How Your Credit Rating Came to Define Your Life—And Your Ability to Buy Almost Anything

Life as we know it in 21st-century America is dictated by your credit score. Those mysterious three digits — decided in secret, and as vulnerable to simple accounting mistakes as to willful misdeeds — are the biggest factor in whether the bank decides to give you that life-saving loan; whether the dealership will sell you that car; whether the store will give you that credit to tide you over till payday. All of that can seem arbitrary, unfair and mysterious. Of course, we can’t help with the first two — the arbitrary and unfair nature of it all — but we can help clear up the mystery as to how these three little numbers have come to define our lives.

Where the Credit Score Originated

In the early 1900s, merchants who wanted to sell stuff to customers on credit found that the best way of figuring out which customers would pay on time was simply to talk to other merchants. “City merchants realized that if they could pool their knowledge of which customers could be trusted and which could not, they would all benefit by being able to extend more credit and make more sales, while having fewer losses from the deadbeats who wouldn’t pay,” says Adam Jusko, CEO of CreditCardCatalog.com, a credit card comparison and information site.

The first American credit company, Retail Credit Company, went from merchant to merchant collecting their customers’ payment habits, simplified into one of three categories: “Prompt,” “Slow” or “Requires Cash.” They then compiled this information in a pamphlet called “The Merchant’s Guide,” and sold subscriptions for $25 a year (a giant sum of money at the time).

Demand soon skyrocketed, and as communication systems in the U.S. became more advanced, they found themselves able to collect information on more and more consumers across the country. Eventually, Retail Credit Company became Equifax, while TransUnion and Experian — the two other companies that, with Equifax, make up the big three of the contemporary credit rating game — arrived on the scene as competitors.

It wasn’t until the second half of the 20th century, however, that the credit landscape we know today started to take shape. Up to this point, credit reporting agencies were neither regulated in what information they could collect, nor required to reveal what data was collected that might lead lenders to deny a loan. Even more, they weren’t just collecting data on payments, but also “lifestyle” (i.e., information such as sexual orientation, marital status, drinking habits and cleanliness).

After enough public uproar, the government passed the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, which forced credit reporting agencies to be more consistent in the way they rated consumers, limited how much information they could keep (and for how long) and forced them to be more transparent about how they scored things. After much trial and error, the Fair, Isaac and Company (FICO) score was born. It’s basically an algorithm that analyzes consumers’ past behavior to predict future behavior — or omniscient data that decides, just like those olden-day merchants, whether or not you’re a respectable, trustworthy citizen.

What the Numbers Mean

Since the majority of lenders in the U.S. use the FICO score, your consumption habits — including how timely you are with your bill payments — are run through that algorithm, which spits out your position on a spectrum between 300 and 850 (the closer you are to 850 the better). The FICO equation is often altered to better reflect contemporary spending habits, but generally, the score weights certain behaviors more heavily than others:

  • 35 percent of your score is based on your credit history — more specifically, how much of a delinquent you are. You can get dinged for foreclosure, bankruptcy, tax liens and consistent late payments on things like rent and bills. These incidents can take up to seven years to stop affecting your credit score.
  • 30 percent of your score is related to how often and to what extent you utilize your current credit card. So if you’ve got a limit of $1,000 and consistently spend $750, you’re at 75 percent utilization rate. To lenders, this looks like you’re thirsty to spend every penny you’re given, which like anything that could be described as “thirsty,” is a risk. According to FICO, the sweet spot for utilization is 30 percent. So even if you’re paying off your credit cards on time, consistently maxing them out is a bad idea.
  • 15 percent is based on how long you’ve had credit lines open, so don’t be too hasty to close old, unused credit cards.
  • 10 percent is how many credit cards you have open, since lenders like to see that other lenders have trusted you. Since this is a lightly weighted factor, though, it doesn’t mean you should say yes to every cashier offering you a store credit card.
  • The remaining 10 percent of your score is based on inquiries into your credit — not inquiries you’ve made yourself, but inquiries made by other lenders. If lenders see you’ve recently applied for a ton of credit cards or loans, they’re going to think you’re either untrustworthy and take your score down a notch…

more…

https://melmagazine.com/how-your-credit-rating-came-to-define-your-life-and-your-ability-to-buy-almost-anything-c071792bd211

WIKK WEB GURU

Goldman Sachs Claims Propping Up ‘The Economy is Great!’, Funds Syrian War

by Christina Sarich, Guest Waking Times

The age of parasitic capitalism still hasn’t sputtered to its final death. Among the larger players is Goldman Sachs, the very same megabank that the oligarchs use to fund terrorism – like the latest foray into Syria. Goldman Sachs is known for money laundering, billion-dollar-lobbying for the ease of punishment for corporations who launder said money, drug pushing, defrauding investors, war profiteering, and now, outright lying in order to keep their grimy claws on as much government-baptized cash as possible.

Annual bonuses to the Goldman Sachs’ elite were recently topped off at $23 billion, but that still isn’t enough funny money to keep the masses hysterical and dazed. Goldman Sachs’ top lawyer is also accused of being the cabal’s go-to guy when the natives get restless, but to keep the rhetoric around a great economy – restored by a certain president in charge, we’re now expected to ignore a sick and lackluster economy based on Goldman Sachs’ charts and graphs. But there’s another story unfolding which even evil bankers can’t corrupt.

Goldman just tried to justify a collapse in loan growth, which has reached its slowest pace in 6 years. It is expected to peter out completely soon. When no one is taking out loans, it’s because no one is making money and they can’t qualify for them.

Banks need us to borrow money, because that’s how they earn usury-level interest rates based on the fractional banking system. Unless they are planning to collapse an economy completely, they need to maintain loan rates and employment at a certain level so that we will continue to “agree to our own confinement,” as Dr. Brad Evans explains it in this amazing interview with Russell Brand:


In order to perpetuate a certain illusion, Goldman is trying to paint a rosy picture concerning the financial climate while we are observing the worst mortgage applications number since the 90s financial crisis. U.S. consumer demand for mortgages imploded at a pace indicative of an outright recession.

Despite this, the Fed is hiking rates further which will also crash the housing market – all as it has been designed to do. We’re supposed to believe the Great Recession that began 8 years ago is ending, and that the economy is recovering enough for the Federal Reserve Chair to implement its second rate-hike in just a few months – but what we’ve got is a false market, propped up with the usual criminal shenanigans of Goldman, the Fed and other key financial manipulators.

The Fed conveniently waited until after US elections to raise the rates. Why? What are they really trying to do – especially now that we’re all being dragged into WWIII? As Dr. Ron Paul has stated, more than $16-trillion-worth of transactions have been conducted with overseas banks. Foreign banks are a major recipient of Federal Bank Funds. This is part of the reason so many people want to audit the Fed. It is likely that with a full audit, the money trail for the current warmongering situation would be exposed. Dr. Paul says,

“The reason to have an audit is to find out what they’re hiding. The information they’re most protective of are the details of where many trillions of dollars used in the bailout went, and what the collateral was.”

He continues, “We want to know the details of what the agreements were,” Paul says, “and whether any of that money will be recouped.”

And more importantly, why do banks like Goldman and the Feds keep pushing war to prop up their false fronts? The Fed has already publicly admitted to rigging the stock market, and we know that Goldman Sachs is overrun with criminals. If we follow the money – it becomes very clear who is funding terror in the world today.

Considering there is now circulating, a declassified CIA memo which planned for a Syrian Regime collapse as early as 1986 – you have to wonder what money has changed hands?

About the Author
Christina Sarich is a staff writer for Waking Times. She is a writer, musician, yogi, and humanitarian with an expansive repertoire. Her thousands of articles can be found all over the Internet, and her insights also appear in magazines as diverse as Weston A. Price, NexusAtlantis Rising, and the Cuyamungue Institute, among others.
This article (Goldman Sachs Claims Propping Up ‘The Economy is Great!’, Funds Syrian War) was originally created and published by The Mind Unleashed and is re-posted here with permission. 

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/04/17/goldman-sachs-claims-propping-economy-great-funds-syrian-war/

WIKK WEB GURU

From Icarus To Humpty Dumpty – The Art & Science Of Spending Other People’s Money

Resultado de imagem para images of The Art & Science Of Spending Other People's Money

image edited by Eeb Investigator

by Tyler Durden

Via MN Gordon of EconomicPrism.com,

“We have assembled a best-in-class team of policy advisors to drive President Trump’s bold plan for job creation and economic growth.” Gary Cohn, Chief Economic Advisor to President Trump

Promises of Slop

The art and science of spending other people’s money is not an occupation suited to just anyone.  Rather, it’s a skill reserved for the professional world-improver.  To be successful, one must act with a zealous devotion to uplifting the down and out, no matter the cost.

Lawyers, bankers, economists, and government philosophers with fancy resumes, whom attended fancy schools.  These are the devoted fellows who comprise President Trump’s team of economic policy advisors.  Moreover, these are the chosen associates who are charged with bringing Trump’s economic vision to fruition.  Are they up to the task?

Only time will tell.  But, already, it’s quite evident that Trump’s economic policy advisors have their work cut out for them.  During Trumps speech to Congress on Tuesday night, he called for more jobs, more education, more military, and more affordable health insurance.

By all accounts the speech sounded delightful.  Promises were made to spread the government’s slop far and wide.  Trump pledged offerings that just about anyone and everyone – with the exception of grumpy face Bernie Sanders – could standup behind and applaud.

Indeed, articulating these plans is one thing.  Using the force of government to execute them is another.  This is where the advisors come in.

From Icarus to Humpty Dumpty

According to Wall Street, President Trump said all the right things.  On Wednesday the DOW jumped up over 300 points to over 21,100.  And despite yesterday’s pullback, the DOW ended the day above 21,000.  What’s going on?

New York Fed President William Dudley says the market’s “animal spirits have been unleashed.”  He also says “the case for monetary policy tightening has become a lot more compelling.”  The case being, as noted by Dudley, “sturdy” jobs gains, inflation increases, and rising optimism for both consumers and business owners.

Hence, Dudley and the Fed may increase the price of credit at the next FOMC meeting later this month.  In fact, as of yesterday, CME Group puts the odds of a pending Fed rate hike at over 75 percent.  Bloomberg puts the odds at 90 percent.  In other words, unless the stock market crashes before March 15, it’s highly likely the Fed will raise the federal funds rate.

Maybe the market will crash before March 15.  Maybe it will crash after.  Maybe it won’t crash at all.  Who knows?

One analyst at Bank of America, with a creative metaphorical mind, has somehow penciled out a market path leading to a great fall in the second half of 2017.  But first, says Michael Hartnett, investors must finish climbing the “wall of worry.”  At that point, his “Icarus Trade” will turn into the “Humpty Dumpty Trade.”  Thus, the great fall.

A 30 Year Mess in the Making

No doubt, Trump’s economic advisors are facing a tall order.  Stocks are extremely overvalued.  The Fed’s unwittingly jawboned itself into a March rate increase.  Yet GDP, as reported for the fourth quarter 2016, slouches along at just 1.9 percent.

At the same time, it’s projected the government will hit the debt ceiling on March 16 After that, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin will have to take “extraordinary measures” – shuffle money around – to keep the lights on.  By October, if Congress doesn’t raise the debt limit, the lights fade to black.

Somehow Trump’s advisors have to figure out how to boost the economy without boosting spending.  So far their plan only accounts for half of the equation.  That is, to boost the economy by pumping money into defense and infrastructure.  But if spending isn’t going to also increase, where’s the money going to come from?

Earlier this week it was reported that Trump wants to increase military spending by $54 billion without increasing the deficit.  The $54 billion increase would be offset by cuts to other government departments and agencies.  While this proposal doesn’t increase the $500 billion deficit, it doesn’t decrease it either.  In short, a half trillion dollars will still be added to the debt.

In the meantime, in just under two weeks there will be an abundance of excitement emanating from Washington DC.  Specifically, a rousing Congressional debt ceiling standoff will commence.  Reagan era Budget Director, David Stockman’s calling it a fiscal bloodbath:

I think we are likely to have more of a fiscal bloodbath rather than fiscal stimulus.  Unfortunately for Donald Trump, not only did the public vote the establishment out, they left on his doorstep the inheritance of 30 years of debt build-up and a fiscal policy that’s been really reckless in the extreme.

People would like to think he’s the second coming of Ronald Reagan and we are going to have morning in America.  Unfortunately, I don’t think it looks that promising because Trump is inheriting a mess that pales into insignificance what we had to deal with in January of 1981 when I joined the Reagan White House as Budget Director.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-03/icarus-humpty-dumpty-art-science-spending-other-peoples-money

 

WIKK WEB GURU
WIKK WEB GURU

In praise of cash

Imagem relacionada

image edited by Web Investigator

Cash might be grungy, unfashionable and corruptible, but it is still a great public good, important for rich and poor alike

Brett Scott writes about financial activism and social and environmental finance. He is the author of The Heretic’s Guide to Global Finance (2013).

I recently found myself facing a vending machine in a quiet corridor at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. I was due to speak at a conference called ‘Reinvent Money’ but, suffering from jetlag and exhaustion, I was on a search for Coca-Cola. The vending machine had a small digital interface built by a Dutch company called Payter. Printed on it was a sentence: ‘Contactless payment only.’ I touched down my bank card, but rather than dispensing Coke, it beeped a message: ‘Card invalid.’ Not all cards are created equal, even if you can get one – and not everyone can.

In the economist’s imagining of an idealised free market, rational individuals enter into monetary-exchange contracts with each other for their mutual benefit. One party – called the ‘buyer’ – passes money tokens to another party – called the ‘seller’ – who in turn gives real goods or services. So here I am, the tired individual rationally seeking sugar. The market is before me, fizzy drinks stacked on a shelf, presided over by a vending machine acting on behalf of the cola seller. It’s an obedient mechanical apparatus that is supposed to abide by a simple market contract: If you give money to my owner, I will give you a Coke. So why won’t this goddamn machine enter into this contract with me? This is market failure.

To understand this failure, we must first understand that we live with two modes of money. ‘Cash’ is the name given to our system of physical tokens that are manually passed on to complete transactions. This first mode of money is public. We might call it ‘state money’. Indeed, we experience cash like a public utility that is ‘just there’. Like other public utilities, it might feel grungy and unsexy – with inefficiencies and avenues for corruption – but it is in principle open-access. It can be passed directly by the richest of society to the poorest of society, or vice versa.

Alongside this, we have a separate system of digital fiat money, in which our money tokens take the form of ‘data objects’ recorded on a database by an authority – a bank – granted power to ‘keep score’ of them for us. We refer to this as our bank account and, rather than physically transporting this money, we ‘move’ it by sending messages to our banks – for example, via mobile phones or the internet – asking them to edit the data. Money ‘moves’ to your landlord if your two respective banks can agree to edit your accounts, reducing your score and increasing your landlord’s score.

This second mode of money is essentially private, running off an infrastructure collectively controlled by profit-seeking commercial banks and a host of private payment intermediaries – like Visa and Mastercard – that work with them. The data inscriptions in your bank account are not state money. Rather, your bank account records private promises issued to you by your bank, promising you access to state money should you wish. Having ‘£500’ in your Barclays account actually means ‘Barclays PLC promises you access to £500’. The ATM network is the main way by which you convert these private bank promises – ‘deposits’ – into the state cash that has been promised to you. The digital payments system, on the other hand, is a way to transfer – or reassign – those bank promises between ourselves.

This dual system allows us the option to use private digital bank money when buying pizza at a restaurant, but we can always resort to public state money drawn out of an ATM if the proprietor’s debit card system crashes. This choice seems fair. At different times, we might find either form more or less useful. As you read this, though, architects of a ‘cashless society’ are working to remove the option of resorting to state cash. They wish to completely privatise the movement of money tokens, pushing banks and private-payments intermediaries between all interactions of buyers and sellers.

The cashless society – which more accurately should be called the bank-payments society – is often presented as an inevitability, an outcome of ‘natural progress’. This claim is either naïve or disingenuous. Any future cashless bank-payments society will be the outcome of a deliberate war on cash waged by an alliance of three elite groups with deep interests in seeing it emerge.

The first is the banking industry, which controls the core digital fiat money system that our public system of cash currently competes with. It irritates banks that people do indeed act upon their right to convert their bank deposits into state money. It forces them to keep the ATM network running. The cashless society, in their eyes, is a utopia where money cannot leave – or even exist – outside the banking system, but can only be transferred from bank to bank.

The second is the private payments industry – the likes of Mastercard – that profits from running the infrastructure that services that bank system, streamlining the process via which we transfer digital money between bank accounts. They have self-serving reasons to push for the removal of the cash option. Cash transactions are peer-to-peer, requiring no intermediary, and are thus transactions that Visa cannot skim a cut off.

The third – perhaps ironically – is the state, and quasi-state entities such as central banks. They are united with the financial industry in forcing everyone to buy into this privatised bank-payments society for reasons of monitoring and control. The bank-money system forms a panopticon that enables – in theory – all transactions to be recorded, watched and analysed, good or bad. Furthermore, cash’s ‘offline’ nature means it cannot be remotely altered or frozen. This hampers central banks in implementing ‘innovative’ monetary policies, such as setting negative interest rates that slowly edit away bank deposits in order to coerce people into spending…

more…

https://aeon.co/essays/if-plastic-replaces-cash-much-that-is-good-will-be-lost

WIKK WEB GURU
WIKK WEB GURU

A Secret History of Money Power

by Dr. KR Bolton, New DawnWaking Times

“The most hated sort [of moneymaking], and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural use of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term usury which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money, because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of making money this is the most unnatural.” ~Aristotle (384-322 BCE)1

Aristotle’s definition of usury is perhaps the most cogent ever made. Usury, as originally defined, is any money made from a loan. The Christian and particularly Catholic opposition to usury was founded on the dictum in the Gospel of Luke about giving without expecting anything in return, and on the Old Testament precepts against charging interest.

Opposition to usury seems to have been instinctive in many diverse civilisations and cultures, with an intuition it is something unnatural, parasitic and outright sinful. When a civilisation accepts usury as normal business practice, as does Western civilisation, it is symptomatic of an advanced cycle of decay.

The Vedic scripts of ancient India (2000-1400 BCE) call the “usurer” kusidin, a lender charging interest. Brâhmanas (priests) and Kshatriyas (warriors) were prohibited from practicing usury. The Sacred Laws of the Aryas states:

God weighed in the scales the crime of killing a learned Brâhmana against the crime of charging interest; the slayer of the Brâhmana remained at the top, the charger of interest sank downwards.2

As in the Western and Classical civilisations, the definition of usury was compromised over time. By the second century CE the Laws of Manu defined usury as beyond a “legal” interest rate, after which the interest cannot be recovered. The fact there is now a legal rate of interest, rather than an outright prohibition, indicates compromise of the type that arose in Western Christendom and Classical Greece and Rome. Additionally, like the exemption of the Jews from laws on usury under Mediaeval Christendom, the Hindu merchant caste were permitted trade in usury:

To invest money on interest, to be a jeweller, to tend cattle, tillage and trade – these are declared as occupations for the Vaisya caste.3

Siddharta Gautama Buddha offered a more unequivocal stance:

One discerns wrong livelihood as wrong livelihood, and right livelihood as right livelihood. And what is wrong livelihood? Scheming, persuading, hinting, belittling, and charging interest. This is wrong livelihood.4

Plutarch (46–127 CE), in his essay “Against Running In Debt, Or Taking Up Money Upon Usury,” described usurers as “wretched,” “vulture-like,” and “barbarous.” Cato the Elder (234–149 BCE) compared usury to murder. Cicero (106–43 BCE) stated, “these profits are despicable which incur the hatred of men, such as those of… lenders of money on usury.”

Contemporary financial analysts Sidney Homer, who worked for Salomon Bros., and Professor Richard Sylla, in their historical study of interest rates, state that the first known law on the issue was that of Hammurabi, 1800 BCE, during first dynasty Babylonia, who set the maximum rate of interest at 33⅓% per annum “for loans of grain, repayable in kind, and at 20% per annum for loans of silver by weight.”5Sumerian documents, circa 3000 BCE, “show the systematic use of credit based on loans of grain by volume and loans of metal by weight. Often these loans carried interest.”

As early as 5000 BCE in the Middle East, dates, olives, figs, nuts, or seeds of grain were probably lent to serfs, poor farmers, or dependants, and an increased portion of the harvest was expected to be returned in kind…. Earliest historic rates were reported in the range of 20–50% per annum for loans of grain and metal.6

In Greece, 600 BCE, Solon established laws on interest when excessive debt caused economic crisis. Likewise, in Rome the “Twelve Tables” of 450 BCE, establishing the foundations of Roman law, after pervasive debt was causing servitude and crisis, established a maximum interest rate of 8⅓% per annum. When Brutus tried to charge the City of Salmais 48% for a loan, Cicero reminded him that the legal maximum was 12%. The interest rate was often 4%. Some Greek “loan sharks” charged 25% per annum, and even 25% per day.7

In the Old Testament, Jews were prohibited from usury: “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money; usury of victuals; usury of anything that is lent upon usury” (Deut. 23:19). Critically, for history, the Jews were allowed to charge usury to non-Jews: “Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury, that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it” (Deut. 23:20)…

more…

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/23/secret-history-money-power/

 

 

WIKK WEB GURU
WIKK WEB GURU

 

End of a golden age

Resultado de imagem para Newly built Volkswagen Beetles ready for shipping from Hamburg in 1972. Photo by Thomas Hoepker/Magnum

Newly built Volkswagen Beetles ready for shipping from Hamburg in 1972. Photo by Thomas Hoepker/Magnum

Unprecedented growth marked the era from 1948 to 1973. Economists might study it forever, but it can never be repeated. Why?

Newly built Volkswagen Beetles ready for shipping from Hamburg in 1972. Photo by Thomas Hoepker/Magnum

Marc Levinson is an economist, historian and journalist whose work has appeared in The Harvard Business Review, The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg.com, among others. His latest book is An Extraordinary Time: The End of the Postwar Boom and the Rise of the Ordinary Economy (2016). He lives in Washington, DC.

The second half of the 20th century divides neatly in two. The divide did not come with the rise of Ronald Reagan or the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is not discernible in a particular event, but rather in a shift in the world economy, and the change continues to shape politics and society in much of the world today.

The shift came at the end of 1973. The quarter-century before then, starting around 1948, saw the most remarkable period of economic growth in human history. In the Golden Age between the end of the Second World War and 1973, people in what was then known as the ‘industrialised world’ – Western Europe, North America, and Japan – saw their living standards improve year after year. They looked forward to even greater prosperity for their children. Culturally, the first half of the Golden Age was a time of conformity, dominated by hard work to recover from the disaster of the war. The second half of the age was culturally very different, marked by protest and artistic and political experimentation. Behind that fermentation lay the confidence of people raised in a white-hot economy: if their adventures turned out badly, they knew, they could still find a job.

The year 1973 changed everything. High unemployment and a deep recession made experimentation and protest much riskier, effectively putting an end to much of it. A far more conservative age came with the economic changes, shaped by fears of failing and concerns that one’s children might have it worse, not better. Across the industrialised world, politics moved to the Right – a turn that did not avert wage stagnation, the loss of social benefits such as employer-sponsored pensions and health insurance, and the secure, stable employment that had proved instrumental to the rise of a new middle class and which workers had come to take for granted. At the time, an oil crisis took the blame for what seemed to be a sharp but temporary downturn. Only gradually did it become clear that the underlying cause was not costly oil but rather lagging productivity growth – a problem that would defeat a wide variety of government policies put forth to correct it.

The great boom began in the aftermath of the Second World War. The peace treaties of 1945 did not bring prosperity; on the contrary, the post-war world was an economic basket case. Tens of millions of people had been killed, and in some countries a large proportion of productive capacity had been laid to waste. Across Europe and Asia, tens of millions of refugees wandered the roads. Many countries lacked the foreign currency to import food and fuel to keep people alive, much less to buy equipment and raw material for reconstruction. Railroads barely ran; farm tractors stood still for want of fuel. Everywhere, producing enough coal to provide heat through the winter was a challenge. As shoppers mobbed stores seeking basic foodstuffs, much less luxuries such as coffee and cotton underwear, prices soared. Inflation set off waves of strikes in the United States and Canada as workers demanded higher pay to keep up with rising prices. The world’s economic outlook seemed dim. It did not look like the beginning of a golden age.

As late as 1948, incomes per person in much of Europe and Asia were lower than they had been 10 or even 20 years earlier. But 1948 brought a change for the better. In January, the US military government in Japan announced it would seek to rebuild the economy rather than exacting reparations from a country on the verge of starvation. In April, the US Congress approved the economic aid programme that would be known as the Marshall Plan, providing Western Europe with desperately needed dollars to import machinery, transport equipment, fertiliser and food. In June, the three occupying powers – France, the United Kingdom and the US – rolled out the deutsche mark, a new currency for the western zones of Germany. A new central bank committed to keeping inflation low and the exchange rate steady would oversee the deutsche mark.

Postwar chaos gave way to stability, and the war-torn economies began to grow. In many countries, they grew so fast for so long that people began to speak of the ‘economic miracle’ (West Germany), the ‘era of high economic growth’ (Japan) and the 30 glorious years (France). In the English-speaking world, this extraordinary period became known as the Golden Age…

more…

https://aeon.co/essays/how-economic-boom-times-in-the-west-came-to-an-end

WIKK WEB GURU
WIKK WEB GURU

Another Brick In The Wall – Modern Education and the System of Deception

by Paul Philips, Guest, Waking Times

Like many things — the food industry, the medical-pharmaceutical establishment, the mainstream media – the hidden corporate/bankers who control our governments have also standardized the education system through funding.

Many years ago in the USA, for example, much money was poured into education by the Rockefeller-created National Education Association, with the help of the Carnegie Foundation and later on the Ford Foundation. The result of the efforts of such organisations can be seen worldwide today in the real purpose of the education system which is to teach children and young people: 1) Reward comes from accurate memory recall from heavy repetition. 2) Non-compliance will be punished. 3) Acceptance that ‘truth’ and what is ‘real’ comes from authority.

Thus, the real purpose of the education system is to cultivate conformity and prohibit critical thinking about anything of real importance.

Starting at 4 years old (and what could be a better age to start a mass indoctrination?) and finishing by the time an individual comes out of the education system, some 12 years plus on, children have had more than their fair share of programming and brainwashing, and as a result are unable to really think for themselves. Moreover, any genuine outside-of-the-box thinking with significant potential humanitarian or Mother Earth-friendly benefit is ignored, quashed, ridiculed or suppressed by the influence of those hidden controllers if it is perceived as a threat to any of their businesses.

But, as Einstein said, ‘real thinking is to think the unthinkable…’

Introducing the ‘Unsung Heroes’

The following is a list of just some of history’s truly great humanitarian outside-of-the-box thinkers, with their innovative ideas/products that have never been able to see the light of day (due to the above reasons.)

Raymond Rife

Raymond Rife (1888-1971) and his Universal Microscope for curing cancer.

After successfully curing a number of cancer patients the Rockefeller owned American Medical Association (AMA) later had this work laid down to rest by closing down Rife’s set ups and seizing his equipment:

Essentially Rife refused to hand over the rights of his work to the AMA because he saw moneyed interests as hidden ulterior motives – that his the cancer curing machine would not be allowed to the world at large because the AMA and the medical/pharmaceutical establishment did not want patients’ cured.

That would mean customers lost and no more revenue for the cancer industry, so instead they push out real cures, and keep coming up with toxic treatments that never cure, instead create further symptoms (side effects) guaranteeing the cancer returns and thus repeat business until the patient eventually dies an unnecessarily harsh death.

After years of ensuing court cases with the ‘big boys’ of the cancer establishment, with little money to exist on, Rife exiled in Mexico to avoid imprisonment in the USA. He later died of alcoholism, a brilliant, but defeated man. The pressures of harassment related to the legal battles and constant threat of imprisonment had been too much for him.

The Associated Press: Apparatus of San Diegan Seen as Boon to Medical World

Linus Pauling

Pauling had worked with Matthias Rath and they came up with a unified approach to curing heart disease. (1901-1994) – ‘Unified Theory’ cure for heart disease.

Essentially, they found that heart disease is the result of a long-term vitamin C deficiency. The solution is to treat patients with frequent high doses (e.g. 6g/day) of vitamin C while using the amino acids lysine and proline to remove the atherosclerotic plaque lining the inner walls of the blood vessels that cause a narrowing or blocking of the lumen (space) of the blood vessels which is responsible for restricting blood flow and cardiovascular disease.

However, due to greater interests in corporate profitability and perceived financial threat, this highly successful cheap alternative therapy has not been allowed that much attention.

 

 

Nikola Tesla

Multi-talented Tesla cut across many disciplinary boundaries. His genius gave rise to a number of world-changing inventions. Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) – Wardenclyffe Tower Project free energy.

One of his most famous experiments /inventions was the Wardenclyffe Tower Project. It was Tesla’s attempt to provide everyone on the globe with free energy through harnessing electricity from the Earth’s ionosphere by means of the towers. Without wires the towers could transmit the harnessed electricity to ground-level areas requiring it…

However, Tesla’s funding was stopped. His equipment and lab was burned down together with the related intellectual property because it posed a threat to undercutting the cost of the conventional electricity grid system. If Tesla’s Wardenclyffe Tower Project had been allowed to flourish and not be destroyed then today we could well be living in a utopia.  Tesla died a poverty-stricken lonely and forgotten man in New York City.

TIME Magazine Cover: Nikola Tesla – July 20, 1931

Wilhelm Reich

Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) – Drought-breaking weather control.

Wilhelm Reich built an instrument he called the cloudbuster which successfully induced weather change. It has been used to break many droughts by producing clouds that make rain.

This workable mechanism for making rainclouds for crop irrigation in drought areas was stopped by those ever watchful lackeys for the ruling elite.

 

Allowing something like this could lead to food abundance and greatly contribute to ending world hunger. However, the controllers don’t want world hunger to end. If this happened it would make it more difficult to control people in what would no longer be third world countries. .. Don’t forget, their hidden enslavement agenda

Consequentially Reich was hounded by the likes of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) having accused him of fraud and deception with his cloudbuster instrument. His equipment was seized and destroyed. His last days were spent in prison where it was claimed that he died of a heart attack

more…

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/16/another-brick-wall-modern-education-system-deception/

 

WIKK WEB GURU
WIKK WEB GURU