|
|
|
Best Defense of the Federal Reserve: Not “Out of Thin Air” Intellectual honesty requires that one address the strongest, not weakest, arguments of one’s opponent. It is called “Devil’s Advocacy” or “Giving the Devil his Due” but it is not really advocacy, nor really even viewing one’s opponent as “the Devil”. It is simple intellectual honesty. Now, admittedly, we live in a very intellectually dishonest world—a world in which we are routinely demonized by a theocratic supremacy utterly uninterested in the truth or freedom—so there is very little reciprocation earned from us. That is the strongest position of those who would not give the Devil his Due: Why bother with intellectual honesty? The answer is simply, that we seek the truth. With that preliminary out of the way, let me address something that has been bothering me for some time about those who continually go on about the Federal Reserve “creating money out of thin air” as though they are counterfieting. First, the money they create is backed by the threat of punishment—if you don’t obtain their money for payment of taxes, the government will throw you in prisons to experience “sexual awakening”—hence not “out of thin air”. Now, everyone who uses the phrase “out of thin air” will more or less agree that this “backing” by a promise not to punish you if you present the Federal Reserve tokens is real but, they will object, there is no point in discussing such fine distinctions. Yes there is. There is a relatively strong argument from the supporters of fiat money and fractional reserve banking that gets trotted out for the favored few journalists, economics majors and politicians who are trained to ignore the rest of us. We, the “Paranoid”—We, the “Kooks”—We, the “Extremists”—We, the People, are not exposed to it—until now. Imagine a world in which people have taken a step up from barter to issuing IOUs for their goods or services—IOUs which can circulate. Farmer John issues IOUs that say: “I, Farmer John, owe the bearer of this note 1 dozen eggs.” Tailor James issues IOUs that say: “I, Tailor James, owe the bearer of this note 1 fitted suit.” These IOUs are traded around the community and a monetary system is established where the currencies have backing that is as real as the credibility of their issuers. They are “debt money” in the sense that the issuer has made a promise to the bearer but they do not bear interest to anyone in particular. Now comes the Banker: The typical argument you hear from the opponents of Fractional Reserve Banking is that the Banker will have a store of gold that he represents with gold certificates that circulate in the community, and that he issues more certificates than he has gold in a blatant act of fraud. But let’s go back to Farmer John and his eggs for a moment: Farmer John doesn’t have the eggs. He has chickens who lay eggs on a regular basis. If Farmer John has a “run on the henhouse” by the holders of his IOUs, he’ll be accused of having “created IOUs out of thin air” because he won’t be able to service all the demands for his eggs in a timely manner. Now is it true that the Banker’s main monetary service is the storage of gold for people, hence issuing tokens for more gold than he has in storage is fraud? No. That is not the Banker’s main monetary service. The Banker’s main monetary service is to simplify the monetary system by accepting the IOUs from others and performing 3 services: 1) Evaluate the credibility of the barter tokens issued by Farmer John and Tailor James, etc. It’s that simple. Now, one may ask, where does the banker legitimately charge interest here? Simply: Sometimes Farmer John fails to provide eggs. Sometimes Tailor James fails to fit suits. The banker needs to charge what amounts to an insurance premium based on the credibility of Farmer John’s promises and another premium based on the credibility of Tailor James’s promises, etc. Hence, the Banker is merely attempting to do what any honest insurance man does: Cover his, and your, risks in participating in the monetary system under his responsibility. No Gold need be involved at all. Now that we better understand the legitimacy of a “central bank”, let us focus on the real problem: When the bank links up with the tax collecting agencies, as happened in 1913 with the simultaneous passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution, it has acquired the government as collection thugs—thugs who will “break your kneecaps” if you don’t pay up. At some point—and it isn’t well defined exactly when this occurs—the promises for delivery of goods and services cease to be the primary backing for the banker’s notes and the threat of punishment becomes the primary backing. That’s the real problem with the Federal Reserve. Comments:2
Posted by thomas keyney on Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:14 | # This entire article is wrong and doesn’t really make sense. The author does not understand money or banking. 3
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:17 | # All monopolies are a marriage of corporation and state in the sense that no one would be able to retain monopoly rights were it not for state enforcement of their property rights. This is where my tax reform comes to the rescue: Let the banks go ahead and determine the liquidation value of all property rights—their collateral value or “in-place liquidation value”—and use that, rather than economic activity—as the tax base. The rationale is simple: The government provides a service: Protection of your property rights. Net asset taxes are merely a use fee for the primary legitimate service of government. So, what is the liquidation value of, say, Microsoft’s copyright on its operating system? What is the liquidation value of, say, control of the currency standard in the economy? Assess those monopoly rights as the sole source of “tax” revenue—not economic activity. If Bill Gates decides he doesn’t like the assessment, he can take the money and turn over his copyright. The same goes for the guy controlling the currency standard. And then, to enforce property rights, pay the money out in a citizen’s dividend so everyone understands that the more property rights there are, the higher their citizen’s dividend is. You’ll have a very motivated citizens militia making sure property values are maximized. 4
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:23 | #
Thats a very strong statement Thomas, care to elaborate? 5
Posted by JEWISH FEDERAL RESERVE on Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:20 | # The FED is Jewish through and through, as are all of the federal U.S. departments dealing with money: Who Controls the Federal Reserve System? Board of Governors: Federal Reserve District Banks: Of the five(5) members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, three(3) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 60%. Of the twelve(12) Federal Reserve District Bank presidents, eight(8) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 67%. Jews are approximately 2% of the United States population. This means that Jews are over-represented on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors by a factor of 30 times, or 3,000 percent, and over-represented among the presidents of the Federal Reserve District Banks by a factor of 33.5 times, or 3,350 percent. This extreme numerical over-representation of Jews among the members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve District Bank presidents cannot be explained away as a coincidence or as the result of mere random chance. You must ask yourself how such an incredibly small and extremely unrepresentative minority ethnic group that only represents 2% of the American population could so completely dominate the highest levels of the United States Federal Reserve System. Also remember that the U.S. Federal Reserve was started in 1913 by the Jewish-German Warburg family, specifically the Jewish-German-American Paul Warburg. Who Controls the United States Economy? Benjamin S. Bernanke(Jew) - Chairman, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System Jews are approximately 2% of the United States population. The probability that the heads of all of these organizations would be Jews is infinitesimally small. This extreme numerical over-representation of Jews cannot be explained away as a coincidence or as the result of mere random chance. You must ask yourself how such an incredibly small and extremely unrepresentative minority ethnic group that only represents 2% of the American population could so dominate all of these important and influential private and U.S. Government institutions. Who Controls the U.S. Treasury Department? Timothy F. Geithner(part-Jew/married to Jew) - Secretary of the Treasury This is a list of the top Treasury officials that Obama has appointed so far. There are still many positions vacant. NOTE - also see lists at http://zsidozas.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/obamas-jewschange-we-cant-believe-in/ 6
Posted by GenoType on Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:37 | #
Yes, we know. The problem is, what to do about it? Dependent upon the Fed as we are, do we: 1. Snatch the Fed from the jews? Or 2. Minimize/end our dependence on the Fed? For working- and lower middle-class whites the latter option is attractive. But is it feasible? I think so. I’d like to see Bowery pursue this IOU line of thinking.
Please enlighten us. 7
Posted by danielj on Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:01 | # You’ll have a very motivated citizens militia making sure property values are maximized. I get it now James. 8
Posted by Q on Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:29 | # You’ll have a very motivated citizens militia making sure property values are maximized. I hope we’re not going to revert back to the “civilized” world such as it was in England circa 1150? 9
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:06 | # In what respects does banker-assessed liquidation value of assets as tax-base for financing a citizen’s dividend resemble The Anarchy? 10
Posted by Revolution Harry on Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:27 | # I’m sorry but that’s the weakest defense of fiat money and fractional reserve banking I’ve ever read. Barely any of it makes sense. If I had a spare couple of hours I’d try and untangle it all but I haven’t. For further research on the subject try the ‘articles’ section at Prosperity UK. “… all interest is paid eventually by human effort. And the significance of that fact is … that the total of this human effort ultimately is for the benefit of those who create fiat money. It is a form of modern serfdom in which the great mass of society works as indentured servants to a ruling class of financial nobility.” G. Edward Griffin, the author of ‘The Creature From Jekyll Island’. In February 1983, in an article in the London Illustrated News, Sir Arthur Bryant wrote: “What seems required is a public body removed and divorced from political pressure, staffed by Treasury officials, invested by Parliament with the duty of creating, free of interest, as much money for necessary government purposes as the country at any given time should, in their considered judgment, need to ensure the maximum possible employment of its productive resources”. He went on to say: “The exercise of the right inherent in every sovereign state of creating and issuing a sufficiency of money to make financially possible what is physically possible and morally desirable, would enable as much real wealth to be brought into existence as, with its immense inventive and scientific potential, it is capable of making”. Robert H. Hamphill of the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank said: “We are completely dependant on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system…. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.” 11
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:53 | # Revolution Harry writes: I’m sorry but that’s the weakest defense of fiat money and fractional reserve banking I’ve ever read. What is the strongest defense of fiat money and fractional reserve banking you’ve ever read? 12
Posted by Q on Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:31 | # “When the bank links up with the tax collecting agencies” ... then the risk is transferred from the banks onto the taxpayers as evidenced by the bailouts we are currently experiencing. 13
Posted by Don on Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:42 | # A related essay was published today on the ===============================
Bastille Day Edition By ELLEN BROWN The Sun Could Shine Again on the Golden State There is an alternative to that dark future, and perhaps it is to keep the public from waking up to it that arms are being twisted to accept the new burdens quickly. If Wall Street and the Feds won’t extend credit to California on reasonable terms, the State could simply walk away and create its own credit machine. California could put its revenues in its own state-owned bank and fan these “reserves” into many times their face value in loans, using the same “fractional reserve” system that private banks use. Many authorities have attested that banks simply create the money they lend on their books. Congressman Jerry Voorhis, writing in 1973, explained it like this: “[F]or every $1 or $1.50 which people, or the government, deposit in a bank, the banking system can create out of thin air and by the stroke of a pen some $10 of checkbook money or demand deposits. It can lend all that $10 into circulation at interest just so long as it has the $1 or a little more in reserve to back it up.” President Obama himself has acknowledged this “multiplier effect.” In a speech at Georgetown University on April 14, 2009, he said: “[A]lthough there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of banks; where’s our bailout?,’ they ask, the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to families and businesses, a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth.” If private banks can leverage deposits into multiple amounts of “credit” on their books, a state-owned bank could do the same thing, and return the profits to the public purse. One State already does this. North Dakota boasts the only state-owned bank in the nation. It is also one of only two states (along with Montana) that are currently able to meet their budgets. The Bank of North Dakota was established by the legislature in 1919 to free farmers and small businessmen from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men. By law, the State must deposit all its funds in the bank, and the State guarantees its deposits. The bank’s surplus profits are returned to the State’s coffers. The bank operates as a bankers’ bank, partnering with private banks to lend money to farmers, real estate developers, schools and small businesses. It makes 1% loans to startup farms, has a thriving student loan business, and purchases municipal bonds from public institutions. North Dakota is not suffering from unemployment or feeling the pinch of the economic downturn. Rather, it sports the largest surplus it has ever had. If this isolated farming State can escape Wall Street’s credit crisis, the world’s eighth largest economy can do it too! Ellen Hodgson Brown is the author of Web of Debt: the Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free. 14
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:25 | # Obama’s rationalization for bailing out the big financial institutions but not households expresses his African Big Man genes. Of course, he makes this speech to Georgetown University and gets away with it because the big financial institutions are essentially a key component of the domestic surveillance infrstructure. If the bailout money had gone straight to families in a monthly citizen’s dividend in the same amount that went instead into the big financial institutions, bankruptcies and foreclosures would have virtually halted for the core of the economy and left only the most highly leveraged, and most politically patronized aspects of the debt holders in a position where they had to declare bankruptcy. The big financial institutions would have survived or failed based on their relationship with that economic core: The Middle Class. In so doing, there would have been major shifts in management in the financial centers that would have destroyed corrupt relationships that had taken literally decades to organically develop (infest) between government and finance. Of course, perhaps even worse for the African Big Man would have been the evidence that a simple citizen’s dividend is a superior way of dealing with social inequities than the Democrat Party’s various machines, such as the one out of which Obama sprang. I mean how are you going to dole out favors if you can show no favoritism? 15
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:38 | # The above model compares the issuance of private currency by different individuals, the farmer, the tailor and the bank. However, if the state issues the IOU (California or Lincoln’s Greenbacks) who breaks their legs? The threat of punishment shifts to the public, if the state issues the IOUs. Theoretically, California could legitimize their IOUs by forcing the likes of Wells Fargo to accept them. 16
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:59 | # Desmond, Keep in mind the only thing the government promises in issuing its currency is that it will not break your kneecaps if you acquire them to pay taxes. Check this out: Bill would allow IOUs to be used to pay state
17
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:32 | # Quite right James, however, they could extend the legality of the IOUs, as Lincoln did. In fact all that would be needed is to establish a state bank of California, like Montana’s, to ensure Californians access to credit.
18
Posted by Revolution Harry on Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:37 | # James, I’ve never read a strong defense of the ‘Federal Reserve’ system because it’s essentially indefensible. Can I recommend the following three videos. They are excerpts of a speech by Lyndon LaRouche in April of this year. I think you’ll enjoy them. Not only because of his explanation of the ‘monetarist’, ‘Venetian’ system but also his take on the situation in the world today. There are an additional three videos to watch if you’ve enjoyed the first three.
19
Posted by Bill on Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:44 | # Sorry - No particular place to go. Just drumming my fingers after watching the news. Hmm? Swine flu Dry Run? Surprise Surprise. 20
Posted by torgrim on Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:59 | # The Bank of North Dakota, (BND), was just not granted a life, it was fought for, by the pioneers and their descendants. Eric Hardmeyer….“It was created 90 years ago, in 1919,as a populist movement swept the northern plains. Basically it was a very angry movement by a large group of the agrarian sector that was upset by the decisions that were being made in the eastern markets, the money markets maybe in Minnesota, New York, deciding who got credit and how to market the goods.”
21
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:40 | # Please learn about the nature of money and the Federal Reserve Thomas Keney is right. James has neither understood the nature of money as it exists now nor how the Federal Reserve operates. Here’s a short overview of how it works. The money we use is basically issued as debt, by bankers. Let’s start with the American government’s annual budget deficit. To make up for this deficit, the Treasury will sell bonds, which are IOUs. The Federal Reserve will buy 10% of these bonds with money it creates out of nothing and deposit this money in other banks throughout the U.S. If the budget deficit’s a trillion dollars, then the Federal Reserve buys a hundred billion dollars worth of Treasury bonds with money created out of thin air and deposits this $100 billion in other American banks. These banks will retain 10% of this deposit and loan the remaining, i.e., $90 billion (which is the fractional reserve banking part). These $90 billion dollar loans will ultimately end in banks, and banks will then retain 10% of this amount, i.e., $9 billion, and loan $81 billion, and so on. By the time this process ends, banks other than the Federal Reserve would have created $900 billion of money, as loans, out of thin air. So the Federal Reserve creates the initial 10% of money out of nothing ($100 billion in our example) and other American banks create 90% of the money out of nothing ($900 billion in our example), together matching 100% of the budget deficit ($1 trillion in our example). This is how the U.S. government avoids a collapse even though it gets more indebted and has no means of paying its loans and the interest on the loans. This system is obviously grossly unjust and can’t be defended, period. These criminal bankers are earning interest on loans they create out of nothing and they are still owed the principal sum, which can’t be provided to them because the debtors can’t counterfeit money like the bankers do! James, by no means are the bankers accepting IOUs from others and ‘simplifying’ the process of exchange of IOUs between citizens by replacing them with a single currency and charging interest to cover the risk that a citizen may not honor his obligation to another citizen. They create money as debt, out of thin air. They justify charging interest on these loans in terms of covering the risk that some borrowers may not be able to pay back their loans to the bankers as well as providing bankers with an incentive to ‘loan’ their assets, assets that are created out of thin air. What’s wrong and what isn’t? It’s important to understand what is at fault and what isn’t. The problem isn’t with fiat currency or with having a central bank. The problem is with fractional reserve banking and the money supply being in the hands of private bankers not accountable to the public. What’s the Solution? We need nationalization of the money supply. Only the Treasury should be able to create money and regulate its supply, and the Treasury will create this money as a public service, not debt, and hence the government won’t have any interest to pay to anyone for the use of this money. We need to end fractional reserve banking pronto! There’ s a solution that will both enable the government to retire its trillions in debt and provide the capital to help bring banks up to 100% reserves. The Treasury needs to buy the public national debt with debt-free fiat currency created by it (like Lincoln’s greenbacks or colonial script), say, United States Notes, and this money will provide the capital to bring bank reserves to 100%. This way there is neither inflation nor deflation. The details can be read in the monetary reform act. 22
Posted by Dasein on Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:48 | # JR, how do foreign lenders (like China) fit into this? If the Fed buys 10% of the bonds, are foreign lenders buying most of the remaining 90%? 23
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:13 | # Dasein, U.S. Treasury bonds are bought by all sorts of private parties, American or foreign. About 45-50% of outstanding U.S. Treasury securities are held by non-Americans (25% by Chinese), but ordinary people have to part with their money to buy Treasury bonds. When Chinese individuals buy U.S. Treasury bonds/bills, they do so with the dollars they get from Americans buying Chinese products, whereas the Federal Reserve and foreign central banks run by the same international bankers pay for them by creating money out of nothing. 24
Posted by Q on Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:28 | # Gerald Celente is more than a lucky prognosticator. His accuracy with trends forecasting is based on thousands of pieces of data set against a backdrop of fundamental economic realities. Gerald Celente: Washington is Wall St. and Wall St. is Washington 25
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:18 | # First I want to say that I have clarified my own thinking here, in real time, about “the problem” and it has to do with the monopoly aspect of controlling the currency standard, just as Microsoft was the problem in software because of its controlling the operating system standard during the coming-to-fruition of Moore’s Law (microelectronics capacity doubling every 18 months —more or less—for decades). In both cases, the demand for a standard platform gave the owner of the platform control that was not justified by their, supposed, contribution of value to the platform. I refer the interested back to my comment about assessing the liquidation value of ownership of the Microsoft OS copyright as analogous to assessing the liquidation value of ownership of the central bank’s power to issue the standard currency—and the need to reorient the tax base around the recognition of the government’s function, as protector of property rights within a social contract to which we have all (supposedly) voluntarily consented, paying the parties to that social contract a dividend—a citizen’s dividend—in payment for creating this protection-of-property service. Now, having more clearly restated that point, let me get back to J Richards: The government can be viewed as the largest customer of the owner of the monetary standard (the Federal Reserve). The central bank looks at the IOUs issued by the government and assesses a liquidation value to them in terms of the standard currency. In this respect the difference between Farmer John and the US government is that the US government is far less likely to default on its IOUs than is Farmer John on his IOUs for one dozen eggs, because the US government can basically go out and confiscate the economy to pay its IOUs. In theory, at least, Farmer John’s chickens are far more likely to die than is the economy. From the cost of providing the service, the interest rate charged the US government should be essentially 0% in order to reflect the likelihood that it is going to default. But there are three additional factors: 1) Defaults are not the only costs incurred by a central bank. 2) People are greedy. and 3) The central bankers are people with a monopoly protected by the government. Some people believe that socializing monopolies, such as Microsoft and the Federal Reserve, is the best way of controlling the greed and sloth of their owners. I think it is better to assess the liquidation value of the monopoly, offer to buy it at that price and if they don’t sell, tax that liquidation value to pay out a citizen’s dividend. Now there may be an exception to this—as I have pointed out previously in my “<a >Actuarial Militia Reform</a>” when we are talking about local currencies. In that case the actuarial militia is the “government” which also is the central bank and the “bankers” are the members of the militia. In that situation, Farmer John issues IOUs to members of the militia in exchange for militia scrip which Farmer John then uses to pay his property insurance which is collected by the actuarial militia to protect his property from loss due to force and/or fraud. I have not thought through completely how far the idea of an “independent central bank” may be taken into the local area on the strength of the actuarial militia being able to basically charge whatever they like as insurance premiums—but keep in mind this: The value of standardization is not limited to a single locale. It may be that the best thing to do is the reverse: Take the actuarial militia paradigm as global as the currency standard, and make it the one monopoly that is socialized rather than assessed a premium for its liquidation value. 26
Posted by Euro on Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:04 | # Before we do anything we must abolish the debt,both public and private.Not only would this be good in and of itslef,it’s advocacy would propel racial-minded people into the circles of power from where they can initiate other,more radical measures,for the benefit of our culture.It would also force our tyrants to back-peddle and make efforts to underbid us for the support of the insolvent citizenry.We would be on the offensive for a change. 27
Posted by Euro on Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:06 | # One unrelated question,does the commenter “sm” still comment hereabouts?I’d like to contact him if he does. 28
Posted by Don on Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:22 | # Something more that is relevant as of today: __________________________________ More than 175 prominent economists are warning that “the independence of U.S. monetary policy is at risk” because of attacks on the Fed. They are urging Congress and the president to “avoid compromising [the U.S. central bank’s] ability to manage monetary policy as it sees fit” and to refrain from politicizing its decisions on emergency loans to financial institutions. The move to publicly defend the Fed’s role reflects growing unease among academic economists, former Fed officials and some investors that the vehemence of the criticism from Congress of the Fed’s handling of the financial crisis suggests a readiness in Congress to weaken the freedom the Fed has to move interest rates as it see fits. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124767659527946239.html#mod=djemalertNEWS Read the petition and see the list of signatories: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/07/15/petition-for-fed-independence/ 29
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:55 | # Economists are no more trustworthy than any social scientists. They’re all at the beck and call of their pay-masters—not of nature or truth—because their theories can never be held accountable to experimental verification without formal secession as the foundation of the social sciences. 30
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:24 | # James, The problem isn’t a monopoly. We can’t have different entities creating money. Only a government that’s accountable to the public should be able to create money and regulate its supply – this government monopoly is needed. You really believe that the US government is far less likely to default on its IOUs than is Farmer John? How can the U.S. government pay its $11.5 trillion current debt? If the government taxed 100% of people’s incomes – a joke – it couldn’t pay this debt. And this debt increases every budget year. You also said, ‘Some people believe that socializing monopolies, such as Microsoft and the Federal Reserve, is the best way of controlling the greed and sloth of their owners.’ No socialization of the central bank is needed. The government has much to deal with and shouldn’t be running a bank. But what we need is socialization of the money supply, i.e., the government producing money and controlling its supply. This way if the Federal Reserve has $300 billion in United States notes, printed by the Treasury, it’s welcome to lend as much of it as it pleases to the government or other banks, but the Federal Reserve shouldn’t be allowed to create its loans out of nothing. 31
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:31 | # Petition for the FED’s independence Don cited this and this is very interesting. Here’s the petition.
What a sick joke! The signatories are esteemed academics/economists! The independence of the Federal Reserve System is a foundation of U.S. economic stability! The FED parasites have caused a cycle of booms and busts, including the Great Depression and the current recession, leaving Americans poorer in the process. Central bank independence has been shown to be essential for controlling inflation! Today’s dollar is worth 4 cents in 1913, when the FED was created. ‘Calls to alter the structure or personnel selection of the Federal Reserve System easily could backfire by raising inflation expectations and borrowing costs and dimming prospects for recovery.’ In other words, FED criminals threaten to destroy the American economy if the government intervenes. The democratic legitimacy of the Federal Reserve System is well established by its legal mandate and by the existing appointments process! Sorry, the legality of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 has never been adjudicated and it’s clearly unconstitutional because the constitution only allows Congress to create money and forbids it from transferring its essential legislative functions to other parties. Note that the U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, and legislation passed by congress that is at odds with the constitution is invalid. Frequent communication with the public and testimony before Congress ensure Fed accountability! Stupid jokers! The Fed tells others what it feels like and this makes the FED accountable! Now what would happen if the FED were audited? We’d see the FED creating money out of nothing, periodically contracting the money supply to cause a recession, etc. I say audit the FED, arrest the criminals and sentence them to life in prison without parole, confiscate the criminals’ loot and use it to fund societal improvement projects, nationalize the money supply and mandate that banks maintain 100% reserves. 32
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:32 | # The Federal Reserve’s nomenclature is, doubtless, yet another act of Jewish crypsis as it is neither federal nor does it possess any reserves. 33
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:58 | # JRichards writes: “We can’t have different entities creating money.” We can and we do have different entities creating money. What we do not have, and probably should not have is different entities creating legal tender for any given body politic. The declaration of which money is legal tender is pretty much the way any government establishes its national currency standard. Think about it like this: If the US government said it would procure only Linux systems and anyone that wanted to interact with the US government had to follow Linux standards, how, it would be a fight but it is very likely that within a decade a copy of the latest and greatest Windows operating system would be worth less than a copy of Linux is now. Standardization is powerful. As for public accountability and the creation of money, it was so-called “public accountability” that led to the creation of that $11 trillion public debt. I support and have lobbied for the Audit the Fed bills now before Congress, and clearly the entire financial sector of the world economy is filled to the brim with criminals that need to go to jail. Our biggest problem is a failed government. 34
Posted by Revolution Harry on Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:40 | # Our biggest problem is a failed government. A government owned and controlled by the banking elites (those who own them rather than those who run them). It was meant to fail. Take the power to create money away from private banks (responsible only to their shareholders) and give it back to sovereign governments (responsible to their people) and so many problems plaguing Britain, America and the rest of the world would either disappear or greatly diminish. 35
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:42 | # RH writes: “A government owned and controlled by the banking elites (those who own them rather than those who run them). It was meant to fail.” While there is a reasonable argument to be made that the US Constitution was the creature of bankers (see Shay’s Rebellion), I don’t think that’s what you meant to say. 36
Posted by Revolution Harry on Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:38 | # James, we could have a long discussion as to who or what was behind the US constitution but I wasn’t actually thinking that far back. I was referring to the post 1913 era, after the creation of the Federal Reserve. The infamous quote by President Woodrow Wilson in 1916 comes to mind. In reference to his role in the creation of the Federal Reserve, he said: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” 37
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:53 | # Well, I would suggest looking deeper into the foundation of the United States:
38
Posted by Genocidalist Holdren Swede or Jew on Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:58 | # Guess who owns the biggest owner of U.S. debt by far? ($5 trillion share last I checked…) It’s… not a foreign country, not U.S. citizens but… THE PRIVATELY OWNED UNAUDITED FEDERAL RESERVE. These pieces of shit have not only given themselves $5 trillion dollars, they also collect interest on this debt ($150 billion a year, at 3%.) 39
Posted by Genocidalist Holdren Swede or Jew on Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:01 | # The good news is, the U.S. owes most of the debt to its own central bank (and therefore exists as only an accounting artifact, in a sane world.) The bad news is, the Jews who own the bank own us. 40
Posted by günstiger privatkredit on Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:01 | # In this respect the difference between Farmer John and the US government is that the US government is far less likely to default on its IOUs than is Farmer John on his Io Us for one dozen eggs, because the US government can basically go out and confiscate the economy to pay its IOUs. In theory, at least, Farmer John’s chickens are far more likely to die than is the economy…günstiger privatkredit 41
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 20 Sep 2009 05:19 | # You are reading impaired. It is not Farmer John who is analogous to the Federal Reserve, but the Banker who is converting various promises, that might otherwise be thought of as individually issued currency or barter tokens, into a standard currency. 42
Posted by Q on Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:28 | # We, the white middleclass in America are being screwed without the Vaseline. Here’s how: 43
Posted by John Aex on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 20:34 | # Lol that videao is very cool. Does anybody know if there’s more information available about the Federal Reserve in 2011? 44
Posted by lars ferrer on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:52 | # <strong></strong>hi Post a comment:
Next entry: What’s powder keg in French?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:11. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 21:35. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 20:51. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 19:49. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 18:47. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 23:29. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:01. (View) Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:52. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:17. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:02. (View) Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:05. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sun, 24 Nov 2024 19:32. (View) |
Posted by John on Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:23 | #
One can also object to the FED on the basis that it’s a fascist monopoly (fascist in the sense of marraige of corporation and state), though without some sort of mafia-like punishment for boycotts it might be unenforceable, or that it’s communist—a central bank is the fifth plank in the Communist Party platform.