BAD DAY MATE. AUSTRALIANS LIVE BY THE BIG LIE AS WELL. AUSTRALIANS LACK REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

If you have read my recent works, you know about the Big Lie. If not, take a look at these:

• THE BIGGEST LIE ALMOST ALL AMERICANS BELIEVE: AMERICANS HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. BERNIE, HILLARY AND ALL OF THE CANDIDATES LOVE THE BIGGEST LIE
• CANADIANS VOTE FOR PRETTY-BOY JUSTIN TO DICTATE TO THEM FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. CANADIANS ALSO LIVE BY THE BIG LIE

If you are a freedom-lover like I am, you will spread the message of these works to everyone whom you know. If you are in politics and part of the establishment, you better become fearful rather quickly. Your scam will be coming to an end faster than you ever could have believed.

Likely, Australians like their Canadian and American counterparts believe they live under a fair governance of representative democracy. Likely as well, Australians have been indoctrinated to believe so the same as Canadians and Americans.

Reality is far different from what Australians believe about their country. Unlike Canadians and us Americans who have the right to vote, you Australians have the duty to vote. Your lawgivers have granted themselves the right to force you to vote or face consequences of their designs. 

Your AEC will bully you for a $20 fine and up to a $170 fine if you end up in court. Of course, you will be forced to pay for all of the freeloaders working for your courts as well.

The Parliament of Australia is much alike to the Canadian parliament as it consists of a Governor-General representing the Queen of England, a Senate and a House of Representatives. Unlike the Canadians, but like the Americans the Australians elect their senators. And like the Americans, an equal number of Senators from each state, regardless of population, comprise the Australian Senate.

The Australian House of Representatives is much like the American House of Representatives and the House of Commons of the Canadians. It is with their House of Representatives that Australians believe they have popular representation the same as Americans and Canadians believe.

And like Americans and Canadians, Australians do not have popular representation at all. All Australians have is a vote and not even a voluntary one.

I will state it again for the benefit of my Australian friends. Voting is mere illusion. Voting does not equal representation.

Australians have suffered right from their beginning with a lack of popular representation unlike Americans who had popular representation until at least 1860.

Right now, here is how your MPs breakout by state or territory.

And here is the picture of how many voters each MP has by province. Likely, you will notice the data deals with Australians 20 and over even though the voting age in Australia is 18. Well, you can thank the Australian Bureau of Statistics for making it quite hard to get hold of the data needed to produce these charts.



When you discover that on a full-time, 40-hour work week with no time in Canberra, a MP could give a scant 59 seconds on average to each of his adult constituents, you will see the big lie about representative democracy for what it is.

Now, if Australians were to have a truly representative democracy, one where each Australian could at least sit with his or her representative for 15 minutes, once a year and still have their representatives go to Canberra for three months to hash out the only most important matters of Australians, here are the number of representatives Australians need by each states.

Australians in New South Wales need almost four times as many MPs as there is for the whole country right now! Keep in mind, these numbers would be worse if the Australian Bureau of Statistics had the census data for 18 and 19 year olds.

And here is what it would look like if MP only gave 10 minutes to each Australian, 20 and older while still hanging out in Canberra for three months. 

My Australian friends. You have one problem. It is the same problem my Canadian friends have and my fellow Americans have. You don't have a representative democracy. You live under a dictatorship of a well-organized minority.

If you care about reality, self-determination and freedom, you will make representative democracy through authentic popular representation your only election issue. 

Read more ...

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIST STEVE KEEN CONFUSES CASH WITH MONEY. NO ONE SHOULD LISTEN TO ACADEMICIAN ECONOMISTS AND THEIR FALSE DOCTRINES.

Today, I read this silly work published by Forbes and written by Ph.D. economist from Australia, Steve Keen, who seems to have become a darling among anti-banking conspiracy theorists in the blogosphere. Keen claims that a recent-dead Italian economist Augusto Graziani is the only guy ever who figured out what money is.

Graziani’s own words reveals he had no idea what money is. Graziani revealed himself to be wrong on the subject of money, thoroughly.

Graziani mixed up bank credit with money and in so doing, confused himself, embarrassingly so. Stupidly, Graziani said, “So money is fundamentally the promise of a bank to its customer, and a monetary payment is the transfer of that promise from one customer to another.”

For the entire history of commercial banking, every banker worth his salt would call that credit. Never in the history of commercial banking by anyone who engages in banking and commerce would anyone confuse credit with money as Graziani has.

Money is coined metal by weight and fineness. There is no other definition of money. The Romans said so. It's their word.

It's easy to know what could be money and what isn't money. Money can exist without banking and without legislators.

Cash, which is evidence of deposits circulating in perpetuity, requires banking. Without banking there can be no cash. 

Legal tender is anything legislators deem legal to settle taxation and debt to legislators. Without legislators and their agencies of enforcement, there can be no legal tender.

It should be clear that legal tender cash, which is all that anyone has these days, couldn't be money because it requires both banking and government and it fails to settle debt. Cash is liability of bankers, the same as deposits.

Money, if it were to exist, could discharge debt in payment fully. Contemporary cash cannot do this precisely because it is irredeemable. That means, you cannot demand money (coined metal by weight and fineness) from a banker. There is reason why the technical phrase, demand deposit, exists in commercial banking.

Graziani and Keen get wrong the concept of currency as well. Currency means that which has bearer negotiability. It has never meant anything else. So if a thief buys milk from a grocer using stolen cash, the grocer gets to keep the cash by currency.

Academicians like Steve Keen and Antonio Graziani live in a fantasy land of false definition and fanciful bogus theory that fails to comport with reality. They preach a false doctrine, economics, which is quite pseudo-science.

If academicians like Keen only knew about trade, commercial banking and the jurisprudence with respect to trade, they wouldn't accept false theory such as the one perpetrated by a rather clueless Graziani.

Keen errs in the worst way that anyone could when he foolishly claims, "Banks create money by issuing a loan to a borrower; they record the loan as an asset, and the money they deposit in the borrower’s account as a liability." Heed my words: Bankers never, ever create money nor do bankers lend money.

First, no one has money. All anyone has is either cash or deposits, which can be traded through negotiable instruments like personal checks and ATM cards. Even if there were money, through the entire history of commercial banking, no banker ever lent money.

In the days of money, a banker was a merchant who bought money and debt and sold bank credits. Today, a banker is a merchant who buys cash and debt and sells bank credit. All loans are merely advances of bank credits.

About the only bit Keen gets right is his claim that “banks must be part of your economic analysis.” Of course, all regular readers of Bizarro Theater who have read The Theory of Trading Property for Profit know this.

It turns out that Keen once bet Rory Robertson, who worked as banker for Macquarie Bank. Keen bet Robertson that Australian house prices would collapse. Unsurprisingly, Keen lost.

The terms of the bet had Keen walk from Canberra to Mt. Kosciuszko — 224 kilometres — wearing a T-shirt that read: “I was hopelessly wrong on house prices”.

Long ago, beginning in the mid-1850s, the brilliant banking lawyer Henry Dunning MacLeod worked out the principles of money, credit, currency and the like. MacLeod could do so because as a lawyer and not a university theoretician, he understood property (the right of ownership) and the effects upon property through trade. MacLeod wrote excellent works debunking academician economists with their silly false theories like JS Mill and even Adam Smith.

Here is a later edition of MacLeod's Theory of Credit (1893), which many in America can read free.

Read more ...

DURING PRICEY PARTY THROWN FOR THEMSELVES, G-20 POLITICIANS ANNOUNCE THEY WILL CREATE ANOTHER AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND IN ONLY THREE YEARS!

So, today in The UK Telegraph has published a story by Graham Ruddick who says British Prime Minister, David Cameron has hailed an agreement by politicians of G20 countries, in which politicians somehow will increase the sum of GDP of the respective G-20 countries by US$2,000 billion in a scant three years.




If politicians can magically raise GDP by US$2 trillion in total through December 31, 2017, beginning January 1, 2015, which comes to US$666.66 billion a year, then why haven't they done so already?

Why have they waited for seven years, since the collapse of peak GDP at the end of Q4 2007?

What has held back all of these G-20 politicians from expressing their genius for masterfully steering economies for the last seven years?

Outside of overtaxing everyone productive to fund execessive borrowing, which politicians freely spend on welfare to keep power and on subsidy to pay off financiers, politicians don't know how to do anything else, except lie.

Adding US$2 trillion in three years to G-20 GDP would be the same as creating from scratch and bring up to the 21st century two new countries equal to Australia and New Zealand today. Never mind that it has taken effort over 226 years to get Australia where it is today and at least 199 years of effort to get New Zealand where it is today.

The alcohol must have poured like a spring-melt river at the recent all-out party for G-20 do nothings held in Brisbane, Australia.

Read more ...