Fiat money (fm central-banks): what it is, how it works--short, 4 min vid--other good vids too in this thread

Apollonian

Guest Columnist
Here's good, informative short vid on fiat-money, product of central-bank(s), telling us how it works, at least for one aspect. BUT one thing left-out is simple fact it is literally just legalized counterfeiting--they just make it all up, printing it up w. paper and ink, or, nowadays, just digitalizing it (computer electronics, as by ATM machines and debit cards). So this currency (not real MONEY, which is commodity-based, like gold and silver) is potentially INFINITE--infinite, so ultimately worthless after they've printed (or created) so much of it, like present US Dollar, in form of debt, trillions and trillions--which really can't be paid back EXCEPT in heavily inflated form, which is what Israel-first Trump is planning and demanding.


 
Last edited:

How Central Bankers Rule the World​

By Dr. Joseph Mercola
Global Research, July 23, 2023

Link: https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-central-bankers-rule-world/5826635

AdobeStock-digital-currency-dollar-sign-2000x900-400x180.jpeg

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Richard Werner, Ph.D., created a monetary policy known as quantitative easing, which is intended to help banks get out of financial crises more rapidly and avoid long-term recession
In 2020, this policy was misused to intentionally create inflation
Werner’s London-based community interest company, Local First, provides communities with the know-how to set up local community banks
Creating lots of local community banks will decentralize finance, make communities more resilient and help us avoid the implementation of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs)
The intent behind CBDCs is complete control by central banks over populations. The central controllers will decide if, when and how you may spend your money, and can use this monetary control to enforce compliance with any and all global governance agendas

*

In the featured video, Ivor Cummins interviews professor Richard Werner, author of “Princes of the Yen — Japan’s Central Bankers and the Transformation of the Economy”1 on “The Fat Emperor Podcast.” Werner has a Ph.D., in economics from Oxford University. He was a visiting scholar with the bank of Japan back in the 1990s.
In 1995, he created a monetary policy known as quantitative easing, which is intended to help banks get out of financial crises more rapidly and avoid long-term recession.
More recently, Werner created a community interest company called Local First, which provides communities with the know-how to set up local community banks. In this interview, he breaks down how the world works from a central banking standpoint, how ordinary people are affected by these policies, what we can expect from central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and more.

How Central Bankers Rule the World

In his book, “Princes of the Yen,” Werner describes how there’s a small group of insiders inside the central bank, running the whole show. While they direct the media’s attention to interest rates, that’s a bit of a decoy. They’re not focused on the price of money but rather the quantity of money, measured in terms of quantity of credit creation.
This tiny core group of insiders are selected in their early 30s when they join the Bank of Japan and told that they will become governor of the bank in 30 years’ time. These are referred to as the “princes.” They control the boom-and-bust cycles in Japan, through their control of the quantity of credit.
Similar factions exist in other central banks as well, Werner says, and these central bankers are not accountable for their actions. They use this power to engineer events that serve their own purposes (typically connected to increasing their own power).
In 2003, Werner warned that the European Central Bank (ECB) was “a monster” that would create bank credit-driven asset bubbles and property bubbles, followed by banking crises and recessions, which is precisely what happened.

The Central Bank Plan to Monopolize Global Finance

Werner points out that while central banks are promoting CBDCs as digital currency, we’ve had digital currency for decades, so there’s nothing new about the digital aspect of this currency. Cash — paper banknotes and coins — are but a small part — about 3% in most countries — of the total money supply. The rest is digital.
Today, central banks are the only ones authorized to issue banknotes, but regular banks create 97% of the money through lending. They’re not allowed to issue paper notes. Instead, they issue deposit entries into your bank account, which is digital. So, Werner notes, you could say we’ve been using bank digital currency (BDC) for decades.
The difference between BDCs and CBDCs is the centralized aspect. So, what’s happening now is that central banks, which are the regulators of banks, are stepping in to directly compete with the banks they’re regulating. Werner likens it to the umpire joining the game. That obviously makes it an unfair game.
“It is a big danger,” Werner tells Cummins.2 “And you can see where this is going. If we allow central bank digital currencies, sooner or later they will drive out the private sector competition. They will drive out the banks.
And, of course, we also have this other problem … that whenever we get a banking crisis and a financial crisis, the regulators get more power because each time they argue, ‘Oh that now happened, it’s different from before and that’s because we still don’t have enough power. We need to have more powers’ …
This is a regulatory moral hazard. If the regulator gets rewarded for failure … you can be sure that we’ll have more crises, because they’ll be given more powers. Now they want to introduce CBDCs, and of course, the best time from their viewpoint is … another banking crisis, so that people want to move their money out of banks …
That’s the easiest way to introduce this, which means we have a massive incentive now for regulators, for central planners, to create another huge financial crisis so that they can then take over.
Of course, then that’s the end of it, because the banking system is not going to recover from this. Now, do we really want this, where essentially the number of banks goes down so much that there’s really only one bank left?
In their 23 years or so of existence, the ECB has killed around 5,000 banks in Europe already, and it wasn’t the big guys … Thousands of banks are gone in America too, and, of course, JP Morgan and the rest are hoovering them up so they’re just becoming big fat mega banks …
It seems the ECB is set up to be the … only bank they want left in Europe, and that’s going to happen if we allow CBDCs. So, we really have to step up now and say, ‘We don’t need this; we already have digital currencies, thank you very much.’”

Perceived Need for CBDCs Must be Fabricated

Indeed, the central bankers know they’re going to have to get creative, because CBDCs have “no convincing value proposition,” meaning there’s no perceived need for them.
So, they have the unenviable task of selling us on a solution for a problem we don’t have, while simultaneously trying to hide the fact that what they’re proposing is a digital slave system, where they will have full control over if, when and where you can spend the money you’ve earned.
As noted in the interview,3 this is also the reason why they haven’t fully rolled out CBCDs yet. They must create or fabricate the need first, and that will likely be a series of financial crises that damage trust in the banks.
With CBDCs, the central bank will decide if, when and how you may spend your money, and can use this monetary control to enforce compliance with any and all global governance agendas.
There are also technical issues that need to be addressed. If the electricity gets shut off, you can still use cash. Not so with CBDCs. A network of technologies needs to work at the same time in order for CBDCs to function as intended. And, due to the centralization, the system is not only more complex but also far less resilient.

Lastly, there’s the issue of trust. According to a report cited in the interview, European citizens are leery and suspect governments and central banks want CBDCs to monitor, control and restrict transactions. And they’re exactly right. That’s what CBDCs are ultimately for, so the central planners need to figure out how to hide this intention, or somehow sell it as a good thing.

CBDCs Are a Population Control Mechanism

October 19, 2020, Agustin Carstens, general manager for the bank of international settlements (BIS) — the central bank of the central banks — explained the intent behind this new centrally-controlled digital currency:4
“Our analysis on CBDC, in particular for the general use, we tend to establish the equivalence with cash, and there is a huge difference there. For example, in cash we don’t know … who’s using a $100 bill today. We don’t know who is using the 1,000 peso bill today.
A key difference with the CBDC is that Central Bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of Central Bank liability. And also, we will have the technology to enforce that. Those … two issues are extremely important and that makes a huge difference with respect to what cash is.”
Indeed, as explained by Werner, the issuer of the CBDC, the central bank, will have the power to decide whether you can use your own money. You basically must apply for permission to use it for a given purchase, and that request can be denied.
“So, it’s a conditional currency, based on you actually getting that permit,” Werner says.5“Now, if you happen to be some kind of critic of government policy or a critic of central banks, this could be difficult. Or if you dare to step out of the 15-minute city zone, maybe you’ll find that it’s not working.
Of course … they’ll come up with excuses why you can’t do what you want to do. They’ll never tell you the real reason, but the official reason is likely to be something like your carbon footprint, which is another vague concept … For every bank transaction you get a carbon CO2 rating or a quantified number, and then, if you’ve used up your common budget, you can’t use it.
I mean, you can come up with any number of schemes. The point is, the issue of the CBDC is, the central bank has the power — and essentially it’s going to be arbitrary power — to say yes or no to what you want to do with what you thought is your money.”
What’s more, you can be sure there’ll be no one to complain to if your CBDCs get turned off by mistake or if a purchase attempt is denied and you want to appeal. Just look at how difficult it is to get a problem resolved with any of our social media companies.
The CBDC system will be vastly larger, more complex and more automated than any social media company on the planet. Most of it will be run by algorithms and artificial intelligence, without any human input at all. “There’s no real right to appeal,” Werner says. “That’s going to be the reality.”

CBDCs Need Digital ID

Now, for the CBDC superstructure to really work as intended, they also need digital ID, and many suspect the COVID pandemic was an excuse to legitimize the rollout of a digital “vaccine passport” that could then be converted into digital ID.
The World Health Organization is now rolling out an international vaccine passport based on the European Union’s digital health certificate, even though it makes no medical sense, considering the COVID jab can’t prevent infection or transmission, and that that passport will eventually be linked to CBDCs. There’s no doubt about that, Werner says.6

Intentional Inflation

Getting back to finance in general, many people around the world have been affected by inflation. According to Werner, what we’re seeing now mirrors what happened in the 1970s, when hyperinflation covered up another great economic reset, namely the transition from gold-backed currency to a fiat currency backed by thin air.
“The official narrative is once again, just like in the ‘70s … there’s a war, and as a result there’s some kind of energy embargo. In the 70s [it was the] OPEC oil embargo. As a result, energy prices jump up and we get inflation. That’s why we had inflation in the ‘70s and again in 2021, sort of a peaking [at the] end of 2022. That’s the official narrative.
Unfortunately, if you check … the data doesn’t check out this way at all. The inflation essentially peaks in both periods … before the war. In the 70s, the war was in mid-October 1973 [but] oil prices didn’t rise — yet. Henry Kissinger had to fly to Saudi Arabia and arm twist the oil minister to quadruple the oil price, which happened in January ‘74.
In many countries inflation already had peaked by then and was coming down, so the timing doesn’t work out. Similarly, in the recent era, the inflation was already significant before the military action [by] Russia [in] Ukraine, so that doesn’t pan out. And of course, oil prices and energy prices have still been falling and are much lower.
So, why do we have this significant double-digit inflation? It’s much simpler, and it’s true for both the ‘70s and and the recent era. In the ‘70s, what we saw was that suddenly the central banks were forcing the banks in all the major countries to massively expand money creation. Surprise, surprise. What else could create inflation? …
So in in March 2020, the Federal Reserve, and then simultaneously the other key central banks, adopted a very specific policy which is quite unusual. It’s usually only taken once a century, or twice maximum per century, so it’s not something like ‘Oh we accidentally did this.’ It’s very specific. It must be intentional, and there’s evidence, there’s proof, that it’s intentional.”

Quantitative Easing

As explained by Werner, banks create new money through lending. In the 2000s, banks pumped this new money into property markets, which caused house prices to rise. Eventually, a bubble is created, and when it pops, the system crashes and banks stop lending, which results in a slowing of the whole economy.
The monetary policy created by Werner, quantitative easing, has two aspects. The first, called QE1, calls for the central bank to step in and purchase non-performing assets in the banking system at face value. This solves the banks’ problem, returning them to a strong balance sheet.
It’s not enough to get them to increase credit again though, so QE2 allows the central bank to force banks to create more money and push it into the economy. He explains how this works:
“When a central bank buys something from the non-bank sector, the seller, say, of this property, how do they get the money?
Well, the central bank will transfer it to their bank account, which means that suddenly they have money in their bank account, which actually the bank creates because it gets a booking in its reserve account with the central bank. So, that’s that’s how it works and that’s how the central bank can push money into the economy directly.
These were the two forms of QE … In 2008 when [the housing market crashed] in America, Bernanke said ‘Oh, the Werner proposal QE, yeah we’ll do that, and they did it immediately, whereas even in Europe they didn’t understand the finer details. [They thought] just buy assets, anything.
They bought performing assets from banks, which is marginally helpful but it doesn’t really do the job, and so it took much longer in Europe to get out of the 2008 crisis, whereas America was very quickly recovering because … the Fed purchased the non-performing assets close to face value from the bank so the banks were suddenly, in one go, fine.
But they still didn’t do the second recommendation, because they they deemed it not necessary. Fine, it took two years for banks to then increase credit significantly.”

Quantitative Easing Was Intentionally Used Incorrectly

In March 2020, the Federal Reserve adopted QE again, but this time, incorrectly, and according to Werner, intentionally so. He tells Cummins:
“In 2020, March, what happened was the Federal Reserve adopted QE2 at a time when the economy was actually doing fine. Growth was was fine. Bank credit growth was around 5 to 6%. There was no deflation. This was a recommendation for deflation and for a shrinking [the] economy …
They did QE2 and there was a massive expansion, the Federal Reserve buying up private sector assets from non-banks, therefore forcing banks to create credit — totally off the charts, the biggest in the post-war era. At the same time there were government restrictions in 2020.
If you reduce supply but you massively increase the bond through money creation, putting into the economy this money (which in 2008 was just an accounting transaction, there was no new money so it wasn’t going to create inflation) … it’s going to create inflation.
I warned it’s going to [create] inflation. Most commentators thought — because they don’t understand the difference between QE — that it’s going to be fine [as it was in 2008] … No, it’s totally different …
The smoking gun is this. How do we know that this was fully the intention? Well, it’s a very specific policy and is very rarely taken [yet] all the central banks suddenly did it … The the other proof is, just before COVID, in August 2019 … the annual Central Bankers conference invited BlackRock, the biggest asset manager in the world, and BlackRock made a proposal.
They said there will be another crisis … but this time we should create inflation … The insinuation is unspoken. The crisis will be deflationary, therefore we must create inflation … and here’s how we’re going to do it, and they cited my proposal, without mentioning my name …
[They said] we need to back fiscal policy through money creation and get the central bank to directly push money into the economy, which you can do by purchasing assets from the non-bank sector.
And how do we know that this is what the Fed did in March 2020? We’ve got the data. And there’s one more factor. The Federal Reserve hired Blackrock in March 2020 to buy assets …
So, this inflation is entirely intentionally created by the central banks, by the central planners. How are we going to punish them for this? Oh, let’s give them more unprecedented powers over everything, over life on Earth, through central bank digital currencies.”

Recommendations for Moving Forward

According to Werner, in the 1970s, inflation was used to cover up the move from the gold-backed dollar to the petrodollar. Today, he believes the intention for the inflation is to cover up the disintegration of the petrodollar and the move to a new CBDC system.
Unfortunately, they’ll succeed in this if we don’t stop it somehow. To protect your assets from this intentionally created inflation, Werner recommends purchasing physical gold and silver. He also urges everyone to “do more in the local communities.”
“If we work together locally, that can create a very resilient structure, and then we can we can use anything we want as as a means of settlement. We can have a local currency, a gold-based system, silver-based system or we can just have a local community bank … and then you can have your own credit creation locally.
In fact, I think, because the central planners want to centralize, they would reduce the number of banks, now is the time I think for people who have a bit of capital to step forward and say ‘Let’s create community banks. Here’s five million euros, that’s the minimum you need. [My] Local First community interest company has the know-how. We can get the banking license.
We need people to step forward now. We’ll set up Community Banks locally, get the banks authorized. That can be the core of a local economy … Also, it shows that this decentralization system is much more superior, because local banks are accountable locally.
Community Banks can be structured either with a local charity, so all the profits go locally into this geographically restricted area. Germany has been successful for 200 years because 80% of its banks are local not-for-profit Community Banks and they only lend locally …
These small firms are highly productive … they can constantly upgrade because the local bank will always lend to them to get the latest technology.
That’s why productivity is much higher in Germany than in the UK for example but that’s of course under threat by the central planners. They want to force them to merge. But basically, we need to set up new banks and we think we can do that if we act quickly. Now, in the coming two years, we really need to get this going.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Notes
1 Princes of the Yen — Japan’s Central Bankers and the Transformation of the Economy by Richard Werner
2 Transcript 15:18
3 Transcript 21:42
4 Transcript 22:41
5 Transcript 24: 45
6 Transcript 35:18
Featured image is from OffGuardian
 

PBD Exposes Globalist Financial Controllers In New Rogan Interview​

Infowars.com
August 3rd 2023, 2:08 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/pbd-exposes-globalist-financial-controllers-in-new-rogan-interview/

[see vid at site link, above]

The monopoly men destroying modern civilization must be stopped!

Top podcast host Patrick Bet-David (PBD) joined fellow podcast giant Joe Rogan for an exclusive interview published online Thursday.

Patrick told Rogan about groups like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, as well as billionaire globalists like Larry Fink and George Soros controlling the global economy.

Next, PBD connected the dots between those groups and the military-industrial complex, Hollywood, Big Pharma and other industries.

With their hands in every aspect of society, the financial groups are using their power to manipulate private industries into promoting the globalist Marxist agenda that will eventually collapse Western society.

The duo also touched on Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book “The Real Anthony Fauci,” with Rogan saying, “That book is accurate… If it’s not accurate, why is he not being sued?”
https://www.infowarsstore.com/healt...m_medium=Text+Link&utm_content=infowarsMDtext
🔥 Joe Rogan & PBD Discuss 'The Real Anthony Fauci' Book

"What a book. It's a f**king insane book. I cannot recommend that book enough…It makes you reconsider everything."@joerogan @patrickbetdavid @RobertKennedyJr @tonylyonspub pic.twitter.com/s8j4EhEMJn
— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) August 3, 2023

Regarding rigged or stolen elections, Rogan said he thinks electronic voting machines were tampered with during the 2022 Arizona gubernatorial race between Republican Kari Lake and Democrat Katie Hobbs.

Joe Rogan believes that voting machines in the Lake vs Hobbs election were messed with….#WeWantAnswers #JoeRogan #PBD #VoterFraud pic.twitter.com/HhpUeDdWaJ
— Isaac’s Army (@ReturnOfKappy) August 3, 2023

It’s amazing to see two of the biggest podcast hosts in the world having Alex Jones-level discussions about topics and ideas Infowarriors have been hammering for decades.
 

Another Blow to the Petrodollar: India and the UAE Complete First Oil Sale in Rupees​

by Michael Maharrey | Schiff Gold
August 16th 2023, 1:23 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/anot...nd-the-uae-complete-first-oil-sale-in-rupees/

The oil sale was the first after the two countries entered a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in July. The deal established the Local Currency Settlement (LCS) system, facilitated by the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates.

The system allows the two countries to engage in bilateral trade using the rupee and dirham. According to a statement by the Reserve Bank of India, the agreement will facilitate “seamless cross-border transactions and payments, and foster greater economic cooperation.”

In another blow to dollar dominance, India and the United Arab Emirates settled an oil trade without converting local currencies to dollars for the first time on Monday, as India’s top refiner made a payment for oil in rupees.

Indian Oil Corp. bought a million barrels of oil from Abu Dhabi National Oil Company in a dollar-free transaction.


The oil sale was the first after the two countries entered a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in July. The deal established the Local Currency Settlement (LCS) system, facilitated by the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates. The system allows the two countries to engage in bilateral trade using the rupee and dirham. According to a statement by the Reserve Bank of India, the agreement will facilitate “seamless cross-border transactions and payments, and foster greater economic cooperation.”

The first test of the LCS involved the sale of 25 kg of gold from a UAE gold exporter to a buyer in India at about 128.4 million rupees ($1.54 million).

According to WIONews in India, the LCS system will reduce costs and speed up transactions between the two countries.
https://www.infowarsstore.com/speci...dium=banner&utm_content=christmasaugustbanned
Additionally, reliance on national currencies is anticipated to bolster economic resilience and strengthen bilateral relations. Moreover, any surplus balances in the local currencies can be invested in various local assets, including corporate bonds, government securities, and equity markets.”
India has also purchased oil from Russia using non-dollar currencies.

India ranks as the third-largest oil importer in the world.

If the trend of dollarless transactions expands to other countries, the minimization of the dollar in the global oil trade would be bad news for the United States.

As it stands, the majority of global oil sales are priced in dollars. This ensures a constant demand for the greenback since every country needs dollars to buy oil. This helps support the US government’s “borrow and spend” policies, along with its massive deficits. As long as the world needs dollars for oil, it guarantees demand for greenbacks. That means the Federal Reserve can keep printing dollars to monetize the debt.

ZeroHedge explained how the process works.

One of the core staples of the past 40 years, and an anchor propping up the dollar’s reserve status, was a global financial system based on the petrodollar – this was a world in which oil producers would sell their product to the US (and the rest of the world) for dollars, which they would then recycle the proceeds in dollar-denominated assets and while investing in dollar-denominated markets, explicitly prop up the USD as the world reserve currency, and in the process backstop the standing of the US as the world’s undisputed financial superpower.”
Simply put, de-dollarization would drastically diminish US economic power and wreck the country’s economy.

And India isn’t the only country drifting away from the dollar.

In January, Saudi Arabia Finance Minister Mohammed Al-Jadaan said the country is open to discussing trade in currencies other than the US dollar.

“There are no issues with discussing how we settle our trade arrangements, whether it is in the US dollar, whether it is the euro, whether it is the Saudi riyal,” Al-Jadaan said in an interview with Bloomberg TV.

Al-Jadaan went on to say, “I don’t think we are waving away or ruling out any discussion that will help improve the trade around the world.”

Saudi Arabia has sold oil exclusively for dollars since 1974 under a deal with the Nixon administration. If the Saudis shift away from the dollar and sell oil in other currencies, other countries would likely follow suit due to the country’s influence on the global oil market.

While the current de-dollarization trend doesn’t directly threaten the dollar’s role as the world reserve currency — yet — it could foreshadow bigger problems down the road, especially if the trend continues to accelerate. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, IMF Managing Director Gita Gopinath warned that sanctions on Russia could erode the dollar’s dominance by encouraging smaller trading blocs using other currencies. That’s exactly what we’re seeing.

If the demand for dollars were to plunge significantly, interest rates on US Treasury bonds would soar. This would be an untenable situation for a government servicing more than $32 trillion in debt.

While the world isn’t on the verge of jettisoning the dollar, there does seem to be an increasing likelihood the petrodollar could face competition from other currencies. This is yet another sign that the dollar may eventually lose its status as the sole reserve currency. Americans should be wary of counting on long-term dollar dominance to prop up its house of cards economy.
 

National Australia Bank now debanking customers for “mean” speech​

SEPTEMBER 01, 2023

Link: http://www.yourdestinationnow.com/2023/09/national-australia-bank-now-debanking.html

Effective Nov. 1, 2023, the National Australia Bank (NAB) plans to start debanking customers who engage in "mean" speech.

If someone else's feelings become hurt by something a NAB customer says or does, the bank will take away his or her bank account as punishment.

According to The Counter Signal, the NAB updated its terms and conditions in such a way as to turn its relationship with customers into something "that resembles that of a schoolteacher or grade school student."

Any NAB customer caught "making profane, derogatory, discriminatory or harassing comments to any person," or who inflicts "psychological harm" on someone else, will face the ire of one of Australia's largest banks, which is also one of the "big four" alongside the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, Commonwealth Bank of Australia (which was owned by the Australian government until 1996), and the Westpac Banking Corporation.

"The entire Commonwealth is compromised," tweeted the X (formerly known as Twitter) account of Lion Advocacy's Daniel Ari Freiheit, MBA, LLB.

"Look into dual citizenship & consider moving your savings to countries that respect property & speech."

Don't be "mean" or we'll stop you from buying and selling and accessing your own money​

In its terms and conditions update, the NAB spelled out what will happen to any customer who is caught uttering threatening or abusive language, as defined by the bank.

"We may reasonably exercise one or more of our rights in these terms and conditions to suspend, cancel or deny an account holder's access or use of the account, card or an electronic banking service if we reasonably consider it appropriate to protect a customer or another person from financial abuse," the update states.

The changes could spark a boycott, which is exactly what happened to Scotiabank after it informed military veteran Jeremy MacKenzie that his account was being closed because he was deemed to have exceeded the bank's "risk appetite."

"What part of it is too risky for the bank – is that my military pension?" MacKenzie asked the Scotiabank representative who informed him that his account was being shuttered.

"I'm afraid I don't have any more detail," the representative responded. "I'm just the messenger."

That sure sounds a whole lot like World War II era just following orders, does it not?

Not only is MacKenzie no longer to bank with Scotiabank, but he is also barred from ever again visiting a branch of the bank without permission.

It turns out that MacKenzie publicly criticized the regime of Justin Trudeau, including the corrupt RCMP which persecuted him and others for participating in the Freedom Convoy of Ottawa.

"First they came for the Mercolas and I took NO action. Then they ...," one commenter wrote on a story about what happened to Dr. Mercola at the hands of JPMorgan.

"If you speak the truth, you will be punished," wrote another. "That is the message the lying left-wing scum are putting out there. Oppose us, reveal our lies and you will be ruthlessly punished. So, how do you like those Democrats now?"

It is one thing for Australia and Canada to be engaging in this kind of debanking "censorship," seeing as how neither of those two countries have a constitution like that of the U.S. But there is no excuse for JPMorgan Chase being allowed to persecute an American citizen while operating on U.S. soil.

"Suffice it to say Americans are no longer living in the country that was founded by our 'Founding Fathers,'" another commenter wrote. "The Constitution & the Bill of Rights no longer have any more meaning – it is now just an antiquated notion."
 
Here, Rothbard lectures specifically on founding of the Federal Reserve




Here's some commentary on Rothbard's book, "The Case Against the Fed"

 
Last edited:

Woodrow Wilson's Christmas Grift of 1913​

Link: https://mises.org/wire/woodrow-wilsons-christmas-grift-1913/
  • woodrow wilson

12/23/2023George Ford Smith
Listen to the Audio Mises Wire version of this article.

We think of thieves as conducting their work when no one is looking, such as breaking into a house while the owners are away. But the most successful thieves have done their stealing in plain sight, on a grand scale, while the owners were home and often with their tacit approval, though with sleights of hand that few are able to detect. Such a theft occurred when Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law on December 23, 1913.
A central bank such as the Fed has a remarkable character. According to establishment boilerplate, its purpose is to stabilize the economy and ensure prosperity and “full employment.” The decision makers at the Fed are of necessity selected for their superhuman brilliance and neutrality of judgment, thus qualifying them to adjust the amount of money available to the banks so that they may in turn serve the interests of a public numbering some 330 million people.
If for some reason certain members of the public don’t reap the benefits of this policy—or worse, end up losing their jobs, their savings, their businesses, and their homes—it’s not because the Fed itself is a bad idea. How could it be? Without the Fed as an emergency lender, bankers threw the economy into panics in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
But there’s another side to the Fed’s character that is somewhat less wholesome than its public image and is best revealed by the way it was founded.

The Bankers’ Dream​

Before the Fed’s founding, bankers in general and Wall Street in particular complained about US currency’s lack of “elasticity.” “Elasticity” in this context is one of the great euphemisms of human history. According to lore, this missing feature of “hard” money, such as gold or silver, was responsible for the panics of 1873, 1884, 1893, and 1907. The supply of the coins that were behind the paper banknotes couldn’t be increased when needed. Gold and silver were therefore said to be inelastic. Because of this inelasticity, the legend persisted that banks were having trouble meeting the demand for farm loans at harvest time, as G. Edward Griffin explains in The Creature from Jekyll Island:
To supply those funds, the country banks had to draw down their cash reserves which generally were deposited with the larger city banks. This thinned out the reserves held in the cities, and the whole system became more vulnerable. Actually, that part of the legend is true, but apparently no one is expected to ask questions about the rest of the story.
Several of them come to mind. Why wasn’t there a panic every Autumn instead of just every eleven years or so? Why didn’t all banks—country or city—maintain adequate reserves to cover their depositor demands? And why didn’t they do this in all seasons of the year? Why would merely saying no to some loan applicants cause hundreds of banks to fail?
The Morgan and Rockefeller bankers on Wall Street dreamed of having a central bank that could supply money when needed, as a “lender of last resort.” A central bank would also control the banks’ inflation rate. If bank reserves could be maintained at a central bank and a common reserve ratio established, then no single bank could expand credit more than its rivals, and therefore there would be no bankruptcies caused by currency’s draining from overly inflationary banks. All banks would inflate in harmony, and there would be tranquility and profits for all.
The bankers who traveled a thousand miles to meet on Jekyll Island in November 1910 understood they needed a cartel to bring their dream to life. And they needed the threat of state violence for the cartel to work.
Thus, included in their secret meeting were two politicians serving as the bankers’ advocates in Washington. The bankers planned to establish their cartel over the Christmas holidays, while the American public was distracted, though for political reasons it was delayed until 1913.
The public would be a hard sell. Americans were profoundly suspicious of Wall Street and cartels. They distrusted anything big in business or government. A central bank operating for the benefit of the big banks had no chance of becoming law, unless it was promoted as shackling Wall Street itself. This could be accomplished, it was widely believed, through a government bureaucracy of overseers.

The Pujo Committee​

Frequent speeches by Wisconsin senator Robert LaFollette and Minnesota congressman Charles Lindbergh brought public outrage over the “money trust” to a boil. LaFollette charged that the entire country was under the control of just fifty men; Morgan partner George Baker disputed the allegation, claiming it was no more than eight men. Lindbergh pointed out that bankers had controlled all financial legislation since the Civil War through committee memberships.
Government, acting as the sword of justice, decided to act, with most people oblivious to the fact that the executioner and the accused were one and the same. In response to the accusations, it formed a new subcommittee, which held hearings from May 1912 until January 1913.
The Pujo Committee was headed by Louisiana congressman Arsène Pujo, then roundly considered to be a spokesman for the “oil trust.” The hearings followed the usual pattern, bringing forth immense quantities of statistics and testimonies from bankers themselves. Though the hearings were conducted largely because of the charges brought forth by LaFollette and Lindbergh, neither man was allowed to testify.
Under the direction of Paul Warburg, the principal author of the Jekyll Island plan that in its essentials became the Federal Reserve Act, the banks provided 100 percent financing for something called the National Citizens League, the purpose of which was to create the illusion of grassroots support for Warburg’s brainchild.
University of Chicago economics professor J. Laurence Laughlin was put in charge of the league’s propaganda, ostensibly to bring a measure of objectivity to the discussions. John D. Rockefeller, whose representatives at Jekyll were Senator Nelson Aldrich and bank president Frank Vanderlip, had endowed the university with $50 million.
Woodrow Wilson was an outspoken critic of the money trust in his 1912 presidential campaign, all the while receiving funding from the very trust he was condemning. Wilson said:
I have seen men squeezed by [the money trust]; I have seen men who, as they themselves expressed it, were put “out of business by Wall Street,” because Wall Street found them inconvenient and didn’t want their competition.

Benjamin Strong Runs the Show​

When the Fed began operations in late 1914, the man in charge of the system was Morgan banker Benjamin Strong Jr., one of the Jekyll Island attendees. Strong served as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from its inception until his death on October 16, 1928. Strong, in the Morgan tradition, was an anglophile who inflated the US money supply from 1925–28 to keep Britain from losing gold to the US. Details of Strong’s reign and the precrash conditions he created can be found in Murray Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression:
The long-run tendency of the free market economy, unhampered by monetary expansion, is a gently falling price level, falling as the productivity and output of goods and services continually increase. The Austrian policy of refraining always from monetary inflation would allow this tendency of the free market its head and thereby remove the disruptions of the business cycle.
The Chicago goal of a constant price level, which can be achieved only by a continual expansion of money and credit, would, as in [Benjamin Strong’s policy of the] 1920s, unwittingly generate the cycle of boom and bust that has proved so destructive for the past two centuries.
 

The Christmas Gift That Keeps On Taking​

BY TYLER DURDEN
TUESDAY, DEC 26, 2023 - 09:00 AM
Authored by Michael Maharrey via SchiffGold.com,

Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/christmas-gift-keeps-taking

Two days before Christmas in 1913, Woodrow Wilson gave the United States a Christmas gift that keeps taking. On that day, he signed the Federal Reserve Act into law, creating the US central bank.

Since that inauspicious day, the US dollar has lost 96% of its value.
It’s no surprise that Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act just one day before Christmas Eve. It was perfect timing so the general public wouldn’t notice.
The stated purpose of the legislation was to “provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system.”
In reality, it was a gift to bankers.
In an article published by the Mises Institute, George Ford Smith explained why bankers were clamoring for a central bank. [see just above posting by Apo, # 8]
Before the Fed’s founding, bankers in general and Wall Street in particular complained about US currency’s lack of “elasticity.” “Elasticity” in this context is one of the great euphemisms of human history. According to lore, this missing feature of “hard” money, such as gold or silver, was responsible for the panics of 1873, 1884, 1893, and 1907. The supply of the coins that were behind the paper banknotes couldn’t be increased when needed. Gold and silver were therefore said to be inelastic. Because of this inelasticity, the legend persisted that banks were having trouble meeting the demand for farm loans at harvest time, as G. Edward Griffin explains in The Creature from Jekyll Island:
“To supply those funds, the country banks had to draw down their cash reserves which generally were deposited with the larger city banks. This thinned out the reserves held in the cities, and the whole system became more vulnerable. Actually, that part of the legend is true, but apparently no one is expected to ask questions about the rest of the story.
“Several of them come to mind. Why wasn’t there a panic every Autumn instead of just every eleven years or so? Why didn’t all banks—country or city—maintain adequate reserves to cover their depositor demands? And why didn’t they do this in all seasons of the year? Why would merely saying no to some loan applicants cause hundreds of banks to fail?”

The Morgan and Rockefeller bankers on Wall Street dreamed of having a central bank that could supply money when needed, as a “lender of last resort.” A central bank would also control the banks’ inflation rate. If bank reserves could be maintained at a central bank and a common reserve ratio established, then no single bank could expand credit more than its rivals, and therefore there would be no bankruptcies caused by currency’s draining from overly inflationary banks. All banks would inflate in harmony, and there would be tranquility and profits for all.
The origins of the Fed are pretty shady.
The central bank was conceived during a secret meeting at a private club on Jekyll Island, Georgia. According to an NPR article, Sen. Nelson Aldrich, chairman of the Senate finance committee, organized the clandestine meeting.
“He told a handful of New York bankers to go on a given night, one by one, to a train station in New Jersey. There they would find a private rail car hitched to the back of a southbound train. To conceal their identities, Aldrich told the bankers to come dressed as duck hunters and to address each other only by first name.”
The attendees at this meeting hammered out a blueprint that became the Federal Reserve Act.
The rest is a history of money devaluation and government growth.

THE ENGINE RUNNING THE BIGGEST GOVERNMENT IN HISTORY

The Federal Reserve serves as the engine that makes all of the US government’s borrowing and spending possible. Without the Fed, the entire system would collapse. Ultimately, you can thank the Fed for the massive national debt.
Case in point, in the early days of the COVID-19 lockdowns, the Federal Reserve effectively monetized 100 percent of the new debt taken on by the US government.
Here’s how it worked.
In March and April, the US Treasury Department issued $1.56 trillion in debt securities to fund Uncle Sam’s massive coronavirus spending spree. Meanwhile, in March, the Fed bought $1.2 trillion in Treasury bonds. The central bank slowed its roll a bit in April but still purchased $526 billion in US bonds. That brought the two-month total to $1.56 trillion.
In effect, the Federal Reserve bought all of the debt issued by the US government in March and April with money created out of thin air.
Therein lies the Fed’s true power. It can “print money.”
When we say the central bank “prints money,” we don’t mean it literally runs off dollar bills in the basement of the Eccles Building. Modern money creation is digital. The Fed can simply write a check, even if funds don’t exist in the account, and “poof,” new money appears in the account of whoever receives the check. The Federal Reserve can’t bounce a check. This enables the central bank to expand the money supply at its discretion.
According to the powers-that-be, this is a feature, not a bug. The Fed’s ability to inflate the money supply supposedly creates economic stability.
In reality, it creates government stability.
If the federal government had to rely on tax receipts and debt it could repay to fund all of its unconstitutional wars, foreign aid, and domestic spending, it would be dead in the water. The ability to raise revenue through taxation would naturally limit the government. But with the Fed backstopping the borrowing and monetizing the debt, there are virtually no limits on its spending.
But you still foot the bill via the inflation tax.
As Peter Schiff put it during a 2022 interview, when you talk about families struggling with inflation, they’re really struggling with government.
Inflation is a tax. It’s the way government finances deficit spending. Government spends money. It doesn’t collect enough taxes, so it has to run deficits. The Federal Reserve monetizes those defiticts – prints money. They call it quantitative easing, but that’s inflation. Government is getting bigger and bigger, and families across America are going to have to bear that burden through higher prices.”
The Federal Reserve may well rank as the worst Christmas gift ever. It’s the give that keeps on taking.

MORE MARKETS STORIES ON ZEROHEDGE​


'Biggest Losers', Bullion, & Black Gold All Bid On Boxing Day​



The Biggest Downside Risks For 2024​



How To Talk To Your Family About The Economy Over The Holidays​


 
Simple, brief expo on gold-standard, suckers--for gold has REAL value, morons, recognized by all races, cultures, peoples, all throughout history, even though morons just refuse to grasp

 
Back
Top