26 Augustus 2011 ~ 18 Kommentare

Die ekonomiese vooruitsigte van die volkstaat

Geskryf deur Sebastiaan Biehl

Min mense is positief as dit kom by die ekonomiese vooruitsigte vir die Afrikaner-volkstaat in die Noordwes-Kaap met sy huidige groeipunt Orania. Almal (binne die vryheidsgesinde geledere) stem saam met die behoefte aan ‘n tuiste wat kulturele handhawing en fisiese oorlewing waarborg, maar die persepsie is dat die volkstaat net ekonomies kan oorleef as dit van buite gesubsidieer word deur welvarende Afrikaners wat ‘n soort tiende vir Orania gee, soos wat die Jode wêreldwyd aanvanklik vir Israel gegee het.

Die gewone besware teen die moontlikheid van ‘n ekonomies voorspoedige en welvarende volkstaat is gewoonlik die volgende: beperkte infrastruktuur wat ten duurste nuut gebou moet word; vêr van die markte en bevolkingskonsentrasies  af en daarmee saam hoë vervoerkoste; geen grondstowwe in die omgewing wat verwerk kan word nie; beperkings wat arbeid betref, wat polities sinvol en ononderhandelbaar is, maar ekonomies remmend is.

Daar is sekere faktore wat nie sal verander nie: die kanse dat nou skielik groot reserwes van minerale of olie in die omgewing van Orania ontdek sal word is klein. Ek wil sê gelukkig, want onder die huidige omstandighede sal dit ons net benadeel want die ANC-staat het die houvas op alle minerale regte en sal hordes werkers hier vestig om dit te ontgin. Bid dus dat daar in die afsienbare toekoms geen hulpbronne in die Karoo gevind sal word nie. Selfs al was daar ‘n outonome of onafhanklike volkstaat gewees sou minerale reserwes eerder ‘n vloek as ‘n seën wees: dit lei tot ‘n ongebalanseerde derdewêreld-ekonomie wat ons te dikwels in Afrika sien.

Buitelandse maatskappye buit die hulpbronne uit en bring hulle eie kundiges in en plaaslike mense doen hoogstens handewerk. Die omgewing word besoedel en sosiale veranderinge geskied teen ‘n spoed wat geen samelewing kan hanteer nie. Korrupsie en buitelandse inmenging is ook gewoonlik naby waar ‘n minerale-bonanza plaasvind, selfs in gesofistikeerde lande.

Dan, wat die afstand na die markte en die bevolkingskonsentrasies betref: ook dit sal ‘n toestand wees wat nie maklik verander nie. Orania is vêr van hawens af, hier is slegs ‘n derderangse pad en geen spoorlyn of hoofroete nie en die naaste noemenswaardige konsentrasie mense is 160 km weg. Met stygende brandstofkoste sal vervoer altyd ‘n aansienlike hap uit elke sakeman se begroting vat. Die argument vir ‘n volkstaat in of naby Gauteng gaan gewoonlik gepaard met dié soort redenasie.

Ten spyte van bogenoemde glo ek dat die Afrikaner-volkstaat, selfs in die Karoo, ‘n rooskleurige ekonomiese vooruitsig kan hê, mits die regte politieke besluite geneem word wat beleggings in die volkstaat in vergelyking met Suid-Afrika ‘n baie beter keuse maak. Tans is die houding nog te dikwels een van “wie in die volkstaat belê moet dit vir die saak doen, dus moet ons dit so moeilik as moontlik maak om egte volkstaters van diegene wat net wil geld maak te skei”. Dit is, om die minste te sê, ‘n dwase houding. Opportuniste het nog steeds gekom en gegaan, maar toegewyde volkstaters kon nie in alle gevalle vasbyt nie want die nadele het net te veel geraak. Let wel, ons praat nou van Orania deur sy geskiedenis van 20 jaar, dinge het aansienlik verbeter die afgelope paar jaar en is steeds aan die verbeter.

Kom ons kyk wat is die nadele vir besigheid in Suid-Afrika en dan kom ons by die geleenthede vir die volkstaat uit:

Arbeid en vakbonde
Cosatu se mag is welbekend en tans ervaar ons weer hulle greep op die Suid-Afrikaanse politieke en ekonomiese toneel met stakings en buitensporige loonverhogings. Werknemers se produktiwiteit regverdig eenvoudig in baie gevalle nie die lone wat hulle ontvang nie. Werksdae gaan verlore weens stakings, te veel vakansiedae, siektes, ens.

Die volkstaat kan met ‘n streng en gedissiplineerde arbeidsbeleid dit vir beleggers die moeite werd maak om hier besigheid te doen. Danksy talle virtuele dienste raak fisiese vervoer ook minder belangrik. Lae lone is beslis nie die antwoord nie want dit maak vir ontevrede en onstandvastige werkers en ontmoedig hulle. Balans is hier die wagwoord: die werkers moet hulle geld werd wees en dit verdien wat hulle verdien.
Ons kan egter reeds vasstel dat werknemers se motivering en arbeidsetiek hoër is as die gemiddelde een in Suid-Afrika. Mense is dikwels bereid om oortyd sonder vergoeding in te sit. Stakings is ongekend en vakansiedae is heelwat minder as in SA en werksdae word nie misbruik vir “siek-vakansies” nie.

Infrastruktuur
Geen ekonomiese aktiwiteit kan plaasvind sonder ‘n voldoende infrastruktuur nie. Suid-Afrika se padnetwerk het verbeter maar laat dikwels nog veel te wense oor. Die spoornetwerk is glad nie op standaard nie. Watervoorsiening en riolering gaan agteruit. Kragvoorsiening is gebrekkig en krag raak toenemend duur.

Wat infrastruktuur betref, kan die volkstaat ‘n groot verskil maak vir sy besigheidsmense en voornemende beleggers. Orania se infrastruktuur is tans reeds ‘n voordeel teenoor Suid-Afrika s’n. Alhoewel die gevolge van beperkte fondse, onvoldoende instandhouding en slytasie oor die jare nou ingehaal moet word, is hier groot verbetering en is dit een van die sterk punte van ‘n volkstaat. Bekwame ingenieurs, tegnici en munisipale werkers sal sorg dat ondernemers te alle tye krag, riolering, water en toevoerpaaie in ‘n goeie toestand het. Tans word besonder baie geld belê in die opgradering en instandhouding van die infrastruktuur. Daar is egter nog te veel infrastruktuur waar Orania tans van Suid-Afrika afhanklik is, soos elektrisiteit en paaie. Aan die paaie kan ‘n mens onder die huidige bestel niks doen nie (behalwe die paaie binne die dorp wat reeds aandag kry), maar by bekostigbare, betroubare en volhoubare kragvoorsiening lê groot potensiaal oopgesluit. Vir ondernemers kan dit ook ‘n bemarkingsvoordeel inhou as hulle met alternatiewe krag produseer. Op langtermyn behoort dit ook besparings mee te bring. As ‘n reël van die duim geld: Eskom-krag is tans nog goedkoper en meer effektief as alternatiewe krag, maar laasgenoemde verbeter gedurig en word beter en goedkoper soos wat Eskom-krag duurder en meer onbetroubaar raak. Ook by riolering kan meer van alternatiewe gebruik gemaak word wat die oorhoofse koste verlaag.

Eiendomsreg, nasionalisering
Dit wat enige ekonomie sink is onsekerheid oor eienaarskap. Ons moet besef dat daar nie iets soos absolute eiendomsreg is nie: selfs in vrye markekonomieë kan grond onteien word as dit noodsaaklik is vir byvoorbeeld ‘n deurpad. Daar is wel billike vergoeding. In Suid-Afrika is daar min sekerheid. Daar is wel ‘n klousule oor eiendomsreg in die grondwet maar die grondwet kan maklik genoeg met die huidige meerderheid sosialisties georiënteerde partye verander word. Eiendomsreg word reeds uitgekalwe. Geen ondernemer belê in ‘n land waar hy gesien word as ‘n gans wat goue eiers moet lê wat ander dan gebruik en die goue gans daarna ook nog slag as dank nie.

Orania se aandeelblokskema is altyd as ‘n nadeel beskou omdat die persepsie was, en nog steeds is, dat dit ‘n beperking op eiendomsreg plaas en dat die maatskappy mense se aandeelblok sonder of teen minimale vergoeding kan vat as hulle sou goeddink. Natuurlik is dit gerugte en ja, persepsies wat vals is, maar dit verander niks aan die onsekerheid wat dit vir sekere mense bied teenoor kaart en transport.

Intussen moes Suid-Afrikaners egter besef dat kaart en transport geen beskerming teen onteiening bied nie. Meer nog, die aandeelblokskema bied eintlik meer sekerheid want dit is kollektiewe eienaarskap (nog steeds met jou eie uitgemete stuk grond) en daar is dus ‘n groot groep mense wat veel moeiliker onteien kan word as ‘n enkele boer of huiseienaar.

Verder is Orania verbind tot die markekonomie en word eienaarskap gerespekteer.

Belasting
Die kwasi-sosialistiese regering van Suid-Afrika glo, soos meeste regerings wat oortuig is van die welsynstaat se seëninge, aan herverdeling deur middel van hoë belasting. Die sosialistiese oortuiging is dat diegene wat welvarend is hulle rykdom verkry het weens onregmatige voordele, synde uit die verlede, of deur hulle afkoms, of omdat hulle gewoon skelm en gewetenloos is en ander uitbuit. Dus moet hulle deur hoë belasting daarvoor gestraf word en kan die minder gegoedes vergoed word deur allerhande toelaes en gratis dienste soos medies, skole ens.

Belasting kan egter ook meer produktief aangewend word deur “ontwikkelingstate” wat massief in infrastruktuur belê, wat almal bevoordeel, ook voornemende beleggers. Daarby moet ontwikkelingstate egter besef dat dit net ‘n tydelike verskynsel moet wees. As die staat se infrastruktuur op ‘n hoë vlak is en net nog onderhou moet word, dan behoort belasting verlaag te word. Lae belasting trek beleggers en dit wat burgers aan belasting spaar, word eerder gespaar of uitgegee vir persoonlike aanskaffings (en donasies) en pomp meer geld in die ekonomiese kringloop in. Hoë belasting lei gewoonlik tot belastingontduiking en –vermyding, en nie die rykes word werklik gestraf nie (want hulle beskik oor goeie belastingkonsultante en adresse in die buiteland om hulle geld heen te verplaas), maar die eerlike en hardwerkende middelklas, soos dit tipies in Suid-Afrika die geval is.

Orania is tans ‘n dorp wat ‘n relatief hoë belasting, oftewel heffing het. Dit is in ‘n mate verstaanbaar, want Orania as dorp vervul funksies wat op ander dorpe (in teorie) deur die staat gedra word. Verder is Orania in die ontwikkelingstaatfase en daar is heelwat infrastruktuur wat ten duurste nuut geskep of vergroot moet word (nuwe diensteaansluitings teen vandag se koste, nuwe substasies, rioolaanlegte, teerpaaie) waaroor ander dorpe wat krimp genoegsaam beskik. Orania se dienste werk en word onderhou en dit het natuurlik sy prys.

Maar die dorp moet eerder sy belastingbasis verbreed as om meer en meer belasting van sy bestaande inwoners te hef. ‘n Dorp met ‘n groter bevolking kan net eenvoudig baie beter ekonomies bestuur word (die logika van economics of scale). Hoë heffings is egter ‘n faktor wat mense uit Orania laat wegtrek of ander, tipies jong gesinne en mense uit die laer middelklas, verhoed om te kan kom intrek. Die skepping van ‘n infrastruktuurfonds, om nuwe infrastruktuurprojekte nie uit die heffings te finansieer nie is die regte besluit, maar ook hier moet gewaak word dat ontwikkelaars nie buite verhouding belas word nie deur allerhande addisionele kostes. Oordragskoste verhoog erf- en huispryse verder en ‘n maksimumbedrag behoort vasgestel te word eerder as om ‘n sekere persentasie te handhaaf, selfs by huise wat meer as R1 miljoen kos.

Namate die infrastruktuur geskep is moet heffings verlaag word, of ten minste nie verder verhoog word nie. Nuwe inkomste moet deur meer inwoners verkry word. Die som is eenvoudig: om ‘n pad te onderhou wat deur 10 mense wat belasting betaal gebruik word, is net so veel duurder as om dieselfde pad te onderhou wat deur 100 mense gebruik word (selfs al beteken dit meer slytasie).

Deur lae belasting, veral vir ondernemers, kan Orania werk skep en meer mense trek.

Opvoeding, opleiding, vaardighede
Nog iets wat in Suid-Afrika toenemend skaars raak is reg opgeleide mense, veral in ambagsbedrywe. Die nuwe swart elite streef almal na witboordjieposte en studeer graag rigtings wat gesag en prestige beteken. Die onderbou van gehalte skoolopleiding is ongelukkig nie meer daar nie, dalk nog op duur privaatskole, maar selde by staatskole. Statistieke wys reeds dat goed opgeleide ambagsmanne al hoe skaarser en al hoe ouer raak. Blykbaar begryp jong mense nie die groot inkomstemoontlikhede wat in goeie ambag opgesluit lê nie. As ‘n mens bedink dat ‘n ambagsman nie eers ten duurste vir jare se universiteitsopleiding hoef te betaal nie maar na ‘n relatief kort opleidingsperiode sy eie besigheid kan begin, kan so iemand makliker en vinniger geld verdien as ‘n dokter, prokureur of ouditeur. Fooie vir herstelwerk aan ‘n motor, elektriese- of loodgieterswerk per uur is ook nie meer ver onder die witboordjiewerkers s’n nie. En hoekom moet iemand wat tegnies aangelê is sy jare op universiteit mors en op die ou einde met ‘n swak graad van ‘n vak wat hy nie geniet ‘n werk soek, terwyl hy eerder sy stokperdjie tot beroep kan uitbou, net omdat witboordjiewerk meer prestige beteken?

Orania het die leemte gesien en bied ‘n goeie veld vir huidige en voornemende ambagsmanne. Die beplande oprigting van ‘n tegniese opleidingskool kom baie tydig. Die volgehoue groei in die dorp en die uitbou van die infrastruktuur skep ook ‘n groot behoefte vir elektrisiëns, bouers, loodgieters, ens.

In die toekoms sal ‘n akademiese inrigting ook geskep moet word om meer middelklasmense te trek. Maar weens die hoë koste sal dit eers kan plaasvind wanneer Orania ‘n aansienlike vlak bereik het wat bevolking en inkomste betref. Tans is ‘n beroepsgerigte ambagskool die regte keuse.
Afgesien van die tersiêre opleiding, wat tans nog net in ‘n beplanningsfase en hier en daar eksperimenteel bestaan, is die huidige skoolopleiding op Orania van hoë en stygende gehalte en is reeds ‘n trekpleister vir nuwe inwoners. Dit is boonop bekostigbare skole, terwyl mense elders óf tevrede moet wees met swak en ideologies ingekleurde opvoeding, meesal in Engels, óf ten duurste vir kwaliteit opvoeding met ‘n waardegerigte basis moet betaal.

Orania kan op die voorpunt van behoeftegerigte opleiding wees. Kwaliteit ambagsmanne en fabrieke is weereens ‘n trekpleister vir voornemende inwoners en beleggers, dit skep werk, sorg vir ‘n werkende dorp en laat mense wat hier woon tevrede en lojaal voel.

Toegang tot kapitaal
Suid-Afrika se banke is deesdae meer versigtig as in die verlede om geld uit te leen. Die groot swart laerklas is ‘n risiko om voor geld te leen, maar weens politieke druk word dit wel deur banke gedoen, met die verstandhouding dat hulle die geld sal afskryf ter wille van politieke punte. Internasionaal is Suid-Afrika se kredietwaardigheid wel een van die hoogste in Afrika, maar op ‘n wêreldwye skaal is dit slegs in die middelgrond. Suid-Afrika se finansiële beleid is minder katastrofies as sy beleid op meeste ander terreine, danksy die relatief gesonde hantering van Trevor Manuel en nou Pravin Gordham. Nogtans is die langtermyntendens ook om meer skuld te maak en om meer en meer te spandeer en fiskale leemtes eerder deur geleende geld en hoër belasting te vul as om te spaar.

Waarskynlik die grootste belemmernis vir ontwikkeling op Orania is kapitaal. Daar is goeie redes hoekom nie enige kapitaal gebruik kan word nie en hoekom die vrye mark wat kapitaal betref nie vir Orania werk nie. Die aandeleblok en die volks-eienaarskap van Orania kan natuurlik nie aan winsgedrewe en volksvreemde banke verpand word nie. Gelukkig beskik Orania met OSK (Orania Spaar en Krediet) oor ‘n gesonde eie finansiële instelling en kan lenings vir huisaankope en hier en daar ook besigheidsontwikkeling gee. Die Groeifonds is ‘n verdere instrument wat kapitaal beskikbaar stel vir spesifiek besigheidsontwikkeling. Daar is egter ook leemtes: OSK se rentekoerse asook depositovereiste is besonder hoog in vergelyking met kommersiële banke en sit ‘n hele paar voornemende beleggers en kopers af (weens die feit dat OSK geld privaat moet leen het hulle egter min beweegruimte), en die Groeifonds, wie se voorwaardes sagter is, beskik tans nog nie oor groot kapitaal nie. Dinge sal vorentoe egter verbeter en tot voordeel van Orania strek. Om meer kapitaal teen goeie kondisies beskikbaar te kan hê sal vir seker help om Orania uit te brei en vestiging makliker maak.

Veiligheid
Suid-Afrika se gebrek aan veiligheid is spreekwoordelik. Dit beïnvloed feitlik enige besigheid negatief, behalwe die sekuriteitsbedryf! Elke besigheid moet ekstra uitgawes begroot vir beveiliging en skryf ‘n deel van sy inkomste af weens diefstal en beskadiging. Buitelandse beleggers en toeriste word reeds afgeskrik deur die onveiligheid van Suid-Afrika en dit is altyd die eerste bekommernis voor mense die land besoek of hier besigheid doen. Dit kan ook aanvaar word dat getraumatiseerde en bang werknemers minder produktief is en meer weens uitputting siek is as werknemers wat in ‘n veilige omgewing werk.

Veiligheid is een van die grootste bates van Orania. Verliese weens diefstal, inbraak, ens. is minimaal en koste vir sekuriteitstelsels, wagte, hoë heinings, versekering teen diefstal, ens. kan uit die beleggers se kostebepalingsrekening uitgehaal word. Ongelukkig bied ons geen geleenthede vir sekuriteitsmaatskappye nie.

Politieke klimaat, staatsinmenging, regulering
‘n Land kan ooglopend stabiel en rustig wees, maar die blote persepsie dat dinge kan verander en dat die leiers se versekerings nie veel beteken nie maak dat beleggers versigtig is en hoogstens korttermynbeleggings doen wat gou weer onttrek kan word. Deur die hele Afrika is dit die geval. Geleenthede is legio, maar beleggings min, en indien wel, dan gewoonlik in die uitbuiting van grondstowwe en vir ‘n beperkte tyd en sonder langtermynverbintenis. In Afrika speel regerings gewoonlik negatiewe rolle: pleks om stabiliteit en orde te waarborg en goeie infrastruktuur te verseker, is hulle eerder amptelike parasiete wat deur omkoopgeld, hoë belasting en allerhande addisionele koste vir die skepping van infrastruktuur beleggings duur maak sonder om waarde toe te voeg. Beleggers word nie op hande gedra as mense wat help om die armoede indirek te verlig deur werkskepping (al is die winsmotief sentraal) nie, maar word gesien as indringers wat iets wil vat wat hulle nie toekom en waarvoor hulle maksimaal gemelk moet word. Dit, gekombineerd met ‘n gebrek aan sekerheid van eiendom, opruiende toesprake van onteiening en blanke koloniale skuld maak dat beleggers versigtig is. Vergelyk die gebrek aan belegging in Afrika met die magdom beleggings in die Ooste en die prentjie word duidelik. Suid-Afrika se toestand is wel beleggingsvriendeliker as in die gemiddelde Afrika-land, maar die persepsie bestaan dat Suid-Afrika in dieselfde rigting beweeg as ander Afrika-lande, na meer sosialisme, meer staatsinmenging en minder effektiwiteit. Onlangse uitsprake oor nasionalisering en grondroof versterk die onsekerheid.

Orania het ‘n klimaat van voorspelbaarheid en beleggingsekerheid. Orania se leierskap is nugtere en eerlike mense en die risiko dat radikale heethoofde beheer oorneem en ‘n heel ander beleidsrigting inslaan is uiters beperk. Die dorp, en die toekomstige groter gebied is verbind tot die beginsels van die markekonomie en geleenthede.

Reëls wat sinvol is, soos oor boustandaarde, die onderverdeling van erwe en die sonering van ontwikkelingsareas bring orde en voorspelbaarheid. Daar moet egter gewaak word daarteen om te veel hekkies in ‘n belegger se pad te sit wat hom dalk sal ontmoedig.

Om op te som: Orania kan sy natuurlike nadele meer as uitbalanseer deur ‘n gesonde ekonomiese beleid en beleggersvriendelike optrede. Dinge kom meer en meer in plek, maar geen leierskap, selfs van die mees suksesvolle dorp of staat, moet dink dat daar geen ruimte vir verbetering is nie en dat hulle alles reg doen nie. Dit is nie genoeg dat Orania vorentoe gaan nie, die dorp moet uit sy nate bars en so veel mense trek, veral kapitaalkragtige beleggers, dat ons die ideaal van ‘n volkstaat in ons leeftyd kan verwesenlik.

Deel/Stuur

18 Reaksies op “Die ekonomiese vooruitsigte van die volkstaat”

  1. Swartskaap 26 Augustus 2011 at 18:00 Permalink

    Briljante artikel! Ek is baie bly dat jy oor die ekonomiese vooruitsigte gepraat het . Ek blog ook gereeld oor die ekonomiese voordele in ʼn Afrikaner Republiek.

  2. Rina Spies 26 Augustus 2011 at 19:25 Permalink

    Hierdie is ‘n baie openhartige kommentaar wat vir my meer insig gee in die Volkstaat idee. Ons is wel van plan om in die afsienbare toekoms moontlik na Orania te verhuis. Die feit dat daar sterk aanduidings van ‘n tegniese skool in oorweging is kan ons besluit net bespoedig. Volgens wat ek al nagevors het oor Orania kan dit ‘n baie gewilde groeipunt word en is die tyd reg om nou daar te bele. Sterkte met jul pragtige inisiatiewe. Ons hou julle belangstellend dop. Groete Coenie

  3. Rudolf Herbst 27 Augustus 2011 at 07:07 Permalink

    Briljant Sebastiaan, ek stem 100% saam!

    “Dinge kom meer en meer in plek, maar geen leierskap, selfs van die mees suksesvolle dorp of staat, moet dink dat daar geen ruimte vir verbetering is nie en dat hulle alles reg doen nie.”

    Jou stelling is seker die mees relevantste van alles in die skrywe hierbo.

    Om goed te wees, selfs die beste, is juis die vyand van nimmereindigende volhoubaarheid.
    Dis dan wanneer individue, organisasies en self lande, (ons is welbekend met die Amerikaanse ekonomiese verval), in ‘n gemaksone verval en voor jy dit besef verbrokkel alles om jou heen.

    Daar moet onophoudelik gepoog word om die standaard in alle fasette van die samelewing te verhoog en daar moet nooit in die groef geval word dat ons goed is nie.

    Om goed te wees is die vyand van om die beste te wees!

  4. Cliff 3 September 2011 at 08:02 Permalink

    *NEW POLITICAL MOVEMENT FOR SOUND MONEY AND FINANCIAL DEMOCRACY (shold be freedom, not demogracy) HAS BEEN LAUNCHED IN VIENNA

    *VIENNA ECONOMICS PROFESSOR FRANZ HÖRMANN TO LEAD GRASSROOTS EUROZONE MOVEMENT FOR REFORM OF MONEY SYSTEM

    Baie goed gestel.

    *PRIVATE INTEREST-BEARING MONEY TO BE ABOLISHED AND REPLACED BY PUBLIC MONEY PUT IN CIRCULATION BY GOVERNMENT AS A FREE SERVICE

    *MAJOR INFORMATION CAMPAIGN TO BE LAUNCHED TO INFORM THE PEOPLE AROUND THE GLOBE ABOUT THE PRIVATISED MONEY SYSTEM AND HOW IT CAUSES DEBT, POVERTY

    *RED ALERT: THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POST YOU WILL EVER READ ON THIS BLOG:
    PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD AND PREPARE TO BECOME ACTIVE IN BRINGING ABOUT THE BIGGEST FINANCIAL REFORM IN PEACE TIME IN HISTORY BEFORE THE EURO AND DOLLAR IMPLODE UNDER DEBT: HELP US HELP YOU SECURE A PROSPEROUS AND PEACEFUL FUTURE BY MAKING OUR MONEY A FREE SERVICE SUPPLIED BY OUR GOVERNMENT AGAIN

    Below, based on a chat with Vienna economics professor Franz Hörmann and economics expert Otmar Pregetter yesterday about their new political movement to reform
    the money system across the eurozone.

    Few people in the eurozone realise that they have to pay interest on every single euro note and coin they use. (most likely so for all so called private bank issued money)

    They are using private money without knowing it – and using a private service always comes with a price tag.
    97% of all the money in the eurozone is created by private banks as an interest bearing loan.

    The Eurozone central bank, ECB, supplies the notes and coins – the liquidity – for the day to day transactions of this privatised monetary system.

    By supplying notes and coins, the ECB helps to hide from people the true nature of the geld / money they use. People look at the notes and coins and wrongly assume
    the money they use is issued by government as a free service made available for economic transactions. In truth, the money is private and its use comes with a price tag:
    everyone has to pay private banks simply for using the privatised, low quality money at all.

    A central service of governments — supplying money — has been privatised and it has been done in stealth in the western world, in the USA, the UK and the eurozone.

    The statutes of the ECB even forbids the central bank from giving money to governments directly and without charging interest.

    The ECB is only allowed to give money directly and without charging interest to the eurozone 6,300 private banks.

    These private banks use their monopoly on the public money supplied by the ECB to issue loans bearing interest using the fractional reserve banking system.
    They earn interest on these loans even though they have lent no actual capital. (Now that is pure shysterism!!! It is a Pharisee con job first class)

    Almost everyone pays the interest on the eurozone’s private money supply either directly to the banks who issue the loans to them for houses, cars and such like or indirectly
    in the form of taxes to the government.
    Every single time you use a euro or dollar note or coin, you have to pay interest just for using that note or coin. Only the people do not realise this fact and they use their notes
    and coins as if they were a free service of their government. (Folks, time to wake up!!!)

    Any government which has switched from public money creation to private money creation must have a steady stream of revenue to pay the inevitable bill on the money it puts into
    circulation on behalf of private banks. And that is why federal taxes were introduced in the USA at the same time as the Federal Reserve was privatised by stealth in 1913.

    The fact that our money is created with interest logically, necessarily and unavoidably leads to a collapse of the financial system after a certain period of time.
    (or the banksters use this as a piss weak tale to justify so called collapsed whereby we the sheeple simply learn to swallow our losses and their gains upon our wealth
    and become willing to trade our ownerships to them under a false sense of guilt that we have so much debt when they create the debt for us, they are wizards and with slight of hand tricks…
    This is financial terrorism, the banksters are the TRUE terrorists of the world and have the blood of millions of victims on their hands.
    As Jesus said of the money changes and their high priests that they have innocent blood on their hands. We are led to believe them, they are thus responsible to be truthful…
    but they misuse their might because they are rotten to the core, they have NO redeeming qualities. In this case, if we don’t wise up, they can do this fraud and theft forever until the host from which the bloodsuckers lives dies)

    China is the only major economy right now printing money without charging interest – and that is why China’s economy is booming and there is no end in sight to that boom.
    The root cause of the debt smothering the eurozone and the USA is the way our money system has been privatised by stealth. The controlled mainstream media hides who the real winners from privatising our money supply are from the public. The media also hides the fact that such a privatised money system is necessarily doomed to (fake) collapse. (I say fake as that is the banksters whole aim in the game, to take by way of social collective debt guilt our wealth and ownerships)

    To pay the interest to private banks on the money they have created, yet more money has to be created – but this money also has a price tag in the form of interest.
    This behoves yet more money to be printed by private banks which ups the price tag in an endless circle. Eventually such astronomical sums of money are needed to pay
    for the interest on the private money in circulation that it results either in hyperinflation or in brutal austerity cuts
    (with resulting guilt trips, that being, ones fostered upon us by whoring governments.
    The guilt trip is, “OH we are so in debt that we need to pay it off, it’s only right that we do…” RUBBISH!!!!
    You know when your government is a bankster-whore when that government tells us this DUNG, that we need to make cut backs to pay ‘our debts’ and when we can’t we need to make trade offs.
    The fake debt made by this form of wizardry is financial cluster bomb warfare )

    At some point, the system reaches its mathematical limits and the media (the priest craft hirelings of the banksters) and governments (bankster whores) are all pigs with snouts in the bankster’s troughs,
    who tell us that there is a credit collapse. This is the scam to get our inheritance, our land, our ownership rights.The Law of the Bible forbids this but who wants to listen to a ‘stuffy Bible’ right?
    Okay, then listen to Banksters and whores.
    Church ministers are trained in theocratic-Pharisee-whore-schools whereby they are told that God’s law is done away with when his son Jesus said that he came not to scrap God’s law but
    rather he came to fulfil (bolster) the Law of his Father.
    Let’s get a few things straight. Why do the no longer use the word ‘Geld’. It is English for ‘Money’? Because Geld comes from the word ‘gold’ and God’s law has a great deal to say on
    ‘geld’ and how it is to be implemented. But now most so-called money / geld is credit.
    What does credit mean? Well that word is not English. The foe loves using French/Latin based words so that we don’t ‘get it’. Credit means, belief.
    If something is not believable we should say, it’s unbelievable, but sadly many of us say, it’s incredible. It means the same. One is English, one is French.
    The point here is the word ‘Credit’. It means belief. When they issue credit, they issue belief. Why do you think the call their ‘geld’, BELIEF?
    Because it is designed for you to believe it is geld so that you are willing to pay the follow up debts and taxes and upon failure to do so, you
    willingly yield to their demands to pay up and hand in your true wealth, that which you own. Credit crisis mean, BELIEF crisis! But it is not a geld crisis.
    All true wealth stays as is or is added upon by our means to grow and make. No amount of Belief crash can take away wealth UNLESS you belief that you home
    and your ownerships is worth what they say so they can buy it up for a song, a wizard’s song! With that song you willingly walk away from your home and work for wages
    that we took so long to get, give up our pensions and live like paupers because, after all, ‘we made the debt… sure…

    THEY MADE THE DEBT AND THEIR WHORES AND PRIESTS tell us to keep our place.

    Their credit is their means to take our lands with Credit Cluster-bombs… and just in case we stand up, they have brought in the fifth columnists,
    it’s called, Assylum seekers. Handy and desperate idiots that will be thankful to the whore governments that bring them in. Governments do not bring (oh sorry, “let”)
    them in because they are caring, if they cared for folks, they’d care for us.

    We have already experienced such a collapse before in Europe and the USA in 1930s. Only at that time, the true cause of the collapse of the economic and political systems was hidden from the general public.
    Wars and conflicts were started by the very same elite who profit from our private money system as a diversion from the real cause of the bust. After the second world war ended, the financial systems were rebooted and the whole boom and bust cycle, which a privatised money supply entails, started again.

    In 2011, we are again at the end of another boom and bust cycle and are facing another bust. Debt in the USA, UK and eurozone is reaching astronomical levels.
    The central banks are responding as privately controlled banks could be expected to do.
    They are giving all the public money to the banks via bailouts, emergency liquidity assistance, monetary stimulus and so forth.

    As the banks take more and more, the rest of the people have less and less. The standard of living of everyone in the USA and eurozone has been falling.
    Pensions have fallen to just 135% of the social welfare, for example, in Germany – and social welfare has also shrunk, according to new figures.
    Wages also have fallen in Germany in real terms when it comes to buying power since Germany joined the eurozone. Never in modern history have there been so many millions of impoverished Germans on benefits or working poor. Never have people had to pay so many taxes, direct and indirect. Only the elite are free from taxes. They have used their lobbying groups to gain tax exemptions on their gigantic sums of money and on their corporations.
    And never has the state been so in debt while spending so little on its people. Where is all the money going? To the banking cartel. Only the stealth privatisation of our money system means people are being hoodwinked.
    We are facing an historic task. Never before in frith (peace) time has a society had to switch over its money system in such a short time to stave off castrophe. The full collapse of the eurozone and dollar are inevitable. The elite are planning a new SDR/IMF currency, which promises to be even more disastrous.
    The time to change over our money system so that we at last have financial freedom is now.
    The euro collapse is coming. There is talk of a two speed euro or of countries leaving the eurozone.

    No change will benefit the people if the new currencies are also brought in as private money with interest bearing loans.
    We have to reform our money system root and branch. If anyone wants to know how to have true geld, there is a teaching called how to finance building a bridge.
    It is up to us to carry out this change fast to avoid total impoverishment as the banking cartel with the help of a corrupt political class allow the financial system to implode.
    Too long the true nature of our financial system has been concealed from the general public. The mainstream media, governments and academia has been complicit in hiding
    from people who it is who really profits from privatising our money supply.
    They have hidden from people how using private money with interest instead of public money put in circulation as a government service for free inevitable results in ever growing ‘debt-bergs’
    (mountains of debt), which logically can never be paid off.

    They have hidden from the people how the interest payments on this debt has as end outcome the destruction over time of the real economy. A bust is inevitable as nearly the whole produce
    and goods of an economy are used to make the interest payments.

    They have preferred violence, lies and deceit to faciliate the looting of their people to doing their duty as politicians elected to represent the people. The latest example is the way the German government is pushing the monstrous EFSF facility to shakedown and impoverish the people. Of course, not even the 711 billion euro facility will be enough to pay the interest on the astronomical eurozone, fractional reserve banking debt. The politicians know this, they know the system will (fake) collapse but they hope to carry on looting until the end, untill they have wrecked the lives of every single person.
    There are rumours the German government is thinking of leaving the euro zone. But only after the economy has been utterly wrecked by the corrupt clique of politicians in Berlin. Not before.
    Leaving the eurozone is not enough. The money system has to be reformed. There must never again be this stealth privatisation of public money.

    Thomas Jefferson issued a dire warning of what would happen if America’s money supply was privatised – and he has been proved to be right.

    • Atterjasie 4 September 2011 at 19:34 Permalink

      Cliff please, please read the following:
      Your writing here is only partially correct and somewhat erratic. Yes people’s monies are constantly eroded by inflation caused by fractional reserve banking and flat out fiat money. To blame all this on private banking is however a serious intellectual flaw, let me explain.
      There is a world of difference between free-market banking and Corporatism both of these are sometimes called Capitalism, which is a problem. Free-Market banking would be a world in which the supply and demand curves would determine what money is(Gold, Silver, Oil) and its cost(interest), Corporatism is the world we live in where central governments intervene in the free market albeit education, healthcare and yes money supply. And by the way my money is mine, there is no such thing as public money.
      I seriously suggest you educate yourself on the Austrian theory of the business cycle the following clip is about an hour long but very, very informative.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=541bajR4k8g

      On corporatism this is the animal that Jefferson as well as Lincoln in his latter times referred to when private business gets undue influence over government and government over business trough undue taxes and regulation, I also suggest you read some books by Murray Rothbard, which by the way Cliff, exists NOWHERE given that every central government on this planet runs a reserve bank dictating monetary policy.

    • Rudolf Herbst 5 September 2011 at 14:52 Permalink

      What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations
      July 4, 2011
      By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
      Citizens United. This is the 2010 Supreme Court case that shocked America, influenced an election, and reversed over 100 years of campaign finance laws. In this case, corporations were declared as people and as such declared to have the same rights as people do. It also opened the doors for corporations to pour unprecedented amounts of campaign donations into elections, and what’s more, these donations can be totally secret. Corporations can now literally and legally buy elections and shape the government like never before in our nation’s history.
      The economic world we live in today is dominated by corporations. Huge corporations that boast massive profits and span continents. But corporations also wield political power and are lobbying heavily to be free from any and all government regulations that would make them responsible and liable. Republicans have been defending corporations since the late 1800′s and have literally gone on a history revising crusade to show that even the founding fathers supported corporations. But is this the case? What did the founders really think about corporations?
      The origin of modern corporations can be traced all the way back to 17th century England when Queen Elizabeth I created the East India Trading Company. At first, corporations were small, quasi government institutions that were chartered by the crown for a specific purpose. If corporations stepped out of line, the crown did not hesitate to revoke their charters. Corporations generated so much revenue that they even began taking on increased political power. Corporations were also organized to finance large projects such as exploration, which leads us to the American colonies.
      To say that the founding fathers supported corporations is very absurd. Its quite the opposite in fact. Corporations like the East India Trading Company were despised by the founders and they were just one reason why they chose to revolt against England. Corporations represented the moneyed interests much like they do today and they often wielded political power, sometimes to the point of governing a colony all by themselves like the Massachusetts Bay Company did.
      But there is more evidence that the Revolutionary generation despised corporations. The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and its dominance of trade angered the colonists so much, that they dumped the tea products it had on a ship into Boston Harbor which today is universally known as the Boston Tea Party. At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution.
      After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. When you think about it, the regulations imposed on corporations in the early days of America were far harsher than they are now. That is hardly proof that the founders supported corporations. In fact its quite the opposite. The corporate entity was so restrictive that many of America’s corporate giants set up their entities to avoid the corporate restrictions. For example, Andrew Carnegie set up his steel company as a limited partnership and John D. Rockefeller set up his Standard Oil company as a trust which would later be rightfully busted up into smaller companies by Theodore Roosevelt.
      For those who need more evidence, how about statements from the founders themselves. As we all know, big banks are also considered corporations and here is what Thomas Jefferson thought about them. In an 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin, Jefferson said,
      “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
      Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,
      “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
      Jefferson wasn’t the only founding father to make statements about corporations. John Adams also had an opinion.
      “Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”
      These statements make it pretty clear that corporations were not trusted by the founders. The founders knew that huge corporations only preyed upon the people. But as the founding generation began to fade away, corporations began using their power to gain political favor and eventually that political favor would turn into political power. And corporations would take advantage of a war to do it. As the Civil War raged across the land, corporations made an effort to take advantage of the situation, selling products at high prices, especially to the government. Corporations even sold to both sides throughout the war. Basically, corporations proved even then that they had no allegiance to any country when great profits were at stake. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican to be President also had plenty to say about corporations…
      “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”
      And in a November 21, 1864 letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Lincoln wrote,
      “We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”
      Unfortunately, Lincoln’s suspicions were anything but groundless. They were in fact, prophetic. After the Civil War, corporations began aligning themselves with Republican politicians, who proved themselves to be up to the task of helping corporations gain more power. Corporations had free reign and total power over its workforce and could sell virtually anything they wanted even if the product was a bad one. Corporations treated workers like slaves. Wages were extremely low. Workers received no benefits, no vacation days, no health insurance, no workers compensation. President Grover Cleveland witnessed how corporations treated its labor force and had this to say in 1888,
      “As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear, or is trampled beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.”
      To put it bluntly, corporations didn’t care about its workers or the people who bought their products. The only rule of the game was to make as much profit as possible, no matter what. As the 19th century ended and the 20th century began, corporations were getting bigger and bigger. Many began buying up smaller companies, becoming monopolies that controlled whole industries. This practice eliminated competition and as a result, prices had skyrocketed and no one could challenge them. That was, until Theodore Roosevelt became the President. Theodore Roosevelt did not hate corporations. He simply wanted them to treat workers how they deserved to be treated and to serve the public faithfully and honestly. He believed in honest competition and fair prices. Roosevelt believed that government had not only a duty, but a right to regulate corporations just as the founding generation had done, stating that,
      “The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”
      And in his State of The Union Address in 1902, Roosevelt stated his intentions toward corporations.
      “Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”
      To that end he fought for corporate regulation, he fought for fair wages for workers, he fought for safe and healthy work environments, and he fought to protect consumers. And the people loved him for it. Roosevelt’s policies toward corporations were immensely popular. He busted up so many giant corporations that he became known as a “trust buster”. The busting up of these corporations created a lot more competition for customers and for employees, resulting in higher wages and lower prices and more jobs. And you know what? Corporate profits did just fine.
      Teddy never stopped fighting for workers and consumers even after his presidency when he said this as the Progressive Party candidate for President in 1912,
      “We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals.”
      Roosevelt didn’t win the presidency in 1912, although he most certainly would have if the Republican ticket hadn’t been split. But Woodrow Wilson would continue the fight for workers and consumers. As America entered the 1920′s, corporations began to gain political favors once again as business minded Republicans controlled the White House and Congress. Regulations were being stripped away and banks as large entities were on the rise. These banks and corporations abused the stock market which would lead to the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression. Corporate profits had surged throughout the decade and unfair speculation had caused economic bubbles that had to burst.
      Corporate bosses also flexed their muscles over America’s legal system, spending great deals of money to get away with nearly anything. In a statement of sarcasm that speaks to this despicable practice, Senator George Norris, after an industrialist was acquitted of charges of corruption, said that “We ought to pass a law that no man worth $100,000,000 should be tried for a crime.”
      The Franklin Roosevelt era would bring new calls for corporate regulation and corporate tax hikes. These new regulations once again kept corporations honest and protected consumers. Workers also benefited from these new regulations, getting fair wages, pensions, and safe working conditions. Corporations were taxed at a rate of 91% and even with all of that, corporations still made huge profits. Life changed dramatically for the middle class. People had jobs with livable wages and promise for the future. Corporations once again served a purpose as consumers were treated fairly and the economy soared. Unemployment was also very low. But these trends did not last long as corporate greed would once again fuel another grab for political power. Corporations began aligning themselves more and more with the Republican Party, and as this relationship grew, corporations found a way to make record profits. Throughout the 1980′s up to today, corporations have outsourced millions of American jobs to cheap labor overseas. As a result of this, corporate profits have broke record after record, while the unemployment rate has jumped higher and higher. Corporate tax rates began getting lower and lower, while more tax loopholes were created to help corporations evade most of them altogether. When the Republican Party took control of government in 2001, they went on a crusade on behalf of corporations (how could they refuse, they were on the payroll), to blame workers for economic downturns and outsourcing. Corporations also decided to take advantage of a national tragedy. After 9/11, there was an understandable push to go to war against terrorists hiding in Afghanistan. But corporations, as in other times of war and tragedy, began pushing for a war against Iraq. And they got their wish. Corporations have since made billions in war profits off of the War in Iraq and have proven once again that profit is far more important than the lives of soldiers. Lincoln was right. This is yet another reason why corporations need to be put in their place. As Henry Ford once said, “Do you want to know the cause of war? It is capitalism, greed, the dirty hunger for dollars. Take away the capitalist and you will sweep war from the earth.”
      Republicans are now on the verge of stripping away all corporate regulations and worker’s rights. But it was the 2010 Citizens United decision that really made corporations into political powers. Not only were corporations declared to be people but corporations also now have the power to buy elections at will. The problem with this Supreme Court decision is that it goes against everything the founding fathers believed in. In the Constitution, it says “We the people…”, not “We the corporations…”. The founding fathers never addressed corporations in the Constitution because it never occurred to them that corporations would be perceived as people. And why would they have? Corporations don’t eat, they don’t breathe, they don’t vote, they don’t fight battles in wars. Remember all the limitations the founders placed on corporations mentioned earlier? In the Constitution, the founders speak only of the people. The founders did not limit lifetimes of people, nor did they outlaw a persons right to donate to political campaigns. They also did not limit people to specific life goals like they did with corporations. This should make it absolutely clear that the founders never intended for corporations to be people. The decision by the clearly activist, conservative majority of the court is an abomination that can never be Constitutionally justified. Now it is our duty to call on Congress to bring forward a Constitutional Amendment that bans corporate personhood and bans corporations from interfering with government and legal elections that only real people have the right to donate to and vote in. Because whatever these greedy, arrogant CEO’s and Republicans think, its the opinion of the founding generation that matters most. Corporations are not people. People are people.

    • Rudolf Herbst 5 September 2011 at 14:58 Permalink

      I want 114.5 Trillion dollars….!!

      Ever wondered what 114.5 Trillion look like this puts it into perspective

      One Hundred Dollars

      $100 – Most counterfeited money denomination in the world. Keeps the world moving.

      Ten Thousand Dollars

      $10,000 – Enough for a great vacation or to buy a used car. Approximately one year of work for the average human on earth.

      One Million Dollars

      $1,000,000 – Not as big of a pile as you thought, huh? Still this is 92 years of work for the average human on earth.

      One Hundred Million Dollars

      $100,000,000 – Plenty to go around for everyone. Fits nicely on an ISO / Military standard sized pallet.

      One Billion Dollars

      $1,000,000,000 – You will need some help when robbing the bank. Now we are getting serious!

      One Trillion Dollars

      $1,000,000,000,000
      When the U.S government speaks about a 1.7 trillion deficit – this is the volumes of cash the U.S. Government borrowed in 2010 to run itself.
      Keep in mind it is double stacked pallets of $100 million dollars each, full of $100 dollar bills. You are going to need a lot of trucks to freight this around.

      If you spent $1 million a day since Jesus was born, you would have not spent $1 trillion by now…but ~$700 billion – same amount the banks got during bailout.

      One Trillion Dollars

      Comparison of $1,000,000,000,000 dollars to a standard-sized American Football field and European Football field.
      Say hello to the Boeing 747-400 transcontinental airliner that’s hiding on the right. This was until recently the biggest passenger plane in the world.

      15 Trillion Dollars

      $15,000,000,000,000 – Unless the U.S. government fixes the budget, US national debt (credit bill) will top 15 trillion by Christmas 2011.

      Statue of Liberty seems rather worried as United States national debt passes 20% of the entire world’s combined GDP (Gross Domestic Product). In 2011 the National Debt will exceed 100% of GDP, and venture into the 100%+ debt-to-GDP ratio that the European PIIGS have (bankrupting nations).

      114.5 Trillion Dollars

      $114,500,000,000,000. – US unfunded liabilities
      To the right you can see the pillar of cold hard $100 bills that dwarfs the WTC & Empire State Building – both at one point world’s tallest buildings. If you look carefully you can see the Statue of Liberty.

      The 114.5 Trillion dollar super-skyscraper is the amount of money the U.S. Government knows it does not have to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug Programme, Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions. It is the money USA knows it will not have to pay all its bills.
      If you live in USA this is also your personal credit card bill; you are responsible along with everyone else to pay this back. The citizens of USA created the U.S. Government to serve them, this is what the U.S. Government has done while serving The People.

      The unfunded liability is calculated on current tax and funding inputs, and future demographic shifts in US Population.

      Note: On the above 114.5T image the size of the base of the money pile is half a trillion, not 1T as on 15T image. The height is double. This was done to reflect the base of Empire State and WTC more closely.

      • Rudolf Herbst 5 September 2011 at 15:02 Permalink

        Ongelukkig wou die prentjies nie aflaai nie. Nogal ‘n goeie voorbeeld van hoe in die moeilikheid die wêreld regtig is as dit kom by finansies.

  5. Arnold de Beer 4 September 2011 at 11:34 Permalink

    Lyk my die veiligste is om maar weer te ruil handel.
    Ek het nog altyd die vermoede gehad dat Rente geld opvreet.

    Om geld te maak moet daar werk gedoen word. Tasbare werk. ‘n Produk moet gemaak word.
    As Orania hierin kan slaag, kan geen moondheid ooit op hom beslag lê nie.
    En hierin het Orania goed geslaag.

  6. DJ Venter 8 September 2011 at 19:46 Permalink

    Ek weet dat mens jou Rand mag omruil vir Ora in Orania. Ek lees ook dat die Rand dan gehou word by Orania Spaar en Krediet in ‘n rekening wat altyd gelyk is aan die hoeveelheid Ora in sirkulasie. Daar is soms afslag vir kliente wat in Ora betaal om mense aan te moedig om Rand te ruil vir Ora.
    Eendag in die nabye toekoms as Orania dalk SLEGS Ora anvaar sal inwoners min nut he vir Rand en besoekkers sal ook altyd hul Rand omruil vir Ora. Dit sal maak dat daar n groter reserwe van Rand opbou in Orania reg? Ja die Rand verdien wel rente as dit in ‘n beleging gesit word en verdien so bonop ‘n ekstra inkomste vir die dorp mar as ek n’ slim Oranier was, sou ek eerder wou he daardie reserwe van Rand moet gebruik word om vaste bates soos masjienerie te koop. Masjienerie wat kan help met produksie en dus werkskepping. Produksie waarin Orania n’ goeie kaan staan om suksesvol uit te voer na SA of verder. Dalk pekaneute of enige nuwe produk wat die dorpsraad dink Orania kan effektief aanpak en vervaardig. Produkte word verkoop (uitgevoer) vir profeit in Rand.
    Sal die profeit groter wees as die rente wat die Rand andersins sou verdien het as dit in n’ bank of belegging gelos word? En an die einde van die dag het die dorp ekstra Infrastruktuur bekom wat almal bevoordeel.
    Is dit dalk ‘n wen wen situasie? Of mis ek dalk iets wat van belang is? Dalk makliker gese as gedoen ne?

  7. Sebastiaan 9 September 2011 at 07:47 Permalink

    @DJ Venter: Die idee klink goed, maar dit sal nie wettig wees nie. ‘n Bank wat ‘n plaaslike geldeenheid uitreik moet die presiese ekwivalent van die uitgereikte Oras as Rande in die bank hê om dit te dek. Elke geldeenheid moet deur goud of ‘n stabile geldeenheid (wat ook deur goud gedek word) gerugsteun word. Ons kon die Rande ook inruil vir goud of silwer, wat meer stabiel is as die Rand, maar goud verdien nie rente nie. Masjienerie verloor vinnig hulle waarde (dit is, herverkoopswaarde) en kan dus nie gebruik word om die Oras wat uitgereik te rugsteun. Die konserwatiewe monetêre beleid van OSK skep juis vertroue in die Ora en maak dat mense dit gebruik.

  8. DJ Venter 9 September 2011 at 08:59 Permalink

    O ek sien, goed verduidelik. Baie dankie Sebastiaan

  9. Jaco 27 September 2011 at 14:20 Permalink

    Hi Sebastiaan

    Dankie vir ‘n baie insiggewende artikel.

    Ek is nie ‘n ekonoom of kenner op finansiele gebied nie, so verskoon maar as my vraag dom is. Iets wat ‘n mens werklik bekommerd maak is dat die rand uiteindelik maar die pad van al Afrika se geld-eenhede (uitgesonderd dalk die pula) gaan loop en uiteindelik niks werd gaan wees nie, weens die feit dat SA se ekonomie onder die ANC net een pad ken en dit is agteruit en onder toe. As nasionalisering ‘n werklikheid sou word sal die rand sekerlik die pad van die Zim dollar loop. Nou my vraag: sou die Ora nie aan ‘n ander geldeenheid gekoppel kon word wat veiliger is nie ? Sou dit enigsins moontlik en haalbaar wees ? Op hierdie stadium neem baie mense juis geld land uit omdat daar geen vertroue in die toekoms van die land en geld-eenheid is nie. Sou Orania nie so dalk meer beleggings kon bekom nie ?

    • Sebastiaan 12 Oktober 2011 at 11:45 Permalink

      Jaco, ja, in die toekoms moet ons inderdaad kyk om die Ora aan ‘n meer stabile geldeenheid te koppel. Maar dan moet die Ora se volumes geweldig styg. Tans word ongelukkig nog steeds die meerderheid transaksies in Orania in rande gedoen. As Orania se ekonomie groei, ons meer van Afrikaner-ekonomiese netwerke gebruik maak en ook daar met Ora pleks van Rand betaal, dan word die Ora meer gesog en kan ‘n waarde van sy eie ontwikkel. Skaarsheid of die persepsie van skaarsheid skep ook waarde. Vat byvoorbeeld die Mandela-munte: dit is net 5 Rand werd as jy daarmee wil betaal, nogtans is dit ‘n gesogte versamelaarsitem wat honderde, indien nie duisende rande werd is, want mense glo dat dit na Mandela se dood baie gesog gaan word. As meer en meer Afrikaners begin om Oras bymekaar te maak omdat hulle weet dat hulle altyd in Orania (of vorentoe by Afrikaner-besighede) daarmee iets van waarde kan koop, dan sal dit die waarde van die Ora teenoor die Rand verhoog. Tans is die Rand egter vir meeste mense nog meer werd omdat dit landswyd bruikbaar is. Die Ora kan wel in die toekoms deur goud of dollars gedek word en nie meer deur Rande nie.

  10. Aardskip 29 September 2011 at 04:55 Permalink

    Sebastiaan, van waar gaan die deurbraak kom?

  11. Erika Botha 3 Oktober 2011 at 12:05 Permalink

    Die bogenoemde inligting is baie insiggewend en laat ‘n mens weer positief voel. ‘n Mens kry weer nuwe hoop.

  12. Arnold de Beer 14 Januarie 2012 at 09:00 Permalink

    Mense, mense en nogmaals mense.
    Hoe meer mense daar is wat ‘n sekere produk wil bekom, hoe meer geld moet daar in omloop wees.
    Dit is wat Orania kort.
    Baie, baie meer mense.
    Dit kan slegs gebeur as dit maklik gemaak word om eers daar voet aan wal te kry.
    WOONPLEK!!!. Ek skree dit nie, maar beklemtoon dit.
    Verhuur ‘n erf of liewer gee ‘n erf aan ‘n Afrikaner Blanke, om hom in sy eerste fase as inwoner ‘n vastrap plek te bied.
    As hy dan sy voete gevind het ontruim hy die plek vir die volgende intrekker.
    Daar is baie matodes en resepte wat gevolg kan word rondom hierdie probleem.
    Die groot idiaal is om mense daar te kry.
    Mense sal kom en gaan. Dit is so. Maar elkeen laat die arbeid wat hy verrig het agter. Die volgende persoon sal dit verder neem en dalk voltooi.
    Orania se grootste bate sal altyd die hoeveelheid mense wees wat daar woon in die eerste plek, dan grond en geld.

  13. cornelia 15 Oktober 2012 at 20:47 Permalink

    Ek is baie hoopvol dat my seun in Orania n besigheid sal kan begin, mits daar n ondersteunings netwerk is. Hy het tydelike werk in Amerika gekry en kom volgende maand(November) terug. Hy behoort met tussen R10000-R20000 terug te kom. Ek het vir hom gese hy moet dit in goud bele omdat dit die veiligste is. Na ek alles oor Orania gelees het wonder ek of dit nie n beter belegging sal wees nie, aangesien hy kan werk/opleiding kry/ geld verdien/en vir hom n huis/besiheid/fabriek bou in n veilige omgewing. Ek glo my man(n pensioenaris) sal dan wanneer ons gaan kuier, insien dat dit vir ons ook n uitweg kan bied. Hy het n organiese bemesting besigheid wat redelik goed doen onder die omstandighede.


Lewer Kommentaar

*