Υπό "παρακολούθηση" ο Βουλγαράκης! Από τον Λυκούργο Σκαμνιώτη . Ένας από τους βουλευτές της ΝΔ που έχει τεθεί, σύμφωνα με πληροφ...
ο Βουλγαράκης!
Από τον Λυκούργο Σκαμνιώτη.
Αιτία, αυτά που διαδίδουν άσπονδοι εσωκομματικοί του φίλοι ότι ο κ. Βουλγαράκης μπορεί και να εξυπηρετείται πολιτικά ο ίδιος από μια επίσπευση των εκλογικών διαδικασιών μέσω της παραπομπής Παυλίδη στο Ειδικό Δικαστήριο.
Είναι προφανές ότι...
ο πρώην υπουργός μπορεί να ελέγχεται για πολλά όσον αφορά την περίοδο που θήτευσε στην κυβέρνηση, αμέσως μετά τις εκλογές του 2004, αλλά δεν ασπάζεται αυτή τη φημολογία.
Όσα ακούγονται όμως είναι ενδεικτικά της κατάστασης που επικρατεί στο κυβερνητικό στρατόπεδο.
.jpg)
.JPG.webp)
Ρε γελεία Ν(εο) Δ(ουλικά) υποκείμενα δεν κουραστήκατε να αναρτάτε τα ίδια σχόλια???
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήΡε μαλακοδεξιοί μας έχετε πείσει πόσο καθυστερημένα ανθρωπάκια είστε.
Ρε χαζοβιόληδες δεν είναι απαραίτητο να προσπαθήσετε άλλο για να μας αποδείξετε τη μαλάκυνση του εγκεφάλου σας.
Σας πιστεύουμε ρεεεεε κωθωωωωωώνια.
Ρε άχρηστοι μαζέψτε τον Κωστάκη σας, τα γουβαδάκια σας και δροοοοοοόμο!!!!!!!!!
Το ΝΤΟΡΑΚΙ στην σχολή που φοίτησε πως να μην μάθει πως να τρώει, να τρώει, να τρώει. Με τέτοια Δασκάλα. Από Οικογένεια που σε όλη της τη ζωή έτρωγε , έτρωγε , έτρωγε και σκασμό δεν είχε. Σαν ΑΓΕΛΑΔΟΜΟΥΣΧΑΡΟ είναι.
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήΠρος τους κατοίκους των
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήΠαραμεθορίων νησιών Αγαθονήσου
κ . λ . π .
Πολίτες Έλληνες όπως καταλαβαίνετε
η πολιτεία σας έγραψε στα αρχίδιατης .
Τι θα κάνετε ;;;;;;
Θα σας έρθουν οι λαθρομετανάστες στα σπίτια σας.
Να τους ταΐσετε και να πηδήξουν τις γυναίκες σας ,
τις κόρες σας να σας κλέψουν να σας κωλύσουν
ανίατες αρρώστιες ;;;;;
Η να αμυνθείτε ;;;;;;;;;
Πάρτε τα όπλα σας πηγαίνετε στις παράλιες
Και μόλις έρχονται τα λεφούσια οι λαθρομετανάστες ,
η πράκτορες με διατεταγμένη υπηρεσία,
ΠΥΡ ΚΑΤΑ ΒΟΥΛΗΣΗΝ
Η ΜΟΝΗ ΣΩΣΤΗ ΑΠΟΦΑΣΗ ΚΑΙ ΟΡΙΣΤΙΚΗ ΛΥΣΗ
ΚΥΡΙΕ ΒΟΥΛΓΑΡΑΚΗ ΜΑΣ ΣΥΓΚΙΝΗΣΕ ΟΛΟΥΣ ΕΜΑΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΣΚΕΠΤΟΜΕΝΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΥΑΙΣΘΗΤΟΥΣ.. ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ!!...Η ΦΟΒΕΡΗ ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ ΣΑΣ ..ΝΑ ΑΥΤΟΜΑΣΤΙΓΩΘΕΙΤΕ ΣΤΟ ΣΥΝΤΑΓΜΑ ΓΙΑ ΧΑΡΗΝ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑΛΛΗΛΟΤΕΡΟΥ..ΑΠΟ ΤΟΤΕ ΠΕΡΑΣΕ ΑΡΚΕΤΟΣ ΚΑΙΡΟΣ..ΑΛΛΑ ΤΟ ΜΑΣΤΙΓΩΜΑ ΔΕΝ ΤΟ ΕΙΔΑΜΕ ..ΧΑΣΑΤΕ ΤΟ ΜΑΣΤΙΓΙΟ?ΣΕ ΟΛΑ ΤΑ ΚΑΝΑΛΙΑ ΣΕ ΟΛΕΣ ΤΙΣ ΣΥΝΕΝΤΕΥΞΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΣΤΟΝ ΕΝΤΥΠΟ ΤΥΠΟ.. ΤΑ ΣΤΕΛΕΧΗ ΤΗΣ ΝΔ ΒΡΙΣΚΟΝΤΑΙ ΣΕ ΔΥΣΚΟΛΗ ΚΑΙ ΑΜΥΝΤΙΚΗ ΘΕΣΗ..ΑΡΕ ΑΘΛΙΟΙ ΠΟΥ ΚΑΤΑΝΤΗΣΑΤΕ..ΠΛΕΟΝ ΔΕΝ ΠΡΟΚΑΛΕΙΤΕ ΟΡΓΗ ΚΑΙ ΑΓΑΝΑΚΤΗΣΗ ΑΛΛΑ ..ΚΑΙ ΘΛΙΨΗ..ΟΙΚΤΟ ..ΚΑΤΑΝΤΙΑ ΡΕ..ΑΝΤΕ ΟΣΟ ΠΙΟ ΓΡΗΓΟΡΑ ΞΕΚΟΥΜΠΗΣΤΕΙΤΕ ΤΟΣΟ ΚΑΛΥΤΕΡΑ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΛΑΟ..ΧΩΡΙΣ ΒΕΒΑΙΑ ΝΑ ΕΡΘΟΥΝ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΞΟΥΣΙΑ ΤΑ ΠΡΑΣΙΝΑ ..ΚΑΛΟΠΑΙΔΑ..ΤΑ ΦΙΛΑΡΑΚΙΑ ΣΑΣ..ΓΙΑΤΙ ΘΑ ΕΧΟΥΜΕ ΠΑΛΙ ΜΙΑ ΑΠΟ ΤΑ ΙΔΙΑ..ΤΑ ΙΔΙΑ ΣΟΟΥ..ΚΑΙΝΟΥΡΓΙΕΣ ΑΠΕΙΛΕΣ ΓΙΑ ΑΥΤΟΜΑΣΤΙΓΩΜΑΤΑ.. ΑΛΛΑ ΑΠΟ ΠΡΑΣΙΝΕΣ ΥΠΗΡΕΤΡΙΕΣ.ΕΠΙΤΕΛΟΥΣ ΝΑ ΑΝΑΣΑΝΕΙ Η ΧΩΡΑ ΚΑΙ ΧΩΡΙΣ ΓΑΛΑΖΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΠΡΑΣΙΝΑ ΑΥΤΟΜΑΣΤΙΓΩΜΑΤΑ..ΚΑΙ ΜΑΥΡΑ ΒΕΒΑΙΑ
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήΔεν υπάρχει σήμερα ένας
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήΑξιωματικός να φορεί παντελόνια
Οι επαναστάτες και οι ήρωες
Τι έγιναν ;;;;;;;;;;
ΦΤΑΝΕΙ ΠΙΑ ΜΑΣ ΚΟΥΡΑΣΑΤΕ ΠΑΣΟΚ-ΝΔ ΔΕΝ ΠΑΕΙ ΑΛΛΟ ΦΤΑΝΕΙ.ΣΥΝΤΟΜΑ ΘΑ ΠΑΡΕΤΕ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΝ ΛΑΟ ΤΗΝ ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΗ ΠΟΥ ΣΑΣ ΠΡΕΠΕΙ!
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήΝταβατζηδες κουμπαροι πουτανες λαμογια πνιξαν με τα γαλαζοπρασινα σκατα τους την χωρα.Αντε βρε 188 χρονια μας πηρε σαν λαος να σας καταλαβουμε.. . καλιο αργα παρα ποτε!
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήΒοηθάτε Χριστιανοί...
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήΤΟ ΠΑΣΟΚ μοιράζει- ΔΑΝΕΙΖΕΙ κάρτες.
Μετά την πράσινη κάρτα μέλους,
την πράσινη πιστωτική κάρτα και
το πράσινο Email, ο κομματικός οπαδός-πρόβατο θα έχει κατοχυρώσει πλήρως τα δικαιώματά του για τακτικό άρμεγμα από το κόμμα
του ώστε να μην πήξει τα γάλα
στα στήθια του και πάθει καμιά ζημιά η υγεία του. Επίσης θα
έχει απαλλαγεί οριστικά από το βασανιστικό προβληματισμό του
τι να ψηφίσει σε κάθε εκλογική αναμέτρηση.
Λίγο τόχεις και τούτο να μη χρειάζεται να σκέπτεσαι και να κρίνεις το κόμμα σου; Να μη χρειάζεται να εκδώσεις ποτέ διαζύγιο και να καταπατήσεις
τον ιερό όρκο: «Oυς το κόμμα συνέζευξε, άνθρωπος μη χωριζέτω»;
Φημολογείται μάλιστα, ότι αργότερα, επειδή οι ληστείες πληθαίνουν στον τόπο μας, και
για να μην κινδυνεύει ο οπαδός-πρόβατο να χάσει τις πολύτιμες πράσινες κάρτες του, θα λάβει στο μέτωπο και στον καρπό τα χάραγμα του ΠΑΣΟΚ, κάτι ανάλογο με το χάραγμα του Αντιχρίστου που αναφέρει η Αποκάλυψη του Ιωάννου.
Η διαφορά θα είναι στα νούμερα
που δεν θα είναι τρία εξάρια αλλά πέντε, όσα και τα γράμματα του ακρωνυμίου του μεγάλου σοσιαλιστικού κόμματος της Ελλάδας.
λαμογιοσκατοφατσα
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήΡΕ ΜΑΛΑΚΕΣ,5 ΧΡΟΝΙΑ ΤΩΡΑ ΓΡΑΦΕΤΕ ΚΑΘΕ ΜΕΡΑ ΣΕΝΑΡΙΑ ΕΠΙ ΣΕΝΑΡΙΩΝ,Ο ΤΑΔΕ ΘΑ ΚΑΝΕΙ ΑΥΤΟ,Ο ΔΕΙΝΑ ΕΚΕΙΝΟ, ΠΕΦΤΕΙ Η ΚΥΒΕΡΝΗΣΗ,ΦΕΥΓΕΙ Ο ΒΟΥΛΕΥΤΗΣ,ΔΕΝ ΘΑ ΨΗΦΙΣΗ Ο ΕΝΑΣ, ΔΕΝ ΘΑ ΠΕΙΘΑΡΧΙΣΗ Ο ΑΛΛΟΣ,ΚΑΘΕ ΜΕΡΑ ΜΠΟΥΡΔΟΛΟΓΕΙΤΕ ΑΣΥΣΤΟΛΑ,ΤΩΡΑ ΣΑΣ ΗΡΘΕ ΣΤΗΝ ΚΟΥΤΡΑ Ο ΜΑΛΑΚΑΣ Ο ΒΟΥΛΓΑΡΑΚΗΣ.ΑΠΟΡΩ ΠΩΣ,ΜΗΠΩΣ ΤΟ ΓΑΡ ΠΟΛΥ ΤΗΣ ΘΛΙΨΕΩΣ ΓΕΝΝΑ ΠΑΡΑΦΡΟΣΥΝΗ?ΕΥΣΕΒΕΙΣ ΠΟΘΟΙ Η ΑΝΑΚΤΗΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΕΞΟΥΣΙΑΣ.ΕΙΝΑΙ ΠΟΛΛΑ ΤΑ ΛΕΦΤΑ ΦΙΛΕ.ΑΜΟΛΑΣ ΕΝΑ ΣΥΜΦΩΝΑ ΜΕ ΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΙΕΣ, ΠΟΥ ΣΤΙΣ ΕΔΩΣΕ Η ΠΕΘΕΡΑ ΣΟΥ.ΕΤΟΙΜΑΖΟΣΑΣΤΕ ΓΙΑ ΠΛΙΑΤΣΙΚΟ ΠΟΥ ΤΟ ΞΕΡΕΤΕ ΠΟΛΥ ΚΑΛΑ.
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήA formal and adequate definition of money is surprisingly difficult to give since throughout human history what has been perceived as money and the variety of objects enlisted as money is long indeed. Moreover, such a definition of money has been complicated by the efforts of various writers who have striven to define the term such that it would give support and succour to their particular socio-economic theories. However, these difficulties notwithstanding a simple definition of money can be given:
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήMoney is whatever people agree it is ...
or
Money is anything that is widely used for making payments and accounting for debts and credits
Furthermore, the greatest and most important function that money performs in society is, clearly, that it facilitates exchange vis-à-vis wealth or value. Before money, men used the primitive system of barter; however, the period of mere barter had passed before the time of the great Hebrew Patriarch, Abraham c.2000 BC. This was because the move from pastoral existence to urbanisation and the separation of employments into specialised fields necessitated a more sophisticated medium of exchange than barter could possibly afford. In short: urbanisation and industrial organisation is based upon the division of labour that is only possible through the agency of a medium of exchange. This is because the increasing specialisation of labour established a social order in which the individual produced little or nothing for the direct satisfaction of his own wants, and had perforce to live by exchanging his product for the products of others. Such an arrangement could only endure if an article existed that would be willingly accepted by all for the fruits of their labours: that is, an agency of value -money- the individual would accept for their special products. The adoption of money as an article of wealth exchange was crucial to the development of human society for it facilitated the growth of society from pastoralism to high culture and civilisation. For without "money" the difficulty of bringing together persons with reciprocal wants would have been an insurmountable obstacle to that development of exchange, which alone made division of labour possible, which is the prerequisite to civilised existence.
The second important function of money is to provide a ready means for estimating the comparative values of different commodities. For, common sense tells us that without some common object as a standard of comparison this would be practically impossible. For example, if a clockmaker had only clocks and wanted to buy bread, meat or a horse, it would problematical to determine how much bread he ought to obtain for a clock or how many clocks he should give for a horse. Moreover, the problems of equivalence increased as the number of commodities concerned increased, for each commodity would have to be quoted in terms of every other commodity. Thus, the societal imperative through the ages and within cultures to establish a common currency of exchange or "common object" that could be used as a medium of exchange and to determine comparative values of different commodities. By the selection of some particular article, the "common object," as the criterion the comparison of values is made much easier. Thus, the chosen commodity becomes a common denominator, common measure or "common object" of value in terms of which the value of all other goods are estimated. By such an arrangement, the "common object" –money- not only renders exchange possible by acting as an intermediate term in each transfer but also makes exchanges easier by making them definite.
Throughout history there has been a great variety of "common objects" or "money" which have been used to supply the need of a circulating medium ranging from seashells, feathers, animal skins, cattle, sheep, goats, oxen, pig, amber, ivory, jade, glass beads, silver and gold coin, paper currency and, today, electronic debit cards. Consequently, money in its various forms has been the great agency for transmitting values from place to place. Furthermore, the Form of Money or is not important since these are so diverse and are merely symbols that represent economic value to a particular people at a specific in a convenient and commercially acceptable forms. Furthermore, "value" is a subjective and therefore a psychological concept, which is independent of the purely mechanical aspects of economics.
Another important function of money arose at a later stage in Western culture when the economic infrastructure and its participants became more sophisticated and trusting of each other and entered into relations arising from "contracts." That is, an agreement that something is to be done in the future for which payment will be given and received. Naturally, for an estimation of the value of that future act a standard is thus required and so money which has already acted as a medium of exchange and as a measure of value at a given time, performs a third function, by affording an approximate means of estimating the present value of the future act. Here, money may be regarded as a standard of value or of deferred payments.
Thus, there are four important functions of Money:
That it supplies the common medium by which exchanges are made possible, that is, it facilitates exchange vis-à-vis wealth or value. Money is thus a commodity universally accepted in exchange for goods, services and for the discharge of debts or contracts.
That it supplies the common measure by which the comparative values of those exchanges are estimated. That is, to provide a ready means for estimating the comparative values of different commodities. Money thus acts as a measure of value and a unit of account, a common standard that makes the operation of the price system possible and provides the basis for keeping accounts and calculating cost, profit, and loss.
That it supplies the standard by which future obligations are determined. That is, money affords an approximate means of estimating the present value of future acts conveniently called "contracts" whereby it functions as "deferred payments." Money thus serves as a standard of deferred payments; the unit in which loans are made and future transactions are fixed providing the commonly accepted basis for borrowing and lending. Importantly, it facilitates credit the primary feature in the contemporary economy.
That it provides a store of wealth, a convenient form - high value in small bulk- in which to hold any income not immediately required for use. That is, money provides a reserve of ready purchasing power and is the only completely liquid asset i.e. one readily convertible into other goods.
Briefly, then, money is a commodity accepted by consensus as a medium of economic exchange, i.e. the "common object." It is the medium in which prices and values are expressed, it facilitates trade by circulating from person to person and country to country and it is the principal measure of wealth and acts as a store of value; for in no other way could a large body of wealth be concentrated. However, although the term "money" has come to include anything that functions as money there has been considerable hesitation in more prudent circles to extend the term to those forms of credit that are in modern societies the chief instrument of exchange e.g. "Bonds" and "Derivatives."
The employment of metals as money material is a recent phenomenon in human history and was probably invented in Lydia when the king, Gyges, struck the earliest coins in the 7th century BC. These coins were called "staters" and were made of electrum, an alloy of gold and silver. Later, gold was coined, and, by the time of Croesus, the last king of Lydia (reigned c.560–46) renowned for his great wealth, gold and silver coins were in circulation. The Persians used the staters of Lydia, which were current there under Cyrus II the Great the eventual conqueror of Lydia. The Persians adopted the Lydian model, and coined both gold and silver coins called "darics", named after Darius Hystaspes (521-485 BC) who is reputed to have introduced the system into the Persian Empire. A silver coin circulating in Persia in conjunction with the gold daric was the so-called silver darics, 20 of which were equivalent to the gold daric, it was called the "siglos" and was known to the ancient Hebrews who translated this as "shekel" (Neh. 5:15)
Base metals have been used frequently by past cultures; for instance, iron was widely used as currency in antiquity, especially in Greece. An early Chinese currency was a bimetallic coin minted in copper and iron, which later was used as a subsidiary coinage in Japan. This combination also figured in the first Hebrew coins. The use of copper as money has been more extensive than is the case in respect to the metals just mentioned. It, as stated, was used in China along with iron an early instance of bimetallism and it figured in the first Hebrew coins. Copper was the sole Roman coinage until 269 BC and it has endured as a part of the token coinage modern currencies. However, it is the intrinsic value of two metals –gold and silver- that has given them, the precious metals, pre-eminence as the media of exchange between people. Silver especially was a favourite material for money and was the chief form of money until the end of the 18th century. Silver was the principal Greek money material, as it was in Rome after 269 BC as it was also the leading constituent in the currencies of medieval Europe. Although silver was until the end of the 18th century the chief form of money, and often looked on as forming the necessary standard substance of value, gold became pre-eminent as money in the Victorian era. Although gold was always treasured by past peoples its use as ubiquitous coinage is a recent phenomenon and until recently the pre-eminence of gold as money was beyond dispute.
&
Reasons for their Adoption as Monetary Standards
In the course of monetary evolution, there has been a long process of selection and elimination as the qualities that are especially desirable in the articles used for money has changed through time and across cultures. However, two salient facts emerge regarding the use of the varied materials of currency, both metallic and non-metallic:
That the metals tend to supersede all other forms of money among progressive communities;
That the more valuable metals displace the less valuable ones.
There seven primary reasons for this are:
The material of money must have the attributes of wealth; i.e. that it is useful, transferable and limited in supply. These conditions are essential to the existence of value and any instrument for measuring and transferring values must possess them.
The amount of value in proportion to weight or mass must be inversely proportional. That is, high value in small bulk is very desirable since it gives the quality of portability, want of which was a fatal obstacle to the continued use of many early forms of money e.g. Skins, corn, tobacco, iron and copper. Animals, such as Sheep, goats, camels, horses and oxen, although self-moving, are expensive to transport from place to place.
The material of money should be uniform so that one unit shall be equal in value to another is a necessity, which is as decidedly lacking in cattle-currency as it is prominent in the metals.
The material of money must be capable of being divided without loss of value, and, if needed, of being reunited. Most of the articles used in primitive societies such as seashells, eggs, skins and cattle do not have this quality.
The material of money should also be durable, which excludes all animal and most vegetable substances from the class of suitable currency materials.
The material of money must be easily recognised as of a given value. Articles otherwise well fitted for money-use, e.g. precious stones, suffer through the difficulty of estimating their value.
The material of money, functioning as a standard of value, should alter in its own value as little as possible. That is, money should not alter within short periods, which is a characteristic of the more valuable metals, and particularly of silver and gold. However, complete fixity of value is from the nature of things unattainable so the nearest to this ideal that can be secured is desirable. This quality - fixity of value- was not of great importance in early societies for future obligations were few and piddling. However, in more complex societies, and especially with the growth of mercantilism, industry and commerce in Western civilisation and the expansion of the system of contracts, covering a distant future, the baneful effects of a shifting standard of value became problematical in currency movements around the globe. Solutions to this problem have spawned ingenious devices to correct fluctuations … devices that have ultimately sown the seeds of destruction of the modern fiat monetary regime with its floating-exchange system.
Thus, metals to a greater degree than non-metals possess the requisites desirable in the material of money. Moreover, these desirable qualities can be reducible to this: Metals are durable, homogeneous, divisible and recognisable, and because of these superior advantages they were, until very recently, the only substances used for money by advanced nations. However, not all metals are equal in their desirability as a store of wealth or their use as money. Iron was rejected because of its low value and its liability to rust, lead because of its softness, and tin from its tendency to break. More importantly, all these metals and their alloys, as well as copper, are unsuitable due to their low value, which hinders their speedy transmission so as to adjust inequalities of local prices. Once the cheaper metals are excluded as suitable materials for forming principal currencies what was left was silver and gold. Moreover, in the late Victorian era there was a very decided movement towards the adoption of gold as the sole monetary standard, with silver being regarded as suitable only for a subsidiary coinage. The reasons for gold and silver being the most suitable materials for currency are by virtue of their special features and can be summarised thus:
The value of gold and silver changes by slow degrees i.e. fixity of value;
Gold and silver are readily divisible, which may be reunited by means of fusion without loss;
Gold and silver do not deteriorate by being kept;
Gold and silver are firm and compact texture makes them difficult to wear;
The cost of production, especially of gold, is so considerable that they possess great value in small bulk, and can of course be transported with comparative facility;
The identity of gold and silver is perfect.
Richard Cantillon (died 1734) the Irish economist and financier who wrote one of the earliest treatises on modern economics and whose treatment of the theory of money was of pioneering importance give a pithy description why both these metals posses all the qualities needed in money. Gold and silver, wrote Cantillon, are alone are of small volume, of equal goodness, easy of transport, divisible without loss, easily guarded, beautiful and brilliant and durable almost to eternity. Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot (1727-81) the French economist was more adamant and asserted that gold and silver became universal money by the nature and force of things, independent of all convention and law; consequently to proscribe either of them by law from being used as money is a violation of the nature of things. It is because of this almost immutable law of value, recognised by most thinking people, that gold was not only the Ancient Metal of Kings but the future standard currency in a post-fiat money system.
"There is no more direct way to capture control of a nation than through its credit [money] system." Mr Phillip A. Benson, President of the American Bankers' Association, June 8 1939
Who issues money is perforce both politically and economically a very important question, for control of a nation's money supply ipso facto brings with it control of that nation's credit and thus control of that nation. Primitive societies in which monetary affairs were crude, where money was not sharply distinguished from commodities, there was no difficulty in the matter. In such times, seashells, skins or cattle and the like were money by the force of things and this condition endured as long as crude metals were used. However, when coinage was introduced the idea of a regulating authority also came into being. For, increasingly sophisticated economics within the progressively organized state not only made it necessary to enforce contracts but also the parallel system of penalties made it incumbent on monarchs and judges to provide due standards of payment. Furthermore, the demands of raising and controlling state revenue made it a matter of interest to the ruler to provide a good medium of payment. Thus, although private persons often exercised the privilege of coining, even at the very beginning of the organised state coinage was a special prerogative of the king. Furthermore, the larger states became the more stringent the control over the issue of money; for instance, in the later Roman Empire the right of coining was reserved to the emperor exclusively. After the fall of the Roman Empire the traditions of prerogative passed on to the medieval kings but in the modern state the regulation money has been definitely vested in the supreme authority, i.e. the sovereign.
Coins are manufactured articles for which the sovereign often imposed a charge sufficient to cover the cost. Such a charge, the fee charged by a government for coining bullion, is called Seigniorage, which has in many cases been so fixed as to bring in a large profit to the government. Seigniorage was and is a source of considerable profit for monarchs and sovereigns.
It is incumbent on the state to maintain its currency in a sound condition; as such it has to deal with the question of its expense. This is composed of several elements:
The cost of manufacture
The loss through the attrition which money undergoes in the work of circulating;
The interest on the capital sunk in the monetary stock.
The expense of coinage is richly justified by the services that a good currency renders to a nation. However, coins or uncoined bullion can be an inconvenient and insecure mode for conveying large quantities of value and so in the late 18th century, certain banks began issuing various forms of paper notes —banknotes— to represent convenient denominations of money. This was the beginning of the so-called fiduciary or representative money and the various forms of credit in which so much of the modern economy consist.
Initially, fiduciary or representative money -money consisting of promises to pay in another medium- was redeemable for gold or silver and these became the principal money of growing industrial economies. Furthermore, for a variety of practical reasons, the circulating coinage began to be made of base metal alloys, also taken to represent gold or silver on deposit somewhere and available on demand.
Temporarily during World War I and permanently from the era of the Great Depression of the 1930s, the gold standard was abandoned by most nations, meaning that paper money was no longer convertible to gold on demand. Paper money issued on the general credit of a nation and not based on deposits of money metal is often called Representative or Fiat Money.
Credit Instruments used as Money
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήRepresentative Money, Fiduciary Paper Money and Fiat Money
As mercantilism gave way to industrial production and export the late 18th and early 19th centuries, paper money and bank notes came into being and became widespread. The bulk of this money consisted not of gold or silver per se but of fiduciary money -promises to pay specified amounts of gold and silver. Individuals or companies initially issued such promissory notes as bank notes or as the transferable book entries that came to be called deposits, but gradually the state assumed a role in such matters. Moreover, the small step to fiat paper money -notes that are issued on the "fiat" of the sovereign and specified to be so many pounds or dollars or francs or yen etc., which are deemed to be legal tender but are not promises to pay something else- was rapidly taken. Thus, this crucial move from fiduciary paper money (promising to pay gold or silver) to fiat paper money (notes issued on the "fiat" of the sovereign that are deemed legal tender but are not promises to pay something else) is of paramount importance in understanding the role, influence and intentions of these powerful private organisations –central banks- in the affairs of this world.
Fiat is a legally binding command or decision entered on the court record, as if issued by a court or judge. In short, fiat is a decree and in regards to the medium of exchange, fiat money is what governments declare to be legal tender although it cannot be converted into standard specie i.e. exchanged for coinage or metal money usually gold and silver.
David Ricardo (1772-1823) the English economist of Jewish origin argued that the laws of supply and demand should operate in a free market, explained that a paper currency (Representative or Fiat Money) is one in which the whole value has been appropriated as Seigniorage (the charge by a government for coining bullion). Moreover, the cost of keeping a stock of valuable money is obviated while state authority supports the new instrument of exchange. What is important to appreciate here is that although a government can issue a paper currency, it is not within its power to dictate its value. This value is in the domain of the markets and especially of a principle called quantity theory wherein the inevitable decline in value of a fiat money ensues when issue passes a definite point. Common-sense and empirical experience suggests that the only effective mode of preventing depreciation of a nation's currency is by fixing the amount of paper money to that of the metallic money previously in circulation. Leaving the use of the paper currency optional by making it convertible into coin at the behest of the holder is the easiest way to accomplish this is. By such an expedient the amount of paper money in circulation is thus automatically fixed by the action of the community.
A great disadvantage in this arrangement is the necessity of keeping an adequate reserve of standard specie (coinage) to meet actual and prospective demands. Ideally, the whole amount of paper issue (fiat money) should be covered by an equal value of metal (gold and/or silver). Unfortunately this ideal was never practised long by governments, especially at times of pressure, when they succumbed to the temptation to render the notes inconvertible. That is, reducing their reserves to an inadequate amount and then escaping the difficulty by refusing to pay metal coin for paper notes. This devious stratagem is at the crux of government dealings with paper money: it is in essence the history of inconvertibility. Government interference in monetary matters and the loss that follows from a disturbance of the standard used in ordinary payments can be summarised thus:
Injustice inflicted on creditors by being paid in a much lower standard than that in which they lent;
Fluctuations in the value of money causing disturbance to trade, both domestic and foreign,
Fall in the real wages of the working classes due to the slower rise of money wages in contrast with the quicker movement of the prices of commodities;
Perturbation in dealings in the international money market due to exchange rate fluctuations.
Representative money arose in medieval times out of the demands of credit whereby a claim could be expressed and transferred by a document that could be used for facilitating exchanges. However, the rigid practice of early law hindered the extensive use of this convenient device. This radically changed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries when the coining of credit was made easy by the flourishing banking system when bank notes come into use and whose creditworthiness rests on the repute of the issuer and not on the fiat of the state. The burgeoning banking system was a network of privately owned institutions from which arose several banks that became pre-eminent and would dominate not only the world of finance but also the world itself. These very private and immensely powerful institutions are often called central banks and are crucial to the present monetary system.
With the ascendancy of central banks the two distinct forms of representative money –that issued by private banks and that issued by governments- became mixed. This was because the nominal control exercised over banks by government and to the very important fact that ban central banks were in many cases the agents by which what was virtually state money was issued e.g. the Dollar bank note (Federal Reserve Note) issued by the private bank called the Federal Reserve System. A fundamental difference between the two was that bank money enters the economy through the ordinary system of granting credit while government money enters through use in the purchase of commodities and the hire of services. These differences lead to bank money returning in a short time while government money remains in circulation and displaces metallic currency. The first large-scale issue of paper money was in France in the early 18th century, an idea the revolutionary government extended in the form of assignats from 1789 to 1796.
Gold has several qualities that have made it exceptionally valuable throughout history. It is attractive in colour and brightness, durable to the point of virtual indestructibility, highly malleable, and usually found in nature in a comparatively pure form, that is, in the metallic state. The history of gold is unequalled by that of any other metal because of its value in the minds of men from earliest times. Exactly what Gold is, in the physical sense, can easily be described -that it is a soft, yellow, malleable, dense, lustrous, ductile, metallic chemical element- but what is more difficult to describe is its exact relationship to mankind. Or more pertinently, what exactly does this yellow metal represent to past, present and future generations of men?
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήWhat is indisputable is that gold has been exceptionally valued by men from the earliest ages because of the permanency of its colour and lustre and because of its apparent rarity. The myriad gold items and artefacts adorned with gold ornamentation from past civilisations displayed in the world's museums and hoarded in private collections bear testament to mankind's ancient and enduring attraction to Gold. Moreover, in ancient literature gold is the universal symbol of the highest purity and value and so it is no surprise that in the Old Testament writings no metal has been more frequently mentioned than gold and none has had more terms applied to it.
"More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold" (Psa. 19: 20)
From these ancient sources we find the ubiquitous use of gold in antiquity as the most convenient way of treasuring and preserving wealth and so, to those who could afford it, formed a part of every household treasure (Gen. 13: 2; Gen. 24:35; Deut. 8:13; Deut. 17:17; Jos. 22:8; Ezek. 28:4). Gold was treasured in the form of nuggets (Job. 28:6), in regularly or irregularly shaped slabs or bars (Num. 7:14, Num. 7:20, Num. 7:84, Num. 7:86; Jos. 7:21, Jos. 7:24; 2 Kings. 5:5), and in the form of dust or grains. Gold jewellery was also a common vehicle for preserving and treasuring gold although combined with the more vain function for the wearer of decoration and ostentation. However, gold coinage -i.e. gold as money- was unknown in the early Old Testament times. In short, gold is the ultimate symbol of value and wealth, treasured by men throughout the ages and as such is the Ancient Metal of Kings. Moreover, anything making claim to some ultimate standard was said to be "as good as gold."
The gold-standard system is, in essence, a monetary system in which the standard unit of currency is a fixed quantity of gold or a standard unit of currency that is kept at the value of a fixed quantity of gold. In such a system, the agreed currency is freely convertible at home or abroad into a fixed amount of gold per unit of currency. Furthermore, when such a gold-based system is established between sovereign nations -as an international gold-standard system- then, gold or a currency that is convertible into gold at a fixed price is used as a medium of international payments. Moreover, the gold-based system ensured that exchange rates between countries were fixed and if exchange rates rise above or fall below the fixed mint rate by more than the cost of shipping gold from one country to another, large gold inflows or outflows occur until the rates return to the official level. These "trigger" prices are known as gold points.
The modern gold-based system, the so-called "gold-standard" was first put into operation in 1821 by the Great Britain, the emerging world superpower dominating 19th century international finance. Before this, the principal world monetary metal was silver. For although gold had since ancient times been a measure of wealth and had long been used intermittently for coinage in one or another country, it was never used as the single reference metal, or standard, to which all other forms of money were co-ordinated or adjusted. However, following the great gold discoveries in California and Australia in the 1840s and 50s the value of gold in terms of silver produced a temporary decline, which led to a widespread shift from a silver standard to a gold standard. In the 1870s, Germany, France, the United States and many other countries also adopted the monometallic gold standard creating a full gold standard system that prevailed until 1914. Thus in this great era of the international gold standard, in which gold coins circulated in most of the world, paper money, whether issued by private banks (such as the Federal Reserve Bank) or by government, was convertible on demand into gold coins or gold bullion at an official price. Moreover, bank deposits were convertible into either gold coin or paper currency that was itself convertible into gold. This, in short, facilitated the exchange of wealth and value whereby unlimited quantities of gold could be bought or sold at a fixed price in convertible paper money per unit weight of gold.
In the gold-based system established between sovereign nations -the international gold-standard system- gold or a currency that was convertible into gold at a fixed price was used as a medium of international payments. That is, effectively, there existed a single world money, although called by different names in different countries e.g. the British pound sterling was defined as 113.00 grains of pure gold while the US dollar was defined as 23.22 grains of pure gold. Thus by simple mathematics - 113.00 divided by 23.22- one British pound equalled 4.8665 US dollars at the official parity. Furthermore, the gold-based system ensured that exchange rates between countries were fixed. That is, the actual exchange rate deviates only by an amount that corresponded to the cost of shipping gold.
For example, if the price of the pound sterling in terms of dollars rose considerably higher in value than the official parity in the foreign exchange market, then someone in New York who had a debt to pay in London might find that, rather than buy the needed pounds on the market, it was cheaper to buy gold with dollars at a US bank and ship the gold to London, and exchange it for pounds from the Bank of England. This mechanism perforce set an upper limit to the exchange rate whereas the cost of shipping gold from Britain to the United States set a lower limit. These limits or "trigger" prices were known as the gold points. Thus, if exchange rates rise above or fall below the fixed mint rate by more than the cost of shipping gold from one country to another, large gold inflows or outflows occur until the rates return to the official level. Thus, if the quantity of money in a country rose unduly and prices in that country where elevated relative to prices in other countries then the rise in prices would discourage exports and encourage imports. Consequently, the supply of foreign currency from the sale of exports is decreased while the increased demand for foreign currency to pay for imports tends to raise the price of foreign currency in terms of domestic currency. When this price hit the upper gold point, gold was shipped out of the country to other countries and this decline in the amount of gold produced a reduction in the total amount of money. This was due to central banks and government institutions reacting to the decline in their gold reserves and wanting to protect themselves against further demands by reducing the claims against gold that were outstanding thereby depressing domestic prices. Conversely, the influx of gold abroad would have the opposite effect by increasing the quantity of money there and raising prices and, importantly, these adjustments continued until the gold flow ceased or was reversed.
This simple, elegant solution to the perennial problem of store and exchange of wealth, and changing value of money and commodities over time, lasted only from the 1870s to the outbreak of World War I. At this terrible time when Europe was in travail the embattled nations were forced to inconvertible paper money as well as placing restrictions on gold exports. However, by 1928 the gold standard had been re-established, although in attenuated form due to the relative scarcity of gold, and so most nations adopted a gold-exchange standard. Here, nations supplemented their central bank gold reserves with major currencies (e.g. British pounds and US dollars) that were convertible into gold at a stable rate of exchange. This gold-exchange standard collapsed during the Great Depression of the 1930s and by 1937 no nation remained on the full gold standard. However, the United States, then the emerging world superpower about to dominate the 20th century, set a new minimum dollar price for gold to be used for purchases and sales by foreign central banks i.e. it "pegged" the price of gold and valued in dollars. This "pegging" of the price of gold in dollars was the basis of the restored international gold standard after World War II, a system in which most exchange rates were pegged either to the US dollar or to gold. Thus, by 1958 type of gold standard was re-established whereby the major European countries provided for the free convertibility of their currencies into gold and dollars for international payments. Then, in 1971, dwindling gold reserves and a mounting deficit in United States balance of payments led President Nixon to suspend the free convertibility of dollars into gold at fixed rates of exchange for use in international payments. Henceforth the international monetary system was based on the dollar and other paper currencies, and gold's function in world exchange was, apparently, at an end. In summary, there are two main advantages and three possible disadvantages of the gold standard. The two advantages of the gold standard are:
It greatly limits the power of governments or central banks to cause price inflation by excessive issue of paper currency i.e. to engage in irresponsible monetary expansion by excessive use of the printing press;
It creates certainty in international trade by providing a fixed pattern of exchange rates.
The three possible disadvantages of the gold standard are:
A possible inflexibility in the supply of money due to the supply of newly mined gold not being closely related to the growing needs of the world economy for a commensurate supply of money;
A nation may not be able to isolate its economy from depression or inflation in the rest of the world;
A possible long and painful process of adjustment for a country with a payments deficit whenever an increase in unemployment or a decline in the rate of economic expansion occurs.
What is crucial to understand is that the very great advantage gold brings into the economic affairs of men is also in the eyes of some its greatest disadvantage. For, today is the Era of Big Government, which is the insidious consequence of the creeping socialisation of Western civilisation and the ascendancy of those who promote it. And it is these promoters of Big Government, the great Beast that consumes so much of the resources and wealth of nations, who regard a real gold standard as their mortal enemy since it ties the hands of governments in one of the most important areas of socialist policy … currency debasement and fiscal irresponsibility. In short, gold disciplines governments and those who would otherwise practice fiscal irresponsibility.
In economic affairs, gold acts as a stern disciplinarian and a cruel taskmaster to the folly of governments. Benjamin M. Anderson in his Economics and the Public Welfare commented on this aspect of gold in his financial history of the United States calling it "an unimaginative taskmaster." In the chapter "The Tyranny of Gold," Anderson describes this taskmaster function of the yellow metal in an older age, when money was judged not on faith, but on the dependability of exchanging it for gold. For, faith that paper money itself was of any lasting value would have struck our antecedents as patently absurd and in a deeper sense, immoral. Anderson argued that the essence of money was gold and irredeemable paper was not part of it.
"Gold needs no endorsement. It can be tested with scales and acids. The recipient of gold does not have to trust the government stamp upon it, if he does not trust the government that stamped it. No act of faith is called for when gold is used in payments, and no compulsion is required."
In such a world, the gold-based system in which the "Tyranny of Gold" reigned supreme, the value of money was measured in terms of gold and its value fluctuated accordingly. This fluctuation was also founded in large measure on the public's estimation of its ability to convert the paper money, whatever it maybe, into gold. If they suspected some assault on the sovereignty of gold, for instance, that suspension of the gold standard was imminent or convertibility of paper into gold was at risk, then paper money would be sold and the market would reflect a discount to its face value in gold. Moreover, if a government became profligate with its peoples' money and began issuing too much paper and thus seed doubt in the market of the value of its fiat money, then the market's reaction, when it came was at times swift, powerful and catastrophic. Such was gold a taskmaster to the folly of governments when the gold standard functioned throughout the world.
However, today, the gold standard does not function throughout the world and the discipline that gold give to the world economy and to money is missing. Moreover, the steady dwindling of purchasing power has become accepted as normal and, crucially, the growth in the money supply and the spectacular rise in the use of credit instruments such as bonds and derivatives have far exceeded what would have been possible with a gold standard. That is, governments in today's Corrupt Liberal Democracies are able to inflate without having the stern disciplinarian of gold chastising them for their profligacy.
In the economic sense, the word "bank" covers various meanings that all express one object, a contribution of money for a common purpose; especially when applied to several classes of institutions established for the general purpose of dealing with money and its substitutes. Banks accept deposits and make loans and derive a profit from usury vis-à-vis the difference in the interest rates paid and charged, respectively. Thus, banks prosper by employing the capital of others. More importantly they also have the power to create money out of nothing. A bank thus controls money in the form of deposits it receives and sometimes of the notes it issues, which are loaned out by it to those who desire to borrow and can show that they may be trusted. In the early phase of banking a bank in order to carry on business successfully was obliged to possess a sufficient capital of its own to give it standing, which enabled it to collect capital belonging to others. This accumulated capital in the form of deposits was not hoarded but held in trust. First, till the customer withdrew what he required for his ordinary everyday wants. Secondly, until a profitable use was found for the greater part of the deposits in the advances made to lenders.
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήThe use of the greater part of the deposits in such a manner enabled the bank to perform three important functions:
To turn a profit from its loans that was employed in reproductive industry such that a greater value than the amount originally lent was brought back to them.
Assist the business development of the community it serves by help establishing and maintaining profitable enterprises. For, it is only through reproductive industry that the capital advanced by banks can really be replaced.
Besides making loans, a well-conducted bank provides great service to the business prosperity of a country, for example, by providing facilities for the ready transmission of money from those who owe money to those to whom it is due i.e. provides an easy method of transmission of cash.
From the 16th century onwards, banks in Europe may be divided into two major classes: Banks of Deposits or Commercial Banks and Exchange Banks. The differences between them are:
Banks of Deposits or Commercial Banks
These types of institution receive deposits, make loans and other investments, and offer financial services that facilitate the exchange of funds among individuals and institutions for which fees are charged. These banks thus associate themselves with the trade and general industries of a country. Examples of these institutions were the Bank of England, the Bank of Venice (Banco del Giro), the Bank of Sweden (the Riksbank), the Bank of France and the Bank of Germany (Reichsbank).
Exchange Banks
These types of institution were established to deal with foreign exchange and to facilitate trade with other countries. The exchange banks were important in their day, but the period of their activity is now generally past. Their activities differed from banking as generally understood in that they had no capital of their own nor did they require any for the performance of their business. This was because they existed for a specific purpose: to turn the values with which they were entrusted into current money, "bank money" as it was called. That is, converting into a currency that was accepted immediately by merchants without the necessity of testing the value of the bullion brought to them. Thus, a person could bring money or bullion for deposit and then withdraw at pleasure the money or the worth of the bullion. In former years, such institutions included entities such as the Amsterdamsche Wisselbank (Bank of Amsterdam) established in 1609 and the Bank of Hamburg, established in 1619, which conducted the largest business and survived the longest until February 1873.
From out of the ranks of the Banks of Deposits there arose several banks that became pre-eminent and have cast long shadows over the affairs of the world. These are the so-called Central Banks.
"Capital must protect itself in every possible manner by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected; bonds and mortgages must be foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through a process of law, the common people lose their homes they will become more docile and more easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government, applied by a central power of wealth under control of leading financiers. This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of Capital to govern the world. By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance. Thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished." USA Banker's Magazine, August 25 1924
While very influential banks such as the Bank of Venice (Banco del Giro) appear to have arisen from the natural developments of trade, some banks were established by governments, and more importantly, by private individuals, for very specific reasons. These are the so-called Central Banks. The first of these was the Bank of Sweden (the Riksbank), established in 1656, which has always been the state bank of Sweden. A man called Palmstruck, who also invented the use of the bank note and issued by the Riksbank in 1658, founded it. However, the Bank of England is usually considered to be the first modern central bank, serving as the model for many others. The Bank of England was founded in 1694 and a loan to the government of £1,200,000 was the origin of its establishment. It was incorporated by an act of Parliament with the immediate purpose of raising funds to allow the English king, William III (1650-1702) and his government to wage war against France in the Low Countries. The subscribers to the loan appointed Sir John Houblon as governor, and Michael Godfrey as deputy-governor and a few days later the first twenty-four directors. The bank was moved to its permanent location on Threadneedle Street, London, in the 1730s. In the United States, strong opposition to international bankers and their institutions meant that a central bank was not established until 1913: this was the Federal Reserve System, the 12 Federal Reserve Banks together with its Board of Governors in Washington, D.C.
Apologists contend that although certain commercial banks and certain immensely wealthy individuals and families technically own central banks such arrangements are a pure formality. Moreover, these apologists assert that central banks are largely agencies of government and those member commercial banks and certain immensely wealthy individuals and families merely receive a fixed annual percentage dividend on their stock and have essentially no real power. That to all intents and purposes, the central banks are governmental agencies. This is wishful thinking at best and equivocation at worst.
The notes issued by a central bank (or other governmental agency) plus deposits at the central bank are often called high-powered money. This is because when held as bank reserves each dollar or pound or franc may correspond to several dollars or pounds or francs of commercial bank deposits. Generally speaking, there is now no formal limit to the amount of notes and deposits that a central bank may have as liabilities.
Central bank can increase or decrease the total amount of high-powered money two ways:
By making loans (discounting);
By buying and selling government securities (open-market operations).
For example, if the Federal Reserve System purchases $10,000,000 of government securities, it will pay for these securities by writing a check on itself. That is, by simply adding $10,000,000 to its assets and $10,000,000 to its liabilities. The seller can:
Present this check to a Federal Reserve Bank who will exchange for it $10,000,000 in Federal Reserve Notes;
The seller may deposit the check at a commercial bank, and the bank will in turn present it to a Federal Reserve Bank, which will "pay" the check by making a book entry increasing that bank's deposits with it by $10,000,000.
In turn, the bank may:
Transfer this sum to a borrower, who again will convert it into Federal Reserve Notes or deposit it.
Conversely, if the central bank sells government securities, then it destroys high-powered money.
The important point to note here is that these are merely bookkeeping devices that record a process whereby the central bank has created, out of thin air, additional high-powered money (the direct counterpart of printing fiat money such as Federal Reserve Notes) or destroys high-powered money.
Thus, central banks can create "money" out of nothing while similarly they can easily destroy this created "wealth" by simple bookkeeping devices without sweat, toil or labour.
The total quantity of money at any given time within an economic system depends not only upon the high-powered money created or destroyed by the central bank at will, so to speak, but also on the preferences of the public as to the relative amounts of money it wishes to hold as currency and as deposits. It also depends on the preferences of the central banks as to the ratio they wish to maintain between their reserves and their deposits i.e. the reserve ratio. However, although this reserve ratio is supposedly dominated by legal reserve requirements, if they where even to exist, the power of central banks is such that in reality this "reserve ratio" is kept at what level they see fit.
Consequently, by controlling the amount of high-powered money by its sharp bookkeeping practices and by other, less important means, a central bank can alter the total quantity of money as it wishes within very broad limits. And here lies the rub, for the immense power vested in such operations and their primacy within modern monetary policy and held by central banks ipso facto gives the central banks immense power and, more importantly, to those who control them. Thus, to most thinking people the major problem of modern monetary policy is how the central banks use or abuse this power.
Central banks act as bankers to governments, as the agents and frequently the designers of monetary and credit policies, and as lenders of last resort to commercial banks in the case of a financial crisis. Some even issue their own money and lend it to governments at interest e.g. the Dollar issued by the private entity that is the Federal Reserve System.
In addition, central banks are the guarantors of the present fiat monetary system. Two central banks are pre-eminent in the economic affairs of the world because of who and what they represent i.e. the lynchpins of the Anglo-American Establishment; they are, the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve System.
Under the old, but far from dated, international gold standard, the flow of gold in and out of countries responded to relative prices between countries. In brief: a country that imports more produce and services than it exports experiences an outflow of gold as its gold was exchanged for goods to make up the difference. Moreover, since a country's gold reserves were finite and could be increased only by becoming a net exporter of goods and services, then, ipso facto, the process of gold loss had a natural limit. However, even before the gold supply was drawn down to zero within the chronic importing country, a decrease in the quantity of gold circulating therein would in result in falling prices. Whilst simultaneously there would be an opposite effect within the economies of its trading partners i.e. the habitual exporting countries would accumulate more gold over time, causing a rise in overall prices. Hence, a point would be eventually reached whereby the discrepancy in prices between the two countries was such that the goods of the chronic importer became more attractive as exports to the habitual exporter. Thus the flow of gold worked to maintain rough purchasing power parity of an equivalent quantity of gold between nations and prevented lasting trade imbalances from accumulating. That is, gold brought prudence and discipline into economic affairs when nations, its people and its leaders abandoned these virtues.
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήWhere trade occurs between nations there exists a general principle following the immutable economic law that consumption perforce is funded by production vis-à-vis imports must ultimately be paid for with exports. Thus, within a country that had accumulated gold through the sale of exports, any future imports could be funded by the loss of gold for a finite period of time.
The assault on the primacy of gold came after World War II when instead of returning to the pre-war implementation of the gold standard, the Global Elite devised a new system known as the Bretton Woods System. This assault on the primacy of gold orchestrated at the Bretton Woods Conference began by it setting the gold standard at $35 an ounce and designating the US dollar ($) as the international reserve asset, replacing gold in this role, and instituting a system of fixed exchange rates between national currencies. Moreover, policing this system was newly created economic behemoths the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Thus, in July 1944, world leaders left behind gold as a currency and blithely rode into the future believing that this "barbarous relic" would be lost forever and they could stabilise international trade by the floating exchange rates of fiat monies and the proactive intervention at sensitive moments by these newly created economic behemoths. The Bretton Woods Conference established the fundamental guidelines that allowed the establishment of the International Monetary Fund in an effort to stabilise international trade after World War II.
Before Bretton Woods, the gold standard ensured that exchange rates were fixed and each currency was, in a sense, defined as a definite quantity of gold. Therefore, exchange ratios followed directly from the definition of the currency itself. Although the authors of the Bretton Woods Agreement posited fixed exchange rates, in practice they turned out not to be as fixed as suggested. In such a system, countries pursued their own inflationary policy, and then adjusted rates ex-post when the fixed rates became untenable. For, the Bretton Woods system not only permitted and encouraged but also almost compelled world inflation.
The Bretton Woods Agreement and the European Recovery Program dominated the dawn of the new post-war monetary order. The latter was supposedly proposed by US Secretary of State General George Marshall in 1947 and became known as the Marshall Plan. This grandiose social welfare programme played a decisive role in the reconstruction of war-torn Europe but wholly depended on the credit of the United States; or, rather, upon the American taxpayer willing and able to fund it with billions of dollars of their taxes. In essence: The USA held most of the world's gold stock after the end of World War II since this terrible yet contrived conflict had bled Europe and Japan dry while profiting America greatly. These war-ravaged countries depleted in manpower and national confidence therefore had neither gold nor dollars. By a gesture of great magnanimity, the American people came to their assistance, furnishing gifts, loans, credits, but especially via the Marshall Plan Aid. Even the gold sent to the America for safekeeping during the war was returned to Europe. This encouraged the export of private and public capital, which caused the lowering of tariff barriers. In short, America had become the ideal creditor of not only Europe but of the world. This was the period of the post-war Bretton Woods System (1945-71) of a fixed exchange rate of currencies based not on a gold standard but a gold-reserve system: a system that was apparently well designed for the reconstruction of economies shattered and depleted by depression and war. Moreover, crucial to this system was the credit of the United States, which was extended as backing of long-term and medium-term credit to Europe, allowing for the reconstruction of Europe and similar kinds of social programmes around the world. This policy was also justified by the chimera often called the "Cold War" predicated upon the threat of the "Red Menace" and the supposed stand-off between Capitalism and Communism: between freedom and tyranny and the peculiar arrangement of nuclear war and détente, seemingly poised between two nuclear superpower alliances - the Anglo-American and the Soviet. Notwithstanding that the so-called "Cold War" was a deception of breathtaking proportions, this system continued until 1989-1991 when, what President Ronald Reagan called the Evil Empire, (i.e. the Soviet Empire) supposedly collapsed. However, during this period there was a gradual change from a post-war Bretton Woods System based on a gold-reserve standard, to the floating exchange-rate system, which is the principal cause of the looming global disaster.
Thus, in the decades after World War Two, billions of dollars of US tax revenue were funnelled into the hands of European governments to finance the growing trade deficits created by these governments' socialist schemes and exchange controls with overvalued currencies relative to the dollar. This situation eventually precipitated a rush between European nations to competitively devalue their currency relative to each other but especially to the dollar and in the process brought about a reversal in value. That is, the dollar became overvalued in terms of purchasing power parity relative to its trading partners in Europe. Therefore, with the willing co-operation of Europe and Japan, Americans could import more than they exported.
However, by the 1970s the US was suffering severe inflation and had racked up enormous budget deficits and trade deficits. These were largely derived from the deficit financing of the Vietnam War and an expanding agenda of social programmes that brought welfarism increasingly into American society. Finally, as foreigners sought to exchange their dollar reserves, which were convertible to gold at the fixed price established by the Bretton Woods Agreement, the Nixon Administration forestalled a run on the US gold supply by abandoning the Bretton Woods system by suspending convertibility: by "closing the gold window." What happened was that an overvalued dollar had resulted in the loss of US gold reserves and that there were far too many dollars in the world for all of them to be exchanged for gold at the official price. At this point the Bretton Woods System had reached a crisis and so it was abandoned … just as the Global Elite planned it. For, the Bretton Woods System was merely a stepping-stone to the Global cashless society now unfolding on Earth.
The Evil Agenda for the creation of the New World Order demanded that the material resources of America and her people was used to build the foundations of the World Empire and her military used to bring about the geopolitical realities necessary for its establishment. Then, when this was done, the United States of America founded as a Republic of sovereign states is to be destroyed so that it can be easily merged into the New World Order. Thus, the industry, ingenuity, wealth and goodwill of the American taxpayer were to be co-opted into the diabolic plan for World Empire without them knowing it. Crucial to this was the immense tax revenues that were used to fund wars, revolutions and insurrections around the world and prop up useful tyrannies. Moreover, billions of dollars have been siphoned off into grandiose socialist programmes, to bribe governments and officials and channelled into covert military projects not in the interests of the American people and ultimately of the entire world's peoples. Crucial to garnering the taxes of Americans and their deployment in such nefarious deeds was:
Usurpation by the US dollar of the British Pound as the de facto world reserve currency.
Replacing gold with fiat money by the planned destruction of the Gold Standard by the demonetisation of gold replacing it with a system designating the fiat US dollar as the international reserve asset i.e. King Dollar.
Unlike gold, which can only be extracted slowly from the earth with great difficulty and processed at great expense, fiat money and its associated credit instruments can be created with relative ease or in the case of treasury debt with no effort at all.
The institution of a system of fixed exchange rates between national currencies in which the dollar alone was to be fully convertible to gold, and then only by foreign central banks. Other currencies would be convertible to dollars at fixed exchange rates.
Conferring upon the US significant advantages resulting from the dollar being the centre of the modern financial system in which securities denominated in fiat US dollars are the most widely held reserve asset. More specifically: the "greenback" was to be the exclusive oil currency and ipso facto the most powerful currency in the modern world.
King Dollar has allowed the United States to imports goods and commodities from the rest of the world for consumption while paying for them with dollars. In addition to the purchase of US stocks and real estate, these "exported" dollars are often used by foreign central banks to purchase debt instruments from either the Federal Reserve System or the private sector. Furthermore, where these are US Treasury securities, they are created (just like the fiat money called the "dollar") out of nothing and so require no savings by any American consumer to justify them.
US dollars accumulated in mind-boggling amounts under the promise of convertibility are now held in such huge quantities by most central banks and major private banks that they cannot be sold without destroying the value of the remaining asset.
This arrangement freed Americans from the ponderous burden of saving and the onerous requirement of first producing before consuming. Their consumption is offset by a growing indebtedness of the private sector and the Federal Reserve System to foreign governments and foreign nationals. This has made the economy of the United States very vulnerable to malicious action by such entities as China, Russia and the Muslim World.
Under the fiat dollar standard, the automatic adjustment mechanism of the gold standard has ceased to function in the modern world and no adjustment mechanism is in place short of a crisis such as a hyperinflation or a debt default implosion that can rebalance world trade.
Consequently, the USA has witnessed an explosion of credit creation that has destabilized the global economy.
Central bank holdings of "reserve assets" (consisting mostly of debt securities such as other central bank securities backed up only by the taxing power of the sponsoring government) have soared to staggering heights from the relatively modest levels seen in the 1960s.
The status of King Dollar within the system of floating exchange rates between fiat currencies has conferred upon the US significant advantages but has also positioned it in a uniquely historic position: of having the largest trade deficits in history. Moreover, of being able to finance its growing level of indebtedness to the rest of the world by issuing debt instruments denominated in its own currency.
This state of affairs is unsustainable and will end with a catastrophic fall in the exchange value of the dollar relative to other currencies.
This catastrophic collapse in the value of the dollar is well planned and will occur when the secret masters of the financial system decree it.
Τελικά ο νόμος περί ευθύνης υπουργών, ΕΧΕΙ ΓΙΝΕΙ ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΠΡΟΣΤΑΤΕΥΟΝΤΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΙ!
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήπραξικοπηματάκι, πραξικοπηματάκι κ. Σανιδά;;;
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήΕ; πραξικοπηματάκι;
Aφού οιδεξιοί σκευωροί,συκοφάντες, απατεώνες, λαμόγια,κλέφτες και προδότες έχουν σχεδόν χρεωκοπήσει πολιτικά, προωθούν καινούργιο σχέδιο ότι όλοι ίδιοι είναι γι'αυτό προσπαθούν να ρίξουν λάσπη με το σκάνδαλο ζήμενς χρησιμοποιώντας την "ανεξάρτητη" δικαιοσύνη που παρεπιπτώντος οι λειτουργοί της, εγκρίθηκε να πάρουν 900 εκατομμύρια ευρώ αναδρομικά, σε καιρό που οι περισσότεροι Έλληνες υποφέρουν.
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήΕάν θέλατε το ξεκαθάρισμα απατεώνες, σκευωροί, συκοφάντες δεξιοί θα είχατε κάνει ότι τουλάχιστον έχει κάνει η Νιγηρία μια τριτοκοσμική χώρα. Για το ίδιο θέμα έχει βάλει 10 άτομα φυλακή.
Εδώ, αυτοί που αποδεδειγμένα έχουν διαπράξει το αδίκημα της δωροδοκίας που είναι όλοι τους δεξιοί απόγονοι χιτών και ταγματασφαλιτών γυρίζουν ανενoχλητοι και κάνουν τους τιμητές
Η Μ Α Φ Ι Α της χώρας μας
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήΕίναι οι πολιτικοί , οι βουλευτές
Τα κόμματα , και ο κομματικός
Μηχανισμός , που ελέγχουν τα πάντα
Και κλέβουν τα πάντα
Και με τους διαφόρους νόμους
Άλληλό καλύπτονται στο κλέψιμο
Ο δε ΑΡΧΙΝΟΝΟΣ είναι
Κάποιος υπεράνω κάθε υποψίας …………..
Gia na doume tora tha koitaksei to kalo tis parataksis i to kalo tou kommatos? Idou i aporia.
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήΚΑΘΕ ΜΕΡΑ ΘΑ ΒΛΕΠΟΥΜΕ ΑΥΤΕΣ ΤΙΣ ΟΙΚΟΓΕΝΕΙΕΣ
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήΤΟΝ ΠΑΠΑΝΔΡΕΟΥ(ΑΝΔΡΕΑ) ΜΕΤΑ ΤΟΝ ΜΗΤΣΟΤΑΚΗ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΟΝ ΚΑΡΑΜΑΝΛΗ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΟΝ ΠΑΠΑΝΔΡΕΟΥ(ΓΙΩΡΓΑΚΗ) ΚΑΙ ΜΕΤΑ ΠΑΛΙ ΤΟΝ ΜΗΤΣΟΤΑΚΗ(ΝΤΟΡΑ)
ΣΤΑΜΑΤΗΣΤΕ ΤΟ ΟΛΟΙ ΕΣΕΙΣ
Πραξικοπηματάκι κ. Σανιδά,
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήπραξικοπηματάκι;;;Είναι προφανές ότι ο "επαρκής" και "ανεξάρτητος" Σανιδάς, ερμηνεύει μια εγκύκλιο ως υπερισχύουσα των νόμων και του Συντάγματος της χώρας.
Εξ αυτού συνάγεται το ότι ο Σανιδάς προέβη σε δικαστικό πραξικόπημα, κάτι το οποίο εκτός του ότι αποτελεί παρακώλυση της δικαιοσύνης, επιπροσθέτως, ως τελεσθέν καθ' υποτροπήν, αποτελεί πράξη αξιόποινη ποινικά και πειθαρχικά.
Η τήρηση των νόμων και του Συντάγματος δεν τίθεται στην "διακριτική ευχέρεια" των κομματικώς ευνοημένων της εκάστοτε κυβέρνησης.
Για αυτές του τις πράξεις, επιβάλλεται ο έλεγχος του και η επαναφορά του στην τάξη αμέσως.
Ρε γελοίο πράγμα του ΠΑΣΟΚώλου
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήδεν κουράστηκες να αναρτάς
την εγκεφαλική σου ΚΕΝΟΤΗΤΑ.
Ρε μαλακομπούκωβο μας έχεις
πείσει, οτι είσαι Ζώο.
Ρε καθυστερημένο δεν είναι
απαραίτητο να προσπαθείς να
αποδείξεις, οτι η ΣΥΦΙΛΗ,
σου έχει καταστρέψει ακόμα
και το Νευρικό Σύστημα.
Σε καταλαβαίνουμε πώς είσαι
μεταλλαγμένο ΖΩΟ ΠΑΣΟΚ.
Όπου ο κώλος και το στόμα
είναι η μοναδική τρύπα που
εχεις και για να ΧΕΖΕΙΣ και
για να ΤΡΩΣ.
Και δρόμο γρήγορα. Βρωμαςςςςςςςς
Σκατίλαααααα και πράσινο Εμμετοοοό.
Έσκασαν μύτη και τα πρώτα ανέκδοτα για τον Σανιδά στο διαδίκτυο!
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφή-Πως ονομάζονται τα σκυλιά που έχει το κόμμα της ΝΔ (όχι κομματόσκυλα);
-Sunny. Από το σανιδάς...-Τι περιτύλιγμα βάζουν στο φάκελο του Βατοπεδίου;
Sanidas-Sanidas-Σε τι εργασία ειδικεύεται ο Σανιδάς;
Στο "παρκέ"...
ΤΙ ΛΕΕΙ ΡΕ Ο ΑΡΧΙΔΑΣ ΣΤΟ ΚΑΤΕΒΑΤΟ ΣΤΑ ΕΓΓΛΕΖΙΚΑ?ΓΙΑΤΙ ΔΕΝ ΤΑ ΓΡΑΦΕΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΓΛΩΣΣΑ ΤΩΝ ΡΟΜ ΝΑ ΤΑ ΚΑΤΑΛΑΒΟΥΜΕ ΡΕ ΓΚΑΡΝΤΑΣΙ!
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφή