cheers again, ben, that ‘Office for the Impact Economy’ report has led me to O'Donohoe. this is fucking criminal. it’s so blatant what they’ve done.

it might be ‘technically legal’, but that these pricks at the same time speaks of an ‘impact economy’ which ‘sells’ blended finance for ethical purposes which allows private parties to rip off the taxpayer, while lying about future rewards (modelled by a ‘black box’, and foe which no-one will accept responsibility) is so far beyond any legit ‘ethical’ boundary that it being ‘technically legal’ is virtually irrelevant.

they knew bloody well what they were doing, and it had nothing to do with positive ‘social impact’

it’s outright theft, and it runs straight through JP Morgan. and Jamie Dimon was present at the 2009 GIIN announcement at the Clinton Global Initiative.

it’s fraud, through and through. oh, sorry, it ‘does not meet the legal definition of fraud’, in spite of it having zip to do with legit ‘social impact’.

https://giin-web-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/giin/assets/press-release/giin-launch-2009.pdf

i covered this a few times already

not least over here

https://escapekey.substack.com/p/epstein-iii?utm_source=publication-search

Ronald Cohen and O'Donohoe were essentially tag-teaming this, with JP Morgan and Jeffrey Epstein

it should be mainstream fucking news, instead google, twitter and facebook by intent censor it. what does that tell you?

a particular lie relates to the claim that earlier versions generated £9 in public value for every £1 spent

with that kind of return on investment, the private sector should frankly not even want the public anywhere near it.

funny, that. because they refuse to enter, unless the sucker… sorry, taxpayer goes first.

the ‘sophisticated investor’.

boy, those ‘impact investments’ were sh-tty deals.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/levin-repeatedly-references-shty-deal-at-goldman-hearing/

the amount of material here… between Ronald Cohen and O'Donohoe… there is no f’ing way this isn’t it.

lob in al gore, the clintons, epstein… rothschild, rockefeller,… i mean, what is the MSM busy with?

Beyonce’s new hair do? something about a democract calling trump dumb? a republican calling Iran evil?

the magnitude of this scandal is, frankly, on an unprecedented scale. astonishing they can get away with this scale of grand larceny.

let’s do a stats update…

oh, under 0.9%. google, facebook and twitter drive less than 1% of my substack traffic.

absolutely infuriating.

oh now i have a fucking great idea wrt bringing down the uk debt load.

either that, or those BoE-backed crooks have to own up to fraudulent maths.

you can’t have it both ways. now, how to formulate this...

the BoE is the regulator.

they have not challenged the obviously BS £9 return on £1 ‘impact’ investment.

consequently, either they are incompetent, or they find the figure acceptable.

this is key.

now, the pound sterling is debt-based. what this means is that it’s a claim on future income.

consequently, we have the pound sterling and the uk debt load which is a claim on future income, AND we have a 9:1 return on ‘impact investing’.

ergo, all we have to do to fix the UK’s debt issue, is balance the two relative to one another.

the BoE is fine with this. they haven’t objected to the obvious lie that is a 9:1 return on investment.

consequently, all we have to do, is spend £300bn on ‘impact investment’, offset the BoE-backed gains of £2.7tn against the uk public sector debt, and the nation is debt free.

thanks, bank of england.

(well, technically we’d be £300bn in the hole - but that’s much better than £2.7tn)

as regulator, the bank of england have accepted this absurd crap of a 9:1 return on ‘impact’ investing. consequently, the need to bear the responsibility here.

they’re not fit to regulate with this level of incompetence.

why are my messages here now posting in super-slow motion, one character at a time?

excellent - here’s how the UK will go debt free in an instant.

the BoE either has grossly failed in its duties, or is ok with obviously fraudulent maths.

the bank of england needs to be investigated for corrupt activity

https://escapekey.substack.com/p/in-tandem?utm_source=publication-search

feel free to point out, btw, that the above example technically isn’t the BoE’s remit, in which case you’ll have to explain why it technically isn’t anyone’s.

because in that case, please explain to me why i would be prosecuted for offering a unique investment opportuniy along these lines, given the treasury are at liberty to lie.

almost done with summary essays

https://escapekey.substack.com/p/macro-to-micro