http://www.greatdreams.com/political/1930-bankruptcy.htm

BANKRUPTCYS OF MAJOR COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD

UNITED STATES, BRITAIN, FRANCE, GERMANY, ITALY, SPAIN, PORTUGAL

TAXPAYERS STILL PAYING FOR USA’S ‘BANKRUPTCY’ IN 1930

What you are about to read is America’s best-kept secret.

From 1928 to 1932, there were five years of “Geneva Conventions.” The free nations of the world met in Geneva, Switzerland for five continuous years to set up what would be the “bankrupt policy” of all the participating nations.

In 1930, the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal and other countries all declared bankruptcy.

It was the result of the stock market crash of 1929. The Great Depression triggered the bankruptcies.

However, if you try to look up the 1930 volume containing the minutes of what happened, you probably will not find it. This volume has been pulled out of circulation, or is hidden in the library and is difficult to locate.

This volume contains the evidence of the bankruptcy.

Going into 1932, the bankrupt nations stopped meeting in Geneva.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt came into power as President of the United States.

Roosevelt’s job was to put into place and administer the bankruptcy that had been declared two years earlier.

America’s “Corporate Government” needed a key Supreme Court decision to implement the bankruptcy plan.

The “corporate” United States government had to have a legal case on the books to set the stage for recognizing, implementing and supporting the bankruptcy.

The bankruptcy started in 1930-31.

The bankruptcy became “official” when Roosevelt came into office, although the public was not aware of the “declaration of bankruptcy” in Geneva by the United States.

Roosevelt was sworn in as President in January 1933. He started right away on the bankruptcy plan with what is historically known as “The Banking Holiday” – when the banks closed for a few “holidays” as millions of customers were pulling their money out of the banks.

Roosevelt proceeded in pulling in gold coin to get the gold out of circulation.

Roosevelt then began to “stack” the Supreme Court with close associates who would vote on one Supreme Court case to support the bankruptcy plan.

There was bitter resistance to Roosevelt’s “stacking the court” with his most trusted legal advisers.

Some of the Justices on the Supreme Court tried to warn the nation that Roosevelt was tampering with the law and with the courts.

Roosevelt was trying to see to it that prior decisions of the court were overturned.

Roosevelt was trying to bring in a new order, a new procedure for the law of the land.

A bankruptcy case was needed on the books to legitimize the fact that the “Corporate U.S.” had already declared bankruptcy.

The “Corporate U.S.” had to be created to replace the Constitutionally created United States of America by our founding fathers and the original 13 colonies after the American Revolution in 1776.

The massive restructuting of American government was in response to a world-wide economic depression.

The bankers who held the debt for the United States and other countries told these nations’ leaders:

“You can do it either of two ways. The easy way or the hard way. You just accept the bankruptcy and we’ll let you out of the depression. If you don’t, you’re on your own.”

The bankers, led by the Rothschilds in Europe and the Rockefellers in America, by way of the U.S. Federal Reserve bankers literally had the bankrupt nations by the throat.

These bankrupt nations agreed that over a period of several years they would pass the necessary laws for the implementation of the bankruptcy in favor of the international bankers.

America: A Nation of Debtors and Creditors

The plan developed by President Roosevelt in the 1930s became America’s “corporate public policy.”

It is known as the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

Each State in the U.S. unwittingly adopted the Code, not knowing that it compelled every taxpayer to pay off the nation’s bankruptcy debt declared in 1930 and implemented by President Roosevelt.

The Uniform Commercial Code became the law of the land.
The Code involves debtors and creditors.

Give it two minutes, just two, to see if anything interesting is being said. You don't have to convert for the knowledge to be useful.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 8:51pm:


corporatism is not capitalism, and yet you blame capitalism and not corporatism


Quote:


Once again the US nor any western state has capitalism its been replace by corporatism,

Corporatism was the system originated almost a century ago by the American “Progressives,” and later by Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, and Roosevelt in the U.S. (see his 1933 National Recovery Act, struck down by the Supreme Court in 1935 as unconstitutional because it was so corporatist). Corporatism goes hand-in-hand with statism, with abandonment of the fully free economy and adoption of the welfare-warfare state. Yet while many oppose cronyism, corporate welfare, and bailouts, they also endorse handouts to almost everyone else, including to the politically-valuable cronies so easily found among today’s labor union leaders, “green” companies, under-water homeowners, over-indebted college students, and war-happy munitions makers.

Vuk11 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 10:59am:


Caplan can have all his "simple thought experiments" but the fact is that sixty years later the teenagers of Anarchist Spain still carried the flame, even after the oppression of franco who suppressed even their language. Ordinary people, not fanatics, but they still remember Anarchist Spain as the best of times.

Fact is that earlier editions of Brittanica (say around 1974) carried reports from American Capitalist minded journalists who openly admitted having gone to Spain to scoff. But they discovered to their amazement that productivity in the moneyless society had actually increased. While latter editions after the American take over said only that such reports had been greatly exaggerated.

Fact that even an upper middleclass Englishmen like Eric Blair, (George Orwell)  wrote - "There was much in this that I did not understand, in some
ways I did not not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of
affairs worth fighting for....  Together with all this there was something of the evil atmosphere of war.  The
town had a gaunt untidy look,  roads and buildings were in poor repair, the
streets at night were dimly lit for fear of air-raids, the shops were mostly
shabby and half-empty.  Meat was scarce and milk practically unobtainable,
there was a shortage of coal, sugar and petrol, and a really serious shortage
of bread.  Even at this period the bread-queues were often hundreds of yards
long.  Yet so far as one could judge the people were contented and hopeful.
There was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low.
Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the
capitalist machine.  In the barbers' shops were Anarchist notices  solemnly explaining that barbers were no longer slaves.
In the streets were coloured posters appealing to prostitutes to stop being prostitutes."

Vuk11 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:


Both. The agenda driven dreamings of Caplan and cherry picking incidents do not undermine the actual success of Anarchism, even in Spain where the interference of Stalin and the Franco/fascist Putsch quickly led to a state of absolute confusion.

Read what the quoted Daniel Guerin says of the Machnovitchna.


http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/daniel-guerin-anarchism-from-theory-to-pr...

But the past is of no consequence to the future other than as reference to be learned from. Now that Capitalism has reached its absurd apogee we should use the little time left to build more solid foundations for the flow of power to be reversed.

Quote:


one: If employers aren't always fair and honest in their dealings with workers than the workers should walk out, one again no one is holding a gun to their heads,

Two: plus nothing is wrong with Unions,

three: Government regulation adversely affects small business. While the finding may be intuitively obvious (to those not in government), World Bank economists recently showed that entrepreneurs create fewer new businesses in countries with regulations that make starting companies more difficult. Reducing regulation also enhances the performance of small companies. For instance, researchers found that efforts to simplify the new business formation process in Mexico boosted small business employment by nearly 3 percent.

http://smallbiztrends.com/2011/01/small-business%E2%80%99s-problem-with-government-regulation.html

Quote:


Sounds like Unions (How were the unions able to win these strikes, even though unions have been declining in numbers and popularity since the end of World War II? The answer is simple: in both cases, management hired replacement workers and tried to keep producing. In both cases, systematic violence was employed against the product and against the replacement workers.)

anyway employers have the same right as employees, If one feels unfairly treated one should be able to bring it to court. We live in a democracy.

Quote:


I disagree, while the can demand extra (unpaid labour) so can the emplyee (pay rise).  And both partys can refuse each other demind.

If the emplyee works out or gets the boot, both partys lose, while the emplyee loses a job the emplyer lose a hard working emplyee resulting in less productivity/production .

Seems equal to me.
 
Quote:


we both agree its not, however why is it fair to force a business to do something it might not even be afforded?

Quote:


you seem to of mistaken capitalism with Corporatism.

I can't help but wonder how you've managed to exist Grey for as long as you have. You don't appear to agree with the concept of a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, so one has to assume that you consider working for payment /wages is beneath you, therefore how on earth have you managed to feed your family and put a roof over their heads?

You seem to consider that all employers are extortionists who drain their poor employees for little or no reward, their workers having no choice in the matter at all.

Somehow it doesn't seem logical.

People work because they have to, they get paid for their work, so where is the exploitation?