Friday, April 23, 2010

Martin Armstrong – The Paradox of Solution

With some behind the scenes help we finally managed to get Martin out of the hole. He has already jumped back onto his typewriter to talk about "The Paradox of Solution."

Reading his paper, it certainly sounds like a paradox. On the one hand history shows that we need to press the limits and experience failure before we can implement meaningful change. Yet on the other hand we see the need to reform prior to collapse in order to prevent events from unfolding the way that history teaches us they will.

I have been corresponding with Martin and he has been picking up on some of the solutions that I’ve been recommending in Freedom’s Vision. In this document he is now chanting Bill Still’s line about the importance of WHO controls the money. Martin is not, however, all the way there yet in his understanding of the money trail/ system and the role of the Federal Reserve in corrupting government.

To fully understand what’s happening, one needs to follow the ownership and money trail created when the 12 Reserve banks were formed by the Federal Reserve ACT. This is where to look to truly see WHO’s behind our money system. Martin had already fallen in line with Freedom’s Vision on the major point of producing our own sovereign money and swapping that money for debt in an equity for debt swap. There are two areas, however, where I disagree with Martin in terms of a solution. The first is the need for a global currency – currencies do not need to be traded into a global currency, they can easily be valued against one another directly, especially in the age of computers. The problem with having some international standard is that some body of people must control it – the WHO part.

Having such a middle-man currency, may ease the way people think about international trade, but in fact the question to ponder is WHO sets the exchange value, what mechanism is used? There is no need for a mechanism if one country is trading directly with another, the exchange will happen at whatever exchange rate the market will naturally bear – no need to first exchange into a global currency, and no need for any exchange market to be created that would be under anyone’s control.

This is hard for most people to conceptualize because we want to label everything. No matter what country we are in we want to price oil, for example, in dollars. It simply doesn’t have to be that way, if you are in Mexico, you can simply buy oil directly in pesos. That means that the country who produced the oil has to be willing to take the pesos in exchange and hold them knowing that they can later spend those pesos somewhere else on something else. If they fear the value of the Peso will not hold up over time, they will demand more pesos for their oil. That’s all the mechanism you need – no reserve currency, no exchange that some entity owns and makes billions from, completely not necessary.

If any existing currency is chosen as the world’s “reserve” currency then the world is conceding a large portion of control to those so designated. Is it possible to set up a global currency not based upon an existing currency, one that doesn’t act as money that can be spent, one that only acts as a medium of exchange? Yes, that’s possible, let’s call it The “Reserve.”

The only way to make such a global currency fair to everyone is to keep the bankers away from it! Such a world reserve would have to exist only in a central global exchange where an independent international panel would run the exchange, allowing traders to set the price of each nation’s currency in relation to the Reserve. Thus commodities would be priced in the Reserve and each nation would have to always be aware of their local currency’s exchange value in relation to the Reserve. This is a huge and complex bucket of worms, vulnerable to all the problems of any exchange. Who runs the exchange, are there fees to make exchanges? The questions and complexities are endless, again, it’s a market that simply does not need to exist. For example, if I decide to go to Canada tomorrow, I don’t need to exchange into an international currency, I simply cross the border and exchange directly from U.S. dollars into Canadian dollars. Anytime anyone suggests a new or reserve currency, the question to first ask is WHO? If they tell you no one, immediately raise the BS flag!

The other point I disagree with Martin on is the role of the FED.

When Martin says “…the Fed never had any regulatory control over investment banks who created this nightmare.” He is completely oblivious to the fact that the Investment banks OWN/ ARE the Fed! All other statements and meanings by Armstrong surrounding this issue are therefore false in my judgment and should be ignored.

The Fed is THE problem, the failure of the SEC is a symptom. The SEC has been corrupted and co-opted by the WHO (that actually produces the money) behind the Fed. Neither the Fed nor the Treasury actually produce any money in the current system, it is all produced by the banks! Yes, the Treasury is responsible for actually printing greenbacks, but all new money is ultimately borrowed from private entities! This is the root of the problem! Martin’s points in this paper about the markets leading the Fed on interest rates is irrelevant. What’s far more important is following the payments of interest on the national debt and seeing who’s productive efforts produce that money and seeing into who’s hands that money eventually lands. Money, being a construct of man MUST, as in will always, have man behind the control of the quantity in one way or the other. What’s most important is creating complete transparency, producing money as an asset not a liability, separating special interests from the quantity decision, and having some type of independent control over the quantity of money itself.

Those are two major points, but the fact Martin is advocating sovereign money and talking about WHO controls it is a giant step in the right direction.