Updated: Oct 26, 2008 added mp3 of an interview with the author
Thanks to Robb Revere for having me on. I have a feeling I might be on again soon to discuss some of my more specialized issues like AGI.
(Lots of graphs and charts on his blog post)
Despite the US being a nation bent on material gain and wealth, it seems that too many overlook the Federal Reserve and the whole ‘money business’. More and more people are being exposed to the truth that it’s ‘privately owned’, but who it is that owns it often remains vague. But some “Skeptics” out there have their counter-arguments to the ‘conspiracy theorist’ ‘claims’. Here I’ll attempt to explain in laymans terms this whole ownership ordeal, severely weaken the general ‘non-tyrannical via member bank ownership’ position of the Skeptics, while setting the record straight on the fact that it’s sucking the U.S. dry regardless of who ‘owns’ the “Fed” while the nation barrels down the path towards what I call “Neocommunism”.
Beginning with ownership, I can’t recall clear discussion of the ‘actual’ ‘owners’ in any of the many Federal Reserve films I’ve seen. On the side of the Skeptics, perhaps it isn’t as shocking to learn that the 2,500 member banks are who it is that owns the ’stocks’ of the FR. Naturally, the Skeptics are the ones who jump up and down pointing out that the member banks have the stocks.
However, in my view, this doesn’t really take away too much from the alarming aspects of this system. The only thing it changes is that stockholders of the member banks all split the pot. It just spreads out the wealth so to speak, or the blame. Instead of it being in the hands of a couple families outright, it’s more diverse. So it could be that ‘conspiracists’ spend their time discussing other related issues, but the Skeptics aren’t in any better position as they take an absolutist position in dismissing the entire topic as a non-issue since the member banks own it, etc.
I myself was vague on the ownership issue, until I recently decided I can no longer even argue the subject without myself understand this aspect. I found this very sobering lengthy article written by Bill Woolsey. The detail of it really helped me clear up a few things on the Fed, but at the same time it’s strikingly apologetic. Woolsey makes a few concessions, but ultimately attempts to shoot down any possible cause for worthwhile concern. By the end he states that since the Fed allegedly returns all non-operational related (costs to operate the ’service’) ‘profits’ to the US Dept. of Treasury. He goes on to state that the US Federal Government (’the Public’, as some say) has de facto ownership. And he does it rather convincingly.
He really had me going for a bit, but then I started comparing it to facts I already knew and recalled one unavoidable thing that he didn’t mention which makes his overall argument seem silly: The US National Debt. The ND is currently about $10.2 Trillion, and despite Skeptics claims that FR ‘profits’ go to the US Treasury, somehow the FR “owns” roughly $5.2Trillion of the ND. Considering that fact, it seems impossible for the Skeptics argument here to hold water.
But let’s just say that somehow that the idea of the FR ‘owning’ the ND isn’t much to worry about, and that the idea of the ‘private’ ownership isn’t inherently a real threat. What else is there to this story that even the FR hitpiece films don’t seem to clearly explain? There are 2 things of my particular interest that it’s time to discuss. The first is how the system is set to suck prosperity from the unwealthy, and the second is how this ‘benevolent tyrannical’ suck machine has gone into overdrive inhaling the nations property ownership in a slick banker power-grab that would have roused admiration from Lenin & Stalin.
The Suck Machine
We are in a scenario where more and more people than normal are learning the concept of FR driven “Inflation” devaluing the nations currency value. I won’t even claim to be any sort of pioneer of this dimension. But I do feel I have a way of understanding it that I didn’t quite pick up from all of the FR films I’ve seen that I can recall. I don’t use it to tell people that we’re merely being robbed, instead I use Inflation as self-evident proof that the monetary system is deliberately designed to ensure the undermining of the unwealthy and the advancement of the wealthy.
Now many people encounter discussion of the Inflation issue and it’s implications, but then retreat back to ignorance after considering how their property value ‘goes up’ ‘thanks to’ Inflation. But the problems begin when considering that this element of property value increases is merely a reflection of your property costing a newcomer more because the value of the Dollar is less than when you bought it. At least how that’s how it would be any typical year pre-9/11. In the years to come after 9/11 property values soared, and then bottomed out along with the bulk of the entire US economy. This is thanks to the FR and their ‘benevolent’ member banks, but we’ll get back into that later.
So now even though the Dollar’s value has somehow been ‘rising’ this year, that doesn’t mean squat to most property owners. It’s traditionally a game of trying to ensure property goes up and is sold to truly stay ahead of the curve, for those buying and selling. Meanwhile you must keep refinancing (remortgaging) as the value of your money in the bank and the worth of your employment pay increases dwindle as Inflation takes its toll year after year.
On the one hand Inflation balances out the capital of ‘owned’ property, and the other is that the wealthy are able to invest the remainder of their savings capital in interest incurring bank accounts that helps offset the inflation outright. Bank savings of the non-wealthy are depreciated annually. Be sure to note this all only applies to land property, not vehicle property (it’s often said that the typical new car loses $10,000 in value the moment it’s driven off the lot). Non-property owners with bank account savings-assets & vehicular property-type only lose on all fronts.
Property owners who possess substantial equity in their property are obviously better positioned than those who are not, but not all property owners have large sums of money to store in high interest incurring banks accounts (most ‘property owners’ still owe their bank(s) majority shares on ‘their’ property). Consider the typical dream of the everyday lottery player. Every one I’ve ever talked to mentions how they’ll put the $10Million or whatever in a high interest incurring bank account, and “live off of the interest”. But thanks to an education system geared to keep us from understanding the way we’re all unwitting servants to a system of exploitation, it seems that very few in our society factors in inflationary forces in their daily financial outlook.
It turns out that accounts like these operate as counter-inflation money stores. It should be self-evident that the more money you put in and not touch the better the interest rate you’ll get for storing the money. But even the largest sum is still subject to rate limitations. With a better rate on a typical year over a 20 year plot you’d likely break just a percentage point or so. I don’t have the time to break down precise numbers fixed on certain years for everything, but these numbers should be about right. Or maybe on certain years you might come out ahead. I’m being conservative or ‘counter-conspiracist’ with leaving it at you’d come up just shy of getting out of paying the same inflation the masses do. So your money retains much of its value thanks to gaining digits in positive interest, while the masses with their limited smaller sums lose much more of their money value even if they don’t spend any of it.
The little guy might even be able to tie up some of their savings in interest incurring accounts, but not near the rates a multi-millionaire could get. So even in terms of non-investments assests the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The non-bank-owning wealthy are far better able to dodge the inflation machine as they can tie up their money (not even getting into being able to truly invest money in other ventures) in inflation resistant property titles (that can be sold when values rise above the inflation rate) and high interest incurring bank accounts that can also gain more interest than the inflation rate during certain years.
All of this leaves the little guy living paycheck to paycheck without any land property little room to not get exploited on a continum. His only way to compete is to have something on the side (illegally, in the sense that everything is taxed). Note that I’m not speaking in terms merely making more money, but rather retaining the same value of whatever assests the subject were to gain or use throughout the year.
Beyond that you better hope for an annual raise, and a generous one at that. Take last year. The inflation rate was something like 12%. So if you started the year with $1000 and kept it without spending it, it would actually only be worth about $880 despite still having the 1000 monetary units. Now if you made $10 per hour, and then got a $1 raise for the year, you’d still be out $.20 after the FR were done having their way with you. If you only got a $.50 raise then you’d be $.70 in the hole at the end of the year. Meaning you do the same exact work, but despite still making whatever monetary units, you’re actually getting paid less.
And that’s taking it from a $10 per hour standpoint. If you make $20 per hour and only got a $1 raise, you’d still be as screwed as the guy making $10 who got a $.50 raise. So in this one instance it might pay less to be making more money in total, so it could be said that this is more “fair” for the weaker. But as we’ve already seen above, in general the machine is set to crunch those at the bottom the most. Besides, the guy making $20 still obviously has better odds of being able to position his assets to counter inflation.
In political terms, any politician who doesn’t make it a prime issue to resolve but promises change is little short of a scoundrel. Now to be fair one might not understand the way this system works, and in that case they’re too incompetent to even be considered for a role such as Senator or President. But you can rest assured that by the time you see the controlled media shoving a candidate in your face on a constant basis, whoever it might be is surely part of the elitist circles that know full well about these truths. By the time it’s down to one candidate for ‘each’ party these people are beyond the incompetence excuse, and sure enough Obama and McCain both dodge the negative Federal Reserve / Inflation issues outright.
The banks rule
The audacity of the Inflation scheme brings us back to the owners of this system. Even if the stockholders of some 2,500 member banks are the owners it only means that there are more to blame. It doesn’t mean that since it isn’t merely a few shady families, therefore its a non-issue as the Skeptics would have you think.
In fact, the banks as the owners of the Federal Reserve only makes for an even more contrversial case, in my view. It all begins with what started this entire Economic Meltdown mess: the Subprime Loans disaster. The FR controlled by the national private banking infrastructure (I’m actually going along with the claims of the Skeptics here) slashed interest rates, loaned down tons of money to the lesser banks, who then loaned out all of that money to portions of the masses who in many cases wouldn’t have gotten a loan to begin with. Next the Fed drove the rates back up and the home foreclosure rates went off the chart. This started the chain reaction to what even some in the Mainstream Media are referring to as the “New Great Depression”.
So I’d say the entire thing (like the original Great Depression) was literally engineered, by the FR. Now the devils advocate would say ‘no way, even many banks are going into foreclosure’. But I say that’s irrelevant. It’s pretty safe to say that the larger banks have more pull in the operation of the FR. But even if they don’t, it’s all a game of who’s best positioned to ride out the storm. In the aftermath you have banks and the FR itself acquiring smaller banks, and banks possessing vastly larger scores of national real estate and owed debt. Meanwhile stocks are tumbling while everybody is hurting allowing the fat-cats to buy up stocks on the cheap similar to what happened after the Great Depression.
All the while the National Debt (ND) keeps swelling. This month it’s over $10Trillion. About 52% of that is, despite the Federal Government having alleged de facto ownership of it, ‘owned’ by the Federal Reserve. So even if the member banks ‘benignly’ own the FR, it still means that they in effect own $5T of the US, but just in ND alone. In fact they stand to gain the more Congress spends and drives up the debt. If anything, all of the nationalizing of the mortgage firms only puts them in a better position to have claim to what’s ‘theirs’. But don’t forget who loans out the moneys when the average person needs a loan, and who it is that gets outright ownership if they default on that loan.
Even pre-Subprime Disaster it has always been a balancing act, especially considering Inflation. A gradual slide down the path towards feudalism. What has been engineered here has really injected adrenaline into the monster. Considering this monster has long been fascist on nearly all accounts, it really begs the question: “what are they doing”?
Like Inflation itself, all of this ‘bailout’ business is called the transfer of wealth. In some circles the “transfer of wealth” is typically considered “Socialism”, but what we have here is perhaps the purest form of robber-baron fascism. But new with the ‘nationalization’ of some of the biggest banks and similar industries it almost cries of what I call Neocommunism, or at least that’s where it seems like it’s going.
It could be argued that since the banks own and control everything this would still be fascism, but fascism is typically associated with corporatism. The difference is that corporatism deals more with influence and perhaps exploitation of the overall system (’Crony Capitalism’), which is still the reality, but I argue that the system is evolving into Neocommunism in terms of property ownership. Property ownership is the first “Plank” of the Communist Manifesto (read the other 9 Planks). It’s stated as “Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.”
“But hold on a minute”, you say, “private property isn’t being abolished”, but I ask: “When did it actually exist”? Factor in property taxes. It goes like this: don’t pay your property taxes, and after long enough you’ll lose your property. You’ll be evicted. Now this is done by your state, not the Federal Government (FG). The way it’s handled also varies state to state. Under the ideal communist scenario a ‘central government’ is the source that ‘owns’ the property. Pre-2008 not paying your income taxes could end up in having your home seized ‘for the public’. So in my view, we really don’t “own” any real estate, instead we can merely buy into more exclusive permissions of property (in my view, you can’t be given “rights”).
But now in 2008 the FG has actually managed to gain a serious chunk of states-wide real estate properties along with some other things like insurance. Fascism would be to allow an oligarchial type scenario in an industry such as insurance, a sort of collaborative monopoly. But under communism the state would begin to ‘nationalize’ such an industry. Under a communist system the economy is subject to central economic planning conducted by a central bank operated by the central government. Under my framework of Neocommunism, the central bank conducts the central economic planning (fixing the interest rates for example) and operates the central government (Federal Government).
And many experts say the worst is yet to come…
The Real Unhidden Agenda by Zahir Ebrahim (a response to this post)