Secrets of the federal reserve

[Spytheweb]

Secrets of the Federal Reserve
by Eustace Mullins

While lecturing in many countries, and appearing on radio and television programs as a guest, the author is frequently asked questions about the Federal Reserve System. The most frequently asked questions and the answers are as follows:

Q: What is the Federal Reserve System?

A: The Federal Reserve System is not Federal; it has no reserves; and it is not a system, but rather, a criminal syndicate. It is the product of criminal syndicalist activity of an international consortium of dynastic families comprising what the author terms "The World Order" (see "THE WORLD ORDER" and "THE CURSE OF CANAAN", both by Eustace Mullins). The Federal Reserve system is a central bank operating in the United States. Although the student will find no such definition of a central bank in the textbooks of any university, the author has defined a central bank as follows: It is the dominant financial power of the country which harbors it. It is entirely private-owned, although it seeks to give the appearance of a governmental institution. It has the right to print and issue money, the traditional prerogative of monarchs. It is set up to provide financing for wars. It functions as a money monopoly having total power over all the money and credit of the people.

Q: When Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913, did the Congressmen know that they were creating a central bank?

A: The members of the 63rd Congress had no knowledge of a central bank or of its monopolistic operations. Many of those who voted for the bill were duped; others were bribed; others were intimidated. The preface to the Federal Reserve Act reads "An Act to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial papers, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes." The unspecified "other purposes" were to give international conspirators a monopoly of all the money and credit of the people of the United States; to finance World War I through this new central bank, to place American workers at the mercy of the Federal Reserve system's collection agency, the Internal Revenue Service, and to allow the monopolists to seize the assets of their competitors and put them out of business.

Q: Is the Federal Reserve system a government agency?

A: Even the present chairman of the House Banking Committee claims that the Federal Reserve is a government agency, and that it is not privately owned. The fact is that the government has never owned a single share of Federal Reserve Bank stock. This charade stems from the fact that the President of the United States appoints the Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, who are then confirmed by the Senate. The secret author of the Act, banker Paul Warburg, a representative of the Rothschild bank, coined the name "Federal" from thin air for the Act, which he wrote to achieve two of his pet aspirations, an "elastic currency", read (rubber check), and to facilitate trading in acceptances, international trade credits. Warburg was founder and president of the International Acceptance Corporation, and made billions in profits by trading in this commercial paper. Sec. 7 of the Federal Reserve Act provides "Federal reserve banks, including the capital and surplus therein, and income derived therefrom, shall be exempt from Federal, state and local taxation, except taxes on real estate." Government buildings do not pay real estate tax.

Q: Are our dollar bills, which carry the label "Federal Reserve notes" government money?

A: Federal Reserve notes are actually promissory notes, promises to pay, rather than what we traditionally consider money. They are interest bearing notes issued against interest bearing government bonds, paper issued with nothing but paper backing, which is known as fiat money, because it has only the fiat of the issuer to guarantee these notes. The Federal Reserve Act authorizes the issuance of these notes "for the purposes of making advances to Federal reserve banks... The said notes shall be obligations of the United States. They shall be redeemed in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States in the District of Columbia." Tourists visiting the Bureau of Printing and Engraving on the Mall in Washington, D.C. view the printing of Federal Reserve notes at this governmental agency on contract from the Federal Reserve System for the nominal sum of .00260 each in units of 1,000, at the same price regardless of the denomination. These notes, printed for a private bank, then become liabilities and obligations of the United States government and are added to our present $4 trillion debt. The government had no debt when the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913.

Q: Who owns the stock of the Federal Reserve Banks?

A: The dynastic families of the ruling World Order, internationalists who are loyal to no race, religion, or nation. They are families such as the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Schiffs, the Rockefellers, the Harrimans, the Morgans and others known as the elite, or "the big rich".

Q: Can I buy this stock?

A: No. The Federal Reserve Act stipulates that the stock of the Federal Reserve Banks cannot be bought or sold on any stock exchange. It is passed on by inheritance as the fortune of the "big rich". Almost half of the owners of Federal Reserve Bank stock are not Americans.

Q: Is the Internal Revenue Service a governmental agency?

A: Although listed as part of the Treasury Department, the IRS is actually a private collection agency for the Federal Reserve System. It originated as the Black Hand in mediaeval Italy, collectors of debt by force and extortion for the ruling Italian mob families. All personal income taxes collected by the IRS are required by law to be deposited in the nearest Federal Reserve Bank, under Sec. 15 of the Federal Reserve Act, "The moneys held in the general fund of the Treasury may be ....deposited in Federal reserve banks, which banks, when required by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall act as fiscal agents of the United States."

Q: Does the Federal Reserve Board control the daily price and quantity of money?

A: The Federal Reserve Board of Governors, meeting in private as the Federal Open Market Committee with presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks, controls all economic activity throughout the United States by issuing orders to buy government bonds on the open market, creating money out of nothing and causing inflationary pressure, or, conversely, by selling government bonds on the open market and extinguishing debt, creating deflationary pressure and causing the stock market to drop.

Q: Can Congress abolish the Federal Reserve System?

A: The last provision of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Sec. 30, states, "The right to amend, alter or repeal this Act is expressly reserved." This language means that Congress can at any time move to abolish the Federal Reserve System, or buy back the stock and make it part of the Treasury Department, or to altar the System as it sees fit. It has never done so.

Q: Are there many critics of the Federal Reserve beside yourself?

A: When I began my researches in 1948, the Fed was only thirty-four years old. It was never mentioned in the press. Today the Fed is discussed openly in the news section and the financial pages. There are bills in congress to have the Fed audited by the Government Accounting Office. Because of my expose, it is no longer a sacred cow, although the Big Three candidates for President in 1992, Bush, Clinton and Perot, joined in a unanimous chorus during the debates that they were pledged not to touch the Fed.

Q: Have you suffered any personal consequences because of your expose of the Fed?

A: I was fired from the staff of the Library of Congress after I published this expose in 1952, the only person ever discharged from the staff for political reasons. When I sued, the court refused to hear the case. The entire German edition of this book was burned in 1955, the only book burned in Europe since the Second World War. I have endured continuous harassment by government agencies, as detailed in my books "A WRIT FOR MARTYRS" and "MY LIFE IN CHRIST". My family also suffered harassment. When I spoke recently in Wembley Arena in London, the press denounced me as "a sinister lunatic".

Q: Does the press always support the Fed?

A: There have been some encouraging defections in recent months. A front page story in the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 8, 1993, stated, "The current Fed structure is difficult to justify in a democracy. It's an oddly undemocratic institution. Its organization is so dated that there is only one Reserve bank west of the Rockies, and two in Missouri...Having a central bank with a monopoly over the issuance of the currency in a democratic society is a very difficult balancing act."

 

[escarzamd]

All I ever knew about this was the knowledge that "Nixon took us off the gold standard." I guess that isn't even completely true.

This is a fascinating topic......I did a little back checking and am dumbfounded how I never looked into the issue before reading this interview.

Consistent criticisms throughout the Reserve's history seem to come from the politicians most informed (banking and monetary Policy committee chairs in Congress) about the how this opaque system functions.

Still working on the reams of interviews linked from original search, but I can see the end result......I will go to sleep tonite more cynical and disappointed than I was when I got up today.

Good post

 

[Spytheweb]

Andrew Jackson, killed the bank. He knew what this type of banking system would do the the US and tried his best to stop it.

 

[flapjack]

Andrew Jackson, killed the bank. He knew what this type of banking system would do the the US and tried his best to stop it.

You're right. The US economy has really hit the skids since Andy Jackson left office.

 

[Spytheweb]

You're right. The US economy has really hit the skids since Andy Jackson left office.

?We have given the People of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had-their own currency to pay their own debts.? (No privately owned Federal Reserve Bank or other central bank)
PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN - 1867

Economy looks great, for somebody. Ask the people who are about to lose their homes how's the economy doing? Now it's housing problems, just wait creditcards are next.

Why does the government print the money then sells it to the fed pennies on the dollar and then borrows it's own money back, at face value and at interest. Why doesn't the government print all the interest free money it needs and cut out the middleman?

This US house of cards is going to fall soon, foreclosures are just the start. The government can throw money at it, but until they make some real law changes the end is near.

The 190 billion dollars Bush wants for the war, where is that money coming from? The fed, and what is the interest on that? America will never pay that off. BTW, did you know that 65% of the federal reserve stock is foreign owned.

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

?
The 190 billion dollars Bush wants for the war, where is that money coming from?

It will actually come from Dubai and China. What's a couple trillion between allies?

 

[Jabberwocky]

Buffett would disagree.

Squanderville versus Thriftville (Warren Buffet)

By Warren E. Buffett, FORTUNE

I'm about to deliver a warning regarding the U.S. trade deficit and also suggest a remedy for the problem. But first I need to mention two reasons you might want to be skeptical about what I say. To begin, my forecasting record with respect to macroeconomics is far from inspiring. For example, over the past two decades I was excessively fearful of inflation. More to the point at hand, I started way back in 1987 to publicly worry about our mounting trade deficits -- and, as you know, we've not only survived but also thrived. So on the trade front, score at least one "wolf" for me. Nevertheless, I am crying wolf again and this time backing it with Berkshire Hathaway's money. Through the spring of 2002, I had lived nearly 72 years without purchasing a foreign currency. Since then Berkshire has made significant investments in -- and today holds -- several currencies. I won't give you particulars; in fact, it is largely irrelevant which currencies they are. What does matter is the underlying point: To hold other currencies is to believe that the dollar will decline.

Both as an American and as an investor, I actually hope these commitments prove to be a mistake. Any profits Berkshire might make from currency trading would pale against the losses the company and our shareholders, in other aspects of their lives, would incur from a plunging dollar.

But as head of Berkshire Hathaway, I am in charge of investing its money in ways that make sense. And my reason for finally putting my money where my mouth has been so long is that our trade deficit has greatly worsened, to the point that our country's "net worth," so to speak, is now being transferred abroad at an alarming rate.

A perpetuation of this transfer will lead to major trouble. To understand why, take a wildly fanciful trip with me to two isolated, side-by-side islands of equal size, Squanderville and Thriftville. Land is the only capital asset on these islands, and their communities are primitive, needing only food and producing only food. Working eight hours a day, in fact, each inhabitant can produce enough food to sustain himself or herself. And for a long time that's how things go along. On each island everybody works the prescribed eight hours a day, which means that each society is self-sufficient.

Eventually, though, the industrious citizens of Thriftville decide to do some serious saving and investing, and they start to work 16 hours a day. In this mode they continue to live off the food they produce in eight hours of work but begin exporting an equal amount to their one and only trading outlet, Squanderville.

The citizens of Squanderville are ecstatic about this turn of events, since they can now live their lives free from toil but eat as well as ever. Oh, yes, there's a quid pro quo -- but to the Squanders, it seems harmless: All that the Thrifts want in exchange for their food is Squanderbonds (which are denominated, naturally, in Squanderbucks).

Over time Thriftville accumulates an enormous amount of these bonds, which at their core represent claim checks on the future output of Squanderville. A few pundits in Squanderville smell trouble coming. They foresee that for the Squanders both to eat and to pay off -- or simply service -- the debt they're piling up will eventually require them to work more than eight hours a day. But the residents of Squanderville are in no mood to listen to such doomsaying.

Meanwhile, the citizens of Thriftville begin to get nervous. Just how good, they ask, are the IOUs of a shiftless island? So the Thrifts change strategy: Though they continue to hold some bonds, they sell most of them to Squanderville residents for Squanderbucks and use the proceeds to buy Squanderville land. And eventually the Thrifts own all of Squanderville.

At that point, the Squanders are forced to deal with an ugly equation: They must now not only return to working eight hours a day in order to eat -- they have nothing left to trade -- but must also work additional hours to service their debt and pay Thriftville rent on the land so imprudently sold. In effect, Squanderville has been colonized by purchase rather than conquest.

It can be argued, of course, that the present value of the future production that Squanderville must forever ship to Thriftville only equates to the production Thriftville initially gave up and that therefore both have received a fair deal. But since one generation of Squanders gets the free ride and future generations pay in perpetuity for it, there are -- in economist talk -- some pretty dramatic "intergenerational inequities."

Let's think of it in terms of a family: Imagine that I, Warren Buffett, can get the suppliers of all that I consume in my lifetime to take Buffett family IOUs that are payable, in goods and services and with interest added, by my descendants. This scenario may be viewed as effecting an even trade between the Buffett family unit and its creditors. But the generations of Buffetts following me are not likely to applaud the deal (and, heaven forbid, may even attempt to welsh on it).

Think again about those islands: Sooner or later the Squanderville government, facing ever greater payments to service debt, would decide to embrace highly inflationary policies -- that is, issue more Squanderbucks to dilute the value of each. After all, the government would reason, those irritating Squanderbonds are simply claims on specific numbers of Squanderbucks, not on bucks of specific value. In short, making Squanderbucks less valuable would ease the island's fiscal pain.

That prospect is why I, were I a resident of Thriftville, would opt for direct ownership of Squanderville land rather than bonds of the island's government. Most governments find it much harder morally to seize foreign-owned property than they do to dilute the purchasing power of claim checks foreigners hold. Theft by stealth is preferred to theft by force.

So what does all this island hopping have to do with the U.S.? Simply put, after World War II and up until the early 1970s we operated in the industrious Thriftville style, regularly selling more abroad than we purchased. We concurrently invested our surplus abroad, with the result that our net investment -- that is, our holdings of foreign assets less foreign holdings of U.S. assets -- increased (under methodology, since revised, that the government was then using) from $37 billion in 1950 to $68 billion in 1970. In those days, to sum up, our country's "net worth," viewed in totality, consisted of all the wealth within our borders plus a modest portion of the wealth in the rest of the world.

Additionally, because the U.S. was in a net ownership position with respect to the rest of the world, we realized net investment income that, piled on top of our trade surplus, became a second source of investable funds. Our fiscal situation was thus similar to that of an individual who was both saving some of his salary and reinvesting the dividends from his existing nest egg.

In the late 1970s the trade situation reversed, producing deficits that initially ran about 1 percent of GDP. That was hardly serious, particularly because net investment income remained positive. Indeed, with the power of compound interest working for us, our net ownership balance hit its high in 1980 at $360 billion.

Since then, however, it's been all downhill, with the pace of decline rapidly accelerating in the past five years. Our annual trade deficit now exceeds 4 percent of GDP. Equally ominous, the rest of the world owns a staggering $2.5 trillion more of the U.S. than we own of other countries. Some of this $2.5 trillion is invested in claim checks -- U.S. bonds, both governmental and private -- and some in such assets as property and equity securities.

In effect, our country has been behaving like an extraordinarily rich family that possesses an immense farm. In order to consume 4 percent more than we produce -- that's the trade deficit -- we have, day by day, been both selling pieces of the farm and increasing the mortgage on what we still own.

To put the $2.5 trillion of net foreign ownership in perspective, contrast it with the $12 trillion value of publicly owned U.S. stocks or the equal amount of U.S. residential real estate or what I would estimate as a grand total of $50 trillion in national wealth. Those comparisons show that what's already been transferred abroad is meaningful -- in the area, for example, of 5 percent of our national wealth.

More important, however, is that foreign ownership of our assets will grow at about $500 billion per year at the present trade-deficit level, which means that the deficit will be adding about one percentage point annually to foreigners' net ownership of our national wealth. As that ownership grows, so will the annual net investment income flowing out of this country. That will leave us paying ever-increasing dividends and interest to the world rather than being a net receiver of them, as in the past. We have entered the world of negative compounding -- goodbye pleasure, hello pain.

We were taught in Economics 101 that countries could not for long sustain large, ever-growing trade deficits. At a point, so it was claimed, the spree of the consumption-happy nation would be braked by currency-rate adjustments and by the unwillingness of creditor countries to accept an endless flow of IOUs from the big spenders. And that's the way it has indeed worked for the rest of the world, as we can see by the abrupt shutoffs of credit that many profligate nations have suffered in recent decades.

The U.S., however, enjoys special status. In effect, we can behave today as we wish because our past financial behavior was so exemplary -- and because we are so rich. Neither our capacity nor our intention to pay is questioned, and we continue to have a mountain of desirable assets to trade for consumables. In other words, our national credit card allows us to charge truly breathtaking amounts. But that card's credit line is not limitless.

The time to halt this trading of assets for consumables is now, and I have a plan to suggest for getting it done. My remedy may sound gimmicky, and in truth it is a tariff called by another name. But this is a tariff that retains most free-market virtues, neither protecting specific industries nor punishing specific countries nor encouraging trade wars. This plan would increase our exports and might well lead to increased overall world trade. And it would balance our books without there being a significant decline in the value of the dollar, which I believe is otherwise almost certain to occur.

We would achieve this balance by issuing what I will call Import Certificates (ICs) to all U.S. exporters in an amount equal to the dollar value of their exports. Each exporter would, in turn, sell the ICs to parties -- either exporters abroad or importers here -- wanting to get goods into the U.S. To import $1 million of goods, for example, an importer would need ICs that were the byproduct of $1 million of exports. The inevitable result: trade balance.

Because our exports total about $80 billion a month, ICs would be issued in huge, equivalent quantities -- that is, 80 billion certificates a month -- and would surely trade in an exceptionally liquid market. Competition would then determine who among those parties wanting to sell to us would buy the certificates and how much they would pay. (I visualize that the certificates would be issued with a short life, possibly of six months, so that speculators would be discouraged from accumulating them.)

For illustrative purposes, let's postulate that each IC would sell for 10 cents -- that is, 10 cents per dollar of exports behind them. Other things being equal, this amount would mean a U.S. producer could realize 10 percent more by selling his goods in the export market than by selling them domestically, with the extra 10 percent coming from his sales of ICs.

In my opinion, many exporters would view this as a reduction in cost, one that would let them cut the prices of their products in international markets. Commodity-type products would particularly encourage this kind of behavior. If aluminum, for example, was selling for 66 cents per pound domestically and ICs were worth 10 percent, domestic aluminum producers could sell for about 60 cents per pound (plus transportation costs) in foreign markets and still earn normal margins. In this scenario, the output of the U.S. would become significantly more competitive and exports would expand. Along the way, the number of jobs would grow.

Foreigners selling to us, of course, would face tougher economics. But that's a problem they're up against no matter what trade "solution" is adopted -- and make no mistake, a solution must come. (As Herb Stein said, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.") In one way the IC approach would give countries selling to us great flexibility, since the plan does not penalize any specific industry or product. In the end, the free market would determine what would be sold in the U.S. and who would sell it. The ICs would determine only the aggregate dollar volume of what was sold.

To see what would happen to imports, let's look at a car now entering the U.S. at a cost to the importer of $20,000. Under the new plan and the assumption that ICs sell for 10 percent, the importer's cost would rise to $22,000. If demand for the car was exceptionally strong, the importer might manage to pass all of this on to the American consumer. In the usual case, however, competitive forces would take hold, requiring the foreign manufacturer to absorb some, if not all, of the $2,000 IC cost.

There is no free lunch in the IC plan: It would have certain serious negative consequences for U.S. citizens. Prices of most imported products would increase, and so would the prices of certain competitive products manufactured domestically. The cost of the ICs, either in whole or in part, would therefore typically act as a tax on consumers.

That is a serious drawback. But there would be drawbacks also to the dollar continuing to lose value or to our increasing tariffs on specific products or instituting quotas on them -- courses of action that in my opinion offer a smaller chance of success. Above all, the pain of higher prices on goods imported today dims beside the pain we will eventually suffer if we drift along and trade away ever larger portions of our country's net worth.

I believe that ICs would produce, rather promptly, a U.S. trade equilibrium well above present export levels but below present import levels. The certificates would moderately aid all our industries in world competition, even as the free market determined which of them ultimately met the test of "comparative advantage."

This plan would not be copied by nations that are net exporters, because their ICs would be valueless. Would major exporting countries retaliate in other ways? Would this start another Smoot-Hawley tariff war? Hardly. At the time of Smoot-Hawley we ran an unreasonable trade surplus that we wished to maintain. We now run a damaging deficit that the whole world knows we must correct.

For decades the world has struggled with a shifting maze of punitive tariffs, export subsidies, quotas, dollar-locked currencies, and the like. Many of these import-inhibiting and export-encouraging devices have long been employed by major exporting countries trying to amass ever larger surpluses -- yet significant trade wars have not erupted. Surely one will not be precipitated by a proposal that simply aims at balancing the books of the world's largest trade debtor. Major exporting countries have behaved quite rationally in the past and they will continue to do so -- though, as always, it may be in their interest to attempt to convince us that they will behave otherwise.

The likely outcome of an IC plan is that the exporting nations -- after some initial posturing -- will turn their ingenuity to encouraging imports from us. Take the position of China, which today sells us about $140 billion of goods and services annually while purchasing only $25 billion. Were ICs to exist, one course for China would be simply to fill the gap by buying 115 billion certificates annually. But it could alternatively reduce its need for ICs by cutting its exports to the U.S. or by increasing its purchases from us. This last choice would probably be the most palatable for China, and we should wish it to be so.

If our exports were to increase and the supply of ICs were therefore to be enlarged, their market price would be driven down. Indeed, if our exports expanded sufficiently, ICs would be rendered valueless and the entire plan made moot. Presented with the power to make this happen, important exporting countries might quickly eliminate the mechanisms they now use to inhibit exports from us.

Were we to install an IC plan, we might opt for some transition years in which we deliberately ran a relatively small deficit, a step that would enable the world to adjust as we gradually got where we need to be. Carrying this plan out, our government could either auction "bonus" ICs every month or simply give them, say, to less-developed countries needing to increase their exports. The latter course would deliver a form of foreign aid likely to be particularly effective and appreciated.

I will close by reminding you again that I cried wolf once before. In general, the batting average of doomsayers in the U.S. is terrible. Our country has consistently made fools of those who were skeptical about either our economic potential or our resiliency. Many pessimistic seers simply underestimated the dynamism that has allowed us to overcome problems that once seemed ominous. We still have a truly remarkable country and economy.

But I believe that in the trade deficit we also have a problem that is going to test all of our abilities to find a solution. A gently declining dollar will not provide the answer. True, it would reduce our trade deficit to a degree, but not by enough to halt the outflow of our country's net worth and the resulting growth in our investment-income deficit.

Perhaps there are other solutions that make more sense than mine. However, wishful thinking -- and its usual companion, thumb sucking -- is not among them. From what I now see, action to halt the rapid outflow of our national wealth is called for, and ICs seem the least painful and most certain way to get the job done. Just keep remembering that this is not a small problem: For example, at the rate at which the rest of the world is now making net investments in the U.S., it could annually buy and sock away nearly 4 percent of our publicly traded stocks.

In evaluating business options at Berkshire, my partner, Charles Munger, suggests that we pay close attention to his jocular wish: "All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I'll never go there." Framers of our trade policy should heed this caution -- and steer clear of Squanderville.

FORTUNE editor at large Carol Loomis, who is a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder, worked with Warren Buffett on this article.

 

[flapjack]

?We have given the People of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had-their own currency to pay their own debts.? (No privately owned Federal Reserve Bank or other central bank)
PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN - 1867

Economy looks great, for somebody. Ask the people who are about to lose their homes how's the economy doing? Now it's housing problems, just wait creditcards are next.

Why does the government print the money then sells it to the fed pennies on the dollar and then borrows it's own money back, at face value and at interest. Why doesn't the government print all the interest free money it needs and cut out the middleman?

This US house of cards is going to fall soon, foreclosures are just the start. The government can throw money at it, but until they make some real law changes the end is near.

The 190 billion dollars Bush wants for the war, where is that money coming from? The fed, and what is the interest on that? America will never pay that off. BTW, did you know that 65% of the federal reserve stock is foreign owned.

Why not compare the average american in 1840 to the average american in 2007. Compare their standard of living versus the rest of the world in that same time period. Has it improved in comparrison to the rest of the world? The industrialized world? Are you really stupid enough to believe that we would be better off without the Fed? Check the same figures from 1913 to today. On what standard of measure are we worse off now than we were in 1912 before the Fed Reserve? Which other economic system would you suggest we use? What other economy is a better way to go? Which other economy has had better success since we went to the Fed in 1913?

I can write an "internet article" saying that without a doubt that spytheweb is gay. If I post my bs on the internet and someone who knows no better, but thinks it sounds good, posts it in another forum does that give it credibility? Do you really think that someone somewhere was not writing about how the US was doomed back in 1820 or 1920 or 1990? You can still find communist rags like the Workers Weekly or some such BS, to this very day who talk about how the capitalist system is killing the working man. Yet, the working man today is living a life his grandfather could never even imagine capable. We are always doomed yet somehow, we always succeeds. Why? Because the idiots who write articles like this are truly foolish. They sound great predicting doom for the future. When it does not happen, they just post more BS about the further off future and there will always be idiots like spytheweb, who will latch on to the BS.

Also, why would someone like you quote the only man to suspended Habius Corpus? The most dangerous challenge to our constitution in the history of our country. Kinda goes against all your other posts. Do you find his actions in jailing honest newspaper editiors who differed in opinion admirable?

 

[gardenweasel]

Why not compare the average american in 1840 to the average american in 2007. Compare their standard of living versus the rest of the world in that same time period. Has it improved in comparrison to the rest of the world? The industrialized world? Are you really stupid enough to believe that we would be better off without the Fed? Check the same figures from 1913 to today. On what standard of measure are we worse off now than we were in 1912 before the Fed Reserve? Which other economic system would you suggest we use? What other economy is a better way to go? Which other economy has had better success since we went to the Fed in 1913?


I can write an "internet article" saying that without a doubt that spytheweb is gay. If I post my bs on the internet and someone who knows no better, but thinks it sounds good, posts it in another forum does that give it credibility? Do you really think that someone somewhere was not writing about how the US was doomed back in 1820 or 1920 or 1990? You can still find communist rags like the Workers Weekly or some such BS, to this very day who talk about how the capitalist system is killing the working man. Yet, the working man today is living a life his grandfather could never even imagine capable. We are always doomed yet somehow, we always succeeds. Why? Because the idiots who write articles like this are truly foolish. They sound great predicting doom for the future. When it does not happen, they just post more BS about the further off future and there will always be idiots like spytheweb, who will latch on to the BS.

Also, why would someone like you quote the only man to suspended Habius Corpus? The most dangerous challenge to our constitution in the history of our country. Kinda goes against all your other posts. Do you find his actions in jailing honest newspaper editiors who differed in opinion admirable?

thank you,flapjack....i just saw this thread and you saved me the trouble of mentioning how poorly the country`s faired under the fed.....it`s obvious your neurons are firing full tilt...

""Q: Who owns the stock of the Federal Reserve Banks?

A: The dynastic families of the ruling World Order, internationalists who are loyal to no race, religion, or nation. They are families such as the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Schiffs, the Rockefellers, the Harrimans, the Morgans and others known as the elite, or "the big rich".

and don`t forget the freemasons....

anything spy says in a public should be treated like a silent fart....let it pass without comment.....

"yes weasel, but...even silent farts can still stink !?".....

true....true....

 

[Spytheweb]

By the mid 1700's Britain was at its height of power, but was also heavily in debt.

Since the creation of the Bank of England, they had suffered four costly wars and the total debt now stood at ?140,000,000, (which in those days was a lot of money).

In order to make their interest payments to the bank, the British government set about a programme to try to raise revenues from their American colonies, largely through an extensive programme of taxation.

There was a shortage of material for minting coins in the colonies, so they began to print their own paper money, which they called Colonial Script. This provided a very successful means of exchange and also gave the colonies a sense of identity. Colonial Script was money provided to help the exchange of goods. It was debt free paper money not backed by gold or silver.

During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the new found prosperity in the colonies. Franklin replied.

"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers.

In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."
Benjamin Franklin 1

America had learned that the people's confidence in the currency was all they needed, and they could be free of borrowing debts. That would mean being free of the Bank of England.

In Response the world's most powerful independent bank used its influence on the British parliament to press for the passing of the Currency Act of 1764.

This act made it illegal for the colonies to print their own money, and forced them to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold.

Here is what Franklin said after that.

"In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."
Benjamin Franklin

"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War."
Benjamin Franklin's autobiography

 

[JCDunkDogs]

Why not compare the average american in 1840 to the average american in 2007. Compare their standard of living versus the rest of the world in that same time period. Has it improved in comparrison to the rest of the world? The industrialized world? Are you really stupid enough to believe that we would be better off without the Fed? Check the same figures from 1913 to today. On what standard of measure are we worse off now than we were in 1912 before the Fed Reserve? Which other economic system would you suggest we use? What other economy is a better way to go? Which other economy has had better success since we went to the Fed in 1913?

Well said, Flapjack. Just to build on your point, it leads into discussion of the other reason why the Federal Reserve System is a good thing to have: to smooth the flow of money and credit between banks and avoid local bank panics by depositors.

I'm not a money guy, but because money is so important in our world I've made learning about it a priority. From what I've read, the years before the Fed was created were a minefield of economic panic.

There were four "bank panics" in 34 years between 1873 and 1907. These occurred because cash and credit were controlled in each region of the country by local banks.

In those days, a bank could lend money that it had on hand as savings deposits, up to a percentage that had to be held in reserve.

That worked fine, unless a bunch of folks in one state or city withdrew their savings all at once (which jittery depositors are known to do). When that happened, banks had no money to lend, interest rates skyrocketed, stocks dropped...you get the idea.

In the "Bank Panic of 1907" which started in New York and spread quickly elsewhere, J.P. Morgan and other fat cats had to step in and buy up the plunging issues to prevent a complete melt-down of the national economy.

Then the Fed was created, and these types of pressures were relieved. It wasn't perfect, and there were subsequent issues of a different nature that popped up, but I won't drivel on here about those in the interest of time.

 

[roc612]

Jabberwocky,
great read on warren buffet's take on the GRIM debt situation this nation faces.Clinton left a surplus of cash to GWB and we are now trillions in debt. Remind me again who the fiscally conservative party is again.
ROC
-----------------------------------------------------------
The next president may be living this next quote-

"When we got into office, the thing that surprised me most was to find that things were just as bad as we'd been saying they were." John F. Kennedy