International man: Recently, Christine Lagarde, the new director of the European Central Bank (ECB), said the most incredible: "We should be happier to have a job than protect our savings … I think it is in this spirit that monetary policy has my predecessors decided and I think they made a very beneficial decision. "
What is your view on this?
Jeff Thomas: Well, I doubt very much if Mrs. Lagarde is included in your comment. She has no intention of losing her own savings, since she is a member of the ruling class. What she is saying is that the banks and the state will absorb their hoi polloi savings and that the hoi polloi should now start accepting the idea.
As for the tone of the comment, it is the old ploy to soften an event that will happen soon, hoping you can make it seem more enjoyable before implementing it.
It is very similar to the old British comedies in which a woman, instead of saying: "My mother comes to live with us," she tells her husband: "Wouldn't it be nice to see my mother more?" the rest of the work accustomed him to the idea that mom's presence would be pleasant, without telling her that mom will arrive soon with her luggage.
Only the bomb that will soon be dropped on Europeans and much of the rest of the world is a little worse than having mom to stay. The plan is to eliminate all the savings of the population, to accustom them to live hand in hand. In short, it is the dream of all governments, but it is often difficult to achieve. Understandably, people tend to rebel against them.
But any government understands that wealth and / or savings represent freedom of choice. The more money you have, the more control you will have over deciding your own future. Therefore, a government that wishes to enslave its people will expect to create an economy in which people have enough to live but cannot save. That keeps them dependent on the government.
International man: What do you think central bankers point out in saying that having a job is more important than saving?
Jeff ThomasWell, if your intention is to rob people of their savings, you could make the coup more enjoyable if you can convince people in advance that the savings are not so terribly important. Change the emphasis to having a job.
It is not to worry. The nanny status will take care of the rest.
The "bomb", of course, is negative interest rates, cash elimination, dramatic inflation and capital controls. Once the population is locked in the banking system as the only means to facilitate the movement of money, it will be locked in the whirlwind that is to come: systematic control and the final impoverishment of the population.
Imagine yourself as a plant. There was a time when their ancestors lived in nature, then later, in cultivated gardens, but in the future, the intention will be that they live as a hydroponically grown specimen, being fed exactly with the water and nutrients that their producers They prescribe to make you are productive … and no more.
That is essentially what governments tend to look for. If we consider that the government is not, by definition, more than a parasite, it is logical that any government wants to minimize its effort and expense, while maximizing what it can extract from its people.
International man: Do you think that a war is currently being waged against savers and retirees? Who is involved and why?
Jeff Thomas: I didn't use the word "war". I consider it more as a program for greater control over worker ants. It is useful to remember that, historically, leaders have always wanted total control over their minions.
All that has changed in the modern era is that technology now allows that to happen to a greater extent than before. In the future, banks and governments will have the technological capacity to monitor every economic transaction they make, until they buy a drink from a vending machine. Once that total monitoring is in place, it is only a matter of time before your government begins to take care of your expenses, allowing or rejecting them.
Of course, it would be understandable for people today to say, "Oh, we will never tolerate that," but not only will he be tolerated, but he will be welcome. The existing powers, through the media, will make people get used to the concept that some expenses are related to terrorism and money laundering, etc., while others are racist, sexist and the result of " hate-thought. " You can buy a drink from a machine, but you may not be able to move to the countryside or go on vacation abroad. Certainly, you could not move abroad … and take your wealth with you.
This is nothing new in concept, only in the method of implementation. It is the old totalitarian ideal.
International man: As governments put their money at full speed and central banks begin to set negative interest rates, has the war already been lost?
Jeff Thomas: That would depend on what war you mean. If you mean the war that is being fought over your control over your bank account, then yes, that is almost over and they have won. If you mean the war for freedom, then no, not necessarily, but the big guns have not yet been taken out in that war.
International man: What do you think are the big guns?
Jeff Thomas: Capital controls and migration controls. Capital controls will consist of restricting your money so that you cannot leave your home jurisdiction, so that you cannot have significant control over what you do with it. And migration controls will consist of a number of reasons why it is not patriotic or even criminal to go beyond the borders of your country of origin. At first, this will mean that you cannot move abroad, but will eventually eliminate most or all trips abroad.
Years ago, I had the task of shearing sheep and discovered that the way to make it easy was to lock up the sheep. Then they give up and accept what you will do to them. Similarly, governments understand that economic shearing is easier if the sheeple is locked.
International man: How do people protect their savings in that environment?
Jeff Thomas: The formulation of that question makes it easy to answer. "In such an environment," your goose is cooked. Once the pen door is closed, that's it. They can dodge to your liking.
So, the obvious answer and, as I see it, the only rational one, is to escape from that environment before it is fully instituted. Expand your wealth, no matter how large or small, to a country where the government is not building sheep pens.
As the leading nations spiral down, there will be an equal and opposite reaction from a large number of other countries: they will capitalize on the decline of the former "Free World" creating opportunities for greater freedom within their own borders. They will see the opportunity for themselves as shelters, and more and more, opportunities will arise. Some will be temporary in nature and, in fact, some will be scams, but there will be others that will offer genuine long-term opportunities.
If I lived in a country at risk, I would liquidate everything and get the income as soon as I could identify a promising target country. Then I would leave my home country and move to where freedom increased, not to decline.
International man: Conceptually, that makes sense, but it's a very daunting task. How does someone who has not traveled well know which countries will be in their favor and which ones to avoid?
Jeff Thomas: Well, start by researching your past history. Do they have a stable government history? To respect the right to privacy and property with minimum regulations? Minimum taxes and monetary controls?
In this category, it is possible that Singapore, the Cayman Islands, Lichtenstein and Uruguay are possible options.
Or do they have a history of governments that make abrupt changes between capitalism and socialism, between freedom and authoritarianism? Do the laws change dramatically depending on who now governs the country? Do you welcome the expatriate and treat him as more or less equal within the law, or is he treated as a stranger who bleeds with his money?
In this category, Uganda, Nicaragua, Greece and Zimbabwe may be places to avoid. The odds are slim that in your life they are places where you can thrive.
Then, turn off the football game and the news. Instead, go to the internet and start researching. When you have discovered a short list, visit your options if you can. Then, choose one where you want to store your wealth and one where you think you would most like to live.
As the current situation develops, you may change your mind and move again, but at least you are more likely to be free to do so. You would not stand in the yard wondering how your wool was stolen.
Editor's note: the economic trajectory is worrisome. Unfortunately, there is little that any individual can do to practically change the course of these moving tendencies.
The best thing you can and should do is stay informed so you can protect yourself in the best possible way and even benefit from the situation.
That is precisely the reason why the successful author Doug Casey and his colleagues just released a new urgent PDF report That explains what might come next and what you can do about it. Click here to download it now.