' Ace Finance & Markets News '

Monday, 7 October 2013

EUropean Economic Community – Prelude To The EU

Peace, When It Loses The War.' and details of the massive amounts of cash moved out of Germany during the war to safeguard the future of German domination against the economic collapse of losing the Second World War against EUropean Union. AND connections with organisations like The Bilderberger's, Council for Foreign relations, Tri Lateral Commission and other arms of the New World Order.

New post on Ace Finance News

acefinance:

Peace, When It Loses The War.' and details of the massive amounts of cash moved out of Germany during the war to safeguard the future of German domination against the economic collapse of losing the Second World War against EUropean Union. AND connections with organisations like The Bilderberger's, Council for Foreign relations, Tri Lateral Commission and other arms of the New World Order.

Around the end of 1939, most of Europe was either consciously or unconsciously under the influence of the economic concept of England. Over recent years, however, it has been swept out of European countries, politically, militarily and economically. Politically the three-power pact has given honour once again to the ancient figures of life, people and room. It has also established a natural order and a neighbourly way of co-existing as the ideal of the new order. The foundation of English economics, which is the basis of the balance of powers, has been militarily destroyed. And economically, a change has come about after the political and military development, the shape of which is easy to describe, but whose final significance is very difficult to evaluate. I can only repeat, that the changing order that is happening now has to be ranked as one of the greatest economic revolutions in history. It signifies a reversion of the economy of Europe to a time before the English concept of building an overseas Europe, i.e. an awareness of one's own country.

The Discussion so far and its Results

Discussions about questions relating to Europe started as the power of the NSADP grew. At the Congress of Europe in Rome from 14^th to 20^th November 1932, Alfred Rosenberg developed, for the first time in front of an international forum, thoughts and ideas that have moved us since. No one, who fights for a new economic order in Europe, can ignore these perceptions and conclusions. The economic and political wheel was set in motion, when the NSDAP declared the militarization of the German economy. It is to the credit of the journal 'Germany's Economy' that it first seized these questions in 1932, kept on bringing them up and stuck doggedly to those original perceptions. The idea of German economic self- sufficiency in the new political sense and the German economic militarization are synonymous with this journal. Besides this, Daitz, the ambassador, has earned the special credit of being the first to have related German economic history to the present time. Part II of his selected speeches and essays, which appeared in 1938 under the title 'Germany and the European Economy', summarizes his concepts formed between 1932 and 1938. The Italian, Carlo Scarfoglio, delivered with his book 'England and the Continental Mainland', a decisive historical contribution to the consciousness of the European continent. Meanwhile German and Italian economic policy drew the political consequences from the historical lessons that were learnt during the blockade and learnt again during the sanctions. The speech made in Munich in 1939 by the leader of the Reich's farmers, R. Walther Darre, at the 6^th Great Lecture at the Commission of Economic Policy of the NSDAP, takes a special place in the discussion at that time. Its theme was "The market order of the National-Socialist agricultural policy - setting the pace for a new foreign trade order."

While our leader maintained the hope of reaching a peaceful agreement with England, the route for European economic unity remained problematic. The end of 1939 was a decisive point and it was natural that the years 1940-1941 heralded the new economic and political order. The writer, in particular, developed and extended in speech and writing the intellectual fund of the new economic policy, which has been translated into most languages, so that today everywhere the great constructive texts are known. These contexts revolve around the following issues:

Theory about the Reich and the European economy.

The historic, cultural, and economic significance of the German economic order.

The foundations of the future economic relationships between the states.

The nature of the European economic community.

On 25^th June 1940 the Reich's Economic Minister, Funk, publicised in his official capacity his thoughts, which underlined the development so far and thus gave them state sanction. In October, the journal 'German Economy' summarised for the first time the principles of European co-operation, the fundamental principles of German foreign trade, Germany's export economy and ways and means of promoting export. It did so in a popular review "About A New Europe", providing an overview of the important problem of European economic fusion. Around the end of 1940 the Berlin historian Fritz Rorig finally outlined in his book "Hanseatic Essence" the historical foundations of the greatest economic and political achievement by the Germans.

I am clear in my mind that total clarity is to be found in the principle questions: The necessity is recognised for a political order for the economic co-operation of the people. The nature of the new order : awareness of tradition, using up one's own economic resources, long-term economic agreements and fair relations, is affirmed. The economic inter-dependence is underlined by fate. The economic unity of Europe is thus clear.

Economic Practice:

Even practical economic life has increasingly allowed entry to new thoughts. I am able to see the decisive steps in the start and realisation of the following points:

In the increasing payment traffic through Berlin.

In the exchange of experiences in various areas of economic life. Thereto belong also the statements of ministers and business people, the calls made by special advisers and the collective tackling of important tasks relating to the economy. Even the specialist is surprised, once he has taken the trouble to put together all the connections. Today they are already legion.

In the signing of long-term economic agreements between the Reich and the other European states, which the public is aware of, there can be no doubt that such agreements are those of the future.

Of course, that cannot prevent unclear points and new problems from arising, which become clear at the time when the situation is reviewed.

Problems Related to the Economic Community of Continental Europe

These unclear points primarily relate to the concept of economic direction, the extent of solidarity and neighbourly attitude, the development of one's own powers, the care to maintain the standard of living and the question of raw material purchase from foreign countries. It is natural that one or another issue will take priority of interest, depending on the set of conditions that prevail. It should be attempted at this point to give a reply, albeit a summary one.

There can be no doubt that the concept of direction of the economy, or rather its leadership, is as novel as it is revolutionary. Its classification is all the more important, as the fate and consequence of European co-operation depend principally on a new consistent form of economic understanding. The Anglo-Saxon view of economics is dead: consequently, even the so-called 'classical' national economy is no longer classical, but it has survived. So what it comes down to is that a new understanding arises to do with ideology and terminology, which represents a sound basis for agreement and co-operation. Relating to this, one must point out the following in detail:

Economic direction is not a momentary emergency solution, instead it forms the core of new theory and practice. First of all, it takes the place of individual egotism and the automatic autonomy of the Anglo-Saxon precept.

Economic direction is not identical to the tendencies of a centrally planned economy. It does not seek to cancel the individual or to administer through the state operators.

Economic direction really means the following: the new instruction of the creative and constructive power of the individual in relation to the whole system; the creation of a consistent economic view and an attitude towards the economy; the selection of important tasks through political leadership and the state's final decision on all questions about economic power. Beyond this, the economy is free and responsible to itself.

The degree of solidarity of the individual economies and their neighbourly attitude is characterised by three guidelines:

Firstly, it is limited in regard to its own economic development by the recognition that the utilisation of individual resources represents not only a requirement of the new economic precept, but is the very foundation for economic activity. The European economic community has no interest in leaving any abilities or possibilities unutilised.

Secondly, it contains the obligation that, because of Europe's freedom, consideration is given firstly to continental Europe regarding any matter related to economic activity. Not only should the shared fate of the European people be emphasized, but the fact should also be stressed that the supplementation of the European economies beyond their borders is possible and sought after.

Thirdly, it must be maintained that, above all else, the spirit of the individual economies may not be allowed to go against the spirit of neighbourly co-operation.

The question of developing one's own powers refers to the problem of mono-cultures, of industrialisation of the agrarian south-east and the awakening of new needs.

An answer can easily be given to the first question. Mono-cultures are the result of the same economic precept that made the world market price the determining factor in the economy. According to that precept, people and land are the vestiges of some by-gone age. Europe is well on the way to destroying these mono-cultures with initiatives ranging from land improvements and growing new crops to discovering new local resources. All these have the same aim, which is to develop the economy and broaden its basis. Germany and the whole of Europe can only greet these efforts with gratitude.

The industrialisation of the south-east poses a particular problem regarding these questions. As I am unable to handle this problem - like all other problems - here in a comprehensive and exhaustive manner, because the industrialisation of economies is theoretically a difficult problem, I can only say as follows:

Just as it is in the nature of things that each country will strive to utilise its available resources for its own production, so will there will be a knock-on effect for other economic partners.

If, as is the case in the South-east European countries, there is heavy over-population in the countryside, then there are only three possibilities to solve it: itinerant workers, a permanent emigration and an 'intensivisation' of the local economy, a term correctly created by Dr. Ilgner for the problem of industrialisation. Itinerant workers can only form a part solution. Besides, it only applies to agricultural and construction workers and gone on for ages. Permanent emigration from Europe is just as false as impossible. There just remains the intensivisation of the economies of south-east Europe as the way to self-help.

3. The economies should make it possible for an independent life according to the modern economic view. The intensivisation of their economies therefore is right for the time.

4. The old features of industrialisation, which evolved from the price collapses in countries with agriculture and raw materials, have to now belong to the past. Europe is a communal living area. Only through a joint development of economies - and not through independence from one another - can protection against crises be achieved.

5. The tasks that have to be solved in Europe are so big that the powers needed to do so have to be released by an intensivisation of the each economy. This can be easily done by employing the workers that have been liberated in new branches of the economy.

Without affecting the difficult questions of purchasing power, it can be regarded as proven that the joint work to build up Germany's and the south-eastern states' in the area of industrialisation lies in the direction of the intensivation of interest of the whole continent.

One important and until now completely overlooked task in this regard exists and that is the awakening of new needs in the south-eastern countries. It is because, in those countries, wealth has grown and will gradually continue to grow, as a result of the reliable purchase of agricultural products and available raw materials at adequate price levels. According to the principle in economics that giving equals taking, peoples' living habits there will have to change, otherwise one day the process will come to a halt. Germany's ability to absorb the products from the south-east is practically infinite, whereas creating a demand for German goods there is not only a matter for economic intensivation but also one of modifying the people so they consume more. This task is of such importance that it has to be considered from the very outset, so that the south-eastern European economies are elevated after the war.

Equally important as the industrialisation of south-east Europe is the question of the standard of living in the north. Their economic development and high standard of living, which underpin their lives though all economic conditions, should not be mistaken. This standard of living has grown considerably during the 19^th century and around the time of the world war due to free trade, so that various circles view world economic events with particular concern. From a German viewpoint, only the following points can be made:

Firstly, a higher standard of living is also the aim of the German government. The German people not only understand this well, but also through its fight wants to ensure European civilisation and culture. This fight will benefit the whole of Europe, and with it the north.

Secondly, despite being connected successfully to England and its economic system (one should not ignore the countless economic troughs that feature there), the economies of the north whose fate and greatness are very closely linked to Germany.

Thirdly, the northern states' difficulties are going through a temporary phase of adjustment. In the long-term, this will bring about a lasting advancement, rather than destruction, for their economies' foundations.

Maintaining a high standard of living is not an insoluble problem. To finish, I now come to the problem of purchasing raw materials from overseas markets. A leading south-east European economist once wrote about this principal question: "Unlike the war, we were in the following situation: in order to import raw materials from overseas countries, we bought goods from west European countries with foreign exchange. In the area of continental Europe there is no gold. Everything had to pass through the system of clearing - goods sold against goods. We have no product that can be sold to North or South America. That means that the leading nations are obliged to acquire and distribute to us the raw materials that we need. The leading nations of Europe can supply, with its capacity, enough products to overseas countries with which to acquire raw materials. The one question is whether exchange will ever happen… Even before the new order is introduced, and without even joining in with the Axis powers, we stand in solidarity outside Europe with its traffic of goods…"

Related articles

Europe's Soft Bigotry of Low Economic Expectations (sago.com)

Germany - the EU's 'exceptional nation' - sees no need for change (newstatesman.com)

Europe's False Recovery (business.time.com)

What if Germany's Social Democrats win this election? | Andrea Nahles (theguardian.com)

acefinance | August 19, 2013 at 8:00 pm | Tags: #AceNewsServices, Angela Merkel, Economic, Economy of Europe, England, European Union, German, Germany, New World Order | Categories: Ace Banking News, Ace Business News, Ace Debt News, Ace Finance News, Ace News Desk, Ace Social News, Ace Welfare News, Euro Zone News, Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pzTwj-1dN

Comment See all comments Like

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://acefinance.me/2013/08/19/european-economic-community-prelude-to-the-eu/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

Charity Bank formally sheds charitable status - Civil Society - Share


Thought this was interesting! please share or tweet adding #AceFinanceNews
	Charity Bank formally sheds charitable status Charity Bank ceased to be a charity at close of business recently following changes in European banking regulations that make it impossible for the body to continue as both a charity and a bank.

If you fail to carry-out your duties with one contract the UK government will give you another one!

This is the case of failed Olympic Contractor G4s who never got off the ground with their security issues, during the Olympics!

New comment on Ace Finance News

Lamonica Ayuso commented on If you fail to carry-out your duties with one contract the UK government will give you another one! .

in response to acefinance:

This is the case of failed Olympic Contractor G4s who never got off the ground with their security issues, during the Olympics! So what better way to reward them, than to grant a £150 million gas contract through none other than their favoured company "British Gas" l was also told by my contact that in […]

I simply want to mention I'm all new to weblog and truly loved you're blog. More than likely I'm likely to bookmark your blog post . You amazingly come with beneficial articles and reviews. Cheers for sharing your blog.

Reply Comments

Want less email? Modify your Subscription Options.

Thanks for flying with

WordPress.com

Does The Taxpayer Really Know Who Owns Their Services!

Logo of Atos Origin used prior to July 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Take a real good look at all contracts awarded by this Government, or read some of my articles high-lighting who is getting the lion's share!

New comment on Ace Finance News

Luis Vines commented on Does The Taxpayer Really Know Who Owns Their Services! .

in response to acefinance:

Take a real good look at all contracts awarded by this Government, or read some of my articles high-lighting who is getting the lion's share! Also check out companies like G4′s, Atos, Capita and even Ipsos and see who is making the profits! Even look at the bigger picture and the likes of British Gas […]

I simply want to mention I am very new to blogs and definitely savoured you're web site. More than likely I'm going to bookmark your blog post . You absolutely have incredible articles and reviews. Cheers for sharing with us your blog.

Reply Comments

Want less email? Modify your Subscription Options.

Thanks for flying with

WordPress.com

Economists anticipate USD to fall in Iraq; Hope for $3.30 exchange as it was, although difficult to achieve

It is said that the stability of exchange rates one of the most important means of achieving economic stability, the central bank and banks the responsibility for achieving the goal of price stability and the return of the real value of the Iraqi dinar to the dollar collapses fact in front of our national currency.

New post on Ace Finance News

acefinance:

Reblogged from The Currency Newshound:

| on 07/23/2013

Expected number of experts, finance and economy collapse of the dollar is not at the global level because he is still master of the currencies in most countries of the world but at the level of the exchange rate in Iraqi dinars, we hope for the return of Iraqi dinar exchange rate against 3.3 dollars as it was, but this dream difficult to achieve and fetched it is can be achieved in the light of the global variables but can be achieved to get equal to the price of any one dollar against the dinar .

Gold Standard Changes Since Cross Of Gold Speech

New post on Ace Finance News

acefinance:

English: First Bank of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Update to Cross of Gold Speech

The 1830`s were a tumultuous decade for America. The attempt by the Second Bank of the United States for an early re-charter was passed by Congress in July 1832, but the bill was vetoed shortly thereafter by President Andrew Jackson. The hopes of the bank's supporters to turn the veto in a winning campaign issue in that fall's presidential campaign failed dismally. In 1833, Jackson retaliated against the bank by removing federal government deposits and placing them in "pet" state banks. As federal revenue from land sales soared, Jackson saw the opportunity to fulfil his dream of paying off the national debt - which he did in early 1835. But as the economy overheated and so did state dreams of infrastructure projects. Congress passed a law in 1836 that required the federal surplus to be distributed to the states in four payments. Shortly afterwards, the Jackson Administration declared in its "Specie Circular" that payments for federal land purchases be made in specie. When combined with loose state banking practices and a credit contraction, a major economic crisis was brewing when Martin Van Buren took office as president in March 1837. Two months later, New York City banks suspended specie payments. A major economic recession was soon under-way. Van Buren - under pressure from his mentor Jackson - decided not to suspend the Specie Circular. Instead, he proposed a set of economic proposals that September - the most of important of which - an independent Sub-Treasury - Congress refused to pass. As a result, the recession double dipped in 1839 and the national economy did not recover until 1843.

The Second Bank of the United States

English: Second Bank of the United States, Philadelphia, built 1819-24, William Strickland, architect. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The first Bank of the United States died when its twenty-year charter expired in 1811. Re-charter of BUS was strongly backed by Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin, weakly backed by President James Madison, opposed by Vice President George Clinton, opposed by the House of Representatives, and strongly opposed by former President Thomas Jefferson. House Speaker Henry Clay's later support of a national bank in the 1820s and 1830s linked him to the American originator of the bank idea, Alexander Hamilton, but Clay had begun his political life as an opponent of the national bank. Only later, Clay and other Jeffersonians came to recognize the important functions played by the BUS. Historian Sean Wilentz wrote: "Republican reconciliation with Hamilton's bank idea had taken place by fits and starts, and was never monolithic. In 1811,...the Madison administration, goaded by Secretary of the Treasury Gallatin, supported it....In Congress, a coalition of Republican southerners and westerners, seeing the bank as an instrument for economic development in their respective regions led the re-charter effort." ¹ However, the effort fell short in the House. Historian Gordon S. Wood noted that "the more important enemies of the BUS were the state banks. By regularly redeeming the outstanding notes of the state banks, the BUS had checked their ability to issue notes too far in excess of what they could cover with specie, that is, their reserves, and this had become a deep source of anger....When the twenty-year charter of Hamilton's BUS was about to expire in 1811, it was not surprising that these state banks were determined that it would not be renewed." ²" Henry Clay, Wilentz wrote, thought "the national bank unfairly constrained the operations of state banks."

The death of the first Bank of the United States was almost prevented. "On January 24th, 1811, the House, by a single vote, rejected a preliminary motion on the bank charter, and the fight moved to the Senate," noted Historian John Steele Gordon. "There, on February 20th, the Senate tied 17-17 on another preliminary matter, and Vice President George Clinton, in perhaps the only significant independent act by a vice president in American history, voted against the bank. The Bank of the United States was dead." It was an economically and politically short-sighted act. Gordon noted that "many of the men who voted to kill the bank were the very same men who advocated war - the most expensive of all public policies - with one of the strongest military powers on earth. Given the bank was the government's principal mechanism for collecting internal revenue and its only one for raising loans, the defeat of the charter was perhaps the most feckless act in the history of the United States Congress, although, to be sure, that is a title for which there has been no little competition over the years."

The War of 1812 would soon prove the clear need for a government bank to help fund growing government expenses not covered by the nation's limited tariff revenue. Such revenue was further limited by a transatlantic war. The conflict of national economic policy, begun in the 1790s between followers of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, continued. Leading up to the 1812 war, noted financial historian Susan Hoffman, one "group of agrarian, `unreformed' or `unreconstructed' Jeffersonian's, opposed re-charter of the Bank of the United States because they continued to oppose all banking on philosophical grounds. They resurrected the old arguments against the bank's constitutionality. Joining them in opposition to re-charter was the third contingent of congressional Republicans, the free enterprise's. Here was the voice of the `interests' of the day. Led by Henry Clay, they opposed the Bank of the United States because its regulatory hand got in the way of state banks and because its dominance of U.S. government deposits kept those deposits out-of-state bank vaults."

Jackson slays the many-headed monster of the Second Bank of the United States (1836) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The War of 1812 upended the long political split in the country about the bank. Now in power for 16 years, many Jeffersonian's began to see the necessity of the bank that Federalists had long championed. Preparations were made for a successor institution. With support of Speaker Clay, President Madison, future President James Monroe, and future Vice President John Calhoun, the Second Bank of the United States was chartered in 1816 for 20 years. By 1816, noted financial historian Susan Hoffman, "Reformed Jeffersonians...had concluded that banking was with us and must be regulated to make sure its consistency with the Jeffersonian concept of the public interest, which emphasized protection of the freedom and equality of people. The key factional shift that allowed the second national bank's charter to pass was on the part of the state banking supporters. Whether they had opposed the central bank because they did not like any regulator or because they thought state regulation would be sufficient, this group concluded, in light of the economic chaos in the absence of the first national bank, that federal regulation was consistent with state banking."⁶" Historian Sean Wilentz observed that the new bank was designed to curb inflation and speculative frenzies: "Acting as a financial balance-wheel, the national bank would, in principle, keep currency values and capital markets stable, and prevent national economic expansion from turning into an orgy of over speculation and runaway inflation.

The Second Bank of the United States got off to a rocky start. Susan Hoffmann wrote that it "opened for business in January 1817 under William Jones (1816-19) in the midst of the economic boom that followed the end of the War of 1812." ⁸ Indeed, the revived national bank was not fortunate in its choice of directors who first inflated the currency and then contracted it. Historian Harlow Giles Unger wrote: "Inflated by speculation in western lands, an economic `bubble' suddenly popped, with hundreds of banks shutting down, and thousands of depositors and investors wiped. The land rush had seen the number of banks grow to more than 1,000, with each issuing its own colourful bank notes - normally in two and five-dollar denominations, backed by no one knew what." ⁹ This period has been dubbed the "Era of Good Feelings," but it was not the era of good economic leadership or economic prosperity. Economic historian Charles Sellers wrote that the "brutal deflation saved the national Bank by sacrificing not only its debtors but the state banks and their hordes of debtors as well, which is to say, most of the market economy. Suddenly in the spring of 1819, as the Bank's pressure was intensified by a similar financial crisis in Britain, world commodity prices collapsed." Sellers wrote that "the collapse of agricultural prices made it impossible for state banks to collect from borrowers or meet obligations to the national Bank. When most state banks suspended the pretence of specie redemption, a flood of business failures and personal liquidation plunged Americans into their first experience of general and devastating economic prostration."

http://lehrmaninstitute.org/history/Andrew-Jackson-1837.asp

Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impeded over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the cost of the many, and in favour of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy.

English: issued by the in the amount of $1,000. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

http://www.thegoldstandardnhow.org/jackson

The national government lacked even the most rudimentary financial tools in the secession winter of 1860-61. It lacked both a stable currency and supply of credit along with revenue and banking systems. By the time the sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln, took the oath of office on March 4, 1861, the country was not only on the verge of Civil War but also a financial disaster. The nation's coffers were empty, left in disarray from three decades of Jacksonian fiscal policies, and the government faced a continuing liquidity crisis in light of the demands generated by Civil War expenditures.

Early in his administration, Lincoln recognized that the war's outcome would be largely determined by resources. Thus, he understood the imperative of raising funds to carry out the war effort. It was against this backdrop that Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase to the Treasury, authorizing Chase alone to act on all matters of the country's finances. Chase, like most everyone else when, underestimated the severity of the War—both its duration and its cost. Just as dangerous, perhaps, Chase overestimated the usefulness of Jackson era financial policies to deal with the crisis.

Upon taking office, Chase "found on hand less than $2,000,000, all of which was appropriated ten times over. He calculated that he needed $320,000,000, as he reported to the Congress that met in July 1861," wrote financial historian Bray Hammond. Chase needed credit, revenue, and an increase in the supply of money.

After the fall of Fort Sumter, Lincoln unilaterally began to finance the war effort. Over the month`s that followed, Chase—with Lincoln's occasional assistance—would court Congress, encouraging bond sales, higher tariffs, a single national currency, and bank reforms.

Chase biographer Albert Bushnell Hart wrote: "The most important financial measures during the first year were arrangements for new loans, and the real borrowing of money—both matter`s in which the brief legislation of Congress was very significant, for there was laid the foundation for large issues of bonds, of interest-bearing notes, and of circulating notes."

Chase had asked Congress, meeting in special session during in July 1861, to authorize $240 million in loan`s. Chase was convinced that the government should not sell its securities below par, but there was no market for government securities at par. American financier Jay Cooke became a close advisor to Chase in 1861, suggesting that the Treasury sell bonds directly to the American public, appealing to their patriotism and emotion. Chase, therefore, asked Congress for low-denomination Treasury notes which people could pay for in instalments. As described by historian Phillip S. Paludan, the Treasury secretary sought "to encourage their enthusiasm Chase wanted to have these notes earn interest at a penny a day on a $50 note—a higher rate than usually paid by the government. Average Northern citizens would thus link their fortunes to the success of Union arms."

http://www.thegoldstandardnow.orgh/the-civil-war-and-greenbacks

Future Intentions: According to

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard who has covered world politics and economics for 30 years, based in Europe, the US, and Latin America. Who joined the Telegraph in 1991, serving as Washington correspondent and later Europe correspondent in Brussels. Who is now International Business Editor in London.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100022332/a-new-gold-standard-is-being-born/

The world is moving step by step towards a de facto Gold Standard, without any meetings of G20 leaders to announce the idea or bless the project.

Some readers will already have seen the GFMS Gold Survey for 2012 which reported that central banks around the world bought more bullion last year in terms of tonnage than at any time in almost half a century.

They added a net 536 tonnes in 2012 as they diversified fresh reserves away from the four fiat suspects: dollar, euro, sterling, and yen.

The Washington Accord, where Britain, Spain, Holland, Switzerland, and others sold a chunk of their gold each year, already seems another era – the Gordon Brown era, you might call it.

That was the illusionary period when investors thought the Euro would take its place as the twin pillar of a new G2 condominium alongside the dollar. That hope has faded. Central bank holdings of Euro bonds have fallen back to 26pc, where they were almost a decade ago. Please download the PDF below of the draft.

World Gold Council Draft Exposure_draft_Conflict_Free_Gold_Standard_pr exposure_draft_conflict_free_gold_standard_pr.pdf