By Jon Rappaport
Author of the LOGIC AND ANALYSIS COURSE
In this piece, I'd like to focus on one factor. When governments spend more than they have, they become debt-based governments.
This is like saying, if the river rises over its banks there will be a flood. It's so obvious, why bother to mention it all?
Well, because many people don't really understand what debt means. It means, among other things, that you can't keep borrowing indefinitely to pay off what you owe.
In other words, at some point, the lenders are going to dry up. They're going to run screaming into the night and they won't leave a forwarding address for you. You owe too much. They don't want to have anything to do with you. If they were bookies, you would have already had your knees cracked with a baseball bat.
Governments, however, have some kind of misplaced faith that, if they keep funding programs "the people want," the day of reckoning will never come. They can allot money for this and that and this and that, and because this and that are deemed to be worthwhile, it doesn't matter.
If you try to figure out where this attitude came from, you won't find it in the Constitution. You'll find clues in the notion that politicians get elected by promising goodies, though.
A close analysis indicates that "freedom," which is delineated in the Constitution, is not the same as "free stuff."
We now see that governments all over the world are realizing they can't live forever as debt-based entities.
So what's next?
I believe we will observe a growing Voice that asks for a global currency. One currency for all nations. This is no revelation. It's been coming for a long time. However, it helps to have a debt crisis that seems to require the one-currency-fits-all answer.
And in the process of shifting to a single planetary currency, there will be "debt eradication." This will be folded into the plan-because somehow the insupportable financial obligations of governments have to be dealt with.
Such a plan will have to involve corporations. Why? Because companies like Goldman Sachs presently underwrite government debt. Meaning? These companies guarantee that the bonds which governments float, in order to keep borrowing, are, well, OK. The bonds are "good." The bonds are safe. The bonds can be bought without an unacceptable risk.
And what on earth gives Goldman Sachs the idea that such bonds deserve to be guaranteed? I asked several "experts" that very question. The answer I got was this: Governments tax the people; the taxes keep rolling in; governments have a reliable income stream.
That's it? That's the answer? It didn't add up to me, because, despite raking in money by taxing citizens, governments are spending far more than they should. In fact, that's why they have to keep issuing those bonds.
It seems to me this is yet another one of those crazy schemes, like selling mortgage-backed derivatives, that lasts as long as people don't ask too many questions. It's a rain-soaked cliff waiting to collapse, and people are still spreading out blankets and having picnics on the cliff, and developers are building condos and roads there.
The shift to a single world currency would be a complex affair, and banks, investment houses, national treasuries, governments, and tons of lawyers would have to work it all out.
Something would have to be done to accommodate the global currency-trading markets, too, where presently gargantuan sums are flowing every day, as gamblers speculate on the value of the dollar versus the pound, the yen versus the dollar, and so on. That whole market would be destroyed if these national currencies disappeared.
No doubt the one-global-currency scheme has been on the drawing board for some time. Major players have been working on how it would be accomplished, and who would get what payoffs.
Insupportable government debt and the inability to provide the panoply of government services would be one reason given for The Great Money Revolution.
It's a little like this. You're out on a field where you play baseball on a regular basis. Your team is losing every game, on and on. So one day, in the fifth inning of a game, you take your bat and your ball, and you say, "This is a bad thing. Baseball is bad. We have to make a change. We're not going to keep score the same way anymore. We're going to have a new game…"
A few people call you a bad loser. And you say, "You're wrong. I just want to make things more fair, more equal."
We already have a model for debt eradication. The IMF, the International Monetary Fund. It tends to go into Third World countries and relieve a bit of pressure on their monstrous government debts-with conditions attached. These governments will basically have to sell off many of their functions, like water and electric utilities, to outside corporate interests. Privatization. In the process, rates are hiked. Government budgets are downsized.
It's possible that a new world currency would entail some of the same "austerity measures," from Nome to Tierra del Fuego. A general lowering of the standard of living. An ever-widening gulf between the rich and the poor.
And of course, with the institution of one global currency, money would become much easier to track and tax. Money would become much more "public." Or to put it another way, only favored individuals and groups would be able to fly under the radar and transfer and launder billions and trillions.
I make all these points to illustrate how far such a plan would bring us from the notion of Constitutional government laid out at the beginning of the American Republic.
That long road has been paved and constructed with debt. Debt becomes the reason why the road to a Brave New World has to end up with an overall global management system that is both economic and political.
Therefore, as many have pointed out, those men who long for exactly such a global management system would conclude: Any strategy to pile insupportable debt on governments is a good strategy.
Under the rubric of "more free services for more people," debt is easy to create. Along with war, it's a slam dunk.
You may have noticed that, in America, more and more people are talking about limited government these days. People are realizing that the Framers of the Constitution weren't just whistling in the dark.