The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Mike Whitney ArchiveBlogview
Trump Prepares to Take Over the Fed
shutterstock_376235257
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

In Donald Trump’s first four years as president, he will not only choose three judges for the Supreme Court, he’ll also pick five of the seven members on the Fed Board of Governors. It would be impossible to overstate the effect this is going to have on the nation’s economic future. With both houses of Congress firmly in the GOP’s grip, we could see the most powerful central bank in the world transformed into a purely political institution that follows the diktats of one man.

Critics may think that is a vast improvement over the present situation in which the Fed conceals its allegiance to the giant Wall Street investment banks behind a public relations cloud of “independence”, but the idea of one man controlling the price of the world’s reserve currency and, thus, the price of financial assets and commodities across the globe, is equally disturbing. Already we have seen how the Fed’s determination to enrich its constituents has resulted in one titanic asset-price bubble after the other. Imagine if that power was entrusted to just one individual who could be tempted to use that authority to shape economic events in a way that enhanced and perpetuated his own political power. Even so, after seven years of a policy-induced Depression that has increased inequality to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, we think it is high-time that the president use his power to choose the members who will bring the bank back under government control. Here’s more background from the LA Times:

“Donald Trump leveled unprecedented criticism at the Federal Reserve during the campaign. As president, he could get to quickly reshape it … Trump will have the opportunity to appoint as many as five new members to the seven-person Fed Board of Governors during his first year and a half in office. That includes a new chairperson to replace Janet L. Yellen, whose term expires in early 2018…

Trump hammered Yellen in the final months of the (presidential) campaign, accusing her of keeping the benchmark rate “artificially low” to help fellow Democrats President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

“I think she is very political and to a certain extent, I think she should be ashamed of herself.” Trump told CNBC in mid-September. At the first presidential debate two weeks later, he declared that “the Fed is being more political than Hillary Clinton.”

And Trump’s final campaign video included images of the Fed and Yellen, casting her has part of the “political establishment” that has “bled our country dry.”…

“Never before have we had an incoming president not just criticize how Fed policy has been executed … but accuse the Fed chair of undermining the institution by being in political cahoots with his opponent and the White House,” (James) Pethokoukis said. “We’re off the grid into uncharted territory.”… (Trump hammered the Federal Reserve as a candidate. As president, he could quickly reshape it, LA Times)

We can safely assume that the Supreme Court is going to reflect Trump’s corporate-friendly laissez-faire attitude towards big business, the question is: What can we expect from the Central Bank once it becomes the White House’s flunky?

That’s hard to say, mainly because Trump frequently espouses two seemingly contradictory views at the same time.

What do I mean by that?

I mean, that on the one hand, Trump is a big cheerleader for non-interventionist, free market capitalism, but on the other, he is a committed rightwing populist who seems to thrive on the support of the masses, which is clear when he things like this:

“You know who gets hurt the most (by Yellen’s easy money policies)? The people that went through 40 years of their life and saved a hundred dollars every week (in the bank)…..They worked all their lives to save and now what happens is they’re being forced into an inflated stock market and at some point they’ll get wiped out.”

So, how will Trump’s populism shape his views on who should or should not be a member of the Fed?

We don’t know, but we do know that monetary policy is going to change dramatically from the last eight years of unproductive experimentation because Trump has surrounded himself with industry leaders who ascribe to an entirely different philosophy than the one currently in practice. Check this out from monetary analyst Tommy Behnke:

“Some of today’s most reasonable mainstream economic voices are included in (Trump’s) inner circle. These names include David Malpass of Encima Global, who co-signed a letter with Jim Grant opposing the Fed’s “inflationary” and “distortive” quantitative easing program; John Paulson of Paulson & Co., who made billions from shorting the housing market before the Great Recession; Andy Beal, a self-described “libertarian kind of guy” who blames the Fed for the credit crisis; and the Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore, who told CSIN in 2012 that he is a “very severe critic” of the Fed’s “incredibly easy-money policies of the past decade.”

While none of Trump’s economic advisers are by any means Austrians, they are far more hawkish than most of Presidents Bush and Obama’s past economic advisers.” (Why President Trump Will Fumigate the Fed, Mises Institute)

Trump, who is no fan of the Fed’s bond buying program called QE, has admitted he thinks stocks are in a bubble suggesting that he will probably take a more conservative approach to monetary policy. Even so, that doesn’t change the fact he’s going to have to opportunity to personally select the FOMC’s ruling majority, which means that he’ll be in a position to demand their loyalty as a condition of their hiring. Does anyone seriously doubt that Trump would rather control the Fed himself than keep it in the clutches of the cutthroat Wall Street banks?

ORDER IT NOW

There’s no doubt that the distributional effects of the Fed’s policies helped catapult Trump into the White House. Millions of working class Americans who are sick of the monetary “trickle down” policies and the job-eviscerating trade agreements found a way to express their frustration in the candidacy of Donald Trump. Their collective rage suddenly exploded at the ballotbox on November 8 pushing the real estate tycoon to a victory over opponent Clinton in what many are calling the political upset of the century. Trump tapped into that wellspring of anger and frustration by denouncing the “failed and corrupt political establishment” in which both Hillary Clinton and the Fed feature prominently. Now he’s going to take it to the next level by launching a surprise attack on the Fed which will leave Wall Street stripped of its power-agency and left to fend for itself. This is a blurb from the New York Times:

“A core view of many Trump advisers is that the extended period of emergency policy settings has promoted a bubble in the stock market, depressed the incomes of savers, scared the public and encouraged capital misallocation,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. “Right now, these are minority views on the F.O.M.C., but Trump appointees are likely to shift the needle.” (With Trump in Power, the Fed Gets Ready for a Reckoning, New York Times)

They’re going to “shift the needle” alright, then they’re going to drive it through the serpent’s heart. The Fed has had every opportunity to show where its loyalties lie and it has sided with Wall Street every single time. There’s a reason why 95 percent of all income gains in the last eight years have gone to the one percent, while working people have struggled just to put food on the table. Just like there’s a reason why stocks have tripled in value in the last eight years while wages and incomes have stagnated and the economy has slowed to a crawl. It’s the policy, stupid.

The Fed has created the conditions for a permanent Depression so it can provide infinite cheap money to its crooked reprobate friends on Wall Street. Now their little party is coming to an end.

Boo fucking hoo.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com

(Reprinted from Counterpunch by permission of author or representative)
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. The parasitic jooies won’t like this at all. Yellen – jooie, Fischer – jooie, Bernanke – jooie, Greenspan – jooie, Volcker – jooie, Miller -goy useful idiot replaced after 1 year, Burns – jooie. The twelve member banks are mostly jooie owned and managed. Joonomics is essentially legalized usury and counterfeiting. The chances of Der Trumpster evicting the pernicious jooies from the temple are nil…….

    Read More
    • Replies: @he knows
    The last President who thought he could control the FED took bullets through the front of his head and the FBI and CIA covered it up. Trump isn't stupid he knows he can't do shit- only God will be able to stop these perfidious demons.
    , @bongo
    You just haven't figured out the timing of how this is going to work. You don't take out the most important component first, you do the other stuff, then when everything is in place, you knock out the final timber and they're gone. That is what he will do, but in the meantime, it doesn't hurt to reverse course on the free money game. Everybody will get what is coming to them, I'm quite certain of that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/trump-prepares-to-takeover-fed/#comment-1655865
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. In the past FED governors were appointed by God. But now they will be appointed by Trump! Head for the hills!

    Read More
    • Replies: @mp
    "In the past FED governors were appointed by God."

    So it was Yahweh all along! I kind of had an idea, but was never sure until now. Thanks for clearing that up.
  3. “Even so, after seven years of a policy-induced Depression that has increased inequality to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, we think it is high-time that the president use his power to choose the members who will bring the bank back under government control.”

    I second that idea.

    I believe that Janet Yellen has stated that she was appointed to serve until 2018. It looks like the battle lines are being drawn, as we speak.

    Presidents that speak (or hint) at the outrage of a Central Bank issuing the currency of a sovereign nation and handing that duty over to private interests while lashing the productive working population of the country to an enslavement of a tax collecting gestapo have not fared well in the past.

    Let’s judge Mr. Trump by his actions and not his words on this one.

    Read More
  4. How easily the author forgets that the Fed made illegal loans to foreign governments and corporations such as AIG. Ron Paul has been calling for an audit of the Fed to expose just how corrupt it is. The banks get Fed loans at 0% and charge up 12% – 18% interest while paying less than 1% on savings. This is part of Trump’s plan to drain the swamp, and another reason I voted for him. I hope the bastards are sweating.

    Read More
  5. “we could see the most powerful central bank in the world transformed into a purely political institution that follows the diktats of one man.”
    Mike, I thought that is how it has been for at least the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. Am I wrong there?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    30 odd years of un-elected Jews were not enough, apparently.
  6. “we could see the most powerful central bank in the world transformed into a purely political institution that follows the diktats of one man.”

    LBJ got physical with the FED chairman when he did not want to lower the interests rates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava

    LBJ got physical with the FED chairman when he did not want to lower the interests rates.
     
    That is interesting. Did LBJ just push him around the room or punch him?

    AFAIK, it is the FRB, not the FED, although not being a US person, I may be confusing two things.

    I didn't know that the Prexident got to appoint new directors. So, it is a bad institution but more controllable than similar instititions in other places.

    Another point where President Trump offers great possibilities, but will likely let most of his voters down.

    Wait and see. I hope that for you US people, Trump will do what he says, but talk of Bolton having a role makes me wonder.

    Still, better than Lady Entitled Pantsuit.
  7. “The Fed has created the conditions for a permanent Depression so it can provide infinite cheap money to its crooked reprobate friends on Wall Street.”

    I do not think it has anything to do with the FED. The Wall Street is doing what it can get away with. They will be doing the same thing when the interest rates go up. By increasing the interests rates the proportion of money that goes to industry to money that goes to the Walls Street will not change but the total amount of money will be lower.

    The Fed can change the setting of only one parameter like changing a thermostat setting in the room. If the room has windows open the change of the setting will not change the temperature of the room by much. Concentrate on the windows and who is stealing and how the warm air? For this one has to understand the system much better. For this reason all dilettantes like to yap about the FED. Anyway, Mike you are barking at a wrong tree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clearpoint
    Disagree. The Fed connects Wall Street financial institutions to the people's money with the force of law. The 2008 bailout could have been done far differently, with the money going directly to the people in the form of debt write down or reduction. Instead it went directly to the Wall Street financial institutions so that they could re-inflate asset prices to support the overstated debt they make their money on. Clearly there is more than one level of power to pull. And whoever controls the Fed can repurpose it in a manner that best benefits the entire economy instead of the small select group of parasites it currently benefits.
  8. Perhaps a cup of tea and a couple of aspirin prior to a bit of a lie down would enable you to rally.

    Read More
  9. I don’t know what the author’s qualifications are but I think FED is doing an amazing job running the country on fumes. At -20T debt, we should long ago have been Greece, but are having a near zero interest rate/inflation for a decade. That is no small achievement. Mr. Trump is going to have a lot of fun when FED increases the rate by about half percent in December. Let Trump figure how to handle a deep recession in 2017 and that will make a man of him and start respecting FED. Without the miracle of Bernanke in 2008, we would be seeing a lot of people sleeping in tents and eating from thrash cans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Where do you live? There are people sleeping in parks and eating from garbage cans in every city in the country.

    It's caused by immigration. The immigrants either arrive with a couple million in cash to buy real estate or live 10 in a studio, 15 in a one bedroom apartment or 25 in a 3 bedroom house.

    Even if their sole income is welfare or phony disability that many people can afford very high housing costs.
    , @Stonehands

    Without the miracle of Bernanke in 2008, we would be seeing a lot of people sleeping in tents and eating from thrash cans.
     
    ...And there would also be a bankster beaten to death in every gutter in America.

    And rightfully so.

    You throw the bums out of their houses when they don't uphold their end of the mortgage agreement- but you bail out theses miserable bankster SOB's and their tranches of fraudulent bonds... give it 4- 10 years and we will present you with The Terror II.

  10. WHY DONALD TRUMP MUST SHUT DOWN THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND START ISSUING DEBT-FREE MONEY

    We don’t need central planners to set our interest rates and to manipulate our money supply. They will never admit this, but the reality of the matter is that their interference in the economy often creates tremendous economic busts.

    Since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, there have been 18 distinct recessions or depressions: 1918, 1920, 1923, 1926, 1929, 1937, 1945, 1949, 1953, 1958, 1960, 1969, 1973, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001, 2008.

    Considering their track record, isn’t it time for a change?

    http://govtslaves.info/why-donald-trump-must-shut-down-the-federal-reserve-and-start-issuing-debt-free-money/

    Good luck to anyone who tries to change the grave-robbing Fed. JFK issued debt-free US Treasury notes and less than a year later, was dead. Lincoln told the Wall Street bankers to take a hike when they offered to lend the government money to finance the Civil War at astronomical rates, and he too issued a debt-free currency, the greenback, and you know what happened to him.

    Both presidents Garfield and McKinley were against re-starting up the private national bank, and both were assassinated. President Jackson shut down the forefather of the Fed and he was shot, but survived.

    BTW, the president selects Fed members from a list provided by the Fed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Can you link to a fuller accounting of JFK's decision to issue Treasury Notes, instead of Federal Reserve Notes?

    I have actually seen a few of those collector's items, but I don't know what prompted him make that decision.

    BTW, careful with the connection to 11/22/63. We don't know why JFK was killed, because the crime was never properly investigated. Instead, the Warren Commission engaged in a giant PR scam to calm the political waters. We know their version of events is false. What we don't know is the true who, what and why of 11/22/63.
    , @Psycholosopher
    JFK issued treasury notes by way of his executive action 11110. LBJs first official act as president on air force one immediately after being sworn in was to recind EA 11110. What does that tell you ?
    , @SecondComing
    "Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws” – Baron M.A. Rothschild

    We lost the nation in 1913. Maybe the establishment beating narcissist ought to really "make it great again" and not be the third President shot in the head by the real owners of this country.
    , @Aardvark
    I have thought for years that the FR was behind the assassination of JFK due to his desire to issue 1 billion in Treasury notes backed by silver reserves. Since under the FR, no new money comes into existence without first issuing debt, this means the FR would have to forego the interest on 1 billion in perpetuity. At something like 4% interest at the time, this means foregoing $40M a year in interest. Do the math and see if you come to the conclusion why "they" might have done what they did.
  11. Either return the power of issuing the currency in every sense to the government and eliminate “debt-money” created from nothing, or continue to expect more of the same no matter who occupies the White House. Remember the infamous saying attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild: “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws”. If a nation lacks monetary sovereignty, it is a poor excuse for a nation. Let hoi polloi choose a president (“Let’s try door number two!): the privately-owned Fed comes out ahead one way or another.

    Mr W is being disingenuous if he believes a US president can dictate to the Fed the way Cristina Fernández de Kirchner did with the Argentine central bank, a small-time franchise outlet of the BIS, the central bank at the top of the pyramid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I bet that supposed Mayer Rothschild quote is a pure fabrication for mugs like you to recirculate. Tell me what was it in the original German and who noted it down?

    It appears, now that I have done an elementary search to have been cooked up in 1913 in the course of US political disputes over banking. Not specifically anti-Semitic then though later fabricators' mates couldn't decide whether it was Mayer Amschel Rothschild or his most famous son Nathan. Why not Churchill or Lincoln?
  12. There are a lot of great ideas in academia for fixing the fed, from people like Scott Sumner. Hope Trump takes advantage.

    Read More
  13. @WorkingClass
    In the past FED governors were appointed by God. But now they will be appointed by Trump! Head for the hills!

    “In the past FED governors were appointed by God.”

    So it was Yahweh all along! I kind of had an idea, but was never sure until now. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Read More
  14. Looking at Trump Team – I must say Mike Whitney is living in a FOOLS PARADISE.

    FED has a 100-year long tradition of having a Zionist Jew at the top of the ladder. Abraham Foxman, head of ADL for 50 years claimed in 2013: “Criticism of FED is anti-Semitism.”

    Eight of the current US top court consist of three Jewish including two lesbians and five Zionist Christians like Donald Trump himself. So, how some fool could expect an American oligarch like Donald Trump to change the AMERICAN (Jewish) VALUES?

    On December 21, 2013, Neil Irwin, reporter for the Jewish Washington Post, posted an article, titled, ‘The Federal Reserve was created 100 year ago. This is how it happened‘. The entire article is based on Irwin’s book, ‘The Alchemists’. The book is collection of Irwin’s various fables, which have very little to do with who controls the FED and how it has looted the Americans by manipulating the US dollar.

    Satyajit Das, an internationally renowned economist and author has this to say about Irwin’s journalism: “The Alchemists resembles a data dump of his reporter’s notebooks, characterised by frequent forced attempts at reportage colour – Mervyn King (Bank of England’s Jewish Governor) dog sledding, Chancellor Merkel (an Israel-Firster) and President Sarkozy (half Jewish and Mossad agent) walking along the beach at Deauville. Irwin’s superficial effort, not assisted by a leaden style, is a passable chronology at best.”

    For some reasons, Irwin avoided to mention that over the past two decades, more than 50% of Federal Reserve Presidents and 100% of the Chairmen have been Jewish. Before Chairman Benjamin Shalom Bernanke, there was Chairman Alan Greenspan. In fact, there hasn’t been a gentile Federal Reserve Chairman/woman in over 25 years, even though gentiles comprise 98% of the population.

    The Federal Reserve is a consortium of nine Jewish-owned and associated banking institutions with the Jewish Rothschild family at the head. Even the name “Federal Reserve” was coined by German-born American Jewish banker Paul Warburg (died 1932), an employee of the Rothschilds. In practice, it’s over 95 percent privately-owned, is not integrated into the US Government, nor accountable to any branch of government. There is nothing “Federal” about it as it lies fully outside the government system of checks-and-balances. It supports the financial needs of the US imperialism, covert operations, usury, drug dealers, and the global banksters.

    Since its establishment in 1913, there have been 14 Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Bank. Ten of them; Charles Sumner Hamlin (1914-16), William Proctor Gould Harding (1916-22), Daniel Richard Crissinger (1923-27), Roy Archibald Young (1927-30), Eugene Isaac Meyer (1930-33), Eugene Robert Black (1933-34), Arthur Frank Burns (1970-78), Paul Adolph Volcker (1979-87), Alan Greenspan (1987-2006) and Ben Bernanke, all Jewish.

    On December 27, 2013, Andrian Salbuchi, an investigative journalist and author living in Argentina, posted an article, titled, ‘FED up? Hundred years of manipulating the US dollar‘.

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/12/31/federal-reserve-century-of-zionist-control-of-us-dollar/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul C.
    Thanks for sharing. I just read Salbuchi's FED Up and it's spot on. I will forward as this message needs to get out, to begin awareness.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    You are not only a liar but a stupid one - so stupid that even the Rehmat team should expel you. How can you suppose you will get away with thrusting references to Jews and Israel into the purported Satyajit Das quote? This is what he actually wrote:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/09/satyajit-das-the-suzerainty-of-central-bankers.html
  15. Not just Wall St. The government feeds off of cheap debt, it’s what the government gets out of being in cahoots with Wall St. It’s the real link between Wall St and the Washington establishment, cheap debt. It is a triumvirate between the fed, Wall St, and big spending government screwing over the rest of us.

    Read More
  16. It’s great that Trump realizes that cheap money has inflated bubbles and hurt savers and the real economy… but getting back to normal will involve some tough choices.

    Trump says he wants to do tax cuts and infrastructure spending – that will involve even more borrowing which will be impossible without the Fed suppressing interest rates. If rates go up much we won’t even be able to make the interest payments on our massive existing debt and would have to default. Also rising rates would crash the real estate market not just the stock market.

    There is no way out of this mess without serious short term pain, and Trump probably doesn’t want to be unpopular. The only other option is 1970s style inflation and that will hurt just as much, with so many people already barely scraping by.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "that cheap money" - Do you think money should be expensive? We lived in the world controlled by monetarists since Reagan and they ended up defining and describing our reality. It is all Orwellian in some sense. You must decode it properly. For example when you hear they complain about inflation they really mean too high wages. And when they want to reduce inflation they mean lay offs. That what Volcker did with hight interest rates to open America to neoliberalism by destroying labor and unions.

    Prof. Michael Hudson on Hillary Clinton and the US Elections
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztIskZuIzsQ

    Meet the Renegades: Michael Hudson
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywPXXrbZIdM
    , @giles
    Trump is not trying to be popular rather to leave a legacy.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Surely there would be a lot of longterm bond money available to pay for infrastructure at even one per cent above current rates and that increase is going to please a lot of savers. If you know tell us the timetable for such higher rates feeding into repayment/refinancing-at-higher-interest rates. It seems unlikely to be Trump's problem at least before November 2020.
  17. @utu
    “we could see the most powerful central bank in the world transformed into a purely political institution that follows the diktats of one man.”

    LBJ got physical with the FED chairman when he did not want to lower the interests rates.

    LBJ got physical with the FED chairman when he did not want to lower the interests rates.

    That is interesting. Did LBJ just push him around the room or punch him?

    AFAIK, it is the FRB, not the FED, although not being a US person, I may be confusing two things.

    I didn’t know that the Prexident got to appoint new directors. So, it is a bad institution but more controllable than similar instititions in other places.

    Another point where President Trump offers great possibilities, but will likely let most of his voters down.

    Wait and see. I hope that for you US people, Trump will do what he says, but talk of Bolton having a role makes me wonder.

    Still, better than Lady Entitled Pantsuit.

    Read More
  18. “With both houses of Congress firmly in the GOP’s grip, we could see the most powerful central bank in the world transformed into a purely political institution that follows the diktats of one man.”

    Sounds like a very good description of the Greenspan era.

    I don’t get where you are coming from in this article, Mike. It is rambling and incoherent.

    Read More
  19. @Che Guava

    LBJ got physical with the FED chairman when he did not want to lower the interests rates.
     
    That is interesting. Did LBJ just push him around the room or punch him?

    AFAIK, it is the FRB, not the FED, although not being a US person, I may be confusing two things.

    I didn't know that the Prexident got to appoint new directors. So, it is a bad institution but more controllable than similar instititions in other places.

    Another point where President Trump offers great possibilities, but will likely let most of his voters down.

    Wait and see. I hope that for you US people, Trump will do what he says, but talk of Bolton having a role makes me wonder.

    Still, better than Lady Entitled Pantsuit.

    “LBJ just push him around the room”

    Read More
  20. @Loveofknowledge
    It's great that Trump realizes that cheap money has inflated bubbles and hurt savers and the real economy... but getting back to normal will involve some tough choices.

    Trump says he wants to do tax cuts and infrastructure spending - that will involve even more borrowing which will be impossible without the Fed suppressing interest rates. If rates go up much we won't even be able to make the interest payments on our massive existing debt and would have to default. Also rising rates would crash the real estate market not just the stock market.

    There is no way out of this mess without serious short term pain, and Trump probably doesn't want to be unpopular. The only other option is 1970s style inflation and that will hurt just as much, with so many people already barely scraping by.

    “that cheap money” – Do you think money should be expensive? We lived in the world controlled by monetarists since Reagan and they ended up defining and describing our reality. It is all Orwellian in some sense. You must decode it properly. For example when you hear they complain about inflation they really mean too high wages. And when they want to reduce inflation they mean lay offs. That what Volcker did with hight interest rates to open America to neoliberalism by destroying labor and unions.

    Prof. Michael Hudson on Hillary Clinton and the US Elections

    Meet the Renegades: Michael Hudson

    Read More
  21. I doubt it. So far the post-election Trump has been sticking with normal Tribal economics. If he does turn the wheel in another direction, I’ll be happy but EXTREMELY surprised.

    Read More
  22. Dumbest article of the week. The Fed, a hostile and parasitic institution imposed on America by massive bribery in 1913, has been in the pocket of the giant banks and their pet politicians ever since…now Whitney is worried that they might be responsible to democratically elected politicians….pathetic.

    Read More
  23. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Greg Bacon

    WHY DONALD TRUMP MUST SHUT DOWN THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND START ISSUING DEBT-FREE MONEY

    We don’t need central planners to set our interest rates and to manipulate our money supply. They will never admit this, but the reality of the matter is that their interference in the economy often creates tremendous economic busts.

    Since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, there have been 18 distinct recessions or depressions: 1918, 1920, 1923, 1926, 1929, 1937, 1945, 1949, 1953, 1958, 1960, 1969, 1973, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001, 2008.

    Considering their track record, isn’t it time for a change?

    http://govtslaves.info/why-donald-trump-must-shut-down-the-federal-reserve-and-start-issuing-debt-free-money/
     

    Good luck to anyone who tries to change the grave-robbing Fed. JFK issued debt-free US Treasury notes and less than a year later, was dead. Lincoln told the Wall Street bankers to take a hike when they offered to lend the government money to finance the Civil War at astronomical rates, and he too issued a debt-free currency, the greenback, and you know what happened to him.

    Both presidents Garfield and McKinley were against re-starting up the private national bank, and both were assassinated. President Jackson shut down the forefather of the Fed and he was shot, but survived.

    BTW, the president selects Fed members from a list provided by the Fed.

    Can you link to a fuller accounting of JFK’s decision to issue Treasury Notes, instead of Federal Reserve Notes?

    I have actually seen a few of those collector’s items, but I don’t know what prompted him make that decision.

    BTW, careful with the connection to 11/22/63. We don’t know why JFK was killed, because the crime was never properly investigated. Instead, the Warren Commission engaged in a giant PR scam to calm the political waters. We know their version of events is false. What we don’t know is the true who, what and why of 11/22/63.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anacharsis
    @anonymous

    Watch the following video: 'JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM

    Best explanation I've seen yet. Names all the participants, the organizations and the people.

    By the way, I was 11 years old in 1963, quite a shock to a 5th grader! Remember it well. Always saw holes in the Warren Report, and all the other bs explanations until I watched the above video.

    As far as the FED, get rid of it completely! Arrest all involved on charges of Treason, confiscate all their assets using the Asset Forfeiture laws, declare the Debt as Odious and born of Fraud, therefore being illegally gotten gains, rendering it Null and Void, eliminate Keynesian economics, and return the country to sound money and 'America First' monetary policy. That should do it!
    Yes, Trump should use the military to accomplish the above action against the FED, all the way to 'The City of London' if necessary.
    ef' the FED!

    "Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its powers, but the truth is that the Federal Reserve System has usurped the government. It controls everything in Congress and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will." -- Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency
    , @Mr mojo
    Remember your numerology. 11 and 22 are numbers of opportunity. JFKs assignation crippled an entire generation.
    , @Miggy
    @ greg bacon,

    There is so much research that has been documented as to why the money powers took out Kennedy. The Fed, Viet Nam, continued cold war armaments and build up etc. The same game is still in play today. We still have our "cold war" so to speak-- Isis and the spooks behind them, all working for the globalists money power. We still have the Fed and the corrupted politicians whom protect the Rothschild interests. Don't be so naive! If Trump makes a run at them, he better lock himself in a cave with his most trusted people including a couple thousand trusted military while the swamp is being drained.
  24. Leaving monetary policy to some private organization is ridiculous.

    The Trump Administration should nationalize the Fed (as the Brits did with the Bank of England in 1946) and place it under the direct authority of the Secretary of the Treasury. The President would then not, like LBJ, need to get “physical” with the chairman of the Fed in order to control monetary policy. Instead, money supply would be under direct government control and something for which government would be required to take direct responsibility.

    Furthermore, a publicly owned FED should take control of all money creation. Under such a regime, banks and other private institutions would have no ability to create money, but would borrow at wholesale rates from the FED. That way, credit expansion could be controlled to prevent asset bubbles.

    As for QE, Trump should depend on it largely if not entirely to fund his infrastructure program and tax cuts. That way the US will experience some inflation which will drive the dollar down and provide some protection that a revived American manufacturing sector will require.

    Read More
  25. Joonomics…..here’s how it works. Vile jooies in the Eccles building create money out of thin air and hand it out virtually free to their jooie friends and jooie relatives. The jooie recipients then loan it to the masses of asses and charge interest…..5% on houses, 10% on boats and cars. You work and make payments and while they do nothing useful and get rich. You will notice that the cowardly leftie useful idiot whitney never once mentions the loathsome tribe running the scam….he knows to do so would mean he never gets published again…….think about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The jooie recipients then loan it to the masses of asses and charge interest…..5% on houses, 10% on boats and cars.
     
    This is an absurd representation of the banking business. Banks have expenses, like retail store fronts and all those polite people inside who serve the public, help them complete mortgage applications, etc., web sites providing online services that must be maintained and keep secure, plus there's bookkeeping to do, loan losses to absorb, janitorial expenses, etc. Overall, the return on equity is not exceptional, which is as one would expect in a business that is always open to new entrants.

    The real problem with the existing banking system is that banks can create as many loans as they believe will be repaid, creating the money required in the process of making the loans. This means that when an economic expansion begins to hit limits of labor supply and other factors, banks will go on lending therby creating a Ponzi economy where loans go to fund speculation rather than consumption or productive investment. That's why money creation should be a monopoly of a state-owned central bank.

  26. close the fed. nationalize the banks. develop infrastructure banks & public banking.
    jefferson: banks are a greater threat to freedom than the military – and jefferson was against a standing army.
    the fed prints money and loans it to the treasury at compound interest, which creates debt that can never be paid off.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    the fed prints money and loans it to the treasury at compound interest, which creates debt that can never be paid off.
     
    I believe that this misrepresents what happens. True the Fed requires the Treasury to pay interest on the bonds that the Treasury issues to the Fed. However, the Fed pays its profits, i.e., income less its expenses, over to the Treasury.

    However, most bonds are held, not by the Fed, but by private parties who paid real money for them and to whom the US Government must pay interest, as it would pay interest on any other loan.

  27. @Lawrence Fitton
    close the fed. nationalize the banks. develop infrastructure banks & public banking.
    jefferson: banks are a greater threat to freedom than the military - and jefferson was against a standing army.
    the fed prints money and loans it to the treasury at compound interest, which creates debt that can never be paid off.

    the fed prints money and loans it to the treasury at compound interest, which creates debt that can never be paid off.

    I believe that this misrepresents what happens. True the Fed requires the Treasury to pay interest on the bonds that the Treasury issues to the Fed. However, the Fed pays its profits, i.e., income less its expenses, over to the Treasury.

    However, most bonds are held, not by the Fed, but by private parties who paid real money for them and to whom the US Government must pay interest, as it would pay interest on any other loan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam J.
    " the fed prints money and loans it to the treasury at compound interest, which creates debt that can never be paid off."

    "...I believe that this misrepresents what happens..."

    It may be that some people pay real money for bonds but that all money in the US is created with debt and with the present system can not be paid off is correct. After all if you have to borrow to pay the principle you can never actually pay the principle.

    I support Trump but some things he says are stupid. The idea that we should raise interest rates is one of them. There's a lot stupidity in the currency business, from the average Joe point of view. Works great for the rich. There's tons and tons and tons of liquidity...for the banks. No one else. They use this money like hedge fund operators while the normal public is starved for loans and charged high rates when they do get them.

    In reality as much as I hate the government the best way to get money into the hands of the public is government spending. Before you have a monetary heart attack for me saying this look at what the banks got after, and still are, the housing crash. Rep. Paul got a limited audit and the banks got $16 trillion in loans. Various sources later using public data said the number went to as high as $29 trillion. At $29 Trillion and 300 million Americans we could have given a zero interest loan for every family of four of $386,666. Housing crisis solved and the economy would have roared with all that cash going into people’s pockets. Instead it went to the rich. I don't have problems with people being rich but I do when they get that way on my back.

    The FED presently is the largest owner of US bonds. Why is that a problem? It's not. We would be better of if none of our currency was made from debt. Inflation could be kept in check by limiting the amount of currency as related to a basket of consumer goods. The Fed should stop selling bonds and start buying ours back from countries that keep them to influence our monetary and trade policies.

    Here’s a guy who has lots of ideas on the FED, the debt and he ran for President on his ideas.

    http://www.scottsmith2016.com/
  28. @nsa
    Joonomics.....here's how it works. Vile jooies in the Eccles building create money out of thin air and hand it out virtually free to their jooie friends and jooie relatives. The jooie recipients then loan it to the masses of asses and charge interest.....5% on houses, 10% on boats and cars. You work and make payments and while they do nothing useful and get rich. You will notice that the cowardly leftie useful idiot whitney never once mentions the loathsome tribe running the scam....he knows to do so would mean he never gets published again.......think about it.

    The jooie recipients then loan it to the masses of asses and charge interest…..5% on houses, 10% on boats and cars.

    This is an absurd representation of the banking business. Banks have expenses, like retail store fronts and all those polite people inside who serve the public, help them complete mortgage applications, etc., web sites providing online services that must be maintained and keep secure, plus there’s bookkeeping to do, loan losses to absorb, janitorial expenses, etc. Overall, the return on equity is not exceptional, which is as one would expect in a business that is always open to new entrants.

    The real problem with the existing banking system is that banks can create as many loans as they believe will be repaid, creating the money required in the process of making the loans. This means that when an economic expansion begins to hit limits of labor supply and other factors, banks will go on lending therby creating a Ponzi economy where loans go to fund speculation rather than consumption or productive investment. That’s why money creation should be a monopoly of a state-owned central bank.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam J.
    "... Banks have expenses, like retail store fronts and all those polite people inside..."

    The banks were given Trillions during the housing loan crisis, uh...just how many tellers did they hire with 16 trillion?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    As I understand it you are saying that there should only be one bank - a central bank with no doubt many branches, physical and electronic. If not, what business do you propose that private banks be allowed to do otherwise than as agents of the central bank?

    And how do you stop people creating money anyway? If Sharia lawyers can find their way round prohibitions on usury don't you think there will be plenty of negotiable instruments and other negotiable/tradeable/divisible choses in action created?

    , @nsa
    Why not just answer the questions directly?
    1) do jooies dominate the federal reserve "bank"?
    2) does the jooie dominated "bank" indulge in legalized counterfeiting i.e. creating fiat money out of thin air?
    3) does the jooie dominated "bank" then loan the ersatz money created out of thin air to their fellow tribe members and associated useful idiots for a pittance?
    4) do the tribal recipients and their associates of the virtually free money then indulge in usury to fleece the masses of asses while doing nothing really useful?
    5) Is this not a jooie legalized scam?
  29. @Rehmat
    Looking at Trump Team - I must say Mike Whitney is living in a FOOLS PARADISE.

    FED has a 100-year long tradition of having a Zionist Jew at the top of the ladder. Abraham Foxman, head of ADL for 50 years claimed in 2013: "Criticism of FED is anti-Semitism."

    Eight of the current US top court consist of three Jewish including two lesbians and five Zionist Christians like Donald Trump himself. So, how some fool could expect an American oligarch like Donald Trump to change the AMERICAN (Jewish) VALUES?

    On December 21, 2013, Neil Irwin, reporter for the Jewish Washington Post, posted an article, titled, ‘The Federal Reserve was created 100 year ago. This is how it happened‘. The entire article is based on Irwin’s book, ‘The Alchemists’. The book is collection of Irwin’s various fables, which have very little to do with who controls the FED and how it has looted the Americans by manipulating the US dollar.

    Satyajit Das, an internationally renowned economist and author has this to say about Irwin’s journalism: “The Alchemists resembles a data dump of his reporter’s notebooks, characterised by frequent forced attempts at reportage colour – Mervyn King (Bank of England’s Jewish Governor) dog sledding, Chancellor Merkel (an Israel-Firster) and President Sarkozy (half Jewish and Mossad agent) walking along the beach at Deauville. Irwin’s superficial effort, not assisted by a leaden style, is a passable chronology at best.”

    For some reasons, Irwin avoided to mention that over the past two decades, more than 50% of Federal Reserve Presidents and 100% of the Chairmen have been Jewish. Before Chairman Benjamin Shalom Bernanke, there was Chairman Alan Greenspan. In fact, there hasn’t been a gentile Federal Reserve Chairman/woman in over 25 years, even though gentiles comprise 98% of the population.

    The Federal Reserve is a consortium of nine Jewish-owned and associated banking institutions with the Jewish Rothschild family at the head. Even the name “Federal Reserve” was coined by German-born American Jewish banker Paul Warburg (died 1932), an employee of the Rothschilds. In practice, it’s over 95 percent privately-owned, is not integrated into the US Government, nor accountable to any branch of government. There is nothing “Federal” about it as it lies fully outside the government system of checks-and-balances. It supports the financial needs of the US imperialism, covert operations, usury, drug dealers, and the global banksters.

    Since its establishment in 1913, there have been 14 Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Bank. Ten of them; Charles Sumner Hamlin (1914-16), William Proctor Gould Harding (1916-22), Daniel Richard Crissinger (1923-27), Roy Archibald Young (1927-30), Eugene Isaac Meyer (1930-33), Eugene Robert Black (1933-34), Arthur Frank Burns (1970-78), Paul Adolph Volcker (1979-87), Alan Greenspan (1987-2006) and Ben Bernanke, all Jewish.

    On December 27, 2013, Andrian Salbuchi, an investigative journalist and author living in Argentina, posted an article, titled, ‘FED up? Hundred years of manipulating the US dollar‘.

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/12/31/federal-reserve-century-of-zionist-control-of-us-dollar/

    Thanks for sharing. I just read Salbuchi’s FED Up and it’s spot on. I will forward as this message needs to get out, to begin awareness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Before you rely on the Rehmat syndicate please note that he/they are stupidly careless and unprincipled. Compare
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/09/satyajit-das-the-suzerainty-of-central-bankers.html
    with what "Rehmat" purports to quote from Satyajit Das and you will understand the depths of his/their counterproductively stupid ant-Semitism.
  30. Presidents don’t “pick” FED Governors. Presidents are given a short list of names to choose from that are already selected and approved by the FED itself.

    Read More
  31. @Alfa158
    "we could see the most powerful central bank in the world transformed into a purely political institution that follows the diktats of one man."
    Mike, I thought that is how it has been for at least the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. Am I wrong there?

    30 odd years of un-elected Jews were not enough, apparently.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    And
    Those Were some
    Pretty Odd Years.

    And some
    Pretty odd
    Jews.
  32. Silly, the Fed in a private bank. Trump wants to spend…Fed money or the US gov creates its own cash? It matters not who he appoints, they must follow their Fed contracts.

    Read More
  33. hehe, what is funny is trump played the alt right like a fiddle :) and they are still supporting the guy. watch him break all the promises, he already broke a few in just 10 days after election, not even in office yet.

    bush jr was small govt = creating homeland

    trump was anti establishment = hiring and nominating all the old fools.

    obama was change = no change.

    voting is useless. election is just a show.

    Read More
  34. @Loveofknowledge
    It's great that Trump realizes that cheap money has inflated bubbles and hurt savers and the real economy... but getting back to normal will involve some tough choices.

    Trump says he wants to do tax cuts and infrastructure spending - that will involve even more borrowing which will be impossible without the Fed suppressing interest rates. If rates go up much we won't even be able to make the interest payments on our massive existing debt and would have to default. Also rising rates would crash the real estate market not just the stock market.

    There is no way out of this mess without serious short term pain, and Trump probably doesn't want to be unpopular. The only other option is 1970s style inflation and that will hurt just as much, with so many people already barely scraping by.

    Trump is not trying to be popular rather to leave a legacy.

    Read More
  35. Not a fan of alt right ignorance or libtard hypnosis. The court jew like rothschild is a flea on the rat of papal and monarchial plutocracy.

    Trump is ultra smart. He knows the bank jews are adaptable. He is far from anti semitic even wants jared kushner in the white house. Trump is not nice to the pope and the queen who are at the apex of the ruling elite.

    Trump is not jfk. He’s more like american putin. He will not tolerate soros type jew lackeys of crown and vatican any more than putin.

    This is no longer an american arena.
    Its putin and trump vs merkel and may.

    Trump like putin is not just a puppet.
    The trump-putin alliance vs. The elite is bulletproof.

    Its hard to draw a parellel to past history. In the usa street fighting between red front and s.a. in post wwi germany or reds vs whites in post wwi russia is not going to be in any one country.

    You cant fool all the people all the time.
    This is not a simple ordo ab chao op.

    Kissinger and Brzezinsky admit the internet era is not easy to control.

    The only weapon the elite has left is mass destruction. It is far easier today to kill billions of people than control them.

    The end of 2012 was teotwawki. For christians it is the tribulation. Hold on!

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    This is no longer an american arena.
    Its putin and trump vs merkel and may.
     
    A US–Russia alliance has long made sense. As Leonid Brezhnev remarked in response to UK Prime Minister James Callaghan (1976-1979), as quoted in The Scientist as Rebel (2006) by Freeman Dyson, p. 100. (Source).

    Mr Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question of whether the white race will survive.*
     
    Trump agrees.

    Hence his contempt for the current administration's efforts to divide Europe by driving Russia into the arms of China.

    The European people of the Western hemisphere plus Western Europe and Russia have every prospect of long survival.

    Divided by the Obama/Clinton/Merkel/Hollande etc. Treason Party, working in the pay of the Soros/Goldman Sach/etc. Money Power shielded by the lying mainstream media, The Economist/Financial Times/New York Times, etc., they have no hope.

  36. @Montefrío
    Either return the power of issuing the currency in every sense to the government and eliminate "debt-money" created from nothing, or continue to expect more of the same no matter who occupies the White House. Remember the infamous saying attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild: "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws". If a nation lacks monetary sovereignty, it is a poor excuse for a nation. Let hoi polloi choose a president ("Let's try door number two!): the privately-owned Fed comes out ahead one way or another.

    Mr W is being disingenuous if he believes a US president can dictate to the Fed the way Cristina Fernández de Kirchner did with the Argentine central bank, a small-time franchise outlet of the BIS, the central bank at the top of the pyramid.

    I bet that supposed Mayer Rothschild quote is a pure fabrication for mugs like you to recirculate. Tell me what was it in the original German and who noted it down?

    It appears, now that I have done an elementary search to have been cooked up in 1913 in the course of US political disputes over banking. Not specifically anti-Semitic then though later fabricators’ mates couldn’t decide whether it was Mayer Amschel Rothschild or his most famous son Nathan. Why not Churchill or Lincoln?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Montefrío
    It could just as easily have been Montagu Norman or J.P. Morgan. Note that I wrote the quote was "attributed" to Rothschild. It wasn't anti-Semitic then nor is it now; it's an expression of the way a central banker thinks. It seems you find anti-Semites where there are none. Make sure to check under your bed.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Wiz to the rescue. "Stop saying nasty things about the nice Mr Rothschild. We should all be grateful that he takes such a caring interest in the little people," Right Wiz. You tell 'em pal.

    Have you no idea of the human misery that has resulted from the scheming, over generations, that this little clan has caused? Have you no empathy for their suffering?
    You have to be getting paid for your comments. Nobody is THAT stupid, surely?
    OK Quartermaster, but apart from him?

  37. Aren’t you missing something. Rehmat’s typically idiotic emission should have reminded you even if the UR commenters who know that Rothschilds own the Fed are asleep for the moment.

    Read More
  38. @Paul C.
    Thanks for sharing. I just read Salbuchi's FED Up and it's spot on. I will forward as this message needs to get out, to begin awareness.

    Before you rely on the Rehmat syndicate please note that he/they are stupidly careless and unprincipled. Compare

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/09/satyajit-das-the-suzerainty-of-central-bankers.html

    with what “Rehmat” purports to quote from Satyajit Das and you will understand the depths of his/their counterproductively stupid ant-Semitism.

    Read More
  39. @Rehmat
    Looking at Trump Team - I must say Mike Whitney is living in a FOOLS PARADISE.

    FED has a 100-year long tradition of having a Zionist Jew at the top of the ladder. Abraham Foxman, head of ADL for 50 years claimed in 2013: "Criticism of FED is anti-Semitism."

    Eight of the current US top court consist of three Jewish including two lesbians and five Zionist Christians like Donald Trump himself. So, how some fool could expect an American oligarch like Donald Trump to change the AMERICAN (Jewish) VALUES?

    On December 21, 2013, Neil Irwin, reporter for the Jewish Washington Post, posted an article, titled, ‘The Federal Reserve was created 100 year ago. This is how it happened‘. The entire article is based on Irwin’s book, ‘The Alchemists’. The book is collection of Irwin’s various fables, which have very little to do with who controls the FED and how it has looted the Americans by manipulating the US dollar.

    Satyajit Das, an internationally renowned economist and author has this to say about Irwin’s journalism: “The Alchemists resembles a data dump of his reporter’s notebooks, characterised by frequent forced attempts at reportage colour – Mervyn King (Bank of England’s Jewish Governor) dog sledding, Chancellor Merkel (an Israel-Firster) and President Sarkozy (half Jewish and Mossad agent) walking along the beach at Deauville. Irwin’s superficial effort, not assisted by a leaden style, is a passable chronology at best.”

    For some reasons, Irwin avoided to mention that over the past two decades, more than 50% of Federal Reserve Presidents and 100% of the Chairmen have been Jewish. Before Chairman Benjamin Shalom Bernanke, there was Chairman Alan Greenspan. In fact, there hasn’t been a gentile Federal Reserve Chairman/woman in over 25 years, even though gentiles comprise 98% of the population.

    The Federal Reserve is a consortium of nine Jewish-owned and associated banking institutions with the Jewish Rothschild family at the head. Even the name “Federal Reserve” was coined by German-born American Jewish banker Paul Warburg (died 1932), an employee of the Rothschilds. In practice, it’s over 95 percent privately-owned, is not integrated into the US Government, nor accountable to any branch of government. There is nothing “Federal” about it as it lies fully outside the government system of checks-and-balances. It supports the financial needs of the US imperialism, covert operations, usury, drug dealers, and the global banksters.

    Since its establishment in 1913, there have been 14 Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Bank. Ten of them; Charles Sumner Hamlin (1914-16), William Proctor Gould Harding (1916-22), Daniel Richard Crissinger (1923-27), Roy Archibald Young (1927-30), Eugene Isaac Meyer (1930-33), Eugene Robert Black (1933-34), Arthur Frank Burns (1970-78), Paul Adolph Volcker (1979-87), Alan Greenspan (1987-2006) and Ben Bernanke, all Jewish.

    On December 27, 2013, Andrian Salbuchi, an investigative journalist and author living in Argentina, posted an article, titled, ‘FED up? Hundred years of manipulating the US dollar‘.

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/12/31/federal-reserve-century-of-zionist-control-of-us-dollar/

    You are not only a liar but a stupid one – so stupid that even the Rehmat team should expel you. How can you suppose you will get away with thrusting references to Jews and Israel into the purported Satyajit Das quote? This is what he actually wrote:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/09/satyajit-das-the-suzerainty-of-central-bankers.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Thank you Moshe for quoting Talmud as usual to show your hatred toward truth.

    Dennis Kucinich had angered Jewish groups for calling audits of privately-owned Federal Reserve, formed by an act of Congress in 1913 as a way of stabilizing banking industry.

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich tabled the NEED Act 2011 which would place the Federal Reserve under control of US Treasury. It would also implement new rules for the financial industry to narrow-down the gap between the 1% vs 99% American population.

    Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a longtime advocate for reform of the Federal Reserve, sharply criticized the Federal Reserve after Bloomberg news reported that the Federal Reserve secretly committed nearly $8 trillion in support to American and international financial institutions during the 2008 bailout. Kucinich recorded a video (watch below) before going to the floor of the House of Representatives to call upon Congress to reclaim its Constitution primacy over monetary policy.

    Behind the smokescreen – the Federal Reserve is not a government agency. In fact the US government has never owned a single share of Federal Reserve Bank stock. However, the US President do appoints the Governors of the Federal Reserve Board who are then confirmed by the Senate. The secret author of the Act, German-born American Jewish banker Paul Warburg (died 1932), a representative of Rothschild bank , coined the name ‘Federal’ from thin air.

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/12/03/lobby-attacking-federal-reserve-is-anti-semitism/
  40. Even if he wanted to Señor Trump could not take over “The Fed”. But beyond that, though Señor Trump knows the tax code, he is economically naive and no Finance Capitalist. The headline of this article is ass-backwards–no doubt a half dozen or so controlling members of “The Fed” are about to take over Señor Trump.

    Read More
  41. @Loveofknowledge
    It's great that Trump realizes that cheap money has inflated bubbles and hurt savers and the real economy... but getting back to normal will involve some tough choices.

    Trump says he wants to do tax cuts and infrastructure spending - that will involve even more borrowing which will be impossible without the Fed suppressing interest rates. If rates go up much we won't even be able to make the interest payments on our massive existing debt and would have to default. Also rising rates would crash the real estate market not just the stock market.

    There is no way out of this mess without serious short term pain, and Trump probably doesn't want to be unpopular. The only other option is 1970s style inflation and that will hurt just as much, with so many people already barely scraping by.

    Surely there would be a lot of longterm bond money available to pay for infrastructure at even one per cent above current rates and that increase is going to please a lot of savers. If you know tell us the timetable for such higher rates feeding into repayment/refinancing-at-higher-interest rates. It seems unlikely to be Trump’s problem at least before November 2020.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    "Surely there would be a lot of longterm bond money available to pay for infrastructure at even one per cent above current rates"

    The short answer is no. That might have been true, say, twenty years ago.
  42. @Wizard of Oz
    Surely there would be a lot of longterm bond money available to pay for infrastructure at even one per cent above current rates and that increase is going to please a lot of savers. If you know tell us the timetable for such higher rates feeding into repayment/refinancing-at-higher-interest rates. It seems unlikely to be Trump's problem at least before November 2020.

    “Surely there would be a lot of longterm bond money available to pay for infrastructure at even one per cent above current rates”

    The short answer is no. That might have been true, say, twenty years ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Why not? Are you saying that there is a lack of investors in bonds - including the Chinese and elderly Americans and carry trade investing Japanese?
  43. @epebble
    I don't know what the author's qualifications are but I think FED is doing an amazing job running the country on fumes. At -20T debt, we should long ago have been Greece, but are having a near zero interest rate/inflation for a decade. That is no small achievement. Mr. Trump is going to have a lot of fun when FED increases the rate by about half percent in December. Let Trump figure how to handle a deep recession in 2017 and that will make a man of him and start respecting FED. Without the miracle of Bernanke in 2008, we would be seeing a lot of people sleeping in tents and eating from thrash cans.

    Where do you live? There are people sleeping in parks and eating from garbage cans in every city in the country.

    It’s caused by immigration. The immigrants either arrive with a couple million in cash to buy real estate or live 10 in a studio, 15 in a one bedroom apartment or 25 in a 3 bedroom house.

    Even if their sole income is welfare or phony disability that many people can afford very high housing costs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    The cause is Capitalism. Immgration is one of the effects.
  44. @CanSpeccy

    the fed prints money and loans it to the treasury at compound interest, which creates debt that can never be paid off.
     
    I believe that this misrepresents what happens. True the Fed requires the Treasury to pay interest on the bonds that the Treasury issues to the Fed. However, the Fed pays its profits, i.e., income less its expenses, over to the Treasury.

    However, most bonds are held, not by the Fed, but by private parties who paid real money for them and to whom the US Government must pay interest, as it would pay interest on any other loan.

    ” the fed prints money and loans it to the treasury at compound interest, which creates debt that can never be paid off.”

    “…I believe that this misrepresents what happens…”

    It may be that some people pay real money for bonds but that all money in the US is created with debt and with the present system can not be paid off is correct. After all if you have to borrow to pay the principle you can never actually pay the principle.

    I support Trump but some things he says are stupid. The idea that we should raise interest rates is one of them. There’s a lot stupidity in the currency business, from the average Joe point of view. Works great for the rich. There’s tons and tons and tons of liquidity…for the banks. No one else. They use this money like hedge fund operators while the normal public is starved for loans and charged high rates when they do get them.

    In reality as much as I hate the government the best way to get money into the hands of the public is government spending. Before you have a monetary heart attack for me saying this look at what the banks got after, and still are, the housing crash. Rep. Paul got a limited audit and the banks got $16 trillion in loans. Various sources later using public data said the number went to as high as $29 trillion. At $29 Trillion and 300 million Americans we could have given a zero interest loan for every family of four of $386,666. Housing crisis solved and the economy would have roared with all that cash going into people’s pockets. Instead it went to the rich. I don’t have problems with people being rich but I do when they get that way on my back.

    The FED presently is the largest owner of US bonds. Why is that a problem? It’s not. We would be better of if none of our currency was made from debt. Inflation could be kept in check by limiting the amount of currency as related to a basket of consumer goods. The Fed should stop selling bonds and start buying ours back from countries that keep them to influence our monetary and trade policies.

    Here’s a guy who has lots of ideas on the FED, the debt and he ran for President on his ideas.

    http://www.scottsmith2016.com/

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The FED presently is the largest owner of US bonds. Why is that a problem? It’s not. We would be better of if none of our currency was made from debt. Inflation could be kept in check by limiting the amount of currency as related to a basket of consumer goods. The Fed should stop selling bonds and start buying ours back from countries that keep them to influence our monetary and trade policies.
     
    It may not be a problem for the Fed to create money to cover US Government deficits provided that it does not create undue inflation, i.e., price inflation. However, when inflation is a problem, the Fed sells bonds to private parties, thereby taking money out of circulation. In that case, government deficits are funded not by money creation but by borrowing from private parties, which seems a rational way to manage things.

    It should be noted, however, that creation of money by the Fed to cover government deficits crowds out the opportunity for expansion of the money supply by private institutions, i.e., mainly banks, who fund private sector investment.

  45. @CanSpeccy

    The jooie recipients then loan it to the masses of asses and charge interest…..5% on houses, 10% on boats and cars.
     
    This is an absurd representation of the banking business. Banks have expenses, like retail store fronts and all those polite people inside who serve the public, help them complete mortgage applications, etc., web sites providing online services that must be maintained and keep secure, plus there's bookkeeping to do, loan losses to absorb, janitorial expenses, etc. Overall, the return on equity is not exceptional, which is as one would expect in a business that is always open to new entrants.

    The real problem with the existing banking system is that banks can create as many loans as they believe will be repaid, creating the money required in the process of making the loans. This means that when an economic expansion begins to hit limits of labor supply and other factors, banks will go on lending therby creating a Ponzi economy where loans go to fund speculation rather than consumption or productive investment. That's why money creation should be a monopoly of a state-owned central bank.

    “… Banks have expenses, like retail store fronts and all those polite people inside…”

    The banks were given Trillions during the housing loan crisis, uh…just how many tellers did they hire with 16 trillion?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The banks were given Trillions during the housing loan crisis, uh…just how many tellers did they hire with 16 trillion?
     
    The $16 trillion was short term credit provided to banks to insure liquidity and prevent bank runs and closures during a financial crisis.

    The money was all repaid: see page 137 of the Government Accountability Office Report of July 2011.
  46. @Alden
    Where do you live? There are people sleeping in parks and eating from garbage cans in every city in the country.

    It's caused by immigration. The immigrants either arrive with a couple million in cash to buy real estate or live 10 in a studio, 15 in a one bedroom apartment or 25 in a 3 bedroom house.

    Even if their sole income is welfare or phony disability that many people can afford very high housing costs.

    The cause is Capitalism. Immgration is one of the effects.

    Read More
  47. @E. A. Costa
    "Surely there would be a lot of longterm bond money available to pay for infrastructure at even one per cent above current rates"

    The short answer is no. That might have been true, say, twenty years ago.

    Why not? Are you saying that there is a lack of investors in bonds – including the Chinese and elderly Americans and carry trade investing Japanese?

    Read More
  48. @CanSpeccy

    The jooie recipients then loan it to the masses of asses and charge interest…..5% on houses, 10% on boats and cars.
     
    This is an absurd representation of the banking business. Banks have expenses, like retail store fronts and all those polite people inside who serve the public, help them complete mortgage applications, etc., web sites providing online services that must be maintained and keep secure, plus there's bookkeeping to do, loan losses to absorb, janitorial expenses, etc. Overall, the return on equity is not exceptional, which is as one would expect in a business that is always open to new entrants.

    The real problem with the existing banking system is that banks can create as many loans as they believe will be repaid, creating the money required in the process of making the loans. This means that when an economic expansion begins to hit limits of labor supply and other factors, banks will go on lending therby creating a Ponzi economy where loans go to fund speculation rather than consumption or productive investment. That's why money creation should be a monopoly of a state-owned central bank.

    As I understand it you are saying that there should only be one bank – a central bank with no doubt many branches, physical and electronic. If not, what business do you propose that private banks be allowed to do otherwise than as agents of the central bank?

    And how do you stop people creating money anyway? If Sharia lawyers can find their way round prohibitions on usury don’t you think there will be plenty of negotiable instruments and other negotiable/tradeable/divisible choses in action created?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    As I understand it you are saying that there should only be one bank – a central bank with no doubt many branches, physical and electronic. If not, what business do you propose that private banks be allowed to do otherwise than as agents of the central bank?
     
    No. I'm proposing that when a commercial bank creates a loan, it does not create money out of thin air, as is the practice now (except insofar as loans are supported by bank reserve requirements), by depositing money the bank does not have in the borrower's account.

    Instead, I am proposing that a bank only lend money it does not have after first borrowing that money from the Fed, at what might usually be a nominal rate of interest (or even a negative rate during a time of deflation). That way, the Fed would have effective control over the money supply, which it lacks now.

  49. It is completely legal to contract for payment in bullion, or commodities.

    Read More
  50. The entire “Federal Reserve System” is a complete fraud. Why are you people tolerating this massive crime against humanity? There is a difference between what is “money” and what is “currency” and they ARE NOT the same. The Federal Reserve System is a fraud, fractional reserve banking is a fraud. STOP being defrauded by these crooks. DEMAND the Federal Reserve System be abolished.

    Read More
  51. @Wizard of Oz
    I bet that supposed Mayer Rothschild quote is a pure fabrication for mugs like you to recirculate. Tell me what was it in the original German and who noted it down?

    It appears, now that I have done an elementary search to have been cooked up in 1913 in the course of US political disputes over banking. Not specifically anti-Semitic then though later fabricators' mates couldn't decide whether it was Mayer Amschel Rothschild or his most famous son Nathan. Why not Churchill or Lincoln?

    It could just as easily have been Montagu Norman or J.P. Morgan. Note that I wrote the quote was “attributed” to Rothschild. It wasn’t anti-Semitic then nor is it now; it’s an expression of the way a central banker thinks. It seems you find anti-Semites where there are none. Make sure to check under your bed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Apologies for not giving weight to "attributed to" and I accept that you are not one of the mad anti-Semites infesting UR comments**.

    **Despite the maddies I have carefully moved toward putting more weight on Israel first money in US politics than I would have before reading UR. I was primed for it by long since having taken to describing the US as a plutocracy, tempered by meritocracy within a framework of law, and flavoured by the rhetoric of democracy.
  52. Already we have seen how the Fed’s determination to enrich its constituents has resulted in one titanic asset-price bubble after the other.

    Wikipedia: “Pump and dump” (P&D) is a form of microcap stock fraud that involves artificially inflating the price of an owned stock through false and misleading positive statements, in order to sell the cheaply purchased stock at a higher price. Once the operators of the scheme “dump” sell their overvalued shares, the price falls and investors lose their money. Stocks that are the subject of pump and dump schemes are sometimes called “chop stocks”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump The “Night singer of shares” sold stock on the streets during the South Sea Bubble. Amsterdam, 1720.

    Trump, who is no fan of the Fed’s bond buying program called QE, has admitted he thinks stocks are in a bubble suggesting that he will probably take a more conservative approach to monetary policy.

    The Fed has created the conditions for a permanent Depression so it can provide infinite cheap money to its crooked reprobate friends on Wall Street. Now their little party is coming to an end.

    This is true enough and it looks like Trump/Bannon are taking aim at the primary income sources of the 0,1% ( outsourcing of US production and the ZIRP based QE FED/Wall St. Pump and Dump ) so the article could have usefully evaluated a counter reaction. Presumably the FED/Wall St. are not just going to sit there while their lunch is removed, and they still control most of the media.

    Also, the last Pump and Dump cycle isn’t complete yet. All the “Social Web” investors need to have their money removed in the dump phase, and there’s the important related question of access to the non-speculative money held in pension plans, insurance funds etc. If this is also going to be appropriated before the party wraps up, it ‘s probably going to need the application of the traditional Weimar method: 1) remove capital from the US/US dollar to Europe or elsewhere 2) organize a short fast accelerating inflation with no warning 3) after the “Rescue” (introduction of New Dollars to replace worthless Old Dollars), return to the US and buy up plentiful stocks and property at fire sale prices.

    The likelihood is an extended period of economic warfare rather than any capitulation by the FED/Wall St.

    Read More
  53. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Take over the FED?

    That’s would be so friggingly unbelievaaaably anti-Bankitic.

    Nazism is back, we were the first to tell you.

    Read More
  54. @Wizard of Oz
    I bet that supposed Mayer Rothschild quote is a pure fabrication for mugs like you to recirculate. Tell me what was it in the original German and who noted it down?

    It appears, now that I have done an elementary search to have been cooked up in 1913 in the course of US political disputes over banking. Not specifically anti-Semitic then though later fabricators' mates couldn't decide whether it was Mayer Amschel Rothschild or his most famous son Nathan. Why not Churchill or Lincoln?

    Wiz to the rescue. “Stop saying nasty things about the nice Mr Rothschild. We should all be grateful that he takes such a caring interest in the little people,” Right Wiz. You tell ‘em pal.

    Have you no idea of the human misery that has resulted from the scheming, over generations, that this little clan has caused? Have you no empathy for their suffering?
    You have to be getting paid for your comments. Nobody is THAT stupid, surely?
    OK Quartermaster, but apart from him?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Lazy as usual. You don't even make it clear who you are referring to. If it is somevor all (and which?) of the now large number of descendants of Mayer Amschel Rothschild I find it hard to suppose you are referring to the financing of Britain's purchase of the Suez Canal but maybe the early gifts of Rothschild money so poor Jews could buy land in Palestine from willing sellers is to be held against them. Or are you one of those who believes the ridiculous story that the brilliant Victor Rothschild 3rd Baron was a spy for the baddies?
  55. @anonymous
    Can you link to a fuller accounting of JFK's decision to issue Treasury Notes, instead of Federal Reserve Notes?

    I have actually seen a few of those collector's items, but I don't know what prompted him make that decision.

    BTW, careful with the connection to 11/22/63. We don't know why JFK was killed, because the crime was never properly investigated. Instead, the Warren Commission engaged in a giant PR scam to calm the political waters. We know their version of events is false. What we don't know is the true who, what and why of 11/22/63.

    Watch the following video: ‘JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man’s Trick’

    Best explanation I’ve seen yet. Names all the participants, the organizations and the people.

    By the way, I was 11 years old in 1963, quite a shock to a 5th grader! Remember it well. Always saw holes in the Warren Report, and all the other bs explanations until I watched the above video.

    As far as the FED, get rid of it completely! Arrest all involved on charges of Treason, confiscate all their assets using the Asset Forfeiture laws, declare the Debt as Odious and born of Fraud, therefore being illegally gotten gains, rendering it Null and Void, eliminate Keynesian economics, and return the country to sound money and ‘America First’ monetary policy. That should do it!
    Yes, Trump should use the military to accomplish the above action against the FED, all the way to ‘The City of London’ if necessary.
    ef’ the FED!

    “Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its powers, but the truth is that the Federal Reserve System has usurped the government. It controls everything in Congress and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will.” — Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    As far as the FED, get rid of it completely! Arrest all involved on charges of Treason, confiscate all their assets using the Asset Forfeiture laws, declare the Debt as Odious and born of Fraud, therefore being illegally gotten gains, rendering it Null and Void, eliminate Keynesian economics, and return the country to sound money and ‘America First’ monetary policy. That should do it!
    Yes, Trump should use the military to accomplish the above action against the FED, all the way to ‘The City of London’ if necessary.
    ef’ the FED!
     
    You should have a word with utu, about making unsubstantiated claims.

    The Fed does what all Western central banks do, many of them state owned, e.g., the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada. It fiddles around with the prime lending rate and the sale or purchase of government bonds with a view to influencing interest rates, the inflation rate and the unemployment rate.

    In fact, it can do nothing much about any of these things, but it absolves the US Government of responsibility when the economy goes to hell, so obviously, neither the Trump nor any other US administration has any good reason to abolish the Fed.

    What the elite don't like about Trump is his loudly voiced anti-globalism, and America Firstism. If anything gets him shot by a lone wingnut with multiple connections to the CIA, if not the Bush Family, it will be that.
  56. @Montefrío
    It could just as easily have been Montagu Norman or J.P. Morgan. Note that I wrote the quote was "attributed" to Rothschild. It wasn't anti-Semitic then nor is it now; it's an expression of the way a central banker thinks. It seems you find anti-Semites where there are none. Make sure to check under your bed.

    Apologies for not giving weight to “attributed to” and I accept that you are not one of the mad anti-Semites infesting UR comments**.

    **Despite the maddies I have carefully moved toward putting more weight on Israel first money in US politics than I would have before reading UR. I was primed for it by long since having taken to describing the US as a plutocracy, tempered by meritocracy within a framework of law, and flavoured by the rhetoric of democracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Montefrío
    Thanks. It's the debt-money banking system I'm against. Monetary sovereignty is the way I wish Trump would go. It's true that many people mistakenly conflate Jews with bankers simply because many Jews work in the industry, but the two are not synonymous. I worked as an equities trader and my mentor was Jewish, but I'm not and neither were a lot of other guys in the business.

    I've begun to grow sensitive to how low the "anti-Semite" bar has been lowered, not least because in some cases the accusation/slur borders on the absurd and could end up causing other religio-ethnic groups to begin thinking that perhaps the Jews are anti-everyone-else; I've heard it more than once and while I don't believe it, I'm seeing that others do. It's a serious charge and should be reserved for clearly demonstrable cases in my opinion.
  57. @NoseytheDuke
    Wiz to the rescue. "Stop saying nasty things about the nice Mr Rothschild. We should all be grateful that he takes such a caring interest in the little people," Right Wiz. You tell 'em pal.

    Have you no idea of the human misery that has resulted from the scheming, over generations, that this little clan has caused? Have you no empathy for their suffering?
    You have to be getting paid for your comments. Nobody is THAT stupid, surely?
    OK Quartermaster, but apart from him?

    Lazy as usual. You don’t even make it clear who you are referring to. If it is somevor all (and which?) of the now large number of descendants of Mayer Amschel Rothschild I find it hard to suppose you are referring to the financing of Britain’s purchase of the Suez Canal but maybe the early gifts of Rothschild money so poor Jews could buy land in Palestine from willing sellers is to be held against them. Or are you one of those who believes the ridiculous story that the brilliant Victor Rothschild 3rd Baron was a spy for the baddies?

    Read More
  58. @giles
    Not a fan of alt right ignorance or libtard hypnosis. The court jew like rothschild is a flea on the rat of papal and monarchial plutocracy.

    Trump is ultra smart. He knows the bank jews are adaptable. He is far from anti semitic even wants jared kushner in the white house. Trump is not nice to the pope and the queen who are at the apex of the ruling elite.

    Trump is not jfk. He's more like american putin. He will not tolerate soros type jew lackeys of crown and vatican any more than putin.

    This is no longer an american arena.
    Its putin and trump vs merkel and may.

    Trump like putin is not just a puppet.
    The trump-putin alliance vs. The elite is bulletproof.

    Its hard to draw a parellel to past history. In the usa street fighting between red front and s.a. in post wwi germany or reds vs whites in post wwi russia is not going to be in any one country.

    You cant fool all the people all the time.
    This is not a simple ordo ab chao op.

    Kissinger and Brzezinsky admit the internet era is not easy to control.

    The only weapon the elite has left is mass destruction. It is far easier today to kill billions of people than control them.

    The end of 2012 was teotwawki. For christians it is the tribulation. Hold on!

    This is no longer an american arena.
    Its putin and trump vs merkel and may.

    A US–Russia alliance has long made sense. As Leonid Brezhnev remarked in response to UK Prime Minister James Callaghan (1976-1979), as quoted in The Scientist as Rebel (2006) by Freeman Dyson, p. 100. (Source).

    Mr Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question of whether the white race will survive.*

    Trump agrees.

    Hence his contempt for the current administration’s efforts to divide Europe by driving Russia into the arms of China.

    The European people of the Western hemisphere plus Western Europe and Russia have every prospect of long survival.

    Divided by the Obama/Clinton/Merkel/Hollande etc. Treason Party, working in the pay of the Soros/Goldman Sach/etc. Money Power shielded by the lying mainstream media, The Economist/Financial Times/New York Times, etc., they have no hope.

    Read More
  59. @Sam J.
    " the fed prints money and loans it to the treasury at compound interest, which creates debt that can never be paid off."

    "...I believe that this misrepresents what happens..."

    It may be that some people pay real money for bonds but that all money in the US is created with debt and with the present system can not be paid off is correct. After all if you have to borrow to pay the principle you can never actually pay the principle.

    I support Trump but some things he says are stupid. The idea that we should raise interest rates is one of them. There's a lot stupidity in the currency business, from the average Joe point of view. Works great for the rich. There's tons and tons and tons of liquidity...for the banks. No one else. They use this money like hedge fund operators while the normal public is starved for loans and charged high rates when they do get them.

    In reality as much as I hate the government the best way to get money into the hands of the public is government spending. Before you have a monetary heart attack for me saying this look at what the banks got after, and still are, the housing crash. Rep. Paul got a limited audit and the banks got $16 trillion in loans. Various sources later using public data said the number went to as high as $29 trillion. At $29 Trillion and 300 million Americans we could have given a zero interest loan for every family of four of $386,666. Housing crisis solved and the economy would have roared with all that cash going into people’s pockets. Instead it went to the rich. I don't have problems with people being rich but I do when they get that way on my back.

    The FED presently is the largest owner of US bonds. Why is that a problem? It's not. We would be better of if none of our currency was made from debt. Inflation could be kept in check by limiting the amount of currency as related to a basket of consumer goods. The Fed should stop selling bonds and start buying ours back from countries that keep them to influence our monetary and trade policies.

    Here’s a guy who has lots of ideas on the FED, the debt and he ran for President on his ideas.

    http://www.scottsmith2016.com/

    The FED presently is the largest owner of US bonds. Why is that a problem? It’s not. We would be better of if none of our currency was made from debt. Inflation could be kept in check by limiting the amount of currency as related to a basket of consumer goods. The Fed should stop selling bonds and start buying ours back from countries that keep them to influence our monetary and trade policies.

    It may not be a problem for the Fed to create money to cover US Government deficits provided that it does not create undue inflation, i.e., price inflation. However, when inflation is a problem, the Fed sells bonds to private parties, thereby taking money out of circulation. In that case, government deficits are funded not by money creation but by borrowing from private parties, which seems a rational way to manage things.

    It should be noted, however, that creation of money by the Fed to cover government deficits crowds out the opportunity for expansion of the money supply by private institutions, i.e., mainly banks, who fund private sector investment.

    Read More
  60. @CanSpeccy

    The jooie recipients then loan it to the masses of asses and charge interest…..5% on houses, 10% on boats and cars.
     
    This is an absurd representation of the banking business. Banks have expenses, like retail store fronts and all those polite people inside who serve the public, help them complete mortgage applications, etc., web sites providing online services that must be maintained and keep secure, plus there's bookkeeping to do, loan losses to absorb, janitorial expenses, etc. Overall, the return on equity is not exceptional, which is as one would expect in a business that is always open to new entrants.

    The real problem with the existing banking system is that banks can create as many loans as they believe will be repaid, creating the money required in the process of making the loans. This means that when an economic expansion begins to hit limits of labor supply and other factors, banks will go on lending therby creating a Ponzi economy where loans go to fund speculation rather than consumption or productive investment. That's why money creation should be a monopoly of a state-owned central bank.

    Why not just answer the questions directly?
    1) do jooies dominate the federal reserve “bank”?
    2) does the jooie dominated “bank” indulge in legalized counterfeiting i.e. creating fiat money out of thin air?
    3) does the jooie dominated “bank” then loan the ersatz money created out of thin air to their fellow tribe members and associated useful idiots for a pittance?
    4) do the tribal recipients and their associates of the virtually free money then indulge in usury to fleece the masses of asses while doing nothing really useful?
    5) Is this not a jooie legalized scam?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Why not just answer the questions directly?
     
    You raised several questions. I responded to your claim that the commercial retail banking industry operates a scam, which I believe is untrue.

    Your other claims seem of doubtful merit.

    In particular, your contention that the U.S. Federal Reserve System is a scam, seems based on the mistaken idea that the Fed profits from its creation of money as required to cover US Government budget deficits.

    As I have stated above, it is claimed by the Fed that it transfers its income less expenses to the US Treasury. Presumably the expenses are considerable. I believe, for example, that Fed Reserve Governors receive free haircuts, among other benefits. But the idea that the Fed extorts $billions or $trillions from the American public with the connivance of the US Government, and that any President who seeks to redress this criminal racket will inevitably be murdered like JFK, seems to be incorrect.

    Or if it is not incorrect, neither the reason for, nor the mechanism underlying, this alleged scandal has never been clearly or publicly stated.

  61. Should have used the reply button.
    To: Wizard of Oz – 11-20-2016 at 3:30 pm GMT,

    “long since having taken to describing the US as a plutocracy, tempered by meritocracy within a framework of law, and flavoured by the rhetoric of democracy.”

    My thinking is your statement is a little bit too mild. lol

    How about the US being a full blown Kleptocracy, controlled by a privately owned Central Bank. The framework of law is a house of cards and the flavoring has nothing to do with democracy.

    “Written laws are like spiders’ webs, and will, like them, only entangle and hold the poor and weak while the rich and powerful will easily break through them.” – Anacharsis.

    Read More
  62. @Sam J.
    "... Banks have expenses, like retail store fronts and all those polite people inside..."

    The banks were given Trillions during the housing loan crisis, uh...just how many tellers did they hire with 16 trillion?

    The banks were given Trillions during the housing loan crisis, uh…just how many tellers did they hire with 16 trillion?

    The $16 trillion was short term credit provided to banks to insure liquidity and prevent bank runs and closures during a financial crisis.

    The money was all repaid: see page 137 of the Government Accountability Office Report of July 2011.

    Read More
  63. @Greg Bacon

    WHY DONALD TRUMP MUST SHUT DOWN THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND START ISSUING DEBT-FREE MONEY

    We don’t need central planners to set our interest rates and to manipulate our money supply. They will never admit this, but the reality of the matter is that their interference in the economy often creates tremendous economic busts.

    Since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, there have been 18 distinct recessions or depressions: 1918, 1920, 1923, 1926, 1929, 1937, 1945, 1949, 1953, 1958, 1960, 1969, 1973, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001, 2008.

    Considering their track record, isn’t it time for a change?

    http://govtslaves.info/why-donald-trump-must-shut-down-the-federal-reserve-and-start-issuing-debt-free-money/
     

    Good luck to anyone who tries to change the grave-robbing Fed. JFK issued debt-free US Treasury notes and less than a year later, was dead. Lincoln told the Wall Street bankers to take a hike when they offered to lend the government money to finance the Civil War at astronomical rates, and he too issued a debt-free currency, the greenback, and you know what happened to him.

    Both presidents Garfield and McKinley were against re-starting up the private national bank, and both were assassinated. President Jackson shut down the forefather of the Fed and he was shot, but survived.

    BTW, the president selects Fed members from a list provided by the Fed.

    JFK issued treasury notes by way of his executive action 11110. LBJs first official act as president on air force one immediately after being sworn in was to recind EA 11110. What does that tell you ?

    Read More
  64. @Wizard of Oz
    As I understand it you are saying that there should only be one bank - a central bank with no doubt many branches, physical and electronic. If not, what business do you propose that private banks be allowed to do otherwise than as agents of the central bank?

    And how do you stop people creating money anyway? If Sharia lawyers can find their way round prohibitions on usury don't you think there will be plenty of negotiable instruments and other negotiable/tradeable/divisible choses in action created?

    As I understand it you are saying that there should only be one bank – a central bank with no doubt many branches, physical and electronic. If not, what business do you propose that private banks be allowed to do otherwise than as agents of the central bank?

    No. I’m proposing that when a commercial bank creates a loan, it does not create money out of thin air, as is the practice now (except insofar as loans are supported by bank reserve requirements), by depositing money the bank does not have in the borrower’s account.

    Instead, I am proposing that a bank only lend money it does not have after first borrowing that money from the Fed, at what might usually be a nominal rate of interest (or even a negative rate during a time of deflation). That way, the Fed would have effective control over the money supply, which it lacks now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Kauser
    Social security will be broke and the fed balance sheet will be 20 trillion!
    Turn the trust fund over to social security and pay everyone every month a stipend who lives on this bright blue marble?
    Make the fed work for the people and not......
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Interesting idea. It would at least give the Fed considerable control over the money supply initially though I am not sure why you would approve of all the power being centralised given what knowledge of history and human nature show. But what about my second par? How is human ingenuity to be curbed?
  65. For real free markets, END THE FED and introduce debt and interest free money backed by gold. Trump did say, if money was backed by gold, “it would be beautiful.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Kauser
    5 trillion dollars of America's hopes and dreams down the tubes while we barter for years to make a new system?
    , @CanSpeccy

    END THE FED and introduce debt and interest free money backed by gold.
     
    Money issued by the Fed is, effectively, interest free.

    The Fed issues money in one of two ways.

    First, it accepts newly issued Treasury bills and credits the Treasury account with cash to the face value of the bills. The bills it then sells to private parties to whom the government pays interest. The net result has zero effect on money supply. What has happened is that the government has raised a loan from the private sector (including foreigners and foreign central banks), a loan mediated by the Fed, in return for which it pays interest.

    Second, it accepts newly issued Treasury bills, credits the Treasury account with cash to the face value of the bills, while keeping the Treasury paper in its own inventory. The net result is the creation of new money, i.e., an expansion of money supply, with the government nominally paying interest on the new money. This is new money because it was paid for by a stroke of the pen, a bookkeeping entry, not with the Fed's own money. However, the Fed does not profit from this act of money creation, since it turns its income less expenses over to the Treasury. Thus, in effect, no interest is paid.

    The Fed, however, is not the only source of new money. Most money creation is by the private sector banks, which create money whenever the make a loan. This money is subject to interest payment, but the banks would not exist to provide credit if they could not charge interest to cover their costs (loan losses, for example, store fronts etc.) .

    The problem with the system is not that private institutions create debt based money but that they creation of money by private institutions follows the logic of the banks' interests, not of society as a whole. Hence, we have periodic bank-fueled inflations leading to Ponzi investment booms, followed by crashes and the associated carnage.

    That is why all money creation should be controlled by the central bank, although the distribution of that money would still be via interest bearing loans by commercial banks.

    A gold-backed currency doesn't seem such a great option when you think of the devastation to be wrought by mining companies if gold went to ten or twenty thousand dollars an ounce as is probably if all currencies were backed by substantial quantities of gold.

    An better alternative to gold would be the cardinal numbers, as I outlined here.

  66. The fed chairman twists the congress in knots every time they ” get together”!
    Has not even identified anyone for treasury and he is going to replace the governors?
    Maybe a civics refresher should be mandatory for everyone?
    Try to even contemplate what happens if rates continue to back up?
    Trump will see his precious real estate get impaired and instead of reforming the Fed,
    He will take the easy way out and PRINT and it will be HUGE !

    Read More
  67. @Wizard of Oz
    You are not only a liar but a stupid one - so stupid that even the Rehmat team should expel you. How can you suppose you will get away with thrusting references to Jews and Israel into the purported Satyajit Das quote? This is what he actually wrote:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/09/satyajit-das-the-suzerainty-of-central-bankers.html

    Thank you Moshe for quoting Talmud as usual to show your hatred toward truth.

    Dennis Kucinich had angered Jewish groups for calling audits of privately-owned Federal Reserve, formed by an act of Congress in 1913 as a way of stabilizing banking industry.

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich tabled the NEED Act 2011 which would place the Federal Reserve under control of US Treasury. It would also implement new rules for the financial industry to narrow-down the gap between the 1% vs 99% American population.

    Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a longtime advocate for reform of the Federal Reserve, sharply criticized the Federal Reserve after Bloomberg news reported that the Federal Reserve secretly committed nearly $8 trillion in support to American and international financial institutions during the 2008 bailout. Kucinich recorded a video (watch below) before going to the floor of the House of Representatives to call upon Congress to reclaim its Constitution primacy over monetary policy.

    Behind the smokescreen – the Federal Reserve is not a government agency. In fact the US government has never owned a single share of Federal Reserve Bank stock. However, the US President do appoints the Governors of the Federal Reserve Board who are then confirmed by the Senate. The secret author of the Act, German-born American Jewish banker Paul Warburg (died 1932), a representative of Rothschild bank , coined the name ‘Federal’ from thin air.

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/12/03/lobby-attacking-federal-reserve-is-anti-semitism/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Kauser
    You don't have to own a share in the federal reserve when you bought and paid for the banks that are tbtf within the system?
    The government still has warrants on bank shares and exercises its ownership on a daily basis?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Changing the team member and having him blow smoke won't hide the combination of stupidity with lying in your non-responsive irrelevant purported responses.
  68. @Gold
    For real free markets, END THE FED and introduce debt and interest free money backed by gold. Trump did say, if money was backed by gold, "it would be beautiful."

    5 trillion dollars of America’s hopes and dreams down the tubes while we barter for years to make a new system?

    Read More
  69. @Rehmat
    Thank you Moshe for quoting Talmud as usual to show your hatred toward truth.

    Dennis Kucinich had angered Jewish groups for calling audits of privately-owned Federal Reserve, formed by an act of Congress in 1913 as a way of stabilizing banking industry.

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich tabled the NEED Act 2011 which would place the Federal Reserve under control of US Treasury. It would also implement new rules for the financial industry to narrow-down the gap between the 1% vs 99% American population.

    Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a longtime advocate for reform of the Federal Reserve, sharply criticized the Federal Reserve after Bloomberg news reported that the Federal Reserve secretly committed nearly $8 trillion in support to American and international financial institutions during the 2008 bailout. Kucinich recorded a video (watch below) before going to the floor of the House of Representatives to call upon Congress to reclaim its Constitution primacy over monetary policy.

    Behind the smokescreen – the Federal Reserve is not a government agency. In fact the US government has never owned a single share of Federal Reserve Bank stock. However, the US President do appoints the Governors of the Federal Reserve Board who are then confirmed by the Senate. The secret author of the Act, German-born American Jewish banker Paul Warburg (died 1932), a representative of Rothschild bank , coined the name ‘Federal’ from thin air.

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/12/03/lobby-attacking-federal-reserve-is-anti-semitism/

    You don’t have to own a share in the federal reserve when you bought and paid for the banks that are tbtf within the system?
    The government still has warrants on bank shares and exercises its ownership on a daily basis?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Is that what your sisters Janet Yellen and lesbian Elena Kagan told you?

    In 2013, Barack Hussein Obama was hailed by the Jewish lobby for his nomination of vice-Chairwoman Dr. Janet Yellen, as the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve, country’s central bank. She was credited with being “the first woman to hold that position”, after “approval from the Senate”. I bet my Canadian Loonie that like John Kerry in the past, Yellen will receive unanimous endorsement from the pro-Israel, pro-Wall Street Senators.

    The Reuters hailed Yellen, “first Jewish woman Fed Chair, brings compassion to tough job”. I bet Edmund Connelly would laugh at the “compassion” label, as he believes Jewish culture is 'The Culture of Deceit'.

    Former editor at the Wall Street Journal, Jimmy B. Stewart’s 1991 book, 'Den of Thieves, in which Stewart describes the financial scandals created by the Jewish bankers. When Israel-Firster Jewish activist, Alan Dershowitz, called Stewart ‘antisemite’, I realized the book must have some truth in it......

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/10/10/yellen-and-the-den-of-thieves/
  70. @CanSpeccy

    As I understand it you are saying that there should only be one bank – a central bank with no doubt many branches, physical and electronic. If not, what business do you propose that private banks be allowed to do otherwise than as agents of the central bank?
     
    No. I'm proposing that when a commercial bank creates a loan, it does not create money out of thin air, as is the practice now (except insofar as loans are supported by bank reserve requirements), by depositing money the bank does not have in the borrower's account.

    Instead, I am proposing that a bank only lend money it does not have after first borrowing that money from the Fed, at what might usually be a nominal rate of interest (or even a negative rate during a time of deflation). That way, the Fed would have effective control over the money supply, which it lacks now.

    Social security will be broke and the fed balance sheet will be 20 trillion!
    Turn the trust fund over to social security and pay everyone every month a stipend who lives on this bright blue marble?
    Make the fed work for the people and not……

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Social security will be broke and the fed balance sheet will be 20 trillion!
    Turn the trust fund over to social security and pay everyone every month a stipend who lives on this bright blue marble?
     
    Sounds brilliant.

    But if you are supposing that the Fed has assets of $20 trillion that can be handed out to all and sundry, I fear that you expectations will be disappointed.

    First, the Fed balance sheet shows assets of only around $4.5 trillion.

    Second, the largest asset category on the Fed balance sheet are Treasury securities. These, however, generate no net income to the Fed because, as I indicated above, the Fed returns to the Treasury all profits on its operations less its costs of operation. For these securities to be handed to someone else, would thus amount to a gift by the US Government, which would entail a vast new expense to the taxpayer who would then become responsible for the interest on those Treasury securities.

    So, sorry, but your Utopian scheme won't work.
  71. Jews control all U.S. finance…they will not allow Trump to take it away…

    Read More
  72. @Wizard of Oz
    Apologies for not giving weight to "attributed to" and I accept that you are not one of the mad anti-Semites infesting UR comments**.

    **Despite the maddies I have carefully moved toward putting more weight on Israel first money in US politics than I would have before reading UR. I was primed for it by long since having taken to describing the US as a plutocracy, tempered by meritocracy within a framework of law, and flavoured by the rhetoric of democracy.

    Thanks. It’s the debt-money banking system I’m against. Monetary sovereignty is the way I wish Trump would go. It’s true that many people mistakenly conflate Jews with bankers simply because many Jews work in the industry, but the two are not synonymous. I worked as an equities trader and my mentor was Jewish, but I’m not and neither were a lot of other guys in the business.

    I’ve begun to grow sensitive to how low the “anti-Semite” bar has been lowered, not least because in some cases the accusation/slur borders on the absurd and could end up causing other religio-ethnic groups to begin thinking that perhaps the Jews are anti-everyone-else; I’ve heard it more than once and while I don’t believe it, I’m seeing that others do. It’s a serious charge and should be reserved for clearly demonstrable cases in my opinion.

    Read More
  73. The Federal Reserve is a group of private banks using the word “Federal” to pretend that they are part of the administration.

    A government office within the Treasury could easily match the money supply to real economic activity and get the foxes out of the hen house.

    Read More
  74. @anonymous
    Can you link to a fuller accounting of JFK's decision to issue Treasury Notes, instead of Federal Reserve Notes?

    I have actually seen a few of those collector's items, but I don't know what prompted him make that decision.

    BTW, careful with the connection to 11/22/63. We don't know why JFK was killed, because the crime was never properly investigated. Instead, the Warren Commission engaged in a giant PR scam to calm the political waters. We know their version of events is false. What we don't know is the true who, what and why of 11/22/63.

    Remember your numerology. 11 and 22 are numbers of opportunity. JFKs assignation crippled an entire generation.

    Read More
  75. @anonymous
    Can you link to a fuller accounting of JFK's decision to issue Treasury Notes, instead of Federal Reserve Notes?

    I have actually seen a few of those collector's items, but I don't know what prompted him make that decision.

    BTW, careful with the connection to 11/22/63. We don't know why JFK was killed, because the crime was never properly investigated. Instead, the Warren Commission engaged in a giant PR scam to calm the political waters. We know their version of events is false. What we don't know is the true who, what and why of 11/22/63.

    @ greg bacon,

    There is so much research that has been documented as to why the money powers took out Kennedy. The Fed, Viet Nam, continued cold war armaments and build up etc. The same game is still in play today. We still have our “cold war” so to speak– Isis and the spooks behind them, all working for the globalists money power. We still have the Fed and the corrupted politicians whom protect the Rothschild interests. Don’t be so naive! If Trump makes a run at them, he better lock himself in a cave with his most trusted people including a couple thousand trusted military while the swamp is being drained.

    Read More
  76. @Tom Kauser
    Social security will be broke and the fed balance sheet will be 20 trillion!
    Turn the trust fund over to social security and pay everyone every month a stipend who lives on this bright blue marble?
    Make the fed work for the people and not......

    Social security will be broke and the fed balance sheet will be 20 trillion!
    Turn the trust fund over to social security and pay everyone every month a stipend who lives on this bright blue marble?

    Sounds brilliant.

    But if you are supposing that the Fed has assets of $20 trillion that can be handed out to all and sundry, I fear that you expectations will be disappointed.

    First, the Fed balance sheet shows assets of only around $4.5 trillion.

    Second, the largest asset category on the Fed balance sheet are Treasury securities. These, however, generate no net income to the Fed because, as I indicated above, the Fed returns to the Treasury all profits on its operations less its costs of operation. For these securities to be handed to someone else, would thus amount to a gift by the US Government, which would entail a vast new expense to the taxpayer who would then become responsible for the interest on those Treasury securities.

    So, sorry, but your Utopian scheme won’t work.

    Read More
  77. @Gold
    For real free markets, END THE FED and introduce debt and interest free money backed by gold. Trump did say, if money was backed by gold, "it would be beautiful."

    END THE FED and introduce debt and interest free money backed by gold.

    Money issued by the Fed is, effectively, interest free.

    The Fed issues money in one of two ways.

    First, it accepts newly issued Treasury bills and credits the Treasury account with cash to the face value of the bills. The bills it then sells to private parties to whom the government pays interest. The net result has zero effect on money supply. What has happened is that the government has raised a loan from the private sector (including foreigners and foreign central banks), a loan mediated by the Fed, in return for which it pays interest.

    Second, it accepts newly issued Treasury bills, credits the Treasury account with cash to the face value of the bills, while keeping the Treasury paper in its own inventory. The net result is the creation of new money, i.e., an expansion of money supply, with the government nominally paying interest on the new money. This is new money because it was paid for by a stroke of the pen, a bookkeeping entry, not with the Fed’s own money. However, the Fed does not profit from this act of money creation, since it turns its income less expenses over to the Treasury. Thus, in effect, no interest is paid.

    The Fed, however, is not the only source of new money. Most money creation is by the private sector banks, which create money whenever the make a loan. This money is subject to interest payment, but the banks would not exist to provide credit if they could not charge interest to cover their costs (loan losses, for example, store fronts etc.) .

    The problem with the system is not that private institutions create debt based money but that they creation of money by private institutions follows the logic of the banks’ interests, not of society as a whole. Hence, we have periodic bank-fueled inflations leading to Ponzi investment booms, followed by crashes and the associated carnage.

    That is why all money creation should be controlled by the central bank, although the distribution of that money would still be via interest bearing loans by commercial banks.

    A gold-backed currency doesn’t seem such a great option when you think of the devastation to be wrought by mining companies if gold went to ten or twenty thousand dollars an ounce as is probably if all currencies were backed by substantial quantities of gold.

    An better alternative to gold would be the cardinal numbers, as I outlined here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    How money creation schemes actually work is not clear to me and it is not to serious economists who tried to look it it. For example Richard A. Werner who allegedly advised Japan how to introduced QE scheme (allegedly he invented it) wrote an article:

    "Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence"
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070

    In which he tries empirically to determine how money is created by a bank when it issues a loan. I was surprise that somebody being in higher ranks among economists and banking consultants had to make an actual experiment to find out how it really is done. I was assuming that knowledge how banks work is easily available. Apparently not. For this reason I am bit skeptical about your comments and the confidence with which you make them.

    Here is critique (purely theoretical) of Werner's paper
    https://spontaneousfinance.com/2016/01/11/a-critique-of-werners-view-on-banking/
  78. @Tom Kauser
    You don't have to own a share in the federal reserve when you bought and paid for the banks that are tbtf within the system?
    The government still has warrants on bank shares and exercises its ownership on a daily basis?

    Is that what your sisters Janet Yellen and lesbian Elena Kagan told you?

    In 2013, Barack Hussein Obama was hailed by the Jewish lobby for his nomination of vice-Chairwoman Dr. Janet Yellen, as the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve, country’s central bank. She was credited with being “the first woman to hold that position”, after “approval from the Senate”. I bet my Canadian Loonie that like John Kerry in the past, Yellen will receive unanimous endorsement from the pro-Israel, pro-Wall Street Senators.

    The Reuters hailed Yellen, “first Jewish woman Fed Chair, brings compassion to tough job”. I bet Edmund Connelly would laugh at the “compassion” label, as he believes Jewish culture is ‘The Culture of Deceit’.

    Former editor at the Wall Street Journal, Jimmy B. Stewart’s 1991 book, ‘Den of Thieves, in which Stewart describes the financial scandals created by the Jewish bankers. When Israel-Firster Jewish activist, Alan Dershowitz, called Stewart ‘antisemite’, I realized the book must have some truth in it……

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/10/10/yellen-and-the-den-of-thieves/

    Read More
  79. @nsa
    The parasitic jooies won't like this at all. Yellen - jooie, Fischer - jooie, Bernanke - jooie, Greenspan - jooie, Volcker - jooie, Miller -goy useful idiot replaced after 1 year, Burns - jooie. The twelve member banks are mostly jooie owned and managed. Joonomics is essentially legalized usury and counterfeiting. The chances of Der Trumpster evicting the pernicious jooies from the temple are nil.......

    The last President who thought he could control the FED took bullets through the front of his head and the FBI and CIA covered it up. Trump isn’t stupid he knows he can’t do shit- only God will be able to stop these perfidious demons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    God only help those who help themselves.

    If Iranian can get rid of oligarchs and vulture bankers - Americans too can do it if they have the will-power.

    In May 2014, Iran carried out the 2012 death sentence of Mahafrid Amir Khosravi, a banker who along with his four brothers was accused of a bank scam involving $2.6 billion in 2011. According to the prosecutor, in space of two years, Amir Mansour Aria Development Co. bought 40 companies including a major steel mill, with forged letters of credit obtained from several banks whose managers they had bribed.

    No wonders, Iranian Islamists are hated by the western capitalist elites. There is nothing wrong in defrauding other people or bribing influential officials. It’s a common practice in the West. Even Jewish Talmud allows such practice as long as the victims of scam are not Jewish. In western countries, most major banking institutions are owned by Zionist Jews – some of whom, like Jewish Casino billionaire Sheldon Gary Adelson 84 (worth $41 billion), who has most Republican leaders in his back-pocket.

    No banker has ever been hanged in United States, Canada or the EU member countries. Bernard Lawrence Madoff, the Jewish banker at the Wall Street who through his ponzi scheme milked nearly $60 billion from American investors, most of which he deposited in Israeli banks – was never sentenced to death in United States. He is living a very comfortable life as a ‘Class A’ prisoner in some Federal prison. In January 2014, the poor fella suffered heart attack which sent waves of concern among the organized Jewry.

    The death penalty status for 2013 published by Amnesty International – only 39 criminals, mostly Afro-Americans accused of murders were executed in the United States. During the same period of time, 369 people were executed in Iran for major drug-trafficking, murder, treason, pre-planned terrorism and stealing major public funds. Most these crimes are ‘kosher’ in the western world. The only “spies” who have ever been executed in United States, were Jewish couple Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The other famous American “spy” put behind bars is no other than Jewish Jonathan Pollard, a duel citizen. Funny though, the Jewish media blames Muslims for spying and treason.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/05/26/iran-hangs-a-banker/
  80. @nsa
    Why not just answer the questions directly?
    1) do jooies dominate the federal reserve "bank"?
    2) does the jooie dominated "bank" indulge in legalized counterfeiting i.e. creating fiat money out of thin air?
    3) does the jooie dominated "bank" then loan the ersatz money created out of thin air to their fellow tribe members and associated useful idiots for a pittance?
    4) do the tribal recipients and their associates of the virtually free money then indulge in usury to fleece the masses of asses while doing nothing really useful?
    5) Is this not a jooie legalized scam?

    Why not just answer the questions directly?

    You raised several questions. I responded to your claim that the commercial retail banking industry operates a scam, which I believe is untrue.

    Your other claims seem of doubtful merit.

    In particular, your contention that the U.S. Federal Reserve System is a scam, seems based on the mistaken idea that the Fed profits from its creation of money as required to cover US Government budget deficits.

    As I have stated above, it is claimed by the Fed that it transfers its income less expenses to the US Treasury. Presumably the expenses are considerable. I believe, for example, that Fed Reserve Governors receive free haircuts, among other benefits. But the idea that the Fed extorts $billions or $trillions from the American public with the connivance of the US Government, and that any President who seeks to redress this criminal racket will inevitably be murdered like JFK, seems to be incorrect.

    Or if it is not incorrect, neither the reason for, nor the mechanism underlying, this alleged scandal has never been clearly or publicly stated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nsa
    Your claim is that the jooie federal reserve "bank" is some kind of non-profit foundation doing god's work for the masses? Your jooie pal madoff returned what was left of the boodle to his investors also......the analogy too deep for you?
  81. @he knows
    The last President who thought he could control the FED took bullets through the front of his head and the FBI and CIA covered it up. Trump isn't stupid he knows he can't do shit- only God will be able to stop these perfidious demons.

    God only help those who help themselves.

    If Iranian can get rid of oligarchs and vulture bankers – Americans too can do it if they have the will-power.

    In May 2014, Iran carried out the 2012 death sentence of Mahafrid Amir Khosravi, a banker who along with his four brothers was accused of a bank scam involving $2.6 billion in 2011. According to the prosecutor, in space of two years, Amir Mansour Aria Development Co. bought 40 companies including a major steel mill, with forged letters of credit obtained from several banks whose managers they had bribed.

    No wonders, Iranian Islamists are hated by the western capitalist elites. There is nothing wrong in defrauding other people or bribing influential officials. It’s a common practice in the West. Even Jewish Talmud allows such practice as long as the victims of scam are not Jewish. In western countries, most major banking institutions are owned by Zionist Jews – some of whom, like Jewish Casino billionaire Sheldon Gary Adelson 84 (worth $41 billion), who has most Republican leaders in his back-pocket.

    No banker has ever been hanged in United States, Canada or the EU member countries. Bernard Lawrence Madoff, the Jewish banker at the Wall Street who through his ponzi scheme milked nearly $60 billion from American investors, most of which he deposited in Israeli banks – was never sentenced to death in United States. He is living a very comfortable life as a ‘Class A’ prisoner in some Federal prison. In January 2014, the poor fella suffered heart attack which sent waves of concern among the organized Jewry.

    The death penalty status for 2013 published by Amnesty International – only 39 criminals, mostly Afro-Americans accused of murders were executed in the United States. During the same period of time, 369 people were executed in Iran for major drug-trafficking, murder, treason, pre-planned terrorism and stealing major public funds. Most these crimes are ‘kosher’ in the western world. The only “spies” who have ever been executed in United States, were Jewish couple Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The other famous American “spy” put behind bars is no other than Jewish Jonathan Pollard, a duel citizen. Funny though, the Jewish media blames Muslims for spying and treason.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/05/26/iran-hangs-a-banker/

    Read More
  82. @CanSpeccy

    Why not just answer the questions directly?
     
    You raised several questions. I responded to your claim that the commercial retail banking industry operates a scam, which I believe is untrue.

    Your other claims seem of doubtful merit.

    In particular, your contention that the U.S. Federal Reserve System is a scam, seems based on the mistaken idea that the Fed profits from its creation of money as required to cover US Government budget deficits.

    As I have stated above, it is claimed by the Fed that it transfers its income less expenses to the US Treasury. Presumably the expenses are considerable. I believe, for example, that Fed Reserve Governors receive free haircuts, among other benefits. But the idea that the Fed extorts $billions or $trillions from the American public with the connivance of the US Government, and that any President who seeks to redress this criminal racket will inevitably be murdered like JFK, seems to be incorrect.

    Or if it is not incorrect, neither the reason for, nor the mechanism underlying, this alleged scandal has never been clearly or publicly stated.

    Your claim is that the jooie federal reserve “bank” is some kind of non-profit foundation doing god’s work for the masses? Your jooie pal madoff returned what was left of the boodle to his investors also……the analogy too deep for you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Your claim is that the jooie federal reserve “bank” is some kind of non-profit foundation doing god’s work for the masses?
     
    I said nothing whatever about what you call the "jooie federal reserve." I know that there have been several Jews chairing the Fed. I even heard a Jew on NPR refer to Ben Bernanke, on his appointment as Fed Chairman, as "the next Yid at the Fed." But as far as I am aware, there's no actual legal restriction concerning the race, ethnicity or religion of either the Fed Chair or the other people on the committee. The ADL, naturally, says what you are saying is all a horrible anti-Semitic smear.

    As for whether the Fed does what you can "god's work," I'm not sure. But it seems to do what all central banks do. It provides liquidity to banks in trouble to prevent bank runs and collapses, and it handles government bond sales in such manner as to regulate interest and inflation rates as it sees fit.

    On the whole, in recent years, the Fed seems to have done a lousy job, particularly the cut in rates in the early oughts, that Canadian Nobel Prize winning economist, Robert Mundel, said would have disastrous effects, and then jacking up rates 17 times in 2005-2006 to trip the housing crash and financial crisis.

    But that doesn't mean that the Fed is hauling away stupendous amounts of public money the the creation of debt-based money.
  83. @Rehmat
    Thank you Moshe for quoting Talmud as usual to show your hatred toward truth.

    Dennis Kucinich had angered Jewish groups for calling audits of privately-owned Federal Reserve, formed by an act of Congress in 1913 as a way of stabilizing banking industry.

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich tabled the NEED Act 2011 which would place the Federal Reserve under control of US Treasury. It would also implement new rules for the financial industry to narrow-down the gap between the 1% vs 99% American population.

    Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a longtime advocate for reform of the Federal Reserve, sharply criticized the Federal Reserve after Bloomberg news reported that the Federal Reserve secretly committed nearly $8 trillion in support to American and international financial institutions during the 2008 bailout. Kucinich recorded a video (watch below) before going to the floor of the House of Representatives to call upon Congress to reclaim its Constitution primacy over monetary policy.

    Behind the smokescreen – the Federal Reserve is not a government agency. In fact the US government has never owned a single share of Federal Reserve Bank stock. However, the US President do appoints the Governors of the Federal Reserve Board who are then confirmed by the Senate. The secret author of the Act, German-born American Jewish banker Paul Warburg (died 1932), a representative of Rothschild bank , coined the name ‘Federal’ from thin air.

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/12/03/lobby-attacking-federal-reserve-is-anti-semitism/

    Changing the team member and having him blow smoke won’t hide the combination of stupidity with lying in your non-responsive irrelevant purported responses.

    Read More
  84. @CanSpeccy

    As I understand it you are saying that there should only be one bank – a central bank with no doubt many branches, physical and electronic. If not, what business do you propose that private banks be allowed to do otherwise than as agents of the central bank?
     
    No. I'm proposing that when a commercial bank creates a loan, it does not create money out of thin air, as is the practice now (except insofar as loans are supported by bank reserve requirements), by depositing money the bank does not have in the borrower's account.

    Instead, I am proposing that a bank only lend money it does not have after first borrowing that money from the Fed, at what might usually be a nominal rate of interest (or even a negative rate during a time of deflation). That way, the Fed would have effective control over the money supply, which it lacks now.

    Interesting idea. It would at least give the Fed considerable control over the money supply initially though I am not sure why you would approve of all the power being centralised given what knowledge of history and human nature show. But what about my second par? How is human ingenuity to be curbed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    I am not sure why you would approve of all the power being centralised given what knowledge of history and human nature show.
     
    One advantage of placing control of monetary policy in the hands of government is that one could vote them out for doing the kind things the Maestro Greenspan did during the final years of his tenure as Fed Chairman. That is presumably why governments like some insulation, by way of a central bank.

    As for curbing human ingenuity, that would be difficult. Winston Churchill had a good account of the money making animal and of how it will swim, fly, burrow under the ground to evade any obstacle one might place in its way. But I cannot find the exact words.

  85. @utu
    "The Fed has created the conditions for a permanent Depression so it can provide infinite cheap money to its crooked reprobate friends on Wall Street."

    I do not think it has anything to do with the FED. The Wall Street is doing what it can get away with. They will be doing the same thing when the interest rates go up. By increasing the interests rates the proportion of money that goes to industry to money that goes to the Walls Street will not change but the total amount of money will be lower.

    The Fed can change the setting of only one parameter like changing a thermostat setting in the room. If the room has windows open the change of the setting will not change the temperature of the room by much. Concentrate on the windows and who is stealing and how the warm air? For this one has to understand the system much better. For this reason all dilettantes like to yap about the FED. Anyway, Mike you are barking at a wrong tree.

    Disagree. The Fed connects Wall Street financial institutions to the people’s money with the force of law. The 2008 bailout could have been done far differently, with the money going directly to the people in the form of debt write down or reduction. Instead it went directly to the Wall Street financial institutions so that they could re-inflate asset prices to support the overstated debt they make their money on. Clearly there is more than one level of power to pull. And whoever controls the Fed can repurpose it in a manner that best benefits the entire economy instead of the small select group of parasites it currently benefits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The 2008 bailout could have been done far differently, with the money going directly to the people in the form of debt write down or reduction. Instead it went directly to the Wall Street financial institutions so that they could re-inflate asset prices to support the overstated debt they make their money on.
     
    Yes, but if the money had gone to the people, it would have been, well, gone. Period. As it was, the $16 trillion or whatever that went to the financial institutions was repaid.

    While there may be merit in the idea of the Fed handing out $16 trillion to people with mortgages, etc., the inflationary consequences would be horrendous.

    , @E. A. Costa
    "The 2008 bailout could have been done far differently, with the money going directly to the people in the form of debt write down or reduction. Instead it went directly to the Wall Street financial institutions so that they could re-inflate asset prices to support the overstated debt they make their money on."

    Exactly right--except they did not successfully re-inflate asset prices in real estate. They used other means.

    Kucinich was brilliant on some issues like Health Care. Indeed, he probably knows more about that issue than anyone else in the United States of P. T. Barnum and had realistic reform plans.

    Financially, however, he was very naive. When he actually figured out the bailout he almost had a heart attack.

    He was thus suspicious of Obama even before Obama took office, but not suspicious enough. Even later he campaigned with Obama in Ohio.

    Naturally he was gerrymandered out of his seat.

    Eventually one coined a rule: the safest thing to be around Obama is his enemy.

    Worked infallibly, including with Señora Clinton. The seeming exception was Emmanuel, who apparently coined the rule on his own and was too quick on his ballet dancer's tippytoes, getting out while the getting was good.
    , @utu
    We are not on the same wavelength. The issue you are bringing up, while relevant, has nothing to do with my comment.
  86. @nsa
    Your claim is that the jooie federal reserve "bank" is some kind of non-profit foundation doing god's work for the masses? Your jooie pal madoff returned what was left of the boodle to his investors also......the analogy too deep for you?

    Your claim is that the jooie federal reserve “bank” is some kind of non-profit foundation doing god’s work for the masses?

    I said nothing whatever about what you call the “jooie federal reserve.” I know that there have been several Jews chairing the Fed. I even heard a Jew on NPR refer to Ben Bernanke, on his appointment as Fed Chairman, as “the next Yid at the Fed.” But as far as I am aware, there’s no actual legal restriction concerning the race, ethnicity or religion of either the Fed Chair or the other people on the committee. The ADL, naturally, says what you are saying is all a horrible anti-Semitic smear.

    As for whether the Fed does what you can “god’s work,” I’m not sure. But it seems to do what all central banks do. It provides liquidity to banks in trouble to prevent bank runs and collapses, and it handles government bond sales in such manner as to regulate interest and inflation rates as it sees fit.

    On the whole, in recent years, the Fed seems to have done a lousy job, particularly the cut in rates in the early oughts, that Canadian Nobel Prize winning economist, Robert Mundel, said would have disastrous effects, and then jacking up rates 17 times in 2005-2006 to trip the housing crash and financial crisis.

    But that doesn’t mean that the Fed is hauling away stupendous amounts of public money the the creation of debt-based money.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands

    But that doesn’t mean that the Fed is hauling away stupendous amounts of public money the the creation of debt-based money.
     
    Explain how you know this without an audit.
  87. @Clearpoint
    Disagree. The Fed connects Wall Street financial institutions to the people's money with the force of law. The 2008 bailout could have been done far differently, with the money going directly to the people in the form of debt write down or reduction. Instead it went directly to the Wall Street financial institutions so that they could re-inflate asset prices to support the overstated debt they make their money on. Clearly there is more than one level of power to pull. And whoever controls the Fed can repurpose it in a manner that best benefits the entire economy instead of the small select group of parasites it currently benefits.

    The 2008 bailout could have been done far differently, with the money going directly to the people in the form of debt write down or reduction. Instead it went directly to the Wall Street financial institutions so that they could re-inflate asset prices to support the overstated debt they make their money on.

    Yes, but if the money had gone to the people, it would have been, well, gone. Period. As it was, the $16 trillion or whatever that went to the financial institutions was repaid.

    While there may be merit in the idea of the Fed handing out $16 trillion to people with mortgages, etc., the inflationary consequences would be horrendous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "As it was, the $16 trillion or whatever that went to the financial institutions was repaid." - Repaid? What are you talking about?

    Gov. is getting $100 billions from the FED. It was even on NPR and nobody including the huy reporting understood how it worked.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476203984/how-managing-money-creates-huge-profits-for-the-federal-reserve
  88. @Wizard of Oz
    Interesting idea. It would at least give the Fed considerable control over the money supply initially though I am not sure why you would approve of all the power being centralised given what knowledge of history and human nature show. But what about my second par? How is human ingenuity to be curbed?

    I am not sure why you would approve of all the power being centralised given what knowledge of history and human nature show.

    One advantage of placing control of monetary policy in the hands of government is that one could vote them out for doing the kind things the Maestro Greenspan did during the final years of his tenure as Fed Chairman. That is presumably why governments like some insulation, by way of a central bank.

    As for curbing human ingenuity, that would be difficult. Winston Churchill had a good account of the money making animal and of how it will swim, fly, burrow under the ground to evade any obstacle one might place in its way. But I cannot find the exact words.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I think the reason why central banks have been given independence in recent decades is the long history of inflation as an aid to politicians inflicting little obviously blameworthy pain in their buying of votes. I think Gordon Brown with his Scottish Protestant background in the UK and Peter Costello, originally Baptist and still Christian, in Australia were natural candidates for approving mandate to their central banks which put the inflation level first. I note that the Fed's dual mandate must add enormously to its freedom in practice and in logic.

    Bracket creep is so convenient for Treasuries which want their political heads to be able to reap the inflationary gains for a few years then grandly announce tax cuts that I suspect your proposal is just a case of out of the frying pan.....
  89. @Clearpoint
    Disagree. The Fed connects Wall Street financial institutions to the people's money with the force of law. The 2008 bailout could have been done far differently, with the money going directly to the people in the form of debt write down or reduction. Instead it went directly to the Wall Street financial institutions so that they could re-inflate asset prices to support the overstated debt they make their money on. Clearly there is more than one level of power to pull. And whoever controls the Fed can repurpose it in a manner that best benefits the entire economy instead of the small select group of parasites it currently benefits.

    “The 2008 bailout could have been done far differently, with the money going directly to the people in the form of debt write down or reduction. Instead it went directly to the Wall Street financial institutions so that they could re-inflate asset prices to support the overstated debt they make their money on.”

    Exactly right–except they did not successfully re-inflate asset prices in real estate. They used other means.

    Kucinich was brilliant on some issues like Health Care. Indeed, he probably knows more about that issue than anyone else in the United States of P. T. Barnum and had realistic reform plans.

    Financially, however, he was very naive. When he actually figured out the bailout he almost had a heart attack.

    He was thus suspicious of Obama even before Obama took office, but not suspicious enough. Even later he campaigned with Obama in Ohio.

    Naturally he was gerrymandered out of his seat.

    Eventually one coined a rule: the safest thing to be around Obama is his enemy.

    Worked infallibly, including with Señora Clinton. The seeming exception was Emmanuel, who apparently coined the rule on his own and was too quick on his ballet dancer’s tippytoes, getting out while the getting was good.

    Read More
  90. @CanSpeccy

    END THE FED and introduce debt and interest free money backed by gold.
     
    Money issued by the Fed is, effectively, interest free.

    The Fed issues money in one of two ways.

    First, it accepts newly issued Treasury bills and credits the Treasury account with cash to the face value of the bills. The bills it then sells to private parties to whom the government pays interest. The net result has zero effect on money supply. What has happened is that the government has raised a loan from the private sector (including foreigners and foreign central banks), a loan mediated by the Fed, in return for which it pays interest.

    Second, it accepts newly issued Treasury bills, credits the Treasury account with cash to the face value of the bills, while keeping the Treasury paper in its own inventory. The net result is the creation of new money, i.e., an expansion of money supply, with the government nominally paying interest on the new money. This is new money because it was paid for by a stroke of the pen, a bookkeeping entry, not with the Fed's own money. However, the Fed does not profit from this act of money creation, since it turns its income less expenses over to the Treasury. Thus, in effect, no interest is paid.

    The Fed, however, is not the only source of new money. Most money creation is by the private sector banks, which create money whenever the make a loan. This money is subject to interest payment, but the banks would not exist to provide credit if they could not charge interest to cover their costs (loan losses, for example, store fronts etc.) .

    The problem with the system is not that private institutions create debt based money but that they creation of money by private institutions follows the logic of the banks' interests, not of society as a whole. Hence, we have periodic bank-fueled inflations leading to Ponzi investment booms, followed by crashes and the associated carnage.

    That is why all money creation should be controlled by the central bank, although the distribution of that money would still be via interest bearing loans by commercial banks.

    A gold-backed currency doesn't seem such a great option when you think of the devastation to be wrought by mining companies if gold went to ten or twenty thousand dollars an ounce as is probably if all currencies were backed by substantial quantities of gold.

    An better alternative to gold would be the cardinal numbers, as I outlined here.

    How money creation schemes actually work is not clear to me and it is not to serious economists who tried to look it it. For example Richard A. Werner who allegedly advised Japan how to introduced QE scheme (allegedly he invented it) wrote an article:

    “Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070

    In which he tries empirically to determine how money is created by a bank when it issues a loan. I was surprise that somebody being in higher ranks among economists and banking consultants had to make an actual experiment to find out how it really is done. I was assuming that knowledge how banks work is easily available. Apparently not. For this reason I am bit skeptical about your comments and the confidence with which you make them.

    Here is critique (purely theoretical) of Werner’s paper

    https://spontaneousfinance.com/2016/01/11/a-critique-of-werners-view-on-banking/

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    How money creation schemes actually work is not clear to me and it is not to serious economists who tried to look it it.
     
    It may not be clear to some "serious" economists, but that does not mean that the mechanism is unknown or even particularly obscure.

    Go to your bank, arrange a loan, and the bank will add the amount of the loan to your credit balance.

    How was the money loaned to you created?

    It was created by a stroke of the pen.

    The only limit on this process of money creation is the statutory requirement that the bank maintain a capital reserve equal to something under 10% of their loan portfolio.
  91. @CanSpeccy

    I am not sure why you would approve of all the power being centralised given what knowledge of history and human nature show.
     
    One advantage of placing control of monetary policy in the hands of government is that one could vote them out for doing the kind things the Maestro Greenspan did during the final years of his tenure as Fed Chairman. That is presumably why governments like some insulation, by way of a central bank.

    As for curbing human ingenuity, that would be difficult. Winston Churchill had a good account of the money making animal and of how it will swim, fly, burrow under the ground to evade any obstacle one might place in its way. But I cannot find the exact words.

    I think the reason why central banks have been given independence in recent decades is the long history of inflation as an aid to politicians inflicting little obviously blameworthy pain in their buying of votes. I think Gordon Brown with his Scottish Protestant background in the UK and Peter Costello, originally Baptist and still Christian, in Australia were natural candidates for approving mandate to their central banks which put the inflation level first. I note that the Fed’s dual mandate must add enormously to its freedom in practice and in logic.

    Bracket creep is so convenient for Treasuries which want their political heads to be able to reap the inflationary gains for a few years then grandly announce tax cuts that I suspect your proposal is just a case of out of the frying pan…..

    Read More
  92. @CanSpeccy

    The 2008 bailout could have been done far differently, with the money going directly to the people in the form of debt write down or reduction. Instead it went directly to the Wall Street financial institutions so that they could re-inflate asset prices to support the overstated debt they make their money on.
     
    Yes, but if the money had gone to the people, it would have been, well, gone. Period. As it was, the $16 trillion or whatever that went to the financial institutions was repaid.

    While there may be merit in the idea of the Fed handing out $16 trillion to people with mortgages, etc., the inflationary consequences would be horrendous.

    “As it was, the $16 trillion or whatever that went to the financial institutions was repaid.” – Repaid? What are you talking about?

    Gov. is getting $100 billions from the FED. It was even on NPR and nobody including the huy reporting understood how it worked.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476203984/how-managing-money-creates-huge-profits-for-the-federal-reserve

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    “As it was, the $16 trillion or whatever that went to the financial institutions was repaid.” – Repaid? What are you talking about?
     
    I gave a link above to the Government Accountability Office report documenting the repayment of the various short-term credit facilities provide by the Fed following the 2008 market crash. That's what I'm talking about. Here's the link again. Take a look at Page 137.

    Gov. is getting $100 billions from the FED. It was even on NPR and nobody including the huy reporting understood how it worked.
     
    It's not everyone who fails to understand how it works. In fact, I thought I'd explained how it works above. When the Fed engages in quantitative easing, it accepts Treasury paper for its own account, entering into the Treasury's account funds equal to the face value of the paper. The payment is made not with the Fed's own money but simply by a stroke of the pen. Hence the term "ink money."

    Despite the bonds having cost the Fed nothing, the Treasury pays the Fed interest on the bonds. However, this income, and any other, less the Fed's operating expenses, are returned to the Treasury. Hence, in part, the large payments to the Treasury by the Fed.

    In addition, the Fed may derive income by other means. For example, If the Fed were to sell bonds from its own inventory that have appreciated in value since they were issued, it will make a capital gain. Since the Fed operates in the bond market on a gigantic scale, such profits, or losses, may at times be very large.

  93. @Clearpoint
    Disagree. The Fed connects Wall Street financial institutions to the people's money with the force of law. The 2008 bailout could have been done far differently, with the money going directly to the people in the form of debt write down or reduction. Instead it went directly to the Wall Street financial institutions so that they could re-inflate asset prices to support the overstated debt they make their money on. Clearly there is more than one level of power to pull. And whoever controls the Fed can repurpose it in a manner that best benefits the entire economy instead of the small select group of parasites it currently benefits.

    We are not on the same wavelength. The issue you are bringing up, while relevant, has nothing to do with my comment.

    Read More
  94. The Fed is private and insulated from political control by design. The president may appoint members, but he has no control over their decisions. You can bet your bottom dollar that that the board of the fed does what is best for the fed, and the economy of the USA can go to hell if necessary.

    Read More
  95. @Greg Bacon

    WHY DONALD TRUMP MUST SHUT DOWN THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND START ISSUING DEBT-FREE MONEY

    We don’t need central planners to set our interest rates and to manipulate our money supply. They will never admit this, but the reality of the matter is that their interference in the economy often creates tremendous economic busts.

    Since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, there have been 18 distinct recessions or depressions: 1918, 1920, 1923, 1926, 1929, 1937, 1945, 1949, 1953, 1958, 1960, 1969, 1973, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001, 2008.

    Considering their track record, isn’t it time for a change?

    http://govtslaves.info/why-donald-trump-must-shut-down-the-federal-reserve-and-start-issuing-debt-free-money/
     

    Good luck to anyone who tries to change the grave-robbing Fed. JFK issued debt-free US Treasury notes and less than a year later, was dead. Lincoln told the Wall Street bankers to take a hike when they offered to lend the government money to finance the Civil War at astronomical rates, and he too issued a debt-free currency, the greenback, and you know what happened to him.

    Both presidents Garfield and McKinley were against re-starting up the private national bank, and both were assassinated. President Jackson shut down the forefather of the Fed and he was shot, but survived.

    BTW, the president selects Fed members from a list provided by the Fed.

    “Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws” – Baron M.A. Rothschild

    We lost the nation in 1913. Maybe the establishment beating narcissist ought to really “make it great again” and not be the third President shot in the head by the real owners of this country.

    Read More
  96. @CanSpeccy

    Your claim is that the jooie federal reserve “bank” is some kind of non-profit foundation doing god’s work for the masses?
     
    I said nothing whatever about what you call the "jooie federal reserve." I know that there have been several Jews chairing the Fed. I even heard a Jew on NPR refer to Ben Bernanke, on his appointment as Fed Chairman, as "the next Yid at the Fed." But as far as I am aware, there's no actual legal restriction concerning the race, ethnicity or religion of either the Fed Chair or the other people on the committee. The ADL, naturally, says what you are saying is all a horrible anti-Semitic smear.

    As for whether the Fed does what you can "god's work," I'm not sure. But it seems to do what all central banks do. It provides liquidity to banks in trouble to prevent bank runs and collapses, and it handles government bond sales in such manner as to regulate interest and inflation rates as it sees fit.

    On the whole, in recent years, the Fed seems to have done a lousy job, particularly the cut in rates in the early oughts, that Canadian Nobel Prize winning economist, Robert Mundel, said would have disastrous effects, and then jacking up rates 17 times in 2005-2006 to trip the housing crash and financial crisis.

    But that doesn't mean that the Fed is hauling away stupendous amounts of public money the the creation of debt-based money.

    But that doesn’t mean that the Fed is hauling away stupendous amounts of public money the the creation of debt-based money.

    Explain how you know this without an audit.

    Read More
  97. So far he’s putting together the most Pro-Zionist team ever. Can we cut the crap? If he was serious ,we would be hearing about Ron Paul as Treasurer.

    Read More
  98. @epebble
    I don't know what the author's qualifications are but I think FED is doing an amazing job running the country on fumes. At -20T debt, we should long ago have been Greece, but are having a near zero interest rate/inflation for a decade. That is no small achievement. Mr. Trump is going to have a lot of fun when FED increases the rate by about half percent in December. Let Trump figure how to handle a deep recession in 2017 and that will make a man of him and start respecting FED. Without the miracle of Bernanke in 2008, we would be seeing a lot of people sleeping in tents and eating from thrash cans.

    Without the miracle of Bernanke in 2008, we would be seeing a lot of people sleeping in tents and eating from thrash cans.

    …And there would also be a bankster beaten to death in every gutter in America.

    And rightfully so.

    You throw the bums out of their houses when they don’t uphold their end of the mortgage agreement- but you bail out theses miserable bankster SOB’s and their tranches of fraudulent bonds… give it 4- 10 years and we will present you with The Terror II.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    The problem with the bank bailouts is not that the banks were bailed out, but the way in which it was handled and the legislative response during the aftermath.

    The banks, i.e., their shareholders, should have been punished. Bankers who committed crimes should have been gaoled, as has happened in both Ireland and Iceland.

    Nationalization would have been a reasonable punishment, shareholders to receive nothing.

    The retail and investment operations of the banks should have been split apart, recapitalized at public expense, and then relaunched, the retail banks, having been made boring, highly regulated, and safe.

    But in London and Washington, lobbying and corruption reign supreme, so no consequences or adequate reform.
  99. @utu
    How money creation schemes actually work is not clear to me and it is not to serious economists who tried to look it it. For example Richard A. Werner who allegedly advised Japan how to introduced QE scheme (allegedly he invented it) wrote an article:

    "Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence"
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070

    In which he tries empirically to determine how money is created by a bank when it issues a loan. I was surprise that somebody being in higher ranks among economists and banking consultants had to make an actual experiment to find out how it really is done. I was assuming that knowledge how banks work is easily available. Apparently not. For this reason I am bit skeptical about your comments and the confidence with which you make them.

    Here is critique (purely theoretical) of Werner's paper
    https://spontaneousfinance.com/2016/01/11/a-critique-of-werners-view-on-banking/

    How money creation schemes actually work is not clear to me and it is not to serious economists who tried to look it it.

    It may not be clear to some “serious” economists, but that does not mean that the mechanism is unknown or even particularly obscure.

    Go to your bank, arrange a loan, and the bank will add the amount of the loan to your credit balance.

    How was the money loaned to you created?

    It was created by a stroke of the pen.

    The only limit on this process of money creation is the statutory requirement that the bank maintain a capital reserve equal to something under 10% of their loan portfolio.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "Go to your bank, arrange a loan, and the bank will add the amount of the loan to your credit balance." - By going to bank I won't learn anything. One needs to look into their books. Werner who wrote the article I cited above was allowed to inspect what was happening in the bank from inside. You on the other hand derived your knowledge form some brochure published by the FED. There is nothing wrong with it except for your high confidence in the accuracy of this knowledge.

    If I want all my loan in cash where does the bank gets its cash from and how do they pay for it if they have no money except that required 10% of my loan?

    If bank A borrows money from bank B can that money be considered a capital reserve of bank A?

    Can bank borrow money from the FED?

    Why and how bank interests rates are tied to FED interest rates? They seem always higher than the FED rates.
  100. @Stonehands

    But that doesn’t mean that the Fed is hauling away stupendous amounts of public money the the creation of debt-based money.
     
    Explain how you know this without an audit.
    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    So The Fed board of governors hires their cronies at KPMG or Deloitte Douche- what could possibly go wrong there?

    I've heard this circle jerk for 50 years...the fact of the matter is- if the Treasury can issue bonds, they sure as hell can issue dollars; all under the inspection of the GAO.
  101. @utu
    "As it was, the $16 trillion or whatever that went to the financial institutions was repaid." - Repaid? What are you talking about?

    Gov. is getting $100 billions from the FED. It was even on NPR and nobody including the huy reporting understood how it worked.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476203984/how-managing-money-creates-huge-profits-for-the-federal-reserve

    “As it was, the $16 trillion or whatever that went to the financial institutions was repaid.” – Repaid? What are you talking about?

    I gave a link above to the Government Accountability Office report documenting the repayment of the various short-term credit facilities provide by the Fed following the 2008 market crash. That’s what I’m talking about. Here’s the link again. Take a look at Page 137.

    Gov. is getting $100 billions from the FED. It was even on NPR and nobody including the huy reporting understood how it worked.

    It’s not everyone who fails to understand how it works. In fact, I thought I’d explained how it works above. When the Fed engages in quantitative easing, it accepts Treasury paper for its own account, entering into the Treasury’s account funds equal to the face value of the paper. The payment is made not with the Fed’s own money but simply by a stroke of the pen. Hence the term “ink money.”

    Despite the bonds having cost the Fed nothing, the Treasury pays the Fed interest on the bonds. However, this income, and any other, less the Fed’s operating expenses, are returned to the Treasury. Hence, in part, the large payments to the Treasury by the Fed.

    In addition, the Fed may derive income by other means. For example, If the Fed were to sell bonds from its own inventory that have appreciated in value since they were issued, it will make a capital gain. Since the Fed operates in the bond market on a gigantic scale, such profits, or losses, may at times be very large.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    I applaud your industry in attempting to explain the mechanisms of monetary policy and the return of capital by bailed out banks; of the latter, one needn't agree wholesale with the bailouts, but only accept that choice was limited in 2008-2010. I fear your labour is unlikely to be received in the spirit of objectivity it was meant to. I had in the past unpacked the ownership of the Fed and why it needs to operate with some implicit public capital for purposes of efficiency. But the inquisitors won't have any of it.

    There are far too many doctrinaires convinced of the Fed as a scheme which operates in the shadows and there is little that will persuade them to part with the mystery novel.

  102. @Wizard of Oz
    I think the reason why central banks have been given independence in recent decades is the long history of inflation as an aid to politicians inflicting little obviously blameworthy pain in their buying of votes. I think Gordon Brown with his Scottish Protestant background in the UK and Peter Costello, originally Baptist and still Christian, in Australia were natural candidates for approving mandate to their central banks which put the inflation level first. I note that the Fed's dual mandate must add enormously to its freedom in practice and in logic.

    Bracket creep is so convenient for Treasuries which want their political heads to be able to reap the inflationary gains for a few years then grandly announce tax cuts that I suspect your proposal is just a case of out of the frying pan.....

    I agree, it’s mainly about optics.

    Read More
  103. @CanSpeccy

    So The Fed board of governors hires their cronies at KPMG or Deloitte Douche- what could possibly go wrong there?

    I’ve heard this circle jerk for 50 years…the fact of the matter is- if the Treasury can issue bonds, they sure as hell can issue dollars; all under the inspection of the GAO.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    if the Treasury can issue bonds, they sure as hell can issue dollars; all under the inspection of the GAO.
     
    No doubt. But if the Treasury issues dollars, it cannot take them back. Not directly, anyhow.

    The Fed can take dollars back — by selling bonds, which takes dollars out of circulation. The Treasury could, I suppose, set up the same kind of machinery. But for the reasons, probably, that the Wizard of Oz mentions, the system wasn't set up that way.

    But in any case, the idea that the Fed can print money and charge people interest on it and then funnel the profits to Lord Rothschild, or whoever, is unsupported by any evidence. Likely the only advantage that the owners of the Fed derive from ownership is some inside knowledge of what's going on.

  104. @Stonehands

    Without the miracle of Bernanke in 2008, we would be seeing a lot of people sleeping in tents and eating from thrash cans.
     
    ...And there would also be a bankster beaten to death in every gutter in America.

    And rightfully so.

    You throw the bums out of their houses when they don't uphold their end of the mortgage agreement- but you bail out theses miserable bankster SOB's and their tranches of fraudulent bonds... give it 4- 10 years and we will present you with The Terror II.

    The problem with the bank bailouts is not that the banks were bailed out, but the way in which it was handled and the legislative response during the aftermath.

    The banks, i.e., their shareholders, should have been punished. Bankers who committed crimes should have been gaoled, as has happened in both Ireland and Iceland.

    Nationalization would have been a reasonable punishment, shareholders to receive nothing.

    The retail and investment operations of the banks should have been split apart, recapitalized at public expense, and then relaunched, the retail banks, having been made boring, highly regulated, and safe.

    But in London and Washington, lobbying and corruption reign supreme, so no consequences or adequate reform.

    Read More
  105. @Stonehands
    So The Fed board of governors hires their cronies at KPMG or Deloitte Douche- what could possibly go wrong there?

    I've heard this circle jerk for 50 years...the fact of the matter is- if the Treasury can issue bonds, they sure as hell can issue dollars; all under the inspection of the GAO.

    if the Treasury can issue bonds, they sure as hell can issue dollars; all under the inspection of the GAO.

    No doubt. But if the Treasury issues dollars, it cannot take them back. Not directly, anyhow.

    The Fed can take dollars back — by selling bonds, which takes dollars out of circulation. The Treasury could, I suppose, set up the same kind of machinery. But for the reasons, probably, that the Wizard of Oz mentions, the system wasn’t set up that way.

    But in any case, the idea that the Fed can print money and charge people interest on it and then funnel the profits to Lord Rothschild, or whoever, is unsupported by any evidence. Likely the only advantage that the owners of the Fed derive from ownership is some inside knowledge of what’s going on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands

    But in any case, the idea that the Fed can print money and charge people interest on it and then funnel the profits to Lord Rothschild, or whoever,
     
    Don't try to minimize my assertions with your insouciant twaddle.

    The Primary Dealers are the bag men for The Fed, they have a revolving door at our Treasury and have driven the Ship of State onto the rocks. F**k them.

    Sic 'em Jeff Sessions- RICO isn't just for us dagos.
  106. @CanSpeccy

    “As it was, the $16 trillion or whatever that went to the financial institutions was repaid.” – Repaid? What are you talking about?
     
    I gave a link above to the Government Accountability Office report documenting the repayment of the various short-term credit facilities provide by the Fed following the 2008 market crash. That's what I'm talking about. Here's the link again. Take a look at Page 137.

    Gov. is getting $100 billions from the FED. It was even on NPR and nobody including the huy reporting understood how it worked.
     
    It's not everyone who fails to understand how it works. In fact, I thought I'd explained how it works above. When the Fed engages in quantitative easing, it accepts Treasury paper for its own account, entering into the Treasury's account funds equal to the face value of the paper. The payment is made not with the Fed's own money but simply by a stroke of the pen. Hence the term "ink money."

    Despite the bonds having cost the Fed nothing, the Treasury pays the Fed interest on the bonds. However, this income, and any other, less the Fed's operating expenses, are returned to the Treasury. Hence, in part, the large payments to the Treasury by the Fed.

    In addition, the Fed may derive income by other means. For example, If the Fed were to sell bonds from its own inventory that have appreciated in value since they were issued, it will make a capital gain. Since the Fed operates in the bond market on a gigantic scale, such profits, or losses, may at times be very large.

    I applaud your industry in attempting to explain the mechanisms of monetary policy and the return of capital by bailed out banks; of the latter, one needn’t agree wholesale with the bailouts, but only accept that choice was limited in 2008-2010. I fear your labour is unlikely to be received in the spirit of objectivity it was meant to. I had in the past unpacked the ownership of the Fed and why it needs to operate with some implicit public capital for purposes of efficiency. But the inquisitors won’t have any of it.

    There are far too many doctrinaires convinced of the Fed as a scheme which operates in the shadows and there is little that will persuade them to part with the mystery novel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    I applaud your industry ...
     
    Thanks. It does seem to require some effort.

    Time, maybe, for Whitney to take over. He did start it, indirectly, at least.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    You may have noted my reference to the Fed - unlike (nominally anyway) the BoE and RBA - having a dual mandate. What do you make of the practical consequences of that? Scope btw for moral hazard affecting the Fed governors/members?

    And, as one who would know, what influence does the nominal ownership structure (which also pls explain) have on control of policy and appointments?
  107. Bankers who committed crimes should have been gaoled,

    But, of course they weren’t jailed and nothing was nationalized; in fact Treasury granted AIG special tax exemptions in 2008 that allowed them to deduct net- operating losses from future taxes, in itself another “stealth” bailout.

    Read More
  108. @Sam Shama
    I applaud your industry in attempting to explain the mechanisms of monetary policy and the return of capital by bailed out banks; of the latter, one needn't agree wholesale with the bailouts, but only accept that choice was limited in 2008-2010. I fear your labour is unlikely to be received in the spirit of objectivity it was meant to. I had in the past unpacked the ownership of the Fed and why it needs to operate with some implicit public capital for purposes of efficiency. But the inquisitors won't have any of it.

    There are far too many doctrinaires convinced of the Fed as a scheme which operates in the shadows and there is little that will persuade them to part with the mystery novel.

    I applaud your industry …

    Thanks. It does seem to require some effort.

    Time, maybe, for Whitney to take over. He did start it, indirectly, at least.

    Read More
  109. @Sam Shama
    I applaud your industry in attempting to explain the mechanisms of monetary policy and the return of capital by bailed out banks; of the latter, one needn't agree wholesale with the bailouts, but only accept that choice was limited in 2008-2010. I fear your labour is unlikely to be received in the spirit of objectivity it was meant to. I had in the past unpacked the ownership of the Fed and why it needs to operate with some implicit public capital for purposes of efficiency. But the inquisitors won't have any of it.

    There are far too many doctrinaires convinced of the Fed as a scheme which operates in the shadows and there is little that will persuade them to part with the mystery novel.

    You may have noted my reference to the Fed – unlike (nominally anyway) the BoE and RBA – having a dual mandate. What do you make of the practical consequences of that? Scope btw for moral hazard affecting the Fed governors/members?

    And, as one who would know, what influence does the nominal ownership structure (which also pls explain) have on control of policy and appointments?

    Read More
  110. And, another more basic problem is the need to bail out banks in the first place. The ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) background just encourages them to borrow almost free money to run up bubbles, especially if they get keep the profits while the public carry the losses.

    And the FED is involved here, using artificially low rates to prop up a US economy/government with a tax base weakened by decades of corporate outsourcing. The FED is obliged to “buy” government bonds every year since spending always exceeds revenue and the Chinese and Japanese aren’t stepping up to the plate like they used to.

    Also, without ZIRP how could the government afford to pay interest on its bonds?

    I follow Michael Pettis here ( https://www.amazon.com/Great-Rebalancing-Conflict-Perilous-Economy/dp/0691163626/ref=cm_cr-mr-title) that credit (“ink money”) isn’t a problem in itself. It’s just a question of what you do with it. At a basic level, a loan has to go into a project that is good enough to repay capital and interest, with good investments being for example the rebuilding of Europe after WW2, opening up the American West or introducing new technologies such as electricity or computing.

    He suggests that all the rest, such as funding “bridges to nowhere”, government current spending, foreign wars and speculative bubbles just destroy capital, meaning in effect that US bonds are never going to be repaid (at least in real dollars).

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) background just encourages them to borrow almost free money to run up bubbles
     
    That is correct. But what you gonna do? The US-based global corporations have been offshoring jobs to low-wage jurisdictions as fast as they could since Bill Clinton signed the 1994 Gatt agreement. That means lots of folks got almost no money. The average income from employment of the lowest paid 81 million American workers was less than $13,000 in 2014. That's less than the current Federal minimum wage for full-time work, and about half what Ron Unz proposes as the minimum wage.

    But while many folks cannot earn much, they can borrow their brains out if rates are low enough. So that's what the big brains in the Bush and Obama administrations decided to rely on. Well, theoretically it's what Fed Chairs Greenspin, Spankie Bernanke, and now Whatshername decided to do.

    And as you say, the major beneficiaries have been the rich and the corporations who have blown a bunch of asset bubbles, resulting income and wealth inequality at a post-war high.

    Which is OK because all those damn white-skinned blue collar clowns were just supposed to shut-the-fuck-up and die, anyhow.

    Now Trump's gone and screwed up the plan by promising to bring jobs home and create decent jobs again, which means expect inflation and rising interest rates.

  111. @CanSpeccy

    How money creation schemes actually work is not clear to me and it is not to serious economists who tried to look it it.
     
    It may not be clear to some "serious" economists, but that does not mean that the mechanism is unknown or even particularly obscure.

    Go to your bank, arrange a loan, and the bank will add the amount of the loan to your credit balance.

    How was the money loaned to you created?

    It was created by a stroke of the pen.

    The only limit on this process of money creation is the statutory requirement that the bank maintain a capital reserve equal to something under 10% of their loan portfolio.

    “Go to your bank, arrange a loan, and the bank will add the amount of the loan to your credit balance.” – By going to bank I won’t learn anything. One needs to look into their books. Werner who wrote the article I cited above was allowed to inspect what was happening in the bank from inside. You on the other hand derived your knowledge form some brochure published by the FED. There is nothing wrong with it except for your high confidence in the accuracy of this knowledge.

    If I want all my loan in cash where does the bank gets its cash from and how do they pay for it if they have no money except that required 10% of my loan?

    If bank A borrows money from bank B can that money be considered a capital reserve of bank A?

    Can bank borrow money from the FED?

    Why and how bank interests rates are tied to FED interest rates? They seem always higher than the FED rates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    If I want all my loan in cash where does the bank gets its cash from and how do they pay for it if they have no money except that required 10% of my loan?
     
    There is money in your account, so your bank can transfer those funds to the Fed in exchange for greenbacks. (In fact the bank will have a stock of cash on hand from which it will meet your request for folding money, but in effect the transaction must work as described, with the bank purchasing cash from the Fed in quantities corresponding with the anticipated demand of clients.)

    If bank A borrows money from bank B can that money be considered a capital reserve of bank A?
     
    Yes, when held in cash or deposited with the Fed.

    Can a bank borrow money from the FED?

     

    Yes, and banks do borrow from the Fed to meet reserve requirement when their cash on hand is low. Such borrowing is said to be via the discount window."

    Why and how bank interests rates are tied to FED interest rates? They seem always higher than the FED rates.
     
    Banks seek to keep their rates in line with the competition. This is generally achieved by maintaining rates in some more or less fixed ratio to the Fed rate. The most trustworthy customers usually paying close to the Fed rate. Higher risk borrowers paying higher rates.
  112. @CanSpeccy

    if the Treasury can issue bonds, they sure as hell can issue dollars; all under the inspection of the GAO.
     
    No doubt. But if the Treasury issues dollars, it cannot take them back. Not directly, anyhow.

    The Fed can take dollars back — by selling bonds, which takes dollars out of circulation. The Treasury could, I suppose, set up the same kind of machinery. But for the reasons, probably, that the Wizard of Oz mentions, the system wasn't set up that way.

    But in any case, the idea that the Fed can print money and charge people interest on it and then funnel the profits to Lord Rothschild, or whoever, is unsupported by any evidence. Likely the only advantage that the owners of the Fed derive from ownership is some inside knowledge of what's going on.

    But in any case, the idea that the Fed can print money and charge people interest on it and then funnel the profits to Lord Rothschild, or whoever,

    Don’t try to minimize my assertions with your insouciant twaddle.

    The Primary Dealers are the bag men for The Fed, they have a revolving door at our Treasury and have driven the Ship of State onto the rocks. F**k them.

    Sic ‘em Jeff Sessions- RICO isn’t just for us dagos.

    Read More
  113. @nsa
    The parasitic jooies won't like this at all. Yellen - jooie, Fischer - jooie, Bernanke - jooie, Greenspan - jooie, Volcker - jooie, Miller -goy useful idiot replaced after 1 year, Burns - jooie. The twelve member banks are mostly jooie owned and managed. Joonomics is essentially legalized usury and counterfeiting. The chances of Der Trumpster evicting the pernicious jooies from the temple are nil.......

    You just haven’t figured out the timing of how this is going to work. You don’t take out the most important component first, you do the other stuff, then when everything is in place, you knock out the final timber and they’re gone. That is what he will do, but in the meantime, it doesn’t hurt to reverse course on the free money game. Everybody will get what is coming to them, I’m quite certain of that.

    Read More
  114. @utu
    "Go to your bank, arrange a loan, and the bank will add the amount of the loan to your credit balance." - By going to bank I won't learn anything. One needs to look into their books. Werner who wrote the article I cited above was allowed to inspect what was happening in the bank from inside. You on the other hand derived your knowledge form some brochure published by the FED. There is nothing wrong with it except for your high confidence in the accuracy of this knowledge.

    If I want all my loan in cash where does the bank gets its cash from and how do they pay for it if they have no money except that required 10% of my loan?

    If bank A borrows money from bank B can that money be considered a capital reserve of bank A?

    Can bank borrow money from the FED?

    Why and how bank interests rates are tied to FED interest rates? They seem always higher than the FED rates.

    If I want all my loan in cash where does the bank gets its cash from and how do they pay for it if they have no money except that required 10% of my loan?

    There is money in your account, so your bank can transfer those funds to the Fed in exchange for greenbacks. (In fact the bank will have a stock of cash on hand from which it will meet your request for folding money, but in effect the transaction must work as described, with the bank purchasing cash from the Fed in quantities corresponding with the anticipated demand of clients.)

    If bank A borrows money from bank B can that money be considered a capital reserve of bank A?

    Yes, when held in cash or deposited with the Fed.

    Can a bank borrow money from the FED?

    Yes, and banks do borrow from the Fed to meet reserve requirement when their cash on hand is low. Such borrowing is said to be via the discount window.”

    Why and how bank interests rates are tied to FED interest rates? They seem always higher than the FED rates.

    Banks seek to keep their rates in line with the competition. This is generally achieved by maintaining rates in some more or less fixed ratio to the Fed rate. The most trustworthy customers usually paying close to the Fed rate. Higher risk borrowers paying higher rates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    One more question: If I default on the loan from the bank what is the actual loss of the bank? The full amount of the loan or only 10% of the loan? Ignore the interest.
  115. @Miro23
    And, another more basic problem is the need to bail out banks in the first place. The ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) background just encourages them to borrow almost free money to run up bubbles, especially if they get keep the profits while the public carry the losses.

    And the FED is involved here, using artificially low rates to prop up a US economy/government with a tax base weakened by decades of corporate outsourcing. The FED is obliged to "buy" government bonds every year since spending always exceeds revenue and the Chinese and Japanese aren't stepping up to the plate like they used to.

    Also, without ZIRP how could the government afford to pay interest on its bonds?

    I follow Michael Pettis here ( https://www.amazon.com/Great-Rebalancing-Conflict-Perilous-Economy/dp/0691163626/ref=cm_cr-mr-title) that credit ("ink money") isn't a problem in itself. It's just a question of what you do with it. At a basic level, a loan has to go into a project that is good enough to repay capital and interest, with good investments being for example the rebuilding of Europe after WW2, opening up the American West or introducing new technologies such as electricity or computing.

    He suggests that all the rest, such as funding "bridges to nowhere", government current spending, foreign wars and speculative bubbles just destroy capital, meaning in effect that US bonds are never going to be repaid (at least in real dollars).

    The ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) background just encourages them to borrow almost free money to run up bubbles

    That is correct. But what you gonna do? The US-based global corporations have been offshoring jobs to low-wage jurisdictions as fast as they could since Bill Clinton signed the 1994 Gatt agreement. That means lots of folks got almost no money. The average income from employment of the lowest paid 81 million American workers was less than $13,000 in 2014. That’s less than the current Federal minimum wage for full-time work, and about half what Ron Unz proposes as the minimum wage.

    But while many folks cannot earn much, they can borrow their brains out if rates are low enough. So that’s what the big brains in the Bush and Obama administrations decided to rely on. Well, theoretically it’s what Fed Chairs Greenspin, Spankie Bernanke, and now Whatshername decided to do.

    And as you say, the major beneficiaries have been the rich and the corporations who have blown a bunch of asset bubbles, resulting income and wealth inequality at a post-war high.

    Which is OK because all those damn white-skinned blue collar clowns were just supposed to shut-the-fuck-up and die, anyhow.

    Now Trump’s gone and screwed up the plan by promising to bring jobs home and create decent jobs again, which means expect inflation and rising interest rates.

    Read More
  116. @CanSpeccy

    If I want all my loan in cash where does the bank gets its cash from and how do they pay for it if they have no money except that required 10% of my loan?
     
    There is money in your account, so your bank can transfer those funds to the Fed in exchange for greenbacks. (In fact the bank will have a stock of cash on hand from which it will meet your request for folding money, but in effect the transaction must work as described, with the bank purchasing cash from the Fed in quantities corresponding with the anticipated demand of clients.)

    If bank A borrows money from bank B can that money be considered a capital reserve of bank A?
     
    Yes, when held in cash or deposited with the Fed.

    Can a bank borrow money from the FED?

     

    Yes, and banks do borrow from the Fed to meet reserve requirement when their cash on hand is low. Such borrowing is said to be via the discount window."

    Why and how bank interests rates are tied to FED interest rates? They seem always higher than the FED rates.
     
    Banks seek to keep their rates in line with the competition. This is generally achieved by maintaining rates in some more or less fixed ratio to the Fed rate. The most trustworthy customers usually paying close to the Fed rate. Higher risk borrowers paying higher rates.

    One more question: If I default on the loan from the bank what is the actual loss of the bank? The full amount of the loan or only 10% of the loan? Ignore the interest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    Banks started going fully retail in the 80's, which means they sell their paper (your loan) as quickly as possible. After Clinton, with the financials in banking in a big way, they could bundle all these mortages, of whatever quality, and sell them off as investments.

    There are a few community banks left that survive mostly their own paper but not many.

    Anyway, unless the bank has your paper they lose nothing--they have already sold it off.

    Banks that have their own paper do not want their borrowers to default. Banks that sell it off don't give a rat's ass what happens to the loan--they have already made their gains.

    Most borrowers are quite surprised to learn, soon after signing on the dotted line, that they are not paying the bank they borrowed from.

    Bundles are low quality crap, including mortgages, that were--just for one example--sold off, often under the advert "enhanced" to Europe, especially immediately after August 2008.

    All this is just scratching the surface--there is the whole story of risk modeling, for example, that remains untold and unknown to most.
  117. @utu
    One more question: If I default on the loan from the bank what is the actual loss of the bank? The full amount of the loan or only 10% of the loan? Ignore the interest.

    Banks started going fully retail in the 80′s, which means they sell their paper (your loan) as quickly as possible. After Clinton, with the financials in banking in a big way, they could bundle all these mortages, of whatever quality, and sell them off as investments.

    There are a few community banks left that survive mostly their own paper but not many.

    Anyway, unless the bank has your paper they lose nothing–they have already sold it off.

    Banks that have their own paper do not want their borrowers to default. Banks that sell it off don’t give a rat’s ass what happens to the loan–they have already made their gains.

    Most borrowers are quite surprised to learn, soon after signing on the dotted line, that they are not paying the bank they borrowed from.

    Bundles are low quality crap, including mortgages, that were–just for one example–sold off, often under the advert “enhanced” to Europe, especially immediately after August 2008.

    All this is just scratching the surface–there is the whole story of risk modeling, for example, that remains untold and unknown to most.

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels
    You make a very important statement here Costa:
    Banks started going fully retail in the 80′s, which means they sell their paper (your loan) as quickly as possible.
    I did make a couple loans as a younster, and I remember that the bank held the paper,then, later on, another loan I found out, had been sold, not in the bank anymore.

    ''They sell paper don't they!"... I wondered how that works... selling the paper.

    But Hell!, have we learned what ever did happen to all the Robot written loan securtizations... REMs? that went dark.
  118. @Greg Bacon

    WHY DONALD TRUMP MUST SHUT DOWN THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND START ISSUING DEBT-FREE MONEY

    We don’t need central planners to set our interest rates and to manipulate our money supply. They will never admit this, but the reality of the matter is that their interference in the economy often creates tremendous economic busts.

    Since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, there have been 18 distinct recessions or depressions: 1918, 1920, 1923, 1926, 1929, 1937, 1945, 1949, 1953, 1958, 1960, 1969, 1973, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001, 2008.

    Considering their track record, isn’t it time for a change?

    http://govtslaves.info/why-donald-trump-must-shut-down-the-federal-reserve-and-start-issuing-debt-free-money/
     

    Good luck to anyone who tries to change the grave-robbing Fed. JFK issued debt-free US Treasury notes and less than a year later, was dead. Lincoln told the Wall Street bankers to take a hike when they offered to lend the government money to finance the Civil War at astronomical rates, and he too issued a debt-free currency, the greenback, and you know what happened to him.

    Both presidents Garfield and McKinley were against re-starting up the private national bank, and both were assassinated. President Jackson shut down the forefather of the Fed and he was shot, but survived.

    BTW, the president selects Fed members from a list provided by the Fed.

    I have thought for years that the FR was behind the assassination of JFK due to his desire to issue 1 billion in Treasury notes backed by silver reserves. Since under the FR, no new money comes into existence without first issuing debt, this means the FR would have to forego the interest on 1 billion in perpetuity. At something like 4% interest at the time, this means foregoing $40M a year in interest. Do the math and see if you come to the conclusion why “they” might have done what they did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Since under the FR, no new money comes into existence without first issuing debt, this means the FR would have to forego the interest on 1 billion in perpetuity.
     
    As I pointed out above and before you said it, this is not so. At least it is not so that the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank profit from the purchase Treasury debt.

    It is true that when the Treasury issues debt to the Fed, the paper is paid for with newly created money.

    The process is the same as that employed by commercial banks when creating loans: money the bank does not have is conjured from thin air, by the stroke of a pen, and entered into the borrower's account. There is an important difference, however, between a loan by the Fed to the Treasury and a loan made by a commercial bank.

    In the case of a commercial bank loan, the borrower pays interest, upon which the bank keeps a firm hold. In the case of the Fed, the interest it receives from the Treasury it returns to the Treasury less its own cost of operations, which means money created by the Fed is, in effect, interest-free.

    However, if the Fed sells Treasury paper on to private parties, then naturally the Treasury does not get back the interest paid to the bond-holders, and furthermore, there is no net creation of money, since the money created by the Fed when it purchased the Treasury paper, goes out of existence when that paper is purchased with real money by private parties.

    Hope that's clear, though it probably will never be understood by many even if it is clear.

    The idea that the Fed earns vast profits for its private owners by printing money and collecting interest thereon, seems to be an inextinguishable myth; a myth propagated perhaps by Cass Sunstein's agents of cognitive infiltration to make a mockery of the alt. media that cleave so tenaciously to the idea.
  119. @Aardvark
    I have thought for years that the FR was behind the assassination of JFK due to his desire to issue 1 billion in Treasury notes backed by silver reserves. Since under the FR, no new money comes into existence without first issuing debt, this means the FR would have to forego the interest on 1 billion in perpetuity. At something like 4% interest at the time, this means foregoing $40M a year in interest. Do the math and see if you come to the conclusion why "they" might have done what they did.

    Since under the FR, no new money comes into existence without first issuing debt, this means the FR would have to forego the interest on 1 billion in perpetuity.

    As I pointed out above and before you said it, this is not so. At least it is not so that the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank profit from the purchase Treasury debt.

    It is true that when the Treasury issues debt to the Fed, the paper is paid for with newly created money.

    The process is the same as that employed by commercial banks when creating loans: money the bank does not have is conjured from thin air, by the stroke of a pen, and entered into the borrower’s account. There is an important difference, however, between a loan by the Fed to the Treasury and a loan made by a commercial bank.

    In the case of a commercial bank loan, the borrower pays interest, upon which the bank keeps a firm hold. In the case of the Fed, the interest it receives from the Treasury it returns to the Treasury less its own cost of operations, which means money created by the Fed is, in effect, interest-free.

    However, if the Fed sells Treasury paper on to private parties, then naturally the Treasury does not get back the interest paid to the bond-holders, and furthermore, there is no net creation of money, since the money created by the Fed when it purchased the Treasury paper, goes out of existence when that paper is purchased with real money by private parties.

    Hope that’s clear, though it probably will never be understood by many even if it is clear.

    The idea that the Fed earns vast profits for its private owners by printing money and collecting interest thereon, seems to be an inextinguishable myth; a myth propagated perhaps by Cass Sunstein’s agents of cognitive infiltration to make a mockery of the alt. media that cleave so tenaciously to the idea.

    Read More
  120. As I said above, “ef’ the FED”! It’s just a Ponzi Scheme, a house of cards.
    So far, from the comments that I’ve read, some of you have done your research, others not so much and others appear to be shills’. Yet out of all of the discussions, and I haven’t read all the comments, no mention of ‘Float’ (other terms used – Float Dollars, Float Interest).
    It’s one of the hidden inter-bank charges/payments, through the FED, that has been reduced to virtually nothing with the advent of ‘Electronic Transfers’. When checks were the primary method of payment the ‘Float’, tabulated daily, was enormous. Millions’ of dollars/day of ‘free’ money, hidden from the general public, that paid the daily operating expenses of the banks (turn on the lights, make payroll, …) and determined daily loans’ interest rates, bank charges/payments, loan ceiling (amounts available for ‘ unsecured’ personal loans, lines of credit type of loans,…) + more. Get the idea. The ‘Float’ was an important source of revenue.
    Its reduction is not the sole reason the ‘banks’ are in financial distress, and have been since the mid 90′s, but it’s an important factor. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act wasn’t a good idea either.
    The solution – I stated it above – comment # 61. Will Trump go that far? Nope, I don’t think he has a death wish. The FED can be talked about until hell freezes over, but nothing will be done to change ‘it’ by anyone embedded in the system. The Banksters’ already own ‘most everything’! Most people are nothing more than ‘Debt Slaves’. ‘We’ don’t matter, ‘We’ are just cannon fodder. (In all probability, just a fluke of the universe. – sarc off).

    “Wise men argue causes; fools decide them.” – Anacharsis

    Read More
  121. “Cass Sunstein’s agents”?? You are going way too far. You think you know but you really do not know. W/o a true edit nobody knows. Would you say that Eustace Mullins was cognitive infiltrator? You state your position based on brochures published by the FED. You have no other source for your knowledge. Soften up your position by using phrases like: “I think”, “in my opinion”, “it seems”. W/o them you sound too much like a shill for the FED or a useful idiot who doesn’t know what he knows.

    Unlike you, Richard A Werner tries to establish some fact empirically

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070

    while you take the revealed truth by the FED on its face vale. A bit of humility and skepticism is called for.

    Read More
  122. “Cass Sunstein’s agents”?? You are going way too far.

    I should have put a LOL in there somewhere. I was (a) trying to emphasize the lack of substance to claims that the FED is some kind of Rothschild blood funnel, to use Matt Taibi’s expression, while (b) taking a passing shot at the Obama/Sunstein plan for making nonsense of Internet discussion that embarrasses the elite.

    Soften up your position by using phrases like: “I think”, “in my opinion”, “it seems”.

    No, if I quote the Fed, I quote the Fed, there’s nothing subjective about it. And I was quoting others as well, although I did not state the sources. But here’s one:

    The Fed is required by law to turn over its profits to the Treasury each year, a highly lucrative byproduct of the central bank’s continuing campaign to stimulate economic growth. Source

    Of course, if you think that something I have said is wrong, I am keen to know what, especially if you can cite evidence to support your contention. The fact is, however, that over the years I have researched the question of money creation quite extensively and I doubt very much if you, nsa or anyone else would be able to refute what I have said in outline about the process of money creation.

    Read More
  123. “The Fed is required by law to turn over its profits to the Treasury each year, a highly lucrative byproduct of the central bank’s continuing campaign to stimulate economic growth. ”

    Who calculates the profits? How the profits are defined? What do they include? Can we find info on FED’s annual profits for the last, say 50 years?

    How do you explain the aura of secrecy about the FED?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Who calculates the profits? How the profits are defined? What do they include?
     
    I gave a link above (@ 107) to the Federal Reserves audited financial statements for 2014/15. It's all there unless KPMG are party to a criminal conspiracy to conceal what the Fed actually does. Do you believe that?

    How do you explain the aura of secrecy about the FED?
     
    The Fed seems to be as open to the examination of its actions as any public company. I detect no aura, of secrecy or anything else.
  124. @Anacharsis
    @anonymous

    Watch the following video: 'JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM

    Best explanation I've seen yet. Names all the participants, the organizations and the people.

    By the way, I was 11 years old in 1963, quite a shock to a 5th grader! Remember it well. Always saw holes in the Warren Report, and all the other bs explanations until I watched the above video.

    As far as the FED, get rid of it completely! Arrest all involved on charges of Treason, confiscate all their assets using the Asset Forfeiture laws, declare the Debt as Odious and born of Fraud, therefore being illegally gotten gains, rendering it Null and Void, eliminate Keynesian economics, and return the country to sound money and 'America First' monetary policy. That should do it!
    Yes, Trump should use the military to accomplish the above action against the FED, all the way to 'The City of London' if necessary.
    ef' the FED!

    "Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its powers, but the truth is that the Federal Reserve System has usurped the government. It controls everything in Congress and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will." -- Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency

    As far as the FED, get rid of it completely! Arrest all involved on charges of Treason, confiscate all their assets using the Asset Forfeiture laws, declare the Debt as Odious and born of Fraud, therefore being illegally gotten gains, rendering it Null and Void, eliminate Keynesian economics, and return the country to sound money and ‘America First’ monetary policy. That should do it!
    Yes, Trump should use the military to accomplish the above action against the FED, all the way to ‘The City of London’ if necessary.
    ef’ the FED!

    You should have a word with utu, about making unsubstantiated claims.

    The Fed does what all Western central banks do, many of them state owned, e.g., the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada. It fiddles around with the prime lending rate and the sale or purchase of government bonds with a view to influencing interest rates, the inflation rate and the unemployment rate.

    In fact, it can do nothing much about any of these things, but it absolves the US Government of responsibility when the economy goes to hell, so obviously, neither the Trump nor any other US administration has any good reason to abolish the Fed.

    What the elite don’t like about Trump is his loudly voiced anti-globalism, and America Firstism. If anything gets him shot by a lone wingnut with multiple connections to the CIA, if not the Bush Family, it will be that.

    Read More
  125. @utu
    "The Fed is required by law to turn over its profits to the Treasury each year, a highly lucrative byproduct of the central bank’s continuing campaign to stimulate economic growth. "

    Who calculates the profits? How the profits are defined? What do they include? Can we find info on FED's annual profits for the last, say 50 years?

    How do you explain the aura of secrecy about the FED?

    Who calculates the profits? How the profits are defined? What do they include?

    I gave a link above (@ 107) to the Federal Reserves audited financial statements for 2014/15. It’s all there unless KPMG are party to a criminal conspiracy to conceal what the Fed actually does. Do you believe that?

    How do you explain the aura of secrecy about the FED?

    The Fed seems to be as open to the examination of its actions as any public company. I detect no aura, of secrecy or anything else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I am sure if you were Bernie Madoff investor you would be the last one who got suspicious. I am sure Bernie Madoff statements and brochures looked very convincing and perhaps were printed on better paper than the FED's brochures.

    W/o audit that is being resisted by the whole establishment and by those who propose it are ridiculed in the media as kooks and conspiracy theorist we will not know for sure what is going on there. Certainly the aura of secrecy surrounds the FED. And you for reasons unknown are officially named the Shill of the Year for the FED.

    CanSpeccy is FED SHILL.

    I do not want to offend you. I am not mean. I am logical. The logic does not give me any choice.

  126. Re-reading the Intro to this article, I am struck by the sheer stupidity of it.

    we could see the most powerful central bank in the world transformed into a purely political institution that follows the diktats of one man.

    …. the idea of one man controlling the price of the world’s reserve currency and, thus, the price of financial assets and commodities across the globe, is … disturbing.

    The Fed will be no more under the control of one man during Trump’s tenure as President than it has been under Obama, Bush and all the others. Both Bush and Obama engaged in massive deficit finance and the Fed sucked it all up in the form of Bonds, selling some, but keeping trillions on their own account thus giving rise to massive monetary inflation.

    Had the Fed not monetized Federal Government debt, but instead sold all the Federal paper issued to it by the Treasury in the open market, we’d have seen sky high interest rates and massive unemployment, even by the current fraudulent measure.

    Read More
  127. In reply to CanSpeccy: Thought I hit the reply button, but maybe not. new to this format.

    “The Fed does what all Western central banks do, many of them state owned, e.g., the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada.”

    The Central Banks you list are not state owned. There are only 6 or 7 Central Banks, world wide, that are not part of the ‘City of London’ banking cartel. Those countries, not part of the Ponzi Scheme, are the one being attacked by the ‘Western Powers’. See a connection? One World Order! Control the money (currency), control the people. There are better, more viable and equitable ways to run a Central Bank. Example – North Dakotas’ State Bank.
    Another subject to be exposed along with the workings of the FED, are the CAFRs’ – Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (search for Walter Burien, he explains the CAFRs well). They go hand in hand. Both obfuscate the truth.

    Also watch the following two videos: helps explain things.

    How long has this been going on? ~ 5000 years give or take a couple of thousand years. Everyone that tries to throw out the ‘money changers’ winds up dead, sooner than later (wink, wink) (except Andrew Jackson – not that they didn’t try). It has always been about control and power. Accomplished using Hegelian Dialectic, thesis – antithesis – synthesis, rhetoric and actions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    “The Fed does what all Western central banks do, many of them state owned, e.g., the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada.”

    The Central Banks you list are not state owned...
     

    Um, except that:

    The Bank of England... is the central bank of the United Kingdom and the model on which most modern central banks have been based. Established in 1694 ... to act as the English Government's banker [it now servers as] the banker for the Government of the United Kingdom. The Bank was privately owned by stockholders from its foundation in 1694 until it was nationalised in 1946.

    In 1998, it became an independent public organisation, wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the government, with independence in setting monetary policy.
     

    and this:

    The Bank of Canada, BoC (French: Banque du Canada) is Canada's central bank.The bank was chartered by and under the Bank of Canada Act on July 3, 1934, as a privately owned corporation. In 1938, the bank was legally designated a federal Crown corporation. The Minister of Finance holds the entire share capital issued by the bank. "The capital shall be divided into one hundred thousand shares of the par value of fifty dollars each, which shall be issued to the Minister to be held by the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada."
     
    I concede that Wikipedia may lie about everything in the most blatant and ridiculous way, but I don't believe that is so in the case of its entries on the BoE and the BoC.

    Your sources are both dyed in the wool conspiracy theorists, who do not seem to me to be entirely credible in certain matters. What Really Happens, for instance, although a useful aggregator of miscellaneous political stuff from the Web is a hard line Holcaust denier, which seems to me, not evil, but unrealistic. Griffin, appears to be the fount of conspiracy theories, largely based on the writings of the American historian Carroll Quigley. It's my view, however, Quigley is best taken straight up, not via a paranoid interpreter.

    Concerning the audited financial statements of the Fed to which I linked above (107), it is interesting to note the stupendous operating expenses, including salaries and pensions for over 20,000 employees. Here's a great opportunity for Trump to save the taxpayer real money. He should not fiddle around appointing subservient Fed Governors, he should just shut the thing down, and have the Treasury establish a office of Monetary Affairs staffed by about a dozen people:

    1 Director,
    1 Deputy director,
    1 Supervisor of bond trading
    2 Senior bond traders
    2 Accountants
    4 Bookkeepers
    2 Secretaries

    The saving of salaries, rents, pension contributions, etc., etc., etc. over $6 billion, or enough to build most of that wall.

  128. @CanSpeccy

    Who calculates the profits? How the profits are defined? What do they include?
     
    I gave a link above (@ 107) to the Federal Reserves audited financial statements for 2014/15. It's all there unless KPMG are party to a criminal conspiracy to conceal what the Fed actually does. Do you believe that?

    How do you explain the aura of secrecy about the FED?
     
    The Fed seems to be as open to the examination of its actions as any public company. I detect no aura, of secrecy or anything else.

    I am sure if you were Bernie Madoff investor you would be the last one who got suspicious. I am sure Bernie Madoff statements and brochures looked very convincing and perhaps were printed on better paper than the FED’s brochures.

    W/o audit that is being resisted by the whole establishment and by those who propose it are ridiculed in the media as kooks and conspiracy theorist we will not know for sure what is going on there. Certainly the aura of secrecy surrounds the FED. And you for reasons unknown are officially named the Shill of the Year for the FED.

    CanSpeccy is FED SHILL.

    I do not want to offend you. I am not mean. I am logical. The logic does not give me any choice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    CanSpeccy is FED SHILL.

    I do not want to offend you. I am not mean. I am logical. The logic does not give me any choice.
     

    LOL

    Oh, no offence taken.

    Its a great gig. They pay me by the week.

    Well, with a $2 billion and something Fed payroll, my ten grand a week is a mere drop in the bucket.

    But it suffices for me.

    And all I have to do is ask people if they really believe the Fed auditor, KPMG, is part of a criminal conspiracy to conceal shenanigans at the Fed. Or to insist that Wikipedia is not necessarily lying about ownership of the Bank of England, etc.

    It's easy money really. Especially as none of my questions or statements are realistically challenged.

    And to be quite honest. I actually believe what I say. Especially as none of the Fed conspiracy theorists have any evidence to prove their case, which is presumably that Lord Rothschild, or some other person, most likely a jooie, according to NSA, is scamming America for billions a week by way of an unknown process at the Fed.

    Incidentally, how do you square the notion that I'm a Fed shill with my suggestion that the US Government should wind the Fed up and run the operation via the Treasury?

  129. @Anacharsis
    In reply to CanSpeccy: Thought I hit the reply button, but maybe not. new to this format.

    "The Fed does what all Western central banks do, many of them state owned, e.g., the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada."

    The Central Banks you list are not state owned. There are only 6 or 7 Central Banks, world wide, that are not part of the 'City of London' banking cartel. Those countries, not part of the Ponzi Scheme, are the one being attacked by the 'Western Powers'. See a connection? One World Order! Control the money (currency), control the people. There are better, more viable and equitable ways to run a Central Bank. Example - North Dakotas' State Bank.
    Another subject to be exposed along with the workings of the FED, are the CAFRs' - Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (search for Walter Burien, he explains the CAFRs well). They go hand in hand. Both obfuscate the truth.

    Also watch the following two videos: helps explain things.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_VqX6J93k

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKnF1HEUwuo

    How long has this been going on? ~ 5000 years give or take a couple of thousand years. Everyone that tries to throw out the 'money changers' winds up dead, sooner than later (wink, wink) (except Andrew Jackson - not that they didn't try). It has always been about control and power. Accomplished using Hegelian Dialectic, thesis - antithesis - synthesis, rhetoric and actions.

    “The Fed does what all Western central banks do, many of them state owned, e.g., the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada.”

    The Central Banks you list are not state owned…

    Um, except that:

    The Bank of England… is the central bank of the United Kingdom and the model on which most modern central banks have been based. Established in 1694 … to act as the English Government’s banker [it now servers as] the banker for the Government of the United Kingdom. The Bank was privately owned by stockholders from its foundation in 1694 until it was nationalised in 1946.

    In 1998, it became an independent public organisation, wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the government, with independence in setting monetary policy.

    and this:

    The Bank of Canada, BoC (French: Banque du Canada) is Canada’s central bank.The bank was chartered by and under the Bank of Canada Act on July 3, 1934, as a privately owned corporation. In 1938, the bank was legally designated a federal Crown corporation. The Minister of Finance holds the entire share capital issued by the bank. “The capital shall be divided into one hundred thousand shares of the par value of fifty dollars each, which shall be issued to the Minister to be held by the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada.”

    I concede that Wikipedia may lie about everything in the most blatant and ridiculous way, but I don’t believe that is so in the case of its entries on the BoE and the BoC.

    Your sources are both dyed in the wool conspiracy theorists, who do not seem to me to be entirely credible in certain matters. What Really Happens, for instance, although a useful aggregator of miscellaneous political stuff from the Web is a hard line Holcaust denier, which seems to me, not evil, but unrealistic. Griffin, appears to be the fount of conspiracy theories, largely based on the writings of the American historian Carroll Quigley. It’s my view, however, Quigley is best taken straight up, not via a paranoid interpreter.

    Concerning the audited financial statements of the Fed to which I linked above (107), it is interesting to note the stupendous operating expenses, including salaries and pensions for over 20,000 employees. Here’s a great opportunity for Trump to save the taxpayer real money. He should not fiddle around appointing subservient Fed Governors, he should just shut the thing down, and have the Treasury establish a office of Monetary Affairs staffed by about a dozen people:

    1 Director,
    1 Deputy director,
    1 Supervisor of bond trading
    2 Senior bond traders
    2 Accountants
    4 Bookkeepers
    2 Secretaries

    The saving of salaries, rents, pension contributions, etc., etc., etc. over $6 billion, or enough to build most of that wall.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anacharsis
    Look up who owns the 'City of London', the financial center of the so called 'Free World'. It isn't the UK. Just like the Vatican isn't owned by Italy. They both are autonomous independent entities, not beholding or belonging to any country. The Central Banks of all 'Western Countries' are owned and controlled by the owners of the 'City of London'. The Rothschild's and their Associates/Partners.

    'Conspiracy Theorists' - contrite, outdated, condescending terminology used to discredit anyone whose viewpoint is not aligned with the Mainstream Media/Government/Education System/Religion/... - take your pick. Come up with something original. I don't like the term, it's used by people as a deflection/obfuscation tactic. Present the evidence, in an unbiased manner (as much as possible, it's ok to include your opinions, but as opinions, not as facts), and let the audience decide what's the truth, kind of like a jury does, but without the judge (gatekeeper). Don't restrict the evidence either, I want information from as many sources as possible, let me decide what's right, wrong, indifferent, included, excluded, and so on. Each of us has to find the truth in their own way. Don't use derogatory terms to describe someone, just because their opinion differs from yours. It diminishes what you are saying, makes you appear as a shill. You become easy to dismiss, with prejudice. *Which is a shame, as we seem to have the same goals. Getting rid of the FED. We have arrived at the same destination via different tracks.*
    You try to deflect what Rivero and Griffin have to say about the present 'Banking Cartel' and its history, with BS. Won't work. The FED needs to be ended. Congress had no right to 'give away' (to a Privately Owned Central Banking cartel) their Constitutionally appointed duty to issue and regulate the 'Currency of the US', without interest (usury), through the already established Dept of the Treasury. Congress could 'spend' the money into circulation. No expensive 'Middle Man' needed.

    "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius.

    As far as the Holocaust. I'll leave you with my view point. Why are there laws against investigating the Holocaust? Why are people put in prison for having a different opinion of what happened? If what we have been told, is the truth, what are TPTB so concerned about. Has something been hidden or what? Might it have something to do with Revelation 2:9 - I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. KJ.

    “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself." ― Augustine of Hippo.

    Good Night.

    p.s. Had to repost as a reply, saw your reply (137) to utu. good one. lol Added sentences between the *'s after I read your comment (137). I left the rest of my post the same as before the reposting. No offense intended, just my honest thoughts.
  130. @utu
    I am sure if you were Bernie Madoff investor you would be the last one who got suspicious. I am sure Bernie Madoff statements and brochures looked very convincing and perhaps were printed on better paper than the FED's brochures.

    W/o audit that is being resisted by the whole establishment and by those who propose it are ridiculed in the media as kooks and conspiracy theorist we will not know for sure what is going on there. Certainly the aura of secrecy surrounds the FED. And you for reasons unknown are officially named the Shill of the Year for the FED.

    CanSpeccy is FED SHILL.

    I do not want to offend you. I am not mean. I am logical. The logic does not give me any choice.

    CanSpeccy is FED SHILL.

    I do not want to offend you. I am not mean. I am logical. The logic does not give me any choice.

    LOL

    Oh, no offence taken.

    Its a great gig. They pay me by the week.

    Well, with a $2 billion and something Fed payroll, my ten grand a week is a mere drop in the bucket.

    But it suffices for me.

    And all I have to do is ask people if they really believe the Fed auditor, KPMG, is part of a criminal conspiracy to conceal shenanigans at the Fed. Or to insist that Wikipedia is not necessarily lying about ownership of the Bank of England, etc.

    It’s easy money really. Especially as none of my questions or statements are realistically challenged.

    And to be quite honest. I actually believe what I say. Especially as none of the Fed conspiracy theorists have any evidence to prove their case, which is presumably that Lord Rothschild, or some other person, most likely a jooie, according to NSA, is scamming America for billions a week by way of an unknown process at the Fed.

    Incidentally, how do you square the notion that I’m a Fed shill with my suggestion that the US Government should wind the Fed up and run the operation via the Treasury?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    What do you gain by running the operation via the Treasury? After all according to you the Fed works as advertised.

    By some unwritten rules modern state to be accepted by the world community must have (1) Military under civilian command and (2) Central banking independent of executive branch.

    Who is behind the rule #2? What's its purpose? Why independent central bank was called into existence in Benghazi while the overthrow of Qaddafi was not over yet?

    What is it about gold? Where is it? Why Germany seem to have problems repatriating their gold?

    I do not see any need for gold in currency creation. I agree with Zarlenga and Bill Still.

    I can see interest rate to be used as a tool for cooling and warming up economy but I believe that all profits from interest rate by lenders should be confiscated by government ( a tax). If as a bank you create money out of nothing why should you profit from the interest? Yes there is a cost associate but interest can be added as a tax to control the speed of growth of economy. Money should be just a tool for making business and making economy run. W/o interest we would not have all the secondary and tertiary markets dealing in paper and all manipulation and speculation. W/o we would eliminate the most parasitic class, i.e., the financiers... Ideally money should be like roads and railways that we use to do things but we do not have them for the sake of having them.
  131. @E. A. Costa
    Banks started going fully retail in the 80's, which means they sell their paper (your loan) as quickly as possible. After Clinton, with the financials in banking in a big way, they could bundle all these mortages, of whatever quality, and sell them off as investments.

    There are a few community banks left that survive mostly their own paper but not many.

    Anyway, unless the bank has your paper they lose nothing--they have already sold it off.

    Banks that have their own paper do not want their borrowers to default. Banks that sell it off don't give a rat's ass what happens to the loan--they have already made their gains.

    Most borrowers are quite surprised to learn, soon after signing on the dotted line, that they are not paying the bank they borrowed from.

    Bundles are low quality crap, including mortgages, that were--just for one example--sold off, often under the advert "enhanced" to Europe, especially immediately after August 2008.

    All this is just scratching the surface--there is the whole story of risk modeling, for example, that remains untold and unknown to most.

    You make a very important statement here Costa:
    Banks started going fully retail in the 80′s, which means they sell their paper (your loan) as quickly as possible.
    I did make a couple loans as a younster, and I remember that the bank held the paper,then, later on, another loan I found out, had been sold, not in the bank anymore.

    ”They sell paper don’t they!”… I wondered how that works… selling the paper.

    But Hell!, have we learned what ever did happen to all the Robot written loan securtizations… REMs? that went dark.

    Read More
  132. @CanSpeccy

    CanSpeccy is FED SHILL.

    I do not want to offend you. I am not mean. I am logical. The logic does not give me any choice.
     

    LOL

    Oh, no offence taken.

    Its a great gig. They pay me by the week.

    Well, with a $2 billion and something Fed payroll, my ten grand a week is a mere drop in the bucket.

    But it suffices for me.

    And all I have to do is ask people if they really believe the Fed auditor, KPMG, is part of a criminal conspiracy to conceal shenanigans at the Fed. Or to insist that Wikipedia is not necessarily lying about ownership of the Bank of England, etc.

    It's easy money really. Especially as none of my questions or statements are realistically challenged.

    And to be quite honest. I actually believe what I say. Especially as none of the Fed conspiracy theorists have any evidence to prove their case, which is presumably that Lord Rothschild, or some other person, most likely a jooie, according to NSA, is scamming America for billions a week by way of an unknown process at the Fed.

    Incidentally, how do you square the notion that I'm a Fed shill with my suggestion that the US Government should wind the Fed up and run the operation via the Treasury?

    What do you gain by running the operation via the Treasury? After all according to you the Fed works as advertised.

    By some unwritten rules modern state to be accepted by the world community must have (1) Military under civilian command and (2) Central banking independent of executive branch.

    Who is behind the rule #2? What’s its purpose? Why independent central bank was called into existence in Benghazi while the overthrow of Qaddafi was not over yet?

    What is it about gold? Where is it? Why Germany seem to have problems repatriating their gold?

    I do not see any need for gold in currency creation. I agree with Zarlenga and Bill Still.

    I can see interest rate to be used as a tool for cooling and warming up economy but I believe that all profits from interest rate by lenders should be confiscated by government ( a tax). If as a bank you create money out of nothing why should you profit from the interest? Yes there is a cost associate but interest can be added as a tax to control the speed of growth of economy. Money should be just a tool for making business and making economy run. W/o interest we would not have all the secondary and tertiary markets dealing in paper and all manipulation and speculation. W/o we would eliminate the most parasitic class, i.e., the financiers… Ideally money should be like roads and railways that we use to do things but we do not have them for the sake of having them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Wow. Some of life's deep unanswered questions.

    But why run the central bank out of the Treasury? That's easy. You could save about $6 billion in operating expenses by firing the Fed's twenty something thousand drones, and replacing them with a good programmer, a couple of bond traders, a bookkeeper, and a girl to make the coffee.

    I have worked with programmers who could, in a few months, automate whatever the Fed usefully does. Sure they market trillions in bonds, but that's not like selling fish. Bonds don't need refrigeration, weight nothing, and can be stored in a computer file. All the rest is just window dressing. A dozen old farts deliberating for months on end whether to raise or lower interest rates by a quarter of a point, as if they knew or cared what the consequence would be, other than for their own stock portfolio.

    According to the KPMG audit, the Fed has operating expenses of over $6 billion. That's ridiculous and absolutely normal for a publicly funded operation, especially one that no one understands.

    To appreciate how public or quasi-public agencies such as the Fed piss away money you have to work for one of them. In a career encompassing well over a dozen jobs plus decades of self-employment, I was a civil servant with three governments.

    All the government agencies I worked for were astoundingly overmanned and stupendously inefficient, and indeed seemed chiefly committed to the task of wealth destruction, the wealth of the public, that is.

    The Brits got it about right in the BBC sitcom Yes Minister, a deeply serious dramatization of the futility of government.


    By some unwritten rules modern state to be accepted by the world community must have... independent central banking
     
    Yes, tradition justify a multitude of sins, outright crimes and lunatic assumptions. I once discussed some obviously scandalous and stupendous waste of public resources with the head of a government department and he responded that the present way was in accordance "with the tradition of the country."

    There you are. America flushes money down the drain at the Pentagon, the State Department, the Fed, because that's what's always been done and the people running the show certainly have no intention of giving up now.


    Why independent central bank was called into existence in Benghazi while the overthrow of Qaddafi was not over yet?
     
    That's a tricky one. Before Qaddafi was murdered with a bayonet up his arse to the evident delight of Hillary Clinton, Libya was the most prosperous country in Africa, and served as a bulwark against what was later to become a flood of "refugees" from Africa to Europe. What role Libya's new central bank played in this process, I have no idea, but it probably was not a noble one.

    What is it about gold? Where is it? Why Germany seem to have problems repatriating their gold?
     
    The thing about gold is you cannot print it. Hence it's relatively inflation proof, although new mining techniques, the discovery of South America's gold mines and the invention of paper known as gold certificates means that a gold based currency is not inflation proof. What is inflation proof (well not quite) is a currency based on the cardinal numbers, as I have explained elsewhere.

    Why the Germans can't get their gold back from the US, I don't know. Maybe the US Government flogged it off years ago and just don't have it any more.


    I believe that all profits from interest rate by lenders should be confiscated by government ( a tax).
     
    But then no one would lend anybody their money. Maybe that would be a good thing, but it needs thinking through. You realize that without usury the US economy would shrink to essentially nothing. No car loans, no car sales. Young adults would no longer be in a position to buy a house, so they'd have to live in a shack or their parents basement until they had saved enough to pay the full price of a house. There are lots of other cases one can think of where an end to usury would totally change our way of life. Whether the net effect would be good or bad, I'm not sure.

    The normal justification for the charging of interest is, of course, that the lender is being compensated for the opportunity cost, i.e., the income he might otherwise receive by investing the money.

  133. @CanSpeccy

    “The Fed does what all Western central banks do, many of them state owned, e.g., the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada.”

    The Central Banks you list are not state owned...
     

    Um, except that:

    The Bank of England... is the central bank of the United Kingdom and the model on which most modern central banks have been based. Established in 1694 ... to act as the English Government's banker [it now servers as] the banker for the Government of the United Kingdom. The Bank was privately owned by stockholders from its foundation in 1694 until it was nationalised in 1946.

    In 1998, it became an independent public organisation, wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the government, with independence in setting monetary policy.
     

    and this:

    The Bank of Canada, BoC (French: Banque du Canada) is Canada's central bank.The bank was chartered by and under the Bank of Canada Act on July 3, 1934, as a privately owned corporation. In 1938, the bank was legally designated a federal Crown corporation. The Minister of Finance holds the entire share capital issued by the bank. "The capital shall be divided into one hundred thousand shares of the par value of fifty dollars each, which shall be issued to the Minister to be held by the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada."
     
    I concede that Wikipedia may lie about everything in the most blatant and ridiculous way, but I don't believe that is so in the case of its entries on the BoE and the BoC.

    Your sources are both dyed in the wool conspiracy theorists, who do not seem to me to be entirely credible in certain matters. What Really Happens, for instance, although a useful aggregator of miscellaneous political stuff from the Web is a hard line Holcaust denier, which seems to me, not evil, but unrealistic. Griffin, appears to be the fount of conspiracy theories, largely based on the writings of the American historian Carroll Quigley. It's my view, however, Quigley is best taken straight up, not via a paranoid interpreter.

    Concerning the audited financial statements of the Fed to which I linked above (107), it is interesting to note the stupendous operating expenses, including salaries and pensions for over 20,000 employees. Here's a great opportunity for Trump to save the taxpayer real money. He should not fiddle around appointing subservient Fed Governors, he should just shut the thing down, and have the Treasury establish a office of Monetary Affairs staffed by about a dozen people:

    1 Director,
    1 Deputy director,
    1 Supervisor of bond trading
    2 Senior bond traders
    2 Accountants
    4 Bookkeepers
    2 Secretaries

    The saving of salaries, rents, pension contributions, etc., etc., etc. over $6 billion, or enough to build most of that wall.

    Look up who owns the ‘City of London’, the financial center of the so called ‘Free World’. It isn’t the UK. Just like the Vatican isn’t owned by Italy. They both are autonomous independent entities, not beholding or belonging to any country. The Central Banks of all ‘Western Countries’ are owned and controlled by the owners of the ‘City of London’. The Rothschild’s and their Associates/Partners.

    ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ – contrite, outdated, condescending terminology used to discredit anyone whose viewpoint is not aligned with the Mainstream Media/Government/Education System/Religion/… – take your pick. Come up with something original. I don’t like the term, it’s used by people as a deflection/obfuscation tactic. Present the evidence, in an unbiased manner (as much as possible, it’s ok to include your opinions, but as opinions, not as facts), and let the audience decide what’s the truth, kind of like a jury does, but without the judge (gatekeeper). Don’t restrict the evidence either, I want information from as many sources as possible, let me decide what’s right, wrong, indifferent, included, excluded, and so on. Each of us has to find the truth in their own way. Don’t use derogatory terms to describe someone, just because their opinion differs from yours. It diminishes what you are saying, makes you appear as a shill. You become easy to dismiss, with prejudice. *Which is a shame, as we seem to have the same goals. Getting rid of the FED. We have arrived at the same destination via different tracks.*
    You try to deflect what Rivero and Griffin have to say about the present ‘Banking Cartel’ and its history, with BS. Won’t work. The FED needs to be ended. Congress had no right to ‘give away’ (to a Privately Owned Central Banking cartel) their Constitutionally appointed duty to issue and regulate the ‘Currency of the US’, without interest (usury), through the already established Dept of the Treasury. Congress could ‘spend’ the money into circulation. No expensive ‘Middle Man’ needed.

    “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” – Marcus Aurelius.

    As far as the Holocaust. I’ll leave you with my view point. Why are there laws against investigating the Holocaust? Why are people put in prison for having a different opinion of what happened? If what we have been told, is the truth, what are TPTB so concerned about. Has something been hidden or what? Might it have something to do with Revelation 2:9 – I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. KJ.

    “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.” ― Augustine of Hippo.

    Good Night.

    p.s. Had to repost as a reply, saw your reply (137) to utu. good one. lol Added sentences between the *’s after I read your comment (137). I left the rest of my post the same as before the reposting. No offense intended, just my honest thoughts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Look up who owns the ‘City of London’, the financial center of the so called ‘Free World’. It isn’t the UK. Just like the Vatican isn’t owned by Italy. They both are autonomous independent entities, not beholding or belonging to any country.
     
    I haven't researched the legal status of the City of London, but it seems to me that, in life-time's fairly wide reading of English history, economics, etc., I'd have come across it if there is good evidence that the City of London is not bound, for the most part, by British law. Mostly, I suspect that the City of London is all about people dressing up funny to engage in ancient ceremonies, plus no doubt, some privileges for some insiders. That, at least is the implication of the account provided here.

    The FED needs to be ended.
     
    I agree, that would be a good thing, since it could save enough each year, in wasted bureaucratic expenditure to build the Wall.

    “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” – Marcus Aurelius.
     
    Yes, old Marcus might have made a decent epistemologist if subjected to the discipline of peer review. I'd question his claim that "everything we hear is opinion, not a fact." If I say "the Earth is an oblate sphere," that is my opinion, but it may also be a fact.

    Why are there laws against investigating the Holocaust? Why are people put in prison for having a different opinion of what happened?
     
    Those questions are easy to answer. The Holocaust must be kept front and center in the public mind and identified as the greatest crime in the history of the universe, in order to justify Israel's slo-mo and seemingly incompetent ethnic cleansing of Palestine. But that doesn't mean that (a) Hitler didn't hate Jews, (b) Hitler didn't believed in genocide as a way to make room for more Germans, and (c) Hitler's armed forces and other agents didn't millions of people in multiple ways, including Jews, Poles, Belorussians, Russians, Ukrainians, etc. Obviously the number of Jews murdered was not exactly six million and may have been a million or two less, but there seems little doubt that Hitler set out to eliminate them from throughout German controlled territory. That is why I think Holocaust denial is unrealistic.

    As for:


    “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.” ― Augustine of Hippo.
     
    That guy was some optimist.

    My hasty but honest thoughts in response to yours.

  134. @utu
    What do you gain by running the operation via the Treasury? After all according to you the Fed works as advertised.

    By some unwritten rules modern state to be accepted by the world community must have (1) Military under civilian command and (2) Central banking independent of executive branch.

    Who is behind the rule #2? What's its purpose? Why independent central bank was called into existence in Benghazi while the overthrow of Qaddafi was not over yet?

    What is it about gold? Where is it? Why Germany seem to have problems repatriating their gold?

    I do not see any need for gold in currency creation. I agree with Zarlenga and Bill Still.

    I can see interest rate to be used as a tool for cooling and warming up economy but I believe that all profits from interest rate by lenders should be confiscated by government ( a tax). If as a bank you create money out of nothing why should you profit from the interest? Yes there is a cost associate but interest can be added as a tax to control the speed of growth of economy. Money should be just a tool for making business and making economy run. W/o interest we would not have all the secondary and tertiary markets dealing in paper and all manipulation and speculation. W/o we would eliminate the most parasitic class, i.e., the financiers... Ideally money should be like roads and railways that we use to do things but we do not have them for the sake of having them.

    Wow. Some of life’s deep unanswered questions.

    But why run the central bank out of the Treasury? That’s easy. You could save about $6 billion in operating expenses by firing the Fed’s twenty something thousand drones, and replacing them with a good programmer, a couple of bond traders, a bookkeeper, and a girl to make the coffee.

    I have worked with programmers who could, in a few months, automate whatever the Fed usefully does. Sure they market trillions in bonds, but that’s not like selling fish. Bonds don’t need refrigeration, weight nothing, and can be stored in a computer file. All the rest is just window dressing. A dozen old farts deliberating for months on end whether to raise or lower interest rates by a quarter of a point, as if they knew or cared what the consequence would be, other than for their own stock portfolio.

    According to the KPMG audit, the Fed has operating expenses of over $6 billion. That’s ridiculous and absolutely normal for a publicly funded operation, especially one that no one understands.

    To appreciate how public or quasi-public agencies such as the Fed piss away money you have to work for one of them. In a career encompassing well over a dozen jobs plus decades of self-employment, I was a civil servant with three governments.

    All the government agencies I worked for were astoundingly overmanned and stupendously inefficient, and indeed seemed chiefly committed to the task of wealth destruction, the wealth of the public, that is.

    The Brits got it about right in the BBC sitcom Yes Minister, a deeply serious dramatization of the futility of government.

    By some unwritten rules modern state to be accepted by the world community must have… independent central banking

    Yes, tradition justify a multitude of sins, outright crimes and lunatic assumptions. I once discussed some obviously scandalous and stupendous waste of public resources with the head of a government department and he responded that the present way was in accordance “with the tradition of the country.”

    There you are. America flushes money down the drain at the Pentagon, the State Department, the Fed, because that’s what’s always been done and the people running the show certainly have no intention of giving up now.

    Why independent central bank was called into existence in Benghazi while the overthrow of Qaddafi was not over yet?

    That’s a tricky one. Before Qaddafi was murdered with a bayonet up his arse to the evident delight of Hillary Clinton, Libya was the most prosperous country in Africa, and served as a bulwark against what was later to become a flood of “refugees” from Africa to Europe. What role Libya’s new central bank played in this process, I have no idea, but it probably was not a noble one.

    What is it about gold? Where is it? Why Germany seem to have problems repatriating their gold?

    The thing about gold is you cannot print it. Hence it’s relatively inflation proof, although new mining techniques, the discovery of South America’s gold mines and the invention of paper known as gold certificates means that a gold based currency is not inflation proof. What is inflation proof (well not quite) is a currency based on the cardinal numbers, as I have explained elsewhere.

    Why the Germans can’t get their gold back from the US, I don’t know. Maybe the US Government flogged it off years ago and just don’t have it any more.

    I believe that all profits from interest rate by lenders should be confiscated by government ( a tax).

    But then no one would lend anybody their money. Maybe that would be a good thing, but it needs thinking through. You realize that without usury the US economy would shrink to essentially nothing. No car loans, no car sales. Young adults would no longer be in a position to buy a house, so they’d have to live in a shack or their parents basement until they had saved enough to pay the full price of a house. There are lots of other cases one can think of where an end to usury would totally change our way of life. Whether the net effect would be good or bad, I’m not sure.

    The normal justification for the charging of interest is, of course, that the lender is being compensated for the opportunity cost, i.e., the income he might otherwise receive by investing the money.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    The "independent" central bank set up in Libya following the murder of Qadaffi maybe had a role in determining the fate of Libya's then hoard of 143 tons of gold. Where it went, no one seems to know.
  135. @Anacharsis
    Look up who owns the 'City of London', the financial center of the so called 'Free World'. It isn't the UK. Just like the Vatican isn't owned by Italy. They both are autonomous independent entities, not beholding or belonging to any country. The Central Banks of all 'Western Countries' are owned and controlled by the owners of the 'City of London'. The Rothschild's and their Associates/Partners.

    'Conspiracy Theorists' - contrite, outdated, condescending terminology used to discredit anyone whose viewpoint is not aligned with the Mainstream Media/Government/Education System/Religion/... - take your pick. Come up with something original. I don't like the term, it's used by people as a deflection/obfuscation tactic. Present the evidence, in an unbiased manner (as much as possible, it's ok to include your opinions, but as opinions, not as facts), and let the audience decide what's the truth, kind of like a jury does, but without the judge (gatekeeper). Don't restrict the evidence either, I want information from as many sources as possible, let me decide what's right, wrong, indifferent, included, excluded, and so on. Each of us has to find the truth in their own way. Don't use derogatory terms to describe someone, just because their opinion differs from yours. It diminishes what you are saying, makes you appear as a shill. You become easy to dismiss, with prejudice. *Which is a shame, as we seem to have the same goals. Getting rid of the FED. We have arrived at the same destination via different tracks.*
    You try to deflect what Rivero and Griffin have to say about the present 'Banking Cartel' and its history, with BS. Won't work. The FED needs to be ended. Congress had no right to 'give away' (to a Privately Owned Central Banking cartel) their Constitutionally appointed duty to issue and regulate the 'Currency of the US', without interest (usury), through the already established Dept of the Treasury. Congress could 'spend' the money into circulation. No expensive 'Middle Man' needed.

    "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius.

    As far as the Holocaust. I'll leave you with my view point. Why are there laws against investigating the Holocaust? Why are people put in prison for having a different opinion of what happened? If what we have been told, is the truth, what are TPTB so concerned about. Has something been hidden or what? Might it have something to do with Revelation 2:9 - I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. KJ.

    “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself." ― Augustine of Hippo.

    Good Night.

    p.s. Had to repost as a reply, saw your reply (137) to utu. good one. lol Added sentences between the *'s after I read your comment (137). I left the rest of my post the same as before the reposting. No offense intended, just my honest thoughts.

    Look up who owns the ‘City of London’, the financial center of the so called ‘Free World’. It isn’t the UK. Just like the Vatican isn’t owned by Italy. They both are autonomous independent entities, not beholding or belonging to any country.

    I haven’t researched the legal status of the City of London, but it seems to me that, in life-time’s fairly wide reading of English history, economics, etc., I’d have come across it if there is good evidence that the City of London is not bound, for the most part, by British law. Mostly, I suspect that the City of London is all about people dressing up funny to engage in ancient ceremonies, plus no doubt, some privileges for some insiders. That, at least is the implication of the account provided here.

    The FED needs to be ended.

    I agree, that would be a good thing, since it could save enough each year, in wasted bureaucratic expenditure to build the Wall.

    “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” – Marcus Aurelius.

    Yes, old Marcus might have made a decent epistemologist if subjected to the discipline of peer review. I’d question his claim that “everything we hear is opinion, not a fact.” If I say “the Earth is an oblate sphere,” that is my opinion, but it may also be a fact.

    Why are there laws against investigating the Holocaust? Why are people put in prison for having a different opinion of what happened?

    Those questions are easy to answer. The Holocaust must be kept front and center in the public mind and identified as the greatest crime in the history of the universe, in order to justify Israel’s slo-mo and seemingly incompetent ethnic cleansing of Palestine. But that doesn’t mean that (a) Hitler didn’t hate Jews, (b) Hitler didn’t believed in genocide as a way to make room for more Germans, and (c) Hitler’s armed forces and other agents didn’t millions of people in multiple ways, including Jews, Poles, Belorussians, Russians, Ukrainians, etc. Obviously the number of Jews murdered was not exactly six million and may have been a million or two less, but there seems little doubt that Hitler set out to eliminate them from throughout German controlled territory. That is why I think Holocaust denial is unrealistic.

    As for:

    “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.” ― Augustine of Hippo.

    That guy was some optimist.

    My hasty but honest thoughts in response to yours.

    Read More
  136. @CanSpeccy
    Wow. Some of life's deep unanswered questions.

    But why run the central bank out of the Treasury? That's easy. You could save about $6 billion in operating expenses by firing the Fed's twenty something thousand drones, and replacing them with a good programmer, a couple of bond traders, a bookkeeper, and a girl to make the coffee.

    I have worked with programmers who could, in a few months, automate whatever the Fed usefully does. Sure they market trillions in bonds, but that's not like selling fish. Bonds don't need refrigeration, weight nothing, and can be stored in a computer file. All the rest is just window dressing. A dozen old farts deliberating for months on end whether to raise or lower interest rates by a quarter of a point, as if they knew or cared what the consequence would be, other than for their own stock portfolio.

    According to the KPMG audit, the Fed has operating expenses of over $6 billion. That's ridiculous and absolutely normal for a publicly funded operation, especially one that no one understands.

    To appreciate how public or quasi-public agencies such as the Fed piss away money you have to work for one of them. In a career encompassing well over a dozen jobs plus decades of self-employment, I was a civil servant with three governments.

    All the government agencies I worked for were astoundingly overmanned and stupendously inefficient, and indeed seemed chiefly committed to the task of wealth destruction, the wealth of the public, that is.

    The Brits got it about right in the BBC sitcom Yes Minister, a deeply serious dramatization of the futility of government.


    By some unwritten rules modern state to be accepted by the world community must have... independent central banking
     
    Yes, tradition justify a multitude of sins, outright crimes and lunatic assumptions. I once discussed some obviously scandalous and stupendous waste of public resources with the head of a government department and he responded that the present way was in accordance "with the tradition of the country."

    There you are. America flushes money down the drain at the Pentagon, the State Department, the Fed, because that's what's always been done and the people running the show certainly have no intention of giving up now.


    Why independent central bank was called into existence in Benghazi while the overthrow of Qaddafi was not over yet?
     
    That's a tricky one. Before Qaddafi was murdered with a bayonet up his arse to the evident delight of Hillary Clinton, Libya was the most prosperous country in Africa, and served as a bulwark against what was later to become a flood of "refugees" from Africa to Europe. What role Libya's new central bank played in this process, I have no idea, but it probably was not a noble one.

    What is it about gold? Where is it? Why Germany seem to have problems repatriating their gold?
     
    The thing about gold is you cannot print it. Hence it's relatively inflation proof, although new mining techniques, the discovery of South America's gold mines and the invention of paper known as gold certificates means that a gold based currency is not inflation proof. What is inflation proof (well not quite) is a currency based on the cardinal numbers, as I have explained elsewhere.

    Why the Germans can't get their gold back from the US, I don't know. Maybe the US Government flogged it off years ago and just don't have it any more.


    I believe that all profits from interest rate by lenders should be confiscated by government ( a tax).
     
    But then no one would lend anybody their money. Maybe that would be a good thing, but it needs thinking through. You realize that without usury the US economy would shrink to essentially nothing. No car loans, no car sales. Young adults would no longer be in a position to buy a house, so they'd have to live in a shack or their parents basement until they had saved enough to pay the full price of a house. There are lots of other cases one can think of where an end to usury would totally change our way of life. Whether the net effect would be good or bad, I'm not sure.

    The normal justification for the charging of interest is, of course, that the lender is being compensated for the opportunity cost, i.e., the income he might otherwise receive by investing the money.

    The “independent” central bank set up in Libya following the murder of Qadaffi maybe had a role in determining the fate of Libya’s then hoard of 143 tons of gold. Where it went, no one seems to know.

    Read More
  137. The Fed is an autonomous, independent entity and unless the legislators finish it by law, something not likely to happen, the only option left is that the Fed self destroys; and this is precisely what is going to happen.
    The power the Fed has is the unrestrained and unlimited creation of Fed notes, aka dollars. The consequence of this is twofold: deflation of all debt instruments and inflation of goods and services, first steadily and then total, sudden collapse: depression and hyper-inflation. The later sets in suddenly, precipitously and rapidly and means the total repudiation of Fed notes. When nobody wants dollars because they have become worthless, the Fed is finished because its power (printing dollars), has come to an end and so the Fed has buried itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    What happened to the H? Was Hapax legomena already taken? Well, true enough, when the Unitedstatesian Federal Reserve ends, by whatever means, it will only occur once.
    , @CanSpeccy

    The power the Fed has is the unrestrained and unlimited creation of Fed notes, aka dollars.
     
    I don't believe that is correct in reality whatever may be the theory. The Fed can create money directly by (1) purchasing newly issued Treasury paper or (2) pre-existing Treasury paper or other assets in the open market.

    These actions are limited, in the first case, by the funding requirements of the Federal Government, and in the second case, by the availability of suitable assets for purchase. While the Fed might, in theory, buy the entire stock market or every pre-existent Treasury bond or bill, in reality the scope for such purchases is limited by the effect of large-scale Fed action on market prices. For example, if the Fed went out to purchase all outstanding Treasury paper, it would in the process bid up the price in a way that would severely distort the market with serious negative consequences for the credibility of the Fed.

    In addition, the Fed can increase the money supply indirectly either by altering bank reserve requirements or by making loans to commercial banks to boost their reserves and hence the amount of money they can create through the issue of loans. However, the commercial banks likely always lend as much as they think will be repaid, so Fed actions affecting bank reserves or reserve requirements is not likely a major factor determining the money supply.

    In any case, any extreme action by the Fed would be in contravention of its mandate under the Federal Reserve Act, which requires it to pursue policies that generate "maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." In fact, this is what the Fed seems to aim at doing insofar as that is possible with the limited tools at its disposal.

    As the US dollar continually rises in value relative to the Euro, Yen, Yan, etc., the inflationary destruction that you anticipate does not appear to be imminent.
  138. @Apaxlegomena
    The Fed is an autonomous, independent entity and unless the legislators finish it by law, something not likely to happen, the only option left is that the Fed self destroys; and this is precisely what is going to happen.
    The power the Fed has is the unrestrained and unlimited creation of Fed notes, aka dollars. The consequence of this is twofold: deflation of all debt instruments and inflation of goods and services, first steadily and then total, sudden collapse: depression and hyper-inflation. The later sets in suddenly, precipitously and rapidly and means the total repudiation of Fed notes. When nobody wants dollars because they have become worthless, the Fed is finished because its power (printing dollars), has come to an end and so the Fed has buried itself.

    What happened to the H? Was Hapax legomena already taken? Well, true enough, when the Unitedstatesian Federal Reserve ends, by whatever means, it will only occur once.

    Read More
  139. @Apaxlegomena
    The Fed is an autonomous, independent entity and unless the legislators finish it by law, something not likely to happen, the only option left is that the Fed self destroys; and this is precisely what is going to happen.
    The power the Fed has is the unrestrained and unlimited creation of Fed notes, aka dollars. The consequence of this is twofold: deflation of all debt instruments and inflation of goods and services, first steadily and then total, sudden collapse: depression and hyper-inflation. The later sets in suddenly, precipitously and rapidly and means the total repudiation of Fed notes. When nobody wants dollars because they have become worthless, the Fed is finished because its power (printing dollars), has come to an end and so the Fed has buried itself.

    The power the Fed has is the unrestrained and unlimited creation of Fed notes, aka dollars.

    I don’t believe that is correct in reality whatever may be the theory. The Fed can create money directly by (1) purchasing newly issued Treasury paper or (2) pre-existing Treasury paper or other assets in the open market.

    These actions are limited, in the first case, by the funding requirements of the Federal Government, and in the second case, by the availability of suitable assets for purchase. While the Fed might, in theory, buy the entire stock market or every pre-existent Treasury bond or bill, in reality the scope for such purchases is limited by the effect of large-scale Fed action on market prices. For example, if the Fed went out to purchase all outstanding Treasury paper, it would in the process bid up the price in a way that would severely distort the market with serious negative consequences for the credibility of the Fed.

    In addition, the Fed can increase the money supply indirectly either by altering bank reserve requirements or by making loans to commercial banks to boost their reserves and hence the amount of money they can create through the issue of loans. However, the commercial banks likely always lend as much as they think will be repaid, so Fed actions affecting bank reserves or reserve requirements is not likely a major factor determining the money supply.

    In any case, any extreme action by the Fed would be in contravention of its mandate under the Federal Reserve Act, which requires it to pursue policies that generate “maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” In fact, this is what the Fed seems to aim at doing insofar as that is possible with the limited tools at its disposal.

    As the US dollar continually rises in value relative to the Euro, Yen, Yan, etc., the inflationary destruction that you anticipate does not appear to be imminent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    "In any case, any extreme action by the Fed would be in contravention of its mandate under the Federal Reserve Act, which requires it to pursue policies that generate 'maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.'”

    Have you considered stand-up comedy?
  140. @Bill Jones
    30 odd years of un-elected Jews were not enough, apparently.

    And
    Those Were some
    Pretty Odd Years.

    And some
    Pretty odd
    Jews.

    Read More
  141. @CanSpeccy

    The power the Fed has is the unrestrained and unlimited creation of Fed notes, aka dollars.
     
    I don't believe that is correct in reality whatever may be the theory. The Fed can create money directly by (1) purchasing newly issued Treasury paper or (2) pre-existing Treasury paper or other assets in the open market.

    These actions are limited, in the first case, by the funding requirements of the Federal Government, and in the second case, by the availability of suitable assets for purchase. While the Fed might, in theory, buy the entire stock market or every pre-existent Treasury bond or bill, in reality the scope for such purchases is limited by the effect of large-scale Fed action on market prices. For example, if the Fed went out to purchase all outstanding Treasury paper, it would in the process bid up the price in a way that would severely distort the market with serious negative consequences for the credibility of the Fed.

    In addition, the Fed can increase the money supply indirectly either by altering bank reserve requirements or by making loans to commercial banks to boost their reserves and hence the amount of money they can create through the issue of loans. However, the commercial banks likely always lend as much as they think will be repaid, so Fed actions affecting bank reserves or reserve requirements is not likely a major factor determining the money supply.

    In any case, any extreme action by the Fed would be in contravention of its mandate under the Federal Reserve Act, which requires it to pursue policies that generate "maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." In fact, this is what the Fed seems to aim at doing insofar as that is possible with the limited tools at its disposal.

    As the US dollar continually rises in value relative to the Euro, Yen, Yan, etc., the inflationary destruction that you anticipate does not appear to be imminent.

    “In any case, any extreme action by the Fed would be in contravention of its mandate under the Federal Reserve Act, which requires it to pursue policies that generate ‘maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.’”

    Have you considered stand-up comedy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    I said, with respect to the Fed's mandate, " insofar as that is possible with the limited tools at its disposal."

    And what more can the Fed do to achieve "maximum employment," but print money and keep interest rates at near zero, at a time when jobs, and the associated capital and technology have been relocated wholesale to low-wage foreign jurisdictions, while the US Government invites unlimited illegal immigration of people willing to work in the untaxed, below-minimum-wage black economy, thereby denying American citizens much of what work remains in America.

    Yet you imply that the Fed's actions in recent years have been extreme. Perhaps you would explain in what way.

  142. @E. A. Costa
    "In any case, any extreme action by the Fed would be in contravention of its mandate under the Federal Reserve Act, which requires it to pursue policies that generate 'maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.'”

    Have you considered stand-up comedy?

    I said, with respect to the Fed’s mandate, ” insofar as that is possible with the limited tools at its disposal.”

    And what more can the Fed do to achieve “maximum employment,” but print money and keep interest rates at near zero, at a time when jobs, and the associated capital and technology have been relocated wholesale to low-wage foreign jurisdictions, while the US Government invites unlimited illegal immigration of people willing to work in the untaxed, below-minimum-wage black economy, thereby denying American citizens much of what work remains in America.

    Yet you imply that the Fed’s actions in recent years have been extreme. Perhaps you would explain in what way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    In lieu of a detailed discussion, which one has no interest in presenting here, BAILOUT will suffice.

    But it is important to note that that includes what led up to BAILOUT and what followed it.

    A detailed discussion would range from the errand boy Greenspan (he was just following orders) through to the first years of Clinton, then on to the circuses of Bush and Obama.
  143. @CanSpeccy
    I said, with respect to the Fed's mandate, " insofar as that is possible with the limited tools at its disposal."

    And what more can the Fed do to achieve "maximum employment," but print money and keep interest rates at near zero, at a time when jobs, and the associated capital and technology have been relocated wholesale to low-wage foreign jurisdictions, while the US Government invites unlimited illegal immigration of people willing to work in the untaxed, below-minimum-wage black economy, thereby denying American citizens much of what work remains in America.

    Yet you imply that the Fed's actions in recent years have been extreme. Perhaps you would explain in what way.

    In lieu of a detailed discussion, which one has no interest in presenting here, BAILOUT will suffice.

    But it is important to note that that includes what led up to BAILOUT and what followed it.

    A detailed discussion would range from the errand boy Greenspan (he was just following orders) through to the first years of Clinton, then on to the circuses of Bush and Obama.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Bailout!

    LOL

    After the crash of '29, it became the unanimous view of the economic luminaries of academia that the Fed failed by failing to bailout the banks, and thus prevent the runs, bank closures, and consequent client bankruptcies.

    But no we are to understand that in 2008 the Fed failed because it did bailout the banks that would otherwise have taken the economy down with them.

    Some people are never satisfied.
  144. @E. A. Costa
    In lieu of a detailed discussion, which one has no interest in presenting here, BAILOUT will suffice.

    But it is important to note that that includes what led up to BAILOUT and what followed it.

    A detailed discussion would range from the errand boy Greenspan (he was just following orders) through to the first years of Clinton, then on to the circuses of Bush and Obama.

    Bailout!

    LOL

    After the crash of ’29, it became the unanimous view of the economic luminaries of academia that the Fed failed by failing to bailout the banks, and thus prevent the runs, bank closures, and consequent client bankruptcies.

    But no we are to understand that in 2008 the Fed failed because it did bailout the banks that would otherwise have taken the economy down with them.

    Some people are never satisfied.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    No one said a word about whether there should have been a bailout or not. Bailout qualifies as one of your exteme policies, in fact a ''tool", isn't it?

    You are both an apologist and a fool.

    Definitely make a stab at professional comedy.

  145. @CanSpeccy
    Bailout!

    LOL

    After the crash of '29, it became the unanimous view of the economic luminaries of academia that the Fed failed by failing to bailout the banks, and thus prevent the runs, bank closures, and consequent client bankruptcies.

    But no we are to understand that in 2008 the Fed failed because it did bailout the banks that would otherwise have taken the economy down with them.

    Some people are never satisfied.

    No one said a word about whether there should have been a bailout or not. Bailout qualifies as one of your exteme policies, in fact a ”tool”, isn’t it?

    You are both an apologist and a fool.

    Definitely make a stab at professional comedy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    He is a shameless apologist. I tried to think where does it come from. Perhaps he derives a pleasure form it because I doubt he really believes it. It is a pleasure from being right and simultaneously from putting people down for whom he feels contempt. Where does the contempt comes from? A need for compensation?
  146. @E. A. Costa
    No one said a word about whether there should have been a bailout or not. Bailout qualifies as one of your exteme policies, in fact a ''tool", isn't it?

    You are both an apologist and a fool.

    Definitely make a stab at professional comedy.

    He is a shameless apologist. I tried to think where does it come from. Perhaps he derives a pleasure form it because I doubt he really believes it. It is a pleasure from being right and simultaneously from putting people down for whom he feels contempt. Where does the contempt comes from? A need for compensation?

    Read More
  147. […] Mike Whitney  UNZ Comentario En los primeros cuatro años de Donald Trump como presidente, no sólo los […]

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Mike Whitney Comments via RSS