Joint Statement by Experts on the Establishment of International Monetary Fond
December 7th 2001 you could read an article in Executive Intelligence Review titled IMF Admits Bankruptcy; Wall Street Alternatives a Fraud, by Kathy Wolfe. In this unclear article you read that IMF has called for new laws allowing countries with unpayable debts, to seek bankruptcy pro-tection under the IMF to avoid “chaotic default”. There are too many countries with unsurmoun-table debt problems. With mushrooming of the bond market, each debt has too many creditors to coordinate.
Let me say IMF cannot go bankrupt, because it has no values and no real responsi-bility at all.
The establishment of IMF:
The joint statement was joint by USA and Great Britain, in spite of the fact it was written in the preface of the statement that Norway, and other small countries agreed therein. It was as mention-ed, not a finished system, but simply a memorandum containing the most important lines of direc-tion. The press reported so, April 1944.
The system should of course never be finished, as you will see... before a new system with more wiles and adjusted to the time, to the experiences of the rulers, and to the most secret strategic but simple plans that then has been decided and deployed.
A system of clearing and of national borrowing and lending with borrowing states in the leading role was at least created.
The artificial trick-currencies, – if made obligatory and used by the citizens, speculators, the central bank and the polticians - the false money had been stroked out...until now. 
The exchange-rates of currencies should be expressed in terms of gold, even if the pay could be in local currency. The principal tasks were to contribute bankloans via something that should be a system of clearing, but at the same time, there was a bank - a World Bank - in reserve without reserves. This bank should fix some more loans, especially loans to the most credit-hungry. How this should take place, was not easy to understand? You can have many fine purposes on behalf of others:
The nations - mean nothing, taxpayers mean everything - should provide security, the inter-experts should just arrange and be consultative between debitor and a private international bank and 'the national guarantors'. The taxpayers in the nations, of which the leaders have placed security on, must pay, when the borrowers/leaders do not.
If we for a moment look 40 years ahead (from 1944), then we can see something of the mode of operation of the system: Brazil and Argentina threw their chanceloose debt on the Amerikan taxpay-ers in 1983 while the interbankers used bad hidden arguments about nearly everything convinient. Polen went the same way, when the ion claw seemed to let go over there. and look forward 17 years more you have quite a bunch of nations – and Argentina again – in the same situation.
Mexico went the same way in January 1995. $20 Bill. German tax payers were involved here too. And it shall be just fine. The reporter on CNN clearly doubted that other than the bankers made a profit. All most no other media has broad anything but small notices about these casualties in our zone. In 1996 the tax-payers of Germany, France and England were given the honour to pay the debt of Italy (30% black economy and an unknown amount of (Lire-)money) to make Italy reach just one of the claims of the Maastricht-treaty to join the EMU (European Monetary Union). With an unknown but gigantic amount of lire it be a problem to find a exchange-rate to European currency that will turn the system down before it begins.
The financial transactions are transfers of purchasing power at best. They are parts of the most economic dispositions, and they allways tell you, what has happened (if you register them), and they also tell it in a very relatively simple way. 'This may be the reason why we shall not be tired with all these hugely complicated themes'. Remember what I wrote about simplicity and complications in beginning.
Loan, loan and then loan. We are all dead in the long run could a truthworthy presentation had been.
It might besides had been in full harmony with the peculiar considerations of this world, of which John M. Keynes made several.
In the beginning of 1990s there has been a pressure on the local Danish authorities to make them borrow from the international twins too... naturally loans secured by the state that means by the citizens, the present or the future generations. “Just write a cheque, your overdraft is going to be paid by the future generations. That is the reason why the security of the state is the most secure”.
Think of it, the state in the nation of yours, it can oblige all the new generations with its often more than diffused and insane dispositions, if your nation and thereby the tax-payers are made responsible for the arrangements of the governments. Or perhaps, this is not true.
Perhaps you understand the order of the day in these days that was like now to pump out money into the system and let it be used there. In this way we shall all be very rich, even the most unworthy of credit. They just need capital...you know(?) One of biggest lies ever told on Earth.
Even the conservative economist in our Danish parliament, Folketinget, Frank Dahlgaard was going on playing this melody (latest heard at a lecture at Frihedsbrevets yearly meeting in Nyborg in 1995 and 1996). When he got problems with his arguments, he just refered to the (then) recently retired professor dr. polit. Anders Oelgaard, and to the former Danish Director of Danmarks Nationalbank as well retired Erik Hoff-meyer. As if that should help the large turnout of their understanding. Most economists after World War II were appointed to serve the ruling Münchhausen-myth, telling that the German Münchhausen as a rider once had fallen into a deep puddle. He was still sitting on the horse, and he managed to draw up both himself and the horse by pulling in his own hair. The last sentence is the shortest non-mathematical form of that in Europe and USA still ruling Keynesianic or new-Keynesianic-myth .
You shall not forget that somebody is expected to collect the resistance rising from the so-called rulers’ dealing with everything in a very high-handed way with the only purpose to consolidate and further develop their own positions. Until now the same powerful circles have used this possibility to centralize power further every time.
The book “Topical Economic Questiones” by Joergen Pedersen and published by Ejner Munkgaard 1939, Copenhagen, deals with the issue Keynesianism or New Economics as it was called too (an extract has been given in chapter 6). Let us take a contemporary look at the idea:
‘Money can be produced in an unlimited amount without any cost’. That is the magic formula. Unfortunately many Western countries still act in this delusion. Nothing comes from heaven except for perhaps blessings. The means of money can be produced, but money cannot. Money is the right to buy wanted things and services. If the amount of notes or credits are too large it, the right of the money will be destroyed. This is the truth, regardless of what you have read in books of J. M. Keynes, Joergen Pedersen or other from the establishment. It has also become very common to refer to John Galbraight, who is another of the epigones of Keynes. Later on he developed to a simple teoretical swindler. As marxists had the capital as the mean of devil, John Galbraight uses the magic formula “techno-structure” (without any definition at all) to explain everything too complicated or reveiling to himself. He has the same proposals about Europe as the former chairman of the European Commission (now a Bilderberger – as you shall read more about below) Jacques Delors, a subsidy-Europe that for certain will end up in a Common-European-Socialistic-State, if the common compulsary currency does not destroy this ideological construction before.
John Galbraight still maintains that the German economy recovered from 1933 by civil production, and he intend to let us believe that the German method was a kind of the so-called new economics. He seems to want us to forget a lot. In 1932 4.1 mill. Germans were unemployed. To years after the number had been reduced to 2,4 mill. The motorization came as a gift from the technical knowledge, the arming had been started, and productions and development of arms had long been going on in cooperation with the Sovjet Union. A restrictive control of the currency, tax-discount-tickets, and especially the suspension of the trade union-wage-rates was the axis of the Nazi-German recovery-policy from the beginning.
Gold coin basic does not help much, the speculation and the state-debt id not abolished with this. The circulation of the gold between certain countries (mentioned earlier) originate from a system of so-called stabilisation invented in England.
From 1924 Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht was commisioner of the Reich-currency i Germany, later on President of Reichbank. April 7th 1924 his attack on inflation began with the decision to stop for credit. This led to the Dawes Plan og August 16th 1924. The interest-rate jumped to the sky and the stock-exhange-prices were reduced to the half. With a short pause from spring 1930 to spring 1933 Schacht continued as the highest in charge in Reichbank under the Hitler-regime until November 26th 1938.
Some do still think that the way Hitler (or Schacht) went to get rid of the unemployment was to print notes. On the contrary as just mentioned. Schacht was not a nazist, and he was highly respected in every central bank in the Western world. He opposed to Hitlers plans of war and chasing. Schacht ruled the issuing of money, decided the economic and monetary policy, and controlled the effect. From 1933 it was wage-rise-stop, it was ruled and controled public policy of expenditures to secure the currency, and further more also promises and wild exorbitant expectations that could not be helt (in the long run) without war. These promises and expections was not mde by Schacht. He opposed more and more to all Hitlers’s plans on war and persecution. Most of the time until 1938 Schacht ruled the economy himself and watched his staff in all false arrangements from municipality to the manifold ramification of the German state. In 1938 Hitler accepted a proposal by Hermann Göring to introduce 4-years-plans like the 5-years-plans in the Soviet Union. At the same time Hitler intensified the chasing of judes. Then Schacht decided to go. Schacht later admited that he only stayed on this post to 1938 to relieve the effects of the dictatorship on th German people. With Schacht’s participation in most of twenties too he helt the same line all the way through.
Hjalmar Schacht got the claims of reparation, first decided in with the Dawes Plan of 1924 (after WWI) reduced with the Owen D. Young Plan (1929) after lexturing turne using objective argumentation in London and USA. The original claims on Germany of the Versailles Treaty in Paris of 1919 would have brought Germany in famine with thousands of deads. All the industrial network found its way through the international lines, but the ordinary Germans without the knowledge of what was going on and the possibility to use this knowledge went either bankrupt, lost their savings and became hungry. Especially children came to suffer. Keynes who had traveled in Germany after the war and noted the state of the ordinary people. J. M. Keynes documentated this very properly in his excellent book ‘The Economic Consequences Of the Peace’ (of December 12th 1919) in which he took the Versailles Treaty. All qualified economists of the time agreed with Keynes, e.g. Gustav Cassel and Bertil Ohlin and a many other. The year before (1918) Hjalmar Schacht wrote in his diary:
“Violence not even Money/Is shaping the World/Intellectual Power and Traditional Trade/Prevail upon Worlds to Alter” (tranlated from German).
Two third of the needed food in Germany had to be imported just after World War I. In the New York Times August 7th 1933 Samuel Untermeyer wrote: “This economic boycot is our method to selfdefence. President Roosevelt has recommended the use of National Recovery Administration”. This was of course true Keynesianism.
I had to explain these fragments of the economic history because you have to understand the true consequences of what followed after World War II. All the traditional writers of history have no knowledge about this side or they are just lieing.
Back to the monetary international negociations in the 1940s
Now it could be interesting to see the reactions from Norwegian side, when the situation of Denmark did not condition any attitude at all from neither a Danish Minister of Finance nor a Danish Liberation Coun-selor nor the Danish National Bank. The last mentioned had been confiscated by the German occupation power.
If the systems of trade and international investments functioned normally, the planned bank would be redundant. The war however pressed upon Norway too, and nobody could foresee the effects exactly including the needs for loan of reparation in the long run after the war. Do you perhaps scent an indirectly threat here. It might have been the best to pipe down. From Norwegian side it was emphasized that if all countries made a liberal policy of trade, and international investments worked normally the planned bank would be unnecessary.
What does the Euro mean (read an supplementary Appendix 2)
But first to the representatives of Norway at the concluding negotiations in Bretton Woods in New Hampshire, New England, U.S.A.
Knut Gertz Wold represented Norway, he made the work as secretary and skilled assistance for the mone-tary-plans. Gertz Wold was employee in The Department of Finance. Christian Brinch and Minister of Finance Paul Hartmann of course were involved. Gertz Wold seems to have done the work. Like in USA in Norway there was a large divergence between the centralbank and the officers in the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance (the Treasury) won in USA too while/because the country went to war after the unnotified attack on Pearl Harbor in the most supervised area in the Pacific.
But notice that the war with USA was declared by Nazi-Germany december 11th 1941.
The Norwegian Knut Gertz Wold belonged to a group of younger 'social-economists', which had been educated by professor Ragnar Frisch in the thirties. The chief of office Erik Brofoss from the Department of Reconstruction and Transportation belonged to the same group.
It looked very differently in the Management of Norway's Bank in London (in exile).
Keilhau and Raedstad had quite other backgrounds. Their points of view shortly sketched:
They said the primary theme after what had been declared should be shortrun credits. Alone this fact did not harmonize with another fact that not since the middle of the 18th century Norway had had any problems with obtaining shortrun credits in foreign countries. The problem for Norway was only longrun credits, especially those concerning the reconstruction after the war that Norway very much would have been without.
The plans and especially the Keynes-Plan did not by any mean take into account the varying ability of the countries to bear debt, and without forcing them to devaluation or to make them loose the trust of the foreign creditors either, Norway's Bank considered.
[“I give you all the credit you deserve, we used to said, but find out how much.”]
To be credit-worthy (Norway's Bank considered) could be expressed in this way:
"Ability of a country to bear credit was in the opinion of the bank dependents of a serie of qualitative factors, such as for example laws, traditions, national character, structure of businesses. To connect changes in the currency-exchange-rates with problems of the balances of payments was, the bank considered, not durable, and it was a pure quantitative criteria that, if it was used, would lead to just crazy conditions".
Norway's Bank prefered, if it had to choose, parts of the White-Plan, most of all because it did not require devaluation, when the deficit of a country on the running balance of payment reached a certain point. Nor-way's Bank would as well prefer that The Tripartite Agreement-system from 1936 had continued, because it did not interfere in monetary policy of a country, even though the system urged weak, perhaps dissipated governments to leap over the necessary monetary political interference. I mentioned and explained this system (above) under the foundations of stability from 1932.
Is money the most important of all, I ask? It is at any rate more important than war, I answer! Is there things in the background of World War II that has not been thrown light on in the official version of history? Was another war carried on, a war with just another objective or perhaps the same objective, and were there some actors in the principal parts, actors just formally placed a little lower on the cast and perhaps behind or above the scene?
I repeat because it as topical as can be:
In 'The Worlds Crisis And Denmark' L. V. Birck wrote in 1922:
"We live in a world, where 'the state-machine' we in reality should lean against is weakened in its foundation. It is hated by the riches, and just accepted by the poor. In Germany and Austria the owners of the economic society-power are the organized capital, which is preparing to destroy the parliamentary so-called democratic, and of the will of the people influenced state to take the power itself. In United States the conflict between political and economic temporary has been postponed by the fact that the political power at the latest selection of the president has got into the hands of the political oligarchy (mine: C.F.R. and Federal Reserve System). Everywhere we find the signs of the powerlessness of the state, and the possibilities are to establish the power outside the state without oligarchy seem very distant for the moment"). (unquote). If you have the possibility do compare with 2001/2002do so.
 The birth of twins, called IMF and the World Bank "in the maternity home", which was called UN two years later.
 We call such a currency false, because the amount of it is out of national control and outside justice. This kind of money is topical at this moment again. Can this false money be used in proper ways to secure the stability of the world, and was this the purpose really thought of by J. M. Keynes? We shall discuss this issue in an Appendix 2 of this book.
 In 1925 Professor L. V. Birck wrote: "Politicians are like a class, even when they seldom understand the economic problems, and their outlook is limited to the next day of selection; and the state can no longer count on the loyalty of its citizens. Economically undermined by a 10-ciphered debt that every time it has to be renewed, forces the state to beg its bread from door to door of the High-Finance, the state is not apple to pay the lower-classes the social, antirevolutionary insurance premium that the public social security is, and the wealthy that gradually have accutomed to the inflationary or debtcreated value of the capital, turn angry against the taxes that seem to them without any relation to the visible benefits, they have from the state, and also reach out the hand for these sources of income, the state has outside the taxation, and on which there by capitalization can be built private capital' (unquote from : 'Under the High-Capitalism', 1925).
My comments: The Danish national debt is December 31th 1999 almost 13 ciphered (1 trillion (Amr. translation)), or 1000 times larger than in 1935, the value of the production that should cover it today and in the future is not. If they reach out today. Yes, it must be clear as the light of the sun. The capital move to interest-bearing goods outside the production, or move the production in other countries, or even to goods outside the legal production. I could mention 175 ways to get through without the responsibility of the state, and I could mention 175 ways in which the state beg capital-owners by paying them not existing money to stay. More on this in chapter 6 in section ‘Capitalization and Stat-debt’.
In 1922 L. V. Birck could account in details the capital of the state in 'The World Crisis And Denmark' “... The income of the capital is the raising of loans and sold values, and its expenditures are the return of loan and investment of money...About the future there is of my opinion 3 ways to go, and all ways are equally impossible for the moment, because the time has been missed" 1. "To do open and honest bankrucptcy. It is an awful unjustice against those people, who by accident have the papers". 2 "Then you can try to pay back". "Immediatly after World War I England paid down its national debt, the second year it paid its interest, and third an forth year it did, what other decent nations did, paid interest by increasing the floating debt' - shortrun debt, as book-debt or debt in current account". 3."Finally you can destroy your currency", and try to do it just as quickly as other indebted nations. Just after World War I (1922) Birck wrote in the same book: "It does not help to believe that the world can go out of the war without looking different than before or that those people who have got these papers (debtpapers, German Marks and inflated and debt-disvalued shares) should live secure from them, what they require".
"These papers have to be destroyed in one way or the other, society can not exist, if it has to pay interest of these money, it is a crisis that is comming over the world in one or another way, and that will have to hit us even along the way of sympathy, because we are close connected to each other in Europe. The same can be said about the share-prices on the stock-market that are 1000 millions from, what they were at the maximum, and they have to be written down with 500 millions within the next 1½ to 2 years. But all the writing down of our values can only be done with individual losses". "I claim, what is happening now (1925) is a world revolution, which in reality is much bigger than that the Bolscheviks are making, where some citizens are killed and some workers are shot. The capital, as the world believes it has, is not present, it has to be written down with 30 to 40%. It may harm you and me, never the less it works in many respects very revolutionary. It has happened before" (unquote L. V. Birck in 'The World Crisis and Denmark', 1922).
 Try to compare the note (the words of L. V. Birck, 1922 and 1925) just written with the following from a book of (Keynesian) Professor Joergen Pedersen (1939): 'Topical Economic Questions':
Under "Must national debt be paid back"?
"...it is not a natural law that national debt ever should be paid back. The state must naturally pay back a loan, when the payments have to be paid, but if it is not convinient to decrease the debt, the pay-back can always be done by taking another loan... It is true by both raising a loan and by paying back that the only thing that matters is in what way it effects the economic life or the welfare of the society. There can not be given grounds for paying back national debt, if the effects that the paying back has is not wanted. If there is strong demand for labor under full employment at a moment in the society, the result can only be higher wage that necessary will lead to a rise in the prices, then it is perhaps convinient to collect more tax than necessary to cover the running expenditures, that means pay back the debt, because in that way the demand for resources will decrease. Before such condition has occured or better, before you wish to reduce the demand and the income of the society or a least stop its increasing, it obviously can not be given grounds for reducing the national debt..."
"When the state (on the other hand) is paying out money, it always receives the most of the amount from one or more citizens, and directly it creates an income in this way that corre-spond to the expenditure reduced by the part that goes abroad. If we for a moment assume that there is balance of the payments understood, as to every import increase there is an export increase of the same amount, there is created with every expenditure an income of the magnitude in the society".
“If the state in the same tempo, as it gives money away, collects taxes that are paid of means that the tax-payers otherwise would have given out for demand, or raises a loan that is yielded from money, that on the other hand would have been given out for labor and materials, there will obvious not neither be a smaller nor a larger total income in society, the only thing that happens is that the state now confiscates some resources that on the other hand would have been confiscated to private purposes, or would have benefited other persons than those who have the money now".
"If the state on the other hand get the money in question by taking it from its account in the national bank and the national bank does not tightening the credit elsewhere, or the state borrow on the market of bonds and the national bank by convient buying of bonds prevents a fall in the courses, the expenditure of the state means (not alone) that there has been created directly a whole new income of the same amount, but that those, who receive the money, again give some of it to people, who once again increases the expenditures. In this way an expenditure of the state creates for example within a year an increase in the income of the society in the same year, an income that perhaps is 2-3 times bigger than the paid-out amount of money, and because the taxes in this country with the existing laws of taxation are about 25% of the income, will such an expenditure in the concerned or the next year perhaps give the state and municipalities an increasing tax-income to an amount the half or three forth of the amount that can be the basic of the new expenditures or it can be used for lowering the taxes".
Under "The balance sheet of the state":
"If you actually want to operate with an idea of balanced sheet of the state as an expression of its economic situation, it must be the ability of the citizens to pay taxes compared with the expenditures that state is planning..' “(unquote Joergen Pedersen in: 'Topical Economies Problems', 1939)
Mine: If this should the official truth the ability of the tax-payers in EU must be very reduced indeed.
 Keynesianism, that Joergen Pedersen here is making marketing for, deals with problems of the society in a very unrealistic way. They are made to formulations of problems in a mathematical language of symbols or something just as limited, there has to be cleared up (as here) a logical, coherent chain of thoughts that neither fit the problem, as it really is, nor include all those things that practically effects the solution of the problem.
For example the influence on the economy of the funds or the inflation have an inferior place in the works of Keynes and in the works of his epigones.
The same can be said about the national debt, as it appears. The new system (at that time) that should be built up in the after war period, should give exactly free admission to incur national debt. And it suddenly did. The targets for the society are always something like employment, activity and similar. The effect of the public sector on the economy is not interesting to a Keynesian, and at once you will be in doubt if the declared targets for the economy are anything but to “the exterior” opinion, as Keynes himself called it.
The whole entrance in the Keynesian way of thinking gives evidence of a fatal need of interest of reality, for example if the assumption all together and each of them draw a true picture at all of the reality, that they seek to give predictions to. It will be a special problem to the Keyne-sian to try to cover himself up behind assumptions all the time, so what he has said, is logic, when all assumptions have been remembered. If these logical relations, scholastic rides tell anything about the effects of different poli-tical-economic actions from the autorities towards some correctly described phenomena in the society do not in principle interest the Keynesian. Here he has secured his retreat. It is a very central part of the Keynesian learning to train this.
Therefore do not listen to the Keynesian, he will coax you to do, what he believe in, and if you do not understand, what he is telling you, he will explain to you by referring to your lack of education at last.
I have to inform the reader that Joergen Pedersen, who became a Rockefeller Fellow, perhaps could have got the Nobel Prize instead of John M. Keynes. Pedersen was not very known in the Swedish Academy, and many of his earlier things were not written in English.
From 1994 they were talking about paying back the national debt in Denmark. But nothing of the kind happened, the debt was still rising every year. Today it is difficult find out which debt-account is the right, that of the Treasury, that of the central bank or that made by EU. If the national debt was beginning to be paid back the unemployment would increase, the keynesians would tell you. The unemployment in Denmark was between 500,000 and 700,000 or 17-24% of the laborforce in 2001. I will try to give a total presentation of the Danish unemployment-accounting-problems below. The keynesians pupils who always work and always talk, tell you that the unemployment in Denmark is about 150,000, and it is falling. 150.000 is the number when you look at the unemployed members of unemployment-security-system. The rest does not exist. These did not in the Soviet Union either.
In 1933 the unemployment was 33 p.c. (the highest ever in Denmark) of the laborforce (ac-counted in 1933). In September 1939 (when the World War II broke out) the unemployment rise 16,000, even if 20,000-30,000 were called in to the military. In the years before it had been reduced by public occupational work another name for inflation (‘New economics’ or ‘Recovery’ made in USA that be explained in chapter 6), and by exporting more to Germany, which were preparing for war, and by national debt close connected to inflation. False money and war.
At this time the unemployment were especially reduced by the so-called 'kick-starting' operations. That the money was destroyed in this way did almost nobody discover, because the war thanks to Keynes also made a new international monetary system that was based totally on credit-economy alone.
That the effect of this blind using of the theories of Keynes led to a public sector ruled by bu-reaucratic principles, a public sector that was a good deal larger than the things ruled by pri-vate, individual dispositions, and a colossal national debt ought to have been foreseen, but the theories did - very convenient - not tell this, the theories that were followed blind.
Papers of national debt are in no way just an interior economic instrument. Today all countri-es in Europe tries with changing luck to get foreign currency by following this death-route ei-ther in order to import or in order to convert from Loan-Debt to Government Paper (e.g. Bonds), especiallly until the Euro began in 12 countries 1999. Loan-debt is the most pressing burden.
In 1998 (the election-year) the unemployment in Germany with nearly the same population as in 1933 was officially 4.3 mill. The SPD-politicians – just before the election to the Bundestag – maintained that this number was not correct. The real or the true number was 10 mill., the socialdemocratic labor-force-spokeman maintianed during the election campaign. Half a year before the next election the unemployment was officially (rising) from 3.9 mill. at the beginning of 2002 with a growth-rate prospect of just 0.75% for 2002.
 He was arrested for presumed complicity in Jyli 20th 1942 – assassination on Hitler, but had to be released again, as he had hidden his participation very well – the Nürnberg Proces, where he accused but found not guilty, documented this without any doubt.
 Denmark had a secret Counsel of Liberation in the war.
 Following Dag M. Halvorsen's: ”Norge og grunnleggelsen af Bretton-Woods-systemet”. Oslo 1982.
 To the final compromise of planning Norway's objections were repeated.
 As mentioned earlier, at first in Keynes' carrier ”behind the scene”, later on after he has written ”The Economic Consequences Of The Peace”, and having received the Nobel Prize in the leading role ”on the scene”.