The Res Publica must die, and not a family.
had to paralyze the first modern states with currency sovereign in their only legitimate function, which was and still would be in deficit spending to create wealth among citizens, ie full full employment and welfare state. had to do it because otherwise states and citizens would become too powerful, in the North and South, and that the private financial oligarchies could not afford. You've already read them the greatest crime warp and updates what to get what, or how hanno annientato la sovranità sia legislativa che monetaria degli Stati e marginalizzato i cittadini, ponendo fine alla democrazia e conquistando il controllo economico del pianeta a nostro discapito. Ma la cosa che continua a mesmerizzarmi è la semplicità geniale dei due pilastri fondanti di quell’epocale piano sciagurato. Vale la pena illustrarli nei dettagli poiché il vederli da vicino vi renderà ancora più immediata la comprensione di tutto ciò che ho finora scritto su questo tema. E non ultimo vi renderà molto più facile spiegarne i contenuti più controversi al pubblico.
Hanno preso due concetti in apparenza puliti, lampanti, cristallini, cioè che:
La Repubblica è Res Publica, cioè la cosa di tutti, ovvero lo Stato è dei cittadini ed è i cittadini, e questi sono lo Stato.
Il buon bilancio familiare è quello dove prima di spendere si risparmia, dove si guadagna più di quanto si spende, e dove è considerato disastroso il contrario, cioè spendere più di quanto si guadagna, cioè indebitarsi. Uno Stato è esattamente come una famiglia, è virtuoso se guadagna più di quanto spende, ed è indegno se si indebita.
Chi mai può dubitare di quanto scritto sopra? Res Publica: sono 2000 anni che questo concetto è la base stessa del convivere civile. Lo Stato deve guadagnare di più of what you spend, but also a thrush would understand that is the way for economic excellence. No?
No, wrong, all wrong. Indeed, catastrophically wrong. In fact, built on purpose to deceive, and to reach its destruction of modern states in their only legitimate function, that is, again, to spend a coin sovereign deficit in order to create full employment and full Social State.
The concept of Res Publica would have died the instant when Nixon in 1971 marked the final establishment of the modern money, and free from ties with the gold reserves and then be able to be created out of nothing by States and without limits. Prior to that fact States could not spend freely, because in theory for every dollar or pound or mark etc.. who put into circulation, there must be an equal amount of gold in the national coffers. Why? Because the law stipulated that citizens had the right at any time to bring the money in the bank and demand in exchange for pieces of gold, literally. So the gold equivalent to the money in circulation was always there, but it was not easy to obtain it, so states could decide not unexpected expenses at will. Nixon said enough, and unhooked the dollar from gold, so that America could then give money without limits, just inventandoselo from scratch. The other rich nations did the same (It is more complex, but in fact was the case). He was born the modern bank. Large private capital trembled, panic.
Few understand the importance of that landmark move. He changed the history of economics and the very meaning of state after more than two millennia. First, the state and citizens were indeed in the same boat: if it was true that the state bungled with spending too much money, both citizens and the state could go bankrupt (they ran to the bank to demand gold in return for the money in circulation, but if gold was not enough ... bang!) was true that the State should tax their citizens to recover money to spend, because it could not create it from scratch at will Having regard to the bond with the gold, and it was true that if citizens evade taxes the state could be in the green, with the collapse of its functions. So it was true the Res Publica, or the conduct of the State tax was directly linked to the fate of its citizens, and vice versa. But from the moment when the State was allowed to possess currency sovereign released from everything, everything changed. Since then the state broke away from citizenship and had in hand a novel tool with which to govern: inventandoselo could give money, he could then spend a few limitations. Put simply: the state became something of its own with its own portfolio (ie the currency invented out of nowhere and almost unlimited) free from us citizens. We citizens we were no longer the rule. The latter could therefore decide to invest in national infrastructure, in the workplace, in the welfare state, in private productivity as much as he wanted, enriching. Or he could decide to do the opposite, to tax evading money and thus impoverish us a little or a lot. I recall here what has been explained in detail in The greatest crime, namely that when a state spends this kind of debt, it credits the current accounts of citizens increasing, or provides the bonds that do nothing but move money from a citizens' where the current account earns 1% at a gain where the 4, 5 or 6%. Therefore, the cost to the state's debt enriches always people who do not have to ever pay off, because the state's debt is contracted only with himself and is honored by simply uttering the same again to his money (Keynes, Commons, Robinson, Samuelson, Minsky, Godley, Wray, et al.)
clearly two separate entities, state and citizens, the first with a role as a 'midwife' of the latter, and the latter with the power to democratically legitimize its midwife. And what would the citizenship had never been informed of their true function of the state? Obviously, it would ensure that the democratically ruled that the State would spend his money to create public welfare deficit, all of us. Almost without limits. But this would have decreed something else: the end forever the power of large private capital to dominate the economy, ie the world as they would by that time had ever compete with a much stronger and unlimited power, that of States as 'midwives' interest of citizens. Marchionne blabbering his "investment or no investment? And who cares, in a currency sovereign state enterprise engaged in its legitimate functions Mr. Marchionne was asked to continue to walk long and lying flat to the border, where a diligent financier would have maybe added a good kick in his backside, and strength dismissed from work would be used by Fiat program at full employment with a budget in comparison to the investment of Marchionne is a pocket money (Wray, 1998-2011). Banks play dirty and drag us into the financial abyss? Well, it nationalized, managers are sent in domestic prisons, and the sale of bank assets as a good injection of money the state saves the current account, then the credit-hungry organizations and the public creditors / debtors cheated (ie you everything that made the U.S. central bank governor Ben Bernanke, but change the ending for managers and recipients of the trillions of dollars of State Ben promptly issued from nothing, without it collapsing America).
're understanding what was the problem? Forgive the jargon of the moment a journalist, just to be clear: the separation of state money to spend in deficit to sovereign citizens, and citizens across the legitimate earning a profit from that spending, that is the death of the idea Res Publica, he would have the financial power of speculative fucking (True Power) as never before in human history. And this should not be allowed, ever, ever. But never. And so the mantra that the state is us and that if the State s'indebita we therefore we go into debt, was drilled in the skull of every politician, economist, teacher, technocrat, manager, a citizen, by those who have described it the greatest crime, but here, I'll specify better.
The same happened with the absurd notion that a state is just like a family, and should spend or save as a family. We know that this, in the case of modern sovereign state money, is completely false. It found the greatest crime the full technical explanation of why, on the contrary, the state with its own money to spend in deficit and has almost no debt limits. But mind you again to the dangers inherent in the concept state = family paralyze the government coffers in their task of deficit spending per public through a real Psyop, which in the jargon of the intelligence services is a significare Operazione Psicologica di manipolazione di massa. Vengono comunemente impiegate dal dopoguerra, e i casi più noti furono quelli associati al ‘pericolo rosso’ in Italia e in America Latina, alla Guerra al Terrorismo, ma anche all’economia. Nessuna teoria del complotto, al contrario, sono operazioni sofisticatissime citate in infiniti documenti declassificati oggi consultabili nei National Security Archives di Washington. Nel caso in questione si usò il concetto di cui sopra che è di micidiale penetrazione, perché risuona assolutamente plausibile alle orecchie non solo dei politici, ma anche di tutti i cittadini. Ripeto: lo Stato è come una famiglia, deve guadagnare di più di quanto spende, e non deve spendere more than it gains if not s'indebita, and this is a disaster, they said. Logical, no?
But if a crisis hits the country and leads the youth unemployment at 29% as now in Italy? Too bad. The State could come up with is the job that the salaries for those poor guys ... but no! Why the 'family' can not give all the pocket money they like their children, there is a limit. Too bad if an earthquake devastates the Eagle transforming an Italian jewel in a spectrum stuck in the middle of the country with the financial ruin of thousands of mourners. The State could come up with all the money for a full reconstruction of housing, work, artistic, psychological Clooney and without the G8 ... but no! Why the 'family' has budget limitations, even when you pay with tears. So for hospitals, schools, universities, parks, museums, pensions, etc.. etc.. For fifty years many have given up a lot, sometimes swallowed huge tragedy, because we are convinced that in fact this is our country as we are, and how we must deal every night on the kitchen table hoping not to have to say to your children "there is more, this month nothing out pizza," but in reality it means sacrifice of a nation that truncate destinies forever. But it was not true, the state with its own currency should never balance accounts, is not a family.
Now, you need to know who the men who were able to drill into the brain of all those murderous deceit, in order, again, to destroy the power of the state to protect its citizens, in favor of the power of speculative capital to subjugate the people. Are economists, called Lucas, Sargent, Wallace School of Economic NEW CLASSICALS; Wanniski and Gilder are the SUPPLY Siders, Mankiw is the conservative wing of the NEW KEYNESIANS; there Greenspan, the former U.S. Federal Reserve Deus ex Machina. These microeconomic that have invaded the realm of macroeconomics, namely, simplifying, people who had experienced of family budgets or more and who imposed their own theories to macro-states. Obviously not by mistake. Their ideas, sponsored by the billions of big finance capital, have won the battle after the '60s for the domain of finance ministries of our states, the chairs of the economy which then churn out the leaders and technocrats, have convinced us too, and We have taken away the only tool we had to protect ourselves: the separate state by citizens in deficit spending for our welfare.
We could have another life, we have not had it, another state, we have not had. Those of us who lived and suffered terribly from the constant uncertainty, lack of resources, insecurity, humiliation at work, unemployment, social exclusion, neglect of health, it is deception of the "Res Publica, which is like a family." Now you know, released.
