Babylon's Bankers


Remember the former IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and how they accused him of raping a hotel maid? You'll recall the basics: Strauss-Kahn was jailed on allegations of rape, and then subsequently released when the allegations proved to be ...well, let's just say, nothing that a prosecutor would want to bring to trial. But the damage was done. Strauss-Kahn, who had ideas that one might qualify as definitely counter to the prevailing financial wisdom, and who had aspirations to run for the French Presidency, had his political career ruined.

Now, it seems, Mm. (or is it Mme.? So hard to tell with her!) Christine Lagarde, current head of the IMF and former Finance Minister of France, has now come into someone's cross hairs:

The DSKing Of Christine Lagarde: IMF Head Formally Charged In Fraud Probe

The question, of course, for Zero Hedge, and for everyone else, is why Mm or Mme Lagarde should be so summarily Dominique Strauss-Kahned, or, as Zero Hedge puts it, "DSK'd." For Zero Hedge, it's the Bernanke Money "paradrop":

"Regardless of the spin, at this point it's all over for the first female president of the IMF, whose departure has come with the same facility as her ascent.

"The only question is who and why was angered by her policies over the past three years, and who will be her replacement. And most importantly, is the imminent shift at the top of the IMF indicative of what the CFR pitched yesterday when it proposed that the time has come for Bernanke's money paradrop. After all, one would need an even more obedient puppet at the head of the monetary fund if such an idiotic plan is to even be able to take off the ground, so to speak."

The "paradrop" amounts to nothing less than direct central bank-to-consumer money giveaways, in an effort to stimulate the West's sagging economies by a version of Milton Friedman's "helicoptor drop" of money:

It Begins: "Central Banks Should Hand Consumers Cash Directly"

In case you missed what the CFR's Foreign Affairs journal proposed, here it is, in all its stark Keynesian reality:

"In the decades following World War II, Japan’s economy grew so quickly and for so long that experts came to describe it as nothing short of miraculous. During the country’s last big boom, between 1986 and 1991, its economy expanded by nearly $1 trillion. But then, in a story with clear parallels for today, Japan’s asset bubble burst, and its markets went into a deep dive. Government debt ballooned, and annual growth slowed to less than one percent. By 1998, the economy was shrinking.

"That December, a Princeton economics professor named Ben Bernanke argued that central bankers could still turn the country around. Japan was essentially suffering from a deficiency of demand: interest rates were already low, but consumers were not buying, firms were not borrowing, and investors were not betting. It was a self-fulfilling prophesy: pessimism about the economy was preventing a recovery. Bernanke argued that the Bank of Japan needed to act more aggressively and suggested it consider an unconventional approach: give Japanese households cash directly. Consumers could use the new windfalls to spend their way out of the recession, driving up demand and raising prices.

"As Bernanke made clear, the concept was not new: in the 1930s, the British economist John Maynard Keynes proposed burying bottles of bank notes in old coal mines; once unearthed (like gold), the cash would create new wealth and spur spending. The conservative economist Milton Friedman also saw the appeal of direct money transfers, which he likened to dropping cash out of a helicopter. Japan never tried using them, however, and the country’s economy has never fully recovered. Between 1993 and 2003, Japan’s annual growth rates averaged less than one percent.

"Today, most economists agree that like Japan in the late 1990s, the global economy is suffering from insufficient spending, a problem that stems from a larger failure of governance. Central banks, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, have taken aggressive action, consistently lowering interest rates such that today they hover near zero. They have also pumped trillions of dollars’ worth of new money into the financial system. Yet such policies have only fed a damaging cycle of booms and busts, warping incentives and distorting asset prices, and now economic growth is stagnating while inequality gets worse. It’s well past time, then, for U.S. policymakers -- as well as their counterparts in other developed countries -- to consider a version of Friedman’s helicopter drops. In the short term, such cash transfers could jump-start the economy. Over the long term, they could reduce dependence on the banking system for growth and reverse the trend of rising inequality. The transfers wouldn’t cause damaging inflation, and few doubt that they would work. The only real question is why no government has tried them."

The reason for this bizarre "solution"? Political gridlock, or, to put the point more bluntly, governments increasingly in thrall to special interests and not genuinely representative of that strange entity called "The People":

"In theory, governments can boost spending in two ways: through fiscal policies (such as lowering taxes or increasing government spending) or through monetary policies (such as reducing interest rates or increasing the money supply). But over the past few decades, policymakers in many countries have come to rely almost exclusively on the latter. The shift has occurred for a number of reasons. Particularly in the United States, partisan divides over fiscal policy have grown too wide to bridge, as the left and the right have waged bitter fights over whether to increase government spending or cut tax rates. More generally, tax rebates and stimulus packages tend to face greater political hurdles than monetary policy shifts. Presidents and prime ministers need approval from their legislatures to pass a budget; that takes time, and the resulting tax breaks and government investments often benefit powerful constituencies rather than the economy as a whole. Many central banks, by contrast, are politically independent and can cut interest rates with a single conference call. Moreover, there is simply no real consensus about how to use taxes or spending to efficiently stimulate the economy."

The message? Bypass governments by having central banks deal directly with the people, and thereby shortcircuit the last vestiges of any sort of government or popular oversight of monetary and fiscal policy..

So where does Mm. or Mme. Lagarde fit in? One does not get the impression that she would be the sort of person in the helicopter throwing out bundles of euros or dollars (or, if certain other predictions over the long term come true, D-Marks). So in that sense, Zero Hedge appears to be correct: she is going, because she probably has or had profound misgivings about the wisdom of such a path. Indeed, in a world where popular cynicism about corporate and government corruption have reached all time highs, one wonders if such a "paradrop" would work. Would people really rush out on a buying binge with their newfound money (thus inflating prices and driving more demand)? Or would they squirrel all that liquidity away in the same banking system?

I don't know about you, but my deepest intuition here is that there is something else at work in the DSKing of Christine Lagarde besides any potential opposition she may or may not have had about a "paradrop."

A few weeks and months ago, Mm. (or Mme.) Lagarde appeared before the National Press Club (and other venues), and began her remarks in her crisp French-accented English with a bit of... well, let's be blunt...numerology. It was, to say the least, a disconcerting performance for someone as highly placed and influential to do. A message, perhaps, that at those rarefied levels there are other factors of occulted synchronicity and design operating of which we are scarcely aware, but that some of us have long guessed at and suggested. One of those "strange syncrhonicities", as I suggested in my book Babylon's Banksters, was the bizarre fact that every great depression in American economic history occurred more or less concurrently with the astrological phenomenon known as a "Grand Cross."

And perhaps that was what really torpedoed Lagarde, for what she was perhaps suggesting was that there were profound connections between what you and I would call "esoteric practice," and the occulted world of high finance and banking. Perhaps Ms. Lagarde knows that, if one is in a certain phase of a naturally occurring cycle, then no amount of Keynesian tinkering will reverse the overall trend; at best, it can only exacerbate  or ameliorate it. Perhaps, in intimating strange esoteric connections out of the bag, she was revealing secrets that "they" do not wish revealed.

High Octane Speculation? Absolutely! Because I don't think any conventional form of financial analysis - including that which does not account for hidden systems of finance, vast black budgets, and the role of intelligence agencies in banking, not to mention the more deeply rooted cosmic connections - can cut it any longer. And she may have been trying, in her own inscrutable way, to let everyone know that.

See you on the flip side.


  1. Today is labor day.
    I wonder if corporate news will have any “honest” labor news on labor day. No doubt tons of stock news. Will any of the press choir sing about what happened to the labor news? A somebody did somebody wrong son? Is it that such a sad song would only the touch 99% who labor. I guess the 1% share holders must DEMAND stock news. Although labor supply far outstrips the demand side; and all because the share holders have dressed-up the demand side of the curve(by purposely issuing too little currency), making labor look naked enough, to accept… whatever.

  2. No doubt, that in the high-powered financialized global puppet theatres(markets); the roles become not only coveted for their rewards, but the actors/actresses ability to actually to dance with the devil, w/o the puppets mind being “turned” into a Pinocchio that thinks he or she is on the “real” world stage. For the powers that be will not NOT tolerate a “real” nosey Pinocchio; especially, one that starts mimicking real alchemy esoteric manners.

    The Turning Of The Screw.

  3. If there starts to be a high turnover rate in the Upper-Echelon Financial Control mechanisms, I’d be willing to bet that change is nigh. My argument is that the IMF, CFR, WTO, SOB, DOA, and other international globalist orgs are very sedentary and not prone to change. This Fall appears to be full of interesting developments. Clif High, of Web-Bot fame, has made a public post that there will be a Cyber False Flag attack on Western banks that will be blamed on the Ruskies. He also claims that this cFF will be justification for war. See and search the page for “USA #1!” for more details. Please note, the Web Bot has had a great hit rate on what, not when. That being said, their continued success with the FedGov.Inc forces arrayed against them, has been quite remarkable.

  4. What a great gig the head of the IMF must be, you get to fly all over the world and make speech’s, BUT you don’t get to make monetary policy, somebody else does. What ever Ms. Largarde knows or knew is something the PTB can’t have on the front pages of the MSM, and so from a French point of view, it was a visit from madam guillotine that ended leakage.

    Now for her successor, how about Herman Von Rompoy, well he did such a great job at the EU, I would consider him a shoe in.

  5. Dr. Farrell:

    I saw Lagarde’s “number 7” speech, and it was a doozy. But who exactly are “they” and what is it, exactly” they want? I am a bit skeptical that Lagarde would resist doing any damn thing asked of her, like most bankers, including sell her own mother down the river for the right price. If money is going out into special access space projects, where is the payoff? Who makes money of the collateralization of space? What is the payoff, or, Cui Bono? Again, who is “they” and what do they want?

    1. Where is the payoff? Who makes money?

      Yes, those are decent questions but there is also a risk in asking them. At the kind of esoteric levels that are broached on this website, we need to consider the very real possibility that money is simply a non-issue amongst any sort of major player.

      These “people” have access to any sort of creature comfort that they could possibly desire so we have to re-calibrate our analysis & conjecture to consider that they are seeking “things” beyond designer hand-bags or even just tonight’s meal, i.e., more intangible “things” such as eternal life, eternal knowledge, universal domination, etc. and probably some stuff that I can’t even imagine at the moment.

      But to chalk it all up to simple financial & consumer reward is exactly the kind of cynicism that they want us pea-brains indulging in.

      1. Bingo!!!

        Although the access or reward may not be eternal life, etc. there is one oddity I have noticed among the elite politicians and it is their ‘youthful’ appearance. Take the time to compare past photos where they look older than do their more current photos. Of course there are exceptions, and even that should be a clue.

  6. Lets see Dominique Straus-Kahn gets the boot from his IMF job and ex-future political career via a trump up sex-rape scandal. Christine Lagarde down fall seems to be more obtuse which leads me to suspect she knew to much about were the economic skeletons were buried. It looks like all that kept these two from becoming another bankers fatalities was they were to high up in the financial world to be snuff.

  7. “Strauss-Kahn, and how they accused him of raping a hotel maid”- wrong- he was initially accused of having forced her to service him orally- the rape charges came later (we LOVE you, MSM!- you’re just so, gosh, HONEST)-

    my life’s partner, who is French, stated a long time ago (according to his read publicized sources- whatever they’re worth) DS-K was warned a long time ago to watch his step otherwise he would be caught in some sort of a honey-trap-

    as for Christine Lagarde (“her crisp French-accented English”- not exactly- if one really listens to her very carefully and knows voices/accents like I do- I’m an opera singer- her spoken English isn’t just exactly/exclusively French-influenced):

    whenever I look at this woman/hear her speak, watch her body language (it’s very subtle- but I’m able to pick up on this because I work in the realm of theater- we “theater people” deal almost exclusively with body language- it’s part of the illusion we present to people) she freaks me out; am not sure who this entity really is but her rhetoric, body language and freaky, almost alien looks don’t exactly make a perfect match…


  8. Quite an interesting blog and Mz. Lagarde certainly seems to speak on multiple levels at once. You know, Joseph, that events in Ukr are hot right now, yet the IMF just made a “small” loan to Kiev, even though it is technically a war zone in the view of many. Perhaps, there are other things related to the pressures between Warshington, Berlin, Moscva and Kiev and her seeming intent to have the IMF behave lawfully…

    1. Maybe I am just bad with accents but just after 26:58 minutes of the complete video referred by LGL, DID she just say “…for the IMF to continue to be a supportive force, and a LIE, and a partner of financial stability that is needed for all economies to prosper,…”?

    2. At 29:48 she acknowledges journalist’s commitment to truth and honesty, in very difficult circumstances, taking risks more so than we think.
      At 30:35 she mentions that President Chirac, when describing something horrendous, would say the equivalent to “That’s the way it is!”
      I think that she is being sacked, and it took the Magic 7 number of months for that.

  9. Central bank money is an instrument of debt so unless a revolution is coming it is hard to envisage a “handout” being anything other than a loan. Even at “zero interest” the “lucky” beneficiaries would of course have to sign a receipt with lots of small print clauses.
    Anyway, the first of Dr. Farrell’s readers who gets a “handout” could take us all out for a pizza (or at least a “digital dinner”!).
    Finally, the ZH analysis ignores what Fitts and others have been saying about where a lot of money is actually going in a way that does not produce inflation: outer space.

    1. Um, well, say CitiBank got lots of central bank dollars and also US treasury monies, but it seems to be business there like before.

      So that only works if if the fine print reads “continue as usual, but try not to get caught again”.

      Debt isn’t so much the problem, it’s non-productive debt. And that’s what much of banking is today.

      Right, there could be something else, say being funded on the other side of the moon. But where is the accounting for that, and how is it really possible to hide that much tech?

      1. “…how is it really possible to hide that much tech?”

        Well, in a word “stealth”…isn’t that what the technology is fundamentally about?

Comments are closed.