News & Analysis
IMF Plots Role as World's Central Bank?
IMF says worth exploring borrowing from markets ... The International Monetary Fund said it was worth exploring ways that the global institution could borrow from financial markets at short notice to raise additional funding for its lending programs. In a paper that looks at progress by the Group of 20 major economies in reforming the global monetary system, the Fund said building confidence in the IMF's ability to respond to crises may warrant looking at alternative ways of fund-raising, including turning to markets. – Reuters
Dominant Social Theme: The world's economy is a disaster. The IMF is the logical choice to lead the way to a brighter banking future in a consolidated, centralized, world economy. It says so itself.
Free-Market Analysis: Can you hear the whispers coming out of the shadows? Over the past months, we have covered the IMF's increasing efforts to position itself as the world's future central bank and one-world currency issuer. We can see from the above article in Reuters – a chief mouthpiece of the power elite along with the Economist magazine – that the campaign is in no sense winding down. Now the IMF casually, oh-so-casually, floats the idea that it might tap global markets for funding.
Various speculations immediately come to mind. The first is that IMF executives are expecting something big, probably the default of Spain. The idea would be that the EU, which has been struggling with gnats such as Portugal, Greece and Ireland, simply could not handle a default the size of Spain. The IMF has been faithfully at the side of the EU, madly indemnifying Southern PIGS as they fall; but even the IMF could not handle such a bankruptcy, or so we speculate.
Of course, Spanish officials have recently issued a series of statements indicating that Spain is solvent and will remain so, which in our view means a default is almost certainly on the way. Over the weekend, EU officials claimed, as well, that the EU had turned the proverbial corner and that recessionary trends were giving away to recovery. Again, from our point of view, this almost certainly means that the EU is slumping into dire straits, maybe a depression.
Yes, the IMF may be looking ahead. It receives funds via its 150-plus member countries, but these funds will not be enough if Spain collapses, especially given the other demands the IMF is facing. A special levy could be undertaken, but a more innovative approach would be to tap the larger financial markets.
This would have several pleasant side effects. (Never let a crisis go to waste.) First it would further establish the IMF as an independent body rather than a lending facility. The IMF is actually subsumed under the UN, and subsidiary bodies such as the IMF and the WHO do not traditionally offer independent securities. To do so places the subsidiary in a new light; suddenly it is seen as an independent actor on the world stage, an entity that can raise its own funds and therefore determine its own course of action.
That's one benefit. The other of course is that such independence generally puts the IMF on the road to further independent courses of action; if the IMF has ambitions of becoming the world's central bank (and it has bluntly affirmed it) then intermediate steps are a necessity. Issuing its own securities is a good way to acclimate the larger populace to the idea that someday the IMF can issue its own currency. (In fact, in a sense it already does via its SDRs.)
Important stuff in our view. But like so many things, the IMF's musings received a lot less play than, say, who has been excommunicated from The American Idol TV program (a story much in the news). This is unfortunate. The IMF matters. (We wish it didn't.) The IMF in fact is continually involved these days in a concerted and deadly serious campaign to refashion itself. One may find American Idol a most important TV event, but surely the creation of a new monetary system is worth paying attention to as well?
It began with a series of leaks in 2010 picked up by the media about how SDRs could become the world's new currency. Brazil and Chinese central bankers even went on the record as saying SDRs could furnish a global currency, among alternatives. Then came the jaw-dropping statement by American Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (pictured above with Dominique Strauss-Kahn) that the US too would be in favor of a "basket of currencies" that could constitute a new world money. Free-market thinkers were flabbergasted of course. Why would the US trade in its reserve dollar currency – a currency so strong that the US can print virtually all it wants without creating price inflation – for a basket of currencies it didn't control?
As always when such cognitive dissonance arises, the mainstream media eventually shuts up. There are no answers after all. It makes no sense, unless one grants that there are larger forces at play here; if one does that, then one is a "conspiracy theorist" and therefore the mainstream media will do almost ANYTHING to avoid connecting the dots.
But here at the DB we are not so reticent. We will state boldly that that the current aim of the Anglosphere elites (that control the IMF, World Bank, etc.) is to create one-world government with all its appropriate paraphernalia including a Parliament (UN) military (NATO) police force (Interpol) court-system (ICC in the Hague) and of course the necessary economic instruments including a single currency. Within this context, Geithner's advocacy of a global currency is not at all startling. He serves at the pleasure of the elites; he supports their platforms. In fact, the American government for decades has supported elite agendas and surely cannot be said to speak for the "people" anymore.
Yet all of these conversations are sotto voce. In fact, they might not be audible at all were it not for the alternative media and the Internet. The Internet provides us amplitude that the elites find unnecessary. In fact, in the 20th century elite procedures worked very well. Delicately-made statements were offered up by the appropriate individuals, a paper trail was established; a series of meetings took place; decisions were made by "wise ones" and eventually the New York Times published the foregone conclusion in a two or three part series. On Sunday there might even be a crossword puzzle dedicated to reinforcing the meme. What fun! Who could object?
But the ‘Net, with its compulsive repurposing, has changed the context and the elite's formula of sociopolitical manipulation. What was once unseen is now clarified. What was previously all-but-inaudible now shouts from the ‘Net's electronic newsprint. The elite stubbornly refuses to change though. No, the same procedures used in the 20th century are still in play in the 21st. The same false-flags are trotted out; the same absurdities are made manifest by pliable governments. The trouble is that the Internet, in putting such manipulations in context, inevitably reveals their ridiculousness. The charade is tissue thin and ripped asunder by anyone who studies it for an hour or two.
Sometimes it takes not a bit of study. Reuters in the article excerpted above virtually lays it out for us. The G20 meets in Washington [this] week before semi-annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank where "changes to the global monetary system will be discussed by finance ministers." How much clearer can it be? Here's some more from Reuters on the just-issued IMF report and upcoming economic meetings:
Among issues being explored to update the global monetary system is whether or not to include the Chinese renminbi in a basket of currencies that make up the IMF's special drawing rights – an international reserve asset of the IMF. The basket is currently made up of the dollar, euro, pound sterling and the yen. Created in 1969, it does not reflect the rising importance of China.
One of the biggest obstacles to the SDR playing a bigger role in the global financial system was technical challenges and a "great deal of consensus-building and policy coordination," the IMF report said. The report said most of the ideas being considered to remake the global monetary system would require more collaboration among countries. In addition, some proposals would take time to implement, the report said, suggesting it could be a while before a new monetary system is rolled out.
Did you catch that last sentence, dear reader? They're not even trying to hide it. "It could be a while before a new monetary system is rolled out." Who, we wonder, is doing the rolling and why? Has there been a global upswell for a new monetary system? Are people protesting on the streets for a worldwide currency. Are the color revolutions taking place around the world because "the youth" wants the IMF to take over management of a new global money.
There is a dominant social theme at work here – a fear-based promotion presented by the power elite. The meme is that the old money system doesn't work and is driving the world to ruin; thus a new, more consolidated system is necessary. The trouble is twofold, however. First, the old system was virtually created to produce the results the world is now grappling with. Second, the same people who brought you the current ruin are now suggesting the replacement system.
A final thought occurs to us. The IMF recently came out with a report (it is hard to keep track of them) explaining how SDRs could become a world currency. One of the main stumbling blocks apparently was the lack of an SDR Treasury where SDRs – bancors, ultimately – could be stored at a rate of interest by those who held them.
At the time, several months ago (as the report was issued at Davos) the IMF claimed that such a system could only evolve over time. Yet now we see that the IMF is suddenly in crisis mode and its brain trust is suggesting for various reasons that what might have been considered as a decade-long evolution be speeded up. Perhaps by tomorrow the IMF will announce that it suddenly created an SDR-fixed income product. And later this week, they suddenly hold their first auction. Goldman Sachs shall purchase a good deal of it; European banks will buy the rest.
Conclusion: One is struck by how fast events are moving. The power elite is hardly bothering to pretend anymore. One paper suggests decades; another paper indicates that instruments might have to be collated tomorrow. Yesterdays' blueprint is applied today; but we can see the articulation beneath the surface and the connections to the Man Behind the Curtain. The great and invisible Oz is neither of these things anymore, but merely visible and obvious. What we tend to see is desperate men running as fast as they can before time runs out.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Freemanfornow on 04/16/11 01:45 AM
Reading this, one can almost see the current financial debacle the world is going through as a long term plan to end independence and sovereignty of any nation that signs on to the program. Do I smell a Soros in our future? Odessa is alive and well.
|
Posted by Dan on 04/15/11 10:28 PM
can ou say go to hell IMF
along with all of the do good world citizens.
|
Posted by Ingo Bischoff on 04/13/11 02:24 AM
@ DB
"There are thousands, even millions of articles, that inform us that the Fed can print money from nothing at will. There is ONLY ONE Dr. Fekete stating that it cannot."
I am with Dr. Fekete on the matter. So there are TWO of us now.
As to accusing Dr. Thorton et. al. of being ignorant and writing an incorrect scholarly article, I can only say that referring to Real Bills as credit instruments is either willfully mistating a fact or it is ignorance of the fact. I do not attempt to ruin anyones career by stating my understanding of the facts in contrast to others. I did make the comment that I have found this sort of statement made by many who are associated with Austrian economics, most notably Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, and now Dr. Thornton et. al. I am not calling them liars. I am merely stating that they are incorrect in describing Real Bills as credit instruments. I have found that today even prominent bankers describe Real Bills as credit instruments instead as clearing instruments. I hope that I explained my comments regarding Dr. Thornton et. al.
Dr. Fekete is talking about the banks within the Fed system. These banks are authorized to create a "deposit currency" against loans made. This deposit currency is a mere bookkeeping entry on the books of the banks. It cannot be used to collaterize, to pay for or otherwise be conveyed in any transaction.
When a mortgagee or holder of a loan makes a payment against a "deposit currency" entry on the books of the bank in the Fed system, he does so with Federal Reserve Notes. It is those Federal Reserve Notes which convert the banks "deposit currency" entry into valid Federal Reserve Note currency.
Dr. Fekete's point is that Fed banks have to present actual FRNs in the form of Treasury paper to the Fed Agent to receive "credit". This is what Dr. Fekete means by the need of the Fed "banks" to collateralize money printing (deposit currency) BEFOREHAND (before receiving credit for FRNs on their books).
|
Posted by Anadianant on 04/12/11 11:40 PM
I think there will be a war (rather the on-going war will con-flagerate into a seamless visible one) and what the IMF will or will not do will be meaningless. As will be a basket of currencies. More like a basket-case of currencies at that point. All geo-political moves at this point seem to be going in that direction. All the focus on copper (a key war material) and Silver (another key war material) point to that fact as well. The UN's increasing military role (see Ivory coast as a classic case in point) is also a pointer.
All in all, we are looking at the winds of war being fanned. With that mindset (or mind-flex better yet), prepare accordingly takes on a whole new meaning. We might get free-markets after all, just that in this double-speak, double think time, they may be anything but.
Click to view link
|
Posted by Ingo Bischoff on 04/12/11 10:07 PM
@ DB
"Thornton et. al., below, CLEARLY STATE that the money being used in open market operations is being PRINTED (presumably out of thin air) BEFORE THE OPEN MARKET OPERATIONS COMMENCE.
"Clearly, if a 12-person board is determining the quantity of money that exists, the quantity of gold in the system has little or nothing to do with the money. Either a gold standard specifies the quantity of money in the economy, or a central bank does." (Excerpt from a paper in 1999, published by the Independent Institute. EMPHASIS OURS)"
I am quite familiar with the work of The Independent Institute. The San Francisco School of Economics receives their periodic e-Newsletter. They are a neighbor located across the San Francisco Bay.
The Independent Institute (Mark Thornton, Richard H. Timberlake, Jr., Thomas J. Thompson) explains in the 1999 article ......"The Fed Banks' gold reserves severely restricted their lending policies, as was proper under an operational gold standard. Finally, the real bills doctrine was supposed to furnish the grounds for Fed Banks' accommodation of credit to their client member banks."
This paragraph aptly demonstrates the lack of understanding the function of Real Bills. "Austrians" never seem to understand that Real Bills are not "Credit Instruments". The failure to grasp this very fact always leaves them out of the debate over "commercial" versus "central" banking. To help this shortcoming, I recommend "The Early History of the Law of Bills and Notes" by James S. Rogers of Boston College Law as a primer on the subject of Real Bills. Austrian economics is brilliant in applying marginal utility analysis to the discovery of prices in "free markets". Applying such analysis to currency is results in faulty conclusions.
In the creation of redeemable currency, the pre 1935 Fed commercial banking system never depended on the amount of gold "reserves" held by the Fed Reserve banks. While the original 1913 FRA stipulated a relatively high percentage of gold reserves to be held within the system, it applied to the system as a whole and not specifically to any commercial bank within the system. The amount of currency created within the original Fed system expanded and shrank with the amount of Real Bills acquired by the commercial banks. The amount of currency created had little to do with the amount of gold reserves held. Commercial banks within the original Fed system still had to be chartered by the individual states. The bank charters established the capital requirements in the form of gold. If a commercial bank then applied to become a member of the Fed system, the regional Fed banks judged the adequacy of gold reserves held by the applicant. The requirement for gold reserves assured the ability of commercial banks to redeem currency. When people "save", they in essence redeem currency into gold, even so they deliver redeemable currency to an Investment Trust to have them purchase the corporate "gold" bond.
According to The Independent Institute article, "Either a gold standard specifies the quantity of money in the economy, or a central bank does." This is not the case at all.
"Neo-Austrians", if that is the term applied to Dr. Fekete's thinking, then I am pleased to describe myself as such. A "Neo-Austrian" would write this sentence as follows: "Either the Real Bills Doctrine determines the amount of currency which circulates, or a central banks does." You will notice that gold is not mentioned in this sentence. The Real Bills Doctrine requires that currency created be redeemable into gold. It thereby establishes gold as the "standard of value". The currency created against Real Bills is mostly used for the purchase (exchange) of consumption items. Only when such currency is used as savings is there possibly a need to redeem. Real Bills are drawn by private businesses in relation to the amount of economic activity in the consumption sector. Commercial banks acquire these Real Bills at discount and under a bank charter are authorized to create a redeemable currency against it. When they issue denominated bank notes in lieu of Real Bills, they indicate the "standard of account" by issuing the currency in U.S. Dollars, English Pounds, etc...
Central banks in contrast create money based on sovereign debt acquired. The post-1935 Fed system acquired the initial issue of government debt based on the gold reserves taken over from the pre-1935 Fed system. The Federal Reserve Note was irredeemable after 1933 made so by Executive Order #6102. The prohibition of gold ownership eliminated the Real Bills market and ended "commercial banking". To understand irredeemable currency creation in the post-1935 Fed system one has to understand Federal Open Market Operations, Federal Reserve Requirements and most of all the concept of "deposit currency". That concept rates no mention in The Independent Institute article.
Yet, one has to be quite familiar with the concept of "deposit currency" to understand the following comment by Dr. Fekete: "The process of posting collateral first, and augmenting F.R. credit afterwards must under no circumstances be reversed. What the F.R. banks cannot legally do is to buy the Treasury paper first with unauthorized F.R. credit, post the paper as collateral, and justify the illegal issuance of credit retroactively. Nor can they borrow the bond from the Treasury, post it as collateral, and pay for the bond retroactively."
I believe this is the particular comment by Dr. Fekete which gives you trouble. As I mentioned, to understand Dr. Fekete on this point, the concept of "deposit currency" must be understood, and in that regard, The Independent Institute article is of no help.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Ingo, sorry, this is not an answer. Thank you for trying and for showing your good will and eagerness to educate.
But simply to say that one needs to understand "deposit currency" better does not address the issue, nor provide an answer to the question we asked.
Dr. Fekete has made a statement that the Fed needs to purchase Treasuries in a one-to-one relationship with the currency it desires to print, and to do so in advance.
There are thousands, even millions of articles, that inform us that the Fed can print money from nothing at will.
There is ONLY ONE Dr. Fekete stating that it cannot.
What is the language, enabling statute, underlying rationale for such a statement? That is the question.
You have accused Dr. Thorton et. al. of being ignorant and writing an incorrect scholarly article. Careers can turn on such charges. Please do your best to explain what you mean.
Again, Dr. Fekete's comment and now your followup directly contravene EVERYTHING on the Internet on this subject. What EVIDENCE does he have (and that he can show) that it is incumbent on the Federal Reserve to buy Treasuries in the Open Market before printing money?
This is not a question about gold or Real Bills (which you understand very well). This is a question about a SIMPLE STATEMENT that Dr. Fekete made in an open letter to Ron Paul: That the Fed needs to collateralize money printing BEFOREHAND with Treasury purchases (or purchases of some sort of security).
Can you try again to explain this statement, which stands athwart virtually ALL OF THE LITERATURE on the subject?
Or are we simply to believe that Dr. Fekete somehow misspoke?
|
Posted by Anonymous on 04/12/11 06:18 PM
They want us all to be 'world citizens' (ie, global debt slaves)?
Ok " but, let's all be PATRIOTIC about it (ie, 1776-style)
The Patriotic and Moral Imperative for Owning Gold and Silver
Click to view link
|
Posted by Donald E. Sexauer on 04/12/11 04:15 PM
Let's hope time runs out before they succeed.
|
Posted by C. Hanna on 04/12/11 03:51 PM
Staff Reporter,
You deserve a medal for your reporting on this!
Please write more and I subscribed to your newsletter. I used my most often used email account for it....so don't let me down.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thank you for your kind words and subscription.
|
Posted by C. Hanna on 04/12/11 03:46 PM
PLEASE!!! Some of the men here, and all over the internet that are writing on these matters....PLEASE do something. Some of us have no resources or ability to fight these people who are installing a Centralized World Dictatorship.
This goes above and beyond Democrats versus Republicans, folks.
Over the last 10 years, the entire infrastructure of a police state has been installed with barely a peep from the American people. Unless this is stopped, it will make George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxleys' Brave New World look like democracies.
Please start giving us solutions....many of us don't have money, just our computers. That is all I've got...pretty much anyways.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Over the last 10 years, the entire infrastructure of a police state has been installed with barely a peep from the American people. Unless this is stopped, it will make George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxleys' Brave New World look like democracies.
Good for you. This is a cogent criticism of the current US social order. Some might disagree or suggest it is alarmist. But we would certainly agree with the sentiment if not the details.
|
Posted by C. Hanna on 04/12/11 03:35 PM
oh wow! I have been saying this for so long. People called me names for it and said I was conspiracy theorist.
I'm still staying that this is and always has been a long running conspiracy. The World bank cartel is no joke and no "theory".
Why else would "they" allow Ron Paul to speak openly against the Federal Reserve? It is on its way out.
These people do things in increments. That way people don't notice (they don't want to do it suddenly because they all know what happened to Hitler when he tried pulling a fast one). This has been in the making for a long time.
Ultimately, they are building a wonderful utopia for themselves. But like George Carlin is famous for saying "You ain't invited"...
|
Posted by Ingo Bischoff on 04/12/11 02:11 PM
@ DB
"Ingo, Dr. Fekete states clearly in his recent missive to Ron Paul, so far as we can tell, that the Fed (presumably the modern Fed) needs to buy or hold a certain amount of Treasuries before it can issue fiat money. We ask the following of you, as you are both seemingly a disciple and friend of Dr. Fekete: Is this your understanding of what Dr. Fekete suggested? And how does he defend such a statement? "
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my statement.
Yes, that is what Dr. Fekete maintains.
He can defend his statement on the basis of the 1935 Banking Act. This Act of Congress reorganized the old Fed system, which was based on "commercial bank" redeemable currency creation, into a new Fed system based on "central bank" monetization of sovereign debt to create an irredeemable national currency.
The 1935 Banking Act authorized the creation of Federal Reserve Notes only against sovereign debt acquired through Federal Open Market Operations, meaning an auction process.
In the past, all U.S. Treasury debt was easily subscribed to in auctions. This is no longer the case since 2008 for reasons I have often stated here. PIMCO, the largest bond fund in the world, has divested itself of all U.S. Treasury bonds.
Dr. Fekete makes the point that the FED can only monetize sovereign debt acquired through competitive bids. To create Federal Reserve Notes under any other circumstance requires the express authorization of the U.S. Congress.
TARP and the QEs are such express authorizations to create FRNs. TARP authorized the creation of FRNs against worthless mortgage, commercial and personal loans turned over by banks to the account of the Fed. The QEs are authorizations by Congress to create pure fiat (out of this air) currency for the purpose of repurchasing U.S. Government debt requiring to payment of interest so as to curtail the interest expense in the budget of the U.S.
I hope this explanation was short enough to still answer your question.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Austrians Mark Thornton, Richard H. Timberlake, Jr., Thomas J. Thompson seem to disagree with him.
Dr. Fekete seems clearly to suggest that the Fed has to have currency IN HAND before open market operations purchasing the Treasuries that are to offset the new money creation. (As you indicate in your explanation above.)
Thornton et. al., below, CLEARLY STATE that the money being used in open market operations is being PRINTED (presumably out of thin air) BEFORE THE OPEN MARKET OPERATIONS COMMENCE.
Once again it would seem we have a situation where Rothbardian/Misesian economists analyze the world one way and Neo-Austrians (Dr. Fekete) another.
This analysis, however, would seem to rebut Dr. Fekete's interpretation of the Act.
Can you explain the inconsistency? We cannot.
(Excerpt from a paper in 1999, published by the Independent Institute. EMPHASIS OURS)
Click to view link
Gold Policy in the United States ...
A New Central Banking Measure
... The Banking Act of 1935, was more momentous than the original Federal Reserve Act passed in 1913. In fact, the Act of 1935 might better have been labeled 'The Central Banking Act of 1935, because it virtually rewrote the earlier Act ...
The Banking Act of 1935 changed the whole paraphernalia of monetary control. IT VESTED THE FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE (FOMC) WITH COMPLETE DISCRETIONARY CONTROL TO DETERMINE THE STOCK OF MONEY IN THE UNITED STATES. Regional Fed Bank presidents still had five of the 12 seats on the FOMC, but the Board was now a seven-man majority. From that time on, the FOMC has fashioned monetary policy by authorizing the purchase (or sale) of U.S. government securities in the open market, an operation that the Fed Bank of New York conducts week by week.
WHEN THE FOMC BUYS THE U.S. SECURITIES THAT THE TREASURY HAS PREVIOUSLY SOLD TO PAY THE GOVERNMENT'S BILLS, IT DOES SO BY CREATING MONEY. This new money is either commercial bank reserves or federal reserve note currency. Clearly, if a 12-person board is determining the quantity of money that exists ...
|
Posted by ANDREW JACKSON on 04/12/11 02:00 PM
Of course. Turn the world's monetary supply over into the hands of the same bankers and corporations that have instituted this whole crisis in all of these countries. Read some history and start really educating yourselves.
|
Posted by DK on 04/12/11 12:31 PM
Deputy Managing Director of the IMF and former economist for Chase Manhattan, John Lipsky talked about this at a CFR meeting in December 2008. Specifically:
"One of the proposals under consideration is to convert the IMFC from its current advisory form into an executive body or council. Creating such a council would increase the direct connection between ministerial authority and the Fund's day-to-day activities."
here is the full article:
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks much for the link.
 |
Posted by Reader on 04/12/11 04:22 AM
@DAVE on: Likewise, why would they want a one world currency, if they can have a one world monetary system...."
The One world monetary system might be the concrete form of One World Government itself!
Reminds me of the Golden Calf worshiped by all the rebellious Hebrews... as in , the Golden Calf is one world Government.
|
Posted by Pete 8 on 04/12/11 03:42 AM
Treason charges for our beloved finance ministers perhaps?
 |
Posted by Wayne on 04/11/11 11:31 PM
For those naysayers who will say James Grant is wrong on telling us that the original Federal Reserve Act contained the permission to do, and the options they use, here ye be! see link
Click to view link
There are no victims here, but we do have a bone to pick with our esteemed educational system for failing to mention any of this to their sheep.
Isn't this called the Sin of Omission?
|
Posted by Wayne on 04/11/11 11:19 PM
For the naysayers who might say they don't believe James Grant as to real original powers of the Federal Reserve see link
Click to view link
Here ye be! Our grandparents weren't hoodwinked. It was right in front of them!
|
Posted by Wayne on 04/11/11 11:05 PM
oops typo
sb that there is, not that these is
|
Posted by Wayne on 04/11/11 10:27 PM
With all the confusion and finger pointing going on at this time, James Grant reveals that monetary insanity was actually shown clearly in the original legislation authoring the Federal Reserve. see link
Click to view link
Just as we were told that these is no "right" to Social Security by 1937, The original FED was authorized to just about anything it wanted to.
Have we been hoodwinked, or are we just lazy and illiterate not to know this? We openly gave them this power, and pretended that they were looking out for our interests! Hmmm!
 |
Posted by Stephen on 04/11/11 09:44 PM
Lot' s of interesting and delightful comments.
Thanks DB for Sharing.
Peace
|
|
