Source – marketoracle.co.uk
– “…It is not a stretch to figure the existence of this “dark money” is the real reason why US Government Bond auctions have NEVER failed, despite the reluctance of America’s traditional financiers to purchase record amounts of additional US government debt”
Big Money and the Big Lie – Rob Kirby
The picture below is one of the most important pieces anyone could look at to begin understanding the true nature/condition of our global financial system:
This picture depicts the life cycle of “ANY” fiat currency with compound interest. This concept is explained thoroughly by Chris Martenson on his web site under the moniker of The Accelerated Crash Course. I recommend everyone read it.
The important take-away from the picture above is that the US dollar is now on the vertical growth part of its “life curve”. Naysayers might argue, “money growth is not increasing at a vertical rate because the Fed stopped QE [Quantitative Easing] a number of years ago”.
Perhaps the Fed did “technically” stop QE a number of years ago, BUT, the folks at the Fed are well aware of the facts regarding the life cycle of fiat money depicted above. They know if the money is not created, the financial system [US Dollar] collapses onto itself. So what gives?
Instead of the vertical nature of the money growth chart above, the Fed would like us to believe that money growth is better reflected by their more sanguine “official” count depicted below:
Do remember folks, the chart above reflect the “officially acknowledged money supply”. The growth rate does not appear to be vertical, does it?
But what about the fraudulently created, missing 21 TRILLION identified by Dr. Mark Skidmore [PhD. Michigan St.] and Catherine Austin Fitts [former undersecretary of HUD – Bush 1 Admin]? This money is not acknowledged to exist and IS NOT part of the official monetary aggregate data depicted above. If one was to “add” the missing 21 Trillion to the 16ish Trillion depicted above – the growth rate would INDEED BE VERTICAL.
So folks, while the Fed may be able to legally claim that QE ended years ago, the REQUIRED monies have been created and they have been silo-ed in places like the ESF [EXCHANGE STABILIZATION FUND].
“The U.S. Exchange Stabilization Fund was established at the Treasury Department by a provision in the Gold Reserve Act of January 31, 1934. 31 U.S.C. § 5117. It was intended as a response to Britain’s Exchange Equalisation Account. The fund began operations in April 1934, financed by $2 billion of the $2.8 billion paper profit the government realized from raising the price of gold to $35 an ounce from $20.67. The act authorized the ESF to use its capital to deal in gold and foreign exchange to stabilize the exchange value of the dollar. The ESF as originally designed was part of the executive branch not subject to legislative oversight.”
The web page devoted to the ESF claims that it contains only roughly 100 billion US dollars but then again, it is NOT SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT, so who really knows? We also know that the ESF was created to protect the dollar. We also know that 21 Trillion US dollars are unaccounted for. We also know that money growth matter-of-factly is greater than what is reported – because it MUST BE. It is not a stretch to figure the existence of this “dark money” is the real reason why US Government Bond auctions have NEVER failed, despite the reluctance of America’s traditional financiers to purchase record amounts of additional US government debt.
So folks, while the Fed may be able to say they are not directly engaged in QE, the US Treasury [ESF] IS and has been for some time – because they MUST. Additionally, the Fed necessarily was complicit in assisting the ESF in creating the dark money.
This is why the Fed will never be audited and this is also why,
“In an apparent departure from ‘generally accepted accounting principles,’ federal agencies will be permitted to publish financial statements that are altered so as to protect information on classified spending from disclosure…
It’s all part of the BIG LIE, ladies and gentlemen.
By Rob Kirby
Rob Kirby is proprietor of Kirbyanalytics.com and sales agent for Bullion Custodial Services. Subscribers to the Kirbyanalytics newsletter can look forward to a weekend publication analyzing many recent global geo-political events and more. Subscribe to Kirbyanalytics news letter here. Buy physical gold, silver or platinum bullion here.
Secrecy News: Financial Accounts May Be “Modified” to Shield Classified Programs – By Steven Aftergood
(Posted on Aug.15, 2018)
In an apparent departure from “generally accepted accounting principles,” federal agencies will be permitted to publish financial statements that are altered so as to protect information on classified spending from disclosure.
The new policy was developed by the government’s Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) in response to concerns raised by the Department of Defense and others that a rigorous audit of agency financial statements could lead to unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
In order to prevent disclosure of classified information in a public financial statement, FASAB said that agencies may amend or obscure certain spending information. “An entity may modify information required by other [accounting] standards if the effect of the modification does not change the net results of operations or net position.”
Agencies may also shift accounts around in a potentially misleading way. “A component reporting entity is allowed to be excluded from one reporting entity and consolidated into another reporting entity. The effect of the modifications may change the net results of operations and/or net position.” See Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56, FASAB, July 5, 2018 (final draft for sponsor review).
In response to an earlier draft of the new standard that was issued last December, most government agencies endorsed the move to permit modifying public financial statements.
“The protection of classified information and national security takes precedence over financial statements,” declared the Central Intelligence Agency in its comments (submitted discreetly under the guise of an “other government agency”).
“It is in the best interest of national security to allow for modification to the presentation of balances and reporting entity in the GPFFR [the publicly available General Purpose Federal Financial Report],” CIA wrote.
But in a sharply dissenting view, the Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General said the new approach was improper, unwise and unnecessary.
It “jeopardizes the financial statements’ usefulness and provides financial managers with an arbitrary method of reporting accounting information,” the DoD OIG said.
“We do not agree that incorporating summary-level dollar amounts in the overall statements will necessarily result in the release of classified information.”
“This proposed guidance is a major shift in Federal accounting guidance and, in our view, the potential impact is so expansive that it represents another comprehensive basis of accounting.”
“The Board should clarify whether this proposed standard, or subsequent Interpretations, could permit entities to record misstated amounts in the financial statements to mislead readers with the stated purpose of protecting classified information. We believe that no accounting guidance should allow this type of accounting entry.”
“We do not believe that… the Board’s proposed guidance would effectively protect classified information, comply with GAAP [generally accepted accounting principles], or serve the public interest,” the DoD OIG wrote.
The Kearney & Company accounting firm also objected, saying that it would be better to classify certain financial statements or redact classified spending than to misrepresent published information.
“Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) should not be modified to limit reporting of classified activities. Rather, GAAP reporting should remain the same as other Federal entities and redacted for public release or remain classified.”
If a published account is modified “so material activity is no longer accurately presented to the reader of financial statements, its usefulness to public users is limited and subject to misinterpretation.”
“This approach limits the value, usefulness, and benefits of financial statements as currently defined by GAAP. Financial statements of classified entities should remain classified or redacted like other classified documents before release to the public.”
“The integrity of current GAAP as it applies to all Federal entities should be retained,” Kearney said in its comments.
But the FASAB ultimately rejected those views.
“The Board determined that options other than those permitted in this Statement may not always adequately resolve national security concerns,” according to the final draft of the policy, which the Board provided to Secrecy News.
“Without this Statement, there is a risk that reporting entities may need to classify their entire financial statements to comply with existing accounting standards, which would likely result in the need to classify a large portion of the government-wide financial statements.”
In practice, the Board suggested, “Modifications may not be needed to prevent the disclosure of certain classified information. Therefore, this Statement permits, rather than requires, modifications on a case-by-case basis.”
The new accounting standard is expected to be approved by the FASAB sponsors — namely the Secretary of Treasury, the Comptroller General, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget — by the end of a 90 day review period in October.
Last month, the FASAB issued a separate classified “Interpretation” of the new standard that addressed the policy’s implementation in detail. The contents of that document are not publicly known.
The topic of accounting for classified spending has been a challenging one for the Board, said Assistant Director Monica R. Valentine on Monday. “This is the first time we’ve had to deal with this sort of issue.”