Why Are Central Bankers Fighting to Shut Down Libra, But Not Bitcoin?
Why are politicians and central bankers around the world so up in arms against Facebook’s proposed crypto-currency Libra? Why are they rallying so much harder against Libra then they ever did against Bitcoin? And why are they directing only the same illogical criticisms at Libra that they have been aiming at Bitcoin for a decade, even as many of them now backtrack on their anti-Bitcoin stance?
Central bankers are fundamentally against both Libra and Bitcoin because these crypto-currencies threaten their monopoly on the creation of money, which allows them to rob the masses blind.
Of course, they won’t just come out and say this. Instead, they can only repeat patent nonsense. But even Forbes does not deny the factthat the “unofficial” reason central bankers hate crypto-currencies is “because they threaten to break their monopoly on printing money, and to manipulate the economy to accommodate the interests of powerful elites”. What Forbes manages to obscure is the fact that these two groups –central bankers and powerful elites- are mostly one and the same.
“Give me control of a Nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.”
— M. A. Rothschild
Central bankers use their monopoly on creating money to debase currencies and sway the economies of nations to their own benefit. Most people have been deceived to believe that central banks are a part of the government and exist to serve the public good, when in fact, they are privately-owned by for-profit corporations that work to centralize wealth into their own hands.
This is precisely why global wealth is becoming increasingly more concentrated at the top, at the expense of the many, with a mind-boggling 82% of the world’s wealth now in the hands of less than 1% of the population. The top 62 richest people have as much wealth as the bottom 3.5 Billion.
In contrast to the US Constitution, which provisions Congress to print it’s own money and manage financial controls such as lending rates directly, the central banking model was conceived of by Karl Marx expressly as a communist tool for destroying the middle class, and that is exactly what central banks have been accomplishing. That is, until Bitcoin presented an escape hatch.
During the recent Senate hearings on Libra, politicians and central bankers leveled at Facebook the same baseless accusations that have been aimed at Bitcoin for the last decade, namely that it is/would be a tool primarily for criminals, money launderers and terrorists. They say this despite mountains of evidence proving that cash is the most fundamental and indispensable tool for criminal cartels, money launderers, tax evaders and terrorist organizations.
They assert this nonsense despite the fact that a permanent and public blockchain accounting ledger is arguably the single greatest tool for preventing money laundering that the world has ever known. Is there any possible explanation why a criminal would choose to leave permanent, public evidence of their illegal transactions?
The data agrees. Recent studies conclude that cash is the preferred choice of money launderers, criminals and terrorists, being used 800 times more than crypto-currency for illicit transactions. The entire Florida state police department was recently busted laundering money for south American drug cartels, and they did not use any crypto-currency for their operation, just cash USD.
Furthermore, the Federal Reserve central bank has a notoriously close relationship with private investment bank Goldman Sachs, who now has a total of 17 executives being charged with running multi-billion dollar international money-laundering schemes.
Deutsche Bank, Danske Bank, and a dozen others have been caught in massive money laundering schemes which dwarf Bitcoin’s entire market cap. There was over $1.5 Trillion in annual money laundering before Bitcoin was even created, and Danske Bank alone laundered $230 billion. Bitcoin’s total market cap today is just $200 Billion, and research shows that illicit transactions using Bitcoin could reach as high as $1.5 Billion in 2019, a pathetic figure compared to what state police and central banks have accomplished.
But perhaps no single story more perfectly encapsulates the psychopathic shadow projection with which bankers attack Bitcoin as the tale of JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon saying that “Bitcoin is for criminals” before $1.3 Billion worth of cocaine was found being smuggled into the US on a ship owned by JP Morgan Chase.
So despite it being absolutely absurd to assert that a permanent, public accounting ledger is the preferred tool of criminals, terrorists and money-launderers, it is precisely this same preposterously hypocritical and factually devoid slander which has long been used to demonize Bitcoin that is now being aimed at Libra. It’s a completely bogus claim, but it’s absolutely all they’ve got.
Central bankers can’t state the real reasons why they are against Libra and Bitcoin without pointing out the inner workings of the inter-generational, multi-trillion dollar scam which they have been perpetrating on the public for over a century.
“3,800%. That’s how much the cost of four-year public college has increased since 1964.”
— Bernie Sanders on Twitter
Central bankers hate Bitcoin because it acts like a shield that effectively defends holders from their insidious inflation scam, which in the US, is certainly not the 1–2% annual rate which the thieves report to their victims directly, but in fact has averaged 7% annually since QE was implemented as a response to the 2008 financial crisis. Real inflation in both 2008 and 2009 was actually close to a whopping 10%! That means dollars lost nearly 20% of their purchasing power in just two years from 2008–9, and they lost 75% in just 8 years, from 2008–2016. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the US dollar has literally lost almost all of its value.
Every dollar in 2017 had 75% less purchasing power than it did in 2008, and this 2008 value was already 96% less than it was before the JP Morgan-backed president Woodrow Wilson pushed successfully for the creation on the Federal Reserve central bank in 1913.
Meanwhile, during the same 8 years in which Quantitative Easing debased dollars by 75%, Bitcoin went from being worth fractions of a penny to nearly $20,000 each.
The steady grind of central bank inflation debasing dollars over the last century went into hyperdrive in 2008 with “Quantitative Easing” which is an intentionally-confusing term that really just means “increasing the money supply at previously unthinkable rates.” Why did they name it something intentionally confusing? Because exponential money-printing is notoriously the last resort of failed economies, with clear examples ofexcessivemoney-printing causinghyper-inflationary economic collapse in modern-day Zimbabwe and Venezuela, as well as ancient Rome.
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
— Henry Ford
A very accurate and telling comparison is if we compare QE to a stock split by a public company. Imagine a company decides to do a 4–1 stock split, creating 4 stocks for every 1 in circulation, except that in this case, the company does not give current shareholders any of the new stock. Instead, they dump all of the newly split stock on the open market. It is very clear what this would do to the value of the stock already held by shareholders. So why do most people not realize that this is precisely what the Fed is doing to dollars?
Continuous positive growth of US equity markets is the false facade of economic health that central bankers use to justify their undeserved authority and hide their steady debasement of value.
Printing money at exponential rates while making it mostly only available for corporate stock buybacks and investment banks to keep doubling down on stocks has served to artificially prop up the equity markets since 2008. Propping up the stock market is critical for central bankers because this maintains the liquidity necessary for their entire scam to continue. They must maintain a strong facade of healthy growth in order to preserve collective faith in the perpetuity of their system. Collective faith in the banking system is necessary to ward off any potential “flight to safety” runs on the equity markets, or runs on the banks themselves, which would implode the entire economy because…
There is nowhere near enough liquidity in the markets for everyone to cash out their stock holdings. Due to the practice of Fractional Reserve Lending, there is nowhere near enough money in the banks for everyone to withdraw their savings.
Bankers typically lend out 9 dollars for every one they actually have. This practice goes by another intentionally confusing monicker, fractional reserve lending. If everyone asked to withdraw their savings, the bank would be forced to “go on holiday” and close up shop, disappearing with everyone’s savings. So central banks will leverage absolutely everything in order to maintain the illusion of continual growth in equity markets, so that people don’t start pulling their funds out of the markets and banks, leading to a complete crash of the entire system. Quiet abuse of public trust is the bedrock of these central banker scams, which is precisely why Bitcoin was created to be trust-less, decentralized and deflationary.
It’s crucial to understand that central bankers hate Bitcoin and Libra for completely opposite reasons.
Central banks are in charge of controlling the money supply for their respective nations, but Libra could be the world’s first transnational central bank. Facebook would be able to create it’s own fictitious currency out of thin air and sell or loan it not only to individuals, but to businesses and governments all around the world, just as central banks do now. This could quickly make central banks irrelevant, just like what email did to letters. No matter what lip service Facebook may offer up in advance, promising to always bow to the authority of national central banks, that’s absolutely not how it would go down, and central bankers know it.
To make the metaphor more accurate, Libra would not just be a much bigger sword, it would be like an assault rifle in a town ruled by swords. Libra would dominate every national central bank, not only because it would be the first transnational central bank, but even more importantly, because it already has far more users than any single nation has citizens –twice as many as China- with the most popular media interface on the planet. If Libra were to become successful, it would also disrupt retail banking around the world and allow Facebook to develop monopoly on personal checking accounts with their proprietary Calibra Wallet, without any of the normal consumer privacy regulations that are imposed on real banks. Anyone remember E-coin from Mr. Robot?
Just like the fictional “E-coin”, Libra is a brazen attempt to takeover, de-regulate and monopolize the largest, most powerful and profitable industry in the world.
Central bankers hate Bitcoin because it effectively protects holders from their robbery, but they are positively up in arms against Libra because it could swiftly take over their robbery business entirely.
Furthermore, if Libra were allowed to succeed, it would not only undermine every national central bank, usurping their power to sway national economies and quietly defraud citizens of their wealth, it would also undermine the power of every sovereign national government.
As crazy as it may sound, with 2 billion+ digital “citizens” in nearly every country in the world, it’s own globally-accepted and easily-transferable fiat currency, a complete monopoly on retail banking with identity verification tied to user accounts + real world facial recognition tracking ability….
Facebook could all too easily become the basis for a global totalitarian government with unelected, unaccountable corporate executives at the helm.
This explains why governments and central bankers have positively gone to war against Libra, but doesn’t detail exactly why they are not actively trying to shut down Bitcoin. So to explain this succinctly, lets think about why the A.I. machine army in “The Terminator” was so difficult to stop.
We are looking here at one of the key features of decentralization. Decentralization is not only the key to ledger immutability, which is what makes Bitcoin trust-less and censorship-resistant. It’s also the key to Bitcoin’s invincibility. A centralized system’s strength is also it’s weakness. Centralized organizations are easy to control, but a single point of control is also a single point of failure. Just like in “The Terminator”, where killing one robot meant nothing because all of the machines were interconnected, if you take out one Bitcoin miner, there are 100,000’s more out there with a complete copy of the program and history of all transactions. To stop Bitcoin, you must physically shut down every single one of the 100,000’s of mining machines now operating anonymously in every corner of the globe. In stark contrast, Facebook is a public company with a centralized hierarchy of control. The executives in charge are known and can be fined or imprisoned. The company’s servers can be easily located and shutdown. So while Libra does pose a much more direct threat to governments and central banks than Bitcoin does, that’s not the only reason why central banks and governments are moving swiftly to shut down Libra but are doing nothing about Bitcoin.
The answer is simple: they are acting to stop Libra because they know they can; they aren’t trying to shutdown Bitcoin because they know they can’t.