Banksters Hate the Free Market

in economy •  5 months ago 

by James Corbett
corbettreport.com
January 12, 2019

It's no secret that governments hate the free market. At its base, every single government tax, license, regulation and restriction is an implicit rebuke of the idea that humans should be able to interact freely with those around them.

This is old news to my long-term readers, but it bears repeating because many have been duped by the purveyors of socialist dogma to believe that free interactions between sovereign individuals is a scourge that must be eradicated. Because, you see, the fact that food, clothing, shelter, health care and the means of production don't magically rain from the sky into the lap of every person on the planet means that any attempt to exchange your skills and services with another in return for compensation is slavery. (No, this is not an analogy, it's LITERAL SLAVERY, guys!)

The words "free market" have become so tainted in modern economic discourse that their very mention tends to evoke a slew of supposedly related and equally hated terms. "Capitalism" and "big business" and "banker" are thrown together in a stew with "free market" so that anyone who talks positively about voluntary transactions between free people in a positive manner is obviously a poor-hating fat cat who lights his cigars with $100 bills and dines on the tears of beggars.

But here's a puzzler for the socialists in the crowd: Why is it that the very banksters that they so rightfully rage against are in fact their biggest allies in the fight against the free market?

I know this perfectly straightforward observation will come as a shock to some of my readers, so let's break it down.

As I've already stated, we know that the very raison d’être of government is to undermine, skew, and otherwise hamper free exchange among its citizens. Government, after all, is a claim of ownership over a geographical territory by a cartel of crooks. That claim (according to the cartel and its defenders) gives the mafia the right to set rules for and impose restrictions on the inhabitants of that region. To understand how the gang of crook wields this power over the free market, one merely has to examine the history of the creation of the FDA or the ugly truth about the minimum wage or the nitty gritty details of how the financial regulators really operate.

But it would be folly to conclude from the simple observation that government is put in place to fleece the public that the politicians are the ones who benefit from this extortion scheme. Quite the contrary. The politicians are the punching bags that are put out for the public to lay into, expendable fall guys who are put in place merely to allow an enraged populace to let off steam without ever threatening the real rulers of the system. As Quigley observed long ago:

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.

So if interventions in the free market aren't merely about lining the pockets of the political puppets, then who does this system really benefit?

Well, the big business monopolists, of course. Not only do we have the examples cited above (the FDA, the minimum wage, etc.) of big businesses benefiting from governments regulating their competitors out of the marketplace, but my Big Oil documentary is a case study in how an entire industry can grow up in conjunction with governmental institutions whose function is to cement big businesses in place as ruling monopolists. Oh, how the Rockefellers fell when the Supreme Court split up Standard Oil, hey?

But more to the point, the foundation of our economy lies neither in the politicians nor in the big business monopolists whose back pocket they rest in. It's in the bankster class that creates the money out of nothing and loans it out (at interest, of course) to those cronies they wish to succeed in the phony baloney economy. And it is for this very reason that the central bankers are always the ones arguing for greater "governmental" power over the economy. Because, in the end, the government is just the mask that they wear to conceal their true face from the public.

Viewers of my Century of Enslavement documentary will already know all about this. When Morgan and his fellow Wall Street moneylenders knew that the public was fed up with the amount of control that they wielded over the country, they willingly put on the "chains" of a centralized, governmental institution. Rather than chain them down, though, the Federal Reserve that they created in fact benefited the banksters class. With the imprimatur of "government" behind their owned and controlled Fed monstrosity, Morgan and the fat cats now had control of a privately-owned central bank that could effectively privatize their profits and socialize their losses.

In the early years, the Fed was used to underwrite the military racketeering of the First World War and oversee the expansion of the bubble that was the Roaring Twenties. But with the Great Depression (which they helped to engineer), the banksters now found a new rallying cry for even further intervention in the markets: Keynesian engineering of the economy! For, you see, it was "free markets" that failed in the 1930s, so the answer was only to be found by greater "governmental" (bankster) control. This fallacious argument continues to influence economists to this day, so that the crisis of 2008 was down to a "lack of government regulation" or "the demise of Glass-Steagal" or whatever other scapegoat could be found. But the idea that the crisis was caused by government interventions in the free market? Why, that's unthinkable!

This mentality has now pervaded society to the point where the public simply accepts that there is a central bank whose very mandate is to "foster economic conditions that achieve both stable prices and maximum sustainable employment." And the only way it can possibly live up to that mandate is by interfering in the markets with their magic money out of nothing. Trump knows this; that's why he decried the banksters' interventions in the markets before he was president and now muses about how nice it would be if they intervened more now that he's the don of the governmental mafia.

Many, many other examples can be cited showing how the bankers love to hate the free market, but perhaps no more shocking example exists than that documented in Antony C. Sutton's book, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. In that work, Sutton demonstrates in meticulous detail how the Wall Street financiers aided and abetted the Bolsheviks, not because they had particular affinity for the communists' professed ideals of equality and well-being, but because both groups shared a hatred for free markets and free peoples. After laying out the documentation of Wall Street's support for the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 over the course of 11 scrupulously documented chapters, Sutton concludes:

The question now in the readers' minds must be, were these bankers also secret Bolsheviks? No, of course not. The financiers were without ideology. It would be a gross misinterpretation to assume that assistance for the Bolshevists was ideologically motivated, in any narrow sense. The financiers were power-motivated and therefore assisted any political vehicle that would give them an entree to power: Trotsky, Lenin, the tsar, Kolchak, Denikin — all received aid, more or less. All, that is, but those who wanted a truly free individualist society.

This is the plain truth of the matter: The bankers love whatever ideas, systems, beliefs and revolutionary movements will allow them to have more power over the lives of others. Central banks, regulatory bodies, rules, regulations, taxes; all of these are meant to constrain the bankers' competition, not the bankers themselves. Having been created by and for the benefit of the bankers on the beliefs of the naive socialists who think that they could create a utopia if only they were the ones making the rules and intervening in the voluntary interactions of others, how could these market manipulations do anything but line the pockets and increase the power of the monopolists?

It's the oldest trick in the book, but it still works. Every. Single. Time. And that's why the bankers continue to use it.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I'm starting to believe that it's really the propagandist that control and maintain a pseudo-reality (that we call modern society) that keep the masses confused and ignorant. They have been the masters of the system and creators of tales and history throughout time. Writing and editing what we believe is history. Writing the science fiction and tales of what the "future" will be. Suspending disbelief to the point people accept their narrative. Casting the ensemble of figureheads that put on the show and that they keep the focus directed on.

The great writer Rod Serling started his writing career writing customer "testimonials" for advertisers at a television station he originally worked at as an example. It's interesting that when he hit the television business he was making 100x what the average writer was getting.

I was fascinated by Napoleon and started looking into his history. I figured that he had to have something positive considering the European banksters mobilized and funded several nations to march millions of men to destroy Napoleon's last effort, which had only 80,000 soldiers. But when one starts looking into Napoleon's history, he too was a benefactor of a propaganda campaign. I now believe he was supported in a way to become an earlier version of ISIS... and performed a similar role in Europe, just 200 years earlier.

Further back the English crown sent out bairds to collect and write down local tales and legends. They then twisted those tales over time to benefit their own situations and power bases.

Propaganda is a very powerful tool that has demonstrated how much control can be derived from it and teaching people the methods to find truth and understanding the necessity of creating trusting relationships and organizations is really our only long term defense.

It's no mistake that money flows readily to PR firms, media and advertising. The Bankers know where to invest the medium.

·

I'm also very interested in Napoleon, and he certainly was a master of propaganda. He founded his own "magazine" giving glowing and exaggerated reports of the battles he led. I suspect he had at least one secret society behind him too.

Loading...

Greetings we all hate those banksters or is there another reason for getting into crypto?

I'm doing a lot of work on spreading lightning adoption encouraging as many of my favourite content producers to try out tip.lightningtester as they can make their own tip page.

I've also documented how you can spend your lightning tips on real world goods through Bitrefill.

·

Just remember, the DHS has warned/threatened us of a grid shutdown. Just how would you access those crypto coins without electricity? Even one of the founders of Apple stated it wasn't an if, but a when, the internet comes down. It was the Captain Crunch guy. And it will come down. When it does, so does your crypto.

·
·

Thanks for spreading FUD. Guess it's another reason not to live in the U.S.S.A based on what you wrote your government is quite happy to potentially kill people on life support machines.

You read the standards for 5G what about renewable energy? If it all goes down I'd have bigger things to worry about but that's just me thanks for caring ;)

·
·
·

Im not positive the poster meant the whole electrical grid, I think he meant in a firewall sense. Firewalls are already shrinking the internet. Is it so hard to believe access to wallets could be blocked? I dont have an honest answer to that and cant speak for the other poster. Just wanted to add some info I read about. I do hold crypto too. I am no ludite.

·
·
·
·

James,

Any thoughts on the proposed bank runs by the Yellow Vests?

I think this could be a game changer if it picks up steam even if the cartel throws the usual monkey wrenches. The French are taking it to a more serious level.

Would be great to get your initial take on this.

It would certainly be interesting if they did make s run on the banks. I bet the police and military will prevent people doing it though, ‘for their safety’ aka don’t take down the banking system.

Posted using Partiko iOS

Here is the story of those that fought the bolsheviks.
Here is a report from the aftermath.
Here is an alternative to the status quo you may not be aware of.
And another.
One more.

All revolutions are initiated from the top to bottom. The new anti federal reserve meme is no exception. The US will lose its printing press but what will take its place?

I won't pretend to know everything about you, James. I don't know your life inside and out. But from what I've gathered over the past few years of following your work it seems that you went straight from university to Japan to teach english and slowly developed independent journalism as your main profession and source of income. Like I said, I don't know you life but that is the general picture I have.

I get that Chomsky is a gatekeeper. There is no doubt about it. And while his refusal to approach certain topics is troubling, his contributions to philosophy cannot and should not simply be swept aside as you so often do. It astounds me that someone such as yourself who understands the intricate history of the formation of the modern social, political, and economic orthodoxy takes exception to Chomsky's ideas about wage slavery. I ask you, have you ever to decide between rent and food? Have you ever been employed in a position where you are totally replaceable? Have you ever worked more than one minimum wage service job and still lived paycheck to paycheck? Have you ever had your water shut off? Have you ever had to decide between soap and toilet paper?

Now you may have experienced the plight of a wage slave at some point in your life therefore your dismissal is not out of hand. But in the case that you have not, all I ask is that you take a long moment to contemplate the millions, perhaps billions, of people who were destined from birth to be wage slaves simply because they possess no marketable assets other than their labor and time before you scoff at the comparison between historical and contemporary forms of slavery.

Judging by your lighthearted dismissal, I wonder if you have even encountered the arguments, other than the four minute video you linked, comparing chattel slavery and wage slavery or owned labor and rented labour. I would expect you of all people to understand that the crook is more nefarious than the lash. Would you rather your master tell you he's your master or your friend?

"Because, you see, the fact that food, clothing, shelter, health care and the means of production don't magically rain from the sky into the lap of every person on the planet means that any attempt to exchange your skills and services with another in return for compensation is slavery. (No, this is not an analogy, it's LITERAL SLAVERY, guys!)"

This is one of the most ideologically driven straw mans I have ever seen you try to prop up and knock down.

·

exile.onthenile -

Usury (interest of any kind) is immoral.

Pragmatism is aversion to principle.

No valid philosophy can't be practiced to the nth degree.

The human life-form is not a comfort zone experience.

All statist positions are cowardice.

There is no future for men who don't man up.

Holding your words to these truths above reveals you appear to be seeking escape, while knowing there is no escape. You will gain no utility if James Corbett devolved to join you in your futile search for escape. Surely you've been down before and got back up. Get off your knees, death has no enemy.

Arise - Amebix

Well we've all heard the sermon seen The preachers or worshipped the stage Heard the new manifesto? It's all questions no solutions at all Well, you're out on your own now, always have been Just look at your friends Break the surface to daylight Strength will flow through our unity. There is a traitor in our midst And when we rise we will be betrayed They are the wolves in sheep's clothing Take the place at the back of the flock All this talk about freedom Will be tainted with blood (it's your life) Put this cross on your back child Tread the long weary trail to the top of the hill ARISE! GET OFF YOUR KNEES! There's some hard times coming down There's the smell of revolution on the wind Well, we're grinding down our axes Telling tales round the bonfire at night We will set out with a fire in our hearts When this darkness gives way to the dawn In the light we're united as one For the kingdom of heaven must be taken by storm! ARISE! GET OFF YOUR KNEES! STAND UP!

Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
woodchuckpirate.com

·
·

Usury is immoral. (agreed)

Pragmatism is aversion to principle. (pragmatism or Pragmatism?)

No valid philosophy can't be practiced to the nth degree. (not sure what you mean here)

The human life-form is not a comfort zone experience. (agreed)

All statist positions are cowardice. (agreed)

There is no future for men who don't man up. (agreed)

None of these "truths" contradict anything I wrote.

·
·
·

exile.onthenile -

No valid philosophy can't be practiced to the nth degree. If a philosophy must be tempered by pragmatism then it is not a valid philosophy, it is sophistry.

Sophistry deserves base rejection. Does Chomsky have a valid philosophy? Ideological alignment with anarcho-syndicalism yields no valid philosophy. Alignment with libertarian socialism yields no valid philosophy.

Anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism deserve base rejection. Those with no valid philosophy invoke sophistry to appeal for undeserved respect for what they posture as "nuanced" indifference to truth, often while petitioning statist initiation of aggression, simultaneously clinging to pragmatism (aversion to principle) as an entitlement construct.

Anarcho-capitalism or else, and you already have the "else". What you don't have is James Corbett, and I suspect you never will. The real question arising is why do you desire to have him?

Save yourself.

Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
woodchuckpirate.com