heart-breaking ignorance in Congress
Congress actually doesn’t get it
I wrote a 2-paragraph bill,
(posted here at the time)
that, if it became federal law, would take away the Fed’s ability to print itself money,
which is a power the authors of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 never dreamed the
Fed would assume. It is also the widest-open door to the hyperinflationary
collapse some of the smartest money in the world is predicting for the USA.
Over the last three weeks I’ve handed copies of the bill to about 15 United States Representatives, in person
face to face, including Ron Paul. Both parties, many with PhD equivalents.
I’ve spoken to about 6 of them about the bill. None
of the 15 has said anything that indicates that they grasp the problem the bill
addresses. I get the clear impression that most of Congress thinks I’m nuts when
I say the Fed has printed itself over $1T in the last year. They smile like Muppets,
give me the thumbs up, and have not clue the first what I’m talking about.
“Printed? You mean borrowed?” No sir, printed.
No wonder they want healthcare so bad. They think money is infinite. They may be
right. It just will become infinitely worthless.
I would have to agree with those congressmen because the FED doesn’t print any money at all, the FED only deals in credit.
You don’t get it either. Credit is based on capital. The Fed’s balance sheet is capital. That has been
arbitrarily increased by the Fed with no Congressional oversight, by more than 2:1 in the last year,
over a trillion dollars, and according to CM, probably $400B more than that, surripticiously, in
the “custody account”. Why do you think CM highlights this?
That is also unconstitutional, but given the caveats against ad hominems in this forum,
let’s just say I don’t want to argue that one.
If there is 600 trillion and the Fed creates 20 trillion more the net reality is that we have 620 trillion that has a worth of 600 trillion. More money does NOT create more wealth and or more buying power, it dilutes the currency.
Who give a rats @ss about if they do or don’t print it?
They create it, doing so debases the currency and the bottom line is we and our kids and their unborn kids pay it back and pay all the social ills that go with it.
No, it’s worse than that. It’s Louis XVI France. If they print enough of it, they own everything.
You have $10, they have $10,000,000,000,000,000,000– and a loaf of bread is
Let them eat cake?
One wonders how much this has to do with 41% of the profit in the entire economy in
a recent year being in the financial sector. They don’t have much left of the economy
to devour, n’est pas?
That’s what my bill adresses. The money they print, currently, is money
for the banks that they did nothing to get. That’s the problem. That’s how they
destroy a nation.
So credit monetizations to the Treasury. That is a lot closer to your idea that
the money just goes to everybody than giving to the Rockeffellers, Rothschilds,
and whoever else owns stock in Federal Reserve Banks. The current reality is quite a different thing
than going to everybody. It enriches the super-rich, at the expense of everyone else.
France, 1800 or so.
Can you please define what you mean by “print”.
The Fed can simply say they have a certain amount of new money. They enter it onto their
books. Bernanke on “60 Minutes” said what they are doing recently
“is more akin to printing money.”
out of thin air. Not float, i.e. liquidity, but rather the stuff float floats on top of, capital.
A business can write checks, drafts against a deposit account, which is capital money,
and extend the efffective amount of money they have slightly by taking in money faster
than they pay it out. A bank can do a lot of that because of low reserve limits on timed
debt obligations. The Fed can just say OK, we have $1T more capital money than we used
to, which is what they have done over the past year. The Fed’s balance sheet is their capital money.
They have more than doubled it in the last year. They have done so arbitrarily, based on no new money
they have obtained. This is what CM is mostly talking about.
Here’s the comment I just added to presidentbyamendment.com/issues/money.html
This makes increasing the money supply possible only by an act of Congress except in specific
fiscal emergencies, and if the money supply is increased, the new money goes
directly to the government of the United States of America instead of to the stockholders
of Federal Reserve Banks, who did nothing to earn it.
This is more in line with the Constitution than the current loop-hole-based
practice of the Fed, and allows only the government to do us like Louis XVI
did France, rather than allowing private banks to do so.
One wonders how much this has to do with 41% of the profit in the entire economy in a recent year being in the financial sector. They don’t have much left of the economy to devour, n’est pas?
That’s an incredible stat at 41% and higher than I’ve yet seen reported. I don’t doubt you but I was hoping you might provide a link.
I don’t always agree with your solutions but I admire your pluck in working towards real reform. Let me offer something for you to consider:
- The national debt (not including future entitlements) is only 20% of total U.S. debt (private and government) and we know that so far this year, we have paid around $314 billion in interest alone on the $12 trillion national debt.
- The private debt of around $40 trillion would yield around $1.3 trillion in interest alone if it were financed at the same low rate as the public debt.
What if the U.S. treasury through congress, took back their constitutional charge of being the sole creators of all new money? The treasury could stay out of the banking business by making 1-2% loans of new money available to the banks which could mark up the rate while continuing private lending. What could this do?
- Fractional (fraudulent) lending could be eliminated as banks would borrow their money as opposed to creating it for free.
- Banks would take on more risk as money would come at a cost like all products. If the banks had to repay what they lend, prudent loans would become the norm.
- The people would benefit in all newly created money for private loans as a new revenue stream would be created. Remember, the people and the government solely back every dollar – why shouldn’t they benefit since they alone accept the risk?
- The federal government could have a new cash stream of $400 billion to $800 billion (1-2%) on the $40 trillion private debt. Government could pay for itself and eliminate the need for income tax and the IRS.
- State banks could be chartered to lend for infrastructure projects that they deem appropriate. Rates of 0% could be used to upgrade private energy systems and debt free loans could be given for approved infrastructure projects that benefit everyone.
There is no reason, other than usury, for a nation to accrue a national debt. And there is no reason for income tax except to pay the national debt.
>That’s an incredible stat at 41% and higher than I’ve yet seen reported. I don’t doubt you but I was hoping you might provide a link.
Sorry, don’t even remember where I saw it.
>I don’t always agree with your solutions but I admire your pluck in working towards real reform. Let me offer something for you to consider:
Thanks. Real change, not hand-waving like HR-1207, is a dire necessity at this point.
>What if the U.S. treasury through congress, took back their constitutional charge of being the sole creators of all new money? The treasury >could stay out of the banking business by making 1-2% loans of new money available to the banks which could mark up the rate while >continuing private lending. What could this do?
My bill does that. New money is entered into the account of the Treasury, whether the monetization was forced by
debt-service or not.
After that basic point you lose me. Using fuzzy logic, your stuff sounds too totalitarian for me.
I don’t mean that perjoratively, but I leave the banks’ money with the banks, and I allow using
specie metals as money, AT UNCOERCED PRICES. Economic freedom, and nobody,
including the government, has a monopoly on money.
What I propose is a splint. A better analogy, my bill closes the worst source of bleeding.
It’s not the cure, but it prevents further damage of a particular kind,
and is a very simple procedure. And is unspeakably urgent. So lets do it, and worry about
a systemic overhaul from a position of some stability.