Chapter 3

 

Joint Statement by Experts on the Establishment of International Monetary Fond[1]

 

December 7^th 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. [2]

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.[3]

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[4], telling that the German Münchhausen as a rider once had fallen into a deep puddle[5]. 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.[6] 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 7^th 1924 his attack on inflation began with the decision to stop for credit. This led to the Dawes Plan og August 16^th 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 26^th 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[7] 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 12^th 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 7^th 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[8] 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 11^th 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:[9]

"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.[10]

 

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?[11]

 

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.

 

Go to next chapter