplication of borrowed accounting entries is described as
“fractional reserve banking.” When borrowers accept these
accounting entry loans they create massive inflation of the money
supply which devalues the currency. These accounting entry loans must
be “paid back” with compound interest that multiplies
exponentially. More money must then be fabricated to pay this
interest. Thus, all “money” that enters circulation is actually
debt contrived by fictitious accounting entries. Every fiat dollar is
an IOU from a borrower to a lender. A debt-based monetary system can
never achieve equilibrium because compound interest always overwhelms
the escalating money supply and eventually causes systemic collapse.
Now
to sadly prove the above is irrefutably true:
Firstly,
I will produce the irrefutable proof that the total repayment of debt
is collectively impossible under the current international banking
model. That there is always less currency of any form in circulation
than what is owed to the financial sector as interest bearing loans.
Thus a few insiders will win by design, a few more players will win
by luck, but for most the the unaddressed compounding interest
collectively marches them straight into debt peonage or debt
enslavement. No different to a casino designed and owned by the house
to favour the house by mathematical certainty. Only this is a casino
that the populous have no choice but to play on a daily basis as it
is decreed that its chips are the only thing accepted as payment of
taxes.
In
a January 18 2010 reply from New Zealand Minister of Finance Bill
English’s office to some questions I put under the Official
Information Act he signed off on some very enlightening admissions.
In order to make this information understandable I have slightly
changed the order of the questions and answers so the reader can
first comprehend the monetisation of debt process at the
international and domestic banking levels. Also that all but a tiny
fraction of our money supply originates as debt owed to the financial
sector as interest bearing loans but when a loan is drawn down only
the principle enters circulation thus there is never enough money in
circulation to collectively repay both pricipal and interest;
Office
of Hon Bill English
Deputy
Prime Minister Minister of Finance
Minister
for Infrastructure
1
8 JAN 2010
Dear
lain Parker
Thank
you for your Official Information Act request, received on 27
November 2009. You asked a”number of questions about the nature of
government bonds; as well as about the nature of money and the
banking system.
1.
Could you please tell me what a Government Bond is and what role it
plays in our economy?
As
you point out on page 7 of your submission, New Zealand government
bonds are wholesale, New Zealand dollar denominated, fixed-term debt
securities. They are secured by a charge upon and are payable out of
the revenues of the Crown.
Cash
received by government bond issuance is used to fund goods and
services provided by the government, e.g. roading, hospitals and
welfare payments. Government
bond yields provide an indication of the “risk free” rate of
return in an economy and provide companies and households a benchmark
with which to compare returns against those of alternative
investments.
2.
Could you please tell me who in the world of high finance, as
Primary Bond Dealers, has the right to buy or monetise government
debt bonds before they decide if they do or don’t on sell them on
the secondary bond market?
New
Zealand does not have “Primary Bond Dealers.” The term “Primary
Bond Dealers” refers to institutions that, for example, trade
directly with the United States Federal Reserve, where they are
required to participate when the Federal Reserve holds securities
auctions. In New Zealand, the nearest equivalent institutions are
called registered tender counterparties. The main difference between
the US and New Zealand is that registered counterparties are
eligible but not required to participate in government securities
tenders.
To
qualify for registration as a tender counterparty, an institution
must have a minimum credit rating of A-/A3, or have their
obligations guaranteed by a parent entity with a minimum credit
rating of A-/A3, or be a Crown financial institution.
Tender
counterparties are primarily either New Zealand or Australian
incorporated banks.
3.
Are the Primary Bond Dealers private or publically owned
institutions? That is not those that buy bonds on the secondary bond
market, but the Primary Bond Dealers?
Tender
counterparties are primarily private sector banks.
4.
Could you please tell me what they use to buy our government bonds
and if that medium of exchange existed before we pledged to pay it
back with attached interest out of the future taxes of the nation or
was it an electronic debt book entry, not anyone’s existing
savings, but an electronic book entry that brings into circulation
new money?
People
purchasing government bonds must do so with New Zealand
dollars. Settlement
of the transaction between the purchaser and the Crown is by
electronic cash transfer rather than physical cash.
All else being
equal,
bond purchases result in a reduction in settlement cash balances of
the banking system (either at commercial banks, the Reserve Bank or
both) as cash is transferred to the Crown.
An
explanation for how this cash may originally be created is included
in the answer to question 5 below.
5.
Is it true that in excess of 90% of the money supply in circulation
in New Zealand entered circulation as interest bearing debt owed to
the banking network?
It
is correct that most of the money supply in New Zealand has been
created by the banking sector. This
is done through the process of financial
intermediation.
Commercial banks, and other financial institutions, take deposits
from members of the public and firms who wish to hold cash in the
form of bank deposits. They then lend to individuals and firms who
want to borrow — in the form of mortgages or business loans. This
process serves to channel funds between savers and borrowers. It
also shifts the risk of lending from individual savers to the banks,
thereby reducing the risk of lending.
This
process of intermediation involves
the commercial banks lending a greater value of funds than the cash
they reserve to meet expected deposit withdrawals. This is done
because at any one time only a fraction of depositors will want to
withdraw their funds. Banks therefore need to keep only a fraction
of their deposits in reserve in order to meet those demands. Because
the banks lend more than the total amount of cash held in reserve in
the system, credit is created – thus increasing the money
supply.
The
exact proportion depends on the definition of the money supply.
Using the most common definition of the money supply as M2 (i.e.
currency held by the public + balances in cheque accounts + all
other business or personal deposits that are available on
demand), the
October 2009 data show that the part not accounted for by currency
held by the public is 95%.
Data
on money aggregates can be found on the RBNZ website
at: http://www.rbnz.govt.
nzlstatistics/monfin/cl /data.html.
6.
Prime Minister Key, could you please describe your activities as a
member of the Advisory Board of the Foreign Exchange Committee of
the US Federal Reserve between 1999-2001?
I
refer you to the reply from the Office of the Prime Minister.
7.
Could all please advise me if the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of
England are privately owned institutions that sit within their
respective governments or publicly owned institutions within their
governments?
I
refer you to the following pages on the websites of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England
respectively for this
information:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/Qf/pf.
htm
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/leciisIation/leciis.htm
8.
Could you please explain to me the role and relationship of the
American Financial institution — Northern Trust — in regard to
it being appointed custodian of our own NZ Debt Management Office?
The
New Zealand Debt Management Office (NZDMO) has appointed Northern
Trust as global custodian for NZDMO fixed income assets. The
appointment followed a competitive tender exercise which was
completed in 2008. Custodian duties provided by Northern Trust for
the NZDMO are standard for financial institutions and include: the
provision of trade settlement services; safekeeping of assets; and
other administrative functions.
9.
Could you please tell me if in New Zealand, a “new” mortgage at
issuance, before it becomes tradable, is loaned to a borrower by a
registered bank, is that mortgage created as a debt book entry
account, not anyone’s existing savings, but an electronic debt
book entry creating “new money”?
The
creation of a new residential mortgage will generally result in new
money (bank deposits) being created. The
bank grants a new loan to a purchaser, who uses the cash to buy
property from a vendor. The vendor then may spend or save the
proceeds boosting deposits in the financial system.
You
also ask for a list of the names of the officials who contributed to
this reply. I am withholding these names in full under s.9(2)(g)(i)
of the Official Information Act — to maintain the effective
conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of
opinions.
You
have the right to ask the Ombudsman to review my decision.
This
fully covers the information you requested. I
hope you find this information useful
Yours
sincerely
Bill
English
Minister
of Finance
If
we then combine the above information with that provided in a
document supplied by the New Zealand Bankers Association – Banking
in New Zealand Fourth Edition published 2006, we can quite clearly
ascertain that the bankers representatives quite clearly admit to
the fact that there is never enough money in any form of currency in
circulation to repay credit loaned by the financial sector;
From
Chapter 4 The Creation Of Money And Credit;
The
Traditional View of the Process
The
traditional view of the process of creating money and credit is
based around cash(i.e. Notes and coins)as the most basic form of
money in a modern economy. A deposit with a bank represents a claim
on it for a specific amount of cash. By
acting as financial intermediaries and by providing non-cash means
of settling transactions, banks and other financial institutions
create more deposits and more credit than there is cash.
The
process by which money and credit are created begins with a cash injection, represented
by the cash injection arrow in Figure 4. We discuss the sources of
such cash injections later in this chapter.
Money
and Credit Aggregates
The
creation of money and credit is relevant to banks primarily because
it is the process by which their assets and liabilities are created.
The Reserve Bank and the government have a wider interest in the
total amount of money and credit in the economy. This includes the
money and credit created by non-bank financial institutions in
addition to that created by banks…….
The
level of domestic credit exceeds the total level of cash and
deposits as measured by the M3 money supply. This is because
financial institutions fund their lending both by borrowing overseas
and from other non-deposit sources(e.g., capital) in addition to
using deposits.
The cash
injection refered
to by the New Zealand Bankers Association is the very same monetised
debt we receive in electronic form from the privately owned
international tier 1 level universal bankers that is then introduced
into our domestic system via government expenditure to become our
primary monetary base which then goes on to be expanded as even more
created credit issued as interest bearing loans by domestic
institutions that the international institutions often also have
majority shareholding interests in.
Alan
Greenspan was Chairman of The US Federal Reserve 1987 – 2006
ALAN
GREENSPAN Bio
From ABC
When
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan’s term expires on
Tuesday, it will mark the end of the 18-year reign(Aug 1987-Jan
2006) of one of the country’s pre-eminent economists.
AUGust
2007
A
Symposium Sponsored By The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas
City.
Maintaining
Financial Stability In A Global Economy
Opening
Remarks
Alan
Greenspan
I
want first to thank Tom
Hoenig*
and his colleagues, once again, for organizing this
conference.
There
is a key policy issue that we must confront in the process of
maintaining financial stability in a global economy That is the
division of responsibilities for containing systemic risk between
the public and private sectors. This division of responsibilities,
in turn, rests on the scope of sovereign credit extension and the
private hurdle rate for the cost of capital.
Let
me begin with a nation’s sovereign credit rating. When there is
confidence in the integrity of government, monetary authorities—the
central bank and the finance ministry can issue unlimited claims
denominated in their own currencies and can guarantee or stand ready
to guarantee the obligations of private issues as they see fit. This
power has profound implications for both good and ill for our
economies......
Pressures
for increased credit unrelated to the needs of markets emerge not
only as a consequence of new government debt obligations, both
direct and contingent, but also because of government regulations
that induce private sector expenditure and borrowing. All of these
government-derived demands on resources must be satisfied......
It
is important to remember that many of the benefits banks provide
modern societies derive from their willingness to take risks and
from their use of a relatively high degree of financial leverage.
Central bank provision of a mechanism for converting highly illiquid
portfolios into liquid ones in extraordinary circumstances has led
to a greater degree of leverage in banking than market forces alone
would support......
Of
course, this same leverage and risk taking also greatly increase the
possibility of bank failures. Without leverage, losses from risk
taking would be absorbed by a bank’s owners, virtually eliminating
the chance that the bank would be unable to meet its obligations in
the case of a “failure ” For the most part, these failures are a
normal and important part of the market process and provide
discipline and information to other participants regarding the level
of business risks. However, because of the pervasive roles that
banks and other financial intermediaries play in our financial
systems, such failures could have large ripple effects that spread
throughout business and financial markets at great cost.......
Thus,
governments, including central banks, have to strive for a balanced
use of the sovereign credit rating. It is a difficult tradeoff, but
we are seeking a balance in which we can ensure the desired degree
of intermediation even in times of financial stress without
engendering an unacceptable degree of moral hazard
We
should recognize that if we choose to have the advantages of a
leveraged system of financial intermediaries, the burden of managing
risk in the financial system will not lie with the private sector
alone. With leveraging there will always exist a remote possibility
of a chain reaction, a cascading sequence of defaults that will
culminate in financial implosion if it proceeds unchecked. Only a
central bank, with its unlimited power to create money, can with a
high probability thwart such a process before it becomes
destructive. Hence, central banks have of necessity been drawn into
becoming lenders of last resort. But implicit in the existence of
such a role is that there will be some form of allocation between
the public and private sectors of the burden of risk of extreme
outcomes. Thus, central banks are led to provide what essentially
amounts to catastrophic financial insurance coverage. Such a public
subsidy should be reserved for only the rarest of disasters. If the
owners or managers of private financial institutions were to
anticipate being propped up frequently by government support, it
would only encourage reckless and irresponsible
practices........
Thus,
governments, including central banks, have been given certain
responsibilities related to their banking and financial systems that
must be balanced. We have the responsibility to prevent major
financial market disruptions through development and enforcement of
prudent regulatory standards and, if necessary in rare
circumstances, through direct intervention in market events. But we
also have the responsibility to ensure that private sector
institutions have the capacity to take prudent and appropriate
risks, even though such risks will sometimes result in unanticipated
bank losses or even bank failures.
Risk
taking is indeed a necessary condition for the creation of wealth.
The ultimate values of all assets rest on their ability to produce
goods and services in the future. And the future as we all know is
uncertain and hence all investments are risky.
End
quote
Alan
Greenspan 16 March 2008 Financial Times
We
will never have a perfect model of risk
“The
crisis will leave many casualties. Particularly hard hit will be much
of today’s financial risk-valuation system, significant parts of
which failed under stress. Those
of us who look to the self-interest of lending institutions to
protect shareholder equity have to be in a state of shocked
disbelief. But
I hope that one of the casualties will not be reliance on
counterparty surveillance, and more generally financial
self-regulation, as the fundamental balance mechanism for global
finance.
The
problems, at least in the early stages of this crisis, were most
pronounced among banks whose regulatory oversight has been elaborate
for years. To
be sure, the systems of setting bank capital requirements, both
economic and regulatory, which have developed over the past two
decades will be overhauled substantially in light of recent
experience. Indeed,
private investors are already demanding larger capital buffers and
collateral, and the mavens convened under the auspices of the Bank
for International Settlements will surely amend the newly minted
Basel II international regulatory accord. Also
being questioned, tangentially, are the mathematically elegant
economic forecasting models that once again have been unable to
anticipate a financial crisis or the onset of recession.”
Article
from New York Post re Alan Greenspan 23
Oct 2008
appearance before Congressional
Inquiry Into Financial Meltdown
By
PAUL THARP
In
a surprise about-face that potentially wrecks his legacy, Alan
Greenspan yesterday admitted his ideology when running the US central
bank was “flawed” in encouraging the economy’s wild ride of
booms and busts for 20 years.
The
82-year-old former head of the Federal Reserve reluctantly shot down
his own philosophy, but only after being roughed up by angry members
of a congressional panel probing the economic meltdown.
The
panel’s head, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), led the charge. “You
found that your view of the world, your ideology was not right, it
was not working?”
Greenspan
answered, “Absolutely,
precisely. You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked,
because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable
evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”
At
one point Greenspan turned contrite. “I
have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is.
But I have been very distressed by that fact.”
Pressed
by Waxman on what Greenspan saw as his biggest mistake at the helm of
the Fed, the former chairman said, “I
made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations,
specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best
capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the
firms.”
As
a result, he said, “Free markets did break down. And I think that,
as I said, shocked me.
“I
still do not fully understand why it happened. And obviously to the
extent that I figure out where it happened, and why, I will change my
views. And if the facts change, I will change,” he said.
Greenspan
said the current crisis has “turned
out to be much broader than anything that I could have
imagined.”
Other
members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
took issue with Greenspan’s long list of actions resisting
regulatory crackdowns, dating back to Greenspan’s early days after
taking charge of the Fed in 1987.
Most
of the panel’s ridicule was for Greenspan’s refusal to support
any firm regulation, based on his controversial comments in a 2006
sheet that “regulation generally has proved far better at
constraining excessive risk-taking than has government
regulation.”
Greenspan
threw part of the blame on Wall Street investment banks, rating
agencies and loan originators for pumping up the mortgage market to
reap huge profits, particularly starting in 2005 with a rash of
unqualified buyers.
“Without
the excess demand from securitizers, subprime mortgage originations –
undeniably the original source of crisis – would have been far
smaller and defaults, accordingly, far fewer,” Greenspan
said.
Some
panel members weren’t satisfied.
“This
is a nice dog-and-pony show and maybe it’s theater, but people want
someone held accountable, they want someone to go to jail,” said
Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.).
Following
the hearings, a long line of pundits and market watchers chimed in
with their I-told-you-so comments.
“Greenspan
is finally taking some responsibility for his actions,” said former
Fed official Paul Kasriel, director of economic research at Northern
Trust Co.”
Sept
17 2007
Interview With CNBC Maria Bartiromo
MARIA
BARTIROMO:All
of these important economic events you are overseeing the most
important institution, and leading things. And then not only are you
dealing with these crises, but then you’ve got to convey what’s
going on to people. That means Congress, the president, the media,
the public. So what? You come up with Green speak.
ALAN
GREENSPAN:Otherwise
known as known as Fed speak.
MARIA
BARTIROMO:What
is it?
ALAN
GREENSPAN:It’s a– a language of purposeful obfuscation to avoid
certain questions coming up, which you know you can’t answer, and
saying– “I will not answer or basically no comment is, in fact,
an answer.” So, you end up with when, say, a Congressman asks you a
question, and don’t wanna say, “No comment,” or “I won’t
answer,” or something like that. So, I proceed with four or five
sentences which get increasingly obscure. The Congressman thinks I
answered the question and goes onto the next one.
MERVYN
KING
Mervyn
King is Governor of the Bank of England and is Chairman of the
Monetary Policy Committee. He was previously Deputy Governor from
1998 to 2003, and Chief Economist and Executive Director from 1991.
Mervyn King was a non-executive director of the Bank from 1990 to
1991.
Monday
25 october 2010
speech by
Mervyn
King Governor Of The Bank Of England
“banking:
from bagehot to basel, and back again”
the
second bagehot lecture
buttonwood
gathering, new york city
for
a society to base its financial system on alchemy is a poor
advertisement for its rationality.
Change
is, I believe, inevitable. The question is only whether we can think
our way through to a better outcome before the next generation is
damaged by a future and bigger crisis. This crisis has already left a
legacy of debt to the next generation. We must not leave them the
legacy of a fragile banking system too.”
Mervyn
King, the Governor of the Bank of England, tells Charles Moore why he
shares the public’s disquiet over the need to bail out failing
banks.
By
Charles Moore
04 Mar 2011
…...Since the Big Bang in the late 1980s, Mr King goes on, too many
in financial services have thought “if it’s possible to make
money out of gullible or unsuspecting customers, particularly
institutional customers, that is perfectly acceptable”. Good
businesses “keep a clear vision of who their customers are, and are
run by people who don’t think they should simply maximise profits
next week”. But
in the past 25 years, banks have increasingly “taken bets with
other people’s money”.
That
is bad enough, but it gets much worse “if the rules of the game are
that they get bailed out if it all goes wrong”. In this weird
atmosphere, banks eventually stopped trusting one another. “Financial
services don’t like the word ‘casino’, but instruments were
created and traded only within the financial community. It was a zero
sum game. No one knew which ones were winners when the crisis hit.
Everyone became a suspect. Hence, no one would provide liquidity to
any of those institutions.”
Northern
Rock could have been avoided if Britain had not been “the only G7
country not to have had a statutory resolution process. We had been
war-gaming one, but the legislation wasn’t ready”. In Mr King’s
opinion: “If
we had not stepped in for RBS and HBOS, all the British banks would
have suffered runs. They didn’t understand the nature of the risks
they were taking.”
But was the Governor himself blameless? Has he ever given the Queen
the answer to her famous question: “If these things were so big,
why did no one see them coming?”........
The
key question, in his view, is not why an individual bank says it
needs to pay bonuses (the reason cited is always the need to keep
talent), but: “Why do banks in general want to pay bonuses? It’s
because they live in a ‘too big to fail’ world in which the state
will bail them out on the downside.” They are tempted to excessive
risk and excessive payments: “It
is very unproductive to single out individuals. Bankers were given
incentives to behave the way they did. That’s what needs to change.
We must resolve this problem.” He has high hopes that the
independent banking commission will do so. In the Governor’s mind,
this is not ultimately a technical but a moral question.
It goes to the heart of whether people are ready to accept life in a
free economy.
Over
the past 30 years, he says: “We changed Britain away from a
sclerotic economy with inefficiencies and problems in labour
relations. Everyone got to the point where we no longer expected
government to bail us out. Everyone bought in to market discipline.
We were all better off. It was working very successfully.” But now,
people have every right to be angry, because “out of what seems to
them a clear blue sky”, the crisis comes, they find they do lose
their jobs and there’s the sharpest fall in world trade since the
1930s. “But,
surprise, surprise, the institutions bailed out were those at the
heart of the crisis. Hedge funds were allowed to fail, 3,000 of them
have gone, but banks weren’t.” Could there be a repeat? “Yes!
The problem is still there. The ‘search for yield’ goes on.
Imbalances are beginning to grow again.”.......
We
discuss bank notes. Mr King has decided that the next £50 notes
should depict the inventive and manufacturing partnership of Matthew
Boulton and James Watt. But he is even prouder of having picked Adam
Smith for the £20. Smith provides the model of the right way: his
economic theory in The Wealth of Nations was wise and true, but
Smith’s other book, The
Theory of Moral Sentiments proves, says Mr King, that “there’s
more to life than economics. The two must be taken together”.
Dr
Alan Bollard Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand 2002 -
2012.
Excerpts
from a book Alan Bollard published 1
Sept 2010
Crisis:
One Central Bank Governor and the Global Financial Collapse
Pg
19-20
Banking
practices differ around the world, but we ensure ours meet
international standards. These
are set by a somewhat shadowy group called the Basel Committee on
Banking Supervision. Comprised
of representatives of large countries( not including New Zealand ),
the group meets in Switzerland at the Bank of International
Settlements (BIS). Over the decade they had been developing a new set
of banking standards known as Basel 11.
Pg
96
The
Bank of International Settlements is an important institution, acting
as a sort of central
bank for central banks.
Set up in 1930, originally to facilitate German World War 1
reperations, it has a chequered history but today offers modern
banking services and provides a forum for central bankers.
Pg
120-1
Meanwhile,
on 6 March a senior team from the Wellington made its three-monthly
trek across Bowen Street, along the walkway above the Cenotaph,
through security checks in the Beehive and across to the ornate old
Parliament Building to Committee meeting rooms. Here, committees of
parliamentarians from across all parties routinely advise on upcoming
legislation and examine public bodies on their use of public funds.
We are used to appearing before them as they regularly examine our
Monetary and Financial Stability Reports. But this session was
different. As was their duty on behalf of the taxpayer, they wanted
to talk about the crisis, the steps we were taking and the costs and
risks for government. The 2008-intake Finance and Expenditure
Committee under the chairmanship of Craig Foss was seriously focused
and prepared to put aside political differences during the crisis.
I
was worried about what might happen at the session. Proceedings are
on the record with journalists sitting in the back, television
cameras rolling, digital recorders running and even media blogging
live from the room. Select
Committees have strong powers – they can require people to attend
and answer questions. I knew that I might be asked questions about
exchange rates, foreign reserves, bank liquidity and a whole range of
topics on which straight-forward answers could upset financial
markets. The day before the hearing I rang the chairman and explained
my concern. Craig Foss has a background in financial markets; he
readily understood the dangers and assured me that he would guide the
Committee away from dangerous questions in public.
They
treated us deferentially. (they even started calling me `Sir:) I sat
with Deputy Governor Grant Spencer and our head of financial Simon
Tyler, at the front committee table, our desk almost beneath
microphones and recorders. In carefully moderated terms, we told them
about the crisis. We explained how, partly because of the new
mortgage-backed security liquidity facility, the Reserve Bank
ballance sheet had grown hugely to $36 billion; this had increased
risk to the government, but by a very manageable amount. Then they
inquired about a small company called Mascot Finance, which was in
the news because it was making losses. Though a very small player, we
were soon to be hearing more about it.
Pg
183
“In
self-interest, banks may encourage New Zealanders to take on more
debt than is good for them individually or deliver more external
liability than is good for the country.”
From
RBNZ Press Conference Dec 10 2009 re Dec quarter monetary policy
statement;
Question
from Barry?
“are
we to expect a properous and happy new year”?
Answer
from Allan Bollard;
“Thankyou
Barry for that point, finally on a more personal note, since this is
the last press conference of the year, I would like to thank you very
much for your help and co-operation through the year, it has been one
amazing year as
you all know, at the beginning of this year we
were seriously worried about the financial system and the state of
the economy, both in New Zealand and internationally, its
with some relieve that we see much more secure conditions as we go
into christmas time. I
am aware that, um, at the beginning of the year when New Zealand was
in such a vulnerable state, actually it would only have taken a, ah,
one of the major media people looking for a fast headline, acting on
rumour or passing on something irresponsibly to have sparked off some
real problems in our system, that, we were concerned about that, that
didn’t happen. You all, I felt, acted very responsibly through that
and for that we would like to thank you.Finally
its not a forecast but a wish, have a merry christmas, Barry and
everyone else, thank you very much.”
Thomas
M. Hoenig President Federal
Reserve Bank of Kansas City
Women
in Housing and Finance Conference
Washington,
D.C.
Feb.
23, 2011
Financial
Reform: Post Crisis?
Thank
you for inviting me here today to address this outstanding
organization. It is my pleasure to do so. My remarks are entitled
“Financial Reform: Post Crisis?” and will address financial
regulatory reform and too big to fail. Like most Americans, I am a
strong defender of free market capitalism and I’m here today to
make an argument that our country should take the difficult steps
required to move its financial industry back toward that
system.........
There
are many villains in the story of the recent crisis and much written
to name them, describe them and even curse them. If you want to know
how it happened, read “Thirteen Bankers” and “All the Devils
Are Here.” If you want to know how to fix the problem, I highly
recommend “Regulating Wall Street,” from New York University’s
Stern School of Business. If you want to understand why the American
public refuses to ignore the injustices associated with executive
compensation in bailed out companies versus budget cuts borne by the
middle class, read Rolling Stone’s article “Why isn’t Wall
Street in Jail?” If you wonder why “no one saw it coming” then
I suggest you read up on Brooksley Born or, a decade later, Meredith
Whitney.
Or,
you might even read the remarks of an Iowa-educated bank regulator
turned-policy maker in Kansas City. Fifteen
years ago,
I gave a speech entitled “Rethinking Financial Regulation,” which
summarized the major threats facing our financial system. My
suggestion then was to take steps to reduce inter-dependencies among
large institutions and to limit them to relatively safe activities if
they chose to provide essential banking and payments services and be
protected by the federal safety net. I
also argued that safety net protection and public assistance should
not be extended to large organizations extensively engaged in
nontraditional and high-risk activities.
A
final point of those remarks was that central banks must pursue
policies that preserve financial stability. I
am going to repeat those suggestions today, and as often as the
opportunity allows. History is on my side.
end quote
So
after such high level evidence that the current global monetary,
banking and credit systems are a fraud in dire need of regulatory
reform what do we do in New Zealand? we put the foxes completely in
charge of the hen house, that's what we did!
Rob
Cameron – Investment Banker is chairing or on most every government
task force appointed;
Big
investment bankers form alliance
5:00AM Friday
Jul 25, 2008
By
Tamsyn Parker
Two
of Australasia’s biggest investment banking names have joined
forces.
New
Zealand’s Cameron Partners and Rothschild Australia – the
Australian arm of the global Rothschild empire – have formed an
alliance to extend their global reaches.
Rothschild
Australia executive chairman and head of investment banking Trevor
Rowe said it began looking to establish a presence in New Zealand two
years ago because of the high number of Australian private equity
players interested in New Zealand companies.
Rowe
ran into a partner of Cameron Partners at a private equity conference
in Australia and was told how Cameron Partners was already trying to
model itself on the Rothschild business.
ROB
CAMERON'S RECCOMENDATIONS SO FAR ARE, WELL, LETS SAY PREDICTABLE;
Top
banker sees new hope for SOE privatisation- Genesis bond sale a
success
4:30PM Wednesday
Dec
03, 2008
State
owned enterprises’ need for capital in the coming downturn could be
an opportunity for them to access capital markets directly, a leading
investment banker says.
Capital
Market Development Taskforce releases its interim response to the
financial crisis.
Stephen
Layburn, Senior Associate Bell Gully| Monday 1 December 2008
The
Capital Market Development Taskforce interim report released on
Friday contains a package of proposals designed to boost access to
capital for New Zealand businesses and reduce the cost of raising
capital.
While
the taskforce is not due to report its findings until September next
year, it decided to produce an interim report in response to the
financial crisis, with taskforce chairman Rob Cameron noting that, in
the current environment, access to capital will be a key issue in
determining business survival. While there are a wide range of
interventions that governments can take and are taking to reduce the
impact of the crisis, capital markets are an important piece of the
picture, he said.
Capital
markets ‘could triple’
BY
ROMY UDANGA
Last
updated 11:11 26/05/2010
New
Zealand’s capital market could triple in size within five years
under reforms being pushed by the government and the financial
sector.
Capital
Markets Task Force chairman Rob Cameron made the prediction this
morning as he updated market participants in Auckland.
He
said “the signs are very good” that within five years the capital
markets will be bigger and better, and deliver improved outcomes for
New Zealand savers and businesses.
The
task force last December made 60 recommendations on how to reform New
Zealand’s capital market.
The
major capital markets initiatives currently underway “will fill
gaps and deepen our capital markets”, he said, citing the dairy
futures market, energy derivatives market, Fonterra capital structure
proposal and a local government bond bank.
Council
bond-bank plan supported
BY
NICK STRIDE
Last
updated 05:00 08/05/2009
Momentum
is building behind the establishment of a Local Government Bond Bank
to help councils finance $30 billion of planned infrastructure
spending over the next 10 years.
Finance
Minister Bill English on Tuesday confirmed that the Government is
interested in a recommendation from the Financial Markets Development
Task Force that New Zealand set up a bond bank in the wake of the
severe tightening of global credit markets.
Local
government debt forecast to double
BY
KATHY WEBB
Last
updated 05:00 30/09/2009
Local
government debt is likely to double to $11 billion during the next
seven years as councils borrow to pay for core services.
By
June 2019, total debt is forecast to be at $10.765 billion, a rise of
99 per cent over June this year.
Local
Government NZ president Lawrence Yule said the introduction of
compulsory asset management plans had forced many councils to deal
with long-neglected infrastructure such as roads, water and sewerage
systems, and they had no option but to borrow for the work.
SIMON
POWER APPOINTS SIMON ALLEN HEAD OF NEW FINANCIAL MARKETS
AUTHORITY
Simon
Allen work history
Written
by Simon Power
9
February,
2011
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/simon-allen-chair-financial-markets-authority
Simon
Allen to chair Financial Markets Authority
Cabinet
has approved the appointment of Simon Allen as chair of the
soon-to-be established Financial Markets Authority, Commerce Minister
Simon Power announced today.
Mr
Allen is the current chair of Crown
Fibre Holdings,
a former chair of NZX, and the founder and a former managing director
of ABN
AMRO New Zealand.
“I’m
delighted Mr Allen has agreed to do this crucial job,” Mr Power
said.
“He
is a highly regarded investment banker with more than 20 years’
experience in governance and financial markets and has exactly the
credentials the new regulator needs.
“With
his expertise in executive leadership, strategy development, and
general commercial transactions I’m confident he will set the right
culture for the FMA.
“This
is something we must get right, and with Mr Allen at the helm, the
FMA will be well-placed to deliver on its role of rebuilding
public confidence to invest in our financial markets after
the global financial crisis and the collapse of finance companies.
“I
expect him to work alongside the Establishment Board and the Chief
Executive designate, Sean Hughes, to ensure a smooth transition to
the new regulator, which is scheduled to be up and running by
May.”
Mr
Allen will be appointed for a two-year term starting at the
establishment of the FMA, with the role being on a part-time
basis.
The
foundation board of the FMA will play a crucial role in establishing
and implementing the strategic direction for the FMA. Announcements
on other board members will be made in coming weeks.
Mr
Allen’s appointment is subject to the successful passage of the
Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill and the consent of
the Governor-General.
Background
Simon
Allen was
the founder and former Managing
Director of ABN AMRO New Zealand, which
he formed as a greenfields operation in 1988.He
has advised the Crown on the sale of Contact Energy, and has been
involved in a wide range of activities involving the capital markets.
He was chair of New Zealand Exchange Ltd (NZX) from 2001 until
2008. He
currently chairs Crown Fibre Holdings, which was established to
manage the Crown’s investment in ultra-fast broadband
infrastructure.
The
Financial Markets Authority is
being established by the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver)
Bill, which is before Parliament. The FMA will act as the single
market conduct regulator for New Zealand’s financial markets,
introducing a culture of visible, proactive and timely enforcement.
It will consolidate the functions fragmented across the Securities
Commission, the Ministry of Economic Development, including the
Government Actuary, and the NZX.
The
FMA Establishment Board was set up in May 2010 with the task of
advising on the creation and strategy of the FMA. It also advised on
the appointment of Chief Executive designate Sean Hughes.
Further
information about the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver)
Bill can be found here.
Simon
Allen, Chairman, New Zealand Stock
Exchange
http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____8857.aspx
Biographies
of Speakers
Simon
is a past director of Auckland Healthcare Services Limited (December
1992 to March 1996). He is the Chairman of the New Zealand Stock
Exchange and a member of the New Zealand Society of Investment
Analysts.
Simon
has had broad experience in advising New Zealand companies on a
variety of issues including takeovers, mergers and acquisitions. He
also has a wide knowledge and active contact with major domestic and
international investors. Selected transactions in which Simon has
played a key role in recent years with ABN AMRO include:
Team
leader of the ABN AMRO Rothschild team advising the Crown in the
NZ$2.3 billion sale of Contact Energy Limited;
Team
leader for the Scoping Study for the sale of Contact Energy Limited.
Team
leader for ABN
AMRO Rothschild’s
participation as International Co-lead Manager in the NZ$390 million
initial public offering of Auckland International Airport Limited;
Advisor
to the Auckland Energy Consumers Trust on its investment in Mercury
Energy Limited (now Vector);
Adviser
to Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Limited on its NZ$1.08 billion
share buy-back, the largest buyback in New Zealand to date;
Advising
on the Independent Newspapers PLC takeover of Wilson & Horton
Limited.
Joseph
Healy, Head of Regional Investment Banking & Private Equity, ANZ
Investment Bank
Joseph
is Head of Regional Investment Banking & Private Equity at ANZ
Bank based in Sydney. Before moving to Sydney in early 2001, he was
Head of Corporate Finance & Private Equity for ANZ in New
Zealand.
Prior
to joining ANZ in 1998, Joseph was an Executive Director, Corporate
Finance for a North American Investment Bank based in London. He has
20 years corporate and investment banking experience covering debt
and equity capital markets, mainly in London, but including three
years with Citibank in New Zealand in 1991 to 1994.Between 1987 and
1990, Joseph was Head of Risk Management & Compliance for
Citicorp’s equity activities in Europe. He was actively involved in
representing the bank with regulators in a number of European markets
and in working with United States regulators.
Particular
areas of expertise include valuations, corporate governance,
shareholder value (EVA) and management buy-outs (MBOs). A passionate
believer that all businesses should principally be run to maximise
shareholder value.
Joseph
has a LLB, MBA and MSc (Finance) degrees and is a regular speaker on
shareholder value and has widely published on this subject. He is
currently in the process of writing a book (published early 2002)
on Shareholder
Value & Corporate Governance: The Challenges facing New
Zealand
Married
to Sue, with three children, Jack (8), George (6) and Tom (3) with a
New Zealand home at Waikanae (North of Wellington).
NOTE
MENTION OF THE NAME - ROTHSCHILD – USED VERY
SELECTIVELY!
Part-timer
takes FMA job
seriously
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/tamsyn-parker/news/article.cfm?a_id=350&objectid=10705215
By Tamsyn
Parker
5:30
AM Thursday Feb
10, 2011
Simon
Allen says he is prepared to commit whatever time it takes to get the
job done in his new role as chairman of the new super regulator, the
Financial Markets Authority.
Allen,
a former chairman of stock market operator NZX and managing director
of ABN Amro, was yesterday appointed to chair the FMA – but only on
a part-time basis.
The
part-time move is expected to disappoint some in the business
community. Last year a Herald Mood
of the Boardroom survey found 69 per cent of business leaders wanted
a full-time chairman.
Allen,
52, will combine his FMA role with a position as chairman of Crown
Fibre Holdings, an agency set up to manage the Government’s $1.5
billion investment in ultra-fast broadband, and chair of the new
council-controlled organisation Auckland Council Investment.
Asked
how much time he would be able to give to the new role given his
other responsibilities Allen said he would do whatever was
necessary.
“I
envisage a lot of effort by all parties as is required when starting
up things.”
Allen
said his priority as chair would be to focus on building investor
confidence in the capital markets.
He
is Auckland based while chief executive designate Sean Hughes has
opted to be Wellington based.
Allen
said he expected the role to take him to Wellington frequently.
“But
part of the challenge is to meet the needs of the market in the rest
of New Zealand.”
The
FMA is expected to be up and running by May and will incorporate a
wide range of existing regulatory powers and functions including
those of the Securities Commission and some currently performed by
the Companies Office and its National Enforcement Unit.
Allen
will be appointed for a two-year term. Announcements on the rest of
the board are expected to be made soon.
THIS
IS BUT A SCRATCHING OF THE SURFACE OF A VERITABLE MOUNTAIN OF
DETAILED IRREFUTABLE PROOF FROM THE VERY MOUTHS OF THE MAJOR PLAYERS
THAT EXISTS!
THE
BASIS OF THE ANSWER TO THE DEBT PEONAGE ABOVE LIES IN THE VERY
FOUNDING IDEALS OF THE INDEPENDENT NEW ZEALAND LABOUR PARTY USED TO
FUND THE STATE HOUSING PROJECT AT THE PERISTANCE OF ONE JOHN A
LEE;
Man
to Man by Tom
Skinner 1981 –
Michael Savage explained the State housing scheme to Tom Skinner of
the (New Zealand) Federation of Labour as such;
Pg
45 – “I was with Joe on one occasion when he began chatting about
the ramifications of the Governments
State Housing Scheme.
He told me … how the construction of those houses created assets in
a productive way. The
Government created the money through the Reserve Bank at
a moderate rate of interest to cover the contract price, which paid
for materials, tradesmen’s wages, the purchase and development of
the land and all the other essentials required to finish the house.
On completion the house was transferred from the Housing
Division of the public works department to the State Advances
Corporation – in effect from one department to another. The
corporation was the renting agency responsible for selecting the
tenants, collecting rents and maintaining the house and the
property. The
philosophy……was that as the money was created for productive
purposes no loss could occur if it were not repaid from one
department to another. Meanwhile,
during construction, tradesmen had been paid wages which had been
spent and absorbed into the economy. But it was solid money backed by
the creation of assets. People had been kept fully employed while the
government built homes for the people.
Tom Skinner;“While
Joe spoke I began suddenly to grasp the Labour philosophy related to
the creation of credit. It set me off thinking about money and what
it meant to the economy. The Government, figuratively speaking, could
rub a state house debt out of the books because a building stood in
its place. But money created by the banks in order to gain profits in
the form of interest was the other side of the coin. It was
unproductive, inflationary creation of money if unmatched by
equivalent goods and services…..”
“I
have read and believe that monetary mismanagement is the greatest
evil of our time. It breeds injustice, increased costs and, as the
root cause of inflation, it diminishes the value of our money.
Governments should carry out their pre-election promises and take the
necessary steps to reform the monetary system. It can be done only by
making the State the sole authority for the issue of currency and
credit….. unfortunately, in this area politicians seem to be
abyssamally ignorant of elementary financial and economic
truths.”
From
-Simple On A Soapbox- by John A Lee 1963;
Pg
53 – During a budget debate in the depth of the depression Savage,
Nash, Parry and McCombs had tabled a resolution in caucus. They
wanted the Labour Opposition in Parliament to move that a certain sum
of money be borrowed on the security of the unemployment fund and
used to alleviate distress.
The
time had arrived for a challenge. I became very active and lobbied
every Labour M.P. I ensured a big caucus attendance.
We
would move, as an alternative,that credits be advanced by the
Government owned Reserve Bank so that we could invest our materials
and idle man-power surplus in socially-owned construction. We
could see no reason at that moment for borrowing at a rate of
interest. Surely the time had arrived for an Issue of
credit.
Australian
Labour was talking `issue’; in Britain tracts on money reform were
flowing from Labour pens. In
a world of plenty the dispossessed had no money.
Even
Roosevelt, later, talked our language. We thought the moment had come
for the people to claim rights of issue for their own bank. The
goods existed, why not create credits?
Caucus,
when it met, divided in a bitter debate in which Savage organised the
advocates of borrowing and I the faction in favour of the state issue
of credit. Caucus was was adjourned four times. I think every member
insisted on speaking. At the third meeting Harry Holland, then Leader
of the Party, espoused our cause. I saw M.P.s taking their coats off
to one another in that caucus, so bitter did the conflict
become.
The
Savage-Parry-Nash-Fraser-McCombs resolution went down to a
humiliating defeat, only Fred Jones of Dunedin South supporting the
resolution. Nearly thirty Labour M.P.s voted for credit issue
including Harry Holland himself. We moved accordingly in
Parliament.
Out
of that debate had come a new finance policy in which, I am convinced
, Nash never believed. In
1935 the Labour Party affirmed that the Government should have sole
right over the issue and control of new credit. But
in the meantime Holland had died. Savage, the oldest surviving
private and deputy, had become Labour Leader and was on the road to
the Prime Ministership.
He
never forgave me the humiliating defeat I had organised. Prior to
that caucus Savage used to tell everyone, both publically and
privately, that I would be one of the first chosen in a Labour
Cabinet. After the defeat I knew that only a caucus vote would compel
Savage to accept me. He became unfriendly from that day on.
Pg
58 – Factory production had become unprofitable. I wanted to see
money issued for essential works until production flowed once more. I
did not want to take over factories. I did want us to take over
banking and the issue of credit. I did want us to use our credit to
finance work so long as unemployment existed.I
objected to New Zealand being made bankrupt because prices had fallen
overseas. We should maintain our own price level and with it
solvency. This
attitude to price was indeed the genisis to our guaranteed price
scheme. Twenty other voices in caucus urged the same thing I did.
But
alone, perhaps, I sensed that if we issued internal credits and did
not establish exchange control and import selection our credits would
create demand for imports in excess of our London funds and create a
financial crisis which would bring the Labour Government to its knees
when it set out to renew London loans. To me exchange control and
import selections, so that we could control the flow of credits and
imports and maintan a reserve, was absolutely essential to socialist
financial policy.
Pg
68 – I am sure that much of Labour’s success is a consequence of
good or bad times. Labour was good for business after Nationalist bad
business. The
average Labour MP did want to restore purchasing power to the masses
and that was in itself a fruitful idea. But there were no ideas as to
how to change or gradually transform the economic system so that
increased production could spell expanding incomes and greater
leisure and fewer depressions by breaking the cursed cycle of
capitalist inflation-deflation. For half a century Labour in Britain,
Australia, and New Zealand had talked of socialising ‘the system’
but when the moment came for modest doses of the socialism for which
the electorate had granted a mandate Labour either did not know or
where there was knowledge, did not have the courage to make
changes.
Pg
77 – A few days later the PrimeMinister sent for me again. Nash had
come up with a proposition.
“We
will make you the Under-Secretary in charge of housing.”
You
will handle housing business as though you were a Minister. You will
present housing to Cabinet, you will deal with housing business in
Parliament. Walter will be your Minister, but he will be going to
England by the time you get started and it will be up to you. We will
introduce legislation the moment Parliament settles down. No one will
get in your way.”
“Will
money be available from the Reserve Bank?” I asked.
This
was a contensious Party issue. With tens of thousands of men on
relief work the Labour Party, Nash and Fraser apart, believed that
the funds of the Reserve Bank should be used for essential capital
works until available men, machinery and materials were being fully
employed. We wanted to undo the politically enforced Banker’s
deflation. Nash wanted to stabalize deflation.
We
did not want to create money when men, materials and machinery were
being fully engaged; at that point we believed the cost of works
should be met out of revenue. But we were not prepared to create debt
as long as goods, machinery and men were idle. That was the moment to
use public credit.
“Money
will be made available from the Reserve Bank.” The Prime Minister
made the promise.
Pg
90 – Although the power to underwrite and arrange fresh borrowings
has been availed of rather than the power to make new issues, except
where the issue is an overdraft, such as has been arranged for the
dairy industry account, one definite issue has been arranged for. The
Government has instructed the Reserve Bank to make five million
pounds worth of credit available for housing purposes.
These
funds will be drawn upon by the Housing Account of the State Advances
Corporation. All
the funds so advanced will be used to create new assets in the form
of houses and a straight out issue of money for the creation of such
assets was considered justifiable. The
instruction to the Reserve Bank, according to the Hon. Mr. Nash’s
statement to Parliament, specifically prohibits the Reserve Bank from
negotiating the sale of any portion of this issue, so that the whole
issue is to be new money upon which the interest earned will belong
in its entirety to the State. And the houses, of course, will belong
to the State.
Pg
91 – In the halfway house of socialism-capitalism the evils of both
systems are likely to afflict us if we are not careful. Labour must
stimulate the production of such quantities of goods as are necessary
to New Zealand’s welfare at an even higher standard. Capitalism
cares only that the transaction yeilds a cash profit. To use a money
machine to only create capital works and leave consumption goods to
private
finance
is dangerous. Hence at some stage Labour must give effect to the
Prime Ministers intention of making credit available to secondary
industry. Production that may not be profitable at the overdraft
rates of the trading banks may be so socially desirable as to
necessitate freeing it from the profit system so that quantities can
flow to the extent required by the nation.
From
The Cradle To The Grave – A biography of Michael Joseph Savage (New
Zealand Labour Party) by Barry Gustafson 1986; Pg 198-9
The
National Opposition (1936) was astonished by the use of Reserve Bank
credit for housing, which disregarded traditional principles of
budget finance. Forbes (George Forbes ex Prime Minister 1930-5 Great
Depression era) admitted confidentially to Stewart (William Downie
Stewart Jnr – Finance Advisor), “This places them in a unique
position, the houses after erection carry no interest on capital
cost, and for instance a thousand pound house can be let for 5s per
week and be a financial success. The millenium seems to have arrived
and it makes one wonder why we had to struggle in the bog, when there
was such an easy way out of our troubles, houses, after being built
with the highest paid workers in the world, at the lowest cost heard
of, makes our policy of orthodox finance seem almost
prehistoric.”
From
-Simple On A Soapbox- by John A Lee 1963
Pg
54 – In July 1962 the leader of the Labour Party, the Rt. Hon. W.
Nash, made a lengthy statement in which he said : “Consistent with
the needs of a sound economy, the State should create and use credit
at the cost of issue for purposes of approved capital development. We
are satisfied that the use of Reserve Bank Credit, within the limits
set out is not only justified, but has already contributed much
towards the Nation’s economic well-being.”
Thus,
27 years too late, Nash accepted the policy on which Labour was
elected in 1935…
Reintroducing
the current New Zealand Labour Party to its founding ideals of
Monetary, Banking and Credit Systems even more needed today than ever
for the very same reasons.
Public
Credit entailing the return to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand the
control of the issuance of New Zealand's primary currency base at
origination. It currently sits with the New Zealand Debt Management
Office which is essentially a foreign designed and controlled
institution hidden in the shadows behind the diplomatic curtain
within our Public House of Representatives.
Public
Credit is the issuing of our primary currency base at the
administrative cost of a modern computer entry money system only
without interest attached. Public Credit then being used to mobilise
labour to unlock the necessities of life resources and essential
economic infrastructure freely supplied by nature and supply them as
a public service as the basis of commerce of the nation.
This
would massively reduce external interest demands on our internal
economy. Allowing taxes and interest currently factored into pricing
that had been collected to pay those external demands to be reduced
in sync.
The
domestic financial sector would be removed of its current ability to
add to external impost of excess liquidity of computer entry currency
issued as private interest bearing loans.
The
internal financial sector would be put back in the box of brokering
loans between savers and borrowers of Public Credit already in
circulation at interest rates and margins determined by demand and
competition.
The
domestic financial sector would return to providing for a fee a
secure storage and settlement system for customers no longer forced
or wishing to seek risk taking investment to keep up with what was
permanent systemic inflation caused by the interest trap of the
previously dishonest privately issued primary liquidity base with
interest attached at origination.
With
the necessities of life and essential economic infrastructure as a
launch pad and fall back position the private sector will then be
left to what it wishes to do in the field of 'wants' with reduced
regulatory strangulation that had been brought about by the systemic
risk of the previously dishonest privately issued primary liquidity
base with interest attached at origination.
If
contracts between the internal financial sector and the individuals
they broker fail because the markets did not find their desirable's,
desirable enough, the losses would impact only those parties
concerned and never find their way back to be imposed upon the
taxpayer of whom it was no fault what so ever. No privitising of
profits and socialising the losses due to the threat of wider
systemic risk being held to the head of governments like a gun.
No
Public Credit would be gained without work or responsibility test by
anyone but those to disabled to do any reasonable task asked of them
should they not be able to find work in the private sector or at
times when the government finds it necessary to provide employment
above whats available in the private sector.
The
removal of the insurmountable private debt hurdle would give a fairer
positive instant consequence for genuine enterprise. I feel work is a
pillar of a healthy society leading to a sense of ownership,
self-esteem and increased unity.
To
avoid inflation and instability the population must be kept within
the boundaries of sustainable resources. The money system must not
exceed the level of trade transactions needed to allow those
sustainable resources to circulate within a sustainable population.
These
are boundaries that both past public and privately controlled
monetary systems have mostly neglected, sadly, in many cases, at the
demand of a financially illiterate citizenship making unsustainable
demands upon resources and money system balance. Demands that
politicians have gifted to keep power or demands that governments
captured by the financial sector have ramped up.
Either
way the majority shareholding few of the financial quackery sector
have profited the most from most past and present financial
structures of unfettered capitalism or unfettered socialism. The
basically decent majority of society have been sent from one end of
the rainbow to the other only to find upon arrival the promised pot
of gold still has not come to be.
My
interpretation of a Fascist State is one in which the crooked few
corrupt politicians, white collar criminals, tax avoiding self
employed, welfare benefit abusers, organised crime gangs and petty
criminals have become parasites of the non-crooked basically decent
majority of employers and workers. These parasitic crooked few suck
so much of the lifeblood out of there host that they threaten its
very longevity.
The
ideal balance is that of the purchasing power of the currency supply
equaling that of what is able to be sustainably produced leading to
stable prices without inflationary or deflationary tendencies - other
than those caused by natural supply and demand.
An
honest money system needs to be free of the impacts of permanent
systemic inflation caused by the primary liquidity base at
origination being issued with interest attached in excessive quantity
- then further exasperated by being channeled back into the hands of
the private majority shareholding few - who then use it to pay
inflated prices for that of the real economy they wish to also
monopolise - causing another form of synthetic inflation, causing
further disparities of wealth and opportunity between the owners and
issuers of money and those without that power.
The
level of currency in circulation to achieve the above needs to be
removed from human emotion as much as possible. I believe this can be
achieved by an improved system of Consumer Price Index to the current
methodology which has some flaws - such as not including the full
impact of house prices - that would seem to far more support the
current excesses of the financial sector than keep them prudent.
For
the above to succeed as a durable and viable longterm solution it
would first have to be accepted as best practice by a block of
nations and at some point the global human population will have to
have a rather large family planning meeting as to just what
population we agree upon this planet being able to sustainably
support and keeping it at that level with a balanced honest money
system to match.
Nations
that the current dishonnest monetary, banking and credit systems have
encouraged an imbalance of population to available sustainable
resources are going to have to be nurtured by their neighbours whilst
rebalancing. Unfettered protectionism will only surely lead to famine
induced instability.
In
the process balancing and stabalising economies internally - national
monetary authorities - what ever they be named - could offer
guaranteed prices to its producers and negotiate the swap or sale of
any surplus production for surplus production of other nations
producing what it needs - but does not have the sustainable resources
to produce itself. This would be conducted on a new international
fair trading clearing house platform. Given that the goods are not
encumbered with the private bankers interest take attached and have
been produced in a balanced economy - the trade would be far more
based on actual needs alone being a good trade as one that recoups
your debt obligation.
Any
political party that gains a knowledge of the predatory financial
quackery that New Zealand and the world has for to long been
suffering and chooses to turn a blind eye or collaborate with it is
committing treason against humanity. Public Credit has been used
before in New Zealand and the below 1955 Royal Commission made
official how it can be done again.
The
1956 report of the 1955 New Zealand Royal Commission Into Monetary,
Banking, And Credit Systems gives a great insight into the history of
international banking and its impact upon the peoples and economy of
New Zealand. It
clearly discloses that the gold standard has been nothing but a thing
of ceremonial token gesture since the 1600s, and has been replaced by
a “credit creation mechanism” at the core of banking. This
mechanism is currently in the hands of the private interests who have
used and abused it as a means with which to put societies into
servitude via predatory lending practices. This report discloses
their argument as to why they can remain entrusted with the credit
creation mechanism, even after the many repeated cycles of boom,
bust, bankruptcy that have occurred on the private watch, as opposed
to it being returned to elected public representatives. It
discloses that none of the benefits they claimed would eventuate,
have eventuated, everything bad they warned of happening under a
public credit systems has occurred under the private system, and most
of the protections they claimed we had to prevent tyranny of the
system have since been dismantled by the infiltration of the
legislation process by vested private money interests);
Pg
5
Royal Commission to Inquire Into and Report Upon Matters
Concerning the Monetary, Banking, and Credit System of New Zealand
Pg
21
38. It
is about twenty-one years since the last general inquiry into
monetary and banking systems in New Zealand. The report of the
Parliamentary Committee reveiews events prior to 1934 and the
operation of the banking system before that time. In 1934 the Reserve
Bank of New Zealand, established by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand
Act 1933, began business and the New Zealand banking system took its
present general form. It seems appropriate, therefore, to confine
this review to the period since 1934.
Pg
44
Introduction
150. In appendix C we examine in detail the
definition of “money” and how it is created and controlled, the
causes of changes that have taken place in the money supply in recent
years, and the structure and operation of the monetary, banking and
credit systems in New Zealand, with particular reference to the
period since 1934. In this section of our report we provide only a
necessary outline.
Money and Credit
151. Money
is anything which is immediately available and generally acceptable
in payment for goods and services or in settlement of debt. In New
Zealand, there are three things which appear to us to satisfy these
criteria of immediate availability and general acceptability:
(a)
The coin and notes in circulation:
(b) The deposits on current
account standing to the credit of the customers of the trading banks,
or to the credit of the government and variuos marketing authorities
at the Reserve Bank:
( c ) The unexercised portion of overdraft
authorities granted to customers by the trading banks.
152. The
two latter types of money are entries in the books of the banks,
recording the obligation of the banker to his customers, but the
banker, when he is directed to do so by cheque, will immediately
transfer to other people a sum up to the amount which stands to each
customers credit or upto the amount by which he has authorised each
customer to overdraw his account. Nowadays a very large proportion of
payments is made by cheques drawn against demand deposits or against
overdraft limits.
Pg
50
The Government and the Creation and Destruction of Money
177.
It can be seen from above that the Government, working through the
Reserve Bank, has far reaching powers to curb unwanted bank lending.
Through its ownership of The Bank of New Zealand, which in 1954
handled about 40 per cent of the advances and deposit business of the
trading banks in New Zealand, it can also, if it so desires,
reinforce its general policy as regards bank lending, and influence
bank charges by specific instructions to the Bank of New Zealand.
Bank overdraft rates have been fixed by the agreement between the
Government and the Associated Banks since 1941.
178. If
the Government thinks anytime that the supply of money is inadequate,
and the trading banks cannot or will not increase their lending, it
may itself borrow from the Reserve Bank, and no doubt, in practice,
set its own terms as to interest charges and repayment. Indeed, if it
wished, it could ensure, with its existing powers, that the trading
banks did not initiate any expansion of the money supply required in
the future, and that all new money was advanced by the Reserve Bank
to the Government. As we point out elsewhere in this report, we
consider that this would be most undesirable. However, the above
remarks indicate the extent of the Governments power to control the
supply of money and the terms on which it is issued.
Pg
105-6;
Creation of Money and the Public Interest
434. Apart
from the historical and legal aspects outlined above, the next
question to be considered is whether it is in the public interest
that the power to create and destroy money or credit should be
withdrawn from the trading banks and reserved to the state or to
institutions owned by the state.
435. The
burden of the contentions of those who sought to deprive the trading
banks of the power to create or destroy money was that the trading
banks for their own profit sometimes expanded the money supply to an
undesirable extent and so cause inflation, and in other
circumstances, such as in times of economic depression, cause an
undesirable reduction in the money supply by reducing
advances.
438. There
is, of course the possibility of bringing about necessary expansion
of the money supply entirely by financing government expenditure from
Reserve Bank credit, and by at the same time preventing trading banks
from expanding their lending through a rigid application of the
reserve ratio. We consider that the needs of industry and commerce
for additional credit can be more conveniently and efficiently met by
expansions of trading bank credit than by expansions of Reserve Bank
credit. The trading banks in close touch with the multitude of
industrial, commercial, farming, and other businesses and they are in
a position to give attention to the needs of individual
businesses.
Pg
107-8 Conclusion
445. The
essence of the nature of the matter is that insufficient or excessive
credit creation can have important repercussions on the whole economy
and, for that reason, control should be exercised by the government
through the Reserve Bank and, if necessary through the Bank Of New
Zealand. Such control can be issued under existing legislation.
Furthermore, the government has itself adequate powers to create
money through the Reserve Bank or through the ownership of the Bank
Of New Zealand.
446. To
concentrate the whole of the trading-bank activities or the whole
business of credit creation in a government monopoly of banking
would, in the opinion of the Commission, lead to an undue and
unnecessary aggregation of power in the hands of the Government. It
would remove the highly desirable element of competition and it could
not be expected to provide as good a banking service as the
commercial community now enjoys.
Pg240-1
(b)
The Principles of Commercial Banking
20. The
fact that a large proportion of our money supply comes into existance
as a result of the operations of the trading banks obviously
disturbed many witnesses who appeared before us. A number seemed to
think that this “ creation of credit “ by banks was a relatively
recent phenomenon. In fact, the fundamental principles of our banking
system have remained much the same since atleast the seventeenth
century. The pricipal functions of a trading or commercial bank today
are similar to those which certain Goldsmiths began to undertake in
England at about the time, in that;
(1)
They receive and take custody of money on behalf of customers, who
thus avoid the risk of loss or theft involved in keeping notes and
coin on their premises or person.
(2) They exchange overseas money
for domestic money and, vice versa, for customers who engage in
business or travel overseas.
(3) They provide their customers with
a convinient means of payment, by undertaking to transfer sums
standing to the customers credit at the bank to other people, when
directed to do so by cheque. ( In times past the trading bank could
also issue notes to their customers in exchange for coin deposited
with them, but the provision of notes is now, nearly everywhere, the
monopoly of a central bank.)
(4) Within
limits and subject to various controls, they make loans to people or
firms deemed credit worthy, and lend to the Government or local
bodies by buying their securities.
21.
The main reason why a bank is able to make the latter loans is that,
although its depositors can at anytime withdraw their deposits in
legal tender money or require the bank to transfer their money to
customers of other banks, the banker, in practice, is called upon to
pay out very little legal tender money in normal circumstances. This
is so for several reasons;
(1) A few customers will never use the
sums which they have deposited and some will let them lie idle for
considerable periods. Evidence given by the Chairman of the
Associated Banks and the Governor of the Reserve Bank indicated that,
early in 1955, there were deposits of between 60 million and 85
million pounds which had remained inactive in the accounts of
customers of New Zealand trading banks for a considerable period of
time.
(2) Especially in a community where there are only a few
banks, many of the cheques drawn by customers will be paid to other
customers of the same bank. In these cases the bank will not have to
transfer legal tender money to other banks, but merely debit one
custmomer’s account and credit another’s.
(3) Even though
customers are constantly withdrawing notes and coin or making
payments to customers of other banks, they are also constantly making
further deposits of notes, coin, or cheques drawn on other banks,
which more or less offset the withdrawals.
22. Thus, a banker can
normally be certain that, on balance, he will only have to convert a
very small proportion of his customer’s deposits into notes and
coin at any one time. He has no need, then, to keep a reserve of
coins and notes equal to the total of deposits standing to the credit
of his customer’s; he can obviously lend some money out at interest
for short periods without any danger of his being unable to meet his
customer’s demands for notes and coin required.
Pg 246
41. But
the creation of the Reserve Bank and its subsequent complete
nationalisation in 1936 left no doubt not only that the Government
could issue additional money through the Reserve Bank, but also the
amount of money put into circulation could be controlled by the State
authorities in the public interest.
Pg
285
Conclusion
180. To sum up; our credit and debt system
performs the following useful functions:
( a ) It
provides without excessive inflation of the money supply, a means of
calling forth the funds required for modern production and of
apportioning the available supply of loan money without undue
intervention by the State.
(
b ) It enables those who wish to save money for various reasons to
earn an income from their savings without investing them in property
or business.
Page 286
( c ) The
specialist financial intermediaries in the credit market aggregate
small savings into amounts large enough to be of use in production;
they develop experience in accessing the credit worthiness of
applicants for loans; and they reduce the cost of marketing credit
below that which would rule if people had to find outlets for their
own funds.
(
d ) The system allows private firms and individuals to obtain control
of the expensive fixed and working capital necessary for efficient
production; it allows families to obtain houses, home utilities, and
ancillary services ( through their local Governments ) earlier in
life than if they had to provide them completely from their own
resources.
181. A
society without debt and interest would be inconsistent with the
institutions of private ownership and enterprise, for the funds for
capital expenditure would inevitably have to be collected and
allocated by the State.
Surely
now the onion is beginning to peel to such an extent that even the
slightly financially literate can now see, as opposed to sense, that
something is just not right!
The
exchange between New Zealand Prime Minister John Key and Leader of
the Opposition Phil Goff earlier this week (November 9 2010)
regarding the NZ dollar was very enlightening:
Labour
leader Phil Goff earlier reiterated his party’s proposals on
monetary policy, saying it should not just be reliant on the current
objectives and the current tools.
“Clearly the [NZ] dollar is at
such a high level that it’s helping to destroy the manufacturing
industry in this country at the moment,” Goff said.“We
have to take that seriously and I would expect the government, with
its army of bureaucrats, to have some answers, so far we've seen
none,” he said.
Key
later retorted that Goff was talking about the same 'army of
bureaucrats' that worked for Labour when it was in power.
The
above is very insightful in openly disclosing that the monetary and
economic advisory bureaucrats overlap governments. Infact many have
been behind the scenes for several decades. Research back even
further you will discover that unto 1951 we had an upper
house referred to as the Legislative Council. For most of
its existence it was the conduit of the London Colonial
Office made up in the main of members of the financial sector
including the private owners of the patriotically named Bank of New
Zealand – Thomas Russell and Frederick Whitaker who were involved
in many well documented legislative abuses and Maori land grabs to
line their own pockets that all of society are struggling to fix unto
this day.
After New Zealand had suffered the indignity of
two receiverships at the hands of our foreign bankers in
1961 and 1984 Rob Muldoon who was very aware of the historical
predatory actions of the banking elite included the below
excerpts from several of his books –
which were very much an account of his attempts to prevent what
occured then and is again occuring now. If anything Rob Muldoon was
guilty of the most I would suggest it was underestimating the depth
and breadth of their global influence:
The
Rise and Fall of a Young Turk, by Rob Muldoon
1974
Pg's 53-54;
My
first bit of "Young Turkism" was a solo effort. Shortly
after the change of government the Prime Minister told Caucus that
Cabinet proposed that we should join the International Monetary Fund
and the World Bank.
This
was not in our 1960s policy and I had never been particularly keen
for New Zealand to join.
The
fact that New Zealand had not joined after Bretton Woods was due to
an adverse vote in the Labour Caucus and there is no doubt that the
then Minister of Finance Walter Nash, who had been at Bretton Woods,
was disappointed, as he was on record as congratulating the chairman
of the Bretton Woods conference on his achievements
The
Holland Government did not join because Sid Holland was not happy
about it. He had been a monetary reformer in the 1930s and had
committed himself firmly, as had Sid Smith from Hobson, who had also
been close to Social Credit in those days. Most of the others
favoured joining but there were a group that remained unconvinced.
Pg 54;
There
was no doubt that members of the fund incurred obligations,
and
my argument was that as long
as we could do our official borrowing from in Britain without tags we
did not need these institutions. While Caucus generally approved the
introduction several of us remained unconvinced and we knew that
Labour would vote heavily against us even though some of them
favoured joining.
Harry
Lake finally got his two experts. Noel Lough, from Treasury, now
deputy secretary, and Bob Familton from the Reserve Bank, now in
Washington on the staff of the World Bank, to come up and discuss
detail with the dissenters. One by one they were satisfied, Percy
Allan and Bert Walker being the last, but I was left unconvinced. In
the process we all, the departmental
officers included, learned a lot about the working of the two
institutions.
The
New Zealand Economy, A Personal view, by Rob Muldoon
1985
Pg
34
“We
announced that we would be joining the International Monetary Fund
and the WorldBank and a principal reason was that it would give us
access to drawing rights. Although this had not been in our election
policy, we carried out our policy by appointing various advisory
bodies in the economic field, the
principal one being the Monetary and Economic Council, a three member
council with supporting staff which had the task of advising the
Government on matters of economic policy, but most importantly, the
right to publish its advice, in various forms, with various
amendments to its composition and order of reference, the
Monetary and Economic Council and its successors have continued up
until the present time.”
Pg 71;
The first meeting of the
Committee of twenty was held in Washington at the time of the IMF
meeting of September 1972. We had high hope that it would bring
together some new rules that would take the place of the former
Bretton woods system. These hopes were not realised and some two
years later, after the first oil shock, the committee changed its
name Interim Committee enlarged
it membership to 22 to admit Saudi Arabia and later China and
continued
as a policy making body which in the first decade of its existence
did little that warranted its continuing operation.
In
particular,
it
made no progress on the establishment of a new set of rules for the
worlds monetary system,
although
it considered and discarded several worthwhile initiatives mainly
because of objections to
each by the United States. One was the proposal that the SDR should
be established as the major international currency by substituting it
for externally held currencies, principally
US dollars.
This
tripped over the requirement that the United States should give some
kind of guarantee in respect of the dollars that were substituted,
which they were not
prepared
to do.
Another
proposal which was not acceptable was 'symmetrical surveillance' that
is to say, that the IMF
should exercise surveillance over surplus countries as well as
deficit countries, given
that each dollar of surplus creates a dollar of deficit - atleast in
theory,
because
the statistics do not add up by something of the order of $100
billion.
It
was held to be unreasonable that the whole burden of adjustment
should fall on the deficit countries. The proposal was eminently fair
and is an issue that I believe must be addressed again for it is
inevitable that it form part of any stable system for world monetary
relationships..........
New
Zealand has a record that is second to none in its support of
international institutions of which we have been members, and our
willingness to obey the rules, both in letter and in spirit.
We
have been constantly disappointed however,
by
the fact that so many countries - and among them some of the most
affluent - have for domestic political reasons been prepared to bend
or even ignore the rules when it suited their purpose.
The
history of the IMF and its sister organisations since the break down
of the Bretton Woods system has unfortunately been one were short
term self interest has overridden long term wisdom. That this has now
apparently been recognised can not alter the unfortunate history of
the years since 1971.
Pg 109;
Following
the second oil shock in 1979 the volume of petro-dollars increased
but the position of the non oil developing countries began to look
less attractive, particularly as some of the new industries that were
being developed found that when they came on stream their products,
and steel was an example, were facing, protectionist barriers in
their natural markets in the wealthy industrialised countries, in
some cases the very countries that had provided the loans to build
the plants.
Pg 153;
The
international institutions must be reformed with a mandate that fits
the needs of the 1980s and into the 21st century. The immediate debt
crisis must be dealt with, not as a bale out of either the heavily
indebted countries or commercial banks but as a means of averting the
collapse of the worlds financial system with a resulting world wide
depression such as we have not had since the 1930s, a depression from
which no countries economy would be immune.
My
question for any public representative that has shown the respect of
my efforts to read the above is;
“If you continue to support
the status quo of New Zealand's entirely interest bearing private,
mainly foreign originated, loan based money system, can you please
give me your explanation of how under the current terms and
conditions - growth can exceed the debt you are forced to take on to
attempt to achieve the growth.?”
If
you cant? Can you please use the time, money and resources - the
citizens and busineses of legitimate enterprise provide for you - to
protect them from financial free raiders!
Thank
you for your time
Iain
Parker
