Very interesting. This appears worthy of further study. What I'm curious about is who exactly owns the Central Banks / Federal Reserve? We have a very vague answer of "private banks" but can we trace this more precisely? (apparently it's not all the typical banks across the USA that people interact with)
Thanks for your comment. I would like to refer you to my new book, "Our Country, Then and Now," which explains in detail how we got roped into the Federal Reserve system. The book is due out by Thanksgiving. https://www.claritypress.com/product/our-country-then-and-now/
Richard, yes, I noticed the mention of it and made a note of your book. What I can't tell from the description is whether it gets into more detail than other books on the subject and the current status of "ownership" of the Federal Reserve system. Who actually profits? I've read details of the law that states they earn 6% and profits above that are paid to the USA government. I'd love to see a more clear and yet detailed analysis of the money flow.
That may be so, but a lot can still be said that is not speculation, like the fact that the Federal Reserve system is a gigantic rip-off that benefits mainly the billionaires.
However, this does not deal with the larger issue of the Deep State and the seemingly inescapable evil of government itself, at all levels. We only need to examine the roles of local governments as the enforcers of Fauci-Virus-Fascism to understand that government -- all government -- must be castrated. To the extent that minimal government is necessary (for instance, to help protect us against crime) then protections far stronger than the First and Second Amendments must form the bedrock of government. Obviously, the current status of these protections is moribund.
I agree with you 100%. Let me refer you to the series of articles I am in process of publishing on ScheerPost. These deal in detail with the issues having to due with the Deep State. Thanks for reading.
I had a similar thought: currently the elites who run the banking industry are in bed (have bought off) the politicians who run the country, so I can see how this system works well if the players are honest and *accountable*...but what happens if they are neither? How might this system operate—how would it play out—if the players are all corrupt? I'm not defending what we currently have, but I do think it needs to be considered what the consequences are if the fix in mind ends up corrupted by the people implementing it.
I read a book called A History of Central Banking and The Enslavement of Mankind by Stephen Mitford Goodson. I had no idea of the history involved. I wished they'd taught history like this in our public schools. Quite sure I would have paid better attention. FIVE US presidents and a single solitary congressman assassinated for attempting monetary reform? Who wouldn't pay attention! I began looking at the wars waged through this lens and started to see a power that didn't want to give up its empire, but I firmly believe we'd have a much more peaceful world if all nations got out of the private central banks, the IMF and other central banking institutions. So glad to have found you, that you exist. Been promoting the idea all over X and was permanently suspended for something else. X censors would never cite what I said that caused that suspension.
Not schooled in banking but am an independent thinker. There's a reason for the saying, "follow the money." Many assassinations, coups, genocides, murders to keep the financial empire and all of it so unnecessary. I know why JFK said about Hitler, which seemed odd at first: "Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived.. .He had in him the stuff of which legends are made." I know he was one who paid with his life for the success of his national financial system that rebuilt his country after WWI in six short years. There are others like him who paid with their lives for daring to leave that devilish circle of financial empire, going as far back as Rome and maybe further.
How can I contribute to this effort? Don't bother asking for money as I have none, but should I ever, I will give it. What I have to give is time, passion and intelligence.
I appreciate this essay as shines a much needed light on the Fed Reserve System and fractional reserve banking. But I believe that the insights of Lyn Alden's brilliant book, just published and titled Broken Money, makes for an interesting juxtaposition, if not critique. Because of the technology today that underlies money, it is possible for the people, not the government, to control a decentralized and immutable ledger.
No, the cause of boom/bust cycles is not overproduction. The cause of such cycles is malinvestment.
What Keynes and most other economists fail to recognize is that, for a given set of labor and natural resource inputs and a given set of production technologies, the quantity of outputs produced depends upon the amount of time and the degree of uncertainty associated with the transformation of inputs into outputs. The contribution of investors is that they furnish the time and bear the uncertainty, but they have to be compensated in order to do that. Real after-tax interest rates are what govern the tradeoffs between factor productivity versus getting things done more quickly and with less uncertainty.
What goes wrong in the contemporary financial system is that fractional reserve bank credit can be expanded and investment expenditures made without corresponding acts of thrift. Entrepreneurs are fooled by artificially low interest rates into thinking that the more time/risk-intensive lines of production are more profitable than they really are. Inputs are diverted into these boom sectors at the expense of the less interest-sensitive lines of production. In the absence of thrift though, the demand facing the less interest-sensitive sectors hasn't slackened, so the shift of inputs isn't sustainable indefinitely.
The correction becomes evident as the relative acceleration of input costs squeezes operating margins in the boom sectors to the point where they start losing money, mass loan defaults set in, stock markets crash, etc. Past a certain point, attempts to keep pumping in more cheap credit can't restimulate boom conditions again because the market clearly perceives these losses, loan defaults, etc., and even commercial banks will prefer to sit on cash than incur further losses.
The anti-thrift policies of the Keynesians only slow down a recovery and make things worse. It is critical to understand that the capital goods stranded in the boom sectors don't represent excess capacity that merely needs a boost in demand to get them back into production; such capital goods represent _wasted_ capacity--the labor and natural resources that went into them are more urgently required by the non-boom sectors. It is pro-thrift policies, not anti-thrift policies, that repair the damage caused by fractional reserve bank credit expansions.
The monetary/financial reforms that are needed consist of (1) restoring a natural commodity monetary standard that can't be manipulated by politicians and bankers (gold being the most plausible candidate for this role); and (2) requiring that all risk-free demand claims on gold (or on anything else for that matter, as is currently the case under the Uniform Commercial Code for all non-monetary goods) be treated as bailments of depositor property and thus must be kept in the vault, not as bank property that the banks are free to lend out. In short, we need to transition to a gold standard with a 100% reserves rule for risk-free deposits, etc.
The 100% rule would prevent boom/bust cycles, and it would break the co-dependency of Federal Reserve/Wall Street credit pushers and Beltway/Davos debt junkies that is corrupting everything in sight and turning the financial sector into a giant parasite on the economy instead of being a source of thrift-financed investment funding for businesses.
"The NEED Act is not socialism; private enterprise would be the backbone of the economic system when money is controlled by a responsible public agency."
It always fascinates me when economists feel the need to make this kind of statement, because 99 times out of 100 it just means they don't have a clue how socialism operates.
There is no reason whatsoever that private enterprise would need to be the "backbone of the economic system". Are we expected to believe that means of production owned cooperatively by those doing the work of producing isn't just as viable, and likely more so, than said means where the workers are dependent on the whims of those whose contribution to production may or may not be necessary?
I would like to better understand what brought this banking crisis to a head at this point in time, and that is much more serious and global than was the Recession of 2008. Why is this happening now? Why is the Great Reset happening now versus 10 years ago? What is different? Could this be related to the assertions that we will run out of money to pay Social Security checks for our seniors, and to pay for much of their Medical costs through Medicare, in a few years? We have a lot of Boomers retiring...Could it be as simple as that? I have never been able to follow economic explanation and (forgive me) jargon, so if anyone can explain, I'd certainly appreciate it.
I'm disappointed to learn that RFK Jr is a supporter of Keynesian economics as this theory is based upon the Marxist idea that businessmen serve no useful purpose and this assumption flies in the face of empirical data supporting the conclusion that Marxism does not work. The ingredient that is supplied by businessmen and necessary fo success is information about the conditional outcomes of the events of the future. for an economy. Absent this information, an economy goes haywire, as was the case under the Jimmy Carter administration.
Very interesting. This appears worthy of further study. What I'm curious about is who exactly owns the Central Banks / Federal Reserve? We have a very vague answer of "private banks" but can we trace this more precisely? (apparently it's not all the typical banks across the USA that people interact with)
Thanks for your comment. I would like to refer you to my new book, "Our Country, Then and Now," which explains in detail how we got roped into the Federal Reserve system. The book is due out by Thanksgiving. https://www.claritypress.com/product/our-country-then-and-now/
Richard, yes, I noticed the mention of it and made a note of your book. What I can't tell from the description is whether it gets into more detail than other books on the subject and the current status of "ownership" of the Federal Reserve system. Who actually profits? I've read details of the law that states they earn 6% and profits above that are paid to the USA government. I'd love to see a more clear and yet detailed analysis of the money flow.
This is a very murky topic. All I can say is check out my book and see what you think.
You can see why Ron Paul wanted to "audit the Fed" and why it has never happened.
That has been my impression. Very murky, which leads to a lot of speculation and unsubstantiated theories.
That may be so, but a lot can still be said that is not speculation, like the fact that the Federal Reserve system is a gigantic rip-off that benefits mainly the billionaires.
Canto XLV with usura with usura no man hath a house of good stone...
You will never understand American history or the history of the Occident during' the past 2000 years unless you look at one or two problems;
namely sheenies and usury.
One of the other or Both. I should say both.
Ezra Pound
Who hold the balance of the World?
Who reign O'er congress whether royalist or liberal?
Who rouse the shirtless patriots of Spain?
( That make old Europe's journals "squeak and gibber")
Who keep the World, both old and new in pain
Or pleasure? Who make politics run glibber all?
The shade of Buenaparte's noble daring?-----
Jew Rothschild, and his fellow-Christian, Baring.
Lord Byron, Twelfth Canto
This is explained very well. Thank you.
However, this does not deal with the larger issue of the Deep State and the seemingly inescapable evil of government itself, at all levels. We only need to examine the roles of local governments as the enforcers of Fauci-Virus-Fascism to understand that government -- all government -- must be castrated. To the extent that minimal government is necessary (for instance, to help protect us against crime) then protections far stronger than the First and Second Amendments must form the bedrock of government. Obviously, the current status of these protections is moribund.
Government must be castrated, not strengthened.
Cutting off the supply of cheap/free money to powerful interests that control government might be the castration you're looking for.
I agree with you 100%. Let me refer you to the series of articles I am in process of publishing on ScheerPost. These deal in detail with the issues having to due with the Deep State. Thanks for reading.
https://scheerpost.com/category/richard-c-cook/
Here's the link.
I had a similar thought: currently the elites who run the banking industry are in bed (have bought off) the politicians who run the country, so I can see how this system works well if the players are honest and *accountable*...but what happens if they are neither? How might this system operate—how would it play out—if the players are all corrupt? I'm not defending what we currently have, but I do think it needs to be considered what the consequences are if the fix in mind ends up corrupted by the people implementing it.
Douglas did say that Pound misunderstood his economics. He was a good poet ( Pound not Douglas.) Throw me into shallow water before I get too deep.
Have you watched The Great Taking? South Dakota is working on state legislation to protect property owners who still owe on their property.
I read a book called A History of Central Banking and The Enslavement of Mankind by Stephen Mitford Goodson. I had no idea of the history involved. I wished they'd taught history like this in our public schools. Quite sure I would have paid better attention. FIVE US presidents and a single solitary congressman assassinated for attempting monetary reform? Who wouldn't pay attention! I began looking at the wars waged through this lens and started to see a power that didn't want to give up its empire, but I firmly believe we'd have a much more peaceful world if all nations got out of the private central banks, the IMF and other central banking institutions. So glad to have found you, that you exist. Been promoting the idea all over X and was permanently suspended for something else. X censors would never cite what I said that caused that suspension.
Not schooled in banking but am an independent thinker. There's a reason for the saying, "follow the money." Many assassinations, coups, genocides, murders to keep the financial empire and all of it so unnecessary. I know why JFK said about Hitler, which seemed odd at first: "Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived.. .He had in him the stuff of which legends are made." I know he was one who paid with his life for the success of his national financial system that rebuilt his country after WWI in six short years. There are others like him who paid with their lives for daring to leave that devilish circle of financial empire, going as far back as Rome and maybe further.
How can I contribute to this effort? Don't bother asking for money as I have none, but should I ever, I will give it. What I have to give is time, passion and intelligence.
I appreciate this essay as shines a much needed light on the Fed Reserve System and fractional reserve banking. But I believe that the insights of Lyn Alden's brilliant book, just published and titled Broken Money, makes for an interesting juxtaposition, if not critique. Because of the technology today that underlies money, it is possible for the people, not the government, to control a decentralized and immutable ledger.
https://www.amazon.com/Broken-Money-Financial-System-Failing-ebook/dp/B0CGNVNXK2/ref=sr_1_1?crid=37XH786JIY3RQ&keywords=lyn+alden+broken+money&qid=1695997163&sprefix=lyn+alden%2Caps%2C94&sr=8-1
I wonder how that would work if the grid goes down? I assume you are speaking of digital currency like bitcoin.
No, the cause of boom/bust cycles is not overproduction. The cause of such cycles is malinvestment.
What Keynes and most other economists fail to recognize is that, for a given set of labor and natural resource inputs and a given set of production technologies, the quantity of outputs produced depends upon the amount of time and the degree of uncertainty associated with the transformation of inputs into outputs. The contribution of investors is that they furnish the time and bear the uncertainty, but they have to be compensated in order to do that. Real after-tax interest rates are what govern the tradeoffs between factor productivity versus getting things done more quickly and with less uncertainty.
What goes wrong in the contemporary financial system is that fractional reserve bank credit can be expanded and investment expenditures made without corresponding acts of thrift. Entrepreneurs are fooled by artificially low interest rates into thinking that the more time/risk-intensive lines of production are more profitable than they really are. Inputs are diverted into these boom sectors at the expense of the less interest-sensitive lines of production. In the absence of thrift though, the demand facing the less interest-sensitive sectors hasn't slackened, so the shift of inputs isn't sustainable indefinitely.
The correction becomes evident as the relative acceleration of input costs squeezes operating margins in the boom sectors to the point where they start losing money, mass loan defaults set in, stock markets crash, etc. Past a certain point, attempts to keep pumping in more cheap credit can't restimulate boom conditions again because the market clearly perceives these losses, loan defaults, etc., and even commercial banks will prefer to sit on cash than incur further losses.
The anti-thrift policies of the Keynesians only slow down a recovery and make things worse. It is critical to understand that the capital goods stranded in the boom sectors don't represent excess capacity that merely needs a boost in demand to get them back into production; such capital goods represent _wasted_ capacity--the labor and natural resources that went into them are more urgently required by the non-boom sectors. It is pro-thrift policies, not anti-thrift policies, that repair the damage caused by fractional reserve bank credit expansions.
The monetary/financial reforms that are needed consist of (1) restoring a natural commodity monetary standard that can't be manipulated by politicians and bankers (gold being the most plausible candidate for this role); and (2) requiring that all risk-free demand claims on gold (or on anything else for that matter, as is currently the case under the Uniform Commercial Code for all non-monetary goods) be treated as bailments of depositor property and thus must be kept in the vault, not as bank property that the banks are free to lend out. In short, we need to transition to a gold standard with a 100% reserves rule for risk-free deposits, etc.
The 100% rule would prevent boom/bust cycles, and it would break the co-dependency of Federal Reserve/Wall Street credit pushers and Beltway/Davos debt junkies that is corrupting everything in sight and turning the financial sector into a giant parasite on the economy instead of being a source of thrift-financed investment funding for businesses.
"The NEED Act is not socialism; private enterprise would be the backbone of the economic system when money is controlled by a responsible public agency."
It always fascinates me when economists feel the need to make this kind of statement, because 99 times out of 100 it just means they don't have a clue how socialism operates.
There is no reason whatsoever that private enterprise would need to be the "backbone of the economic system". Are we expected to believe that means of production owned cooperatively by those doing the work of producing isn't just as viable, and likely more so, than said means where the workers are dependent on the whims of those whose contribution to production may or may not be necessary?
I would like to better understand what brought this banking crisis to a head at this point in time, and that is much more serious and global than was the Recession of 2008. Why is this happening now? Why is the Great Reset happening now versus 10 years ago? What is different? Could this be related to the assertions that we will run out of money to pay Social Security checks for our seniors, and to pay for much of their Medical costs through Medicare, in a few years? We have a lot of Boomers retiring...Could it be as simple as that? I have never been able to follow economic explanation and (forgive me) jargon, so if anyone can explain, I'd certainly appreciate it.
I'm disappointed to learn that RFK Jr is a supporter of Keynesian economics as this theory is based upon the Marxist idea that businessmen serve no useful purpose and this assumption flies in the face of empirical data supporting the conclusion that Marxism does not work. The ingredient that is supplied by businessmen and necessary fo success is information about the conditional outcomes of the events of the future. for an economy. Absent this information, an economy goes haywire, as was the case under the Jimmy Carter administration.
Why the 2024 US election will be decided by Google | Should Trudeau Stand Down as Canadian PM?
https://www.patreon.com/posts/why-2024-us-will-89967207 -- OUTSTANDING !!