Acute Disorder

Law of unintended consequences

Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

Freedom of Movement and the Cruelty of the Euro

without comments

originally posted here

Freedom of Movement and the Cruelty of the Euro
Monday, 09 January 2017
Robert Oulds

To escape the damage caused by the euro, and the resulting problems of mass migration, Brexit is essential for the UK
9th January 2017

Summary

1. The euro prevents EU countries with weak economies using currency exchange rates to adjust their competitiveness within and external to the EU. The EU therefore has a policy of ‘rebalancing’, or ‘internal devaluation’. Rebalancing relies on the failure of uncompetitive industries. The result is unemployment, lower wages and lower prices together with austerity justified by high levels of sovereign debt. These pressures on the population are intended to force the creation of competitive trading industries and reduce non-trading activities.

2. Regional EU payments are bureaucratically allocated and managed. They are inadequate, inappropriate and inefficient compared with simple and automatic floating exchange rate adjustments.

3. Freedom of movement theoretically reduces the unemployed population by moving labour to stronger economies that have labour shortages. This is the reason for its importance to the Euro model.

4. Rebalancing involves severe dislocation and widespread hardship. The relief of hardship by EU welfare provision is inadequate and counter to the desired pressures to bring about rebalancing. The EU policy of rebalancing is entirely unethical, repressive and manipulative. It is a cruel policy reminiscent of Stalin’s forced 1930/40s population transfers. Moreover, in practice it does not work and therefore nor does the euro.

5. By contrast, Brexit is ethical and traditional in seeking to develop local economies without dislocation and with whatever support is needed. It incorporates normal exchange rate adjustments and acceptance of skilled persons of any origin through controlled immigration. Many who voted for Brexit voted for jobs and standard of living. The characterization of controlled immigration through Brexit as racist and discriminatory attempts to disguise the cruel nature of EU internal ‘rebalancing’.

* * *

Freedom of Movement and the Cruelty of the Euro

1. It is a false accusation that the UK’s wish to control immigration is racist and discriminatory. That accusation is intended to disguise a vicious and cruel EU policy. Freedom of movement is asserted by the European Union to be a privilege and great benefit. That is not true. Its fundamental purpose and the reason for the EU’s insistence that the UK accepts it as a condition of market access following Brexit is to enforce use of the euro.

2. It is well known that prior to adoption of the Euro the weaker economies of Southern Europe, such as Greece, were able to maintain rough competitiveness with the stronger states such as Germany by currency exchange rate movements. After adoption of the Euro this was no longer possible, either within the EU or in relation to countries outside the EU. The IMF, ECB and European Commission therefore adopted a policy of ‘rebalancing’.

3. The rebalancing or ‘internal devaluation’ model assumes that when competitive trading differences arise between countries, the less competitive industries will fail. There will be unemployment, less demand and a consequent fall in wages and prices. Austerity is a tool to reinforce this process. Where these conditions occur, the countries affected must develop more competitive production methods and move resources from non-trading activities to trading production. Those persons made unemployed by this process or who cannot find work should be able to emigrate to EU countries that are more competitive and where there are labour shortages. This is the reason why freedom of movement is essential to the EU. It reduces the economic pressures that are desirable for rebalancing.

4. Unemployment, euphemistically called ‘labour shedding’ is regarded as essential to rebalancing. The ECB at present purchases company debt to sustain the financial markets since even negative interest rates and money printing have failed to give growth. The EU regional funds that are given to Greece and Spain for social and economic purposes are inadequate, inappropriate and are inefficiently bureaucratically allocated and managed. In practice they do not materially reduce the pressures for rebalancing/internal devaluation. The only large scale assistance offered is more debt, additional to the debt that is a major part of their economic problems in the first instance.

5. The traditional simple and automatic rebalancing of competitiveness by exchange rate movements involves little or no drastic economic reorganization or social disruption. That is not the case within the Eurozone. Eurozone rebalancing is driven by closure of industries, unemployment and migration. The creation of new competitive industries is merely an aspiration. The notion that competitiveness can be equalized between Greece and Germany, for example, by these means is absurd.

6. The simple unemployment rate does not, of course, reflect the quality of employment taken up by employees from failed industries. Their first option will be to take whatever employment is avalable, which will probably be at a lower income and living standard. This is part of the ‘rebalancing’ process.

7. The closure of uncompetitive industries with theoretical development of new competitive industries is euphemistically called ‘structural reform’. In the real world, uncompetitive industries within the Eurozone definitely close; in competition with Germany and other Northern states, competitive industrial development of the southern EU states definitely does not and can not occur. This is the source of the present imbalances within the EU.

8. Apparently, the EU rebalancing policy has developed from a United States model. If so, it is wholly inappropriate. The United States is homogeneous for language and culture. Even so, unacceptable within-country imbalances have occurred as they also have in the UK. It is these that have given rise to the protest votes for Donald Trump and Brexit. The EU is not homogeneous for language, culture and many other factors. For these reasons, Europeans are much more attached to their locality of origin than Americans.

9. In any country, a major rigidity is that the unemployed usually have low skills. They cannot afford to move or are unwilling to leave an uncomfortable but manageable situation where housing, family and familiar support networks exist and move to another country having a different language where there are great uncertainties.

10. Persons who are skilled and have money will regard freedom of movement as beneficial, for holidays, or retirement for example. Many of these would wish to relocate for career reasons in any case. They would be welcomed by receiving countries, as the UK welcomes such persons from any country and would do so following Brexit. Young persons with qualifications and without family will also emigrate readily, although their loss disadvantages their countries of origin. It is evident however, that those often older persons who are displaced from failed industries will be least able or willing to emigrate. This is what can be seen in practice.

11. Adoption of the euro has therefore generated economic imbalances that will not be rectified automatically. Worse, the rebalancing policy based on the euro has created hardship for millions of people in Southern Europe and the Republic of Ireland. It is a cruel policy that ignores human welfare and rather than encouraging prosperity, is indifferent to the pain that it causes.

12. The human cost of the EU’s rebalancing policy, that is driven by industry failure and unemployment, has always been known to the institutions of the EU but they have chosen to ignore it. The UK’s Brexit is based on positive policies to create employment by assisting existing industries and developing new ones with, of course, exchange rate adjustment of external competitiveness. Not only is the EU’s rebalancing policy an ethical disgrace, the attempt to disguise its true nature and purpose by labelling those who do not accept it as racists is despicable.

13. Together with these considerations, many EU states have very large public and private debt that will never be repaid. This requires separate consideration but, briefly, debt permits control by the EU central institutions, particularly the ECB and IMF. Its most obvious outcome is the sale of state assets, further weakening states that are undergoing ‘rebalancing’ stress. It is these destructive debts knowingly given by the banks and underwritten by the ECB and IMF that provide the rationale for austerity. Austerity is intended to reinforce ‘rebalancing’.

14. There may be said to be four broad groups of people affected by Brexit:

i. People who are aware that they are suffering, or at least are not benefiting, due to EU policies. They tend to support Brexit because their local industries have vanished and they want jobs and a reasonable living standard. They are often not well educated and do not understand the technicalities of the Euro or how the EU functions. Although not articulated in these terms, their views contain implied strategic factors as well as self-interest. They identify uncontrolled immigration as evidence that the UK no longer controls its own economy and their destiny. This enables pro-EU activists to label them as ignorant, racist or espousing ‘the politics of hate’.

ii. Educated and well-informed persons who understand that the EU is undemocratic, administered by a super-rich elite with dependent politicians, a large dependent bureaucracy and a dysfunctional currency. They understand that the BIS, ECB and banks generally control the EU. They might know, for example, that Mario Draghi came from bankers Goldman Sachs, achieved Presidency of the ECB and after his term of office returned to Goldman Sachs. They might know that Goldman Sachs conspired with Greek politicians to hide Greece’s debts in order to obtain EU entry, so laying the foundation for the present economic misery of the Greek people. They may view the EU to be on the path to tyranny, which would not be unusual in some EU countries.

iii. Usually middle class persons who support the EU and believe that it is beneficial because their jobs depend on EU trading, are publicly funded or EU funded. These apparently do not understand how the EU operates or do not care. Their evaluation is based on their immediate interests rather than whether the EU system is democratically legitimate or benefits the UK.

iv. The rich and high level executives in international companies, banks, the ECB and IMF who understand the EU. They will fight to retain the euro because it is they who have designed it in their own interests to make them richer and to give them political control of the EU through its economy. This group believes in ‘realpolitic’ rather than democracy and will support tyranny as it has in the past.

13. Because it is clear that the existing banks are hostile to Brexit, a priority for Brexit planning must be to organize a banking system independent of the ECB and the existing big banks. Ideally local mutual units would be best for SMEs with a large central unit for major development and export finance. The role of the Bank of England needs close examination. The recent actions of the Royal Bank of Scotland in asset-stripping vulnerable SMEs indicates where the interests of all bankers lie. It is noteworthy that Richard Branson who cultivates his image as ‘a man of the people’ has recently publicly opposed Brexit and is financing an opposition group. The EU operates for the very rich.

14. Those who designed the EU’s euro ‘rebalancing’ policy view people as theoretical economic units without human needs, feelings and attachments to family and locality. Theoretically, it is not desirable to give welfare to because this would lessen the economic pressure that is essential to rebalancing. In any case, the levels of welfare assistance would be impossibly large for the EU to accept. This neglect of welfare is to the extent that in Greece large numbers of people are homeless and actually starving and in Spain youth unemployment is 45-50 percent. ‘Rebalancing’ is not based on a democratic, egalitarian view of society. It is a policy of repression and manipulation without any ethical content. For this reason the euro does not work and nor does the EU.

15. The creation of the EU and Euro is a far development from the Common Market that the UK joined. The Common Market has moved from national directly elected parliamentary democracies to a centralized bureaucracy managed by a political and economic elite. This elite, most visible in central banks, the ECB and IMF has little if any connection with or responsiveness to the immediate needs of the population. It is not at all clear that the first priority of the EU is the welfare of its population.

16. Brexit has a democratic and ethical foundation based on centuries of trading, economic development experience and the democratic development of society. It will be traditionally designed to give benefits with the minimum of dislocation possible, to develop local skills and industries and to welcome skilled workers from all other countries.

17. It is the writer’s view that on present trends, full EU integration based on the euro and supremacy of the banks over the public interest can only be achieved by political repression and a police state, that is, tyranny. That is a form of government that often occurs in Europe. The EU and UK parliament have permitted the spying and financial infrastructure of tyranny to be assembled under the guise of fighting terrorism. The democratic Brexit decision is now being labelled ‘tyranny of the majority’ (John Major) and ‘populism’. It is a bad sign.

By Christopher King MSc DipM DMS

Most of the following are discussion papers, not official ECB or IMF papers.

Official IMF report 2015 http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2015/110915.pdf

http://voxeu.org/article/rebalancing-eurozone-internal-adjustments-won-t-be-enough )

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1407.pdf

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp14130.pdf

http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2013/11/europe-the-failure-of-internal-devaluation/

Written by anubis

January 9th, 2017 at 3:50 pm

Clean Brexit

without comments

Clean Brexit is the practical and democratic way forward

Liam Halligan

10 December 2016 • 7:55pm

There’s a strong case for the Government to make a very clear statement – and then to stick to its political guns.

Theresa May has long refused to give a running commentary on her negotiations with the European Union.

Last week, though, in a moment of high parliamentary drama, the Prime Minister conceded her government will now publish a “Brexit plan” before triggering Article 50 by March next year.

Having backed Brexit, I’ve always recognised it may be unwise for the Government to disclose its desired negotiating outcome.

These two statements aren’t linked. However you voted in June, everyone should acknowledge the potential downsides of the UK showing its hand ahead of what could be some extremely hard bargaining. That hasn’t stopped numerous Remainers from insisting ministers “have no plan” and “are clueless”, as they demand full disclosure.

Many are doing so, of course, to spread Brexit-related alarm – trying to whip up a panic and somehow stymie or even reverse the clear referendum result.

The complexity of any negotiation involving 27 countries, each with their own commercial lobbies and electorates, means any detailed Brexit roadmap would be obsolete before it was written. So the Government, having just secured a Commons majority to invoke Article 50 in return for “a plan”, could justifiably produce something vague.

I’d argue, though, there’s now a strong case for the Government, quite soon, to make a very clear statement with regard to the outcome it wants – and then to stick to its political guns. So long as that desired outcome is “Clean Brexit”.

I’d identify three basic Brexit models. The first is joining the European Economic Area – the “Norwegian option” – involving continued multi-billion pound annual payments to Brussels, while accepting numerous EU rules and regulations – including “freedom of movement”.

This isn’t Brexit and, in my view, would be a betrayal of the referendum result.

The second, and most widely envisaged option, is a bespoke UK deal. We’d invoke Article 50 as the Government has indicated, using the subsequent two-year negotiating period to bend EU rules to our will – trying, in particular, to maximise control over our borders while minimising the constraints placed on our EU trade. This might be possible.

As the world’s fifth-largest economy, with a £60bn trade deficit with the EU, the UK can surely get a better deal than Norway.

A “bespoke UK” option, though, would involve a drawn-out and acrimonious negotiation. The outcome of any deal, almost by definition, wouldn’t be known until the moment before the two-year deal-making window expired – prolonging business uncertainty and hindering both domestic and foreign investment.

It must also be recognised, given the UK would be going head-to-head with the EU, attempting to weaken links between the various “pillars” which hold the entire European project together, that a very real possibility is an extremely bad-tempered “no deal”.

With the UK seeking to dismantle EU rules, and Franco-German EU lifers fighting back, a multi-year UK-EU negotiation could easily end in stalemate. Uncertainty would then become semi-permanent, seriously harming all of Western Europe as a place to do business.

Voters on both sides of the Channel would despair at the rank incompetence of their leaders. The UK, in particular, would be in a terrible state. We’d have torn incurable fissures across the British electorate and wrecked our relationship with the EU, making future cooperation all but impossible – and for what?

So I strongly favour the third option – “Clean Brexit”. Parliament passes the “Great Repeal” Bill that May has already outlined, carrying over relevant EU statute into domestic law. We then send our Article 50 letter and leave – quitting both the single market and the customs union.

Under Clean Brexit, the UK trades with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules, which are in no way a disaster for Britain. Credit: Andrew Matthews/PA Wire

Under Clean Brexit, the UK trades with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules. That won’t be denied – as we’d take the EU to WTO arbitration and win. WTO rules are in no way a disaster for Britain. They currently govern our trade with countries including the US and China that make up the 85pc of the world economy that’s outside the EU.

The non-EU accounts for almost 60pc of our trade and rising. While we have a huge EU deficit, with the non-EU we run a £30bn surplus – under WTO rules, outside the single market. The non-EU, then, generates the bulk of our trade, the part that is growing and where we register a surplus.

The single market – despite its appealing name – is a deeply imperfect set of rules that discriminate against the services in which Britain excels. The maximum EU tariffs we’d face are well within single digits. On manufactured goods, the average is 2.4pc – far less than the recent fall in sterling. And that’s a worse-case scenario.

The importance of the UK to German carmakers, French food producers and the rest of them means we can expect to negotiate tariffs down much further. There’s lots of alarm about preserving the “passporting” of financial services. Such concerns, trumpeted by big City companies that don’t like change, are massively overdone.

Yes, the UK’s financial services industry is important. But the EU accounted for just 33pc of our financial services exports last year, while the country which took most was America – where we have no free trade deal. Passporting would be good, but we can live without it. Many non-EU members anyway trade financial services using EU “equivalence” rules – which would apply to a Brexited UK.

“Leaving the customs union” is also often presented as a mortal sin. Once out, though, many imports – including food – would be cheaper, as shoppers would avoid the related tariff on non-EU goods. And, free of the customs union, we could finally strike trade deals with the populous, fast-growing emerging markets, beyond the EU, which will soon be the most important economies in the world.

The EU accounted for just 33pc of our financial services exports last year – passporting would be good, but we can live without it.

Clean Brexit is democratic. The Great Repeal means that, in the short term, nothing changes. Then, in our own time, over several electoral cycles, UK ministers and our Parliament decide which EU laws and regulations we retain and which we alter. That’s how it should be. Our annual contribution ends and, leaving the single market and customs union, we strike UK trade deals and take control of our borders.

The Government should state all this in March, on invoking Article 50. That’s ahead of upcoming French and German elections, next spring and late-summer respectively – which is vital. We tell the EU we want to trade under WTO rules, we don’t want any kind of drawn-out negotiation over borders or the single market, but we’re happy to consider UK-EU sector-specific trade deals of mutual benefit.

During the upcoming continental elections, then, the French and German carmaking, pharmaceutical and food-processing giants will know the EU needs to cut a deal with Britain to retain tariff-free access to the UK market.

These powerful industrial lobbies will try to extract pro-UK concessions from the various candidates, doing our lobbying for us. Remote politicians, perhaps looking to bash Britain on the election stump, will be reminded by their own people that the EU’s free trade with Britain underpins millions of jobs and billions of euros of profit.

I reject the term “hard Brexit”. It’s often used by those who lost the referendum and want to make leaving the EU seem extreme.

Quitting the single market and customs union voluntarily, avoiding a tortured “single market-free movement” negotiation and using WTO rules isn’t ideological. It’s a practical, transparent position that limits uncertainty while minimising damage to the UK, the EU and our ongoing relationship.

Clean Brexit is the way to go. Forced to disclose her plans, Theresa May should go the whole hog.

Written by anubis

December 12th, 2016 at 6:19 am

Taxation is Theft

without comments

The income tax is theft because it redistributes money from some people to others. It assumes that the government owns your labor and the product of your labor. That’s an immoral assumption. Free people own their bodies and their labor – not the government. Therefore, when the government lays claim to your income, the product of your labor and your body, they are saying they own you. That’s morally wrong.

— Ron Paul

Written by anubis

September 10th, 2016 at 7:10 pm

Collapse

without comments

originally posted as a comment under the ZH article here

.

…the coming collapse will be most like a tsunami. At first, people will think the beach is expanding, offering them a new and larger play area than they’ve ever seen before. Finding the space irresistable they will venture out to stay close to the “water.” They’ll look on toward the deep blue and notice waves..also something they are normally attracted to. How pretty, what a great surfing opportunity. until……until one guy yell’s “tsunami” and starts sprinting away from the water’s edge tightly carrying his 18 month old son and leaving his wife to play catch-up. At first, we look at the runner and ask “what did he say?” We wonder if perhaps his son was stung by a jellyfish. Then, we see a few others start running also. We wonder if perhaps they are all family, but their skin colors tell us differently. Then, we hear the deep distant roar of the wave. A sound like we’ve never heard coming from the ocean. That’s when it hits us…we too should have never ventured out on this sand. And it’s all too late. Those who weren’t even on the sand thought they were safe, because water has NEVER risen to a certain level…so they don’t run, and it’s soon too late for them also. At the end of the day we’ll scratch our heads wondering how we could have possibly been this overwhelmed with volume. And like our low volume financials markets today one day completely overwhelmed when some whale pushes the ‘sell everything’ button…and there’s no place to hide. Everyone within 1000 meters of the shore is taken out. For a while, we’ll cling to the hope that .gov will make everything better again and build us an even better home than before. It will take time to sink in, that .gov is broke now, and I’m no ‘doomsday prepper’. We’ll just be broke. So you thought you had $247,483 in your 401k…now its $32,432. get used to it, and move on.

Written by anubis

August 24th, 2016 at 11:08 am

ACCEPTANCE FOR VALUE

without comments

ACCEPTANCE FOR VALUE!
DAVID RUSSELL·TUESDAY, 22 DECEMBER 2015
In 1800 the world was bankrupt; the debts went onto the people; all natural resources went to the people; Always ask for a paper bill because you get a Giro credit slip at the bottom of the bill of exchange;
Bill of Exchange Act 1882: the company has been paid by the commercial bank
1. I cash the cheque
2. Banks don’t recognise it as my cheque
3. Give cheque back
Not transferable; 3 postage stamps autographed transferred by endorsement sticker.
To british Gas for payment at the sight for the sum of £… transferred by Samantha James; address; postcode; National Insurance Number; Non commercial.
They have already been paid they cant cash it because they would be double dipping BOE ACT 1882
Consumer credit act 1974 section 123 (1)A creditor or owner shall not take a negotiable instrument, other than a bank note or cheque, in discharge of any sum payable—
(a)by the debtor or hirer under a regulated agreement, or
(b)by any person as surety in relation to the agreement.
(2)The creditor or owner shall not negotiate a cheque taken by him in discharge of a sum payable as mentioned in subsection (1) except to a banker (within the meaning of the M1Bills of Exchange Act 1882).
(3)The creditor or owner shall not take a negotiable instrument as security for the discharge of any sum payable as mentioned in subsection (1).
(4)A person takes a negotiable instrument as security for the discharge of a sum if the sum is intended to be paid in some other way, and the negotiable instrument is to be presented for payment only if the sum is not paid in that way.
(5)This section does not apply where the regulated agreement is a non-commercial agreement.
(6)The Secretary of State may by order provide that this section shall not apply where the regulated agreement has a connection with a country outside the United Kingdom.
Billed them 6k for court appearances harm alarm and distress £100 a day stress and anxiety BOE= legal remedy court appointment as this is NOT a health and safety issue
They are applying for a criminal warrant of entry for a civil matter; they are in the wrong jurisdiction
The 1954 Gas Act is for health and safety issues whereas this is a money issue thus being in the wrong jurisdiction.
My obligation to pay has been fulfilled
Are you legally trained? Y N
I am going to put you in the dock as i have a right to cross examine my accuser.
Write to them to come and check the meter
Remove all implied rights of access (Send 1st Class)
Bill of exchange Act 1882
Stamp Act put a stamp on the back under the consumer credit Act 1974 section 123 “This agreement does not apply when the regulated agreement is NON-COMMERCIAL
Rights of entry under the Gas & Electricity Act 1954 (what they use for warrant) they take you to the magistrates court for a criminal warrant; when the agent tells on the stand No its for money!!
They want to put a prepayment meter in to hold you ransom for something you are not LIABLE to pay!!!
There committing fraud if they issue a warrant””
They can not get a criminal warrant for a money dispute.
Gas Act 1986 is another health & safety issue.
Fraud Act 2006
Contempt of court (Lord Diplock) we have unhindered access to the court.
No One can make a claim without proving the case.
We are being robbed blind through our own ignorance!!! Know your rights!!!
ACCEPTED FOR VALUE,
The UK in its current bankrupt state, I say current it was Bankrupt in 1869, evidenced by the “Bankruptcy Act of 1869” “Debtors Act 1869” we are in fact in the equivalent to a (Chapter 11) Bankruptcy which is “Debtors in Possession”.
The Bankruptcy Act is not the only evidence of the bankruptcy but there is also the Amendment to the “Gold Standards Act 1925” “Finance Act 1938” better known as Bill 227 or 277 if “Hansards” have it correct which dissolved the connection to Gold in our currency as the bill was finally passed on the 21 of September 1931, hence why we now operate “Fiat Currency” which is backed by the tax or labour of the citizens, furthermore to back up the Bankruptcy claim is “double entry bookkeeping” which is just a claim and counter claim balancing exercise.
Whatever you chose to research we ARE in full bankruptcy, and so in bankruptcy the agreement is that all debt is to be forgiven, after all how do you pay anything if you are bankrupt?
Not to forgive debts is in full violation and dishonour of the bankruptcy we are currently in, and in this bankruptcy we operate a prepay account, this was done because you are “involuntary” in your bankruptcy status, we were not around in “1869” so we were born in to this position through no fault of our own
Bearing all of this in mind, the only way to deal with this matter is to give you a means to live other than using your sweat equity (“cash albeit fiat”, that was earned using something tangible “your sweat”)
A commercial system such as this cannot deal in tangible equity, and so your prepay account was created, this is your “National Insurance Number” cleverly disguised as a means for them to charge us for nothing!!. It is in fact your means of paying for more or less everything that you need in your life.
The legal appellation granted you at your registration, this is a legal entity, a fiction if you like! you understand that all of this commerce is total rubbish “truly” so in order for you to traverse the high seas of commerce, you had to be equipped with a vessel that was sea worthy enough to do it, it is here that your Birth Certificate comes in, when you are called into court, it is your “Birth Certificate” that is summoned really, as you as a human cannot operate in commerce so you must use your vessel!
So bearing in mind that we now understand that commerce is merely “Rubbish” a world of illusion, then it stands to reason that the legal entity must also be of the same making to traverse these murky waters, but what has happened is the system somewhere started to flip the “trust”, instead of you using this vessel to do your bidding and to that end it would benefit you, what has happened is that you are held as “surety” so when your legal appellation is whacked with a penalty, you are held as guarantor and it is you who suffers the punishment with your sweat equity of actual physical body?!
Jurisdiction is established in a number of dubious ways, the insipid tiers of commercial law need certain details to establish “Joinder” these details that you give thinking they are yours are simply your agreement to play as, and be punished as, the legal fiction!
Ok after that little bit of background, Accepted For Value is merely your choosing to use your prepay account to settle and close “Proposed Liability Statements” this is done when a bill/proposed liability statement is sent to you addressed to your legal appellation by using either all caps or the “legal Title” Mr,Mrs,Miss,Mz etc etc… as soon as you accept these you are in contract!
So to correctly pay these Bills/Statements that are all illusion you need to pay with a type of funding solution from the said same system, you cannot pay with tangible equity, it has to be paid with the illusion that bore forth the bill in the first place. request a paper or true bill and till be in the form of a giro then wright on it
:
Accepted For Value
Exempt From Levy
Sovereign Tittle
EXEMPTION ID:
Deposit to
Her Majesty’s Treasury
This is good enough to settle the debt but this is a negotiable instrument! if you further add the words,
And Charge the Same To
the capitis diminutio title
Exemption Id but just the national insurance number,
you have just negotiated it so as you receive the same.
whichever you choose you have to endorse it!
The exemption id is you NI number write this in red and your signature (which allocates the funds from your prepay account to settle this bill) except the capitis diminutio of sovereign title and date.
This must be done at 45 degrees across the bill (Banker Style) usually lower side to the left and the upper side to the right, this affects the payment.
Ok I said that this is 100% correct, and it is, if you intend on trying this you must have a working knowledge and understand what you are doing, and worst case scenario be prepared to back yourself up in court.
My experience has been that some honour it, some are totally confused and proceed to court out of ignorance (not a problem) and some just wish to keep “double dipping” (using your exemption to pay the proposed liability whilst hoovering up your sweat equity or cash if you like, which is fraud and stealing) OH come on you don’t think that the council that lost cash in the Iceland bank got the £50 million any other way do you? Where was the interest going? It was in fact the money issued by the treasury to cover it constituents debts! £120,000 to £180,000 a year is given to each council per man/woman and child to cover their liabilities.
If the bill is returned then send it back again with a letter letting them know they are in dishonour and this is their last chance to settle and zero the account and if they still send it back send it with the two replies and your covering letter to the treasury direct!

Written by anubis

July 13th, 2016 at 7:08 am

Posted in Economics,Government

Vote Leave

without comments

I’ve already voted to Leave.

These are the factors that I think are significant and form the reason for my vote.

1. The Euro. The Euro is an unmitigated disaster for the people of Europe. It has caused grave economic distortions which have impoverished the south (Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal) and those countries will never recover while they are in the Euro since their economies will not become German, and they will never be able to effect the internal deflation required by their levels of debt. Unable to inflate the debt away, and due to the mercantilist effects of having an overvalued currency they will never start growing again through exports so they will eventually collapse. The main beneficiary of this policy has been Germany, who have effectively been running a mercantilist foreign trade policy with a massively undervalued currency. That the Euro has been instigated by the elites in pursuit of all the trappings of statehood, while having these empirically determinable negative effects on vast part of their population, is evidence of the total failure of governance. This failure is a direct result of the undemocratic procedure by which laws are formulated and enacted.

2. The EU is Anti-Democratic. Terms like “anti-democratic” and “sovereignty” are dismissed as abstract by the Remainers. However, what sovereignty actually is, in its albeit imperfect way, is feedback to the decision making process within the government. Feedback is an essential component of intelligence. Sticking your hand in a flame when you can’t feel pain will lead to destruction of the tissue. A government with no feedback will have no way of correcting its errors, leading to destruction of the society it is tasked with administering. We long ago established individual property rights. This has been eroded by, for example, income tax (which is actually theft) but the general principle exists within our legal system that taxation is payment for something and contractual and therefore cannot be arbitrary and therefore cannot be levied without due process and representation within the parliament of the levying agency. These concepts have had strong economic benefits and are a major contributing factor to the economic success of the Anglo bloc (UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). Evidence that lack of accountability is damaging is provided by …. The €uro. See above. Thus the argument that the EU is undemocratic is not based on little Englander national sovereignty but is intrinsically linked to accountability of the decision making for society and the resulting societal wellbeing, which is a direct result of such accountability.

3. Clearly the political aims of the EU take precedence over the economic. Economic benefit has always been the carrot, but the real aim is control of the resources of the member states by those who would dominate. That means Germany. Actually it means a rag tag of euro “ex” Marxist, statist lunatics (Merkel, Barroso etc..). Since democratic accountability would prevent that, the method used to aggregate this power must by definition be undemocratic in order to secure its aim. Since lack of accountability is damaging to the economic wellbeing of the subject, i.e. the member states that the dominators wish to dominate, the entire project has unobtainable aims since the necessary method (unaccountability) is actually antithetical to the stated aims (economic wellbeing). That those who are most enthusiastic about this do not understand this is most certainly true, but the fact that they don’t understand it, is exactly reason for not allowing them to try. If they truly are unaware that their actions can only have a negative outcome and they clearly deny or are happy to ignore the real empirical negative impacts of their choices, then based on this evidence, expecting any good to come of the EU is lunacy. Furthermore, based on this evidence, it is completely unrealistic to expect any other pattern from those in control since they don’t know they are doing anything wrong.

Hope is a fine thing. But hope in the face of considerable evidence of the futility of that hope is pathetic. I have voted Leave for the benefit of the people of Europe, and the benefit of the people of the UK.

Written by anubis

June 16th, 2016 at 9:47 am

EU membership referendum vote

without comments

VoteLeave

The €uro is the weapon of mass destruction that is causing Europe-wide economic ills. Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy will never be Germany, so the ‘needed’ internal deflationary adjustments will never occur in these economies as long as the €uro is their currency. Look at recent bank stock price falls for what is going on in the eurozone banking sector. Eventually (already happening actually) the resulting economic hardship will lead to violence.

There will never be ‘reform’ of the EU since its entire purpose is the opposite of the suggested aims of those who claim they would reform it. It is a political project to establish and strengthen an oligarchic dictatorship, free from interference by the ‘demos’, and this is being pursued regardless of the economic effects of its policies which, empirically undeniably, are failing.

So this is the only remedy that all sane people should follow, whether motivated by economic, political or constitutional considerations.

A #Brexit #VoteLeave is a vote for the good of Europe. A #Brexit vote will be the first step in freeing all peoples of the continent of Europe from the vile, anti-democratic crony fascism that is the EU.

When we leave, the resulting collapse of the €uro will free Europe (especially the south) from the €uro derived shackles of economic stagnation and will restart progress in the direction of cooperative economic and social well-being shared by free peoples….(Note plural).

Written by anubis

May 30th, 2016 at 7:36 am

Why we should leave the EU

without comments

Could Britain survive outside the EU?

There has for years now been a cynical and ruthless propaganda campaign to persuade us that Britain has no future outside Europe. This is nonsense. For example, take Switzerland, they ignored the encouragement of their Government and voted against joining the EU. But they have negotiated for themselves an excellent trade agreement – thereby putting a lie to the utterly false claim that no European country can possibly survive unless it becomes part of the EU.

The europhiles constantly argue that Britain would be ruined if she left Europe.

Oh, what porkies these people do tell.

As The Economist said recently: `…the idea that leaving (the EU) would be `economic suicide’ is nonsense’.

Examine what would happen if Britain pulled up the Tunnel and stopped paying subs to the big EU in Brussels.

1. The EU would impose its external tariff on British exports to Europe. This would make very little difference to British companies – most of whose exports go outside Europe anyway. The World Trade Organisation restricts the EU to an external tariff of around 6% so the effect would, in any case, be quite small. (Britain would almost certainly be able to negotiate for itself a smaller tariff – in the way that Switzerland has. This would drive down the cost of leaving the EU still further.)

2. If outside the EU, Britain would, inevitably, be outside the euro. There would be an exchange rate between the pound and the euro. In the long run this could well be to Britain’s advantage.

3. The external tariff on Britain’s imports from outside the EU would disappear. Britain would probably gain more from this than it would lose from the imposition of a tariff on British exports to Europe.

4. A Britain outside the EU would be able to make special trading deals with other countries – such as those in the Commonwealth. This could be hugely advantageous.

5. Europhiles claim that if Britain left the EU then countries from outside Europe (such as Japan and America) would invest less. This is nonsense. Britain attracts more outside investment (known to economists as `Foreign Direct Investment’) than other European countries because its labour market is still relatively unregulated. If it was outside the EU Britain could take advantage of its independence to reduce the number of regulations limiting foreign companies. EU regulations are already regarded as a minefield. Just ask some of the foreign companies who have had eurocrats leaping up and down all over them. Many would jump at the chance to invest in a less regulated part of Europe. The tariffs would be a small price to pay. Finally, even if FDI did fall, Britain would not necessarily lose since in an often irrational attempt to encourage foreign businesses (at the expense of British businesses) the British Government subsidises these investments. A subsidised outside investment may well not make money for the country!

The bottom line is that the British stand to lose nothing by leaving the EU.

If Britain left the EU it would leave behind an incompetent and power hungry bureaucracy which has consistently failed. If we left the EU they would not be able to do anything in revenge. Remember we have a trade deficit with the EU. (For example, we have a deficit of over £3 billion a year trade with Germany alone.) The EU countries desperately need our trade.

British politicians have supported the EU, lied and deceived the British voters and signed away rights and freedoms and they have claimed that they wanted Britain to have influence in Europe.

This is nonsense.

Britain has far less influence in Europe than it had ten, twenty or thirty years ago.

Politicians have sold out the voters to gain personal political influence.

Britain, and the British, have gained nothing from membership of the EU. But membership has cost a great deal.

Britain would survive and survive well outside the EU.

The people of Norway and Switzerland have voted against joining the EU – and have thrived. Greenland, once in the EU, escaped and has prospered since getting out. If they can do it so can Britain.

Britain would survive and prosper outside the EU. It would be richer and more powerful – and its citizens would regain their lost independence.

Britain’s trade is in surplus with every state in the world except the EU. If Britain left the EU it could regain power of its legal system, armed forces, and agricultural policies. Hundreds of thousands of small businesses would be saved from stifling bureaucracy. British is the worlds leading business language. British dominates the Internet. Our language means that we can trade with any other country in the world.
David Cameron won’t tell you this but Britain would be much richer if it left the EU. We would save a fortune. And be free of 30,000 rules.

The only people who would lose would be the politicians for whom the British stage is too small.

We could leave the EU in minutes. All we have to do is recall our ambassador to the EU.

(Did you know we had one? How, you might ask, can we have an ambassador to something we are supposed to be part of?) Withdrawing our ambassador would invalidate all treaties between Britain and the EU.

Or Parliament could simply repeal the Acts of Parliament which hold us to the EU.

Simple.

We could be out of the EU in minutes.

Written by anubis

February 20th, 2016 at 5:07 pm

Putin vs Obama

without comments

Putin and Obama Play Chess
Doug French, Contributing Editor

President Obama may have just turned the G8 into the G7 and dismissed Russia as a “regional power,” but this is no Bobby Fischer vs. Boris Spassky. In this geopolitical chess match, the Russian is outmaneuvering the American at every turn.

Putin’s antics are nothing new—he’s been quietly undermining the US for over a decade. Let’s examine some of his more successful gambits from the past, and see what they can tell us about the present.

Dropping Financial Bombs

In 1998, Russia defaulted on $40 billion of domestic debt, forcing the Federal Reserve to engineer a bailout of hedge fund Long Term Capital Management.

Three years later, Putin used the distraction of the Olympics to invade US ally Georgia. While the world was focused on the Beijing games, the Russian leader told George W. Bush, “War has started.”

But the Georgia invasion was nothing compared to the bomb Russia was dropping on US markets. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was in Beijing for a family trip to see the games, but he worried about Fannie and Freddie the whole time, as he was told the Russians had approached the Chinese to work together to dump their Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shares.

In his book On the Brink, Paulson wrote the motivation was “to force the US to use its emergency authorities to prop up these companies.” He went on, “The report was deeply troubling—heavy selling could create a sudden loss of confidence in the GSEs and shake the capital markets. I waited till I was back home and in a secure environment to inform the president.”

Of course, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied the bear raid conspiracy. To this day, the former Treasury secretary claims the two countries never carried out the plan. However, Russia did unload all $65.6 billion of its Fannie and Freddie debt that year.

As for the Chinese, Aaron Back reported for the Wall Street Journal in 2011, “China’s selloff of Fannie and Freddie securities in 2008 was widely credited with pushing up mortgage rates in the US at a time Washington was struggling to revive housing sales.”

He cited US Treasury data, writing, “China has been steadily selling its holdings of agency securities since mid-2008. It sold a net $24.67 billion worth of agency securities in 2009, and $27.35 billion in the first 11 months of 2010, according to the data.”

In the end, less than a month after Paulson was given that information in Beijing, the US government took over Fannie and Freddie and placed them into conservatorship.

Putin the Loan Shark

How many of the world’s leaders would have the foresight to structure a loan as a private-sector eurobond? One sovereign-debt expert called the structure of Russia’s $3 billion loan to Ukraine “clever.”

Here’s why: instead of handing aid money directly to Ukraine, Russia had the Ukrainian government float $3 billion in bonds denominated in euros. Russia then bought the bonds. But that’s not all—the Russians had a provision written into the bond that if the Ukraine’s debt-to-GDP level reached 60%, Russia could call the bonds for immediate payment.

Such a qualification in government bonds is very unusual. Mitu Gulati, a sovereign-bond expert, says he has never seen a government bond with a similar debt-to-GDP provision. Most sovereign debt is ‘covenant-lite.’”

Today, Ukraine has eurobonds outstanding to several countries, so stiffing only Russia isn’t an option, because it would hurt the price of all their debt. America’s beltway pundits agitating for a large aid package to Ukraine should realize that Putin’s foresight ensures that any US aid money will find its way to Moscow.

More Smart Than Lucky

After being out of office four years, Putin took over again in 2012. A year later, the Russian president didn’t just say the US was endangering the global economy with its dollar monopoly—he put Russia’s money where his mouth was. Putin made sure the world’s largest oil producer would become the biggest gold buyer as well, adding 570 tonnes in the last ten years, much of it on his watch.

“The more gold a country has, the more sovereignty it will have if there’s a cataclysm with the dollar, the euro, the pound, or any other reserve currency,” Evgeny Fedorov, a lawmaker for Putin’s United Russia, said in a telephone interview with Bloomberg.

Putin had his central bank start loading up on the yellow metal when the price was just $495 an ounce. This makes him either smarter or luckier than, say, former UK finance minister Gordon Brown, who sold 400 tonnes of the metal when gold traded under $300.

It’s safe to say Putin is smarter than your average politician. For instance, Saudi Arabia’s influential intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, met with Putin last year and offered to buy $15 billion worth of arms from Russia in return for Putin abandoning his support of Syria. Bandar even assured Putin that the Saudis would never sign an agreement allowing a gulf state to ship gas through Syria.

Putin just laughed. He knows a pipeline through Syria would mean Russia’s Gazprom would lose its European gas business to Qatar.

Zero Hedge pointed out last August, “What is shocking in all of this is that Saudi Arabia was so stupid and/or naïve to believe that Putin would voluntarily cede geopolitical control over the insolvent Eurozone, where he has more influence, according to some, than even the ECB or Bernanke. Especially in the winter.”

Saudi promises or not, Putin’s no dummy. Europe obtains 30% of its natural gas from Russia and half of that runs through Ukrainian pipelines. Putin’s energy stranglehold is strongest in Eastern Europe, where several individual countries are at Russia’s mercy: Slovakia relies on Russia for 93% of its gas; Poland (83%), Hungary (81%), the Czech Republic (66%), and Austria (61%) are captive customers of Russia, too.

Ukraine’s prime minister, Arse Yatsenyuk, says Russia could use energy as a “new nuclear weapon.” As it is, Ukraine is $1.89 billion behind in payments to Russian company Gazprom for gas.

Shunned by the West, Putin Looks East

Putin has been a laughingstock in the West for spending a reported $60 billion on the Sochi winter games. But while the world was focusing on curling and ice dancing, he was amassing troops at the Crimea border and managed to engineer a bloodless annexation before the Paralympics were over.

In response, the most powerful country in the world sanctioned a few Russian individuals and a mid-size bank Putin does business with. This toothless action gave Putin another laugh, and he responded by imposing some sanctions of his own on John Boehner, Harry Reid, and others, as well as 13 Canadians.

While Obama and Angela Merkel make nasty noises in Russia’s direction, Reuters reports, “The Holy Grail for Moscow is a natural gas supply deal with China that is apparently now close after years of negotiations. If it can be signed when Putin visits China in May, he will be able to hold it up to show that global power has shifted eastwards and he does not need the West.”

“The worse Russia’s relations are with the West, the closer Russia will want to be to China. If China supports you, no one can say you’re isolated,” said Vasily Kashin, a China expert at the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) think tank.

Russia is also looking to redirect the flow of its oil. “Russia is trying to diversify its energy flows away from its core European markets,” according to Reuters, “with Rosneft leading the race with plans to triple oil flows to China to over 1 million barrels per day in coming years.”

Rosneft is the top oil producer in the world and is run by Putin ally Igor Sechin. Sechin wrapped up a recent Asian trip by meeting with the folks at India’s state-run Oil and Natural Gas Corp ONGC, Reliance Industries, an Indian conglomerate, and India’s biggest refiner Indian Oil Corporation. China and India’s combined population is over 2.5 billion. That’s a lot of potential customers.

Experience Matters

Vladimir Putin worked as a KGB officer stationed in East Germany from 1975 to 1989. While the future Russian president worked the front lines of the Cold War, the future US president was going to high school in Hawaii, followed by college in Los Angeles and New York, before heading to Chicago to become a community organizer.

When Putin was instructing his central bank to buy gold, Barack Obama was learning to navigate Capitol Hill as a freshly minted US senator. Obama was on the presidential campaign trail spouting empty campaign slogans when Russia orchestrated the meltdown of Fannie and Freddie.

Today, Obama is waging multiple wars around the globe while gumming up the US economy with increased regulation and the highest corporate taxes in the world. Putin? He’s busy selling oil and gas and buying gold. It doesn’t seem like a fair fight.

Besides having gold, oil, natural gas, palladium, and any number of other critical natural assets, Russia has improved its government’s finances manyfold while the United States has been borrowing its way to insolvency. Russia’s current debt-to-GDP ratio is 8.4%, after being a reported 57% when it defaulted on its debt. Uncle Sam is going in the opposite direction. US debt to GDP was 60% when Russia defaulted in 1998—now it is over 100%.

The bottom line is that Russia is anything but “regional.” Obama should realize Putin’s ground troops are the least of America’s worries. The Russian president’s financial moves are what affect us all. And he’s running circles around Obama in the places it counts—from forging relationships with China and India to his accumulation of gold.

Written by anubis

March 29th, 2014 at 6:12 pm

Posted in Economics,Government

State of the Union

without comments

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, fellow citizens:

This summer we will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I.

This senseless, destructive war was started and championed by politicians who cared nothing for the 9 million people who lost their lives.

And in doing so, they began a century of warfare which continues to this day.

Our military industrial complex is larger than ever. We have nearly 2 million troops and national guardsmen, plus 3.5 million civilians employed in the defense sector.

With such awesome capabilities, we continue to resort to violence and death to exact political goals which benefit a tiny elite.

All of this has created a police state in the Land of the Free that is a far cry from the country we all grew up in.

Your government has spawned a culture of fear and intimidation. Nearly every federal agency, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, has its own gun-toting police force to pistol-whip citizens into submission.

And we’re stocking up. Your government has recently procured 1.6 BILLION rounds of hollow-point ammunition to supplement our existing supplies.

But frankly, we don’t need guns to harass citizens.

Our tax authorities have become more threatening than mafia warlords. The plunder is so severe that record numbers of Americans are renouncing their citizenship and leaving the country.

There are now dozens of federal, state, and local agencies and courts which have the power to confiscate your assets without any due process.

In addition to your house, your business, and your savings, we also have the authority to take your children away from you as if they are property of the state.

We are here to tell you what you can and cannot put in your own body, or whether you can collect rainwater that falls on own property.

In fact, on any given business day, the federal government issues hundreds of pages of new ‘rules’, proposed regulations, draft bills, executive orders, and/or regulatory notices.

And if you are not compliant with these rules, you may be committing a crime. Whether you know it or not.

When this nation was founded, there were four federal crimes on the books. Today there are THOUSANDS. Plus we have millions of government employees at all levels to enforce the penalties.

All of this, of course, is financed by you the tax slave.

You (plus unborn generations) are the poor suckers charged with paying off the national debt we politicians have created.

Officially the debt is just north of $17 trillion. But if you include Social Security and pension shortfalls, the figure is several times higher.

You’ll never know for sure because we have become masters of deceit regarding official statistics, whether inflation, unemployment, or our liabilities.

But the situation is so dire that the Congressional Budget Office projects the Social Security Administration’s disability insurance trust fund to RUN OUT by 2017.

We get by year after year by increasing the debt. And at well over 100% of GDP, we have truly reached the point of no return.

We are now in a position where we must default. Either we must default on our national debt, or we must default on our obligations to you the citizens.

We may end up stealing your savings. Robbing your Social Security. Taxing you to death. Or simply inflating away the value of our debt.

Naturally, we’re going to screw you in the process somehow… so be prepared for that. Especially the inflationary tidal wave that’s coming.

Our central bank has expanded its balance sheet at an unprecedented pace, creating massive asset bubbles in its wake. These asset bubbles have disproportionately benefited the ultra-wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

Such wanton money printing has also been tremendously destructive to our credibility. Other nations worry about our reckless irresponsibility. That’s why we keep spying on them.

Make no mistake: the consequences of our actions are here. And the days of the United States as the world’s dominant superpower are finished.

As the decline hastens, we will struggle to sell our debt to the world and to ship our dollars abroad. Fewer nations will be interested in our empty promises.

And without the generosity of other nations loaning us money at record low interest rates that fail to keep pace with inflation, you will really be screwed.

When this happens, you can absolutely count on us to clamp down even harder on the economy and control even more of your lives. For your own good, of course.

No, this may not be the country that you all grew up in. But it is the state of our union… whatever remains of it.

And so my fellow Americans, I urge you to grab your ankles and get ready for a little ‘shared sacrifice’.

But don’t worry about me, or my senior staff. We will leave government with cushy pensions, $750,000 speaking fees, board seats on public companies, and top positions in the industries that we have accommodated at your expense.

And of course I will be paid handsomely for the arrogant memoirs I will write in which I deny any responsibility for the shit I’ve gotten you all into.

So when I say “shared sacrifice”, I really mean “your sacrifice”.

Thank you. God bless you, and God bless these United States of America.

Written by anubis

March 29th, 2014 at 6:12 pm