Here disasters and disasters of them.

Whenever there is a moment of bad weather, in any country, we discuss whether a massive investment program is needed to rehabilitate the infrastructure, and every time the answer is that "yes, but we cannot for Europe". In reality, things are in a bit more complicated.

First, the ECB is lending money to banks and governments, at impressive rates and close to zero interest. So, if you find a banker, or a group of bankers, it's not impossible to ask the ECB a lot of money to do anything. Obviously, we need to find the banker who is willing to borrow money at rate X, and the industrialist who then uses them to build the works.

If this cannot be done there is a reason: the ECB loan has a duration, while no one can predict how long public works will last. The risk, therefore, is to ask the ECB for the work at a certain rate, for a certain time, and then to be cheated by a change of course (and interest rate) of the ECB. But the problem here is not in the ECB, which has printed money in huge quantities: it is in those who are not able to do the work in predictable times. And is it the bankers who do not want to invest in real things: and if the client, after having taken the contract, ends up under investigation and fails?

In reality, the story that "there is no money for public works", when it comes to investments that in the long term make (because the disasters COST, therefore save MANY money), does not stand. It does not stand at a time when central banks look like presses.

What is not standing is the system that is after:

• We need a bank that wants to invest in an industry that has to carry out a work, without fearing that the industry will disappear in the usual bribe scandal.
• We need an industry that accepts penalties, that pays them, and that realizes the works in times compatible with the dynamics of the credit market.

At this time, that is, if you find a banker and an industrialist who have a reasonable certainty of surviving the contract without ending up in a scandal, if the only problem is to find one hundred, two hundred billion, it's not really a problem. Of course, a group of bankers is needed, and everything a politician needs to know how to do, but since in the end some of that money remains in his pocket, it is business.

But at that point the problem enters the world of politics and Freemasonry.

First of all, the politician will ask for bribes. As soon as he asks for bribes, the project becomes vulnerable due to judicial inquiries. If the inquiry arrives, then the site is seized and everything stops. As the interests run, the costs become unpredictable.

So, the problem boils down to: "but will the investigation ever come?"

There are two entities involved:

1. The parties. If they start asking for bribes, and over a hundred billion of spending they will want so many, the project becomes risky.
2. Freemasonry. Freemasons decide whether a magistrate opens an investigation against a politician. The judiciary is so infiltrated that it does not move leaf.

Once there was also civil protection, which could do "urgent" work, (including the case in which there was a real danger of damage to the population), but obviously the Freemasonry ordered a series of "investigation scandals" (which then they almost all acquitted) and the competitor got out of the way.

So now we always need the race, and with the political race we enter the "who knows if the project ends".

The whole point is here.

But the media continues to talk about "drawn cordons", as if the ECB were not printing money at an impressive rate.

The abbreviations you see below, which correspond to the colored bars, are the following:

And the thing that really amazes is that no one is questioning this phrase, according to which "no money can be found to do the work".

Then you will say that asking for money from the ECB; however low the interests are, it is still debt. BUT you have forgotten one thing:

Borrowing money to build infrastructures that repay over time is EXACTLY the RIGHT way to make debts. Banks exist FOR THIS, including central banks.

The second objection will be: but this debt would be added to the existing debt. Sure. But it is the existing debt that is the problem, not the loan to build the infrastructure that stops natural disasters.

And then, I want to ask one thing: could some politician show a copy of one of these documents where the "wicked" ECB refuses to lend the money they need? "So, have any Italian politicians TESTED to ask for money, (after having formed a consortium of suitable bankers + industrialists) and received the written answer" no, we don't give them to you "?

Can you show this official document? You can show a copy to show that "don't they give you money?" Have you ever asked them, I say OFFICIAL? Not with a meeting where you go in person: a hundred billion are not asked so, there are mountains of paperwork.

But the point is: have you ever tried it?

The truth is that the Italian press continues to cover this pitiful dance, because nobody has the courage to ask if by chance "someone has tried".

Dear journalists, would you mind asking some politicians why the ECB has printed two and a half euro TRILIARDI, and still we talk about "austerity" and "tight cordons"? How come "there is no money" when the ECB printed a river and a half?

And then, what do you want to sell? That before the ECB the public works were all done, that the territory was well cared for, and that disasters did not cause damage? LOL.

The second point is that "there is climate change". Ni. I say "ni" because climate change is increasing the FREQUENCY of these events, but it is not bringing events that did not exist before. Of course, perhaps in terms of scope and design of public works the risk assessment changes a lot.

But it is not that without climate change these events do not happen: they are simply less frequent. BUT on the other hand, I challenge you to find a five-year period (the duration of a legislature) in which ONE NEVER SUCCESSFUL ONE.

It is a search that you do not need to do: every shine happens ALWAYS at least one situation where someone dies for a disastrous meteorological event: is it really different if TWO happens instead of one?

Of course it's different: it makes it even more sensible to ask for a loan to get the territory back on its feet. Because the more money you save with some infrastructure, the more sense it makes asking for a loan to do it.

Why don't you do it? I repeat: banks willing to earn money by borrowing money and giving them to some strong industry that does the necessary works, you find them. Of industries that would like to sacrifice themselves to make contracts , you find them.

What you do not find is a Freemasonry, which now dominates the judiciary, willing to let the works do.

I see around that people regret IRI. Apart from that there was little to regret, but even if it made sense, the point is that IRI existed in a world in which the police were to investigate, not the magistrate. If today we reconstruct IRI, Freemasonry would try to climb it, and it would do so by threatening scandals and wiretapping. So once again, let's get back to the point before.

The vicious circle is that in order to remove the Freemasonry around you would need a judiciary, but the judiciary is almost completely infiltrated by Freemasonry, and this prevents you from moving. It's a vicious circle.

I honestly don't know how a country could get out of this Freemasonry loop that infiltrates everything. If you want to destroy Freemasonry and secret societies you must have a handful of loyal fanatics, willing to use hard methods for interrogation, in order to reconstruct the entire network of Freemasons. But this in a democracy is not feasible.

I therefore believe that you will have to resign yourself to having a territory that goes to rumor, while politicians tell in the newspapers that they do not give you money, and the newspapers themselves say that the ECB has now printed DUE TRILIARDI and a half euro.

This is the surreal moment of the Italian press. The moment when a lie and its denial are printed at the same time, without allowing anyone to put the two together, and understand that the two are not together. Because the money goes to the banks, which can lend them to the industries, which make us the works. In exchange for government bonds.

Or Draghi made QE, or the money to borrow is missing.

Tertium non datur.

links