“The Mexican Fisherman and the Investment Banker (Author Unknown)
An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.
The Mexican replied, “only a little while.”
The American then asked why didn't he stay out longer and catch more fish?
The Mexican said he had enough to support his family's immediate needs.
The American then asked, “but what do you do with the rest of your time?”
The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siestas with my wife, Maria, and stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine, and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life.”
The American scoffed. “I have an MBA from Harvard, and can help you,” he said. “You should spend more time fishing, and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats, and eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middle–man, you could sell directly to the processor, eventually opening up your own cannery. You could control the product, processing, and distribution,” he said. “Of course, you would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then Los Angeles, and eventually to New York City, where you will run your expanding enterprise.”
The Mexican fisherman asked, “But, how long will this all take?”
To which the American replied, “Oh, 15 to 20 years or so.”
“But what then?” asked the Mexican.
The American laughed and said, “That's the best part. When the time was right, you would announce an IPO, and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich. You would make millions!”
“Millions — then what?”
The American said, “Then you could retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you could sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, and stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play guitar with your amigos.””
—Renewable Wealth: The Parable of the Mexican Fisherman
“Economics, as a social energy science has as a first objective the description of the complex way in which any given unit of resources is used to satisfy some economic want. (Leontief Matrix). This first objective, when it is extended to get the most product from the least or limited resources, comprises that objective of general military and industrial logistics known as Operations Research. (See simplex method of linear programming.)
“The Harvard Economic Research Project (1948–) was an extension of World War II Operations Research. Its purpose was to discover the science of controlling an economy: at first the American economy, and then the world economy. It was felt that with sufficient mathematical foundation and data, it would be nearly as easy to predict and control the trend of an economy as to predict and control the trajectory of a projectile. Such has proven to be the case. Moreover, the economy has been transformed into a guided missile on target.
“The immediate aim of the Harvard project was to discover the economic structure, what forces change that structure, how the behavior of the structure can be predicted, and how it can be manipulated. What was needed was a well–organized knowledge of the mathematical structures and interrelationships of investment, production, distribution, and consumption.
“To make a short story of it all, it was discovered that an economy obeyed the same laws as electricity and that all of the mathematical theory and practical and computer know–how developed for the electronic field could be directly applied in the study of economics. This discovery was not openly declared, and its more subtle implications were and are kept a closely guarded secret, for example that in an economic model, human life is measured in dollars, and that the electric spark generated when opening a switch connected to an active inductor is mathematically analogous to the initiation of war.
“The greatest hurdle which theoretical economists faced was the accurate description of the household as an industry. This is a challenge because consumer purchases are a matter of choice which in turn is influenced by income, price, and other economic factors.
“This hurdle was cleared in an indirect and statistically approximate way by an application of shock testing to determine the current characteristics, called current technical coefficients, of a household industry.
“Finally, because problems in theoretical electronics can be translated very easily into problems of theoretical electronics, and the solution translated back again, it follows that only a book of language translation and concept definition needed to be written for economics. The remainder could be gotten from standard works on mathematics and electronics. This makes the publication of books on advanced economics unnecessary, and greatly simplifies project security.”
—Stopthecrime: Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars — [Requires PDF Software]
“Little could Mayer Amschel have anticipated that the humble shop was destined to ultimately grow into one of the largest and most renowned banking firms of the world, and that his sons would in after years come to exercise such an unbounded sway that the peace of nations would depend upon their nod; that the powerful control they exercised on the European money markets would enable them to pose as the arbiters of peace and war, since they could at their pleasure withhold or furnish the means to pecuniary means required to carry on a campaign. But this, incredible as it may seem, was what their vast influence, combined with their enormous wealth and unlimited credit, enabled them to do, for no firms existed strong enough to oppose them for any length of time, or rash enough to take a business which the Rothschilds had refused. To reach this exalted position Mayer Amschel and his sons required the co-operation of the States, but, when once he had climbed over their backs and reached the height of his ambition, he was independent of all aid and could act with the greatest freedom, whilst the States remained in a suppliant attitude at his feet.
“The house of Rothschild when at the summit of its might was the ruling power in Europe, for all the political powers were willing to acknowledge the sway of the great financial despot, and, like obedient vassals, to pay their tribute without a murmur.”
—John Reeves, The Rothschilds: The Financial Rulers of Nations, pages 104-105, 1887 [https://archive.org/details/rothschildsfinan00reevuoft]
“As early as 1909, Walter Rathenau, who was in a position to know (since he had inherited from his father control of the German General Electric Company and held scores of directorships himself), said, “Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves.”” [my emphasis]
—By Carroll Quigley in Source: Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, Page 61, 1966, Angriff Press, ISBN# 0913022–14–4 [http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf — [Requires PDF Software]
“In effect, this creation of paper claims greater than the reserves available means that bankers were creating money out of nothing. The same thing could be done in another way, not by note–issuing banks but by deposit banks. Deposit bankers discovered that orders and checks drawn against deposits by depositors and given to third persons were often not cashed by the latter but were deposited to their own accounts. Thus there were no actual movements of funds, and payments were made simply by bookkeeping transactions on the accounts. Accordingly, it was necessary for the banker to keep on hand in actual money (gold, certificates, and notes) no more than the fraction of deposits likely to be drawn upon and cashed; the rest could be used for loans, and if these loans were made by creating a deposit for the borrower, who in turn would draw checks upon it rather than withdraw it in money, such “created deposits” or loans could also be covered adequately by retaining reserves to only a fraction of their value. Such created deposits also were a creation of money out of nothing, although bankers usually refused to express their actions, either note issuing or deposit lending, in these terms. William Paterson, however, on obtaining the charter of the Bank of England in 1694, to use the moneys he had won in privateering, said, “The Bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.” This was repeated by Sir Edward Holden, founder of the Midland Bank, on December 18, 1907, and is, of course, generally admitted today.
“This organizational structure for creating means of payment out of nothing, which we call credit, was not invented by England but was developed by her to become one of her chief weapons in the victory over Napoleon in 1815. The emperor, as the last great mercantilist, could not see money in any but concrete terms, and was convinced that his efforts to fight wars on the basis of “sound money,” by avoiding the creation of credit, would ultimately win him a victory by bankrupting England. He was wrong, although the lesson has had to be relearned by modern financiers in the twentieth century.”
—By Carroll Quigley in Source: Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, Pages 48–49, 1966, Angriff Press, ISBN# 0913022–14–4 [http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf — [Requires PDF Software]
“In addition to these pragmatic goals, the powers of financial capitalism had another far–reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.
“In each country the power of the central bank rested largely on its control of credit and money supply. In the world as a whole the power of the central bankers rested very largely on their control of loans and of gold flows. In the final days of the system, these central bankers were able to mobilize resources to assist each other through the B.I.S., where payments between central banks could be made by bookkeeping adjustments between the accounts which the central banks of the world kept there. The B.I.S. as a private institution was owned by the seven chief central banks and was operated by the heads of these, who together formed its governing board. Each of these kept a substantial deposit at the B.I.S., and periodically settled payments among themselves (and thus between the major countries of the world) by bookkeeping in order to avoid shipments of gold. They made agreements on all the major financial problems of the world, as well as on many of the economic and political problems, especially in reference to loans, payments, and the economic future of the chief areas of the globe.”
—By Carroll Quigley in Source: Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, Page 324, 1966, Angriff Press, ISBN# 0913022–14–4 [http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf — [Requires PDF Software]
“The commander in chief of the world system of banking control was Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, who was built up by the private bankers to a position where he was regarded as an oracle in all matters of government and business. In government the power of the Bank of England was a considerable restriction on political action as early as 1819 but an effort to break this power by a modification of the bank's charter in 1844 failed. In 1852, Gladstone, then chancellor of the Exchequer and later prime minister, declared, “The hinge of the whole situation was this: the government itself was not to be a substantive power in matters of Finance, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned.”
“This power of the Bank of England and of its governor was admitted by most qualified observers. In January, 1924, Reginald McKenna, who had been chancellor of the Exchequer in 1915–1916, as chairman of the board of the Midland Bank told its stockholders: “I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money.... And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people.” In that same year, Sir Drummond Fraser, vice–president of the Institute of Bankers, stated, “The Governor of the Bank of England must be the autocrat who dictates the terms upon which alone the Government can obtain borrowed money.” On September 26, 1921, The Financial Times wrote, “Half a dozen men at the top of the Big Five Banks could upset the whole fabric of government finance by refraining from renewing Treasury Bills.” Vincent Vickers, who had been a director of the bank for nine years, said, “Since 1919 the monetary policy of the Government has been the policy of the Bank of England and the policy of the Bank of England has been the policy of Mr. Montagu Norman.” On November II, 1927, the Wall Street Journal called Mr. Norman “the currency dictator of Europe.” This fact was admitted by Mr. Norman himself before the court of the bank on March 21, 1930, and before the Macmillan Committee five days later.”
—Carroll Quigley in Source: Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, Page 325, 1966, Angriff Press, ISBN# 0913022–14–4 [http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf — [Requires PDF Software]
“In the 1920's, they were determined to use the financial power of Britain and of the United States to force all the major countries of the world to go on the gold standard and to operate it through central banks free from all political control, with all questions of international finance to be settled by agreements by such central banks without interference from governments.
“It must not be felt that these heads of the world's chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called "international" or "merchant" bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. This dominance of investment bankers was based on their control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own countries and throughout the world. They could dominate the financial and industrial systems of their own countries by their influence over the flow of current funds through bank loans, the discount rate, and the re–discounting of commercial debts; they could dominate governments by their control over current government loans and the play of the international exchanges. Almost all of this power was exercised by the personal influence and prestige of men who had demonstrated their ability in the past to bring off successful financial coupe, to keep their word, to remain cool in a crisis, and to share their winning opportunities with their associates. In this system the Rothschilds had been preeminent during much of the nineteenth century, but, at the end of that century, they were being replaced by J. P. Morgan whose central office was in New York, although it was always operated as if it were in London (where it had, indeed, originated as George Peabody and Company in 1838). Old J. P. Morgan died in 1913, but was succeeded by his son of the same name (who had been trained in the London branch until 1901), while the chief decisions in the firm were increasingly made by Thomas W. Lamont after 1924. But these relationships can be described better on a national basis later. At the present stage we must follow the efforts of the central bankers to compel the world to return to the gold standard of 1914 in the postwar conditions following 1918.”
—Carroll Quigley in Source: Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, Pages 326–327, 1966, Angriff Press, ISBN# 0913022–14–4 [http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf — [Requires PDF Software]
“I know that most men — not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic, problems — can seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as obliges them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty — conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives.”
—Lev Nikolayevitch Tolstoy (Leo Tolstoy), From the Opening to Ch 14. Translation from: What Is Art and Essays on Art (Oxford University Press, 1930, trans. Aylmer Maude); Source: Wikiquote page on Leo Tolstoy; License: Attribution–ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY–SA 3.0)
“Love is the only Real currency”
—Irucka Ajani Embry on 20 March 2015
“The unspoken motto of financial institutions: “Get something for nothing.””
—Irucka Ajani Embry on 9 November 2015
“4. We do not need to save or borrow from abroad in order to expand investment and growth
“A basic argument by economists has been that we first need to accumulate scarce savings in order to fund investments and hence enjoy economic growth — or alternatively borrow those savings from abroad by taking a loan from the international banking community. But this argument is based on the erroneous belief that banks are merely financial intermediaries that require savings first in order to be able to lend money out. In reality, increased domestic investment requires neither savings nor borrowing from abroad. Domestic banks can fund domestic investment without prior savings becoming available.
“Once we realize this, the power of the bankers crumbles. It has been their ploy to pretend that they were issuing what is a very scarce and precious resource — savings or money. For if it was not scarce, why should we be prepared to pay the bankers for this service (in the form of interest)? Governments could just create their own money, without having to pay interest on the national debt (which by now in a number of countries takes up the majority of national annual budgets — usually well hidden from the eyes of the public, by publishing only the fiscal budgets that are considered “discretionary spending“ — pretending that interest payments are non-negotiable and compulsory). [my emphasis] Or in the words of Leo Tolstoy (paraphrased): The reason why economists single out ‘labour’ and ‘capital’ in their ‘production function’ is, firstly, because they want to charge for ‘capital’ (interest), justifying it as being equivalent to the wages that workers get, and secondly, because nobody has figured out how to charge for the sun light, the air and other necessary factors of production. And they can only charge for ‘capital’, because economics has been designed to create the myth of its scarcity.
“That money is not in fact a scarce resource, but a tool that can and should be employed by governments as benefits communities and nations is also true for developing economies and emerging markets: the “Third World Debt Crisis“ was unnecessary, since for most purposes the affected countries did not need to borrow money from the foreign bankers in order to grow their economies. Worse, the foreign money from the foreign currency-denominated loans given to developing countries never even reached the borrowing economy's borders. This is because it is one of the rules in international banking that pound sterling bank money stays with UK-authorised banks, euros stay in eurozone economy banks and US dollars remain with US banks. A so-called “US dollar deposit“ in the UK is in actual fact a deposit with a US bank that is crediting the account of its UK respondent bank with this amount. Thus when a developing country borrowed from the international banks, they invariably lent dollars, pounds, euros or other currencies of industrialised countries, because the foreign bankers can only create foreign money (and they do create it out of nothing). The cruel joke on developing countries is now that those foreign dollars or euros that they borrowed will always stay abroad, in their respective foreign banking systems.
“It is of course possible to sell the foreign currency and purchase domestic currency with it — but that only results in domestic bank credit creation, something that can be undertaken without getting indebted to foreign bankers in foreign currency in the first place — while it is the borrowers who are made to shoulder the large foreign currency risk. As the currencies of developing countries invariably fall over time against those of industrialised countries, they quickly get stuck in a foreign debt trap, unable to service or repay the foreign debt which is spiraling out of control in domestic currency terms. That is when the foreign vultures move in and demand ‘debt for equity swaps’, handing over valuable domestic assets, land, mines, mineral resources or mining rights, from poor countries to the rich foreign bankers, who had in any case simply created the money out of nothing. The developing country debt is in fact a form of predatory lending to ensure that the former colonies remain, in economic terms, in the hands of their former masters — if they have attractive assets, that is. Most of all, the round-trip via foreign banks is wholly unnecessary, if the borrowing nations want domestic currency: that is only created by their own banking system.
“Thus it is becoming apparent that the central banking narrative of scarce money and scarce savings has been a hoax. This has become particularly obvious since central banks have opened all taps and created trillions of dollars and euros and handed them over to the big banks and large-scale financial speculators — under the pretense that this is ‘necessary’ or would somehow benefit society at large. (Their definition of this activity as ‘quantitative easing’ is also designed to mislead: the original thrust of quantitative easing is an expansion in credit creation for the real economy, not mainly for the financial markets — see my writings on this in Japan in the mid to late 1990s, or Voutsinas and Werner, 2011; Lyonnet and Werner, 2012; Werner, 2013).
“5. Deregulation, liberalization and privatization do not enhance growth — they reduce it.
“The first four pillars of the central banking narrative have collapsed: Banks create money out of nothing and thus reshape the economy in their image. [my emphasis] Markets are rationed and the key factor is the quantity of bank credit. Bank credit creation for GDP transactions boosts GDP growth, no matter what interest rates do (they will follow GDP growth). Developing countries do not need to borrow from abroad, and in fact should not borrow from abroad, as this puts them unnecessarily at mercy of the foreign creditors.”
—Shifting from Central Planning to a Decentralised Economy: Do we Need Central Banks? by Professor Richard A. Werner, D.Phil. (Oxon), 15 January 2017
“The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks. As noted earlier, checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers' accounts. They increase when customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers' accounts.”
—Modern Money Mechanics Who Creates Money? section by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
“We've pointed out for 4 1/2 years that banks create money out of thin air. Specifically, it has now been conclusively proven that loans come first … and then deposits FOLLOW. This is the most important secret about modern banking … because it debunks one of the biggest myths preventing a strong economy, challenges one of the main pork barrel profit centers for big banks … and opens up incredible opportunities for a prosperous economy.”
The Biggest Secret About Banking Has Just Gone Mainstream: Banks Create Money Out of Thin Air … Conferring Enormous Windfall Profits At the Expense of the People By Washington's Blog, Global Research, April 28, 2014/Washington's Blog
“Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”
—The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s; Source: Who Owns The Federal Reserve?: The Fed is privately owned. Its shareholders are private banks By Ellen Brown, Global Research, September 30, 2015/Web of Debt and Global Research 8 October 2008
“State of Minnesota in Justice Court County of Scott Township of Credit River
“First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff, vs. Jerome Daly, Defendant Martin V. Mahoney, Justice Judgment and Decree
“The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 A.M. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel Theodore R. Melby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.
“A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in this Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.
“Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.
“Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged that the Sheriff's Sale passed no title to Plaintiff.
“The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.
“Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that the defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the note and mortgage waived any right to complain about the consideration and that defendant was estopped from doing so.
“At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the jury returned a unanimous verdict for the defendant.
“The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute or the facts for the Jury to resolve.
“Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated Mary 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser–Busch Brewing Co. v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N.W. 558. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.
“Even if Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this no defense to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51 and 52 of Am fur 2d “Actions” on page 584 –“no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which Plaintiff was a party.”
“Plaintiff's act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful rights can be built.”
—Source: Jerome Daly letter about the case & Minnesota State Law Library: Credit River Case Files