To sort out our intransigent economic problems, ordinary people need to understand how things actually work today and how things do not work. The peasants need to challenge the priests, as they did in Luther’s time when the sacred texts were translated into the vernacular, allowing the obfuscation of the priests to be exposed. The Peasants Revolt of 1525 was a direct result, first of Gutenberg’s printing press, and then of Luther’s challenge to a then morally bankrupt Catholic Church.
Macroeconomics sounds big and complicated, and best left to the experts; but that’s not so. Of course there can be lots of complexity around the edges, but the central truths are very simple. Further, like most important ideas, they can be best appreciated through imagery that cuts through the jargon. I will paint, here, a simple picture with words.
So I invite you to consider a causeway that crosses a wide river estuary, above the tidal zone. The causeway itself represents the passage of time. The flow of the river represents ‘the (global) economy’ of goods and services. Pipes (eg concrete tubular sewer pipes) connect the upstream side of the causeway with the downstream side.
Each pipe represents a fixed period of time – eg one month – and only one pipe (representing ‘the present’) is open at any point in time. Thus the river flows through which ever pipe is open. The central macroeconomic concept is that of flow. (The important microeconomic concept is that of price.)
Living by the portals of the open tunnel are identical twins, Mr and Mr Market. The water flowing into the tunnel represents goods and services being sold to Mr Market, the ultimate middleman. This Mr Market buys the goods and services supplied by us at prices informed by the other Mr Market (the auctioneer) who sells goods and services to us on the downstream side of the pipe. As producers we work upstream of the causeway, and as consumers we live downstream.
Messrs Market, who manage the core money supply, pay money to us when we sell our stuff to Mr Market. That money is paid with the full expectation that Mr Market will fully recoup that money on the other side of the tunnel, as we buy the stuff that we made.
This is the central idea of what economists call equilibrium. The goods and services flow through the tunnel, from producer to consumer. Money flows above the causeway in the same direction as the river, and flows through the pipe (from Mr Market to Mr Market) in the opposite direction to the water’s flow.
Microeconomics is about the mix of goods and services produced. The economy grows through a mixture of knowledge accumulation and people (including their governments) choosing to spend a significant portion of their money on investment goods. If Mr Market detects a high demand for goods such as machines and systems and structures, then price signals will be conveyed to producers who will produce more of these things. Thus next month’s upstream output will be bigger, and more water (goods and services) will flow through next month’s pipe.
The important point is that, in this equilibrium construct, all the money flows, just as blood flows. With investment the flow expands over time. The Markets manage this flow; they do not inhibit it.
The common misunderstanding about money is that it is wealth (a stock that, through work, we make), and therefore it should accumulate rather than flow. So the reality in most of human history since money was invented (the period 1950-75 might be historically exceptional, as Thomas Piketty suggested) is that not all the money flowed. Rather dollops of it accumulated, resin-like, on top of the causeway. The holders of this unspent money (spending abstainers) interpret these dollops as their wealth. Rather than flow across the causeway to Mr Market (on the downside of the pipe), they expect this money to flow along the causeway, into the future. Further, through a process akin to magic, they expect these dollops of unspent money to expand over time.
(While there is an individual rationale for ‘precautionary saving’ – otherwise known as private austerity – systemically this is destabilising or unbalancing behaviour. The Quakers of the industrial revolution were not austere hoarders of money – they invested their earnings through spending on plant and machinery.)
Economists know that what financial alchemists call compound interest is an illusion, made credible by an actual process of economic growth. Further, they know also that the non-spending of earnings impairs economic growth; productive investment is stifled when we buy fewer investment goods. And they know that a lack of spending on consumer goods seriously dampens our willingness to buy investment goods.
The good news is that we have banks, which can, with lesser or greater difficulty, offset the dampening effect of the money hoarders; and we have Luca Pacioli’s Venetian double-entry system of bookkeeping. While the commercial banks can usually create extra money to compensate for monetary sclerosis, in doing so they must create an equal measure of anti-money, which you and I generally call debt. The new money is spent (known as deficit spending), thus countering the depressive effect of the dollops of unspent money. On the causeway we are left with equal piles – one amber (say) and the other red (like the Spanish flag). Money and anti-money.
As time passes, these two dollops – money and debt – progress along the causeway. New pipes open, old pipes close. Mr and Mr Market manage the flow of money through the open pipe. If interest rates are positive, then both dollops get bigger, together. If interest rates are negative, then both piles get smaller together. Negative interest rates stabilise the system by reducing hoarded wealth and accumulated debt. Positive interest rates aggravate the imbalance, creating entitlements to the people who disrupted the equilibrium by treating money as wealth rather than flow.
That’s it. Macroeconomics in a nutshell. Debt – anti-money – is a crucial part of the stabilisation process.
Rebalancing of an unbalanced system can take place either through negative interest rates (as noted), or through holders of hoarded money spending some of it (deficit finance on their part), enabling holders of anti‑money to run surpluses and reduce their debts.
The causeway and the river estuary represent the 2000s’ Eurozone economy to a tee. In that decade, the Euro Area was like a compact version of the global economy; like a ‘closed economy’ as economists say. The private sectors of the north accumulated money (imagine amber resin or plaque). The private sectors of Iberia, Ireland, Cyprus and Greece – and all the Eurozone governments – accumulated anti-money (imagine red resin). As the decade unfolded, both piles – amber and red – grew much bigger. Following austerity in the Euro Area, both piles have continued to grow, but the amber pile has grown faster. The Eurozone no longer acts as a closed economy. It (through its private sector) is now a net exporter of finance to the rest of the world (meaning its money exceeds its anti-money). Thus the rest of the world holds more red than amber. (By definition, for the world as a whole, amber and red – stocks of money and anti-money – add to zero.)
Where does New Zealand sit? Per person, New Zealand is one of the highest (probably the highest) holder of private-sector anti-money in the world. Red to the gunnels. But remember that red balances amber. We (like Greece) can only reduce our outstanding stocks of anti-money if the world reduces (by spending) its stocks of unspent money.
Jane Kelsey has written this year about the FIRE Economy (refer The FIRE Economy: New Zealand’s ReckoningScoop 17 July 2015), with particular reference to neoliberal New Zealand Finance, Insurance and Real Estate. The New Zealand economy, through its finance and real estate sectors, helps to stabilise the world economy by taking on some of the debt that is needed to compensate for the accumulating hoards of money elsewhere, especially in Europe. (Asia holds huge hoards, too, but is not expanding its hoards at anything like the rate that Europe is.)
The problem for trouble-shooters is that, for the immediate present the world economy is comparatively stable, and growing at historical rates (three to four percent a year) by virtue of the growth of anti-money. For the longer-term, however, the growing size of the (amber) monetary stockpile (with its compensating debt pile) is an assuredly destabilising factor. The problem is the ‘elephant in the room’ that remains invisible to the wilfully blind and to the colour blind. The elephant is amber, not red. Red is the consequence, not the cause.
The world economy will always have stockpiles of money and anti-money. For the sake of stability, the size of those stockpiles relative to world GDP should be falling not rising. Unfortunately, the privately-held stocks of unspent money are still rising rapidly. Increased private sector financial surpluses (evermore amber) is what is happening, and too many of us choose to interpret them as a ‘good thing’. We also see the high levels of offsetting government sector deficit (red) finance, but do not make the connection. We also sense the rising levels of offsetting private sector deficit finance in New Zealand and many other mainly non-European non-Asian countries. The dots remain unjoined.
The world economy is imperilled by its glut of unspent money, as it has never been since the late 1920s. There are solutions, including green low-growth solutions. But they are largely beyond the adjacent possible. We cannot properly investigate these solutions if we stubbornly refuse to understand the problem.
“We cannot properly investigate these solutions if we stubbornly refuse to understand the problem.” ~ Keith Rankin
With all due respect, your explanation of the problem wasn’t helpful . . .
“If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”
Patrick, what is your explanation?
Yes, Patrick, what is it
Yes, there possibly are some things that a 6-year-old can more easily grasp (and maybe explain) than a 62 year old (which is you and me). The systemic workings of the economy at large are so opaque to most people that possibly only a really good (young?) graphic artist can communicate the underlying simplicity clearly.
Let’s make it really simple by considering the human body as a circulatory system (which of course it is). And use the word ‘health’ instead of ‘wealth’. Thus the health of the human is reflected in the flow of blood through the body. The flow does not have to be fast, but it should be impeded as little as possible.
The alternative view of health is that of saved fat stored in the body. Stored fat represents energy that may be called upon in times of emergency, but people with lots of stored fat tend to have impeded blood circulation. And there may be better ways of dealing with emergencies.
My view is that good circulation represents a much better view of actual human wellbeing than does the amount of stored fat.
Though as an anarchist I am at odds with the Statist tendencies of Social Credit, I believe that Major Douglas’ economic theories are unmatched in their explanatory power in describing how the modern economic system works.
Social creditors describe the financial system operating through accounting cycles, where banks create both credit and debts, the credits flowing through the economy through wages and payments to their suppliers, which are refluxed back through the financial system in the form of debt repayments and the purchase of financial assets. Its actually a rather conventional description which dates back to the debates between the Banking School and the Currency school in the 19th Century.
http://social-credit.blogspot.co.nz/2011/01/quantity-theory-of-money.html
An interesting article, James, but showing that velocity of money is a “myth” doesn’t actually prove that the amount of money flowing through the system has no influence on inflation. It may well be the case that an increase in overheads could also be a factor in price increases but these are real costs which need to be met at some point by the consumer, so offsetting a portion of price with a customer rebate would be counterproductive.
Over the years I also have had a liking for Socred policies, but have long since regarded the so-called A+B theorem as a load of poppycock.
The corporate poster child of hoarding cash is surely Apple. It has now accumulated north of US$200B in cash, which it clearly has no intention of growing the company with or divvying it out to the companies owners (i.e. its shareholders).
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/21/just-how-much-cash-does-apple-have.html
I can’t for the life of me understand why shareholders of this company put up with it, forever forsaking dividends and even rewarding this bizarre behaviour with ever higher stock prices (i.e. buying more non-dividend paying stock). Is this “investment”?
Yes, and that’s one reason why I would never buy an Apple device. (I do have a work-supplied iPad, but would never buy one for myself.)
They and other U.S. corporates are following a deliberate policy of using low tax jurisdictions to starve the United States of tax revenue and capital in order to pressure lawmakers there into introducing reforms which policy makers would otherwise not accede to. In particular they are currently engaged in expediting the TPPA and TTTIP and are angling for a corporate tax holiday after which they will repatriate their earnings at vastly reduced tax rates.
My understanding of the present banking cabal identified by the Swiss Fed Institute of Technology is they protect anti-money and that the increasing privately-held money has been deliberately withheld to produce a shrinking of global economies resulting in increased fruitless effort and growing poverty. A country has a tangible asset, i.e. gold. That country then prints paper based on that asset which it distributes to the people. People have tangible assets. Their knowledge, skill or a product. The peoples trade their tangible assets for paper money, which they then give to someone else in exchange for another tangible asset.
If the country has no tangible asset but it distributes worthless paper to the people and uses the people’s assets to negotiate, trade and build debt that’s not only immoral it’s fraud.
This is a chess game that’s been going on for hundred of years. I think the end play will be checkmate with only King and Rook.
Or perhaps I’m just one of the peasants who doesn’t understand
Para 2: I meant to say “If the government of a country has no tangible…etc”.
To paraphrase a great man, we are witnessing the western monetary system destroy itself.
Ahh…found the quote
“What we are witnessing is the Western world destroy it’s money” – James Turk.
I suppose this comment will be marked “awaiting moderation” as well. But here goes: we all know that economists laid end to end never reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Have a laugh and read “A Machiavellian Fairy Tale : The King’s New Robe”. You can put a name to all the characters.
Keith – the metaphor did not help my understanding unfortunately – which is pretty basic already. So please explain simply. I assume greed is the motive behind the $ hoarders – how do you change that? The few wealthy people I have met, can’t help themselves – they have to continue increasing their wealth well past providing for their needs – it is like an obsession that I can’t get my head around. And this greed is behind the banks that are only too pleased there are hoarders (being hoarders themselves personally). So they have a system where they can create money out of nothing (book entry debt), but don’t create the interest required – which of course eventually creates winners and losers – and of course the hoarders are in like wolves to increase their hoard from the losers = increasing obscene inequality. Oh well, say the banks, lets create some additional money (out of thin air) to help the losers pay back their loans and interest (still not creating enough for the additional interest) ie so economic growth can continue – but the only people who believe in continued economic growth on a finite planet are madmen – and economists. So what is at the end of your causeway?
Lots of good questions! I’ll definitely give a full response to this when I get a mo.
‘Greed’ is a term that means different things to different people. It is two of the seven deadly sins; ‘avarice’ and ‘gluttony’. Gluttony, or conspicuous consumption, is probably not relevant here. Indeed, by not spending their money, people may be averting this particular sin, thinking that their ‘frugality’ (actually miserliness) is virtuous. See this website: 15 Celebs Who Lead Frugal Lives. Avarice on the other hand is an ambiguous term that includes both the “insatiable greed for riches” and the “miserly desire to gain and hoard wealth”. In the distant historical context of the seven sins, avarice was probably understood as miserliness. In a capitalist context it probably also means something like ‘upward social mobility’. Thus the early merchant and industrial capitalists were trying to buy their way into the landed gentry.
For some, their money mountains are a result of miserly greed. For others, the mountains of money are simply a measure of success in doing what they do best; with the market rewarding them through a kind of ‘winner takes all’ formula. However, even for these, the accumulation of money/success tends to be intoxicating, and they find it difficult to let go of the money, either through genuine investment (which is a form of spending) or through philanthropy. Further, even many in this second group of rich tend to resist paying taxes. The mere possession of lots of money can corrupt otherwise good people.
The matter of interest, as in your comment, is something of a red herring. It’s simply a price, normally paid by borrowers to lenders (plus a markup for financial intermediaries such as banks), but which (when negative) can be paid by lenders to borrowers. When unspent money is abundant and bankable borrowers are scarce, then, in a free market, deposit interest rates should be negative.
Money is created ‘out of thin air’. That’s the nature of money; it’s a technology, not a commodity. But it’s created in a context, not out of caprice. Money that’s withdrawn from circulation no longer functions as money. So the financial system – through private or public initiatives, or a mix of both – must create new money to compensate for the money withdrawn from circulation. Note that I said “banks can, with lesser or greater difficulty, offset the dampening effect of the money hoarders”. We see that, when financial crises are imminent, when the accumulated unspent hoards become too great, then banks (often through other financial institutions) must adopt predatory lending practices in order to perform this money-cycling function.
On the question of economic growth, I intimated that there is a green solution. The essential idea is that we do not need to maximise output in normal times, though productivity growth should always be seen as a good thing. The system of income distribution needs to work in a way that allows ordinary people to choose to work less (rather than to earn more) as an option for an improved living standard. The solution here is through the recognition of public equity as the basis for a publicly-sourced income stream that complements private earnings. Once public equity is recognised and supported, economic growth ceases to be the only way to reduce inequality.
My causeway need have no end this millennium, so long as we adopt sustainable income distribution practices. My fear is that, by the year 2100, we will have entered a new dark age, following a rapid Malthusian collapse. My optimism however, is that the people (especially the young people) in places like Greece and Spain and Detroit may be getting to grips with the issues – including the well-heralded internet issues of the ‘free economy’ (as in ‘free services’ rather than ‘free-markets’) – and are creating parallel social technologies that substitute in part for the monetary system we have come to know but not understand.
‘Greed’ is a term that means different things to different people. It is two of the seven deadly sins; ‘avarice’ and ‘gluttony’. Gluttony, or conspicuous consumption, is probably not relevant here. Indeed, by not spending their money, people may be averting this particular sin, thinking that their ‘frugality’ (actually miserliness) is virtuous. See this website: . Avarice on the other hand is an ambiguous term that includes both the “insatiable greed for riches” and the “miserly desire to gain and hoard wealth”. In the distant historical context of the seven sins, avarice was probably understood as miserliness. In a capitalist context it probably also means something like ‘upward social mobility’. Thus the early merchant and industrial capitalists were trying to buy their way into the landed gentry.
For some, their money mountains are a result of miserly greed. For others, the mountains of money are simply a measure of success in doing what they do best; with the market rewarding them through a kind of ‘winner takes all’ formula. However, even for these, the accumulation of money/success tends to be intoxicating, and they find it difficult to let go of the money, either through genuine investment (which is a form of spending) or through philanthropy. Further, even many in this second group of rich tend to resist paying taxes. The mere possession of lots of money can corrupt otherwise good people.
The matter of interest, as in your comment, is something of a red herring. It’s simply a price, normally paid by borrowers to lenders (plus a markup for financial intermediaries such as banks), but which (when negative) can be paid by lenders to borrowers. When unspent money is abundant and bankable borrowers are scarce, then, in a free market, deposit interest rates should be negative.
Money is created ‘out of thin air’. That’s the nature of money; it’s a technology, not a commodity. But it’s created in a context, not out of caprice. Money that’s withdrawn from circulation no longer functions as money. So the financial system – through private or public initiatives, or a mix of both – must create new money to compensate for the money withdrawn from circulation. Note that I said “banks can, with lesser or greater difficulty, offset the dampening effect of the money hoarders”. We see that, when financial crises are imminent, when the accumulated unspent hoards become too great, then banks (often through other financial institutions) must adopt predatory lending practices in order to perform this money-cycling function.
On the question of economic growth, I intimated that there is a green solution. The essential idea is that we do not need to maximise output in normal times, though productivity growth should always be seen as a good thing. The system of income distribution needs to work in a way that allows ordinary people to choose to work less (rather than to earn more) as an option for an improved living standard. The solution here is through the recognition of public equity as the basis for a publicly-sourced income stream that complements private earnings. Once public equity is recognised and supported, economic growth ceases to be the only way to reduce inequality.
My causeway need have no end this millennium, so long as we adopt sustainable income distribution practices. My fear is that, by the year 2100, we will have entered a new dark age, following a rapid Malthusian collapse. My optimism however, is that the people (especially the young people) in places like Greece and Spain and Detroit may be getting to grips with the issues – including the well-heralded internet issues of the ‘free economy’ (as in ‘free services’ rather than ‘free-markets’) – and are creating parallel social technologies that substitute in part for the monetary system we have come to know but not understand.
“but don’t create the interest required”
Banks create a least part of the money needed to pay interest by paying staff salaries, expenses, dividends etc. The money to pay these things is created by the bank and injected into the wider economy, debt free, where it is available to pay bank fees, interest etc.
‘Greed’ is a term that means different things to different people. It is two of the seven deadly sins; ‘avarice’ and ‘gluttony’. Gluttony, or conspicuous consumption, is probably not relevant here. Indeed, by not spending their money, people may be averting this particular sin, thinking that their ‘frugality’ (actually miserliness) is virtuous. See this website: 15 Celebs Who Lead Frugal Lives. Avarice on the other hand is an ambiguous term that includes both the “insatiable greed for riches” and the “miserly desire to gain and hoard wealth”. In the distant historical context of the seven sins, avarice was probably understood as miserliness. In a capitalist context it probably also means something like ‘upward social mobility’. Thus the early merchant and industrial capitalists were trying to buy their way into the landed gentry.
For some, their money mountains are a result of miserly greed. For others, the mountains of money are simply a measure of success in doing what they do best; with the market rewarding them through a kind of ‘winner takes all’ formula. However, even for these, the accumulation of money/success tends to be intoxicating, and they find it difficult to let go of the money, either through genuine investment (which is a form of spending) or through philanthropy. Further, even many in this second group of rich tend to resist paying taxes. The mere possession of lots of money can corrupt otherwise good people.
The matter of interest, as in your comment, is something of a red herring. It’s simply a price, normally paid by borrowers to lenders (plus a markup for financial intermediaries such as banks), but which (when negative) can be paid by lenders to borrowers. When unspent money is abundant and bankable borrowers are scarce, then, in a free market, deposit interest rates should be negative.
Money is created ‘out of thin air’. That’s the nature of money; it’s a technology, not a commodity. But it’s created in a context, not out of caprice. Money that’s withdrawn from circulation no longer functions as money. So the financial system – through private or public initiatives, or a mix of both – must create new money to compensate for the money withdrawn from circulation. Note that I said “banks can, with lesser or greater difficulty, offset the dampening effect of the money hoarders”. We see that, when financial crises are imminent, when the accumulated unspent hoards become too great, then banks (often through other financial institutions) must adopt predatory lending practices in order to perform this money-cycling function.
On the question of economic growth, I intimated that there is a green solution. The essential idea is that we do not need to maximise output in normal times, though productivity growth should always be seen as a good thing. The system of income distribution needs to work in a way that allows ordinary people to choose to work less (rather than to earn more) as an option for an improved living standard. The solution here is through the recognition of public equity as the basis for a publicly-sourced income stream that complements private earnings. Once public equity is recognised and supported, economic growth ceases to be the only way to reduce inequality.
My causeway need have no end this millennium, so long as we adopt sustainable income distribution practices. My fear is that, by the year 2100, we will have entered a new dark age, following a rapid Malthusian collapse. My optimism however, is that the people (especially the young people) in places like Greece and Spain and Detroit may be getting to grips with the issues – including the well-heralded internet issues of the ‘free economy’ (as in ‘free services’ rather than ‘free-markets’) – and are creating parallel social technologies that substitute in part for the monetary system we have come to know but not understand.
‘Greed’ is a term that means different things to different people. It is two of the seven deadly sins; ‘avarice’ and ‘gluttony’. Gluttony, or conspicuous consumption, is probably not relevant here. Indeed, by not spending their money, people may be averting this particular sin, thinking that their ‘frugality’ (actually miserliness) is virtuous. Google this: ’15 Celebs Who Lead Frugal Lives’. Avarice (refer dictionary.com) on the other hand is an ambiguous term that includes both the “insatiable greed for riches” and the “miserly desire to gain and hoard wealth”. In the distant historical context of the seven sins, avarice was probably understood as miserliness. In a capitalist context it probably also means something like ‘upward social mobility’. Thus the early merchant and industrial capitalists were trying to buy their way into the landed gentry.
For some, their money mountains are a result of miserly greed. For others, the mountains of money are simply a measure of success in doing what they do best; with the market rewarding them through a kind of ‘winner takes all’ formula. However, even for these, the accumulation of money/success tends to be intoxicating, and they find it difficult to let go of the money, either through genuine investment (which is a form of spending) or through philanthropy. Further, even many in this second group of rich tend to resist paying taxes. The mere possession of lots of money can corrupt otherwise good people.
The matter of interest, as in your comment, is something of a red herring. It’s simply a price, normally paid by borrowers to lenders (plus a markup for financial intermediaries such as banks), but which (when negative) can be paid by lenders to borrowers. When unspent money is abundant and bankable borrowers are scarce, then, in a free market, deposit interest rates should be negative.
Money is created ‘out of thin air’. That’s the nature of money; it’s a technology, not a commodity. But it’s created in a context, not out of caprice. Money that’s withdrawn from circulation no longer functions as money. So the financial system – through private or public initiatives, or a mix of both – must create new money to compensate for the money withdrawn from circulation. Note that I said “banks can, with lesser or greater difficulty, offset the dampening effect of the money hoarders”. We see that, when financial crises are imminent, when the accumulated unspent hoards become too great, then banks (often through other financial institutions) must adopt predatory lending practices in order to perform this money-cycling function.
On the question of economic growth, I intimated that there is a green solution. The essential idea is that we do not need to maximise output in normal times, though productivity growth should always be seen as a good thing. The system of income distribution needs to work in a way that allows ordinary people to choose to work less (rather than to earn more) as an option for an improved living standard. The solution here is through the recognition of public equity as the basis for a publicly-sourced income stream that complements private earnings. Once public equity is recognised and supported, economic growth ceases to be the only way to reduce inequality.
My causeway need have no end this millennium, so long as we adopt sustainable income distribution practices. My fear is that, by the year 2100, we will have entered a new dark age, following a rapid Malthusian collapse. My optimism however, is that the people (especially the young people) in places like Greece and Spain and Detroit may be getting to grips with the issues – including the well-heralded internet issues of the ‘free economy’ (as in ‘free services’ rather than ‘free-markets’) – and are creating parallel social technologies that substitute in part for the monetary system we have come to know but not understand.
This explanation of marco economics is confusing.I suggest readers go to billyblog by Bill Mitchell, New economic Perspective blog,were you find a logical and historical perspective on economics.
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists ICIJ in their report : Secrecy for Sale – Inside the Global Offshore Money Maize have done an amazing job of tracking down dirty money. Interesting reading and our favourite holiday islands seem to be favoured by the Rothschilds as well, but perhaps not for the reasons we do.
According to Stuff.co.nz, New Zealand’s international reputation has been hurt by shell company activities. It states “the European Union removed New Zealand from a favoured banking list because of money laundering activites of the Russian Mafia using New Zealand shell companies operating in Latvia.
Apparently, according to the same report, there are thousands of shell companies on the NZ Companies registry, and a number of these NZ Shell companies have been exposed as operations for money laundering, terrorist financing and fraud.
I think if the peasants challenged these priests, they’d be burnt at the stake.
I wonder about the territorial integrity of our favourite island getaway if that government should ever try to do a clean up.
Comments are closed.