-Caveat Lector- >From John Myers's recent article "Lessons of the Great Depression", http://www.dailyreckoning.com/home.cfm?loc=/body_headline.cfm&qs=id =1607,
"The lifestyle of borrowing and spending still hasn't really gone out of fashion - at least for consumers. The fact is Americans are addicted to spending, even if it is off the back of borrowed dollars. Since 1960 consumer credit has risen from $56 billion to today's total of $1.6 trillion. The government is hoping that with interest rates at 40-year lows, Americans will continue to borrow and spend. "During the Credit Age, buying and having the means to buy had little to do with each other. Since 1960 consumer credit has risen by a factor of 29, but real non-farm compensation has increased by a factor of 10. That means that for the majority of Americans, their debts have increased three times faster than their wages." (At the same time real farm compensation has declined, as has mining, timber, etc.) Since we do not have the income to consume the bread from the bushel of wheat, so-called surpluses of agricultural products appear because we cannot 'consume' this production, and our 'government experts' then tell us that Congress must write another 75 Billion dollar Farm Bill to take land out of production and continue to support prices at levels which insure that more surpluses mount, and to fund the Food Stamp Program, the School Lunch Program, and Emergency Supplemental Income Relief for Producers. The Government planners then force the public to borrow consumer credit, if eligible, to purchase consumer goods, and at the same time, tax the consumers to pay for Government Programs to Raw Material producers that are designed to fail. Moreover, wealth transfers, in the form of additional taxes, are necessary to pay for social programs for the institutionalized welfare society. The entire process is asinine. Supply and Demand Typically when producers complain of low commodity prices they are met with the deafening excuses of "supply and demand". The gold and silver bulls have proven beyond doubt that demand for these two metals has outpaced supply for at least a decade, and yet gold and silver prices do not rise. The GATA group has proven that the reason for this anomaly is price manipulation made possible with "paper" gold and silver. When true supply and demand forces attempt to take prices higher, the cartel steps in to sell "paper" gold and silver to depress the price. The cartel has had a good teacher because the same operation has been working magnificently for the grain trade for 40 years. In the agricultural sector, grain traders sell "paper" grain, which they do not yet own, 12 months into the future. In order for true supply and demand to work for raw material production, it would involve only the producer and end user. Division of labor in agriculture, forestry, mining and fishing has allowed an exodus of manpower from these occupations and into other pursuits, leaving a very small percentage of the work force in these basic industries. Yet, it is the income of these basic industries that determines our level of employment and national income. Social justice demands a floor be placed under basic commodities to protect the public from predatory business profiteers. Supports are already in place for some commodities but their present unrealistic values only insures economic failure. Returning once again to the work of the Raw Materials Council, they developed an economic program based upon 1) Parity prices for raw materials; 2) A new minimum wage law that tied the minimum wage to the basic full parity prices, and; 3) A World equity of trade, where the United States would pay all counties of the world the full American parity price for all raw materials imported in this country, but only on a Barter System Basis, meaning in exchange or trade for American goods and jobs at full honest U.S. domestic market parity prices. There would be no tariff taxes accumulating in the Federal Treasury, only goods imported and goods exported. In 1942 the Council's position for a prosperous post-war era after WWII was: * "As our payment for services in this war the rest of the world should agree to correct its foreign exchange from one of exploitation to one of equity. Gold, silver and six basic commodities such as corn, cotton, wheat, oats, barley and flax should be stabilized at a price level in balance with the 1925-1929-price level as an average. (With gold and silver revalued at $35 per oz. and $.97 per oz., respectively) If the commodities index at the close of the war in the United States is 10 per cent above the 1925-1929 level then these two metals and the basic commodities should be stabilized at 10 per cent above the 1925-1929 level. This stabilization would give the world a sound monetary medium for all nations. It would give the world a price level that would permit prosperity and development. The curse of the world has been exploitation of peoples through low prices and the resulting wars." This program represented honesty and fairness, so naturally it would have to be modified to allow predatory business profits at the expense of both the importing and exporting countries. First of all, the price of gold would have to remain fixed and not allowed to rise. (This was a repeat of the disastrous lesson learned in the 1910-1914 to 1925-1929 periods, which we discussed earlier). Secondly, dictate the idea of parity prices for raw materials on a World -Wide basis for individual nations and regulate the value of their foreign exchange with us based on their parity price index. Foreign currencies would then have a par value to their commodities. Finally, scrap the American parity price concept after the program is formally adopted, effectively devaluing the U.S. dollar. The name of this International Program was called the Bretton Woods Agreement, July 22, 1944. Part (a) provided for the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Part (b) provided for the International Monetary Fund, Part (c) is the Act passed by Congress, and you can read it at our Web site: www.northernlightsresearch.com. Part (b) Article VIII, Section 5, deals with the Nations reporting requirements so a parity price index could be maintained for each Nation so no one could "cheat". Part (c) The Act, Section 5, deals with the formal restriction that the U.S. could not alter our parity price concept, which we belligerently did anyway in 1949. (The lender of last resort can do whatever it wants). See Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1949. Bretton Woods It is often stated, inaccurately, that America defaulted on its dollar obligations in 1971 with the collapse of the Bretton Woods Agreement. Actually, the plug was pulled on Bretton Woods in 1971 because America defaulted on its dollar obligations in 1949. The Bretton Woods concept of a level playing field for foreign exchange provided that trading accounts for balance of trade would be settled with gold or the World Reserve currency, United States dollars, valued with gold at $35 per oz. The United States scrapped its dollar monetization in 1949 by abandoning the parity concept, and the Viet Nam War and Great Society programs of the 1960's expanded the Public Debt. These measures undermined the dollar in relation to other currencies that were fixed. As a result, foreign countries, notably France under Charles de Gaul, demanded gold rather than dollars to balance of trade. As the case then, the same is true today, foreign exchange debts are settled in gold, and thus the draw down of public gold reserves presently occurring as GATA has repeatedly pointed out. To put this in dollars, the Public Debt declined from $269.4 billion in 1946 to $257.4 in 1950, for a reduction of $12 billion. This was a period of parity prices, or a "normal period", as per the definition above. From 1950 to 1971 the Public Debt increased by $166.7 billion, with the abandonment of the parity concept. The clock continues to tick, with the Public Debt now at $6 Trillion, all thanks to the abandonment of parity prices. By establishing parity prices based upon a sound base period, all commodities were tied together, and more accurately, supported by a floor. The commodities determined the value of the dollar, and therefore, the dollar was "as good as gold." The Abandonment of American Parity The Steagall Amendment to the War Stabilization Act expired in 1948 and was extended one year. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1949 provided for a 60 – 90% sliding scale parity formula. Whereas previous parity computations were based on a "normal period", i.e. 1910-1914, the 1949 act abandoned the "normal period" requirement and replaced it with the "adjusted base price" concept. The result was the substitution of true parity for "transitional" parity In a nutshell, this new parity computation is explained by Charles Walter Jr., in "Parity, the Key to Prosperity Unlimited". "…The decision was made that agriculture would henceforth be the shock absorber for the rest of the economy. When the 1949 law was passed for agriculture – the 60 to 90% of parity law – it contained a provision that the parity base year would be moved forward every decade. So you had this situation: 1947-49 might be a fair base period – relative balance in much of the economy! But a decade later 1957-59 = 100 became the base period because of this law. We remember it well. Under the earlier base period, corn was $2.04. When 1957-1959 became the updated parity base year, they simply reduced corn to $1.55 and called it full parity. They took 49 cents off a bushel of corn with a lead pencil this way. You have here complete dishonesty and this very dishonesty is used to discredit the parity yardstick." "QUESTION. Has the parity base period been moved since then – to 1967-1969, for instance?" "ANSWER. Yes. And each time it has been moved, they've called everything even at 100. In other words, when they move the base period they rig the figures and call whatever the prices are for that year 100, even though they might have been quite lower. They do this after the fact. This is the reason farm prices are expressed at 77% of parity or 80% of parity when if fact, in terms of honest parity, they're much under par with the rest of the economy." See www.envirotext.eh.doe.gov/data/uscode/7/1304.html, or visit our Web site. The Decade of the 1970's Much has been written about the decade of the 1970's from an investment perspective relative to the Stock Markets. However, when you examine this decade from an exchange-balanced perspective, the view takes on a different texture. During the 1960's, America's role in Vietnam and the Great Society Programs here at home were costing us about $166 billion of public debt that was not being serviced. Stated another way, from the inception of the Bretton Woods Agreement, our Public Debt doubled from 1944 to 1971. Bretton Woods was scrapped in 1971 because those foreigners who understood our mischievous economic policies would have eliminated our gold reserves. (Foreigners could trade their commodities for undervalued, in terms of US dollars, gold). Conversely, the market price of wheat decreased in price by about 10 cents per bushel over those same 26 years. The economic conditions of the early 1970's are very similar to today, except today's distortions are significantly and dynamically greater. In the early 1970's, the Soviet Union was experiencing significant food shortages. In 1972 they began to market their gold through Zurich, Switzerland. Through this new market, the Soviets employed an economic principal of their former Premier Lenin: "Sell gold at the highest price and buy goods at the lowest price". This philosophy was the backdrop for the Russian Wheat Deal that caused such a stir during the first half of the decade. The U.S. Government negotiated grain contracts with the Soviets and the American grain trade sold the grain, which they did not yet own. These sales amounted to 1/4 of the American wheat crop, as total Soviet grain purchases climbed from 55 million bushels in one year to 599 million bushels the next. Wheat prices in this Country went from $1.10 per bushel to slightly over $5.00 per bushel over a four-year period. To pay for these commodities, the Soviets utilized the reckless imbalance in the world foreign exchange markets. Rather than sell their gold, the Soviets borrowed Eurodollars, using their gold as collateral, and purchased American farm products with the Eurodollars. Initially, they purchased the wheat for about $2.00 per bushel and the price of gold was about $50 per oz. After the devaluation of the U.S. dollar in 1973, gold went to $180 per oz. and the Soviets obtained their wheat needs for under $1.00 per bushel in real terms, or less than half of the stated cost. In 1973 the Arab countries cut oil production to seek a fair return for their products that are priced in U.S. dollars. Those of us who remember the Energy Czars under the Administrations of the 1970's, and their gas rationing and allocation programs, certainly have a healthy sense of apprehension and skepticism for today's Office of Homeland Security. Today the world stage is set for exactly these types of events to re-occur, only on a proportionately much larger scale. The Federal Government implemented wage and price controls in 1973 to achieve specific purposes unrelated to their stated objective of controlling inflation. Decades of sterile Government Farm Programs had disrupted balances of crop and resource allocations that the free market would have mandated. Farmers were paid to divert valuable income generating assets to idle ones because of a lack of parity and such dislocations of resources take years to correct given the seasonal nature of the industry. Price restrictions were placed on meat not to control inflation but rather to break our domestic livestock feeding industry—we did not have sufficient feed for our livestock operations. The shortfall in domestic livestock numbers was relieved by cheap imports. Additionally, under the guise of economic sanctions, embargoes were placed on further sales of American farm products to rebuild domestic supplies (in Government parlance, "surpluses") of basic farm commodities, all specifically designed to break market prices. The decade of the 1970's was not good for the Stock Market because of the disproportionate income distribution between sectors of the economy. While agriculture enjoyed a brief period of "parity prices" in 1973-1974, those gains could not be shared throughout the entire economy, as they had to compete with the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve was simultaneously increasing the money supply by 10% per year and the conditions were highly inflationary. Double-digit interest rates drained any gains to the economy for deliberate, self-serving reasons to discredit parity. Source: Minutes of President Ford's Cabinet Meeting of March 12, 1975, Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz: http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/exhibits/cabinet/750312.htm "Secretary Butz: Well, Mr. President, it looks like this. There has been a fourteen percent increase in price of food in 1974 over 1973. 80% of that increase has come after the product has left the farm. This can be accounted for by higher wages, higher transportation costs, and higher fuel costs. While the increase has slowed down some, it has not stopped during the first quarter of 1975. It appears that food prices will be up 1 1/2-2% over the last quarter of 1974. So the increase has slowed down markedly. It is interesting to note that the index of prices paid by farmers is up 12%, but the index of prices received by farmers is down by about 15%. There is also a decline in grain. The statistic that you will find interesting is that 17% of the take home pay of the average American will go for food. This is down slightly over 1973 and also interesting to note is only Canada and the United States are nations below 20% of take home pay going for food. This can be attributed to several things. One third of the meals are currently eaten outside of the home. Looking toward 1975, we anticipate a leveling off or decline in food prices. There will be more (imported) beef eaten by Americans this year by about seven pounds per capita for the year. However, Americans will eat less (domestic) pork and poultry per person and the (imported) beef will be relatively cheap. Fruits and vegetables will generally be less expensive and of course Mr. President, you know about our peanut problem. We have had one for years. The area where we will be shortest in everyday diets will be on grain-fed (American produced) beef. Mr. President, you can expect a record wheat crop. Since 70% of all wheat in America is winter grown, that crop is already in." We have had a 6% increase in acreage, and 400 to 500 million bushels of grain above last year's crop, so we will have a record crop. We currently have 4 million acres in soybean cultivation. So we hope as we look toward 1975, the escalation of food prices is behind us. (Emphasis added) The President: Are the farmers happy, Earl? Secretary Butz: No sir, they aren't. (Editorial Note: This meeting is in early March, at which time the winter wheat crop has not yet broke winter dormancy and they are calling the crop "made". This is the kind of information the grain trade uses to depress prices.) Grand Schemes Have Consequences The following table presents the economic problems we face in the terms of earned income. The money has to be earned into the economy if we are to consume the production and not have surpluses (under-consumption due to lack of buying power). The Government is acutely aware of how this works, especially the Banking and Currency Committee and the Council of Economic Advisors. Recall that the Banking and Currency Committee wrote the Steagall Amendment to the War Stabilization Act of 1942. Through the years economists and accountants of the Arthur Anderson "variety" have been in the employ of our Federal Government to implement stratagems to confuse and discredit the parity concept. Parity is determined by labor and industry as the result of charges added to raw materials on their way through the economic cycle and final sale at the market place. It is a measuring device and does not become obsolete because of the age of the base period, shifts in population, or improvements in technology. Parity does not go out of style, but what does change is the greed in men's hearts to gain economic advantage. Federal Law requires the United States Department of Agriculture to continuously compute current "parity prices" for agricultural products using the 1910-1914 base period, with a healthy dose of government 'adjustments'. This USDA parity is called a "transitional" parity as was discussed earlier in this treatise. True parity prices as computed by USDA are also included in the chart below. We have included all these figures and you can see the dire condition of the agricultural community in America, and by extension, the dire condition of the American economy. The Story of Economic Destruction Dec. 2001 "Transitional" Parity Price % of USDA Parity True Parity % of True Parity Commodity Market Price Wheat $2.89 $9.58 30 $14.46 19.4% Corn 1.92 6.54 29% 10.66 18.0% Soybeans 4.13 14.20 29% 19.06 21.7 Gold bulls have reported how the gold and silver demand has exceeded production for the past decade, and yet, due to market manipulations, prices have made it unfeasible to operate mines that lose money. Mines have closed or merged and new projects have been delayed. The same is true in all basic industries in their response to market forces. In agriculture, Government farm programs distort production and supply and producers respond by shifting land use to "market oriented" production. A point we need to examine is the dislocation of supplies of raw materials due to external distortions. The above table reflects the parity value of a selected group of commodities in relation to a "normal period". Today, things are far from normal. Should events suddenly unfold which cause prices to rise to parity levels, capital would be available to employ additional workers; incomes would be available to purchase additional food and clothing items, transportation needs, etc. Considering the present malinvestment in basic industries, demand would likely cause prices to exceed the parity prices listed above until production could reach demand. The parity prices are a floor under commodities, not a ceiling. Rising price levels of raw materials is not bad, as long as labor participates in the rising price level to have the income to purchase the finished goods. If you recall the points we raised about the 1970's, our "planners" realized that unless the livestock-feeding sector was drastically reduced, the nation would not have the grain production for which parity prices provided the market. A fair exchange-balanced economy would be contrary to the objectives of those in the money lending businesses and those who made their profits off trade exploitations, therefore, economic controls were implemented at the Federal level to severely hamstring the livestock feeding industry. I would also ask you to recall our discussion regarding creation of earned income; Production x Price = Income. In our example with the bushel of wheat and the loaf of bread, it was shown where at today's prices we are presently short $49 to consume the production from every $3.00 bushel of wheat. Now, lets look at this from another viewpoint: 100% Production x 100% Price = 100% National Income to consume the products Presently, several Federal farm programs control the production of basic agricultural crops and indirectly control livestock production. One program in particular probably has the most notable effect and for our purposes we will look at its impact on our National economy. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) pays producers to idle acreage in return for "rental" payments from the Treasury. The program mandates that no more than 25% of the land in a County can be enrolled, and for our purposes of demonstration we will use the maximum, thus, our formula above, when combined with the average true parity price for commodities in the above table, (18%), becomes: 75% Production x 18% of a Price = 15% of the Income to consume the products. Agriculture, the largest industry in America, is only being allowed to create about 15% its share of income to operate a sound solvent economy! Is it any wonder we have 30 TRILLION dollars of total debt? The facts are much worse and will be covered in future articles. The world is becoming a much more uncertain place. Economic conditions are causing formerly rational people to do irrational things to respond to their environment. Someone has described the three levels of conflict in society as economic, political and finally, military. In today's world nations are competing against one another viciously in the trade area to keep their peoples employed and daily needs met. In the early part of the 20th Century Nations employed tariffs to protect themselves against unfair competition from cheap imports. We abandoned those tariffs and allowed free trade to wreck our domestic markets. Today, they are no longer called tariffs because of the stigma attached to the word by some groups, so we now have 'competitive currency devaluations' to accomplish task of opening markets which would otherwise be protected. These programs rely on exploiting labor so the products can be manufactured at reduced costs. Ideally, financiers can loan money to the nations manufacturing the goods to offset income losses, and loan money to the importing nations to buy the goods. The lack of an exchange-balanced economy requires the shortfalls to be serviced with debt. Asia recently went through a period of these devaluations and it appears it is time for another round, and specifically with Japan, our Treasury Secretary O'Neal has endorsed the yen devaluation. The immediate impact in this Country has been the destruction of our textile and steel industry, along with thousand of good paying jobs. But these orchestrations of the world labor market can only go so far. Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent comments have an ominous warning: "Terrorism really flourishes in areas of poverty, despair and hopelessness, where people see no future". One particular place where this is troubling is with the two nuclear neighbors Pakistan and India where these two nations are rubbing shoulders over an adjoining piece of real estate that both claim. Another area is North Korea. We mention these threats because of their ability to move markets. In addition to nuclear exchanges, we also face biological possibilities. To assess the market impact of one or both of these, look at a grain price chart from the Chicago Board of Trade for the period surrounding April 26, 1986, the date of the Russian nuclear accident at Chernobyl. Wheat, for example, rose over a $1 per bushel in a short period of time, and this was a localized accident. Let us do a little review. We have described a lot of conditions that would have a dramatic impact on market prices, including production dislocations, currency devaluations, military conflict involving nuclear or biological agents, and we could also include weather events. In the 1970's three different Administrations imposed embargoes on American Agricultural products without anywhere near the imposing circumstances measured here. The reader has noticed that we haven't said much about USDA's "transitional" parity computation in the above chart. We would have to admit that the mathematical calculations we explained earlier concerning the trade turn, $9.58 x 7 = $66.99, comes much closer to covering the costs of the bread produced from a bushel of wheat, $70.00, versus the $2.89 x 7 = $20.23, using December 2001 market prices. We have shown in this treatise that parity is a well-known concept in the Halls of Congress and with the Council of Economic Advisors. So what is the significance of USDA's computations? As in the 1970's, unless full parity prices are established, additional debt has to be injected into the economy to offset the income shortfall. More money chasing fewer goods is inflationary and the parity concept can again be discounted. With all the talk of commodities being in a 20-year bear market and continued commodity deflation, what's the chance of commodities ever reaching parity, let alone "transitional" parity? Recent news reports concerning the independent review of certain Financial Statements of the Enron Corporation reveal that Arthur Anderson did reveal certain facts that might not have been obvious at first blush, its just that they were buried on page 48, in footnote 16, or thereabouts. I recently re-read a Risk Disclosure Statement from a commodity broker. There is a lot of fine print stating that commodity trading is risky etc. etc. etc. There is even an opening paragraph that states: "This brief statement does not disclose all of the risks and other significant aspects of trading in futures and options". Fair enough. But, when certain conditions exist which would place my financial condition in extreme peril, they should be identified. Nowhere in the Risk Disclosure Statement is there a reference to 7 USC 1310 "American agriculture protection program", wherein: in the event of an embargo due to short supplies, the Secretary of Agriculture will on the day of the embargo, set the loan level at 90% of parity. The loan level becomes the market price because it is now the support level and if the market is lower, the producer can forfeit the commodity to the Government, shielding it from the market. In mathematical terms this would represent a margin call of about $29,000 on each and every "short" contract of wheat. The law applies to wheat, corn, grain sorghum, soybeans, oats, rye, barley, rice, flaxseed, and cotton. This is not a SEC regulation would could be applied or admininistered by the Exchange, but rather a Federal Statute. There can be no doubt that Washington is fully aware of the importance of parity prices. To show the insanity in our "redistribution of wealth programs" that comes out of Washington, we again call your attention to the above chart of commodity and parity prices. One can see the dire condition of the agricultural industry and the fact that it can only be sustained by infusions of more debt. Presently Congress is considering a new Farm Bill, one that is designed for 10 years at a cost of about $75 billion per year. Control of Congress by one political Party or the other may very well come down to victories in farm states and farm state issues in the November elections. A Congressional candidate certainly would not want to appear anti-farm, so the more subsidies to their constituents the better. Lets do the math and see what this new farm bill will cost the Nation: The American farmer produces about 2.2 billion bushels of wheat per year, about 9.5 billion bushels of corn, and 2.7 billion bushels of soybeans. Full parity prices on these three commodities would generate a National income of $199 billion, or over two times more than the $75 billion cost of the Farm Bill. The economy consists of the bushels of wheat, the tons of iron ore or coal, the board-feet of lumber, the pounds of meat, the barrels of oil, etc., that people trade. Man debited, Nature credited. These units of raw materials—new wealth—are transformed by industry into other forms of wealth and become permanent assets of society. The Government payments to producers do not 'turn over' in the economy. It is simply spent in an attempt to make up the shortfall in production costs. With wheat, for example, the subsidy would amount to a payment of about 50 cents per bushel. What taxpayers are not told directly is that the lion's share, over 70% of the $74.4 billion, does not go to farmers. Those funds appropriated in this Farm Bill go to pay for the costs of the Food Stamp Program, School Lunch Program, the WIC Program, the Forest Service, Foreign Ag, Rural Development, wages and compensation for Department employees, all under the guise of "farm subsidies". The Farm Bill is not only "anti-farmer"; it is also "anti-American". * http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2003/2003bud sum.htm#fun The reader has no doubt heard or read all the hype about: American Agriculture—Super Market to the World, or one American farmer feeds himself and about 80+ other people. Well dear readers, hype is all that it is because it is not true. The books have been "cooked" to make it appear so. Without imports we cannot feed ourselves, and recall that it only takes 2% imports of a commodity to destroy domestic markets. It is not what we don't know that get us in trouble, but rather it is what we thought we knew, that wasn't true. This treatise is already of considerable length so this subject will be covered for our subscribers in the upcoming treatise "The Land of Pharaoh", and we invite readers to visit our site to subscribe. You will understand how close we are to placing embargoes on Agricultural products. Conclusion The Raw Materials National Council of Sioux City, Iowa, was succeeded by NORM (National Organization for Raw Materials) in the early 1960's. The NORM organization has proposed the National Economic Stability Act to implement the research of Raw Material Council. We have more details of this proposal on our site. The gold cartel is artificially holding down the price of gold and inflating the currency at the same time. The inflation has not shown up (yet) because we export it, by purchasing cheap foreign manufactured goods and sending our dollars overseas. Those goods compete with domestically manufactured and produced goods, forcing American manufacturers to lower their prices until bankruptcy. This manufactured appearance of low inflation rates and stability invite foreign currency flows (our dollars returning home) into our Bond and Stock Markets, and while public attention is focused on the Wall Street circus, the Nation is being looted. There is a "head of steam" building behind the price of gold valued in U.S. dollars because these manipulators have distorted economies and monetary systems on such a clandestine scale. World wide, these globalistic policies have uprooted social and political establishments and their pleas for help fall on deaf ears, or worse, they are given more of the same poison. While we watch from afar as Argentina introduces a new currency, our thoughts should turn to our 30 trillion dollar debts and ask ourselves: How far away from a new currency are we? The gold cartel has their sights set much higher than simply the gold and silver markets. In examining the material in this treatise one can see how we have become the most fantastic debt fueled economic system the world has known, and why we experience one economic and monetary crisis after another. This crisis is a cancer that has adversely affected the actual raw material production sector of all world economies and we have yet to reap the whirlwind. While we sit safely and smugly within our borders, an angry and turbulent world waits…. We invite you to help us, by supporting our efforts in bringing you these resources to protect your inheritance, and enhance your retirement. The human race does not understand money or its effects. Presently, we are developing treatises that flow from the material presented here: 1) The Cruel Tax Hoax; 2) The Land of Pharaoh; and, 3) Cooking the Books. Annual e-mail subscriptions are available for $65 per year, (or $75 for regular mail), for the monthly Newsletters, weekly Musings and Alerts. This treatise represents the foundation for our work, and given the complexity of the subject, the necessity for its length. We are incorporating charts and graphs in our future materials for visual emphasis. Northern Lights Research February 15, 2001 Thomas Q. Nichols Research Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] ©2001-2002 Northern Lights Research http://www.northernlightsresearch.com Copyright © 1999-2002 All rights reserved. ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, All My Relations. Omnia Bona Bonis, Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
