China's central bank is government owned. It creates the Chinese domestic currency the yuan
(also called the renminbe) free of debt, as required to fund Chinese government expenditure to pay its workforce to create public services such as infrastructure, bridges, railways, tunnels. power stations, education, healthcare, state pensions, research and development and the military. The Chinese government has no debt, it can actually create more money by taxing Chinese private corporations that would control the rate of inflation of the currency.
Yes, the Chinese central bank and its dual currencies--the yuan for external exchange and the renminbi for internal--is an important model. As you'll see in the next chapter, my model combines that with small scale sovereignty. The imperial currencies like dollars, pounds, Euros, francs, can be held within the reserves of the Commonwealth Bank. Carets for internal exchange can be issued against them, at a rate of 2:1. So goods and services are enhanced locally without depleting the int'l currency.
And yes, anything that people can do in their own community with their own labor has no real cost. The debt-ridden situation of our cities is a hoax. As someone says, it's like saying you can't build a house because you don't have enough inches. It's a concept of reciprocity, and we can take back our labor to serve our own interests. Imagine your hometown where every person's job is doing nice things for each other. What would NOT be possible?
That means so much to me, Philip, especially from you! I love that we share the spiritual and mystic connection, and that the economic that emanates from that is meaningful to you even if you don't understand it ;-)
Quote: “In one meeting she was goaded by Senator Gore to admit there was “a teeny-weeny bit of socialism” in the program”
Any policy that does not result in neoliberal “trickle up” of wealth aka wealth concentration is considered socialist.
Quote: “It established “a solemn compact between generations, one that bound children more closely to parents”
The opposite could be the case…. Family bonding was stronger prior:
Quote: “Social Security changed the fate of the American family. In 1900 over 60% of aging parents had lived by necessity with their grown children but by 1975 this had dwindled to only 14%.”
In Asian countries with no meaningful social security, such as Thailand, family bonds are very strong.
Quote: “The government has even saved money by borrowing against the social security trust fund rather than from private investors.”
Not surprisingly therefore, social security is predicted to go bankrupt.
Quote: “Also, it releases workers from finding a safe place to invest their savings without gambling in the stock market. They can invest by taking care of their parents’ generation and enabling their children’s generation to take care of them.”
Like a Ponzi scheme its survival depends on a constantly increasing stream of money to payback earlier money received.
Quote: "By creating mortgage loans through Commonwealth Reserve Banks at a multiple of its $2.7 trillion in capital, the government could spend the interest back into the economy—guaranteeing that there would be enough in circulation at all times to repay both debt and interest. Ten times the $2.7 trillion in capital would create $27 trillion in loans. At five percent interest, this would return $1.35 trillion to local governments annually, or a 50% return on the Social Security trust fund."
One has to be careful in such calculations. The above example implies that the economy is capable of absorbing an investment of $27 trillion in productive activities that generate a gross profit of at least double the interest rate, or $2.7 trillion. This is not guaranteed.
Quote: “If the ability to “print money” by lending was withdrawn from private banks”
Fadi! It makes me so happy that you're reading me and 'getting' me. Sometimes I feel like I've gone so deep into these rabbit holes that the only conversations I can have are with my own echo from down the tunnels ;-)
I'll start with your last sentence because everything depends on that. With banks usurping the houses and issuing the money, there's no point in any little tweaks to the system--they own us. WEFfie YGL that he is, I was glad to learn from Richard Werner that to change is simply removing an administrative exception to a finance regulation--not changing a law or the Constitution.
In this chapter, I show how the exact things they did against us can be flipped with a ju jitsu move to working in our favor. The Constitution forbids the States from issuing money and then the bankers came along and took that away from the Federal gov't. Well I don't want either of them issuing the money anyway! So it leaves that ability for smaller entities, like my hamlets, villages and commonwealths.
Working backwards in your comments, the banks are already issuing 10X their capital in mortgage debt and putting that into circulation. However, they only create the principle so they collect it all in interest and have to double the cost of housing every 15 yrs to keep the game going. My system takes that ability away from them and gives it to communities where the repayment is issued preemptively each month in carets.
Since it can't be used for the mortgage until it's gone through one exchange, it has to result in local goods and services equal to the amount issued. And the capital is authorizing 10X its value in mortgage loans. If mortgages were 3% interest, that would return 30% annually to the trust fund. But I've changed my mind on the distribution to local gov'ts. At this point, my system is purely anarchist and all funds are equally distributed or not at all.
Certainly family can be said to be the OG Ponzi scheme--as a dad, I know you can relate. You put untold money and energy into your kids that you'll never get back. It's only if they 'pay it forward' that it turns out to be a good investment. My model takes that to the community level. 15% of all income goes 'into' the pension plan. But really, it issues the carets for those who are already retired. They can pay for local goods and services, that give working people the carets to pay their rent or mortgages. And my plan would reverse inflation, so the money will continue to buy more, not less.
Agreed that gov't 'borrowing' from Soc Sec is NOT a good investment!
Okay Mr. Bashing-the-cop-car-at-2am-because-it's-blocking-the-driveway: you're clearly not living with your kids! Nor am I. Love 'em and happy to not be dependent on 'em. I don't think that necessity creates the best bonds. I hope to be an asset to my daughters the rest of my life, and I hope they choose to have me in their lives as an asset to theirs--whether living with me or me living with them some of the time, or close by. But having to ask my daughters for money sounds like hell.
And as I titled my one chapter, the formula is Siphon Up, Trickle Down. It's a reverse firehose!
Richard Werner: What a fascinating educational interview he had with Tucker Carlson!
The most important thing I learned from him is to have a lot of banks, since the small bank branches can cater better to small businesses and entrepreneurs. Needless to say, the banks should be government owned.
Quote: "exact things they did against us can be flipped with a ju jitsu move to working in our favor. The Constitution forbids the States from issuing money and then the bankers came along and took that away from the Federal gov't. Well I don't want either of them issuing the money anyway! So it leaves that ability for smaller entities, like my hamlets, villages and commonwealths."
David Webb author of the Great Taking along with G. Edward Griffin author of Creature from Jekyll Island have tried for over a year to affect a minor change in a clause of the UCC code on a state level, and they have been unsuccessful so far due to the power of the banking mafia. Imagine what the mafia would do if you want to take away or even compete with their monopoly of creating money. They would Charlie you.
Quote: "the banks are already issuing 10X their capital in mortgage debt and putting that into circulation. However, they only create the principle so they collect it all in interest and have to double the cost of housing every 15 yrs to keep the game going."
Unfortunately most of the money created by the banks goes into non-productive activities, and mostly result in inflation of housing prices and equities. Not in value added activities that create significant employment. Richard Werner explained this beautifully in his interview. It is important how the created money is utilized is it mostly directed towards consumption or production.
Quote: "And my plan would reverse inflation, so the money will continue to buy more, not less."
I emphasize what Werner mentioned is to what end money is utilized, is it mostly towards consumption or production. Hence the existence of a limit on how much capital the economy can absorb in productive activities. I have no ideal ratio of consumption to production, but it is a matter that can be researched.
Quote: "Mr. Bashing-the-cop-car-at-2am-because-it's-blocking-the-driveway: you're clearly not living with your kids!"
lol lol lol good 1 :-)
Quote: "formula is Siphon Up, Trickle Down. It's a reverse firehose!"
About time! Wealth concentration has reached ridiculous levels, worse than era of serfdom. Poverty is increasing on a regular basis. In analysis of Fed data on wealth distribution, I got an estimate of 70% of households being poor, as their net worth is less that one third median house price and they cannot afford sending 1 kid to a good college without parents or kid incurring debt.
I don't know if you saw my episode on CIA Carlson & WEF Werner: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/tucker-carlson-and-richard-werner. It's not totally true that I suspect everyone but when your dad's in the CIA (and you lie about knowing that) and you were a WEFfie YuGL, it's a legitimate question to ask.
Good propaganda should be 99% truth, and just veer off before it gets to the solution. Your 'Needless to say, the banks should be government owned' is something that Richard needs to say clearly. He gives a nod towards public banks at the end but never comes out against the existence of private banks, that I remember.
'They would Charlie you.' That's entered the lexicon now ;-)
I like G. Edward Griffin a lot. I don't know what will make the change possible, I just know nothing will really change until it does.
I started writing the comment and it disappeared. I am writing again.
Yes I had seen the episode on Carlson & Werner, but did not comment. Here are my thoughts:
Carlson: Whereas you and I can reach a few thousands, Carlson can reach millions. The awakening he is contributing to, regarding Zionist control of US politics, the media and the Trump administration is something unheard of previously. So I can only be supportive of him at present.
On his last few episodes I commented to my friends, that he is suicidal.
Werner: I had quoted Princes of the Yen 3 times in my book, without paying much attention to the author. My position on Werner is somehow similar to my take on Carlson. In his interview with Carlson he contributed to awakening hundreds of thousands and possibly millions to the technicalities of fiat money creation, to the nefarious role of private central banks and their role in instigating wars. He also showed how banking could be a critical factor in development as was the case in China. The key point is not money creation but rather to what end is money directed, consumption that creates inflation and bubbles or production that creates value, jobs and lifts people out of poverty. So I am doubly thankful to Werner :-)
Those are excellent points, Fadi. I agree with you. I keep a little bit of wariness, to keep an eye out for a hidden agenda. But you're right that they're both doing a lot of good in exposing the current agenda in geopolitics and geoeconomics.
And I hate it when my comments suddenly disappear! So sorry.
Yes remove taxes from labor and production, shift public finance to unearned income from land and natural resources, this is up to one fourth of GDP. See theIU.org and in resource section my book The Earth Belongs to Everyone. also public banks which I think you are on to.
Glad you still keep reading me, Alanna, despite our differences. Under my plan, I remove all taxes except the pension savings, Social Security, from LOCAL production and consumption. Under your system, a local producer is competing with goods from China for the cheapest product, is that right? There's no difference in how those are taxed?
And a farmer producing for the local market would be taxed at the same land rate as a corporation selling for maximum profit and moving on after ruining the soil, air and water. Yes? A Mom-and-Pop rental is taxed at the same rate as if it's owned by Blackstone Capital. Correct?
I think there's much our plans have in common. Rather than taxing the homes and distributing the proceeds, I use the mortgage and distribute that. The way in which I use the tax and the exchange rate is to favor local producers and local buyers--particularly of housing. The earth does belong to everyone, and I think having a place to be on it that's securely yours and can't be taken away is important. My vision is that we work towards that for all families.
The only real function of taxation in any economy is to delete digital money back out of existence in order to control the rate of inflation of the nation's currency, and to prevent the undue accumulation of money by a private oligarchy. The only financial savings China require are in the form of digital foreign currencies or gold for international trading purposes.
When a country has the means of creating digital money ex nihilo without incurring debt, ts has no need to save for things like pensions nor private speculation.
The model my system is based on is Ben Franklin's. The colonies tried different strategies, some creating currency without collecting it back in taxes or mortgage debt. Those currencies were devalued in short order.
In the caret system, no more is generated each month than will be collected back in mortgage payments or taxes or is backed by the redeemable value in imperial currency. So if you have a 2:1 exchange rate of carets to dollars, to protect local production, then your formula for how many carets you can distribute that month is Debt + Tax + 2*Cash.
The pension portion of Soc Sec, which is the only part I'd take on as a commonwealth, isn't truly a tax at all--it's a public pension plan. Would you issue all people the same retirement income as a welfare system, and not a pension? I think that would result in resentment from those who are working and saving. China's economy doesn't seem to be resulting in people with no need to work, as far as I can tell.
With bankers having no ability to usurp the ownership of houses and create the money ex nihilo, under my plan, they can speculate all they want with their existing imperial currencies. Those currencies just can't buy property anywhere but their own commonwealth.
The commercial banks in the US like Citibank, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Bank of America et cetera are never going to give up their divine right of creating 98% of the US money supply ex nihilo every time they make compound interest bearing loans to the US government, privately owned corporations or individuals. As the principal of these loans is paid back they are required to delete it back out of existence, but they get to keep the interest, that adds to their ever increasing wealth that now dominates the US FIRE economy.
The bankers feel threatened by the rise of China, and this is why President Trump, Rubio and Hegseth are preparing for war especially against socialist countries, so that they can subjugate the whole world using the FIRE economy with regime change and bombing if necessary.
China's central bank is government owned. It creates the Chinese domestic currency the yuan
(also called the renminbe) free of debt, as required to fund Chinese government expenditure to pay its workforce to create public services such as infrastructure, bridges, railways, tunnels. power stations, education, healthcare, state pensions, research and development and the military. The Chinese government has no debt, it can actually create more money by taxing Chinese private corporations that would control the rate of inflation of the currency.
Yes, the Chinese central bank and its dual currencies--the yuan for external exchange and the renminbi for internal--is an important model. As you'll see in the next chapter, my model combines that with small scale sovereignty. The imperial currencies like dollars, pounds, Euros, francs, can be held within the reserves of the Commonwealth Bank. Carets for internal exchange can be issued against them, at a rate of 2:1. So goods and services are enhanced locally without depleting the int'l currency.
And yes, anything that people can do in their own community with their own labor has no real cost. The debt-ridden situation of our cities is a hoax. As someone says, it's like saying you can't build a house because you don't have enough inches. It's a concept of reciprocity, and we can take back our labor to serve our own interests. Imagine your hometown where every person's job is doing nice things for each other. What would NOT be possible?
I've incorporated your changes into my copy.
Thanks Mark!
I'm sure glad you're examining all of this Tereza!
I don't understand it, but I sure like the cut of your jib lol.
Seriously, nice work dissecting it.
That means so much to me, Philip, especially from you! I love that we share the spiritual and mystic connection, and that the economic that emanates from that is meaningful to you even if you don't understand it ;-)
the seeds of the new world.
Cheers
Quote: “In one meeting she was goaded by Senator Gore to admit there was “a teeny-weeny bit of socialism” in the program”
Any policy that does not result in neoliberal “trickle up” of wealth aka wealth concentration is considered socialist.
Quote: “It established “a solemn compact between generations, one that bound children more closely to parents”
The opposite could be the case…. Family bonding was stronger prior:
Quote: “Social Security changed the fate of the American family. In 1900 over 60% of aging parents had lived by necessity with their grown children but by 1975 this had dwindled to only 14%.”
In Asian countries with no meaningful social security, such as Thailand, family bonds are very strong.
Quote: “The government has even saved money by borrowing against the social security trust fund rather than from private investors.”
Not surprisingly therefore, social security is predicted to go bankrupt.
Quote: “Also, it releases workers from finding a safe place to invest their savings without gambling in the stock market. They can invest by taking care of their parents’ generation and enabling their children’s generation to take care of them.”
Like a Ponzi scheme its survival depends on a constantly increasing stream of money to payback earlier money received.
Quote: "By creating mortgage loans through Commonwealth Reserve Banks at a multiple of its $2.7 trillion in capital, the government could spend the interest back into the economy—guaranteeing that there would be enough in circulation at all times to repay both debt and interest. Ten times the $2.7 trillion in capital would create $27 trillion in loans. At five percent interest, this would return $1.35 trillion to local governments annually, or a 50% return on the Social Security trust fund."
One has to be careful in such calculations. The above example implies that the economy is capable of absorbing an investment of $27 trillion in productive activities that generate a gross profit of at least double the interest rate, or $2.7 trillion. This is not guaranteed.
Quote: “If the ability to “print money” by lending was withdrawn from private banks”
This would be the true revolution.
Fadi! It makes me so happy that you're reading me and 'getting' me. Sometimes I feel like I've gone so deep into these rabbit holes that the only conversations I can have are with my own echo from down the tunnels ;-)
I'll start with your last sentence because everything depends on that. With banks usurping the houses and issuing the money, there's no point in any little tweaks to the system--they own us. WEFfie YGL that he is, I was glad to learn from Richard Werner that to change is simply removing an administrative exception to a finance regulation--not changing a law or the Constitution.
In this chapter, I show how the exact things they did against us can be flipped with a ju jitsu move to working in our favor. The Constitution forbids the States from issuing money and then the bankers came along and took that away from the Federal gov't. Well I don't want either of them issuing the money anyway! So it leaves that ability for smaller entities, like my hamlets, villages and commonwealths.
Working backwards in your comments, the banks are already issuing 10X their capital in mortgage debt and putting that into circulation. However, they only create the principle so they collect it all in interest and have to double the cost of housing every 15 yrs to keep the game going. My system takes that ability away from them and gives it to communities where the repayment is issued preemptively each month in carets.
Since it can't be used for the mortgage until it's gone through one exchange, it has to result in local goods and services equal to the amount issued. And the capital is authorizing 10X its value in mortgage loans. If mortgages were 3% interest, that would return 30% annually to the trust fund. But I've changed my mind on the distribution to local gov'ts. At this point, my system is purely anarchist and all funds are equally distributed or not at all.
Certainly family can be said to be the OG Ponzi scheme--as a dad, I know you can relate. You put untold money and energy into your kids that you'll never get back. It's only if they 'pay it forward' that it turns out to be a good investment. My model takes that to the community level. 15% of all income goes 'into' the pension plan. But really, it issues the carets for those who are already retired. They can pay for local goods and services, that give working people the carets to pay their rent or mortgages. And my plan would reverse inflation, so the money will continue to buy more, not less.
Agreed that gov't 'borrowing' from Soc Sec is NOT a good investment!
Okay Mr. Bashing-the-cop-car-at-2am-because-it's-blocking-the-driveway: you're clearly not living with your kids! Nor am I. Love 'em and happy to not be dependent on 'em. I don't think that necessity creates the best bonds. I hope to be an asset to my daughters the rest of my life, and I hope they choose to have me in their lives as an asset to theirs--whether living with me or me living with them some of the time, or close by. But having to ask my daughters for money sounds like hell.
And as I titled my one chapter, the formula is Siphon Up, Trickle Down. It's a reverse firehose!
Richard Werner: What a fascinating educational interview he had with Tucker Carlson!
The most important thing I learned from him is to have a lot of banks, since the small bank branches can cater better to small businesses and entrepreneurs. Needless to say, the banks should be government owned.
Quote: "exact things they did against us can be flipped with a ju jitsu move to working in our favor. The Constitution forbids the States from issuing money and then the bankers came along and took that away from the Federal gov't. Well I don't want either of them issuing the money anyway! So it leaves that ability for smaller entities, like my hamlets, villages and commonwealths."
David Webb author of the Great Taking along with G. Edward Griffin author of Creature from Jekyll Island have tried for over a year to affect a minor change in a clause of the UCC code on a state level, and they have been unsuccessful so far due to the power of the banking mafia. Imagine what the mafia would do if you want to take away or even compete with their monopoly of creating money. They would Charlie you.
Quote: "the banks are already issuing 10X their capital in mortgage debt and putting that into circulation. However, they only create the principle so they collect it all in interest and have to double the cost of housing every 15 yrs to keep the game going."
Unfortunately most of the money created by the banks goes into non-productive activities, and mostly result in inflation of housing prices and equities. Not in value added activities that create significant employment. Richard Werner explained this beautifully in his interview. It is important how the created money is utilized is it mostly directed towards consumption or production.
Quote: "And my plan would reverse inflation, so the money will continue to buy more, not less."
I emphasize what Werner mentioned is to what end money is utilized, is it mostly towards consumption or production. Hence the existence of a limit on how much capital the economy can absorb in productive activities. I have no ideal ratio of consumption to production, but it is a matter that can be researched.
Quote: "Mr. Bashing-the-cop-car-at-2am-because-it's-blocking-the-driveway: you're clearly not living with your kids!"
lol lol lol good 1 :-)
Quote: "formula is Siphon Up, Trickle Down. It's a reverse firehose!"
About time! Wealth concentration has reached ridiculous levels, worse than era of serfdom. Poverty is increasing on a regular basis. In analysis of Fed data on wealth distribution, I got an estimate of 70% of households being poor, as their net worth is less that one third median house price and they cannot afford sending 1 kid to a good college without parents or kid incurring debt.
I don't know if you saw my episode on CIA Carlson & WEF Werner: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/tucker-carlson-and-richard-werner. It's not totally true that I suspect everyone but when your dad's in the CIA (and you lie about knowing that) and you were a WEFfie YuGL, it's a legitimate question to ask.
Good propaganda should be 99% truth, and just veer off before it gets to the solution. Your 'Needless to say, the banks should be government owned' is something that Richard needs to say clearly. He gives a nod towards public banks at the end but never comes out against the existence of private banks, that I remember.
'They would Charlie you.' That's entered the lexicon now ;-)
I like G. Edward Griffin a lot. I don't know what will make the change possible, I just know nothing will really change until it does.
I started writing the comment and it disappeared. I am writing again.
Yes I had seen the episode on Carlson & Werner, but did not comment. Here are my thoughts:
Carlson: Whereas you and I can reach a few thousands, Carlson can reach millions. The awakening he is contributing to, regarding Zionist control of US politics, the media and the Trump administration is something unheard of previously. So I can only be supportive of him at present.
On his last few episodes I commented to my friends, that he is suicidal.
Werner: I had quoted Princes of the Yen 3 times in my book, without paying much attention to the author. My position on Werner is somehow similar to my take on Carlson. In his interview with Carlson he contributed to awakening hundreds of thousands and possibly millions to the technicalities of fiat money creation, to the nefarious role of private central banks and their role in instigating wars. He also showed how banking could be a critical factor in development as was the case in China. The key point is not money creation but rather to what end is money directed, consumption that creates inflation and bubbles or production that creates value, jobs and lifts people out of poverty. So I am doubly thankful to Werner :-)
Those are excellent points, Fadi. I agree with you. I keep a little bit of wariness, to keep an eye out for a hidden agenda. But you're right that they're both doing a lot of good in exposing the current agenda in geopolitics and geoeconomics.
And I hate it when my comments suddenly disappear! So sorry.
Yes remove taxes from labor and production, shift public finance to unearned income from land and natural resources, this is up to one fourth of GDP. See theIU.org and in resource section my book The Earth Belongs to Everyone. also public banks which I think you are on to.
Glad you still keep reading me, Alanna, despite our differences. Under my plan, I remove all taxes except the pension savings, Social Security, from LOCAL production and consumption. Under your system, a local producer is competing with goods from China for the cheapest product, is that right? There's no difference in how those are taxed?
And a farmer producing for the local market would be taxed at the same land rate as a corporation selling for maximum profit and moving on after ruining the soil, air and water. Yes? A Mom-and-Pop rental is taxed at the same rate as if it's owned by Blackstone Capital. Correct?
I think there's much our plans have in common. Rather than taxing the homes and distributing the proceeds, I use the mortgage and distribute that. The way in which I use the tax and the exchange rate is to favor local producers and local buyers--particularly of housing. The earth does belong to everyone, and I think having a place to be on it that's securely yours and can't be taken away is important. My vision is that we work towards that for all families.
The only real function of taxation in any economy is to delete digital money back out of existence in order to control the rate of inflation of the nation's currency, and to prevent the undue accumulation of money by a private oligarchy. The only financial savings China require are in the form of digital foreign currencies or gold for international trading purposes.
When a country has the means of creating digital money ex nihilo without incurring debt, ts has no need to save for things like pensions nor private speculation.
Hi, Frank. I don't know if you've been reading/ listening to my book from the beginning of this series, but I think Ch 5 is an important one for this discussion: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/05-the-short-eventful-life-of-sovereign.
The model my system is based on is Ben Franklin's. The colonies tried different strategies, some creating currency without collecting it back in taxes or mortgage debt. Those currencies were devalued in short order.
In the caret system, no more is generated each month than will be collected back in mortgage payments or taxes or is backed by the redeemable value in imperial currency. So if you have a 2:1 exchange rate of carets to dollars, to protect local production, then your formula for how many carets you can distribute that month is Debt + Tax + 2*Cash.
The pension portion of Soc Sec, which is the only part I'd take on as a commonwealth, isn't truly a tax at all--it's a public pension plan. Would you issue all people the same retirement income as a welfare system, and not a pension? I think that would result in resentment from those who are working and saving. China's economy doesn't seem to be resulting in people with no need to work, as far as I can tell.
With bankers having no ability to usurp the ownership of houses and create the money ex nihilo, under my plan, they can speculate all they want with their existing imperial currencies. Those currencies just can't buy property anywhere but their own commonwealth.
The commercial banks in the US like Citibank, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Bank of America et cetera are never going to give up their divine right of creating 98% of the US money supply ex nihilo every time they make compound interest bearing loans to the US government, privately owned corporations or individuals. As the principal of these loans is paid back they are required to delete it back out of existence, but they get to keep the interest, that adds to their ever increasing wealth that now dominates the US FIRE economy.
The bankers feel threatened by the rise of China, and this is why President Trump, Rubio and Hegseth are preparing for war especially against socialist countries, so that they can subjugate the whole world using the FIRE economy with regime change and bombing if necessary.