Money, finance and the structure of a new world order

By Marc Morgan

Is there a single small, secret group that controls almost all major world events?

In our economically centred world money is the primary conditioning factor of life. Its abundance guarantees an individual a higher quality healthcare and education, a dignified employment, and the possibility of following whatever personal pursuits an individual may have. Wealth is the turning of money from income to asset; from something you receive to something you accumulate. Therefore, the more money at the disposal of an individual the wealthier that individual can become.

Money gives an individual a greater freedom of choice; it controls one’s decision-making. In other words, money is power. Power is change. Change is embodied in ‘events’. Money, or lack of it, is thus the precursor to all major world events. As a result those who exclusively control the money supply have considerable influence in almost all major world events.

The supply of money is determined by nature, by financial institutions and by governments. Nature offers natural resources like oil, gas and coal. These are essential ingredients for producing goods whose exchange gives way to money and wealth, a process mediated by human labour. These natural resources can also generate money and wealth in and of themselves through their trade. This allows for those that control the world’s natural reserves of oil, gas or coal, or any other natural commodity, to possess an abundance of ‘seed’ capital. However, in order to exploit the world’s natural wealth, new money in the form of credit needs to be provided by financial institutions. It is then the financial institutions that determine the extraction of ‘energy’ for production and thus the generation of new money and wealth. The money received from exporting these natural resources is kept and managed by the same financial institutions, which they then use in other productive ventures to generate new money, on the basis of loans.

Under the present monetary system, new money can only enter society through the privately owned financial institutions by means of the bond market. Governments sell bonds to their central banks, many of which are private consortiums like the Federal Reserve in the US, or to merchant banks, which then transform the bonds into printed currency. The currency is given back to the government in the form of a loan, earning compound interest. With this process the financial institutions determine how much new money is to enter into the real economy. In the election of governments or heads of state, financial institutions can play a big part through funding political campaigns. In the make-up of many first world governments, members of the treasury/finance department may naturally come from these financial institutions, who may in addition supply a government’s economic advisors. Financial institutions also encompass multilateral international organizations like the IMF and the World Bank, which also lend to national governments. Therefore, the financial institutions, whether unilaterally or multilaterally, determine much of government policy, the economy’s money supply and the productive capacity of the world. They are a single group in that they are not restricted by national borders or domestic cultures, they being solely united politically and economically in the transnational sense.

Do the executives of the financial institutions represent a modern day illuminati?

The owners of these financial institutions represent, approximately, 0.000000025 percent of the world’s population. They are thus a small group. Moreover, they are not democratically accountable to national citizens or subject to the same treatment as them. As such they are not compelled by law to be completely transparent in their business, allowing them to operate in secrecy, for opaque reasons and causes. These can be often discussed at regular private conferences and summits. It may be plausible, therefore, to believe that a single small, secret group, through controlling the global flow of money, controls much of the decision-making around the world and hence almost all major world events. So, the capacity for such concentrated control, as far as it can be seen, exists. Whether this capacity is realised is a further matter, but one none the less visible to the human eye.

About these ads
  1. josephcolman said:
  2. Josh M said:

    Wealth isn’t ‘the turning of money from income to asset’, rather, money represents a CLAIM ON WEALTH, wealth being embodied in assets. Another way of considering this is that all money is debt, since your claim on wealth (asset) represents someone else’s liability (debt). So money is really just an IOU.

    An excellent clarifying post explaining the issue technically can be found here:

    Also remember, the possession of money guarantees nothing because its value relative to wealth changes (inflation/deflation). If money is a claim on wealth, then increasing the supply of money decreases the value of each unit relative to the wealth in existence (inflation) and vice versa (deflation). Taken to the extreme, drastic increases in the money supply can lead to hyperinflation and currency collapse, whereby the currency loses all value and can claim no wealth!

    Of course, a change in the amount of wealth, which changes the amount of assets relative to money, has the same effect. And because our economy is dynamic and constantly changing, this means that ‘supply shocks’ such as shortages of a good due to interruptions in production also affect the value of money.

    I hear that this was actually the primary cause of the Zimbabwe hyperinflation, massive shortages in the supply of agricultural produce, rather than just the increases in the money supply alone.

    Just some wandering thoughts…

  3. Josh M said:

    Another thing, if banks – as you say money creators – are willing to create more money against the value of a house, by giving you a larger mortgage, this inflates the value of the house. Because now there is a greater amount of money relative to the finite property wealth. This occurs independently of genuine supply and demand effects. Or you could say that the increased demand itself exists as a result of the greater amount of money (debt) you have available.

  4. Josh, thank you for your comments to my rough and provoking piece. I did not intend to dig deep into the matter, it is just a brief sketch.

    Under the current monetary system I would agree with you that ‘all money is debt’ in the sense that one’s assets (deposits) are a bank’s liabilities, which they use to create new money on the basis of loans. They way I defined wealth in the piece primarily concerned individual agents ‘grounding’ their money into asset form, which I don’t think is an incorrect statement at the micro level.

    But of course the possession of money guarantees nothing over the long run, which is why I wrote “…the wealthier an individual ‘can’ become”, and not ‘will’ become (can emphasising ‘on condition that’).

    What I wanted to do was to illustrate, in a somewhat novel way, how the origins of finance ‘can’ very easily concentrate power with the systemic means they have at their disposal.

  5. Josh M said:

    Yes, I was slightly ‘thinking out loud’ which resulted in my focusing on only one aspect of the piece. I’d be interested to see a more detailed follow up documenting the links between finance and the concentration of power.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,058 other followers

%d bloggers like this: