peter palms
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
|
 |
May 27, 2014, 10:11:24 PM |
|
The first three central banks of the U.S. collapsed amist high inflation and economic chaos
MYTH ACCEPTED AS HISTORY
The accepted version of history is that the Federal Reserve was created to stabilize our economy. One of the most widely-used textbooks on this subject says: "It sprang from the panic of 1907, with its alarming epidemic of bank failures: the country was fed IT once and for all with the anarchy of unstable private banking." Even the most naive student must sense a grave contradiction between this cherished view and the System's actual performance. Since its inception, it has presided over the crashes of 1921 and 1929; the Great Depression of '29 to '39; recessions in '53, '57, '69, '75, and '81; a stock market "Black Monday" in '87; and a 1000% inflation which has destroyed 90% of the dollar's purchasing
3
power.
Let us be more specific on that last point. By 1990, an annual income of $10,000 was required to buy what took only $1,000 in 1914.4 That incredible loss in value was quietly transferred to the federal government in the form of hidden taxation, and the Federal Reserve System was the mechanism by which it was accomplished.
Actions have consequences. The consequences of wealth confis- cation by the Federal-Reserve mechanism are now upon us. In the current decade, corporate debt is soaring; personal debt is greater than ever; both business and personal bankruptcies are at an all-time high; banks and savings and loan associations are failing in
1. Quoted by Kolko, Triumph, p. 235.
2. Paul A. Samuelson, Economics, 8th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), p. 272.
3. See "Money, Banking, and Biblical Ethics," by Ronald H. Nash, Durell Journal of Money and Banking, February, 1990.
4. When one considers that the income tax had just been introduced in 1913 and that such low figures were completely exempt, an income at that time of $1,000 actually was the equivalent of earning $15,400 now, before paying 35% taxes. When the amount now taken by state and local governments is added to the total bite, the figure is close to $20,000.
larger numbers than ever before; interest on the national debt is consuming more than half of our personal income tax; heavy industry largely has been replaced by overseas competitors; we are facing an international trade deficit for the first time in our history; 75% of downtown Los Angeles and other metropolitan areas is owned by foreigners; and the nation is in economic recession
FIRST REASON TO ABOLISH THE SYSTEM
That is the scorecard eighty years after the Federal Reserve was created supposedly to stabilize our economy! There can be no argument that the System has failed in its stated objectives. Furthermore, after all this time, after repeated changes in personnel, after operating under both political parties, after numerous experiments in monetary philosophy, after almost a hundred revisions to its charter, and after the development of countless new formulas and techniques, there has been more than ample opportunity to work out mere procedural flaws. It is not unreasonable to conclude, therefore, that the System has failed, not because it needs a new set of rules or more intelligent directors, but because it is incapable of achieving its stated objectives.
If an institution is incapable of achieving its objectives, there is no reason to preserve it—unless it can be altered in some way to change its capability. That leads to the question: why is the System incapable of achieving its stated objectives? The painful answer is: those were never its true objectives. When one realizes the circumstances under which it was created, when one contemplates the identities of those who authored it, and when one studies its actual performance over the years, it becomes obvious that the System is merely a cartel with a government facade. There is no doubt that those who run it are motivated to maintain full employment, high productivity, low inflation, and a generally sound economy. They are not interested in killing the goose that lays such beautiful golden eggs. But, when there is a conflict between the public interest and the private needs of the cartel—a conflict that arises almost daily—the public will be sacrificed. That is the nature of the beast. It is foolish to expect a cartel to act in any other way.
This view is not encouraged by Establishment institutions and publishers. It has become their apparent mission to convince the American people that the system is not intrinsically flawed. It merely has been in the hands of bumbling oafs. For example,
William Greider was a former Assistant Managing Editor for The Washington Post. His book, Secrets of The Temple, was published in 1987 by Simon and Schuster. It was critical of the Federal Reserve because of its failures, but, according to Greider, these were not caused by any defect in the System itself, but were merely the result
of economic factors which are "s000 complicated" that the good men who have struggled to make the System work just haven't
been able to figure it all out. But, don't worry, folks, they're working on it! That is exactly the kind of powder-puff criticism which is acceptable in our mainstream media. Yet, Greider's own research points to an entirely different interpretation. Speaking of the System's origin, he says:
As new companies prospered without Wall Street, so did the new regional banks that handled their funds. New York's concentrated share of bank deposits was still huge, about half the nation's total, but it was declining steadily. Wall Street was still "the biggest kid on the block," but less and less able to bully the others.
This trend was a crucial fact of history, a misunderstood reality that completely alters the political meaning of the reform legislation that created the Federal Reserve. At the time, the conventional wisdom in Congress, widely shared and sincerely espoused by Progressive reformers, was that a government institution would finally harness the "money trust," disarm its powers, and establish broad democratic control over money and credit.... The results were nearly the opposite. The money reforms enacted in 1913, in fact, helped to preserve the status quo, to stabilize the old order. Money-center bankers would not only gain dominance over the new central bank, but would also enjoy new insulation against instability and their own decline. Once the Fed was in operation, the steady diffusion of financial power halted. Wall Street maintained its dominant position—and even enhanced it. 1
Antony Sutton, former Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution and Peace, and also former Professor of Economics at California State University, Los Angeles, provides a somewhat deeper analysis. He writes:
Warburg's revolutionary plan to get American Society to go to work for Wall Street was astonishingly simple. Even today,... academic theoreticians cover their blackboards with meaningless equations, and the general public struggles in bewildered confusion with inflation and the coming credit collapse, while the quite simple explanation of
1. Greider, p. 275.
the problem goes undiscussed and almost entirely uncomprehended. The Federal Reserve System is a legal private monopoly of the money supply operated for the benefit of the few under the guise of protecting and promoting the public interest.1
|
