Crime Against Humanity: Pensée Unique in Economics, 36

Then, another fact in those graphed data bridges from the false foundation of the Pensée Unique to its hidden real purpose: not only the ratio of Gross Domestic Product to the money supply is highly variable, but in addition it is so only in one way: downwards.
Werner’s data are for Japan, but he reports that Japan is no exception, and that many studies and economists documented how that ratio “appeared to hold until the early 1970s”, and then it “increasingly came apart at the seams during the course of the 1980s”, so… “A decline in the velocity meant that the money supply grew faster than nominal GDP. But where did the money go?”

As Werner’s graphs show the ratio for different measures of money, perhaps a further interesting clue may be found in comparing the graphs: if the more a money measure is detached from the root one – the money issued by the formal holder of monetary sovereignty – and the more the resulting ratio declines, this would mean that the more monetary sovereignty is usurped, the more moneypulation takes place.

Anyway, Werner asks the pivotal question, and Werner finds its answer: the money went to speculators. It could be said it never left the pockets of moneypulators.
This answer is obviously found by facing head−on exactly what the Pensée Unique conceals: the terms of the question are Gross Domestic Product and money? Let’s look at them more closely.

Not all transactions that take place are reflected in Gross Domestic Product. Financial, speculative ones do not. As the name implies, GDP is about production; finance is about speculation, not production. So let’s disaggregate both transactions and the money used for them in those that are part of the Gross Domestic Product and those that are not.

Negligible detail, looking more closely at money here means getting to the root of things, diametrically opposed to the blatant cover lie universally maintained by the mainstream economics establishment. To further clarify it, let’s merge the terms money and credit into a single basic one: purchasing power. Why? Because we do now know the first are swept by the waves of legal tricks, while the latter is the undisturbed undersea current of substance.
The cover lie is: banks are mere intermediaries of existing purchasing power. The truth is: banks – and only banks – do enjoy the “privilege” of creating purchasing power out of nothing. In their own pockets – just another negligible detail.