Promises We Cannot Keep

A guest blog I did for a new group, Irish Student Left Online, on the Anglo Promissory Note. Its a specifically Irish issue, but basically a private bank made reckless gambles and was about the go bankrupt when the Irish government bailed it out. It will cost 30 billion euro to wind down the company (as in return for 0 benefit). It been a huge problem figuring how we should pay this and this week the government finally got an agreement with the ECB to delay repayments for 30 years. I discuss whether or not this a good deal.

Irish Student Left Online

In his debut for the ISLO Robert Nielsen goes through the bizarre and tragic nature of the recent “deal” on the Promissory Notes. Robert blogs over here normally. 

Whenever discussing the banks people often preface their comments by saying that they don’t know much about economics. It is assumed that the bank bailout only seems absurd due to a lack of economic knowledge, that in actual fact the government is following well-established economic principles. As an economics student, let me tell you that nothing is further from the truth. There is no economic logic or theory behind the government’s

View original post 1,736 more words


Filed under Economics

3 responses to “Promises We Cannot Keep

  1. GM

    Great job. Thank you for pointing out that the bank bailouts were in violation of the rules of capitalism and for rightly pinning blame on the institution at the heart of this odious fiat currency union.

  2. Here is a word to consider; “usury”. Usury = interest. Any interest.

    “In general, the order of definitions follows the practice of the Third New International, where the earliest ascertainable meaning is placed first and later meanings are arranged in the order shown to be most probable by dated citations and semantic development.
    1 archaic: [original, archaic] INTEREST (notice the oldest, established meaning of the word does not even mention any amount or rate. RWP)
    2: [original, formal] The lending of money with an interest charge for its use (once again, even the “formal” definition says nothing about a rate or amount. RWP)
    3: [later re-definition] an unconscionable or exorbitant rate OR AMOUNT of interest: specif: interest in excess of a legal rate [or an unconscionable or exorbitant AMOUNT of interest] charged to a borrower for the use of money. (here we see the machinations of revisionists, perverting the meaning of a word for their benefit and to the great detriment of society. RWP)
    So here in the very dictionary we see an actual chronology of the purposed morphing of the term. In other words, according to the oldest (archaic/traditional/biblical) definitions, (1 and 2), interest and usury are equivalent.”
    source (emphasis added)

    As long as our monetary systems are under the control of a private, for-profit banking cartel, what you’re describing is what will continue and it will only get worse.

    None of this is just happening by chance. These are purposed manipulations of the global economy with the aim of destroying the sovereignty of the nations of the world.

    Virtually all governments are being privatised and coming under the control of the money powers. There is an international financial coup underway and it is nearly complete.

    We are witnessing the birth of a new world order and, no, it’s not a “conspiracy theory”. It is the merger of corporatism and state with full control being exercised by the “financial industry”.

    The result will most likely be an era of global neofascism or what could more properly be called a global pathocracy. It has been in the making for a very long time.

    “Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nations laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”
    William Lyon Mackenzie King, the tenth Prime Minister of Canada from December 29, 1921 to June 28, 1926

  3. Great article. I was unaware that the debt had been converted to bonds. I guess I haven’t been keeping up on the latest news. Of course, the Irish people should have never taken on the debt in the first place. You’re absolutely right that there’s no precedent for it. There’s no real explanation either except that the Irish people were robbed for no better reason than the people who did it because they could.

    As a practical matter, it was in the interest of the general population to not have a worldwide banking collapse, but there was no reason that this was the best way to prevent that. Personally, I don’t credit ignorance and incompetence that much. It’s corruption and a power grab, pure and simple.

    It’s been commonplace here in the U.S. to bellyache about the divisiveness of our politics, but who knows… perhaps that’s kept us from having austerity foisted on us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s