BF2S Forums The Last Conservative

Turquoise wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Guiliani is my vote.  Although some of his social positions I don't agree with, those are secondary his stance on security and taxes.  Also the fact that he will twart a Bloomberg presidency (Bloomberg will probably be less likely to run with Guiliani and Hillary in the race).

The problem Guiliani is going to have is the social conservatives supporting him...they are 1 issue voters.

Good points...  Although, since you mentioned it, I would vote for Bloomberg myself if he wasn't also a hawk/Zionist.  He and Paul seem like the best of the Libertarian bunch, while Nader and Kucinich seem like the best of the socialist bunch.

I'll probably vote Nader just for the hell of it....

Nader is the biggest mistake for any voter..

people who just "don't care" but want to vote give Nader their votes.

Umm... We saw what a great outcome that gave us during the 2004 elections...

I would give my vote to the G. The one thing we def need is a social conservative.. America is becoming more and more socially corrupt by the week.

jonsimon wrote:

topal63 wrote:

The right to make money constitutionally rests in the hands of the government (not the Federal Reserve, who's membership corporate shares are privately owned, benefiting the for profit organizations who are member-owners, there is nothing truly Federal about it, nor does “quasi-governmental” actually mean anything - it is outright outlandish doublespeak). The Federal Reserve system in America enforces a privately owned banking cartel system, and that cartel exists for profit - for the few. There is nothing remotely healthy or fair about our current system. As Napoleon put it “The hand that gives is above the hand that takes.” The most important and meaningful change this country can make is to repeal the 1913 Federal Reserve Act; and, to repeal the Federal Income Tax act, the 16th amendment to the constitution (never legally ratified by the states as required) in that very same year 1913. The direct relationship of your Federal tax dollars to the private banking institutions that own all the shares in Federal Reserve should be self evident. They have no assets in proportion to the money they create (yes they create nearly all of the money you use, not the US Treasury), they do this by debt creation (& ledger entries). At times as much as 100% of ALL Federal Income Tax dollars go directly to the service of the debt (which was created out of thin air, pulled directly out of their arse, for the benefit of a few: those who own the shares in the Federal Reserve Banks, and are dependent upon debt creation & an inflationary cycle). A country that can create bonds - can create money (debt free in relationship to the GDP).

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is a fact. The Federal Reserve system (cartel: is a privately owned for profit institution and) together with the IRS, are the root drains on the economy (standing in direct opposition to real & stable personal prosperity).

1.) Care to explain how the Fed is a cartel and a banking trust?

2.) Any profit a district federal reserve bank sees is derived at the expense of its member banks and is either stored as reserves or payed out as dividends to the national treasury. The banks, as shareholders, only make decisions related to employees and bonuses within a federal reserve district bank.

3.) The federal reserve system is one of the few aspects of our government which works fairly well and is worthy of our pride as Americans. The primary failing of the Federal Reserve System in the economics at the top. The lack of checks on the board of governors and their use of poor mainstream economics (that is to say, mainstream economics is poor) in making their policy decisions. The system itself, as a bureaucracy, is relatively efficient.The major profitable benefit member banks see is their ability to loan with less intelligence, knowing the Fed will not allow them to fail.

4.) Your assertion that the debt is imaginary and that creating currency and bonds are the solution: "A country that can create bonds - can create money (debt free in relationship to the GDP). First, Bonds are a form of debt, and are a part of the national debt. They are receipts for money loaned to the US government. Second, hyperinflation is a likely result of paying all debts through the printing of currency. The gross expansion of the money supply creates gross inflation. During Argentina's bout with hyperinflation the nation issued new larger denominations of currency on a daily or weekly basis to cope and workers were paid daily and immediately spent their money.

1.) Yes, the Federal Reserve is a banking cartel. It is a central bank with a virtual monopoly on the creation of money - and all shares (of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks) are privately owned (and constitute the right to participate in the system). Owned primarily by large commercial banking interests. The fact is that these shares are private not public, therefore they are not traded upon an open market. The Federal Reserve System is the instrument and tool of the private banking industry. It would not matter if the Federal Reserve was nationalized (like the Bank of England) and the shares were held in the government's trust. Profit in this scheme is made by the rules of fractional reserve banking - money creation through ledger entries.

Why establish a central banking system - commercial banking cartel?

The House of Morgan (J.P. Morgan interests) held effective control of the American government for much of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, down to the onset of Roosevelt's New Deal in 1933. Morgan’s backing for a central bank, culminating in the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913.

Why did the Morgan interests (or anyone else, for that matter) wish to establish a central banking system?

A central banking system vastly increases the ability of bankers to lend more money than they possess in reserves. Absent central control, monetary expansion in a fractional reserve system faces limits. If a bank, desiring to increase its profits, expands too much, rival banks will call in its notes. If it cannot meet its obligations, it will collapse. A central banking system removes this obstacle.

G. Edward Griffin, the highly acclaimed author of The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, states unequivocably that the Fed is not a privately-owned corporation - in the conventional sense:

In truth, it is a corporation, all right, and the shares are privately held by the banks, but they do not carry the usual privileges of ownership. I have said very clearly in my book that the Fed is a cartel and that it is a partnership between private banks and the government.

All nationally chartered banks are forced by the government to join the cartel. This isn't by choice, however; each is forced to put up 6% of its own capital in the nearest Reserve Bank.

To cover the fact that a central bank is merely a cartel which has been legalized, its proponents had to lay down a thick smoke screen of technical jargon focusing always on how it would supposedly benefit commerce, the public, and the nation... there was not the slightest glimmer that underneath it all, was a master plan which was designed from top to bottom to serve private interests at the expense of the public... the system is merely a cartel with a government facade.

It is, in fact, a hybrid organization specifically designed to facilitate operation of a cartel....with participation by government to enforce cartel agreements, and the unique structure was designed for that purpose.

Banksters using fictional reserve lending practices  = private-sector banking institutions who own private membership shares in the Federal Reserve System (a system enforced by governmental law and regulation); and this constitutes a cartel.
___________

"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies ... but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." - Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 9th Circuit 1982.

For ownership shares and influence see: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence.
( http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml )
Staff Report,Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing, House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, August 1976.

Cartel: A cartel is an organization made up of senior managers or their representatives in an industry. Established members of an industry fear competition from newcomers (it seeks to keep out maverick entrepreneurs that could upset the status quo). Newcomers will cut prices and thereby reduce existing companies’ profit margins. Private cartels, without governmental support via legislation, are rarely successful (per historical precedence), because they lack necessary legal force (upon their competitors). So, cartels seek government protection against newcomers. Then, having bought access, they seek to persuade politicians to establish legal barriers to entry in their industry. These barriers are imposed in the name of the public interest. Their justification is that they raise standards (stabilize a market for the benefit of the consumer, but they really increase profits for members of the cartel under the guise of "doing the public good"). The 1913 Federal Reserve Act is the political-legal enforcement of a commercial banking cartel.  Hence, under free competition, and without government support and enforcement, there will only be limited scope for fractional-reserve counterfeiting* (*counterfeiting: printing money; creating ledger entry-money; without a relation to hard assets; collateral you don't actually have). Banks could(?) form cartels to prop each other up, but a banking cartels on the market won't work well (like any other cartel) without government enforcement, without the government cracking down on competitors who insist on busting the cartel, in this case, forcing competing banks to pay up (pay-in to be a member).  - See the works, lectures, articles by the late professor Murray N. Rothbard for additional information on the nature of cartels.

Murray N. Rothbard, sources:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/frb.html
http://www.sugisorensen.com/rothbard.html
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp

The Bank of England is also a banking cartel, its owning shares have been nationalized, for appearance of respectability, but nonetheless enforces a fractional reserve, commercial banking cartel just like the Fed does (Deutsche Bundesbank is the same type of central banking cartel system; and the same is basically true for most other Western European Central Banking schemes). The IMF (International Monetary Fund), World Bank, BIS (Bank for International Settlements) together with European System of Central Banks (ESCB), etc;  work together influencing the international status quo - of the fractional reserve - ever inflating money supply system. Making the financial institutions the wealthiest sector of the domestic & international markets by far; bar none; by supporting the status quo usury cartels on a Global Scale. It is a Global debt, inflationary, problem/phenomenon.

... while shares in the Bank of England are now state-owned the fact is - the money supply is almost entirely in private hands, with 90-97% of it being in the form of interest bearing loans of one sort or another, created by private commercial banks.

___________

2.) While the Federal Reserve does turn over money (declared income) to the US Treasury; as you say. It does not turn over all. A small amount of profit is paid to the member shareholders as dividends; and capital assets acquired or kept don't count/apply (as they; capital assets or reserves not declared as income; or used in construction; etc; and the dividends paid-out are ALL tax exempt, also as a "not for profit corp." it is a tax exempt corporation, as chartered under the law). Also, there has not been an independent audit (on record) of the (whole) Federal Reserve System  to determine the actuality of its profits, accounts, transfers or assets (the GAO is limited in scope; due to the Federal Reserve insisting such an open audit would undermine confidence in the system; and thus influence the market). So far it's take our word for it; more or less; and it would be near impossible to account for any past transactions indiscretions (if there were major fiscal indiscretions committed; off the books cash/asset movement).

A few - GAO 1996 findings:

A 1996 General Accounting Office audit revealed that the Fed's $2 billion annual budget was used to employ 25,000 well-paid employees, to operate its own air force of 47 Lear jets and small cargo planes, and to maintain a large fleet of automobiles (including personal cars for 59 Fed bank managers). A full-time curator oversees the Fed's collection of expensive paintings and sculptures.

The number of Fed employees earning more than $125,000 per year more than doubled (from 35 to 72) from 1993 to 1996, according to the GAO. Even the head janitor, known as the "support services director," was paid $163,800 in salary plus fringe benefits. Millions of dollars are spent on professional memberships, entertainment, and travel.

___________

3.) Nothing could be further from the truth. And I most certainly do not take pride in usury system that has the legal right to counterfeit money at the private corporate level (on demand at the teller window); that has the right to inflate the money supply endlessly devaluing every existing dollar thereafter, that robs the poor, the elderly, etc through an invisible tax of ever expanding debt. The Federal Reserve System is a fiat money (notes backed by nothing but debt system) fractional reserve counterfeiting, debt creating, inflation creating, member restricting commercial banking cartel - that inflates the money supply to pay off the debt it creates (that creates more debt to payoff the debt; etc, etc, etc. It is almost always in a state of inflating the money supply).

The common myth is that a central bank is working on behalf of the public by promoting a stable money supply, by restricting poor banking practices, helping to control inflation, and by having the (elastic) power of interests rates (which can stimulate or hinder economic growth). While the last one is true - the rest is false. Inherently an expanding debt based money supply automatically creates inflation - it is just a matter of how much inflation (who controls it and who benefits from an inflating money supply - the commercial banking cartel does). The only valuable part of legislation in the 1913 Fed Reserve act was that it standardized the nations currency - as I believe there were almost 30,000 different types of private notes in circulation.

How the Federal Reserve creates money, debt, inflation, and how commercial banks create by credit about 90% of the money supply.
a.) A US Treasury bond (interest bearing security) is created (out of nothing).

b.) The Federal Reserve receives the bond; purchases it on a ledger entry (it has created the money for the bond purchase out of nothing)."The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny" - Congressman Wright Patman, Congressional Record, Sept 30, 1941. And it is still true today - nothing tangible can be traded - these are notes; not certificates; in effect IOUs; or debt (created through the magic of ledger entries). "When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money." - Putting it simply, the Boston Federal Reserve Bank.

c.) The US Treasury is credited money from the Federal Reserve (this amounts to money creation + interest due the Bond it now owns). In effect the Federal Reserve creates a dollar + the interest on that dollar (due the bond). The US government can spend this money.

_{When Congress borrows money on the credit of the United States, bonds are thus legislated into existence and deposited as credit entries in all Federal Reserve banks. United States bonds, bills and notes constitute money as affirmed by the Supreme Court (Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421), and this money when deposited with the Fed becomes collateral from whence the Treasury may write checks against the credit thus created in its account (12 USC 391). For example, suppose Congress appropriates an expenditure of $1 billion. To finance the appropriation Congress creates the $1 billion worth of bonds out of thin air and deposits it with the privately owned Federal Reserve System. Upon receiving the bonds, the Fed credits $1 billion to the Treasury's checking account, holding the deposited bonds as collateral. When the United States deposits its bonds with the Federal Reserve System, private credit is extended to the Treasury by the Fed. Under its power to borrow money, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to contract debt, and whenever something is borrowed it must be returned. When Congress spends the contracted private credit, each use of credit is debt which must be returned to the lender or Fed. Since Congress authorizes the expenditure of this private credit, the United States incurs the primary obligation to return the borrowed credit, creating a National Debt which results when credit is not returned.}

d.) Or the Federal Reserve can loan this money to the commercial (member) banking sector at the discount rate (same thing the US incurs a dollar created + interest due the bond).

It is estimated that about $280 +/- billion in Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are in circulation in the USA (approximately 40%); and that another about $370 +/- billion in Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are in circulation overseas (approximately 60% of the actual currency-notes; FRNs; in circulation). An $8.8 trillion (& growing) national debt can never be paid-off with the Federal Reserve Notes if there are only $650 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation (absent a long-term, extraordinarily oppressive and over-burdensome system of taxation aimed at circulating the currency back into the government’s hands).  The fact is the supply of "currency" whether in either physical FRNs or accounting/book/ledger entries must be increased endlessly (inflation) in order to make the payments of interest and principal on both national and privately held debts that are denominated in FRNs.

Alan Greenspan, former Fed Chairman, has been very explicit about this, he says we are subsidizing the banks. Part of the subsidy, and he repeats this often - is that the Federal Reserve stands ready to create money “without limit” to bail-out the banks if the need arises (creating money - flat out of nothing and “without limit”).

It is interesting that, of the rulers of the Fed, the only ones that seem to be worried about the inflationary nature of the system are those Fed regional bank presidents who hail from outside the major areas of bank cartels. The regional presidents are elected by the local bankers themselves, the nominal owners of the Fed. Thus, the Fed presidents from top cartel areas such as New York or Chicago, or the older financial elites from Philadelphia and Boston, tend to be pro-inflation "doves," whereas the relatively anti-inflation "hawks" within the Fed come from the periphery outside the major cartel centers: e.g., those from Minneapolis, Richmond, Cleveland, Dallas, or St. Louis. Surely, this constellation of forces is no coincidence. - Murry N. Rothbard.

e.) Whenever actual cash monies; (Federal Reserve Notes) FRNs; are needed/demanded the US Treasury has the authority to print the notes on behalf of the Federal Reserve. The cost is about a 3 to 4 cent charge (to the Fed) per note, regardless of denomination. Only the US treasury can mint coin (coinage accounts for less than 1% of the money supply).

f.) But, the fact is most money is in the form of ledger entries (computerized credit) - so actual notes do not need to be printed (unless demanded). Once a member bank has received this Fed credit it can now loan the money as credit to you (or someone else). The profit the bank makes is the difference between the discount rate & the market prime rate it happens to be charging. Right? - No - Wrong! Through the miracle of fractional reserve banking - it only incurs the discount rate once (upon the initial credit loan entry from the Fed). 10% by regulatory law must be set aside as reserve demands (demand deposits: are averaged over successive two-week periods). 90% can be loaned out. But within the system about 70 to 80% (or more) returns back to the member banks as customer deposits (mostly as electronic computerized ledger entries). This same money can be loaned out again at the 10% reserve requirement (of course the discount rate is not applicable; as that is only incurred at the original Fed credit loan to the member bank). This continual creation of credit can continue until a nominal return is reached of say the smallest amount of money a bank can loan. This recursive system of ledger entry legal counterfeiting creates the majority of money in circulation - about 90% (or more). So when you think a bank is loaning money at a 6-7% interest rate - realize that is multiplied by about a factor of 7-10; as they recursively create debt money - giving them the ability to make more like 50% to 70% interest on the real actual money deposits; Fed credit loan; assets. (Information on the sin of banking: http://www.mises.org/mysteryofbanking/m … anking.pdf)

Deficiencies of the fractional reserve, debt based, inflationary Federal Reserve System:
g.) Through the invisible tax of inflation that results from the dilution of purchasing power caused by newly created money entering the system reducing the value of dollars already there. An expanding money supply actually transfers wealth it does not destroy wealth. In an expanding economy an inflationary monetary system (like ours) transfers the value/wealth from the lower & middle classes to the richest segment of the population - as their ability to continually make interest (on OPM: Other Peoples Money) on expanding debt.

<sub>The Greenspan Fed was especially expansive, never was held to account for its excess and was able to pass a serious problem it created on to a future Fed chairman and society to deal with.  The man we now lionize as a monetary magician began sensibly.  From 1982, before he arrived in 1987, until 1992, the money supply increased on average by 8% a year.  But from 1992 - 2002, the printing press worked overtime in sync with the deregulation and growth of global markets expanding the currency by more than 12% a year.  It became even more extreme post 9/11 and since 2002 grew at a 15% rate.  It now has more than doubled in less than a decade.  It appears that the new Fed chairman has taken note and has begun reducing the rate of money expansion as he continues raising the federal funds rate to whatever level he has in mind.

Currency traders as well apparently have taken note of the rate of money supply expansion overall.  Except for a respite in 2005, it's quite likely the dollar weakness since 2002 is the result of the excess amount of them created for the Bush administration's profligate spending to fund its endless wars and reckless tax cuts for the rich.  The problem is further compounded as from 1964 to the present debt service has grown from 9% to 16.5% of the federal budget and rising; the current account deficit has gone from a 1% surplus to an almost 7% deficit; and federal indebtedness has grown by 40% just since 2001 and financed in large part by "the kindness of (foreign) strangers" that may be growing restive.  Furthermore, since March, 2006, the Fed stopped publishing the M-3 aggregate of the total amount of dollars in circulation.  With that transparency gone, big buyers of US Treasuries now have to calculate the value of the dollar based on speculation and uncertainty rather than hard data - not a way to inspire trust in the financial markets that function best in an atmosphere of openness and clarity.</sub>

Inflating money supply:

Historical:


h.) In the form of an ever expanding national debt - private wealth is diluted - thus individual liberty and prosperity is continuously diminished; by government decree. The dominance of the Federal Government will increase as the sphere of influence over our lives increases due to that very same need to service & expand the national debt is without end ($8.8 trillion and growing - and it wasn't ever necessary - the 1913 bill was drafted in secret by the most influential commercial banking money trust). Your control over money & value diminishes - theirs (the government) increases.

h.) The public also looses because the banking cartel is able to practice usury - from it's power over a flexible currency to artificially move rates up or down to any level it chooses which many small lenders in a truly free and open market can't do.  In addition, the cartel's market dominance forces most borrowers (especially smaller ones less able to issue their own debt instruments) to come to them for loans which it's then able to make using what should be the peoples' money available to them at the lowest possible cost from many highly government regulated small lenders competing for customers.

i.) Through taxes, we, the public, must pay to cover the interest on the huge national debt (now over $8.8 trillion) accumulated from the money the Fed printed and loaned to the government.  As mentioned earlier, that now totals an annualized amount exceeding two-thirds of a trillion dollars and increasing daily.  It's made the banking system rich in credit, but ordinary people poorer, and the public none the wiser it's been fleeced big time.

j.) There is a direct relationship of the 1913 Federal Income Tax act to the 1913 Federal Income Tax act. In 1982, then president Ronald Reagan, commissioned a report to determine ways of easing the Federal Income Tax burden - and save tax payers money (wasted in inefficiency & bureaucracy). The Grace commission reported to the president that as much as 100% of the Federal Income Tax goes directly to service the National Debt. Therefore 100% of every collected Income Tax dollar is wasted. About 2/3, more or less, of the Federal Budget is collect by tariffs; direct taxes; etc. If the Federal Reserve the national Debt and Federal Income Tax were all eliminated the Net Result would be zero - meaning the actual usable Federal/government income would be the same as it is today. The difference would be forced fiscal responsibility for the Federal Government. Deficit spending would cause inflation (although much less inflation than the current system); and Elections would hang in the balance (based upon spending & fiscal policy). There will always be a desire for business to lobby Congress and attempt to seek preferential treatment; but the Fed should be a partner in helping Industry/National Productivity; but certainly not a means to create wealth and worse transfer wealth. The 1913 Act(s) allowed irresponsible fiscal policy, unconstitutional formation of the Fed and the unconstitutional creation of an un-apportioned direct tax on wages.

k.) Compounding the above abuses, the cartel is able to get the public to bail out the system with more of its tax dollars. It happens whenever any of the too-big-to-fail banks need financial help to survive. The same is true for big corporations like Chrysler or Lockheed, large investment firms or hedge funds like Long-Term Capital Management or even countries like Mexico. It's also true when a single bank goes out of business and depositors must be compensated (FDIC) or more seriously in the wake of a systemic financial meltdown like the one that wiped out many savings and loan banks in the 1980s.  Whether it's a single bank or many dozens at a time, public tax dollars are used to save the system or just pick up the tab to repay depositors insured against losses through government insurance protection up to a stipulated amount per account.

___________

4.) I never said create more bonds. In fact make zero - unless the government is trying to encourage Americans to invest into their own Nation (in a healthier fiscal system; certainly not this one!). So (IMO) you couldn't be more mistaken, than you are, in your assumption. The power to create a bond - is equal to the power to create money. It is money. Why not create the money instead entirely - no bonds - therefore no interest (debt free). The way it works right now is (even more) inflationary due to the nature of the bond. $1 billion in bonds is actually $ 1 billion dollars plus self inflicted interest. This is even less fiscally efficient than just creating the same $1 billion in debt free money. Right now they create money out of nothing (anyway) at a dollar plus interest - it is a retarded system.

Also, your reference to another monetary fiat monetary system does not apply - we are a fiat monetary system with the Fed creating money "without limit." The difference is the Industrial capacity of the nation - without that there is no value to a fiat currency at all (it is inherently worthless paper).

Federal Reserve Notes - a Fiat Currency:

Federal Reserve Notes. Legal tender notes of the American Federal Reserve System. From 1914 to June 21, 1917, these banknotes were secured by 100% short term rediscounted commercial paper, plus a reserve of not less than 40% in gold. In 1917, the reserve requirements were changed to not less than 40% in gold with the balance to 10O% consisting in private and public obligations meeting certain legal requirements. From 1914 to 1933, Federal Reserve notes were redeemable in gold upon presentation. In 1933, their redeemability ceased except for those presented by foreign governments, their central banks and certain international organizations. In 1945, during World War II, the gold reserve requirement was reduced to "not less than 25%." In the 1960's, as the actual gold reserves dropped, there was considerable agitation for the reduction or elimination of this requirement. In 1968, the gold reserve requirement was dropped. Since then they have been secured solely by evidences of private and public debts and have been issuable without limit against such debts. On August 15, 1971, President Nixon suspended their redeemability by foreign governments, their central banks and international organizations. They are now [1974] in effect fiat money.

As I said before, in a modern monetary system, fiat currency value is tied to the product of work,

Carl Marx, stated this correctly. This (idea) is one of the few things he got right (IMO):
“This fact simply means that the object that labor produces, its product, stands opposed to it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer. The product of labor is labor embodied and made material in an object, it is the objectification of labor. The realization of labor is its objectification.“ In the absence of a monetary system - you have a barter system; therefore in a modern monetary system: money is the objectification of work and/or a work product.

a.) Money is the objectification of work.
b.) Money is the standardized sovereign currency of a Nation.
c.) Money has value based upon demand (not backing by another commodity).
d.) Money has value and demand - when it is “good for the payment of taxes.”

Issuing debt free money (US treasury notes):
It is either 5 of these (slight inflation, self inflicted interest & an ever expanding National Debt).

Or 5 of these (slight inflation - debt free - nothing added to the National Debt).



Anyways, jonsimon, I hope that clarifies my position (opinion) on the structure of our Federal Reserve system (or rather most current central banking cartel schemes).

Last edited by topal63 (2007-08-08 07:18:19)

1.) This is slightly different than what I said, in reference to it being a cartel.

G. Edward Griffin, the highly acclaimed author of The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, states unequivocably that the Fed is not a privately-owned corporation - in the conventional sense:

In truth, it is a corporation, all right, and the shares are privately held by the banks, but they do not carry the usual privileges of ownership. I have said very clearly in my book that the Fed is a cartel and that it is a partnership between private banks and the government.

All nationally chartered banks are forced by the government to join the cartel. This isn't by choice, however; each is forced to put up 6% of its own capital in the nearest Reserve Bank.

To cover the fact that a central bank is merely a cartel which has been legalized, its proponents had to lay down a thick smoke screen of technical jargon focusing always on how it would supposedly benefit commerce, the public, and the nation... there was not the slightest glimmer that underneath it all, was a master plan which was designed from top to bottom to serve private interests at the expense of the public... the system is merely a cartel with a government facade.

It is, in fact, a hybrid organization specifically designed to facilitate operation of a cartel....with participation by government to enforce cartel agreements, and the unique structure was designed for that purpose.

Banksters using fictional reserve lending practices (with the full force of governmental regulation and legal authority behind them) is shocking - eh maybe(?). As if reality is shocking - and government institutionalized stupidity and/or corruption is unheard of - it just is what it is. I have described the system fairly accurately.

I could modify it to say: The private-sector banking institutions who own private membership shares in the Federal Reserve System (a system enforced by governmental law and regulation) constitutes a cartel. (It's a little different, but not much).

+

2.) I already stated the value for the bankers is primarily in the system's design - not as; or like; ownership of shares in a conventional corporation.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-08-05 15:26:42)

The thing is, Paul will get nowhere if he continually attempts to abolish the federal reserve system outright. The fed cannot be removed without a replacement. He would have to legislate and design proper governmental controls and restrictions in its place, or he will simply have to settle for reform and revision. Reform is not unprecedented, the Fed used to be highly corrupt and mismanaged until the Great Depression when it was revised to include the board of governors. Minor revisions have also happened such as the removal of thrift banks as a classification. As for switching to the gold standard, he would be up against all the powers that be in our government which invaded afganhistan and iraq as well as the entire military industrial complex. He has no hope of finding light in that forest of corruption and greed.