Conspiracy Theories 101 Series
Part 6 of 12:
The Banking State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 1 of 12: Introduction
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 2 of 12: The Deep State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 3 of 12: Conspiracy Theorists - Part 1 and Part 2
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 4 of 12: Pedophile Rings
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 5 of 12: The Surveillance State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 6 of 12: The Banking State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 7 of 12: The Environmental Movement
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 8 of 12: Breaking Up the Family Unit
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 9 of 12: The Conspiracy Against Women - Part 1 and Part 2
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 10 of 12: The Conspiracy Against Visible Minorities - Part 1 and Part 2 and Part 3 and Part 4
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 11 of 12: The Media - Part 1 and Part 2
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 12 of 12: The Stigma of Being a Conspiracy Theorist - Part 1 and Part 2
By: Shawn Alli
Posted: October 10, 2017
Updated: July 2, 2022
*This article was updated in July 2022 because the original web pages were too large to be indexed by Google.
*Note: I use the term liberal trifecta to refer to liberals in general, liberal/progressive/neo-liberal media outlets, and Democrats.
Private Banks & Debt & Fiat Currency
The Welfare State & Unions & The Middle Class & Universal Income
Private Banks & Debt & Fiat Currency
The magic trick from private banks is one to behold. GSIGs (via Big Gov't) allows multinational private banks to create money out of thin air, all without printing a single dollar, and then gets repaid with real money.
In a rational world, such a thing could never exist. But in our world, it not only exists, it's thriving. Can you imagine privatizing money, water, and electricity in a rational world? Yet this is what human society as a whole is doing. While conspiracy theorists see this as a problem, liberals and conservatives see this as acceptable and normal behavior. Are you cracked in the head or what?
Contrary to what you may believe, multinational private banks don't give a f*ck about you. They have tens to hundreds of billions of dollars. Take a look at the mortgage settlements:
Financial companies have paid at least $164 billion in more than 100 mortgage-related settlements since 2009.
1. Bank of America: $71.23 billion in 24 settlements
2. JPMorgan Chase: $31.07 billion in 13 settlements
3. Citigroup: $12.26 billion in nine settlements
4. Wells Fargo: $10.56 billion in eight settlements
5. Deutsche Bank: $9.13 billion in two settlements
6. Morgan Stanley: $7.92 billion in nine settlements
7. Goldman Sachs: $7.26 billion in seven settlements
8. Credit Suisse: $6.28 billion in three settlements. [1]
$164 billion in settlements and no one except Lehman Brothers goes bankrupt? Really? But then again, that's the point of the US bailout. In a rational world, the free market rules with minimal regulations to protect the public. Big corporations go bankrupt if they fail. And directors of bankrupt corporations are barred from being a director or CEO for at least 10 years. It's a shame that this picture has no basis in reality whatsoever.
But again, you're just cattle to multinational banks. They don't give a f*ck about you. Don't believe me? See for yourself:
Citigroup, which is now one-third owned by the government as a result of the bailout, gave 738 of its employees bonuses of at least $1 million, even after it lost $18.7 billion during the year, Cuomo's office said.
...Bank of America, which also received $45 billion in TARP money, paid $3.3 billion in bonuses, with 172 employees receiving at least $1 million. Merrill Lynch, which Bank of America acquired during the credit crisis, paid out $3.6 billion.
Bank of America earned $2.56 billion in 2008, while Merrill lost $30.48 billion. Cuomo's office said Merrill Lynch doled out 696 bonuses of at least $1 million for 2008. [2]
Pay for big banks' chief executives shot up 7.6 per cent in 2015 — more than 10 times faster than a year earlier — to an average of $13.1m each. [3]
I'm not against high executive pay. But not at the cost of regular people:
Most major U.S. banks continue to charge high fees when customers overdraft their accounts, according to a new report issued Tuesday.
More than two out of five banks also rearrange their processing of account holders' transactions with a procedure that maximizes overdraft fees... [4]
Banks have been lobbying relentlessly, but in the meantime they have found a more effective method: taking the difference out of consumers' bank accounts.
Is it a coincidence that since the passage of the Durbin amendment, banks have boosted the size of the balance required to qualify for free checking? Monthly account maintenance fees – and all other kinds of bank fees – have also soared.
Citibank, which once offered free banking, last fall announced another round of checking account fee hikes for those customers who can't manage to make one direct deposit and one bill payment (one that qualifies, anyway) on its system each month, and maintain a balance of $1,500 in their accounts. [5]
The Royal Bank of Canada will make a public apology to the workers affected by the bank's outsourcing arrangement with a foreign company.
The apology comes at the end of a week of drubbing from RBC customers and labour critics after the bank's outsourcing plans were disclosed in media reports. [6]
Three TD Bank Group employees are speaking out about what they say is "incredible pressure" to squeeze profits from customers by signing them up for products and services they don't need.
The longtime employees say their jobs have become similar to that of the stereotypical used car salesman, as they're pushed to upsell customers to reach rising sales revenue targets.
..."I'm in survival mode now," says a teller who has worked at TD for more than 15 years, "because it's a choice between keeping my job and feeding my family...or doing what's right for the customer." [7]
Hundreds of current and former TD Bank Group employees wrote to Go Public describing a pressure cooker environment they say is "poisoned," "stress inducing," "insane" and has "zero focus on ethics."
Some employees admitted they broke the law, claiming they were desperate to earn points towards sales goals they have to reach every three months or risk being fired. [8]
The court ruling reveals that TD Bank, which reported profits of $2.5 billion in the first quarter of this year, claimed a provincial tax refund under the IBA [International Business Activity] of more than $2.8 million in the 2012 tax year. That year, TD reported an annual profit of $6.47 billion.
..."I don't think that British Columbia taxpayers know that they're subsidizing some of the most profitable companies in Canada and we don't know why." [9]
CIBC is eliminating up to 130 jobs in its Toronto finance department and outsourcing the work to India.
As part of the transition, staff losing their positions must train other local CIBC employees. Those employees then train the workers in India who will be taking over the jobs.
..."They want to get rid of us no matter what, because we are old or something," said one worker who claims many of the employees facing layoffs are middle-aged or older.
She said CIBC pulled in a $1.4 billion profit in the last quarter and is still outsourcing jobs to save money. [10]
Personally, I don't know what it's like to make $1.4 billion in profit. But if I ever find out, I won't be outsourcing jobs. I'll be rewarding employees for their great work.
Maurice R. Green (the former Chairman of AIG) even sues the US government for their bailout:
The appeals court also ruled that the lower court had not erred in denying A.I.G.'s shareholders up to $40 billion in damages they had sought as a result of the government's takeover. [11]
Again, contrary to what you may believe, these multinational banks don't give a f*ck about you. Even mainstream media outlets and politicians know that the financial system rules everything:
Canada's big banks and the association that represents them have lobbied government officials hundreds of times since the last election – including the watchdogs charged with policing them and members of the parliamentary committee now examining their practices.
...Among cabinet minister, Finance Minister Bill Morneau met 10 times with lobbyists, making him the minister most lobbied by the banking industry. Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay was lobbied seven times. The third most lobbied was Chrystia Freeland when she served as international trade minister and met four times with bank industry officials.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is listed in two lobbying reports – once by the Royal Bank and once by Scotiabank. [12]
...The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson...The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United States — only on a far bigger and broader basis." — Franklin D. Roosevelt in a 1933 letter to Edward M. House... [13]
...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...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...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…payments between central banks could be made by bookkeeping adjustments between the accounts which the central banks of the world kept there…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.
The B.I.S. is generally regarded as the apex of the structure of financial capitalism whose remote origins go back to the creation of the Bank of England in 1694 and the Bank of France in 1803. [14]
Generally speaking, Luxembourg and Switzerland are GSIG headquarters. And then there's the lack of major criminal prosecutions for the 2008 financial crisis:
The credit crisis of 2008 dwarfed those busts, and it was only to be expected that a similar round of crackdowns would ensue.
...But the crackdown never happened. Over the past year, I've interviewed Wall Street traders, bank executives, defense lawyers and dozens of current and former prosecutors to understand why the largest man-made economic catastrophe since the Depression resulted in the jailing of a single investment banker — one who happened to be several rungs from the corporate suite at a second-tier financial institution.
...The department began to focus on reaching settlements rather than seeking prison sentences, which over time unintentionally deprived its ranks of the experience needed to win trials against the most formidable law firms. By the time Serageldin committed his crime, Justice Department leadership, as well as prosecutors in integral United States attorney's offices, were de-emphasizing complicated financial cases — even neglecting clues that suggested that Lehman executives knew more than they were letting on about their bank's liquidity problem. [15]
Eric Holder has long insisted that he tried really hard when he was attorney general to make criminal cases against big banks in the wake of the 2007 financial crisis. His excuse, which he made again just last month, was that Justice Department prosecutors didn't have enough evidence to bring charges.
Many critics have long suspected that was bullsh*t...
A new, thoroughly-documented report from the House Financial Services Committee supports that theory. It recounts how career prosecutors in 2012 wanted to criminally charge the global bank HSBC for facilitating money laundering for Mexican drug lords and terrorist groups. But Holder said no.
When asked on June 8 why his Justice Department did not equally apply the criminal laws to financial institutions in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis, Holder told the platform drafting panel of the Democratic National Committee that it was laboring under a "misperception." [16]
...the report concluded that the Justice Department's leadership overruled an internal recommendation to prosecute HSBC, citing concerns "that prosecuting the bank 'could result in a global financial disaster.'" [17]
When bank executives and regulators get a free pass while paying a fine (not an option for Bitcoin executives), that's how you know that the system is rigged and that you don't live in a democracy. In our irrational private financial system, you can even bet against investments:
In 2010, the S.E.C. secured $550 million from Goldman Sachs. In that case, the agency focused on a single mortgage security created in 2007, just as fissures spread through the housing market. Goldman allowed a hedge fund manager, the S.E.C. claimed, to help construct the security, then bet against it, but never alerted investors. [18]
Fairfax Financial Holdings chief executive Prem Watsa, who profited handsomely by betting against the U.S. housing market before it crashed 10 years ago, had a more ominous take on the state of the market. [19]
Just as statistics will never make an unfalsifiable science falsifiable, no amount of regulators can make the financial system legitimate/genuine. Stop listening to bullsh*t liberal media outlets claiming that you live in a democracy. Most of them are useful idiots to GSIGs. They're not intelligent enough to make the realization that they don't live in a democracy (see Philosophy of Governance & Economics in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).
So why do we continue to bank with these unethical multinational behemoths? Safety. The safest place for your money isn't in your personal safe at home. It's in a large multinational bank. Why? The odds of them folding or being robbed are inconsequential (aside from the 2008 financial crisis). If you want to move money in different countries relatively fast, you need to bank at a large multinational bank. Sadly, in a false democracy, this is still your best bet.
While I have good news for most of my articles, in regards to the banking state, there's none. The only potential good news is if a WE president or prime minister threatens to take their money supply off of the private bank system and issue it themselves.
And our best shot for that is US President Trump. And he has the executive power to do so. If he does, he'll most likely be assassinated...BUT...his legacy as one of the best US presidents in history (along with JFK) will be cemented for all of time.
If Trump decided to do it, how would it go down? First, he would use executive power to stop borrowing from the Federal Reserve and replace Federal Reserve notes with US Treasury ones backed by gold. This can all be done via executive power.
And then, Trump would put a bill on the floor for Congress to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Of course, it won't pass. While the vote is symbolic, it's also necessary. The power of GSIGs is concentrated in their financial means. Screwing with that is a major attack against GSIGs. The vote will show the global public which American politicians (Democrats and Republicans) are beholden to GSIGs when they vote against it.
And aside from outing the politicians, the lead up to the bill will out all of the journalists in mainstream and alternative media outlets that oppose it. It's a win-win for both Trump and the people, despite having no chance of succeeding. This may be the best thing for Trump as a genuine president instead of being another GSIG puppet.
But I think we're moving too quickly. Let's back up and look at the institution of banking in order to fully understand it. First off, what is money? While you may see it as legal tender pieces of paper, in the past, it's just receipts confirming an amount of gold. It's a shame that gold backing disappears in 1933.
But let's start in 1913. In 1913 rich banking families like the Morgans create a private central bank called the Federal Reserve. You can say that this is the beginning of the meta-fiat currency. In the same year, personal income tax is created in the US. All of this happens under US President Woodrow Wilson's watch. If you want to blame someone for America's financial mess, Wilson would fit the bill.
For those that believe that income tax is forever and inescapable, they only have to realize that income tax in the US begins in 1913. From 1776 to 1912 there's no personal income tax in the US.
You need to remember that the global financial system is just a creation of GSIGs to consolidate their power and control throughout the world. All of the corporate tax evasion from Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and Starbucks is all legal. Why? Because that’s the way GSIGs want it.
These corporations get a free pass. But you never will. Governments will bail out corporations that serve the interests of GSIGs from bankruptcy. But they won't bail you or your small business/corporation out if you get into the red. That’s not accidental. That's intentional. Remember, this is a system designed to f*ck you over in every aspect of your life. Why? Because you're just cattle to be exploited in the mind of GSIGs.
But on the optimistic side, things can always change. Just because you're born and grow up in a world of particular ideologies, structures, and systems doesn't mean that it’s absolute and can’t change. Everything can change. It's a matter of ideologies, character, and your purpose in life. But be warned. Those who try to overturn old systems that benefit GSIGs will eventually become a target one way or another.
As a side note, some conspiracy theorists believe that people are seen as corporations once they get their social security number or equivalent. But this is false. These are people who believe that legal courts represent maritime law and such things. Yes, there are people who write books on how they avoid paying taxes because they claim that they're not the person on paper. But if enough people do this, GSIGs (via Big Gov't) will make sure to close that loophole.
But let's get back to the brief history lesson. Prior to 1933, the Federal Reserve is allowed to issue legal tender for the US monetary supply backed by gold. In March 1933 US President Franklin D. Roosevelt enacts the Emergency Banking Act which removes gold as backing and criminalizes its possession. This is the real beginning of fiat currency. Currency backed by nothing except debt. This is not only unethical, it's illegal according to the US Constitution:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. [20]
How do GSIGs get around this? The same way they get around everything. Interpretation. They just interpret the text in a way that benefits them. And then we get to the courageous act of JFK in June 1963 where he enables the US Treasury to issue legal tender under Executive Order 11110. As a conspiracy theorist, I believe this is the act that seals his fate. If Trump ever issues such an executive order, I don't recommend riding in an open car.
And then of course, there's the massive national debt that governments have. In Canada it's over $600 billion (CAD). In the UK it's over £1.5 trillion. In the US it's almost $20 trillion (USD). Why are they in debt? Because they run deficits each year and borrow in order to cover the difference. Why are they running deficits? Because their expenses/spending is greater than their revenue (your taxpayer dollars).
Why don't politicians (especially during the 2016 US election) care? Because of credit. Canada, the UK, and the US have great credit. Private banks, pensions, the government itself (intra-government holdings), corporations, states/municipalities, individuals, and foreign governments will keep them afloat by buying their debt via bonds.
And where are governments going to get the money to pay the interest on these bonds? More bonds. Debt is propping up more debt. The fact that this is the normal way of doing business is evidence of the irrational financial system in WE society.
A rational business will spend less than the amount they take in (revenue). That's proper business principles. Irrational businesses spend more than what they have by borrowing from banks. The fact that the latter seems normal to people is evidence of how badly you’re perception of reality is warped and how good the GSIG conditioning is.
But governments and businesses today continue to spend more than what they have and will continue to do so. Why don't both Democrats and Republicans address the almost $20 trillion (USD) in national debt?
Again, they don't care. Why not? Because GSIGs want people to think of debt as the normal way of doing business. Why? Because they can create fake money out of thin air while you pay it back with real money. That's a magic trick worthy of praise for GSIGs for their ability to f*ck people over.
The fact that governments are applauding themselves for borrowing a few billion less than the previous year is a hollow victory. Even if your deficit is zero one year, you still have to pay the massive debt for all the prior years. Start reducing spending in the tens of billions/year and start increasing revenue in the single billions/year and then you can have your cake and eat it.
What happens if we finally pay back the debt? Great. You're now at zero profit. It's not much, but it's better than negative $20 trillion (USD). Oddly enough, 1835 is the only year when the US national debt is paid off under the great stewardship of US President Andrew Jackson.
Allow me to be crystal clear. Even if governments pay off the national debt, they can never repay the entire debt. Why not? Because each dollar has interest on it. There is no amount of money in existence capable of paying back the principal amount and the interest (created from thin air).
The debt can NEVER...EVER be repaid. If you remember anything from this article remember that point. That's the magic trick of private banks lending money to governments as legal tender. And again, all of this is 100% legal under governments because this is how GSIGs want it.
Whether it's the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), central banks, or state banks, all of it is for-profit. But central banks in the US and Canada give net profit back to their respective governments. Yes and no. Yes, money is given back to the government, but Hollywood/Government accounting plays with the numbers.
Technically speaking, all net profit goes toward respective government treasury departments. But if that were true, private banks would have very little money left for themselves. But in reality, the Bank of Canada, Bank of England, and the Federal Reserve have massive amounts of money:
Total Assets for 2016 or 2016/2017
*Note: Amounts are rounded up to one decimal point.
*Note: All amounts are in their respective currencies.
Bank of Canada - $106.1 billion. [21]
Bank of England - £517.7 billion. [22]
Federal Reserve - $4.5 trillion. [23]
This is one reason why nationalizing a bank isn't a solution. Both the Bank of Canada and Bank of England are already government owned banks. But all of the net profits aren't going to their respective governments. It's staying in the pockets of these public or private banks:
Bank for International Settlements 2016/2017 annual report
It is my pleasure to submit to you the 87th Annual Report of the Bank for International Settlements for the financial year which ended on 31 March 2017.
The net profit for the year amounted to SDR [a unit created by the IMF based on major currencies] 827.6 million...
...If these proposals are approved, the Bank's dividend for the financial year 2016/17 will be payable to shareholders on 29 June 2017. [24]
Federal Reserve website
(a) Dividends And Surplus Funds Of Reserve Banks.
Stockholder Dividends.
Dividend Amount. After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders of the bank shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend on paid-in capital stock of--
in the case of a stockholder with total consolidated assets of more than $10,000,000,000, the smaller of--
the rate equal to the high yield of the 10-year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the payment of such dividend; and
6 percent; and
in the case of a stockholder with total consolidated assets of $10,000,000,000 or less, 6 percent.
...(c) Exemption From Taxation. Federal reserve banks, including the capital stock and surplus therein, and the income derived therefrom shall be exempt from Federal, State, and local taxation, except taxes upon real estate. [25]
The dividend is tax free? What? Only private for-profit banks have the power to create such sweetheart deals. While you're getting taxed on all of your income, private bank members of the Federal Reserve get a free pass. That's not accidental. That's intentional.
Amazingly, the Obama administration steals some of the Federal Reserve's dividends:
The complaint from the American Bankers Association in the Court of Federal Claims in Washington said the December 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation, or FAST, Act violated more than 100 years of federal law. To cover part of the costs of the $305 billion in highway maintenance and other upgrades that the bill provided, it slashed a mandatory 6 percent dividend payment that regional Federal Reserve Banks pay to member banks with more than $10 billion in assets that purchase stock in those financial institutions.
As a result of the FAST Act, the Fed has transferred some $1.1 billion to the U.S. Department of the Treasury that would have otherwise gone to plaintiff banks since the law went into effect in January 2016. [26]
That's hilarious. I think this is the Obama administration's boldest action ever undertaken. Even the Bank of Canada, a government corporation, charges the Government of Canada interest:
The Bank's primary source of revenue is Interest earned on investments, which is derived from investments in Government of Canada securities and fluctuates with market conditions. [27]
What's the solution?
The only solution in a false democracy is for governments to authorize their treasury departments to be responsible for monetary policy and issue legal tender. And only US President Trump has the best shot in implementing this solution.
All it takes is an executive order. I would bet that if Trump starts to get serious in bypassing the Federal Reserve, a number of US Supreme Court judges and Federal Reserve directors will retire. Why? Because GSIGs want the current financial system to remain in place. And they'll sweeten the pot to do so.
Of course, Trump can make the threat, get a few more choices on Supreme Court judges and Federal Reserve directors, and then next year...f*ck GSIGs over by authorizing the Treasury Department to print legal tender and end public/private central banks.
Of course, such an action would definitely lead to his public assassination. But Trump is pushing 70 years of age. He might as well go out with a bang and cement his legacy in US history.
But what will happen to the US if we do nothing? The US national debt will continue to increase and will eventually get to a point where the GDP to debt level is too low. What then? A default by the US government becomes a possibility and the only way out will be for GSIGs (via private banks) to save them.
And the cost will be the soul of America. Aside from the infrastructure, GSIGs will demand the US enter into global trade agreements and abolish any sense of nationalism. If GISGs do it correctly and push the Canadian government to that same brink of debt, they can demand that the US and Canada have the same currency.
And just in case you're wondering, no, Bitcoin can't save the US or global economy from GSIGs. Why not? Because the technology isn't scalable at the global level. Nor is it anonymous. If the government wants to see your Bitcoin wallet, they can. It's a bit difficult but definitely possible.
While the intentions of Bitcoin come from the anarchist movement, it has no basis in reality. While its founders may have wanted to use it to overthrow the current financial system, almost 10 years later it's barely a conversation starter.
Again, to all the visionaries out there, there's no blank slate where you can create your utopia and then it's clear sailing from there. If you want to change the system, you have to do it in the current regulatory/political/economic/financial environment.
This is something that Bitcoin founders and advocates don't understand. The lack of oversight of Bitcoin leads to numerous illegal transactions and the theft of thousands of Bitcoins through incompetence or the collapse of digital exchanges.
And Bitcoin is about tracking every single transaction. That's not an empowering ideology. That's a surveillance state ideology. Bitcoin has value to GSIGs because of its blockchain and surveillance state characteristics. Sadly, anarchists and progressives who support Bitcoin are just advocating for a new form of surveillance.
And remember, if you don't like the current solutions above, you can advocate for a real democracy in a skoparxist government (see Philosophy of Governance & Economics in Part I), where the majority will (80% of the people) have the final say on monetary policies.
The Welfare State & Unions & The Middle Class & Universal Income
The fact that people can be on welfare for practically their whole lives is an example of the welfare state. The fact that large corporations can screw people and suppliers over and get a bailout from the government is an example of the welfare state.
The fact that corporations can go bankrupt and still return from bankruptcy is an example of the welfare state. It's just too big to fail. Oddly enough, some executives even get bonuses while in bankruptcy protection:
Former Nortel workers who are still owed money say they're frustrated that executives with the now defunct company are still drawing retention bonuses, eight years after the company started bankruptcy proceedings.
...Nortel filed for protection from its creditors in January 2009, leaving shareholders, former employees and pensioners with huge losses in one of the biggest bankruptcy cases in Canadian history. [28]
People on welfare are a huge problem in WE society. Generally speaking, they have no motivation to enter into full-time employment. What does the government do? They reward them with welfare for reasons of compassion. What would happen if they didn't? One of two things. Either the people would live a lower quality of life and/or die...or, they'll destroy the entire economic and political system.
How? Like most things, they just have to organize themselves. If enough people feel that it's the system's fault, they can channel that anger into a real movement. And not just a regular movement, but a movement that can destroy an economy.
What would happen if welfare ended in Canada and the US tomorrow? Not much. But fast forward one month later, and there won't be enough police and military to keep government officials safe. Fast forward 3 months later, and there won't be enough police and military to keep rich people safe. Fast forward 1 year later, and there won't be enough police and military to keep the middle class safe.
People who have nothing to lose are potentially the most dangerous people on the planet. That's why governments placate them with welfare (left over scraps). Governments have no ability to predict their movements, thoughts, or actions. But if a homeless person or a low income person kills someone of power, the consequences are insignificant. Jail in some places is better than homelessness in others.
What's the correct solution? The liberal trifecta are praising universal income as the solution:
The Canadian province of Ontario will launch a trial run of universal basic income with about 4,000 participants this summer, making it the frst North American government in decades to test out a policy touted as a panacea to poverty, bloated bureaucracy and the rise of precarious work.
Participants in the three-year, C$150m pilot program will be drawn from the cities of Hamilton, Thunder Bay and Lindsay. A randomly selected mail-out will invite applications in the coming months, with participants screened to ensure they are between the ages of 18 and 64 years and living on a low income. [29]
One might assume that the Ontario Liberal government's pilot project to provide a guaranteed basic income would be roundly dismissed by those on the political and economic right as yet another government-led social welfare scheme doomed to failure.
But the policy has adherents among some free-market economists and libertarian thinkers who believe this type of program is the most efficient way to provide assistance to the poor. [30]
Sorry, but giving free money to low income people without any strings attached is not the correct way to empower people or lift them out of poverty. In the past, I've worked in Aboriginal communities in Northern Canada. I've seen generations of Aboriginal families on welfare. It's not a pretty picture. Ben Carson's comment on not making welfare too comfortable, [31] while politically incorrect, is correct in reality.
Oddly enough, billionaires are touting universal income as the solution for the declining middle class:
Hawaii has become the first state in the country to officially start exploring a means to provide its residents with a guaranteed basic income. The bill, passed recently by both houses of the state legislature in a unanimous vote, declares that all Hawaiians "deserve basic financial security" and directs state agencies to analyze "universal basic income" and similar policy options. [32]
"We should explore ideas like universal basic income," said Zuckerberg, referencing an idea that would pay everyone a base salary, regardless of the work they did. "We're all going to change jobs and roles so we all need affordable childcare and healthcare that's not tied to one employer." [33]
While speaking at the World Government Summit in Dubai this week, Musk warned that a universal "basic income" will become necessary as people's jobs are increasingly replaced by robots.
"There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better," Musk said, according to Fast Company. "I think some kind of universal basic income is going to be necessary." [34]
Branson said he became enthused about the idea of UBI after attending a meeting with The Elders in Finland, which has begun an experimental program to test the viability of UBI. The program gives 560 euros per month to 2,000 unemployed Finns, who get the monthly cash sum regardless of whether they begin working or not. Branson said this could actually increase employment by encouraging recipients to work. [35]
Generally speaking, any solution advocated by billionaires is a bad idea for low income and visible minorities. Especially solutions that come from privileged white billionaires.
The major distinction between middle class and low income workers is job security and disposable income on a regular basis. If you have job security and disposable income when you get your pay every two weeks, you’re in the middle class bracket.
Of course, the term job security is relative to your understanding of the labor market and technology. With the advent of 3d printing and advanced automation, a lot of middle class jobs are disappearing or will disappear entirely. Despite that, I support automation. And 3d printing and advanced automation represents an increase in efficiency.
A robot/machine that can create product X is much more efficient and valuable than an employee who has an 8 hr day and sucks up a lot of benefits. When 3d printing and advanced automation starts to replace people in the manufacturing sector, unions are going to have a very difficult road ahead. And I'm anti-union (with exception for maintenance jobs).
And here comes the tangent.
Can you believe that there are teachers and university teaching staff hiding behind a union and threatening to strike because they want more financial security or prep time for their middle class job? All of these strikes/threats of a strike are taking place against the backdrop of people starving and dying in developing nations.
And that's the disconnect. While these middle class workers are protesting their middle class lifestyle, other people are dying in developing nations from starvation, malnutrition, warlords, and preventable diseases. And these middle class people have the nerve to strike? Are you cracked in the head?
Unions for middle class workers pisses me the f*ck off. When I see teachers, police officers, postal workers, and university staff striking, I try to stay silent because god help them if they ask for my support. I've seen university teaching staff protesting their wages and preparation time during a strike. People in developing nations...people in Venezuela...would literally kill these employees to have their gold-plated middle class WE lifestyle.
Yes, unions in the past are a means to protect the working class and visible minorities. But today you're not battling an employer who's going to make you work until you starve or whip you. You're dealing with an employer that has to abide by basic human rights and workplace rights.
If you can't come to an agreement on working for someone, you shouldn't be working there. If you can't negotiate on your own, you're lacking in character. If you can't be treated as an adult to make your own decisions, you need to sit down at the children's table.
But let's get back to universal income. Giving people free money to do f*ck all has never ended well in the past. It's not working in the present. And it definitely won't work in the future. Implementing basic universal income for lower and middle class workers will condition such people to lose motivation in life.
And who will be empowered to strive for more and better society? That prize will go to rich white people running multinational corporations. The people will exist as cattle to be exploited via mass consumption of products and taxes. Exactly what GSIGs want.
Are their better solutions? Yes. One, every student from grade 8 and up should create a goal of making at least one million dollars (USD/CAD) through entrepreneurship. As a philosopher, I despise money. But it's necessary in order to have a good life in the 21st century.
Setting a goal of making at least one million is much better than getting into debt and working in a debt slave job to pay off that massive debt. Get ahead of the game with entrepreneurship and living debt free from a young age.
Two, everyone in high school should learn how to code. While you may not go into that field, having a basic grasp of coding will be a valuable asset to anyone in the era of advanced automation.
And three, you should make sure that you're doing a job of passion and purpose. If you're working yourself to death like people in Japan, [36] or doing something you don't like, you're wasting your time on this planet.
Sure, you can say that you're doing it for family, but if the purpose of your existence is just to procreate, you don't need education to do that. If you're confused and don't know where to begin in finding/creating your purpose, I recommend radical dualism (see Philosophy of Mind in Part I and Autoimmune Diseases for Everyone in Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).
And now we can get to corporate welfare. The $600 plus billion in US bailouts is the best example. What should the US have done? Let the banks fail and go bankrupt while the government secures funding for individual home owners.
In addition, the directors of the hypothetical bankrupt banks would be barred from being a director or CEO of a corporation for at least 5-10 years. That should be a strong incentive to keep CEOs and directors accountable to not only their shareholders, but to the public/consumers.
The EU bailouts are another example of corporate welfare. While it's still ongoing, the estimated total for bailing out Spain, Greece, Hungary, Cyprus, Latvia, Portugal, Ireland, and Romania is over €500 billion, with a maximum fund of €800 billion. [37] And where is this bailout money coming from? EU taxpayers of course.
What was the better solution? Let the countries go bankrupt, split off from the EU and carve their own destinies. Yes, things would have gotten worse before it got better, but the EU is a cesspool of zero financial accountability for EU taxpayers. Like workers in the Chinese communist government, EU citizens will accept it as long as their comfortable/semi-comfortable lifestyle continues.
And don't think that the EU bailout or the 2008 US bailout are exceptions to the norm. Contrary to what you may believe, and contrary to what media outlets and governments want you to believe, bailouts are the norm:
Mexican financial crisis – 1994/95 - $50 billion bailout via IMF and BIS
Asian financial crisis – 1997 - $40 billion bailout via IMF
Russian financial crisis – 1998 - $22.6 billion bailout via the IMF and World Bank
Argentinean financial crisis – 2000 - $20-25 billion bailout via the IMF
Brazilian financial crisis – 2002 - $30 billion bailout via the IMF.
Propping up corrupt or incompetent governments doesn't help anyone in the long run. It only hurts the growth and development of humanity. This is the same ideology when children sports teams don't keep track of points/goals in order for everyone to be a winner.
This is the same ideology when schools pass children/teenagers even if they're failing. While some people may think that this helps in the short term, in the long run it hinders individuals, society, and humanity.
Contrary to what you may believe, failure is a necessary part of normal human development. If a person commits suicide because they can't handle failure, they wouldn't have made it anyways. It's time to take the training wheels off of humanity and let people be responsible for their actions.
These massive bailouts (with taxpayer money and debt) send a clear message that governments don't have to be fiscally responsible. Corrupt politicians may be forced to resign, but they'll get back on their feet in a few months in the private sector. Any significant changes that do occur because of the bailouts (rewriting corporate and government policies) will be beneficial to GSIGs. That's not accidental. That's intentional.
The fact that the financial industry is even an industry, and a for-profit one at that, is a testament to humanity's low level of development. They make money by gambling other people's money. Are you cracked in the head? All of those minted Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and Stanford Wall Street yuppies are negating the growth and development of humanity by participating in the for-profit financial industry. Where is Jesus when you need him?
And the for-profit financial industry is only one reflection of humanity's low level of development. The fact that we have a for-profit parcel industry and transportation industry is a joke. People deliver parcels for profit. Umm...what? People are making a profit from going to point A to point B. Umm...what?
While this seems normal to us in 2017, this will most likely be met with ridicule and scorn from future generations. Why? The ideology that people should profit off of the necessities of life is powerfully disturbing and representative of humanity's low level of development.
The 2008 bailout for US corporations is just another rung on the bailout ladder. During the 2008 bailout for automakers, the US government loses $9.2 billion (USD). [38] The Canadian government loses $3.5 billion (CAD). [39] Do they care? No. Why not? Because it's not their money. It's American and Canadian taxpayer money.
This is why governments love to spend money on ideological programs. Even if the programs are useless, it won't end for another 3-5 years. Why not? Because they're not wasting their money. It's your money.
It's much easier to risk someone else's money instead of your own. By spending money on these projects, politicians are only risking their position of power in future elections. Never mind the bullsh*t pie in the sky promises during elections.
Allow me to be clear. When you don't have control or any say in how your taxes are spent, that's a red flag that you don’t live in a democracy. Stop pretending that you live in a democracy by electing your sh*tty politician. Electing a politician to make decisions for you is not, never has been, and never will be a characteristic of a real democracy (see Philosophy of Governance & Economics in Part I).
Another example of corporate welfare is when governments bail out corporations from time to time or just throw money at them when the corporations ask for it:
The federal government says it will provide $372.5 million in interest-free loans to Bombardier, a move that elicited criticism even though it is far less than the transportation giant originally sought more than a year ago.
...Last year, Bombardier received a $1-billion US investment for the CSeries passenger jet program from the Quebec government in exchange for a 49.5-per-cent stake. [40]
The federal and provincial governments are investing more than $200 million in a new engine program at Ford's Essex Engine Plant in Windsor, Ont., as part of a $1-billion partnership with the company to "create and maintain" almost 800 jobs.
The federal and provincial governments each committed a $102.4-million conditional grant to the company, bringing the total investment in Windsor to about $600 million. [41]
Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. [42]
And yes, for the record, I'm against any subsidies for oil, coal, or natural gas corporations. But the subsidies don't stop there. They continue in the entertainment/sports industry:
Ontario's publicly owned resort casinos have gambled and lost $10 million on a program that gave house credit to hundreds of bettors who then walked out on their debts. [43]
Hollywood may make movies about the evils of capitalism, but it rarely works without incentives, which are paid for by taxpayers. Nationwide, about $1.5 billion in tax breaks is awarded to the film industry each year... [44]
If you're a U.S. taxpayer, you're subsidizing the wildly profitable National Football League (NFL), regardless of whether you're a fan or not:
The NFL is the most profitable pro sports league in the U.S., raking in an estimated $1 billion in profits on $10.5 billion in revenue last season...
...Twenty new NFL stadiums have opened since 1997 with the help of $4.7 billion in taxpayer funds,
...Sponsors also spend about $190 million a year for the right to plaster a local venue with their logo, according to research firm IEG. Even when corporate names are hung on city-owned stadiums, the teams keep all those profits, not the cities. And companies can deduct all of those expenditures as marketing expenses. [45]
In Quebec City and Edmonton, governments are currently sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into new arenas. In Quebec City’s case, the aim is to attract an NHL franchise. The rationale in Edmonton is to keep its team, the Oilers, from leaving.
...The price tag for buying a franchise and building a new baseball stadium – presumably, a domed one – will top $1-billion. And it won’t happen unless taxpayers pick up a big chunk of the tab.
...Quebec City’s $400-million Centre Videotron was built with a combination of municipal and provincial government money. [46]
Why are governments giving so much money to the entertainment industry? Because GSIGs want people to drown their sorrows in entertainment. The more conditioned you are with entertainment, the more easier it is to control you, your thoughts, and your actions. And when conditioning fails, wars and invasions become the norm, which the industry profits from:
The United States Justice Department has opened an investigation to determine whether the chairman [Jacques Correze] of the $1 billion American affiliate of L'Oreal, the French cosmetics company, should be barred from the United States for his pro-Nazi activities during World War II.
...Mr. Correze spent almost five years in a French prison after the war for his activities as a leader in several collaborationist organizations, including the underground group, known as the Cagoule, that carried out assassinations, bombings and raids on synagogues and Jewish-owned shops. Mr. Correze asserts that he never took part in any assassinations, attacks or anti-Semitic persecutions, though documents have been turned over to the Justice Department indicating that he took part in raids on the homes of Paris Jews. [47]
The French cosmetics company L'Oreal profited from a house which had been confiscated from its Jewish owners when they were sent to their death in concentration camps during the second world war, it was claimed in the appeal court in Paris yesterday.
..."All the other businesses which took Jewish property have since returned it, without any great debate. I don't understand why L'Oreal should be any different from the others." [48]
Faced with a new lawsuit over the use of slave labor during World War II, Volkswagen A.G. is to announce plans on Friday to set up a fund of about $12 million to compensate surviving workers.
...The move comes at a time when American lawyers have filed class-action suits over slave labor against Volkswagen and many other German industrial companies. Most of the companies acknowledge that they used slave laborers during Hitler's Third Reich, but they say they were forced to do so by the Government.
...Volkswagen, along with most other German companies, continues to deny any legal responsibility for its actions during the Hitler years. [49]
...the Nazi past of top German firms like Bosch, Mercedes, Deutsche Bank, VW and many others, which involved the use of almost 300,000 slaves.
The league table follows revelations earlier that Audi, which was known as Auto Union during the Nazi period, was a big exploiter of concentration camp supplied slave labor, using 20,000 concentration camp inmates in its factories.
...In 2011, the dynasty behind the BMW luxury car marker admitted, after decades of silence, to using slave labour, taking over Jewish firms and doing business with the highest echelons of the Nazi party during World War Two.
...Daimler, which owns Mercedes, admitted as far back as 1986 that it had employed 40,000 forced labourers under appalling conditions during the war enabling it to reap massive profits.
VW, builder of the 'People's Car' that morphed postwar in the VW Beetle, employed 12,000 slaves in the most terrible of conditions at its plant in Wolfsburg. The chemical and pharmaceutical behemoths BASF, Bayer and Hoechst employed 80,000 slaves.
Germany's largest bank, Deutsche, did not employ slaves but became hugely wealthy under Nazism. The bank sacked all Jewish directors when the Nazis came to power and from 1938 onwards became the richest in Germany by taking part in the 'Aryanising' - or taking over - of Jewish-owned businesses. [50]
Nearly 40 years ago, Halliburton faced almost identical charges over its work for the U.S. government in Vietnam — allegations of overcharging, sweetheart contracts from the White House and war profiteering.
...More questions were raised when a consortium of which Brown & Root was a part won a $380 million contract to build airports, bases, hospitals and other facilities for the U.S. Navy in South Vietnam.
...Today, Brown & Root is called Kellogg, Brown & Root — a Halliburton subsidiary better known as KBR. [51]
The US has overwhelmingly borne the brunt of both the military and reconstruction costs, spending at least $138bn on private security, logistics and reconstruction contractors, who have supplied everything from diplomatic security to power plants and toilet paper [in Iraq].
An analysis by the Financial Times reveals the extent to which both American and foreign companies have profited from the conflict – with the top 10 contractors securing business worth at least $72bn between them. [52]
The business of war is profitable. In 2011, the 100 largest contractors sold $410 billion in arms and military services. Just 10 of those companies sold over $208 billion.
...Many defense contractors are looking overseas to make up for slowing sales in the U.S. and Europe. Arms producers are especially keen on Latin America, the Middle East and parts of Asia, Jackson said. For instance, BAE is securing contracts with Saudi Arabia.
...Here are the 10 companies that profit the most from war:
10. United Technologies (UTX) -- aircraft, electronics, engines
Arm sales: $11.6 billion, total sales: $58.2 billion
9. L-3 Communications (LLL) -- electronics
Arm sales: $12.5 billion, total sales: $15.2 billion
8. Finmeccanica -- aircraft, artillery, engines, electronics, vehicles and missiles
Arms sales, $14.6 billion, total sales: $24.1 billion
7. EADS -- aircraft, electronics, missiles and space
Arm sales: $16.4 billion, total sales: $68.3 billion
6. Northrop Grumman (NOC) -- aircraft, electronics, missiles, ships, space
Arm sales: $21.4 billion, total sales: $26.4 billion
5. Raytheon (RTN) -- electronics, missiles
Arm sales: $22.5 billion, total sales: $24.9 billion
4. General Dynamics (GD) -- artillery, electronics, vehicles, small arms, ships
Arm sales: $23.8 billion, total sales: $32.7 billion
3. BAE Systems -- aircraft, artillery, electronics, vehicles, missiles, ships
Arm sales: $29.2 billion, total sales: $30.7 billion
2. Boeing (BA) -- aircraft, electronics, missiles, space
Arm sales: $31.8 billion, total sales: $68.7 billion
1. Lockheed Martin (LMT) -- aircraft, electronics, missiles, space
Arm sales:$36.3 billion, total sales: $46.5 billion. [53]
Clearly, national and multinational corporations profit from crimes against humanity in the past and present. That's not accidental. That's intentional. Why? Because that's how the GSIG script has been written.
What does this have to do with the banking state? Because all corporations, no matter how small need a bank account in order to operate. Weapons manufacturers can legally sell weapons to almost anyone on the planet and make a profit all because of the banking state.
You can even argue that the banks indirectly give weapons manufacturers a license to kill and perpetuate war (all with the permission of government of course). That's not accidental. That's intentional.
And now we can get to direct involvement of banks/bankers funding civil or global war. Contrary to what you may beleive, banks are the institutions that make sure that the GSIG script is running smoothly. Allow me to quote a fictional character from the 2009 film The International:
This is not about making profit from weapon sales. It's about control.
Control the flow of weapons, control the conflict.
No. No, no. The IBBC is a bank. Their objective isn't to control the conflict. It's to control the debt that the conflict produces. You see, the real value of a conflict...the true value, is in the debt that it creates. You control the debt. You control everything...this is the very essence of the banking industry. To make us all, whether we be nations or individuals...slaves to debt. [54]
Who do you think funds the Nazis and the South Africa apartheid regime? WE banks:
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany. The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
...even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty. [55]
...just six months before Britain went to war with Nazi Germany, the Bank of England willingly handed over nearly $9-million worth of gold to Hitler – and it belonged to another country.
...The Czechoslovak gold was held in London in a sub-account in the name of the Bank for International Settlements...
...The BIS was founded in 1930, in effect by Montagu Norman and his close friend Hjalmar Schacht, the former president of the Reichsbank, known as the father of the Nazi economic miracle. Schacht even referred to the BIS as "my" bank. The BIS is a unique hybrid: a commercial bank protected by international treaty. Its assets can never be seized, even in times of war. It pays no taxes on profits. [56]
Supposedly neutral, Switzerland was happy to take German gold in return for hard currency and weapons, enabling the Nazis to continue their war effort. [57]
At the turn of the 21st century, Swiss banks faced multiple lawsuits for their role in accepting and laundering the assets of victims of the Nazi-orchestrated Holocaust.
...It also lobbied hard to ensure the Swiss government put a blanket ban on access to any documents which spoke to Swiss corporations' links with apartheid SA [South Africa].
Despite its policy of neutrality, Switzerland clearly chooses to side with profit. This behaviour requires secrecy to thrive. So it should come as no surprise that in addition to Nazi gold, Swiss bank vaults also housed apartheid profits.
...A file...identified SA, Canada and New Zealand as possible safe havens for Swiss companies and politicians in the event of a nuclear war.
In a letter dated May 5 1960 - less than two months after the massacre - the official wrote: "There is no doubt that the South African government is committed to ensuring peace and order and security under all circumstances. We can also expect positive efforts to be made to maintain good relations between the races. Under these circumstances, it appears justified to continue the discussions with South African officials." [58]
Khulumani is seeking reparations from banks including Barclays, Citigroup and Deutsche Bank for lending money to the South African government in the 1970s and 1980s, which it says led to the expansion of the apartheid police and security apparatus. The group accuses oil companies including BP and Shell, and car makers including Ford and GM, of violating sales embargoes against South Africa at the time. [59]
Just so we're clear, WE banks in general are directly responsible for funding the apartheid South African regime. And that policy also applies to Nazi funding. The BIS and Swiss banks are directly responsible for funding the Nazi regime and for perpetuating WWII. Again, none of this is accidental. All of it is intentional. Why? Because war is the script that GSIGs push when regular conditioning doesn't work.
But not all banks profit from war. Aside from banks being the cause and profiting from the 2008/09 financial recession, they also engage in unethical/illegal non-war activities:
Analyzing data from other countries, Harvey and Winkler deduced where the vast majority of unrecorded capital flowing into the U.K. was coming from. Since 2010, they wrote, about a billion and a half dollars had arrived, unrecorded, in London every month; "a good chunk" of it was from Russia. "At its most extreme," the authors explained, the unrecorded capital flight from Moscow included "criminal activity such as tax evasion and money laundering." [60]
Deutsche Bank has been fined more than $630m (£506m) for failing to prevent $10bn of Russian money laundering and exposing the UK financial system to the risk of financial crime.
...Five previous Deutsche fines
January 2017 £500m for Russian money-laundering offences.
January 2017 £75m to resolve a US government lawsuit over hiding tax liabilities to the Internal Revenue Service in 2000.
December 2016 £5.9bn for toxic bond mis-selling scandal.
November 2015 £200m for breaching US sanctions with Iran and Syria.
April 2015 £1.7bn for rigging Libor. [61]
BNP Paribas SA...was sentenced to five years probation by a U.S. judge on Friday in connection with a record $8.9 billion settlement resolving claims that it violated sanctions against Sudan, Cuba and Iran. [62]
As we all know, multinational corporations paying fines is just the cost of doing business. In the end, it’s a slap on the wrist with no criminal penalties. That's not justice. That's corruption. And of course, none of this is accidental. All of it is intentional. Why? Because multinational banks grease the wheels of GSIG ideologies and plans.
Banks are not allowed to fail. Even if they do fail, they'll get bailed out with taxpayer money. Even if they don't get bailed out, the executives will move to another corporation or create a new one. In the end, the banks win while the public loses big. How long will you claim that you live in a free democracy when corruption is the norm for public/private institutions?
And the unethical/illegal actions by banks continue:
Four Canadian financial institutions invested $565 million in the companies that manufacture cluster bombs, a weapon that is banned under a UN treaty that Canada has ratified...
...The companies are among 158 worldwide that invested $28 billion in companies connected to the weapons between June 2012 and April 2016...
...The report names the Royal Bank of Canada, Manulife Financial, Sun Life Financial and CI Financial... [63]
The Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds TSB, Barclays and HSBC have all provided funding to the makers of cluster bombs, even as international opinion turns against a weapons system that is inherently indiscriminate and routinely maims or kills civilians. [64]
Britain's high street banks processed nearly $740m from a vast money-laundering operation run by Russian criminals with links to the Russian government and the KGB...
HSBC, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds, Barclays and Coutts are among 17 banks based in the UK, or with branches here, that are facing questions over what they knew about the international scheme and why they did not turn away suspicious money transfers.
...at least $20bn appears to have been moved out of Russia during a four-year period between 2010 and 2014. The true figure could be $80bn, detectives believe. [65]
Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year [2008]. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result. [66]
What, then, are we to make of Goldman Sachs fund managers' recent secondary-market purchase, at a steep discount, of $2.8 billion worth of bonds issued by the state-owned oil company of Venezuela; that is to say, the same government that guns down pro-democracy protesters on a near-daily basis and otherwise subjects its people to vast corruption and economic privation?
The cash Caracas reaped will help President Nicolas Maduro survive the (very) short-term, or even remain in power long enough to pay back Goldman in 2022, necessarily by imposing more brutal austerity on his people...the firm would probably break even under any scenario short of total debt repudiation, which would not be in a future democracy's own interest. [67]
Breuer [then US Assistant Attorney General] this week signed off on a settlement deal with the British banking giant HSBC that is the ultimate insult to every ordinary person who's ever had his life altered by a narcotics charge. Despite the fact that HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws...Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, opting instead for a "record" financial settlement of $1.9 billion, which as one analyst noted is about five weeks of income for the bank. [68]
Spain has launched an investigation into the European management of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)...in Luxembourg as part of a widening probe into the alleged laundering of hundreds of millions of euros through the Chinese banking giant’s Madrid branch. [69]
American banks have profited from money laundering by Latin American drug cartels, while the European debt crisis has strengthened the grip of the loan sharks and speculators who control the vast underground economies in countries like Spain and Greece.
Mutually beneficial relationships between bankers and gangsters aren't new, but what's remarkable is their reach at the highest levels of global finance. In 2010, Wachovia admitted that it had essentially helped finance the murderous drug war in Mexico by failing to identify and stop illicit transactions.
...ABN Amro, Barclays, Credit Suisse, Lloyds and ING have reached expensive settlements with regulators after admitting to executing the transactions of clients in disreputable countries like Cuba, Iran, Libya, Myanmar and Sudan.
...The United Nations estimated that $1.6 trillion was laundered globally in 2009, of which about $580 billion was related to drug trafficking and other forms of organized crime. [70]
Be it money laundering, weapons, drugs, corrupt dictators, or junk bonds, banks/bankers are always there to support such unethical/illegal activities. And none of this is accidental. It's all intentional. Why? Because this is how the GSIG world really works. Backroom deals, weapons, favours, debt...they're all a means to an end to accomplish GSIG goals.
And how do we stop such people? Sorry, that's not happening anytime soon. It doesn't matter how many occupy movements/Bernie Sanders protests occur. Why not? Because you have to deposit your money somewhere. Sadly, the behemoth banks are the safest place. Either that or you have to go back to stuffing your house full of money and worry about armed robbery.
Corporations can never stop using banks. If you want to set up a genuine corporation you need a reputable bank for the transport of money (electronic and physical). And just in case you're wondering, no, Bitcoin won't be able to help you and your corporation.
Perhaps it would be easier to hear the reality from fictional characters in the 2009 film The International:
Justice...is not possible
Why not?
Because Agent Salinger, you're idea of justice is an illusion. Don't you understand, the very system which you serve and protect will never allow anything to happen to Skarssen or the bank? On the contrary, the system guarantees the IBBC's safety. Because everyone is involved.
What do you mean everyone?
Hezbollah...CIA...the Columbian drug cartels...Russian organized crime...governments of Iran, Germany, China, your government...every multinational corporation...everyone. They all need banks like the IBBC so that they can operate within the black and grey latitudes. [54]
The only plausible solution is to move towards a skoparxist government with the people (the majority will) have the power to create policy and decide the fate of a country and hopefully one day, the planet (see Philosophy of Governance & Economics in Part I).
References:
[1] Where Does the Mortgage Settlement Money Go? New York Times. December 24, 2016.
[2] Bernard, Stephen. Bailed-out banks gave millions in exec bonuses, NY AG report shows. ABC News. April 3, 2016.
[3] Noonan, Laura and McLannahan, Ben. Pay for big bank chief executives jumps nearly 8%. Financial Times. July 12, 2016.
[4] McCoy, Kevin. Study: Largest U.S. banks still charge high overdraft fees. USA Today. December 20, 2016.
[5] McGee, Suzanne. The debit card fee driving US banks crazy – and costing consumers more than they realize. Guardian. January 27, 2015.
[6] Flavelle, Dana. Royal Bank apologizes to outsourced workers. Toronto Star. April 11, 2013.
[7] Johnson, Erica. 'I will do anything I can to make my goal': TD teller says customers pay price for 'unrealistic' sales targets. CBC News. March 6, 2017.
[8] Johnson, Erica. 'We do it because our jobs are at stake': TD bank employees admit to breaking the law for fear of being fired. CBC News. March 10, 2017.
[9] Rankin, Eric. TD bank claimed $2.8M tax refund under B.C.'s corporate incentive program, court ruling reveals. CBC News. May 4, 2017.
[10] Harris, Sofia. 'Very depressing': CIBC staff losing jobs to workers in India, expected to help with training. CBC News. March 30, 2017.
[11] Moyer, Liz. Maurice Greenberg Loses Bid for Damages From A.I.G. Bailout. New York Times. May 9, 2017.
[12] Thompson, Elizabeth. Banking industry has lobbied officials, MPs hundreds of times. CBC News. June 12, 2017.
[13] Schwartz, Jon. "You've Got to Cozy Up": more Politicians Admitting that Money Controls Politics. Intercept. August 18, 2015.
[14] Quigley, Carroll. Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. Macmillan Company. 1966. p. 277-279 of ebook.
[15] Eisinger, Jesse. Why Only One Top Banker Went to Jail for the Financial Crisis. New York Times. April 30, 2014.
[16] Dayen, David. Eric Holder's Longtime Excuse for Not Prosecuting Banks Just Crashed and Burn. Intercept. July 12, 2016.
[17] Morgenson, Gretchen. A Bank Too Big to Jail. New York Times. July 5, 2016.
[18] Silver-Greenberg, Jessica. 2 Banks to Settle Case for $417 Million. New York Times. November 16, 2012.
[19] Shecter, Barbara. Ontario's measures to cool housing could be 'positive' for Canada’s banks. Financial Post. April 20, 2017.
[20] US Constitution. Article 1, Section 10.
[21] 2016 Annual Report. Bank of Canada. 2017. p. 82.
[22] Annual Report and Accounts: 1 March 2016–28 February 2017. Bank of England. 2017. p. 84.
[23] 103rd Annual Report 2016. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 2017. p. 318.
[24] 87th Annual Report 1 April 2016–31 March 2017. Bank for International Settlements. p. 1. June 25, 2017.
[25] Federal Reserve Act: Section 7. Division of Earnings. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
[26] Weinberger, Evan. Banks Sue US Over Fed Dividend 'Bait And Switch.' Law360. February 9, 2017.
[27] 2016 Annual Report. Bank of Canada. 2017. p. 75.
[28] Ireton, Julie. Nortel executives continue drawing bonuses years after bankruptcy. CBC News. October 7, 2016.
[29] Kassam, Ashifa. Ontario plans to launch universal basic income trial run this summer. Guardian. April 24, 2017.
[30] Gollom, Mark. Basic income finds support on right as 'most transparent' form of redistribution. CBC News. April 25, 2017.
[31] Alcindor, Yamiche. Don't Make Housing for the Poor Too Cozy, Carson Warns. New York Times. May 3, 2017.
[32] Harkinson, Josh. Hawaii Considers Radical Idea to Make Life in Paradise a Little Easier. Mother Jones. June 15, 2017.
[33] Kelly, Heather. Mark Zuckerberg: Getting into Harvard made my parents proud. CNN. May 25, 2017.
[34] Bogart, Nicole. Elon Musk says universal basic income will be necessary as robots take your jobs. Global News. February 15, 2017.
[35] Downs, Ray. Richard Branson says universal basic income 'important' as tech reduces jobs. UPI. August 17, 2017.
[36] Fifield, Anna. Do Japanese really work themselves to death? In some cases, yes. Washington Post. July 31, 2016.
[37] Kanter, James. Europe Agrees to Bailout Fund for Euro of Over $1 Trillion. New York Times. March 30, 2012.
[38] Snavely, Brent. Final tally: Taxpayers auto bailout loss $9.3B. Detroit Free Press. December 30, 2014.
[39] Keenan, Greg. Canadian taxpayers lose $3.5-billion on 2009 bailout of auto firms. Globe and Mail. April 7, 2015.
[40] Federal government to give $372.5M in loans to Bombardier. Canadian Press. February 7, 2017.
[41] Ford, federal and provincial governments pledge $600M for Windsor plant. CBC News. March 30, 2017.
[42] Hirsch, Jerry. Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies. Los Angeles Times. May 30, 2015.
[43] Bruser, David. Here's how Ontario casinos blew $10 million in interest-free loans to gamblers. Toronto Star. June 16, 2017.
[44] Story, Louise. Michigan Town Woos Hollywood, but Ends Up With a Bit Part. New York Times. December 3, 2012.
[45] Isidore, Chris. NFL gets billions in subsidies from U.S. taxpayers. CNN. January 30, 2015.
[46] McKenna, Barrie. The losing game of publicly financed sports venues. Globe and Mail. July 17, 2015.
[47] Greenhouse, Steven. L'Oreal Official Investigated By U.S. Over Pro-Nazi Past. New York Times. June 20, 1991.
[48] Gentleman, Amelia. L'Oreal profited from victims of Nazis, court told. Guardian. October 13, 2004.
[49] Andrews. Edmund. Volkswagen to Create $12 Million Fund for Nazi-Era Laborers. New York Times. September 11, 1998.
[50] Hall, Alan. Revealed: How the Nazis helped German companies Bosch, Mercedes, Deutsche Bank and VW get VERY rich using 300,000 concentration camp slaves. Daily Mail. June 20, 2014.
[51] Burnett, Josh. Halliburton Deals Recall Vietnam-Era Controversy. NPR. December 24, 2003.
[52] Fifield, Anna. Contractors reap $138bn from Iraq war. Financial Times. March 18, 2013.
[53] Weigley, Samuel. 10 companies profiting the most from war. USA Today. March 10, 2013.
[54] The International. Columbia Pictures. 2009.
[55] Aris, Ben and Campbell, Duncan. How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power. Guardian. September 25, 2004.
[56] LeBor, Adam. How six months before WWII Britain gave Hitler $9-million in gold (that belonged to another country). Telegraph. August 1, 2013.
[57] Brierley, David. How Swiss oiled Hitler's killing machine. Independent. March 23, 1997.
[58] Declassified: Apartheid Profits - nuclear bunkers and Swiss bankers. News24. August 23, 2017.
[59] Kollewe, Julia. Barclays faces apartheid court action. Independent. January 21, 2006.
[60] Caesar, Ed. Deutsche Bank's $10-Billion Scandal. New Yorker. August 29, 2016.
[61] Treanor, Jill. Deutsche Bank fined $630m over Russia money laundering claims. Guardian. January 31, 2017.
[62] Raymond, Nate. BNP Paribas sentenced in $8.9 billion accord over sanctions violations. Reuters. May 1, 2015.
[63] Blanchfield, Mike. 4 Canadian financial institutions invested in firms that make cluster bombs: report. Canadian Press. June 16, 2016.
[64] Taylor, Jerome. UK banks fund deadly cluster-bomb industry. Independent. August 15, 2011.
[65] Harding, Luke, et al. British banks handled vast sums of laundered Russian money. Guardian. March 20, 2017.
[66] Syal, Rajeev. Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor. Guardian. December 13, 2009.
[67] Goldman Sachs makes an irresponsible deal with the corrupt Venezuela regime. Washington Post. June 4, 2017.
[68] Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves the Drug War is a Joke. Rolling Stone. December 13, 2012.
[69] Berwick, Angus, et al. Spain probes ICBC's European unit over money laundering. Reuters. September 11, 2017.
[70] Saviano, Roberto. Where the Mob Keeps Its Money. New York Times. August 25, 2012.