Princes of the Yen | The Hidden Power of Central Banks

> China's ascension to number 1 world economy My gripe with this is that people seem to take this as a fact that hasn't even occurred with almost 100% certainty that it will happen. A lot can go wrong in 20 years. So far, all economies that challenged US in the past mysteriously gets IMF'd, pulling the rug out of a credit bubble that they help create by twisting the arms of the central banks that are supposed to be free from this kind of interference: This documentary about Japanese central bank is eye opening to just how much grip the US hegemony has, one which I fail to see China being able to emulate anytime soon because of the hostage situation that US allies are finding themselves in. ▶ this video The theory that states Sadam was whacked because he started to accept euro instead of the petrodollar standard makes an awful lot of sense.

"Princes of Yen" ( 円の支配者) has a more cynical view of things. I'd definitely recommend it, if you're the "conspiracy theorist" sort. ▶ this video Some of Richard Werner's and Karel van Wolferen's lectures might be interesting too. Our society is inclined to attribute success to some intrinsic nature (race, culture, language..). Japan's successful ? It must be Zen. China not ? Must be Confucianism, shame-based culture. Now China is ? Ah it must be Confucianism, collectivism. India is not successful ? It must be Hindooism. They have Sanskrit ? Ah it must be the Aryans. The Native Americans died out ? Ah it must be their immune system. The play is clear. Japan's success is likely due to the way MacArthur normalized its war-economy, and because of how it was guided in the post-war years. Ditto with Korea/China/Thailand/ and now Vietnam/India (and other SE countries). I haven't seen a tick of anything "native" at the heart of it, even though nationalism dictates that the citizens be deluded into believing these things.

Fair enough. I think the comment was implying that their policies, not being entirely democratically accountable - the effectiveness of these instruments themselves being arguable - are very likely going to be swayed by private interests. I know there exists a revolving door b/w FDR and major Wall Street banks, but I'm not sure about other countries. I'd not be surprised if this were the case everywhere. Edit: 'Princes of Yen' is a documentary that I found did a good job of illustrating the dangers of having such high powered unaccountable cabals (without all the BS that is typical in this genre). ▶ this video

For a very interesting commentary of the immense power of central banks, I'd recommend the documentary "Princes of the Yen", a film adaptation of Richard Werner's[1] book of the same name. ▶ this video [1] link

> People outside the US loved it. Correction: foreign central banks guided by IMF subsidiaries loved it dearly, people - not that much, perhaps the opposite [1] [1] ▶ this video

CBDCs could upturn existing assumptions about the role of currencies, e.g. from June of this year, link > Tom Mutton, a director at the Bank of England, said during a conference on Monday that programming could become a key feature of any future central bank digital currency ... what happens if one of the participants in a transaction puts a restriction on [future use of the money]? ... Sir Jon Cunliffe, a deputy Governor at the Bank, said digital currencies could be programmed for commercial or social purposes ... “You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets. There is a whole range of things that money could do, programmable money, which we cannot do with the current technology.” At an IMF meeting in Oct 2020, Swiss BIS director Carstens commented on CBDCs, link > With cash, we don't know who is using the 100 dollar bill today ... a key difference with CBDC is that the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that determine the expression of that central bank liability .. also we will have the technology to enforce that ... if an advanced economy issues a CBDC, and someone in a 3rd country wants to use it, it will require the consent of the central bank of the residence of that person, therefore the degree of control will be far bigger. Well-intentioned initiatives like Linux Foundation's global vaccine passport ( link ), EU digital health certificate and Apple+Androi

Claiming that the BOJ is inactive is either an indicator that you're an insider and I have no idea what I'm talking about (as an outsider am bamboozled by the magic trick/strong jawbones of the BOJ), or that you have no idea what you're talking about (with no disrespect). I don't mean to sound combative but this is such an extreme statement (in my view) that I'm eager to find which scenario is true. The BOJ is so active that we talk about the progression of the US in terms of "japanification" -- as in the US is going somewhere (in monetary policy) japan has already been. ZIRP, extended forever-QE, messing with whatever rates they needed to, buying JGBs, buying stocks. BOJ is not an inactive central banking institution. This doesn't even take into account the borderline conspiracy theories floating around on the way the BOJ exerts control(summed up by Princes of the Yen[0]). Could you explain a little more about why you think the BOJ's actions in the last like... 3 decades have somehow not "entered" the economy (which I don't think is synonymous with not affecting the economy)? [0]: ▶ this video

Richard Murphy has written a book called The Joy of Tax, where one of the central arguments is that the generally accepted view of tax playing the role of funding government expenditure is incorrect, or at the very least, undesirable. Instead we ought to view tax as being a tool which acts as a force of contraction in the economy, taking money out of circulation that has been put there as a result of government spending. Both of these (fiscal) mechanisms - spending and taxing - ideally act as a mechanism to democratise the economy. 'Ideally' in the sense that the mechanisms for choosing and applying such policies are democratic, rather than authoritarian, subject to capture, etc. 'Democratise' in the sense that without this intervention, the 'market' has free reign - with ensuing consequences that influence over it is not in the hands of the many. Libertarians (especially of the free-market ilk) may see this as a positive, however, I think it is plainly obvious that a market is never free, and has a tendency to concentrate wealth (and thus power). In my opinion, decisions over our collective efforts and available resources ought not to be in the hands of the few, but rather, in the many - via truly democratic mechanisms and institutions. Some interesting, related vids that discuss boom/bust, QE and the like: ▶ this video link