It always does come down to the Joos, doesn’t it?

Richard Murphy is now approving of this sort of stuff for he has actually published it:

An excellent story that explains a real example of state money creation and the banking world’s reaction to it.

In the US Civil War Abraham Lincoln was running out of money to pay the troops. He went to the Rothschilds and other bankers who would happily lend him the money at an interest rate of 24% to 34% which was going to put the Union side in debt to the banks forever.

Modern Monetary Theory frees us from the Joos therefore!

How did the banks react?

The Rothschilds were outraged. From the Times of London in 1865:

“If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedence in the history of the civilised governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

So there we have it. MMT is the democratic solution to funding our civilisation, but it is hated by the banks, monarchs, authoritarians and all those who want to use debt as a tool to maintain their dominance at your expense.

Yep, the Jooos!

7 thoughts on “It always does come down to the Joos, doesn’t it?”

  1. From 1865. And maybe we’ve learned a few things since then? You know, tried this money printing lark more than a few times. Never with long lasting success.

  2. Yep. Print all the money you need. What could go wrong? The Confederate states did the same thing. Even more so. Inflation in the South peaked at around 9,000%.

  3. Didn’t the Union push hard and actually pay off all the debt? They issued paper money, and after the war eventually redeemed all of it.

    Surely with Ritchie in charge they’d have just nationalised the New York banks and taken the money at gunpoint. Can’t have all that money just sitting there doing nothing.

  4. You could barely get more spudlike.

    1. Spud states something and provides some evidence.
    2. Someone else proves that his evidence is, in fact, faked.
    3. Spud says he thought the evidence was true at the time he uploaded it, so his argument stands.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *