Published On: Fri, Jun 19th, 2020

In the economic carnage of coronahoax fallout, the target is UK Government and administrators of the debt-for-wealth financial system

Share This
Tags

It’s been clear for a long time that the intention behind lockdown has been to execute an economic operation so that the administrators of the wealth-for-debt financial system (effectively the City of London, which is also UK Government) can make an adjustment crucial for the continuation of its scheme for rule, and there has been writing to that effect at FBEL from the very beginning of the public health so-called crisis that has served as cover: see, The UK Government’s £330 billion coronavirus racket (here), and, The Queen is at economic war with the British people (here).

The early indications of the economic damage from lockdown is 600,000 job losses – or to put things more accurately, at the time of writing, there are six hundred thousand less people on UK payrolls than there was at the start of the coronahoax. When UK Government started it to subsidise wages, the furlough scheme was intended to be in place until at least October, with companies being compelled to make contributions, from the start of August, of between 20% and 30% of an employee’s pay. But a furloughed employee couldn’t work, and many an employer probably had the same idea as would come in certain advice:

The Financial Times quoted a business leader this month as saying: “If the furlough scheme is paying for jobs that don’t really exist, it’s better to release people into the job market to start looking for other work.”

It must have been the case for a significant number of employers that because there was no trade, there was no point keeping the staff.  How many of these particular employers will ever recover remains to be seen, and it is entirely intuitive to suppose that job losses and cessations of trading will increase as employers take on the burden of furlough in the coming months. An additionally business-crippling compounding of the situation will come about through the UK Government’s insistence on social distancing, which, for an indefinite period, will bound to be a disaster for efficiency.

Moreover, if a business has taken any of the various forms of “help” offered to them in the shape of loans – and 745,000 have – they’ll soon have the overhead of an unwanted debt repayment on top of wages that are already a tremendous encumbrance if the number of people on furlough is anything to go by. By way of more “help”, Government has indicated that it expects employers to turn full time employees into part time ones, but this probably doesn’t come from a failure, by those grasping capital to themselves at the top of the heap, to understand that expendable income is the essential stuff that drives an economy – as we will see.

In any case, the very least to be said is that jobs will no doubt be lost. 11.5 million Britons are on furlough pay or Government “help” for the self-employed. The BBC article linked to above has this to say about it:

Some economists believe unemployment could hit 10% – a rate not since since the mid-1990s – as social distancing rules remain in place and consumers curb their spending.

The Institute of Employment Studies (IES), an apolitical think tank, pointed out that the number of claims for work benefits had risen 1.6 million since March – a rate faster, it says, than during the Great Depression of 1929

What’s not overtly pointed out is that the unemployment rate would grow by 6 percentage points, and in the span of a few months, the acceleration rate might be such that it could challenge a few records further back than the 1990s. Indeed, as the extract points out, the rocket that is claims for work benefits has cleared the stratosphere. Which brings us to the point of the resultant welfare bill, and the furlough pay – £27 billion of it – that UK Government would recoup inevitably through taxes. How now, expendable income? And the vicious circle is complete as the curbing of spending – which is the BBC’s euphemism for wide spread pennilessness of the consumer – translates into less trade and income for businesses.

Such are the pressures that will contribute to the situation whereby many companies will not be able to repay any “help” that has been claimed in the form of loans. Moreover, many companies can expect the UK Government to come gunning for them, on a guilty-until-you-prove-yourself-innocent basis, with 100% taxes for what Revenue and Customs thinks has been abuse of the furlough scheme or of the scheme of grants that had been made available.

The UK Government may well believe that it can use the stigmatisation of a company with an accusation of being a “cheat” to make harsh recovery action appear legitimate. However, the public’s sympathy should be with the business that has been accused, for who is to trust the Government not to make false accusation in a context where it is at economic war with the country?  Likewise, people should reject the notion, that will no doubt appear out of UK Government corporate-media mouthpieces, that punitive loan burden is merely an unfortunate consequence of a bad situation where no one is to blame. The truth is, and if the reader takes only one point from this article let it be this,  that all methods of recoupment, whether they be taxation, fine,  or the paying off of a debt instrument, will be the culmination of a deliberate effort to squeeze companies to the point where they go out of business if they have nothing more to yield.

The model to which we are referring has been covered in FBEL before: it is the debt-for-wealth economy as an inductor in an electric circuit, with earnings from capital, which those who administer the system (think of the financier class) ultimately understand as belonging to them, merely resting in the population like current that can be stored in a magnetic field – and then released by reduction of the field. The coronahoax enabled the UK’s debt-for-wealth economy administrators to create £32-36 billion’s worth of new debt through various so-called crisis survival loan schemes, and on top of that banks created £11-13 billion’s worth through their normal channels in the name of “help”. Now this needs to be paid for in real wealth – or to be defaulted on, and either way, the financier class will only reap reward. To fully understand the problem that this new debt represents one must appreciate the fact that prior to the coronahoax there had been £83-91 billion’s worth of unsustainable debt already on the books of private non-financial companies in the UK. If the figures are to be understood correctly, it means that the coronahoax created an increase in bad debt by a percentage in the region of 50.

We have an idea about the value of the debt-for-wealth swap that the coronahoax has afforded those who are set to profit. Recently, SKY News reported knowledge of a set of conclusions arrived at by what could be called a think tank formed by TheCityUK. To give the reader a helpful idea as to the nature of an organisation that calls itself an “industry advocacy group promoting the financial and related professional services industry of the United Kingdom”, let it be understood that the same man who chairs the board of HSBC also chairs TheCityUK. The group’s deceptively named “Recapitalisation Group” would not be so much concerned about “recapitalis[ing] swathes of UK plc” as the SKY reportage happily claims. From its membership [Sir Adrian Montague, former Aviva chairman (chair), Catherine McGuinness, policy chair at the City of London Corporation; James Palmer, chair and senior partner of the legal giant Herbert Smith Freehills; Peter Harrison Schroders’ chief executive; and Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the London Stock Exchange] it is quite clearly the doings of the debt-for-wealth system’s owners and administrators in an attempt to understand how not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg while extracting as many ovulations d’or as possible.

This think tank appears to believe that about £30 billion can be extracted in shares by debt-for-equity swaps (so, presumably, either Government becomes a shareholder of indebted companies, or perhaps more likely, it is the financial institutions that facilitated the loans) or for smaller companies (SKY actually uses the word “targeted”) there would be a translation of debt into monies owed in taxation. And then there is a further problem for the continued survival of many a business. According to the Recapitalisation Group (according to SKY), there would yet remain an overall debt burden of between £97 and £107 billion – a figure, the reader will notice, that will have increased from the time ahead of the coronahoax. So, in other words, the coronahoax has increased the underlying level of bad debt.

So says SKY:

“If left unresolved, these levels of unsustainable debt could inhibit employment, research and development, investment and ultimately a smooth economic recovery back to growth,” the Recapitalisation Group said in a letter to Andrew Bailey, the Bank of England governor, last month.

Unsustainable debt is something that countries and companies carry all the time but, naturally, the more burdensome the debt is, the more it will inhibit successful operation. When a lot of companies in the UK go out of business because the coronahoax “help” was the last straw, because the loans are mostly guaranteed by the Government it means tax-payers money goes to the lending body; i.e. a bank, ultimately the Bank of England, and generally The City. (One of the most important issues regarding withdrawing from the system [to be discussed shortly] is how to keep wealth out of the hands of banks). Of course, a company could also be solved off cheaply; Sir Adrian was a private equity investor, after all.

Such is the economic carnage of the coronahoax, and later on, it would seem – and perhaps we can discern the timing of it from when the UK Government is expecting a “second wave” of coronahoax (so that another lockdown can facilitate emergency powers) – the proverbial faecal matter is going to hit the fan, and there is going to be a lot of unhappiness in the population. UK Government looks to be preparing for this, and is evidently baiting for a race-war using the whole panoply of its full spectrum dominance street-occupying assets. It is quite clear that the UK Government would like to channel anger down a path by which it would be empowered to engineer an outcome to suit its own agenda. And to this end, the UK Government has been hanging on the shirt tales of what should be a simple issue of flawed policy and corruption in United States officialdom, and is clearly the provocateur to a lot of useful idiots in the UK who have been made to believe that their happier situation is even slightly relatable to that of a citizen, whatever the colour of his skin, living in certain police jurisdictions in America.

The UK Government even appears to be injecting a racial tension aspect into the coronahoax narrative whereby “black, Asian and minority ethnic people” are supposedly more susceptible (to a non-existent virus). To cite “historical racism” as a contributing factor to an illness is to make an appeal to a fallacious underlying ideology (which is absolutely designed to cause a sense of grievance) whereby a minority, by dint of its being smaller, is automatically made victim. Undermining what is quite simply trouble-making are the ICNARC audits, that rarely get reported by corporate-media, and somehow never by alternative media, which indicate that the majority of people who die in intensive care with an illness that comes closest to being Covid-19 are white.

In any case, an individual, who is identified as being of a classification by skin colour that is in the minority, will very like have things in common with other individuals in the so-called majority so that he could be said to be in a majority in terms of that commonality.  With “Covid-19”, those aspects of the character of an individual that would be common across the specious division of race, and which are actually responsible for the illness, would speculatively be tendency to act from such cultural attitudes (which, arguably, might be more prevalent amongst those who are taught to believe in their own victimhood as a germ for being desirous of outcomes via Government legislation) as placing trust in NHS treatment that would in fact endanger their life.

Gladly – as lately evidenced on June 13th, when police yet managed to arrest 100 people (to create the impression of a concentration of violent “thuggery” to contrast against previous “‘peaceful’ protests” [bar a “‘lawless minority’”] by Black Lives Matter where any impression of peacefulness was surely related to the general standing down of police), by the perennial failure of “far-right” street politics to draw big numbers (irrespective of larger crowds as claimed by official accounts – which is brazen perception shaping, as documented over again at FBEL) – it would appear that the UK Government’s efforts to foment a great distraction in the form of a race war does not gain any traction. It is just as well. The readership of FBEL is well used to being warned off taking to the street, whatever the movement any marching is in the name of, because it is an avenue to failure – and explanation for it was expressed very satisfactorily most recently in a previous article:

…at any time a movement is holding Government to ransom [by being in the streets], the outcome of temporarily disrupting the system in such a manner is not the same as withdrawing from the system. The former produces an opportunity for Government to make a change it wants to the system (and thus it lends itself to being controlled by Government), whereas the latter is a challenge to the extent of the Government’s power, and even perhaps an existential threat.

Withdrawal from the system can be simplified as denial of the two things that Government wants the most: money and votes – and there is plenty of material at FBEL drawing out these core elements (please explore the site by clicking on the menu items which lead to lists of articles, and by using the search box in the top right corner of the page). The general idea is of the secession of large groups of individuals and organisation of local partisanship into the means to defend the secession. It has been written hereabouts before that the UK Government will not stop until it is made to stop, and there is only one way to stop it: the denial of territory, revenue and authority to UK Government, and the building of an alternative, legitimised by people’s participation in it, that can make UK Government into a weaker entity, and ultimately into a thing that can be terminated by a ruling of the restored commonwealth.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>