Talk:Business
From World Press Network
US Dollar can fall a lot further. Isn't it time for the US Federal Reserve to be nationalized ?
Milton Friedman devised a plan for reducing the national debt to zero in 12 months. There are two steps: 1) increase the fractional reserve requirement by 8.5 percent per month until it is 100 percent (this by itself would cause a huge monthly reduction in the supply of federal reserve notes); 2) each month replace the missing fed notes with debt free United States Notes. The result one year later is exactly the same amount of money in the economy, without hundreds of billions in interest payments going to the Fed, from you, via the IRS.
MONETARY REFORM ACT Important Video
WPN Feedback to above post :
Regarding part 1 of your proposal, wouldn't the banks then be forced to call in all loans to comply ? Especially with non-callable mortgages and loans, this would mean most banks couldn't comply, but it would stop any more lending of any sort by these banks (till they reach the 100% reserve).
Regarding part 2 of your proposal, why doesn't the government replace the missing fed notes with interest free United States Treasury Notes IN ONE GO (as opposed to "each month"). Indeed, it could be regarded as the "New US Dollar" .. including issuing a new currency note, the "New US Dollar" on a 1:1 swap with the existing US Dollar. That way, the government notes would be the risk-free investment paying 0% interest, and other borrowers pay a spread. The above would also undermine all the illegal $ notes (whether forgeries or from illegal activities) globally, since they couldn't be converted to New US Dollars without the authorities noticing these large amounts, and thus prevent the exchange to the "New US Dollar".
p.s. Your link is to the The Money Masters web site. By video do you mean the ones being offered for sale on http://www.themoneymasters.com/orderform.html ?
Do you have a link to Google Video or YouTube which is a trailer or a free abbreviated version for the general public ? This could also act like free advertising to your site, c.f. videos on :
Alex Jones films ("Police State" series, "911 The Road To Tyranny", "TerrorStorm")
Three videos : "Loose Change", "September 11th Con Conspiracy Cover-up" and "Painful Deceptions"
response to feedback above ... First of all this is an awkward format for posts and responses. I changed the links above and the links are not to my web site. Also the entire video is on the web somewhere but I recommend buying it instead.
Your two questions kind of answer each other, if you did it in one go the banks would call all their loans which are nested endlessly with fractional reserve banking. Instead, while we are continually incurring new debt, we are also continually paying it back, but not all at once. I don't know the rate at which this happens and maybe an arbitrary date is not reallistic, but rather a daily rule that as debt based money is removed, it is replaced by debt free money. As time passes and old debt is paid and the fractional reserve rate is increased, less debt is created and therefore less debt needs to be paid back. The current system does not allow payoff of the public debt because the money supply is based on the principal which is less than the pricipal+interest and therfore falls short. But injecting debt-free money will slowly change this. After total replacement, with completely debt-free money, banks will no longer create new money, but rather Congress will as the Constituion requires and it is best if money growth is equal to population growth to maintain a stable per capita wealth, as Benjamin Franklin did with his colonial scrips. Also we will drastically reduce interest on private debt because we will have enough wealth to save more and borrow less. Another good video on the multiplying effect of fractional reserve banking is called Money As Debt
Abolished, not nationalized, unless you want it to run like FEDGOV, i.e. Fema, Post Office and all the thousands of other inept or predetory institutions.
Before its inauguration in 1913 the country did beautifully well.
Absolutely!
And that is the Central Banker's WORST NIGHTMARE - An America that is FINALLY FREE of their GREEDY LITTLE MACHINATIONS.
The Fed should be nationalized because it has defaulted on its Federal Reserve Notes! Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act provides that Federal Reserve Notes "shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank." The 12 Federal Reserve Banks and the U.S. Treasury have all closed their public windows, thus making it impossible to redeem Federal Reserve Notes for "lawful money." Those notes have all been defaulted on and are technically worthless!
On June 4, 1963 President Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 with the authority to virtually strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With that stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business.
The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely say that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superseded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.
WPN Note : The following 3 comments are from the same individual
Nationalizing the FED will only allow congress to act with wild extremes in monetary policy. Because the Fed is already a Trust it should remain that way and continue operations to lend money to the private sector. The trustees of the fed should become the people of this land. the trust should be taxed at 96%, with the balance used to fund its own operation. The tax revenue should be shared among the individual states according to their populations. The central government would be funded by apportionment from the states. The central government may only borrow with a 75% approval of the states for emergency purposes only. Because a trust has limited powers and cannot be manipulated by congress the money will not be inflated. It is US government borrowing that is the single greatest source of inflation, nothing else! Consumer spending does not inflate the currency because it is paid back, taking it out of circulation.
redemption
We agree on nationalizing not only the function but the profit of the FED. However this 'nationalizing' must be insulated from the democratic process, as a trust is. The redemption is not the issue if the currency is not or cannot be inflated to the point of being worthless. Money borrow by the private sector against its future production is a wonderful concept and is vital to a growing and productive economy. If sufficient gold or silver existed it could be used to fund a fiduciary currency. But a fiat system based borrowing for production followed by repayment of the loans by credit worthy individuals is very acceptable.
debt event
The FED does not have the right to issue limitless amounts of money. As the publication by the Chicago Federal Reserves says; 'No money is created until there is a debt event'. The creation of money is limited to the borrower! The inflation of a currency is a factor of money lent and dead beats who do not pay back the loan. Since the Federal government is the largest borrower and the biggest dead beat it is in fact causes inflation of the currency. The Federal reserve is of course guilty of irrational lending only if the borrower refuses to pay back or has insufficient collateral to cover the loan amount. So far the central government is making interest only payments on the loan. Hence if the central government cannot borrow except by permission from the states then the currency could be saved. The interest collected by the FED should be taxed and then apportioned to the states according to there populations.
WPN Feedback to "debt event" comment above
- There are already legal limits (ceiling) on how much the central government can borrow. These are already state controlled via the senators and representative in Congress. But the debt ceiling is routinely extended when it is approached. No amount of "control" on the borrowing of the central government could compensate for the other current major shortcomings of the Fed structure (e.g. "who controls the Fed decision making" and the Central Government shouldn't pay interest on its own "borrowing" from the Fed).
- We agree about the need to tax the profit of the Fed (so as to avoid unfairly and unreasonably enriching the shareholders of the Fed from the interest received on electronic or printed money which "costs" the Fed virtually nothing). However profits can be manipulated, e.g. who controls how much salary / bonuses to pay executives ?
- Placing Citizen Trustees in the Fed might help, but the problem is most citizens can be manipulated or "convinced" to act a certain way (especially in the face of heavy lobbying). Also, trustees have to follow a rule book .. so who sets the rule book, who can challenge the interpretation or implementation of that rule book. Therefore maintaining the Fed as a trust adds an extra layer and complexity to the situation, which cries out instead for simplicity. Maintaining the Fed as a Trust introduces another branch of government, which might be unconstitutional. Constitutionally, it is Congress who should have control over the coining of money.
- A core issue is the Federal Reserve can lend to private borrowers. As such, who decides the maximum amount these "private" borrowers can borrow, at what interest rates, and for what duration ? Imagine all the shareholders of the Fed decide to borrow 1,000,000,000 Trillion dollars. As shareholders, they can control the decision of the Fed. Effectively, the shareholders can "borrow" (in effect "make"/"print") unlimited US$, thus devaluing US$ held by individuals proportionately to the amount of money "printed". Eventually asset prices will compensate by "inflating" in nominal US$ terms, but the "trick" is by then, most citizens would have either sold their assets for near-worthless US$, or find they couldn't afford the interest THEY have to pay on any loans, or even to pay taxes for the Government so it can pay interest on it's debt to the Fed (which costs the Fed NOTHING). To compound the misery, interest rates would likely skyrocket when people realize it is just paper money and either convert to other currencies (causing a drop in the US$ like we are seeing now}, or when investors demand more interest to compensate for the risk of currency devaluation and/or interest. Thus most citizens could find themselves either owning near worthless US$s, or being bankrupt (in both cases, the citizen is in the same position).
- Once the Central Bank is nationalized (either directly or via keeping it as a Trust with citizens as trustees), we do not believe it should be allowed to continue lending to the private sector. All these existing loans should be called in at the first legal opportunity. Maintaining this authority to lend to private sector gives the government (or trustees) HUGE control over the private sector .. indeed, effectively TOTAL control since they could determine how much money any private sector organization can borrow and on what terms --- giving the "favored" private sector borrowers a HUGE unfair advantage over others. Instead, these private sector borrowers should be forced to do what all other private sector organizations do when they need money : go to the markets to issue bonds or shares, or go to regulated banks for loans since the regulated banks already have strict regulations and risk management controls (including following Basle Capital Adequacy rules). This will make the "playing field" much more level than it currently is. The "favored" private sector referred to here are not poor citizens, but likely to be the most successful and largest corporations who want to apply leverage to increase their existing huge profitability. There are already federal and state institutions for lending and supporting the needy in society, and these are under the rightful control of Congress. So why can certain favored private sector organizations borrow unlimited amounts from an unregulated "private" central bank in which they may be a shareholder? Can anyone say "conflict of interest ?"
On a further note, does any of these private loans have to be publicly declared or noticed in light of M3 Money Supply figures not being published since March 23, 2006 ? In stock market equivalence, trades are declared since "transparency" in the markets reduces the chance of market abuse and mispricing. The effect of withholding M3 Money Supply figures COULD allow the shareholders of the Fed to borrow unlimited amount of money and the time to buy EVERY ASSET in sight BEFORE the markets realize what is happening [so before "inflation" REALLY takes off]. The scary thing is there is no level of high asset price which, in the above scenario, is "too much" for the shareholders of the Fed (since to them, it is effectively "monopoly" money). A major risk is instability of the US$ when people globally realize it is of little value, but if this happens, interest rates will rise in US$, making the Fed even more money from interest which the Government pays (or rolls over) on its debt. It is a WIN-WIN for the Fed .. unless it is either nationalized (either directly or via keeping it as a Trust with citizens as trustees as suggested by some readers), or taxed heavily -- but taxation is "historic", and the real control is who to lend to and at what rates .. i.e. profits can be manipulated. i.e. The real issue isn't just "taxation", it is who can manipulate this level of profit, and who can make the decisions on how much to lend, to whom, and on what terms. High taxation alone won't be enough. In a democracy, the voters need to be able to effectively control what the central bank can do, and not be left to private shareholders.
debt ceiling
□ The big difference is that the FED shall not lend to the central government and the central government shall not have the power to borrow from any US bank or foreign bank. Therefore debt ceiling is not an issue. □ The central government cannot borrow except from the states, the terms of the loan are up to the states. Interest, if any, would be unnecessary since the central government would be paying its debt to the states from income that the states provided. □ Banking only profits come from two sources, interest or foreclosures. There would be no bonuses paid to anyone, however, salaries maybe adjusted at the will of the Trustees. The ‘citizen trustees’ are actually appointed for a term of service by the state legislatures to oversee the operation of the trust. As you said trusts have rules trustees have to follow a rule book. Challenges to the operation of the trust should be very limited because the bank only lends to the private banking sector under fixed banking standards. While this trust may appear as a branch of government it is very isolated and limited in scope. If you wish to call it a ‘branch’ fine, it is the function that is important. □ Since, as we agree the FED has now been ‘nationalized’, there are no longer any share holders. I think you would agree they have been more than compensated for their ‘investment’ and do not need to be paid per share. If these former share holders which to borrow money they can go to a local bank and fill out an application like everyone else. As you said; ‘ Instead, these private sector borrowers should be forced to do what all other private sector organizations do when they need money : go to the markets to issue bonds or shares, or go to regulated banks for loans since the regulated banks already have strict regulations and risk management controls (including following Basle Capital Adequacy rules).’ □ The possibility of manipulation of profit is a function of the interest rate and foreclosure rate which standards are established before hand by the trust and over seen by the state appointed trustees. Trustees are controlled by the state legislatures which are controlled by the people of their jurisdictions. Interest rates are primarily adjusted to offset the inflation of any currency. Since the private sector must pay back its loans the currency is effectively removed from circulation and reduces or eliminates inflation. This, therefore, removes the need for interest rate adjustments.
To view or add your feedback on any article on WPN, click the "discussion" tab at the top of the page. You can also create new topic pages.
WPN will be featuring the best pages, and issuing awards for the best journalistic contributions (in WPN's sole discretion).
