Secret Citibank Memo

[eots]

Mike Adams
Natural News
November 29, 2008

An internal memo from a top Citibank analyst reveals what the banks really think about the global financial situation, and the outlook is grim.

"The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have done. When the dust settles this will either work, and the money they have pushed into the system will feed through into an inflation shock," wrote Tom Fitzpatrick, Citibank’s chief technical strategist.


Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[editec]

I think they're right.

I don't know about the world economy, but I expect that the USA is bound for some serious inflation.

First of all because all these cheap imports are going to get might expensive if the dollar's values drop relative to other currencies, and secondly because if we don't inflate the amount of money in circulation and get that money into the hands of the American middle class, there won't BE an American economy soon.

Wages HAVE to go up, folks.

If they don't America is going down.

 

[Chris]

We are going to be fine.

Soon the adults will be back in charge.

 

[eots]

We are going to be fine.

Soon the adults will be back in charge.

and they are who ?

 

[eots]

We are going to be fine.

Soon the adults will be back in charge.

??????????????...really could you elaborate

 

[jillian]

There's also nothing "secret" about what Fitzpatrick said... this is why infowars has zero credibility.... telling people who want to see boogymen in every corner that there's all kinds of secret stuff going on around them....

when really, Fitpatrick was very clear in his comments, which were very publicly written about...

Gold Investments Market Update - Citigroup Says Gold Above $2000/oz Next Year as World Unravels

mostly, Fitzpatrick has no more clue about this than anyone else in his area, and some will be more, some less, optimistic...

 

[eots]

infowars did not title the article natural news did...and the memo was not written for the public so its fair enough ..and the reason the controlled media lacks credibility is because they turn a blind eye to the fact there is secret stuff going on all around them

 

[Paulie]

I think they're right.

I don't know about the world economy, but I expect that the USA is bound for some serious inflation.

First of all because all these cheap imports are going to get might expensive if the dollar's values drop relative to other currencies, and secondly because if we don't inflate the amount of money in circulation and get that money into the hands of the American middle class, there won't BE an American economy soon.

Wages HAVE to go up, folks.

If they don't America is going down.

So you advocate inflation, and then say wages have to go up or we're done.

Prices would rise, thereby negating much or all of the wage increases.

 

[editec]

Advocate inflation?

You really have reading comprhension problem, Paul.

If I say it's going to rain, you read into it that I advocate that it should rain.

this is about the third time you've read something I said about some situation or the other, and read into it that since I noted it, I must be FOR it.

Seriously read my post more thoroughly and stop imagining that I'm saying something I celarly have NOT siad, okay?

thanks

 

[Paulie]

Advocate inflation?

You really have reading comprhension problem, Paul.

If I say it's going to rain, you read into it that I advocate that it should rain.

this is about the third time you've read something I said about some situation or the other, and read into it that since I noted it, I must be FOR it.

Seriously read my post more thoroughly and stop imagining that I'm saying something I celarly have NOT siad, okay?

thanks

You're a looney toon sometimes, Ed.

if we don't inflate the amount of money in circulation and get that money into the hands of the American middle class, there won't BE an American economy soon.

You even bolded the part about getting it to the middle class.

How does one not construe this as advocating inflation? You're talking about it as if it is necessary to the future of the economy.

 

[no1tovote4]

Why would anybody take any prediction of theirs seriously? This is a company that couldn't foresee the problems in the very market they take part in, yet we are supposed to say they are accurate because they are saying something that we want them to?

 

[Paulie]

Why would anybody take any prediction of theirs seriously? This is a company that couldn't foresee the problems in the very market they take part in, yet we are supposed to say they are accurate because they are saying something that we want them to?

Reminds me of Greenspan.

 

[editec]

You're a looney toon sometimes, Ed.



You even bolded the part about getting it to the middle class.

How does one not construe this as advocating inflation? You're talking about it as if it is necessary to the future of the economy.

Yeah I see how you became confused. I should have been more clear, but I should have realized that if it could be misconstured, it would be, no matter how that might not jibe with everythig else I've been writing on this subject for months.

Notice that I said increase the amount of money in CIRCULATION?

You see there's plenty of money in the vaults but not enough of it IN CICULATION for the economy not to be deflating.

We gave 1.4 trillion to the banks thinking they'd put it into circulation, remember?

Only they are not doing that.

 

[Paulie]

Yeah I see how you became confused. I should have been more clear, but I should have realized that if it could be misconstured, it would be, no matter how that might not jibe with everythig else I've been writing on this subject for months.

Notice that I said increase the amount of money in CIRCULATION?

You see there's plenty of money in the vaults but not enough of it IN CICULATION for the economy not to be deflating.

We gave 1.4 trillion to the banks thinking they'd put it into circulation, remember?

Only they are not doing that.

But releasing that money into circulation is going to create massive inflation and rising prices.

So increased wages are going to be negated.

You can double the money supply, but prices will double. So if your wages doubled, what did you even gain? The only worthwhile thing you can do is pay back debt, in which case the banks win ANYWAY.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Inflation is bad, deflation is bad, stagflation is bad, bad, bad ,bad ,bad, bad....what the hell is good?!?!

What I'd like is:

Massive deflation in the cost of both goods and services combined with a huge economic growth, the creation of millions of high paying jobs and routine salary increases and bonuses.

That would be just terrible wouldn't it?

 

[editec]

But releasing that money into circulation is going to create massive inflation and rising prices.

I don't think so.

Remember how much funny money (money not yet realized) that was recently lost in the value of real estate AND the stock markets.

People feel poor, ergo they are poor. Plus, businesses need to borrow money to keep going and they're not getting it.

So increased wages are going to be negated.

So goes the mantra of the FED which used ot increase rates every time wages went up. But notice they never increased rates when the market went us? Odd that.

Anyway, given the numbe of people who are NOT WORKING, an increase in wages is apt to be more phycologically beneficial than psychologically inflationary.

What we need to do is restore confidence, and nothing restores confidence in a consumer economy like consumers consuming.

You can double the money supply, but prices will double. So if your wages doubled, what did you even gain? The only worthwhile thing you can do is pay back debt, in which case the banks win ANYWAY.

I know that the religion of the supply siders is that the workers must be poor or the whole thing goes hyperinflationary, but I believe the whole thing is falling apart (going deflationary) precisely because we have been slowly but surely making the consuming class poorer.

And besides nobody is talking about doubling the money supply.

What I AM talking about if getting SOME of that money into the hands of the consumers.

Perhaps what I am advocating is a consumer-side economic solution to this malaise which is ailing our economy.

Now the REAL question is HOW do we get money into the hands of the consumers?

And that is the 64 trillion dollar question.

 

[editec]

Inflation is bad, deflation is bad, stagflation is bad, bad, bad ,bad ,bad, bad....what the hell is good?!?!

What I'd like is:

Massive deflation in the cost of both goods and services..

Which is what we are having now..

..it is the lack of money in the hands of the consumer which is breaking the system.

If the massive deflation continues, banks will start going belly up since their debt structure is based on INflation, not DEflation.

combined with a huge economic growth,...the creation of millions of high paying jobs and routine salary increases and bonuses.

Which is the target.

That would be just terrible wouldn't it?

Well the economic growth is needed, but I don't think deflating costs will make that happen easily.

Essantially I suspect we'd have to go through a terrible depression before that deflation that you want would stabilize and those few people left standing would start buying and investing again.

DEflation actually depresses economic acitivity, not increases it/

 

[Paulie]

I don't think so.

Remember how much funny money (money not yet realized) that was recently lost in the value of real estate AND the stock markets.

People feel poor, ergo they are poor. Plus, businesses need to borrow money to keep going and they're not getting it.





So goes the mantra of the FED which used ot increase rates every time wages went up. But notice they never increased rates when the market went us? Odd that.

Anyway, given the numbe of people who are NOT WORKING, an increase in wages is apt to be more phycologically beneficial than psychologically inflationary.

What we need to do is restore confidence, and nothing restores confidence in a consumer economy like consumers consuming.



I know that the religion of the supply siders is that the workers must be poor or the whole thing goes hyperinflationary, but I believe the whole thing is falling apart (going deflationary) precisely because we have been slowly but surely making the consuming class poorer.

And besides nobody is talking about doubling the money supply.

What I AM talking about if getting SOME of that money into the hands of the consumers.

Perhaps what I am advocating is a consumer-side economic solution to this malaise which is ailing our economy.

Now the REAL question is HOW do we get money into the hands of the consumers?

And that is the 64 trillion dollar question.

I just don't get you, Ed.

You really want to keep perpetuating a consumer driven economy? Just because consumption is what is going to "kickstart" the economy, doesn't mean it's the right way to go.

We have an opportunity right now, to change the system back to production. If we sit back and wait for the Fed to pump dollars into our pockets so we'll spend them on CRAP, we're never going to get anywhere.

This is a time for us to reprogram ourselves, and re-learn what it means to PRODUCE, SAVE, and BUDGET.

I don't want a god damn shiny NICKEL of that new money. And I'm not sure how you could possible believe that it hitting the streets isn't going to cause inflation. And my statement about doubling the money supply was hypothetical, to put into perspective what would happen to prices and how it would affect potential wage increases. It's a useless process that needs to end.

"psychological inflation"? I don't think I've ever heard that one before. There's over 1 trillion dollars of brand spankin new money ready to start going to work. How is that "psychological"? It's REAL, and it's GOING to affect prices.

 

[Hum Dinger]

DEflation actually depresses economic acitivity, not increases it

Yes, I know that what I said defies all know behavior of economics, but I can still dream can't I?

 

[editec]

I just don't get you, Ed.

So I've noticed. At least you're polite about it, though.

You really want to keep perpetuating a consumer driven economy?

I want it to morph into a sustainable economy, but there's no way we can do that by allowing us to go into a depression, which is where we're headed if we don't solve this liquidity crises.

Just because consumption is what is going to "kickstart" the economy, doesn't mean it's the right way to go.

Okay, what's the alternative? A massive depression that is worse than the 1929 version?

We have an opportunity right now, to change the system back to production.

Great what's you plan. I'm listening

If we sit back and wait for the Fed to pump dollars into our pockets so we'll spend them on CRAP, we're never going to get anywhere.

Okay.

This is a time for us to reprogram ourselves, and re-learn what it means to PRODUCE, SAVE, and BUDGET.

WE Americans remember how to do that.

Sadly its starts by having salaries that haven't been decreasing for the last fourty years...which is what has been happening, you know.

I don't want a god damn shiny NICKEL of that new money. And I'm not sure how you could possible believe that it hitting the streets isn't going to cause inflation.

I explained it to you. I wish I could make it more understandable for you, but I cannot. You think the problem is people were wasteful and damned fools, I KNOW that the working class has been losing purchasing power for my entire adult lifetime.

I have the stats to prove it, too, but apparently you don't think they're very important.

And my statement about doubling the money supply was hypothetical, to put into perspective what would happen to prices and how it would affect potential wage increases. It's a useless process that needs to end.

Hey, if you can find some painless way to get from a fiat money debt driven economy, one which is based on ever increasing DEBT to keep the system going, please be my guest and tell us how that will be done.

I have attempted to show you how I would do it, and my FIX is nothing like the FIX that the government just passed.

"psychological inflation"? I don't think I've ever heard that one before. There's over 1 trillion dollars of brand spankin new money ready to start going to work. How is that "psychological"? It's REAL, and it's GOING to affect prices.

How is it going to effect prices sitting in bank vaults and NOT getting into circulation?

Do you, Paul, really understand that the money supply has shrunk? It appears to me, based on what you're writing, that you don't understand that.

Do you know why and how the money supply has shrunk?

Because much of the money wasn't really in the form on money, but in the potenital money that poeople THOUGHT they had as higher prices stocks and homes.

When those crashed, then the PSYCOLOGICAL amount of wealth diminished with it.

My net worth dropped 20% this year.

A lot of other people lost even MORE of their net worth than I did since they lost money in their homes, their 401Ks, all their investments.

So the mental aritthmatic in the minds of the Americans is that they personally HAVE LESS MONEY...BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE LESS MONEY

Inflation isn't the problem NOW, Paul.

It could be if we piss away the money sending it offshore like we've been sending 30% of our consuming dollars for the last few years.


But if we invest (read put money into circulation) in projects that keep the money ONSHORE, then the multiplier effect of that is to increase CONFIDENCE that the system isn't dying.

Money is artifical, amigo.

It isn't REAL.

Just like this whole alice in wonderland economic system we invented, the whole god damned thing is based on a collective DELUSION that money has value.

Where does money come from?

I mean ORIGINALLY how do we have enouygh money for businesses to carry on?

We INVENTED IT.

Surely there is more money in our system than there was in 1914.

Where did it come from?

Our money syupply is not sprung from gold, or past wealth, or anything like that.

We invest it as we need it, and since our economy was growing as was our population we invented it via the FED and the cozy corrupt banking system which we current have in place.

The solution is to make the FED the PEOPLE's bank, and NOT a private Bank.

and then to regulate the ever loving crap out of it so that it does NOT lend our (read invent) new money frivilously.

But there is NO REASON that you or I should have to borrow from a private bank, when that bank is inventing the money first.

If I'm going to pay interest on money I borrow, it should go back to the FED which invented it to begin with.

Do you realize how fucking absurd it is that the United States of America is in debt?

In debt to whom..private bankers who diddn't have any money to lend to begin with?

Fuck that.

Thye sytem is a sham, and you can come up with a better one than this one, I'm listening.

But if you think, as I suspect you do, that we must be punished for being in debt, then you are a tool of the FED and the BANKERS who claim they OWN IT!

Because we are in debt to people who didn't have any money to lend us to BEGIN WITH.

We granted them the right to invent that money and then CHARGE us to use it.

It is impossible to keep this system going because it is INEVITABLE that sooner or later everyone has to be in debt to these bankers including our own government.

THAT'S NOT CAPITALISM, THAT'S PURE SOCIALISM FOR A VERY SELECT GROUP OF INSIDERS who get to live outside of the system entirely.

And worse, these nitwits screwed up the system GAMING (read gambling) with that money.

They ought to be taken out and SHOT, not given money.