Economic news of fundamental importance to your readers - this is U.S. and Canadian economic news of such relevance that you must heed the economic importance…it deals with the comments by Alan Greenspan yesterday and some absolutely shocking news from Canada today.

First, a bit of context - I wrote an article to David Icke elucidating my concerns over a global market transformation which would see a major clash of labour and business (see authors Ravi Batra; Linda McQuaig; Robert Monks and Herschel Hardin)

Today, current economic ideology is directed towards supply-side economics and some of the theories of Milton Friedman of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Essentially, he advocates that money growth should equal economic output to control inflation. Inflation is the darkest word in economics today and is one of the least understood, as I will identify, and the most abused.

Let me tie into this the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). The BIS was formed in 1930 through the Hague Convention to control, essentially, world loans and the monetary policies of nations. Does it surprise you to learn that its core Council is made up of 10 Bank Governors of the 10 wealthiest countries in the world? ( Is it a surprise we had a world depression soon after its formation in 1930? It is such an elite group that President Clinton couldn’t join it as the leader of the free world.

Let me underscore they control all aspects of world markets (see Linda McQuaig for more detail and read their mandate - it is a scare).

In their June 9, 1997 Annual Report, the BIS said, emphatically, “inflation should generally be less of a problem in the near future than in earlier decades.” Although Central Banks knew inflation was not a factor, nor would it be a factor in the economy, they continued to pursue policies to “stop inflation.”

What was the result of these policies, which were pursued in light of the fact inflation was not a problem? In 1999, the BIS Annual Report states that in the United States “household saving rates have fallen to historical lows.”

Historical lows! In a booming economy!

What does this have to do with Alan Greenspan? He said, as quoted in the New York Times today, that he has to put the brakes on the economy because the “right pace of growth for the economy would be where household wealth grows no faster than household income.” Increases to wealth (this means assets like stocks, houses, cars, etc,) outpaced incomes by double last year. This is a major, major policy shift and worthy of note.

This means that in the biggest bull market in the history of the world, we have a situation where the Federal Reserve Chairman, who sits on the BIS, can create a major market pullback (the DOW is in an official correction, having fallen 10% from its high) by raising interest rates. And he wants to raise interest rates because wealth is increasing too fast.

Interest rate hikes will likely cause individual investors to lose more of their wealth because of investment losses. This is compounded by the fact that individual savings are at historic lows.

And these people will lose their wealth because Mr. Greenspan is apparently changing the Friedman rules by adding a new twist - world banks will control the markets, not by examining growth and money supply, but by examining INCOME and WEALTH.

What makes this worse for the individual citizen, besides their massive debt load and low savings, is that the BIS had stated previously that inflation IS NOT A CONCERN.

If inflation is not a concern by the BIS, and believe me you have to sift through some pretty rude, bland language to discover this in the BIS annual report, if you can stop falling asleep while reading this bunk, why is Mr. Greenspan always worried about it?

Simple - world banks always stifle individual wealth as part of a greater conspiracy to control the public through worry about finances and jobs. Further, they want to flatten wages by creating unemployment. In 1987, the BIS reported that there was too much employment in industrialized nations and that unemployment had to rise (see BIS web site; see Linda McQuaig, a Canadian author) Pull no bones about it - even though the BIS said there were no inflation fears, their major monetary policies always appear to be directed to keeping wage levels flat, under the guise of inflation worries. Every one of their annual reports is focused on wage increases and they discuss it to the point of obsession.

The circle is complete - we have an admission, finally, that WEALTH is a concern of the world banks. Governments do not want wealth to outpace income and they will do everything to ensure incomes drop (through rises in unemployment) and wealth drops (losses on the markets).

In effect, our governments are controlled puppets who create the illusion that there is doom on the horizon and through this doom, or inflation if you will, our governments decide to take significant actions to protect you - they make your wealth drop, rise, drop, rise and this cycle repeats itself every time.

Why are they puppets?- well, read the text of Mr. Greenspan’s speech yesterday. The Financial Post reported today that Mr. Greenspan warned the U.S. government NOT TO CUT TAXES. “The Fed chairman also repeated his view that projected budget surpluses over the next 10 years should not be repaid in tax cuts, but should be used to reduce public debt,” the article by Gerard Baker states.

How will the Fed guarantee that tax cuts won’t happen? Why, they will raise interest rates of course - you get a double whammy - the costs of governments to borrow go up, therefore increasing this line item on the budget (therefore governments will argue they can’t afford tax cuts) and it stifles growth, raising unemployment and flattening wages.

The Financial Post notes that republican candidates George Bush and John McCain are “locked in a debate over how to use the surplus.” Mr. Greenspan could make that debate moot by simply raising interest rates. It is a reality that governments take their cue from central banks, who seem to take their cue from their own internal cliques.

What is so astonishing is that Mr. Greenspan came right out and boldly articulated the new wealth/income formula as a reason to stop economic growth and to put the brakes to this growth.

The seriousness of this to a nations sovereignty should not be lost here - today, the National Post (one of Canada’s biggest newspapers) reported that “Canada risks seeing its standard of living slide to only 50% of that in the United States within 10 years, a deterioration that would threaten the country’s survival, said John McCallum, Royal Bank chief economist.”

The Royal Bank is Canada’s largest bank. Readers should also be aware that in Canada, we have pursued the BIS economic agenda so tightly that you could argue we are the grand experiment. Linda McQuaig devotes much time in her books to the weird economic and monetary policies followed by our central bank, the Bank of Canada, and concludes we have been the subject of BIS policies to their fullest. Just look where it is getting us - to a level of wealth 50% lower than that of the U.S.

The BIS formula, when pursued, produces exquisite results - low wealth and even lower incomes and Canada is proving it over and over again. Canada has experienced the worst growth in incomes in the industrialized nations and dropped behind Denmark and Norway in our share of GDP per capita, it was reported by Alan Toulin in the National Post.

Canada pursued a BIS sponsored (the BIS assisted Canada by congratulating us on these steps as our governments could say they were doing the right thing) high interest rate policy, when every other country dropped their rates, and it cost us dearly. McQuaig notes that it stifled economic growth and caused our very massively high unemployment rates to drop very, very slowly and nowhere near the drop experienced in the U.S. She attributes Canada’s strange economic policies to the BIS and she was quite a vocal opponent of Canada following the BIS strategy.

This is no joke - economic policies are being pursued which will have a three-fold effect: incomes will drop or remain flat; wealth will fall; taxes will not be cut.

I proved the reduction of wealth and income scenarios - how do I prove the tax drop issue? Look at Canada, the BIS experiment, again. In their Tax Report on April 17, 1998, the National Post reported that Canada is one of the highest taxed nations in the industrialized world and taxes exceed the total for food, shelter and clothing.

Will Canada see a tax cut? Not likely. The prime Minister announced we have to pay down the debt with our budget surplus and that tax cuts would affect this initiative.

Sound familiar? Alan Greenspan said the exact same thing yesterday.

Wake up.

private News report from Canada

Back to the Americas Menu
Back to News Archive Menu

Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.