You are Here:
Monetary Reform!

Author (Read 30778 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1118
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.globalresearch.ca/one-hundred-years-is-enough-time-to-make-the-federal-reserve-a-public-utility/5362475

One Hundred Years Is Enough: Time to Make the Federal Reserve a Public Utility

By Ellen Brown
Global Research, December 22, 2013
Web of Debt



December 23rd, 2013, marks the 100th anniversary of the Federal Reserve, warranting a review of its performance.  Has it achieved the purposes for which it was designed?

The answer depends on whose purposes we are talking about.  For the banks, the Fed has served quite well.  For the laboring masses whose populist movement prompted it, not much has changed in a century.


Thwarting Populist Demands

The Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913 in response to a wave of bank crises, which had hit on average every six years over a period of 80 years. The resulting economic depressions triggered a populist movement for monetary reform in the 1890s.  Mary Ellen Lease, an early populist leader, said in a fiery speech that could have been written today:

    Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street. The great common people of this country are slaves, and monopoly is the master. . . . Money rules . . . .Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us. . . .

    We want money, land and transportation. We want the abolition of the National Banks, and we want the power to make loans direct from the government. We want the foreclosure system wiped out.

That was what they wanted, but the Federal Reserve Act that they got was not what the populists had fought for, or what their leader William Jennings Bryan thought he was approving when he voted for it in 1913. In the stirring speech that won him the Democratic presidential nomination in 1896, Bryan insisted:

    {We} believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government. . . . Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson . . . and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business.

He concluded with this famous outcry against the restrictive gold standard:

    You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

What Bryan and the populists sought was a national currency issued debt-free and interest-free by the government, on the model of Lincoln’s Greenbacks. What the American people got was a money supply created by private banks as credit (or debt) lent to the government and the people at interest. Although the national money supply would be printed by the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, it would be issued by the “bankers’ bank,” the Federal Reserve. The Fed is composed of twelve branches, all of which are 100 percent owned by the banks in their districts. Until 1935, these branches could each independently issue paper dollars for the cost of printing them, and could lend them at interest.

1929: The Fed Triggers the Worst Bank Run in History

The new system was supposed to prevent bank runs, but it clearly failed in that endeavor. In 1929, the United States experienced the worst bank run in its history.

The New York Fed had been pouring newly-created money into New York banks, which then lent it to stock speculators. When the New York Fed heard that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors had held an all-night meeting discussing this risky situation, the flood of speculative funding was retracted, precipitating the 1929 stock market crash.

At that time, paper dollars were freely redeemable in gold; but banks were required to keep sufficient gold to cover only 40 percent of their deposits. When panicked bank customers rushed to cash in their dollars, gold reserves shrank. Loans then had to be recalled to maintain the 40 percent requirement, collapsing the money supply.

The result was widespread unemployment and loss of homes and savings, similar to that seen today. In a scathing indictment before Congress in 1934, Representative Louis McFadden blamed the Federal Reserve. He said:

    Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks . . . .

    The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over. . . .

    Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United  States  Government  institutions.  They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.

    These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.

Freed from the Bankers’ “Cross of Gold”

To stop the collapse of the money supply, in 1933 Roosevelt took the dollar off the gold standard within the United States. The gold standard had prevailed since the founding of the country, and the move was highly controversial. Critics viewed it as a crime. But proponents saw it as finally allowing the country to be economically sovereign.

This more benign view was taken by Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, in a presentation before the American Bar Association in 1945. He said the government was now at liberty to spend as needed to meet its budget, drawing on credit issued by its own central bank. It could do this until price inflation indicated a weakened purchasing power of the currency. Then, and only then, would the government need to levy taxes—not to fund the budget but to counteract inflation by contracting the money supply. The principal purpose of taxes, said Ruml, was “the maintenance of a dollar which has stable purchasing power over the years. Sometimes this purpose is stated as ‘the avoidance of inflation.’”

It was a remarkable realization. The government could be funded without taxes, by drawing on credit from its own central bank. Since there was no longer a need for gold to cover the loan, the central bank would not have to borrow. It could just create the money on its books. Only when prices rose across the board, signaling an excess of money in the money supply, would the government need to tax—not to fund the government but simply to keep supply (goods and services) in balance with demand (money).

Ruml’s vision is echoed today in the school of economic thought called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). But after Roosevelt’s demise, it was not pursued. The U.S. government continued to fund itself with taxes; and when it failed to recover enough to pay its bills, it continued to borrow, putting itself in debt.

The Fed Agrees to Return the Interest

For its first half century, the Federal Reserve continued to pocket the interest on the money it issued and lent to the government. But in the 1960s, Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, pushed to have the Fed nationalized. To avoid that result, the Fed quietly agreed to rebate its profits to the U.S. Treasury.

In The Strange Case of Richard Milhous Nixon, published in 1973, Congressman Jerry Voorhis wrote of this concession:

    It was done, quite obviously, as acknowledgment that the Federal Reserve Banks were acting on the one hand as a national bank of issue, creating the nation’s money, but on the other hand charging the nation interest on its own credit—which no true national bank of issue could conceivably, or with any show of justice, dare to do.

Rebating the interest to the Treasury was clearly a step in the right direction. But the central bank funded very little of the federal debt. Commercial banks held a large chunk of it; and as Voorhis observed, “[w]here the commercial banks are concerned, there is no such repayment of the people’s money.” Commercial banks did not rebate the interest they collected to the government, said Voorhis, although they also “‘buy’ the bonds with newly created demand deposit entries on their books—nothing more.”

Today the proportion of the federal debt held by the Federal Reserve has shot up, due to repeated rounds of “quantitative easing.” But the majority of the debt is still funded privately at interest, and most of the dollars funding it originated as “bank credit” created on the books of private banks.

Time for a New Populist Movement?

The Treasury’s website reports the amount of interest paid on the national debt each year, going back 26 years. At the end of 2013, the total for the previous 26 years came to about $9 trillion on a federal debt of $17.25 trillion. If the government had been borrowing from its own central bank interest-free during that period, the debt would have been reduced by more than half. And that was just the interest for 26 years. The federal debt has been accumulating ever since 1835, when Andrew Jackson paid it off and vetoed the Second U.S. Bank’s renewal; and all that time it has been accruing interest. If the government had been borrowing from its central bank all along, it might have had no federal debt at all today.

In 1977, Congress gave the Fed a dual mandate, not only to maintain the stability of the currency but to promote full employment.  The Fed got the mandate but not the tools, as discussed in my earlier article here.

It may be time for a new populist movement, one that demands that the power to issue money be returned to the government and the people it represents; and that the Federal Reserve be made a public utility, owned by the people and serving them. The firehose of cheap credit lavished on Wall Street needs to be re-directed to Main Street.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

The Federal Reserve: 100 Years of “Financial Terrorism”
« Reply #51 on: May 25, 2014, 12:09:07 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1118
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-federal-reserve-100-years-of-financial-terrorism/5362520

The Federal Reserve: 100 Years of “Financial Terrorism”

By Stephen Lendman
Global Research
December 23, 2013



December 23, 1913 will live in infamy. Three days before Christmas, House members passed the Federal Reserve Act (FSA).

On December 23, Senate members did so. President Woodrow Wilson was a tool of big money. He was JP Morgan’s man in Washington. He signed FSA into law straightaway.

So did Congress. It passed FSA in the middle of the night. Most congressional members hadn’t read it.


They wouldn’t have understood it anyway. It was cleverly worded to deceive them. Only its creators knew its purpose. Ellen Brown explained what happened as follows:

    “In plain English, the Federal Reserve Act authorized a private central bank to create money out of nothing, lend it to the government at interest, and control the nation’s money supply, expanding or contracting it at will.”

Weeks before FSA was enacted, the 1913 Revenue Act became law. It imposed a federal income tax. It did so to pay bankers interest on America’s money. It let taxpayers do it.

The University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs calls itself a “nonpartisan research institute.” It claims to seek “to expand understanding of the presidency, policy, and political history.”

It calls the Federal Reserve Act “one of the crowning achievements of President Wilson’s New Freedom program.”

It lied claiming it helped “safeguard America’s financial institutions, the American economy, and the supply of US currency.”

It turned truth on its head saying it let “a level of governmental control…monetary supply that was unprecedented in American history.”

It went further claiming it continues to provide “the framework for regulating the nation’s banks, credit, and money supply.”

Truth is polar opposite what the Miller Center’s narrative suggests. Privately controlled Fed policy has been hugely destructive for 100 years. It’s a financial weapon of mass destruction. More on this below.

In 1910, seven powerful figures met secretly. They did so on Jekll Island. Nelson Aldrich and Frank Valderclip represented Rockefeller financial interests.

Charles Norton and Benjamin Strong represented JP Morgan. Paul Warberg represented Rothschild family interests. No one represented popular ones.

Rockefeller/Morgan/Rothschild representatives planned the Federal Reserve System. Three years later, it became the law of the land. Congress acted unconstitutionally. So did Wilson signing FSA into law.

Doing so violated the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8. It affords Congress sole power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof.

In 1935, the Supreme Court ruled Congress can’t constitutionally delegate its authority to another body or group.

Congress and Wilson defrauded the public. They did so by granting Wall Street money creation power. They gave powerful bankers absolute monetary control.

US and world economies changed. They did so for the worst. Former law professor Woodrow Wilson understood full well what he did. He acted lawlessly anyway.

When it was too late to matter, he lied saying:

    ”I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its credit system. 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.”

Wilson irresponsibly signed into law the 1917 Espionage Act and 1918 Sedition Act. Both measures targeted free expression.

The Sedition Act specifically prohibited anti-government “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language.” It applied when America went to war. It was repealed in December 1920.

Both measures never should have become law in the first place. Nor FSA. Congress and Wilson bore full responsibility. Subsequent lawmakers and administrations did nothing to change things.

James Madison knew the dangers of letting bankers create money.

“History,” he said, “records that the Money Changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.”

Thomas Jefferson stressed:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Still Report # 162 - Ellen Brown for Treasurer
« Reply #52 on: May 25, 2014, 12:11:12 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1118
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRbKAIiDZ8c (Still Report # 162 - Ellen Brown for Treasurer)


^^  Why is this not getting more attention?

It it Because Ellen Brown transcends the false and discredited Austrian-vs.-Keynesian paradigm??

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Re: Monetary Reform!
« Reply #53 on: May 25, 2014, 12:13:10 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1118
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
"Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFKSBF6d9O4

"Ron Paul has been the leading champion of sound money in the Congress. Here he explains why sound money means a new gold standard." -- http://mises.org/resources/3150

http://www.globalresearch.ca/federal-reserve-they-do-not-have-any-more-gold-paul-craig-roberts/5365933

Federal Reserve: “They Do Not Have Any More Gold”. Paul Craig Roberts

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, January 23, 2014
usawatchdog.com



By Greg Hunter

Former Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts is making some bold new claims about the Federal Reserve and its official government gold holdings.  Dr. Roberts contends,

    “They don’t have any more gold.  That’s why they can only give Germany 5 tons of the 1,500 tons it’s holding.  In fact, when Germany asked for this delivery last year, the Fed said no.  But it said we will give you back 300 tons . . . . So, they said we will give you back 20% of what you trusted us to keep for you over the next seven years, but they are not even able to do that.”

Dr. Roberts goes on to say, “The stocks of gold at the Bank of England seem to be disappearing.  The stocks of many of the gold trusts, such as GLD, are being looted . . . all of this gold is disappearing into Asian markets.  The entire West is being drained of gold.”

According to Dr. Roberts, this is an inflection point for the gold market.

Dr. Roberts says,

    “The reason is: the ability to supply large amounts of gold to the bullion dealers to sell has diminished with the supply of gold and silver.  What the Fed did was turn to massive ‘naked shorts’ of gold futures contracts.  They don’t have the real gold  . . . so they come in and dump contracts, say in a period of 6 minutes, that are three times the amount of gold COMEX has to make delivery. . . . So, it drives down the price of gold.  That’s how they got the price down from $1,900 to $1,250.”

Roberts contends that America’s gold is “mainly gone.” That’s right, a former Assistant Treasury Secretary who is the father of Reaganomics, says, “They obviously don’t have any because, if they did, they would have given Germany’s gold back.  If they had any, they would let people audit the vaults.”  Dr. Roberts warns,

    “The point is the ability to continue selling these ‘naked shorts’ is now disappearing because there is no gold left to back them up. . . . None of these EFT’s has the gold to back the shares.  The ability to continue looting them in order to make good on gold deliveries is running out.  So, this will prevent the Fed from selling ‘naked shorts’ to protect the dollar from its policy of quantitative easing.  That’s what’s it’s all about.  You can’t print $1,000 billion new dollars every year without causing other holders of dollars to wonder about the value of the money and to seek a way of getting out of it.  China has been doing that by going into gold.”

On gold holdings, Dr. Roberts argues there are two big reasons why he says, “I don’t think they have any.”  Roberts says,

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

The Federal Reserve Is Not “Independent” Or “Apolitical”
« Reply #54 on: May 25, 2014, 12:16:32 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1118
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-federal-reserve-is-not-independent-or-apolitical.html

The Federal Reserve Is Not “Independent” Or “Apolitical”

Washington’s Blog
February 24, 2014

The Federal Reserve likes to pretend that it is “independent” and “apolitical”.

The facts are different:

*  The Fed offered to bail out Mexico, if it would agree to join the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Free trade deals have nothing to do with the Fed’s mandate

*  A study published in the Southern Economic Journal shows that Fed policy tends to create a better economy in the 3 years before presidential elections than right afterwards … to help the incumbent get re-elected

*  According to Robert D. Auerbach – an economist with the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee for eleven years, assisting with oversight of the Federal Reserve, and subsequently Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin – the Fed had a hand in Watergate and arming Saddam Hussein.  See this and this

*  The Fed is not independent … it is owned by the big banks

*  The Fed is corrupt

*  The Fed threw money at “several billionaires and tens of multi-millionaires”, including billionaire businessman H. Wayne Huizenga, billionaire Michael Dell of Dell computer, billionaire hedge fund manager John Paulson, billionaire private equity honcho J. Christopher Flowers, and the wife of Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack

*  The Fed also bailed out wealthy corporations, including hedge funds, McDonald’s and Harley-Davidson

*  The Fed has been bailing out foreign banks … more than Main Street or the American people.  The foreign banks bailed out by the Fed include Gaddafi’s Libyan bank, the Arab Banking Corp. of Bahrain, and the Banks of Bavaria, Korea and Mexico

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1118
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-federal-reserves-transcripts-the-greatest-propaganda-coup-of-our-time/5371288

The Federal Reserve’s Transcripts: The Greatest Propaganda Coup of Our Time?

The New York Times and the Fed's Transcripts

By Mike Whitney
Global Research, February 28, 2014
Counterpunch



There’s good propaganda and bad propaganda. Bad propaganda is generally crude, amateurish Judy Miller “mobile weapons lab-type” nonsense that figures that people are so stupid they’ll believe anything that appears in “the paper of record.” Good propaganda, on the other hand, uses factual, sometimes documented material in a coordinated campaign with the other major media to cobble-together a narrative that is credible, but false.

The so called Fed’s transcripts, which were released last week, fall into the latter category. The transcripts (1,865 pages) reveal the details of 14 emergency meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) in 2008, when the financial crisis was at its peak and the Fed braintrust was deliberating on how best to prevent a full-blown meltdown. But while the conversations between the members are accurately recorded, they don’t tell the gist of the story or provide the context that’s needed to grasp the bigger picture. Instead, they’re used to portray the members of the Fed as affable, well-meaning bunglers who did the best they could in ‘very trying circumstances’. While this is effective propaganda, it’s basically a lie, mainly because it diverts attention from the Fed’s role in crashing the financial system, preventing the remedies that were needed from being implemented (nationalizing the giant Wall Street banks), and coercing Congress into approving gigantic, economy-killing bailouts which shifted trillions of dollars to insolvent financial institutions that should have been euthanized.

What I’m saying is that the Fed’s transcripts are, perhaps, the greatest propaganda coup of our time. They take advantage of the fact that people simply forget a lot of what happened during the crisis and, as a result, absolve the Fed of any accountability for what is likely the crime of the century. It’s an accomplishment that PR-pioneer Edward Bernays would have applauded. After all, it was Bernays who argued that the sheeple need to be constantly bamboozled to keep them in line. Here’s a clip from his magnum opus “Propaganda”:

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

Sound familiar? My guess is that Bernays’ maxim probably features prominently in editors offices across the country where “manufacturing consent” is Job 1 and where no story so trivial that it can’t be spun in a way that serves the financial interests of the MSM’s constituents. (Should I say “clients”?) The Fed’s transcripts are just a particularly egregious example. Just look at the coverage in the New York Times and judge for yourself. Here’s an excerpt from an article titled “Fed Misread Crisis in 2008, Records Show”:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

The Stone that Brings Down Goliath? Richmond and Eminent Domain
« Reply #56 on: May 25, 2014, 12:19:19 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1118
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://ellenbrown.com/2014/03/03/the-stone-that-brings-down-goliath-richmond-and-eminent-domain/

The Stone that Brings Down Goliath? Richmond and Eminent Domain

by Ellen Brown
The Web of Debt Blog
March 3, 2014

In a nearly $13 billion settlement with the US Justice Department in November 2013, JPMorganChase admitted that it, along with every other large US bank, had engaged in mortgage fraud as a routine business practice, sowing the seeds of the mortgage meltdown. JPMorgan and other megabanks have now been caught in over a dozen major frauds, including LIBOR-rigging and bid-rigging; yet no prominent banker has gone to jail. Meanwhile, nearly a quarter of all mortgages nationally remain underwater (meaning the balance owed exceeds the current value of the home), sapping homeowners’ budgets, the housing market and the economy. Since the banks, the courts and the federal government have failed to give adequate relief to homeowners, some cities are taking matters into their own hands.

Gayle McLaughlin, the bold mayor of Richmond, California, has gone where no woman dared go before, threatening to take underwater mortgages by eminent domain from Wall Street banks and renegotiate them on behalf of beleaguered homeowners. A member of the Green Party, which takes no corporate campaign money, she proved her mettle standing up to Chevron, which dominates the Richmond landscape. But the banks have signaled that if Richmond or another city tries the eminent domain gambit, they will rush to court seeking an injunction. Their grounds: an unconstitutional taking of private property and breach of contract.

How to refute those charges? There is a way; but to understand it, you first need to grasp the massive fraud perpetrated on homeowners. It is how you were duped into paying more than your house was worth; why you should not just turn in your keys or short-sell your underwater property away; why you should urge Congress not to legalize the MERS scheme; and why you should insist that your local government help you acquire title to your home at a fair price if the banks won’t. That is exactly what Richmond and other city councils are attempting to do through the tool of eminent domain.

The Securitization Fraud That Collapsed the Housing Market

One settlement after another has now been reached with investors and government agencies for the sale of “faulty mortgage bonds,” including a suit brought by Fannie and Freddie that settled in October 2013 for $5.1 billion. “Faulty” is a euphemism for “fraudulent.” It means that mortgages subject to securitization have “clouded” or “defective” titles. And that means the banks and real estate trusts claiming title as owners or nominees don’t actually have title – or have standing to enjoin the city from proceeding with eminent domain. They can’t claim an unconstitutional taking of property because they can’t prove they own the property, and they can’t claim breach of contract because they weren’t the real parties in interest to the mortgages (the parties putting up the money).

“Securitization” involves bundling mortgages into a pool, selling them to a non-bank vehicle called a “real estate trust,” and then selling “securities” (bonds) to investors (called “mortgage-backed securities” or “collateralized debt obligations”). By 2007, 75% of all mortgage originations were securitized. According to investment banker and financial analyst Christopher Whalen, the purpose of securitization was to allow banks to avoid capitalization requirements, enabling them to borrow at unregulated levels.

Since the real estate trusts were “off-balance sheet,” they did not count in the banks’ capital requirements. But under applicable accounting rules, that was true only if they were “true sales.” According to Whalen, “most of the securitizations done by banks over the past two decades were in fact secured borrowings, not true sales, and thus potential frauds on insured depositories.” He concludes, “bank abuses of non-bank vehicles to pretend to sell assets and thereby lower required capital levels was a major cause of the subprime financial crisis.”

In 1997, the FDIC gave the banks a pass on these disguised borrowings by granting them “safe harbor” status. This proved to be a colossal mistake, which led to the implosion of the housing market and the economy at large. Safe harbor status was finally withdrawn in 2011; but in the meantime, “financings” were disguised as “true sales,” permitting banks to grossly over-borrow and over-leverage. Over-leveraging allowed credit to be pumped up to bubble levels, driving up home prices. When the bubble collapsed, homeowners had to pick up the tab by paying on mortgages that far exceeded the market value of their homes. According to Whalen:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1118
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/fed-to-the-sharks-part-1-the-fed-takes-our-money-gives-it-to-banks-who-loan-it-back-to-us-at-16.html

Fed to the Sharks, Part 1: The Fed Takes Our Money, Gives It to Banks Who Loan It Back to Us at 16%

Charles Hugh Smith
Washington’s Blog
April 8, 2014

We’re being Fed to the sharks, every day, one morsel at a time. What a way to go....

What can we say about the Federal Reserve’s policies that hasn’t been said a million times? How about simplifying the two primary purposes of Fed policies? I will cover one today and the second one tomorrow. Both involve feeding the 99.5% to the financier/ Wall Street/bank sharks.

Longtime readers are familiar with Harun I.’s incisive analysis. Two of his recent commentaries can be found in Resolution #1: Let’s Call Things What They Really Are in 2014 (January 15, 2014) and Doomed If We Do, Doomed If We Don’t (February 12, 2014)

In the above entries, Harun explained how the Fed’s money creation has leveraged a global bubble in assets. At 72-to-1 leverage, the Fed’s $3.3 trillion money expansion has generated inflation as well as asset bubbles, though the Fed and its cronies deny both asset bubbles and inflation.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1118
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Just to clarify for relative newcomers: contrary to Austrian School propaganda, "inflation" is driven primarily in many if not most cases not by too much "money" but rather by too much unpayable interest debt.

If that's news to you, then please see the following for details...

     http://www.wealthmoney.org/articles/truth_inflation/
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

The Biggest Secret About Banking Has Just Gone Mainstream
« Reply #59 on: May 25, 2014, 12:23:55 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1118
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-biggest-secret-about-banking-has-just-gone-mainstream.html

The Biggest Secret About Banking Has Just Gone Mainstream

Washington’s Blog
April 28, 2014

We’ve pointed out for 4 1/2 years that banks create money out of thin air.

Specifically, it has now been conclusively proven that loans come first … and then deposits FOLLOW.

This is the most important secret about modern banking … because it debunks one of the biggest myths preventing a strong economy, challenges one of the main pork barrel profit centers for big banks … and opens up incredible opportunities for a prosperous economy.

This odd and counter-intuitive – but crucially important – truth has now gone mainstream …

Specifically, the Financial Times’ Martin Wolf – one of the world’s most influential mainstream financial writers - says that, since banks create money out of thin air, they should be stripped of this power, and limited to normal depository functions. Wolf indicates the centrality and importance of the issue with his subtitle:

    The giant hole at the heart of our market economies needs to be plugged.

And Business Insider – the world’s most popular financial news blog – is currently running this as its top two front page stories:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Prominent Economists Call for End of Fractional Reserve Banking[
« Reply #60 on: May 25, 2014, 12:25:33 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1118
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/prominent-economists-call-for-end-of-fractional-reserve-banking.html

Prominent Economists Call for End of Fractional Reserve Banking

Washington’s Blog
April 30, 2014

Excessive leverage by the banks was one of the main causes of the Great Depression and of the 2008 financial crisis.

As such, lower levels of “fractional reserve banking” – i.e. how many dollars a bank lends out compared to the amount of deposits it has on hand – the more stable the economy will be.

But economist Steve Keen notes (citing Table 10 in Yueh-Yun C. OBrien, 2007. “Reserve Requirement Systems in OECD Countries”, Finance and Economics Discussion Series, Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Federal Reserve Board):

    The US Federal Reserve sets a Required Reserve Ratio of 10%, but applies this only to deposits by individuals; banks have no reserve requirement at all for deposits by companies.

So huge swaths of loans are not subject to any reserve requirements.

Indeed, Ben Bernanke proposed the elimination of all reserve requirements for banks:

    The Federal Reserve believes it is possible that, ultimately, its operating framework will allow the elimination of minimum reserve requirements, which impose costs and distortions on the banking system.

Economist Keen informs Washington’s Blog that about 6 OECD countries have already done away with reserve requirements altogether (Australia, Mexico,  Canada, New Zealand, Sweden and the UK).

But there is a growing recognition that this is going in the wrong direction, because fractional reserve banking can destabilize the economy (and credit can easily be created by the government itself.)

It was big news this week when one of the world’s most prominent economics writers – liberal economist Martin Wolf – advocated doing away with fractional reserve banking altogether… i.e. requiring that banks only loan out as much money as they actually have on hand in the form of customer deposits:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Still Report #270 - Attack on Cash
« Reply #61 on: Aug 14, 2014, 10:41:28 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1118
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Yet another video presentation you won't see promoted at either msnbc.com OR campaignforliberty.org (because they're so "opposite" from one another)...

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DJKcqp7fbg (Still Report #270 - Attack on Cash)

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Still Report #280 - Bitcoin Auction Dips Market
« Reply #62 on: Aug 14, 2014, 10:42:28 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1118
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLcANoOzJ1w (Still Report #280 - Bitcoin Auction Dips Market)

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Housing Ponzi Scheme Losses: American Homeowners Battling Wall Street
« Reply #63 on: Aug 14, 2014, 10:43:09 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1118
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.globalresearch.ca/housing-ponzi-scheme-losses-american-homeowners-battling-wall-street/5391538

Housing Ponzi Scheme Losses: American Homeowners Battling Wall Street

Did the Other Shoe Just Drop? Black Rock and PIMCO Sue Banks for $250 Billion

By Ellen Brown
Global Research
July 16, 2014



For years, homeowners have been battling Wall Street in an attempt to recover some portion of their massive losses from the housing Ponzi scheme. But progress has been slow, as they have been outgunned and out-spent by the banking titans.

In June, however, the banks may have met their match, as some equally powerful titans strode onto the stage.  Investors led by BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, and PIMCO, the world’s largest bond-fund manager, have sued some of the world’s largest banks for breach of fiduciary duty as trustees of their investment funds. The investors are seeking damages for losses surpassing $250 billion. That is the equivalent of one million homeowners with $250,000 in damages suing at one time.

The defendants are the so-called trust banks that oversee payments and enforce terms on more than $2 trillion in residential mortgage securities. They include units of Deutsche Bank AG, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, HSBC Holdings PLC, and Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Six nearly identical complaints charge the trust banks with breach of their duty to force lenders and sponsors of the mortgage-backed securities to repurchase defective loans.

Why the investors are only now suing is complicated, but it involves a recent court decision on the statute of limitations. Why the trust banks failed to sue the lenders evidently involves the cozy relationship between lenders and trustees. The trustees also securitized loans in pools where they were not trustees. If they had started filing suit demanding repurchases, they might wind up suedon other deals in retaliation. Better to ignore the repurchase provisions of the pooling and servicing agreements and let the investors take the losses—better, at least, until they sued.

Beyond the legal issues are the implications for the solvency of the banking system itself. Can even the largest banks withstand a $250 billion iceberg? The sum is more than 40 times the $6 billion “London Whale” that shook JPMorganChase to its foundations.

Who Will Pay – the Banks or the Depositors?

The world’s largest banks are considered “too big to fail” for a reason. The fractional reserve banking scheme is a form of shell game, which depends on “liquidity” borrowed at very low interest from other banks or the money market. When Lehman Brothers went bankrupt in 2008, triggering a run on the money market, the whole interconnected shadow banking system nearly went down with it.

Congress then came to the rescue with a taxpayer bailout, and the Federal Reserve followed with its quantitative easing fire hose. But in 2010, the Dodd Frank Act said there would be no more government bailouts. Instead, the banks were to save themselves with “bail ins,” meaning they were to recapitalize themselves by confiscating a portion of the funds of their creditors – including not only their shareholders and bondholders but the largest class of creditor of any bank, their depositors.

Theoretically, deposits under $250,000 are protected by FDIC deposit insurance. But the FDIC fund contains only about $47 billion – a mere 20% of the Black Rock/PIMCO damage claims. Before 2010, the FDIC could borrow from the Treasury if it ran short of money. But since the Dodd Frank Act eliminates government bailouts, the availability of Treasury funds for that purpose is now in doubt.

When depositors open their online accounts and see that their balances have shrunk or disappeared, a run on the banks is likely. And since banks rely on each other for liquidity, the banking system as we know it could collapse. The result could be drastic deleveraging, erasing trillions of dollars in national wealth.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

WONDERFUL NEWS FOR AUSTRIANS AND KEYNESIANS!
« Reply #64 on: May 09, 2017, 01:44:44 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1118
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Bad news, however, for those whose minds are not enslaved within the microscopic confines of the Austrian-Keynesian paradigm.

Monetary reformer and historian, Stephen Zarlenga, died two weeks ago.

Mr. Zarlenga was the man who inspired Dennis Kucinich to sponsor and introduce the landmark bill, the National Emergency Employment Defense  (NEED) Act of 2011. (Kucinich was gerrymandered out of office the very next year.)

-- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-zarlenga/sequesters-shutdowns-and-_b_4086071.html

If the NEED Act were passed and implemented, the private banking interests who created the so-called "Federal" Reserve in the first place would be out of the money-creation business -- and hence out of power.

Yet if that bill ever came close to being passed in response to public pressure, both Keynesians and Austrians would rail hysterically against it, and, in so doing, reveal for the whole world to see just whose interests they've been jointly serving all along.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Re: WONDERFUL NEWS FOR AUSTRIANS AND KEYNESIANS!
« Reply #65 on: May 09, 2017, 02:25:35 am »
 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 7329
    Posts
Its no coincidence that too many big names preach the cult as a misdirection, so I am rather pleased we have the independence on Gulag to say "NO" to the Austrian Cult.

The bill accomplishes this by adjusting our money system from one of "debt money created by banks" when they make loans, to one of "money by law" created as money, not as debt, by our government.

I can see Jerome Corsi screaming that the much needed reform bill is Soros Sponsored, that it is socialism and any other key phrases designed to trigger the gullible.



SEE ALSO
https://recoveringaustrians.wordpress.com/
We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

 

Powered by EzPortal