Many do not realize it, but were it not for central banks controlling the global economic and financial system, first-world nations would be living in a paradisiac world with very little poverty or crime. And poorer countries would have a much higher standard of living as well. Overall, wages would be better for everyone.
Recent technological developments have, in some ways, made the masses far richer. For example, a computer tablet today costs several hundred dollars contains far more computing power than massive mainframes worth millions back in the 1970s. The same concept applies to most electronics and several other areas such as publishing, travel, and telecommunications, to name a few.
But consider the following: what would happen if the nation’s currency, America in this example, had been issued directly by the treasury itself instead of being loaned to it at interest by a central bank? What if we had remained true to the USA Constitution and only minted silver and gold coin as currency? Has the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 pushed all of us into poverty relative to what we would otherwise be living in?
Living costs, wages, and inflation
In America, wages have been stagnant for about forty years. If the minimum wage in 2017 were to be equivalent to it’s measurement in gold dating back to 1967, it would equal forty-three dollars per hour today.
By forcing almost every nation on Earth into a perpetual cycle of debt that can never be escaped, central banks have managed to enslave the world to their system of total monetary control. Issuance of a nation’s currency via an independent and unelected banking body makes a mockery of the very concept of sovereignty, or capitalism for that matter.
Let us return to the topic at hand – what this world would be like without central banks.
Minimum wage “debate”
As previously mentioned, the first thing that would change would be wages many orders of magnitude greater than what exists today.
Many scorn such a scenario, claiming the price of all goods and services would rise in direct proportion to any change in wages. This claim rests upon faulty premises. It does not take into account the fact that inflation has already taken hold in those goods and services. Whether in real or nominal terms, wages have stagnated for forty years under the present system. This has happened while the cost of living has continued to soar. If higher wages lead to increased living costs, the converse must also be true: increased living costs necessitate higher wages. And yet, this has not happened. Much has been made of the recent minimum wage increases in places like California.
Yet this debate rested upon nominal wages, and fails to take into account what has happened to real wages when measured against an objective standard such as the price of gold. The following Forbes article summarizes the situation very well:
“The bottom line is that, in terms of gold, wages have fallen by about 87 percent. To get a stronger sense of what that means, consider that back in 1965, the minimum wage was 71 ounces of gold per year. In 2011, the senior engineer earned the equivalent of 63 ounces in gold. So, measured in gold, we see that senior engineers now earn less than what unskilled laborers earned back in 1965.
That’s right: today’s highly skilled professional is making less in real, comparative terms than yesterday’s unskilled worker.
When measured in dollars, wages and prices appear to be rising and, comparing wages to prices, we see only a small loss of purchasing power. However, prices do not tell the whole story, because they reveal nothing about costs. Costs also fell and this explains why the apparent drop in the real wages seems small.
But measured in gold—and this is crucial to understanding why we need a gold standard—we see reality with clarity. Incomes are about one tenth what they were in the 60’s. Prices are down too, but not as much.
People who work for a living—those who produce every good and service—are being steadily and severely marginalized.”
So while wages ought to be much higher, the cost of living should also be lower. If currency had never been made fiat and devalued, wages would have continued to rise in both real and nominal terms. This would have occurred alongside stable or even declining living costs.
In an ideal world – one without the tyranny of central banking – our present reality would be inverted. The exact opposite of what has occurred over the past century would have taken place. Instead of stagnant or falling wages with rising living costs, we would have rising wages with stagnant or falling living costs.
Of course, this economic situation would have had many other windfalls as well. Crime would be reduced, wars would be fewer and less severe, and technology might have advanced even faster. By now I’ve made it clear that central banks ought to be held accountable for their detrimental impact upon all of human civilization.
Godfrey Bloom shares this sentiment. For a concise two-minute summary of the current banking fraud-based system, see Godfrey Bloom’s speech here:
Nothing can be changed on the political level. Central banks control the economy, and any politician who tries to end them will be assassinated or suicided. The deep state and secret societies run everything in the shadows. Banks own Washington.
Bitcoin presents the best opportunity for drawing power away from the central banking apparatus and putting it back in the hands of the people where it belongs. Recently Bitcoin hit a new all-time high of well over $2,000. Total crypto currency market cap has soared to over $80 B. This represents an increase of over 130% in little over a month. Perhaps hope does exist. It exists in the form of a new decentralized form of money that requires no third party or central authority.