This week Scott Morrison warned that unless the federal government can find 13.2 billion dollars in savings by the release of the May budget then Australia risks losing its AAA credit rating.
Predictably this has sparked discussion about where the money is to come from with Morrison talking about possible tax increases and the government questioned about the likelihood of some of the savings coming from changes to Australia’s capital gains tax policy.
The situation highlights the influence of international finance on domestic policy. At a time when the government is putting together a May budget with a focus on cost-of-living pressures for families, including housing affordability and energy costs, it is compelled to consider the apparently more urgent goal of maintaining its credit rating at the people’s expense. Why is this so?
Having reviewed Australia’s financial position in December 2016 and after dciding to leave us with our AAA rating, Moody’s commented that ‘The government's decision to maintain the objective of a balanced budget by 2020-21 denotes continued commitment to fiscal consolidation.’ This means that the government’s cost of borrowing would not increase, and they would be allowed to talk seriously about their financial prudence so long as they continued to screw down the public with tax measures.
The ratings system is a critical link that enables the international financial setup proxy control over national policy. Combined with the tax system that links by decree the peoples’ purse to governments’ sticky fingers, the ratings agencies link government coffers to the requirements of private, and increasingly international, lenders. Because Australia does not have a money supply of her own her elected government must continually appeal to the banks for loans. The banks secure the loans against government taxation and spending programs and if found suitable, will lend money. If not, the ratings agency punishes governments with downgrades and increasingly expensive credit. It is a supernational mechanism that dilutes the power of elected national leaders to respond to the needs of the community, and more evidence, if any were needed, of the farce of ballot-box democracy.
This mechanism provides the moneylenders with the power they need to further three immediate aims of the international elites; the cutting of social spending, the privatisation of national assets and the opening of national resources and markets to the exploitation of international, private entities. Any government that prioritises the domestic at the expense of the international can expect damning criticism from a banking owned public information system. An ever-present threat that guarantees the obedience of an insipid political class more concerned with their careers as politicians than the sound management of public affairs and material economies.
What do we do about it? As a point of departure, we must understand perfectly what Douglas meant when he said:
The essence of the fraud is the claim that the money they (the banks - WW) create is their own money, and the fraud differs in no respect in quality but only in its far greater magnitude, from the fraud of counterfeiting … May I make this point clear beyond all doubt? It is the claim to the ownership of money which is the core of the matter. Any person or organisation who can create, practically at will, sums of money equivalent to the price values of the goods produced by the community is the virtual owner of these goods, and therefore, the claim of the banking system to the ownership of the money which it creates is a claim to the ownership of the country.
A discussion about the operation of the financial system needs to be forced. That does not mean a discussion about the corruption and greed of banking CEOs. It does not mean a discussion about how to regulate banks to do a better job in the present system. With this system a good job cannot be done. The money system must be brought into line with the economic facts. The wealth of the community is being progressively transferred via mortgage to a small group of people who control the monopoly of credit. This is happening because the system was designed by them for this purpose. If we take away this monopoly power to create the money supply as debt we will have neutralised the critical instrument that facilitates the centralisation of control which constitutes the fundamental problem of modern organisation.