Right on cue: ECB to flood the market with new cash.
A proposal from the European Central Bank’s Frankfurt-based executive board calls for bond purchases of roughly €50 billion ($58 billion) a month that would last for a minimum of one year, according to people familiar with the matter, an indication that officials are weighing massive stimulus to shore up the eurozone’s fragile economy and boost inflation.
Whoa! Wait a minute. Aren’t these central bankers supposed to be fighting inflation? Why are they trying to boost it?
Perhaps a little examination of the facts is in order.
It certainly makes sense, that they’re pumping more credit into markets, given we’ve just been told, by the “World Economic Forum in collaboration with McKinsey & Company” that the world needs another $103 trillion in “credit” to keep the world’s economies growing into “2020 across 79 countries.”
And we already know that the Swiss unpegged their franc from the Euro, so as not to let their assets get swept up in the tsunami of euros they knew was coming down the pike and most definitely the dollar, right behind it.
So what is going on over here? Is it really world economies that these central banks are concerned about or their never-ending greed and need for growing profit margins?
Where will all this newly minted “credit,” or debt, or liquidity (or whatever you want to call it) go? Set aside the fact that they have no legitimate right to benefit from the creation of new finance in their own economies, let alone others. Will they do anything productive with it? Of course not. This is simply another attempt to grow their profits at all costs, the real economy, and the people in it, be damned.
This new credit will simply flow directly to increase the value of assets already under their control, further concentrating into the hands of the greedy few, the already cornered and concentrated wealth of the planet. Meanwhile, they keep filling our already overloaded heads with more lies, distractions and delusions.
Things will keep getting worse unless and until people wakeup to the scam of “high finance.” Any way you slice it, money is a scam, designed to concentrate control over people and assets into the hands of a minuscule minority.
SHAREverything.com 
So the ECB (like the FED) creates a ton of cash out of think air to buy up government and corporate bonds, which means eventually the ECB (like the FED) basically own the governments and corporations … and all for the cost of ink and paper.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hahaha! Actually, there’s little to no cost involved since all of it is simply double book entries.
LikeLike
[…] this for well over a decade, but it appears the big axe is finally set to swing at America. Amidst a spate of global currency moves causing seismic shifts in global assets, military conflicts are fast enveloping the planet. […]
LikeLike
Thanks for staying with the explanation and narrative of the Greek austerity realtionship. I follow what Krugman has explained, but I must confess that when nominal terms are referred to in economic discussions, which try to “sum up” what is going on, the point of short sentences are often lost on me. When we get to Varoufakis saying “Let’s just park the bonds with the ECB”, I frankly don’t (fully ) follow just WHERE the bonds figure into the debate about payback from Greece. I guess it means that Germany owned them, sold them to the ECB and the “debtor” of these bonds is Greece ? In other words, brevity and incomplete thoughts in economic narrative will always lose part of the audience. This is partly because economics is a circular set of functions. Nominal terms simply point at the meaning of a noun, and appeal to abstract knowledge of economics, rather than the present tense narrative of a particular sequence: I prefer that people alwys use subjects predicates objects and adverbs for the verbs, …in full English sentences, PARTICULARLY in economice narratives. I am not criticizing Rasha, who I actually feel has been quite helpful in keeping alive the economic discussion, and who is a very good writer. I just get disoriented as to precisely WHAT POINT is being made when people “allude” to nominal terms in an economic discussion, …but do not actually …narrate the use of, said terms. (A language use, rhetoric, reading and understanding question. Naturally Krugman is “master of us all” ….as Jascha Heifetz once said about violinist Fritz Kreisler. The analogy is apt, since Heifetz understood all, ..but Kreisler was the master of simplifying expression, for everyone’s benefit…)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that with economics, especially, it is far better to spell out everything than to simply assume people understand. A lot is going on these days, at a very fast pace, and it’s important that everyone is on the same page. Most people who are delving into these subjects these days are completely new to it and need a very clear and basic explanation of these needlessly and deliberately convoluted processes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course, I am not fully explaining either, what I am confused about, at the moment, in the various articles which address the Greek economic problems and issues. I am writing a little unclearly and hurriedly but when the resolution of the issues is a little clearer in my mind, perhaps I can then say what I did not understand fully in specific articles about Greece. In general, all I can say is that many references simply “jump in” at an arbitrary point in the overall sequence, and sometimes I am lost because the “jumping in” point, depends on a specific “nominal term” which I cannot always connect to the actual argument about Greece. “All communication requires redundancy.” The brief references some of the quoted individuals make, to the “printing of a $1 TRILLION dollars..” and, the “keeping of double books” are a couple of places where the “full narrative picture” escaped my ability to reconstruct what was being said in an abbreviated, nominal, form. But I am greatful for your reference to Krugman’s organizing the 3 different roles that a) Germany, b) the European Central Bank, and c) Greece itself, …have. And thank you for trying to gradually build a better understanding of the implications as well as the narrative, of the unusual sequence of events that so-called “austerity policies” of the IMF and the World Bank have used to turn “debt” into actual “law”. In effect, these large “world banks” end up, as creditors, DICTATING how whole countries will be “allowed” to live through overall economic dictation of future policy, from outsiders to the inside of a whole country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
WordPress must have some strange software that took away EVERY ONE of the quoatation marks I used, …but ONLY from the END of each quotation. If there is a real person anywhere in their service, perhaps they could take note of this.
LikeLiked by 1 person