"Political Economists," according to Stephen Zarlenga in The Lost Science Of Money, "became the priesthood of the new Bank aristocracy, often serving as a propaganda apparatus to whitewash the monetary power structure. They put forward false ideas and smoke screens on the nature of money, primitive concepts that help entrench the bankers."
Zarlenga blames the wreckage of the world economy on "the financial establishment and their economists" and describes the latter as being the mouthpieces of the "Money Power'. The reason why the corrupt system of modern banking has endured for so long despite its abysmal performance is because professional economists almost never point the finger at the banksters nor do they ever challenge the fraudulence of private, debt-based money creation or the outrageous deceit of fractional reserve lending.
Economists are schooled in bank-funded university economics departments where they are thoroughly indoctrinated in monetary theories. The Money Power ensures that economists are methodically trained in economic language and thought and are programmed to spout the official, approved version. Manipulation is the name of the game and contentious issues are ignored or distorted. Proper evaluation of the history and function of banking is never allowed because that would throw up some very unsettling truths. Zarlenga compares political economists to medieval doctors "who theorized on how the body worked, but never dared to dissect the body and find out what was actually happening."
Just as mules are the sterile offspring of asses and horses, economists are the barren progeny of banksters and corporatists. They are impotent when it comes to generating new thinking or new ideas outside of the current monetary system. Economists seem to be utterly incapable of meaningful monetary innovation and just cannot conceive of any systemic alternatives beyond that drilled into them in their bankster schools. Although they regard themselves as a different species from the banksters they really are one and the same. When one's father is a donkey it is impossible to hide one's pedigree; both have big ears and make the same braying sounds. Economists may argue and bluster and often appear critical of the banksters but for all their "hee-hawing' they never manage to utter a single predatory growl.
When economists appear on TV or radio or write in the print media, these "experts' argue heatedly and contradict one another and trot out conflicting solutions to our monetary woes. However, their pontifications rarely venture beyond the bounds of the existing monetary system, much to the delight of the banksters, as economists show no inclination whatsoever to challenge the fundamentals of a centuries old fraudulent practice of private, debt-based, interest-bearing money creation. Their debates can be hot and lively but in the end, utterly meaningless. Economists are much like the Big-Endians and Little-Endians in Gulliver's Travels who argued ferociously over which end of the egg one should crack the big end or the little end. This dispute was so fierce and bloody that it led to six rebellions with great loss of life, including that of the Emperor of Lilliput. And so it is with the empty polemics of economists.
Economists have been on the receiving end of the acerbic wit of no less a writer than George Bernard Shaw who said, "If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion." Author and Investment Advisor, Peter Lynch, twists this quote a little more savagely: "If all the economists in the world were laid end to end, it wouldn't be a bad thing."
While Zarlenga is scathing about those economists who dance to the banksters' tune and promote confusion and division among the public at large he praises those few free-thinking economists who dare speak out about the failings and criminal deception of the banking industry. But, in a bankster-dominated world, enlightened economists are treated much differently from the banksters' own brood. Of the latter, Zarlenga says, "Some of the most ignorant and even the insane among them [such as Bonamy Price] were given important positions while the better minds were pushed aside or ignored by the money power."
This writer came across a typical example of economist benightedness in a recent article in the Irish Independent by Professor Ste'phane Garelli of the University of Lausanne (click here). Professor Garelli is an economist and is currently the Director of the World Competitiveness Center at the IMD business school in Lausanne which publishes the annual World Competitiveness Yearbook. Garelli has a very impressive list of qualifications and achievements (http://www.garelli.ch/english/cv_complet.htm) but one can't help wondering if the good professor may have been educated just a tiny jot beyond his intelligence.
Professor Garelli (quoting Raymond Barre, another economist) declares: "One of the few things we know about economics is that it has cycles -- the problem is that we do not know when they start, how long they last and why they end." Garelli goes on to assert: "The stigma of modern economics is that we still do not know how to avoid recessions and unemployment."
Well, I've got news for you, Professor. Recessions are caused by central bankers intentionally contracting the money in circulation by calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new ones. If you don't believe me, read Milton Friedman, recipient of the Nobel Prize for Economics. Dr. Friedman is on record saying that the Federal Reserve deliberately caused the Great Depression of the 1930s:
"The Fed was largely responsible for converting what might have been a garden-variety recession, although perhaps a fairly severe one, into a major catastrophe. Instead of using its powers to offset the depression, it presided over a decline in the quantity of money by one-third from 1929 to 1933"" Milton Friedman , Two Lucky People, p233.
When asked about a single cause of severe economic depressions, Dr. Friedman responded:
"I know of no severe depression, in any country or any time, that was not accompanied by a sharp decline in the stock of money, and equally of no sharp decline in the stock of money that was not accompanied by a severe depression."
It is incredible that Professor Garelli should admit that he does not know the cause of recessions. It is equally incredible that he should also admit that he does not know when economic cycles start, how long they last, or why they end. They are planned, dear Professor, planned and controlled by central bankers. There is abundant evidence to support this. The big boys of international banking decide when there will be bubbles and when there will be busts. That is how they get mega-rich. They provide lots of cheap money (rather, credit) and when people are over-borrowed they call in loans, stop lending, and foreclose on defaulters.
Since 97% of the money in the world is created from debt, any loans paid off decreases the amount of money in circulation. And when no further loans are given, the circulating money stock falls dramatically, adversely affecting businesses and the economy at large. This intentional reduction of the money supply leads to widespread business failures, high unemployment, foreclosures on property, and severe hardship within the community. On the other hand, great wealth is transferred from defaulting borrowers to the banksters. It is an act of gross criminality and systematic fraud.
The banksters have occasionally been caught boasting about their abilities to cause recessions and depressions and how they can seize property from borrowers for mere cents on the dollar. This racketeering has been going on for generations. The private issuance of a nation's money has given tremendous power to central bankers, a power so great that even democratically elected governments are subservient to them. Governments are not in control of the economy; it is the all-powerful banksters who create the money, determine interest rates, and decide who gets loans and who doesn't.