Give me the opportunity to issue money in the state, and I will not care about who writes his laws.
Meyer A. Rothschild
Meyer A. Rothschild
All is not gold that glitters
History financial wars are no shorter than the history of conventional wars. Even in the ancient world, one of the ways to deal with opponents was to undermine their economy. This was usually achieved by chasing counterfeit coins, which led to the depreciation of money and the loss of confidence in the government. After the invention of paper money and the development of printing, the possibilities of such a struggle have grown many times, because a fake coin still had at least some value due to the content of metal in it, which is a measure of its security. Unlike counterfeit paper receipts for somewhere stored wealth, which, in essence, are banknotes. Counterfeit bills of opponents were printed by Napoleon during his wars, by Germany during the time of both world wars.
Although the power of money for the subordination of nations, many have recognized for a long time, use it as a full-fledged alternative to the use of weapons learned about a hundred years ago. And the decisive role in this was played by American bankers, who at first subjugated the United States by creating the Federal Reserve System, and then encroaching on the rest of the world, having achieved the adoption of the Bretton Woods agreements on the dollar as a means of international settlement. No less important result of these agreements was the creation of the International Monetary Fund, controlled by the Fed, because the IMF opened up an opportunity for American bankers to implement the “covenant” formulated by President of the Association Phil Benson as early as 1839: “There is no more direct and reliable way to seize control of the nation, than through its lending system. "
Silent but destructive
As in the case of conventional wars, the goal of financial wars is either to subjugate the state as a whole, or to establish control over its part. The only difference is that in the case of financial wars, physical control over the territory is not at all obligatory, although in terms of the degree of destructiveness, financial wars are no less terrible than ordinary ones. According to the calculations of academician D.S. Lviv, the financial and economic war only in the first three or four years of “reforms” inflicted damage to Russia's economic, military and scientific and technical potential, estimated at about 3,5 trillion dollars, while the sum of the losses of the entire Soviet Union in the four years of the Great Patriotic War amounted to 375 billion dollars.
As the general battles of conventional wars, the most spectacular and decisive events of financial wars are crises. All other steps of the parties, both before and after crises, are less impressive in the imagination of ordinary people. However, these wars themselves are often viewed as often a kind of natural disaster, rather than carefully planned steps aimed at establishing control over an economy of interest to the crisis organizer.
The most powerful crisis of the twentieth century, called the Great Depression, made it possible to concentrate in the Federal Reserve all the banking gold held in the United States and to establish the control of banks belonging to the Fed over the lion’s share of American industry. The financial crisis, arranged by stock exchange speculator George Soros in the UK in 1992, close to the Fed bankers, not only allowed him to earn billion dollars in 1, but also caused a devaluation of a dozen European currencies, and also postponed the introduction of the single European currency for six years. And most importantly, it allowed the United States to significantly increase its influence on the European economy by the Americans buying up the sharply cheaper shares of European enterprises.
Soros was among the initiators of the crisis 1995 of the year in Mexico, who buried plans to build an inter-oceanic canal that would compete with the Panama Canal, controlled by the Americans. In the same year, Soros struck Japan, the rapid growth of the national currency which threatened to turn the country into a world financial center, a rentier country whose yen-denominated loans ensured the rapid growth of the economy of all of Southeast Asia. Next, Soros, with the support of the Federal Reserve banks, brought down the financial systems of Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, and Hong Kong — all of the “Asian tigers” who were firmly indicated their place in the aviary, forcing them to tie their economies to the dollar. Taking advantage of the fall in shares of electronic companies in these countries and the Dow Jones index falling caused by this reason, the American high-tech corporations - IBM, Intel, Motorola, Compaq, Dell, Hewlett Packard - bought out large shares of their shares, as well as their own shares, "dumped" by outside investors.
The best impromptu - prepared ahead of time
Talking about George Soros is prompted not only by his role in the organization of crises. Even if there were several free billions of dollars, he would not have been able to organize crises without a lot of preparatory work. Part of it is to shape the opinions of participants in the financial market about the inevitability of a certain crisis. After that, even a relatively small amount (of the order of several billion dollars) is enough to provoke a panic in the financial market that devalues the currency and shares of key enterprises in the country, or even the whole region.
By tracking Soros’s statements, publications of the media controlled by him, the actions of other organizations funded from his Foundation, it is not difficult to establish the next victim of financial wars - Europe. Since 2012, the threat of the collapse of the eurozone has intensified. In the most affected by the financial crisis, Greece started talking about abandoning the single European currency, which will undoubtedly lead to a serious weakening of the euro. At the end of the year, Soros said that the main reason for this situation was Germany’s tough stance on financial discipline issues among the weakest European countries. It was George Soros who finances and patronizes the Greek opposition party, SYRIZA, which most strongly opposes Germany’s efforts to support the single European currency.
In addition to the psychological "pumping" - the spread of ideas about the inevitability of the collapse of the European currency - there is also other preparatory work. Thus, in recent months, the United States is making maximum efforts to create a Free Trade Area with the European Union  in order to finally remove the remaining barriers to the penetration of US capital into Europe and after the provoked collapse of the euro, buy the euro for the sharply rising prices of dollars under the pretext of saving the EU economy most tidbits. Or suppress any attempts by the EU to re-industrialize and strengthen its influence in the world .
Who is war and who is mother is native
Someone would argue that the United States simply does not have money for such a large-scale operation. The state really does not have them. They have the Federal Reserve, which showed the recent scandal in the States with the Fed provided secret loans to "right" banks for a total of almost thirty trillion dollars . With this money, the lent banks bought from private banks that were not part of the system and were in a difficult financial situation because of the 2008 crisis of the year, shares of promising enterprises around the world. The funds received from the sale of shares were returned to the buyer as debt repayment and returned to the Fed. As a result, such a colossal lending did not generate hyperinflation for a simple reason: money did not fall into the real economy. Nevertheless, "electronic zeros", taken from the "bottomless pocket", materialized in the form of real power over specific large enterprises.
Attempts have been made in this way to establish control over Russian key enterprises, such as LUKOIL, RUSAL, Norilsk Nickel and many others. Only the competent actions of the Russian government, who bought their shares at the expense of the Stabilization Fund, saved them from moving into the category of “foreign investments”. However, the Fund’s reserves cannot be compared with the Fed’s “bottomless pocket”; for a long time, it cannot withstand the onslaught of Wall Street due to the deep difference between the nature of American and Russian money.
Three write, seven in mind
On the financial battlefield, into which the Earth has long been transformed, there is a rigid division between those who create financial capital and those who import these capital and earn money. The difference between the face value and the cost of money production is maximum at the first transaction, when the central bank of the state realizes the money generated, provided by the wealth of the country and its industrial power. At the same time, the state jealously observes that the counterparty of the central bank is a resident. That is, seigniorage, the issue income from the money created, remained within the country. Russia, like many other countries, provides the money to be issued not with its own wealth, but with stocks of foreign currency, which it is obliged to buy from a foreign issuer, before it makes its own money. That is, she is forced to pay the countries whose currency she buys to issue her own money for the right to issue, and this payment completely eats up all share premium. The cost of Russian money is much higher than the cost of the dollar, euro and other currencies acquired to guarantee the stability of the ruble. And the buildup of Russian foreign exchange reserves only contributes to the multiple growth of the profits of issuers of these currencies. Roughly speaking, the issue of rubles for one billion dollars provides for the emission of not one billion American money, but ten. Issue rubles for two billion - the Federal Reserve System emission of twenty billion.
There is only one way out of this situation: turning into a country that creates and not earns money. That is, guaranteeing the stability of the ruble not by stocks of foreign money, but by its own wealth, the level of its industrial and financial development ...
The Russian leadership has correctly assessed the situation and set a course to recreate the industrial power of the state. The only question is to what extent Russia's re-industrialization will be planned by attracting foreign investment, that is, by financing structures that emit dollars, euros, yen, Swiss francs and British pounds.
“Take everything, I'll draw myself”
How to get away from providing your own money with foreign currency?
The history of money, not secured by anything other than public consent to their circulation, has almost 200 years. In the period from 1837 to 1866, in the United States, around 8.000 varieties of “private money” were circulated, the issuers of which were various companies, banks, and even individuals. Some of them were even widely spread until they were officially banned. In the midst of the crisis of the end of 1920-x - the beginning of 1930. own money, which had circulation only within the Austrian town of Wörgl, issued the municipality. Surprisingly, the walking of the “Vergle shilling” led to a rapid growth of the city’s economy with 3.000 residents.
A similar story happened in the American town of Ithaca, whose local currency, the “so hour”, is still in effect, stimulating domestic trade. The same thing happens in the English Bristol: “the Bristol pound” gained not only a paper look, but also goes in the form of electronic money. In the most difficult times of the beginning of 1990, there were many Russian enterprises that had their own “currencies”, allowing workers who did not receive a salary in rubles to survive at the expense of the goods sold to them for this surrogate money. Yes, and many "electronic currencies" that serve as a settlement tool for various goods and services on the Internet, are largely provided with public consent.
Nevertheless, all the issuers of these “unreal” money carefully monitored and monitored the volumes of the issue, preventing them from depreciating and providing exchange at a special rate for the “usual” money. Yes, and they are intended, firstly, for a very limited scope, and secondly, they are absolutely not suitable for trade with the outside world, since for such transactions neither the honest words of the Minister of Finance, nor his press are enough.
And once again about the "bad" and "good" money
Some Arab countries have found their own way, based on a rigid peg to gold and silver, gradually introducing a gold dinar for settlements with each other, a currency whose volumes strictly correspond to gold deposits. At the same time, the “gold dinar” is still a conditional means of clearing settlement, replacing national currencies only with compensation for the balance of foreign trade balances. Inside the countries that joined the project, national currencies are in use, many of which are tightly bound to the dollar. And for the sake of additional emission of the “gold dinar” they have to buy dollars for oil in order to exchange this money for the precious metal. That is still making money, not creating it.
Before the advent of the euro, a European unit of account existed for the European measure of value for international settlements within the European Monetary System (EMU). In abbreviated form - ECU, exclusively non-cash form of a generalized currency basket of countries that were members of the EMU. Similar functions and nature were possessed by the means of international settlements between the countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, the so-called transferable ruble. After the introduction of the euro, the ECU was exchanged in the proportion of 1: 1 for a new currency, adding to it only the quality of physical money. And the translated ruble disappeared with the collapse of the socialist camp and the CMEA.
As a measure capable of protecting the national currencies of a number of developing countries from the influence of the dollar and the euro, some experts suggest the creation of the BRICS Bank, the BRICS Stabilization Fund and the BRICS Reserve currency based on the currency basket of these countries.  Only one thing is not taken into account in this proposal: the security of all these currencies is the stock of money and securities nominated in the main reserve currencies. That is, they are all “bad”, “earned”, and not money created. And massive speculative interventions by the bottomless pocket managers will easily bring down any of the monetary systems except China, from which issuers of reserve currencies insistently demand liberalization of the yuan. For what it is done, it is clear if you know the nature of the money created and earned. And although the leadership of the PRC has not yet made concessions to this pressure, recently Beijing announced plans to ease state control over the national currency rate .
And yet, it turns out, it is possible to get out of this vicious circle, and it’s quite easy - if the means of providing new currencies for settlements between the BRICS states (why not propose to include Turkey in this club?) Will not be foreign money and securities nominated for them and natural resources, industrial potential, stocks of precious metals of the countries - members of this association. Yury Zabrodotsky, Doctor of Economic Sciences, offered something similar, but his model was based solely on the assessment of natural resources, which does not exhaust all the available possibilities.
The first step, in any case, in this case would be to become an agreement on the mutual recognition by the participating countries of the use for the mutual calculations of the Conventional Industrial and Resource Equivalent (UREI) issued by the Common Bank of the project. As a security for UREE, each of the participating countries invests in the General Bank mortgage bonds on carefully priced industrial facilities owned by the state, proven mineral reserves, part of the gold reserves, land, forest and water resources, infrastructure facilities, etc. Since the volumes and objects of pledge can easily be changed by replacing mortgage bonds both in the direction of decreasing the share of any country, and in the direction of increasing, the participating countries will be able to vary not only the exchange ratio of domestic currencies to UPRE, but also the volume of emissions depending on the needs . And the issuing center in the person of the General Bank is the “bottomless pocket” of the money created (and not earned), 100% secured, unlike the dollar and the euro, the most valuable resources that exist today. And industrial potential.
The power of the economies of the BRICS (T) countries and the volumes of their natural resources allow, in principle, in a short time to transform UREA into the most attractive unit of international payments, and the project member states from countries earning money to countries creating money and receiving maximum benefits from emissions.