In another thread, u/Slyver replied to a discussion about political parties. In that reply was a mention of the Federal Reserve Act (FRA). I thought this subject deserved a thread of its own, rather than derailing that thread.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IYCrk69G/still-believe-in-the-right-vs-le/c/
I have long wondered the "how" part of the FRA. How did they structure it? And why did certain events happen in history that seemed to be centered around it? My research tells me this:
The FRA was the "Democrat" plan up against the "Republican" plan called the Aldrich Plan. The kicker is, they were the exact same plan.
Central banking had a long history in the USA before the FRA.
First one was in 1791, set up by Hamilton. Second one was in 1816. Third attempt was FRA in 1913, which became permanent.
It is helpful to understand the legal reasons that they had to keep re-starting it, and how they "fixed" that "problem" (from their perspective).
In the 1700's-1800's, businesses were either sole proprietorships, partnerships, or business trusts. There were very few corporations. Corporations were a creation of the king, with a special charter. Since the USA had no king, there was no mechanism for creating a corporation, or at least it was viewed as something undesirable.
The first Bank of the United States (1791), a central bank, was created as a trust. The history of trust law, going back to England, was that trusts could only last for 21 years (age of majority), or 21 years after the life of a named beneficiary.
So, they made business trusts for 20 years, a nice round number. That meant it would expire in 1811.
The fight over renewing the trust around 1810-1811 explains both the Original 13th Amendment (1810) and the War of 1812.
After the war, the second central bank was instituted in 1816. It would expire 20 years later in 1836. Just so happens that Andrew Jackson was around then, and he was anti-central banksters. This is why they tried to kill him, unsuccessfully, but his sounding the alarms and his fight against them kept the central bank away for generations following.
But around the turn of the 20th century, [they] were plotting to put in another central bank, as well as an income tax. The plan was a little more sophisticated this time.
They passed the FRA, which created the third central bank, which would again be in the form of a trust, while also passing the income tax. This trust was created in 1913, and would expire in 1933.
At the same time, they were pushing the "trust busting" narrative of anti-trust laws, using Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust as the example. But in reality, they were shifting things behind the scenes.
The corporation is unlike the traditional business trust in that it has an unlimited life (perpetual duration, which does not expire in 20 years). While denouncing trusts as bad, they were also creating laws in states for this "new thing" called a corporation.
The Federal Reserve Trust was, indeed, owned by foreigners, which a lot of people have read about. But by the 1920's the corporation was on its way in and the business trust was on its way out.
In 1927, the Federal Reserve Trust was officially restructured as a corporation, which also had a different structure to hide who really controlled it. Key point: ownership was never important, but control always was. "Own nothing, control everything." -- John D. Rockefeller
By 1933, when the FR trust expired, it was no longer a problem because it wasn't a trust anymore, but Roosevelt unconstitutionally abused presidential powers to confiscate gold and clean up the books.
Since then, the FR has been a corporation with perpetual existence, and no longer needs Congress' approval every 20 years.
Today, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation, owned by its member banks (not individuals like the original trust). Those member banks are large banks around the country that Average Joe and Jane bank at.
But those banks don't really have any power to run the operations of the Federal Reserve. Remember: Ownership means nothing; control is everything.
The Federal Reserve -- IN THEORY -- is run by the Board of Governors, which are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It is for this reason that normies think it is "controlled by" (or a "part of") the federal government.
But this is a deception. These people do not really run the FR. Even the chairman, currently Jerome Powell (a true idiot), does not run the FR.
The ONLY reason the FR exists, no matter what other fake claims are made, is to PRINT MONEY and make sure the INSIDERS connected to the FR can PROFIT from it.
Printing money MEANS inflating the currency, so that the newly created currency goes into the pockets of the people who created it.
If everybody THINKS there is $1,000,000 in the system, but I secretly create an extra $100,000 to put in my pocket, and everyone else just treats it like it is as real as the other money, then I have created $100,000 out of nothing but some pieces of paper. THAT is what money printing is all about.
Repeat: The ONLY purpose of ANY central bank is to PRINT MONEY, and ENRICH those who printed it. That has been going on even before the money changers figured out how to cheat via government power, rather than cheating on a small-time basis.
So, the REAL power of the Federal Reserve is the money printing. Jerome Powell does NOT do that. The Board of Governors do NOT do that. Their policies of raising and lowering the "target rate" of the Federal Funds rates and setting the Discount Rate are NOT what does it.
All of that is smoke and mirrors, no matter how many normies eat it up (even very smart normies eat it up, due to its sophistication and most normies' inability to think that it could all be a Big Con, which it is).
It is the New York Federal Reserve Bank that handles ALL "Open Market Operations," which is a euphamism for MONEY PRINTING.
The New York Fed runs ALL money printing of buying and selling pieces of paper (or today, computer digits).
This means that the New York Fed, even though it is only ONE bank in the entire system, has ALL the power of the system. Whoever runs the New York Fed is whoever prints the money at will.
Is that the President of the NY Fed? Maybe. There is a LONG list of former presidents of the NY Fed who have become Treasury Secretaries. And the president of the NY Fed is the ONLY person who has a permanent seat on the Federal Open Market Committee.
So, it could be that person. I suspect that even that person is a puppet of others behind the scenes, but if so, that would be done in a way that is never made public -- via contracts that will not see the light of day unless someone REALLY does a full audit. To do a full audit, one would likely have to dodge some bullets aimed at taking them out first. The people behind the NY Fed are the people behind the assassinations, terrorism, and so much more misery in the world.
The entire Federal Reserve System should be abolished once and for all, but this understanding of the legal structure can be helpful to understanding some of the "why did that happen" questions that people wonder about.
Come to think of it ... maybe the Federal Reserve is the Keystone.
Great post ! This is why I love this place. I tell anyone who will listen about Hamilton. They tried to make him a hero with that stupid play a while back.
Everything about that play makes me cringe. I don't know how people can find that music entertaining.
[They] purposefully make these systems as convoluted and complex as possible, which is exactly why it should be Anon 101 to know these subjects.
Knowledge is power and the keystone to our awakening movement.
Thank you anon
Yes, I think KNOWLEDGE is the true keystone.
"Occult" means "hidden knowledge." It does not mean satanism or symbolism or any of that. Occultists might engage in that other stuff, too, but the word just means hidden knowledge.
That is how [they] have kept the masses in the dark.
Before the printing press, 99% of people could not read. So, they didn't know what was REALLY in the Bible or the king's laws. They had to trust someone else to tell them.
After the printing press (500 years ago), there was a revolution because the people could see they had been lied to about what was in the Bible and the king's laws.
Then, the internet came along. Suddenly, massive amounts of information became easily available. Some of it nonsense, but some of it revealing hidden truths like never before.
The Great Awakening is the beginning of the next phase of enlightenment, as more and more people come together to share their combined knowledge.
Once the fake news media is taken down, the entire world will know what we know.
The Federal Reserve, due to its financial power due to its monopoly, has been a tool for those behind it to use that financial power to create a system of more and more control.
Withholding knowledge has been their keystone.
But as we take that ability away from them and claim it for ourselves, knowledge becomes our keystone.
Q was the start of the modern movement of that process.
Printing Press >> Internet >> Great Awakening
The NY Fed, like the entire Federal Reserve System is an acting agent of the BIS. It can't be audited because it has Sovereign Immunity through the BIS. It may have Sovereign Immunity on it's own too through it's Articles of Incorporation. I still haven't looked into that but it's on my list of things to do.
Also a point of clarity.
The Board of Governors is an Advisory Board. They have no legal control whatsoever. There is no legal path of control between the actual Federal Reserve Banking system and the Government.
Also (just nitpicking), unless there is some source on JD saying it, it was Nelson Rockefeller who said,
As quoted in the World Bank investigation into crimes committed by Foundations, Trusts, and corporations..
Great post.
You wanna see how John D. Rockefeller did business? Here is a copy of the Standard Oil Trust, a business trust he created in 1882 (starts at page 553):
https://archive.org/details/trustestatesasbu00sear/page/556/mode/2up
This is not true. Our jurisdiction is limited by our laws. If we sign away our jurisdiction through the laws (which are shown in the link I provided) then we have no jurisdiction. We signed over our right to enforce any laws on the Federal Reserve by signing away the right to enforce our laws on the BIS. The Federal Reserve is, by law, an agent of the BIS. None of what I am saying is controversial. If you look at the links in the document I linked in my previous post it makes it perfectly clear. We do NOT have jurisdiction, because we said we don't. That is how it works with Sovereign Entities. We determine ourselves who has what jurisdiction. That is simply the law. You can argue against the constitutionality of the law itself, but you can't argue against that it is the law.
THEY didn't claim it, WE did (our government). It is the law. Please look at the links provided.
You may be correct on this. I am still digging into the legal structure of the FOMC, and this was something I thought might be the case as well. It makes no sense to me though, so I am thinking there is probably a loophole somewhere.
Nothing could be further from the truth. They are all major players. JD himself is likely an agent of the Rothschilds. Yes, JD set up a great deal. I have about a thousand page book coming out that shows all the structure of the system he created. It is incredibly well sourced and will show everything. Discounting the efforts of JD's descendants misses a huge scope of what is, and who the real players are. JD was just one cog in the machine. It wasn't a machine built by him. The evidence suggests it was built many thousands of years ago. I'm not sure how long ago, but I have traced it back in primary sources to at least Babylon. Overplay JD, or underplay the others at the expense of appreciating the real scope of what the evidence suggests.
Having said that, if you have the source for Rockefeller saying it (Primary only, I only work in primary sources) that would be great.
They designed all the structures specifically to commit fuckery. I will show all the evidence to support that statement in my book. The structures are absolutely the problem. There is no reason to have a Corporation (legal entity) except to commit fuckery. It is a legal separation of ownership and control to limit liability of the controllers of the structure. It serves no other purpose than that. The same with Trusts, Foundations, etc. I will show that in painstaking detail soon.
We are at it again, Slyver. ;-)
I will just say this ...
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Congress has no authority to (a) delegate its authority over money to a private company, and then (b) say that the company is no longer subject to US jurisdiction, even though it operates within the US.
All we need are people in place to do what is necessary. Easier said than done, but there is no law or agreement that can overrule the Constitution, when it comes to this issue.
No, the Congress has LIMITED authority, and passing laws or regulations that violate the Constitution is not within their authority.
The Constitution, and the Supreme Court cases that say what the Constitution means, IS THE LAW in the united States of America.
Period.
Let's not get into a debate about who was a bigger bitch than the other.
We are talking about this statement: "Own nothing; control everything."
THAT is how the Federal Reserve Bank is set up, and also how much of the system attempting to control us is also set up.
Look at Twatter. Do the shareholders who OWN the company via stock ownership ... actually CONTROL the company ... or do the directors control it?
Do the directors have to own ANY of it to control it?
Exactly.
Nonsense. Very few people would risk capital if their entire fortune was at stake if anything went wrong.
There are TWO types of "limited liability."
One is routine business risks. Those are more or less protected in these entities. And they SHOULD be.
The other is criminal "fuckery." That should NOT be protected -- and IS NOT PROTECTED, according to LAW (the REAL law because the courts have said that immunity, even of police officers (i.e. government employees, much less corporate executives) DOES NOT APPLY where a crime is involved.
The problem today is we have criminals who are in positions to choose not to enforce it.
THAT is what needs to change.
I didn't say there was no path to auditing The Fed. We could simply walk in there guns ablazing. That is an act of war, one sovereign entity onto another. That's totally a viable path. If it is shown that the laws they passed that made the Fed a separate Sovereign Entity were fraudulent, then fraud vitiates everything, and there will be a legal path to audit the Fed. However, as the laws stand right now, we can't just pass a law to take away the Sovereignty of the Fed, because they are outside of our jurisdiction. The only options available to us are to declare war (by Natural Law) or show fraud (by Constitutional Law).
I really didn't mean to do that. I wanted you to appreciate that there are a lot of major players in this game. I used to think that JD was the big guns. In a way he was, but he really was just one cog in a much bigger machine. It's hard to really appreciate the scope until you dig in. That was what I wanted to point out.
I also was asking if you had a primary source for the quote because if you do, i'd really like to have it. That was the reason I asked.
I'm not in any way disputing that the Fed works by that method, on the contrary, it is a primary motivation for most of the evidence in my book.
This is a much larger debate which is partially addressed in my book. I assert it is completely unnecessary in theory, but is rather a "necessary" function of the economic system as they have created it. THEY created our system of economy. The ENTIRE thing. It is DESIGNED specifically to commit fuckery. Not just "Corporations" but the entire system of economics that we understand today. That is not the only possible path to economics, and a corporate entity is completely unnecessary in a truly free market economy.
The Federal Reserve predates the BIS, and the BIS was never given authority over The Fed.
You're correct about the immunities of the BIS, but they don't apply to The Fed, at least on paper.
As G Edward Griffin has said: "I don't want to audit The Fed, I want to end The Fed".
Federal Reserve Banking System
It's not Federal.
There are no Reserves.
It's not a Bank.
There is no System
That the Fed predates the BIS is irrelevant. In the same way that all banks were forced to become "investors" in the Fed, even though they ALL predate the Fed, all central banks were "forced" to become investors (members AKA agents) of the BIS. All central banks are acting agents of the BIS.
There is no such thing as a Central Bank that is independent of the BIS. It is the Central Bank of the Central Banks.
The globalist banks who own the central banks created the B.I.S. They did not create an entity to rule over themselves but rather a mechanism where they could rule over others.
This is not correct unless I misinterpret the nuance in your quotes around "investors". It's more accurate to say that some banks became "customers" of the Fed. There are "member banks" and "non-member banks" and the difference matters.
I'm not downplaying the role, or the immunity, of the B.I.S. I did a whole presentation on the topic last year.
I'm just trying to help ensure the important discussion on them is as factual as possible. There are a couple of inaccuracies in this thread that probably don't matter to most readers, but the topic is important enough that I think the details matter.
My apologies for not being around the rest of the day to respond further.
The BIS is the structure of the Centralization of Authority. All Cabal systems work this way. The same people that own the BIS own the Fed. They aren't ever in opposition because they are the same entity owned and run by the same people, and always have been. However, this system has a legal structure, to ensure a Centralization of Authority. I am not talking about intentions, and I do not disagree with your statements of their intent. I am talking specifically about the legal structure of their System of Centralization of Authority.
They are forced to invest. They have no choice. All banks in the United States were required by law to buy stock in the Fed. This ensured that anyone who wasn't part of the Cabal in the banking world, or had dissension to the designs of the creators of the Fed became "members" AKA "investors" (because they were forced to buy stock) AKA subjects to the dictates of the Centralization of Authority of The Fed.
The same thing happened with the BIS, except in that case there were no dissenters because all Central Banks were already theirs. However, it also ensured there never would be dissention, through the legal structure.
You have yet to show an inaccuracy. If you have disagreements of some points, that is not evidence of an inaccuracy, but evidence of your disagreement. That is the purpose of debate. If you assume "I am right and you are wrong" then you can call your disagreement an "inaccuracy," if however you appreciate that none of us knows the Whole Truth, you can instead make your case with evidence and debate, and see how that plays out.
We are close enough on this that it feels we are arguing semantics.
I’ve been busy so have been commenting on the fly, so apologize if my tone came across wrong.
Credit unions may hold deposits at the Fed, but they are not required to. Feel free to argue they aren’t technically banks, but they are governed by most banking laws. I believe there are other exceptions.
I am trying to expose the laws that create the structure. In doing so, I am trying to expose what powers those laws give, and/or take away from what entities. If you want to expose it and/or legally fight it, understanding the nuances is important.
I'm not a fan of suggesting that nuance is just "semantics." When it comes to law, there is only one way that is "the truth" of the law. There is, legally speaking, only one "correct" interpretation. Understanding the nuance of the self-consistency of law and its implications is important, not semantics. Debating it to get to that single correct interpretation can never be semantics because there is only one correct interpretation. That correct interpretation often lies in understanding the legal definitions of the words that make up the law (often very different from the vernacular), and the original intent of the law makers (the context).
Your protests have, I assert, been incorrect when it comes to the law of the Fed and the BIS. I haven't dug in to credit unions, nor do I care to. I have seen no evidence that suggests they are a meaningful part of the power structure and are thus irrelevant to me. I have no doubt there is a legal structure that gives the Cabal complete control there too, but it is so far down the totem pole, Idgaf.
Also, if you read the articles of incorporation, it talkes about shareholders and dividends. So the FR has shareholders and they get a dividend. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that means your a portion of your taxes end up in the pockets of the shareholders.
Yes. I have a list of the shareholders from a primary reference. It was hard as fuck to find; it took me three months . I'm not at my computer atm, otherwise I'd link it, but it's the usual suspects (the big banks).
The interest on our loans, AKA the National Debt (and other Treasury bonds) is paid off at 2% per year (to account for inflation) and 6% interest (less for the banks that have massive amounts of shares, only a few).
So 8% per year. Not a bad gig if you can get it.
That interest comes from We The People. However, all of the money comes from the Fed (the loans). When we take out a loan (create a Treasury Bond) an equal debit is created for the credit of money they "print." The total money is then zero. Debt + money = zero.
However, there's also the interest. So really it's Debt + money + interest = zero. Or rather, money + interest = debt. In other words, there isn't enough money in the world to pay off the debt because all that interest is in their bank accounts.
Of course they put most of that money back into the economy to buy real assets, so a lot of that interest is put back out there, but the reality is, there isn't enough money in the world to pay off the debt. We exist in bondage in perpetuity. We are permanent indentured servants (AKA Slaves) by the laws of the FRA.
This is the most detailed write up I’ve seen to date. Thank you.
Interesting read. Thanks for laying that out.
An inaccuracy in your post is the statement that the Federal Reserve prints money. It does not. The Federal Reserve is simply a debt instrument, at all levels. It provides "money" via a keystroke to the U.S. Treasury, which prints money. Its theoretical function is as a major balancing feature for the industry (providing funds to member banks), and for debts between nations, but, as we know, is really just a scam to siphon off wealth.
https://cosmoschronicle.com/the-titanic-was-sunk-to-create-the-federal-reserve/
The US Treasury does NOT print money. It could, but it does not. That is the scam (or part of it).
If you are talking about the physical printing of paper currency (and coin), that is done by the US Mint, not the US Treasury. But the authority to do it comes from the Federal Reserve (via Congress' treasonous Federal Reserve Act).
Plus, currency in circulation is less than 1% of the total money supply. Most of it is digital and paper instruments (US Treasury instruments).
The New York Federal Reserve Bank handles ALL "Open Market Operations," which is the buying and selling of securities and other assets.
THAT is printing money, because they buy these things without any money of their own.
The US Treasury borrows from the FR. Those Treasury bills, notes, and bonds are all lending instruments. The FR gives the Treasury the "money" by lending the Treasury the "money" when the Treasury borrows.
Where does the FR get the "money" to buy those instruements?
It prints it from nothing.
What if you are the Treasury and I am the Federal Reserve?
You want to borrow because Congress can't stop spending more than it steals.
You, the Treasury, do NOT print your own money. You borrow it ... mostly from me, the Federal Reserve.
So, you want to borrow a couple trillion. You print up some debt instruments and ask me to give you money by buying those instruments.
What if I say no?
This is really just semantics. You're calling "printing money" the provision of debt from a lending source (whether it's derived from nothing, or a big pot of cash). I was calling "printing money" the actual pressing of currency and coin, which the U.S. Treasury does.
This is an important distinction, because the Federal Reserve is a private entity, while the U.S. Treasury is a federal institution.
No, there are important distinctions that people need to understand.
At first, I did not understand you meant that. After I wrote my post, I realized you might mean that, so I edited my post to add something about it.
You are confusing the US Mint, which physically prints paper currency with the US Treasury which manages US government debt. They are not the same agencies.
True, the Mint is part of the Treasury, but the Mint's function only accounts for 1% or so of the total money supply. The rest of the money supply is created by (a) the Treasury issuing debt instruments by selling them to the FR, which (b) "prints money" by creating it from nothing, so they can buy those treasury instruments.
(Paper currency is a tiny fraction of the total money supply. There is M1, M2 and M3, each of which describes aspects of the total money supply).
Yes, and the Treasury could just print money as the US government needs. That is what JFK was moving towards. But with the FR system, they don't. Instead of printing money, they print treasury debt instruments (bills, notes, and bonds) and BORROW money for government operations from the Federal Reserve Bank. The FRB purchases those instruments, via Open Market Operations (NY Fed) by CREATING money from nothing (i.e. "printing money" which is other than currency, which is physically printed by the US Mint).
BTW, that currency printed by the US Mint says "Federal Reserve Note." It used to say "United States Dollar," but not anymore. Those pieces of paper people carried around USED TO say "Redeemable for $5 of gold" or whatever the denomination was.
Today, Federal Reserve Notes are ONLY redeemable in other Federal Reserve Notes. This is the BIG part of the scam (these pieces of paper are backed by nothing of substance. They used to be backed by gold and silver, but not more).
ADD: Today, the US Mint physically prints "Federal Reserve Notes" and sends them to the Federal Reserve Bank, NOT the US Treasury Department. It was not like that in the past, but that is how it is done today. So, although the US Mint is legally part of the US Treasury, it functions independently, effectively as an agent of the Federal Reserver Bank.
^ Let me re-phrase all of that, for clarification.
The US Mint is a department within the US Treasury. The US Mint prints paper currency (and coin). EDIT: The US Mint mints coin; the Bureau of Engraving and Printing prints currency.
There was a time when the US Mint printed "United States Dollars" in various denominations, for the US Treasury. But it no longer does that. Here's how it works today:
Finally, the physical currency is only a small fraction of the money supply. Most of it these days is digital. But the same scam is done with the digital money as the physical.
The term "printing money," in the sense of what a central bank does, does not necessarily mean the physical printing press. It just means they create it out of nothing, or almost nothing, and use it at full face value.
This the primary reason that inflation happens.
Think about the price of gold and silver versus things you can buy. In 1913, the amount of gold and silver that would be needed to buy a man's suit was about the same as what it would cost in gold or silver today. It might even be cheaper in gold or silver today. But in Federal Reserve Notes, the price is MUCH higher. THAT is inflation. YOU lose because your FRN's buy LESS than they did before. And the people "printing" them for nothing are the ones who GAIN ... at YOUR expense.
THAT is the ONLY purpose of a central bank -- to steal wealth from the People, and give it to those who control the central bank.
In the interest of keeping my post as simple as possible, I lumped/assumed the Mint together with the Treasury, since they are simply different departments of the same authority of government. Yes, you are correct.
If you went to a bank to get a loan for a car or home, the bank issues you a note. You wouldn't say, "The bank printed me money." This is analogous to the relationship between the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury. Again, I realize this is largely semantics, but you and I simply got caught up on different sides of a dictionary.
I watched an excellent video about the Federal Reserve a few months ago, and wished I saved the link. It described how each dollar the Fed creates out of thin air, can then be "re-loaned" about 74 times. It's absolutely insane.
I added another comment, for clarification on my end. Hope that helps us agree.
Actually, that is EXACTLY what the bank is doing. The bank does NOT have $1 for every $1 they loan you. If they had to do that, they could not make a profit.
This is WHY Swiss banks have long been so solid. They do (or did) hold on deposit 100% of the amoun they loaned. They made their money in fees for investing people's money, as a way to make profits.
American banks are some of the weakest in the world. They loan out $10 for every $1 on deposit (I don't know off hand the exact ratio, but this is the "reserve requirement," which changes from time to time).
So, if you want a $10,000 loan, they create a "promissory note," which is ... a PIECE OF PAPER ... that you sign, agreeing to pay back the amount loaned PLUS INTEREST.
The bank might only have $1,000 assets on hand to back the loan if it goes bad, but they assume that not everyone will default.
That is FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING, and it is the basis of modern banking in most places in the world today.
They created something of value via the paper and ink of creating it. It is an ASSET to them, and a LIABILITY to you.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. It is the MONOPOLY that they have that is bad.
That bank is a member of the Federal Reserve Bank System, and THAT private company has a monopoly and control of all this money printing -- and they use that financal dominance to do all sorts of fuckery in the world.
They fund the corrupt universities. They fund the corrupt Wall Street firms. They fund the corrupt politicians. They fund the corrupt Big Pharma and Big Ag companies. They fund the corrupt Big Media companies.
They are behind ALL of it.
Those who control it ARE the predictors on the rest of society.
Whenever someone says ‘that’s just semantics’, it’s a clear sign that they’re out of their league. They say it to refuse existence to an apparent contradiction, which they’ve failed to understand.
...or, someone like yourself could be failing to understand the points being presented.
Oh please. The other guy is trouncing you in your argument. It’s like watching a kid argue with an adult.
Here's a thought: how about contributing something worthwhile, instead of personal attacks? Posts like yours are the reason threads get derailed, and this message board decays into stupidity. Is the way you measure content the number of words someone vomits out of their keyboard? Maybe you're in the wrong place.
We're all SUPPOSED be pedes here, right?
'Tis better to have fought and lost, Than never to have fought at all.'
This thread is an excellent example of intelligent debate and dialogue on a complicated and generally difficult to understand topic. The contributors add much to our community, unlike the armchair quarterbacks whose contibution is casting shade on the players from the safety of the sidelines.
I think it’s worth knowing that the saying ‘that’s just semantics’ is usually someone’s attempt at denying the difference between 2 unique concepts. Is such knowledge about right argument not useful to the awakening of humanity? I consider it to be. I’m a valuable player in my own right, concerning my own topics of expertise. Just weighing in with 1 minor comment doesn’t make me an ‘armchair quarterback’.
The U.S. Treasury only prints U.S. Currency. That is, at the moment, coins. Coins amount for an incredibly small portion of the total number of dollars in circulation (must less than 1%).
The Federal Reserve prints Federal Reserve Notes, which is Legal Tender by law. When Congress spends "money," they spend Federal Reserve Notes, which are created by the Federal Reserve. No one else can make Federal Reserve Notes, not even the U.S. Treasury. That's called "counterfeiting," even for the U.S. Government because the Fed has a copyright on their own Notes.
Been awhile since I looked it up.
You are correct about the US Mint. It mints coins.
But the FRB does not print anything.
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing prints the currency known as "Federal Reserve Notes."
Both the Mint and the BEP are agencies within the US Department of Treasury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Treasury#Structure
BTW ... I have heard (but not had time to really reasearch) that these two offices are NOT the same office:
Supposedly, they are two different offices, which is why both have signatures on each FRN (must have two parties to a contract).
One of them (forget which) is also an official of the IMF, and automatically loses US citizenship upon accepting the office.
But as I said ... not had a chance to research it.
If anyone has info ... let us know.
I was conflating the words "print" with "create." When people say "the Fed prints the money," they mean "create." I assert the actual paper debt instrument that is representative of money already created by the Fed is pretty much meaningless. It certainly represents a tiny portion of the currency in circulation (a fraction of a percent).
Having said that, there is no law that states that only the U.S. Treasury can print a Federal Reserve Note. The Fed could absolutely do so. That might be a little confusing to the sheeple however, so that is probably why they have the Treasury do it.
Agreed. These words can have more than one meaning. You and I are on the same page here.
There probably is. Since BEP physically prints them, I assume there is some statute or regulation making it so.
Exactly. It's all for show. The magician wants you looking at the shiny object in his left hand while he steals your wallet with his right hand.
This document (from a .gov site) uses both phrases talking about the same person. I had not heard before that they were different.
Having said that, I still haven't worked out exactly what fuckery was done to that office. Was it subverted (in a legal manner) as has been suggested in 1921? I'm not sure. I need to figure that out at some point.
A "Federal Reserve Note," printed on U.S. currency, is simply a recognition that it is a small part of a debt issuance. The Federal Reserve does not print currency. The Bureau of Engraving (U.S. Treasury) does that. https://www.inktechnologies.com/blog/printing-money-where-does-u-s-currency-come-from/
I think the problem here is that you are confusing "printing money" with "creating money." When people say "print money" they mean "create" it. You are talking about the physical process of making Federal Reserve Notes. I don't know where those are made. You may be correct that they are printed in a U.S. Treasury owned building. The Fed may subcontract to them to print them. It may be done purely as a smokescreen, because legally the Federal Reserve Note belongs to The Fed exclusively.
However, almost none of our money is printed. It is created by the Fed. The actual paper debt instruments are meaningless. Hardly anyone even uses them anymore. They account for a tiny fraction of the total money in circulation and they always have, all of which is created by the Fed. The Treasury has no legal path to create Federal Reserve Notes.
Look at any FRN. It says "Federal Reserve Note." It doesn't say "U.S. Treasury Note." It doesn't say, "U.S. Currency." It says, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." It says absolutely NOTHING relating to the U.S. Government, because it doesn't belong to them.
It belongs to the Bank (AKA the Fed). It is theirs. The U.S. Treasury can print all the U.S. Dollars it wants. In fact they are the only ones legally allowed to do so. What the U.S. Treasury can't do, is create Federal Reserve Notes. Even if they "print" them, those are merely book keeping instruments for money already created by The Fed that exists on the books.
Again, this is going off on a tangent of semantics. I know all of which you posted above. I was simply responding to your comment when you said the Fed prints currency. I was in banking and finance, and no one I worked with spoke about money creation as "printing it" as you do.
Many pedes see posts such as this, and assume the Fed actually prints currency. I was simply providing clarification.
Just keep in mind that most of those people are clueless about how the system REALLY works.
They believe that their advanced edumacation told them the truth.
Just like doctors do.
As if!
Big Pharma tells the so-called doctors what to believe.
The Federal Reserve tells the so-called bankers what to believe.
This is not "semantics," this is essential clarification.
When people said the Fed printed more money in 2020 than in all previous years combined, they didn't mean "print," they meant "create." Maybe in an actual Bank when they say "print" they mean "put ink on paper," but that is not the money people use. If you think people don't mean "create" when they say "print," I suggest you need to pay more attention to the vernacular. That is all that people mean. Read anything on economics anywhere. When they say "print," they mean "create."
I also suggest your insistence that only the Treasury can "print" Federal Reserve Notes is completely untrue. They can only print U.S. Dollars. The Federal Reserve Note is not a U.S. Dollar. Even if they do print it, the Fed could also do so if they wished.
Ron Paul has been calling for the End of the Fed for years so: u/#Happening
The Creature From Jekyll Island. Well informed crowd here, but worth mentioning. Currently reading.
The Creature From Jekyll Island is not a traditional horror book, but the book is just as scary.
To this day, the Fed Reserve nor IRS has been audited.
Think about that.
Reminds me of when on 9/10/01 Rumsfeld couldn't account for, if memory serves, $2.3 Trillion (oops!) and after 9/11 never another peep. Since that date, the DoD has annually not accounted for much more... literal trillions... Annualy.
End the Fed, IRS, and Military Industrial Complex and Boom, the U.S. Dollar regains that 96% loss value since 1913.
(awesome post pede, cheers!)
Note to the mods: Thanks for the sticky. It's an important subject to understand.
Thanks for the info
So who has the power? Gimme names or name!!!
Bravo mon Capitone!
Now research the connections of people on the Fed Board and NY Society.
One former member is in charge of the Met Gala every year.
Awesome informative post and comments.
Excellent Thesis on the FRA. Encapsulates all the important bits without skipping anything but keeps it all succinct enough to keep your attention.
Bravo.
The Lords Of Easy Money
Writer was on Bannon’s Warroom months ago...lots of info about the Fed...reads like a thriller
All of this information is incredibly valuable. It is a convoluted basket case of ridiculousness. How we have managed to let this monstrosity continue for all this time is almost beyond belief. Hiding corruption is done by a convoluted process of complexity that boggles the mind. This entire FR, US Treasury, FR Banks is ridiculousness is hidden in plain sight, if "Where's Waldo" was an ocean of Waldo's. It's hard to wrap my brain around in one sitting, let alone with months or years of study and research. Thank you for doing the leg work. It showed me that I have a tiniest inkling of the real problem with our financial system.
The structure of the FED is intentionally complicated and opaque so unless you have an interest in banking systems or economics trying to understand it is a waste of time for the average person. If you study the history and the details you will discover that Keynesianism, which dominates the field of economics today even by those who denounce it, is a rationalization for socialism, i.e. theft.
I know people claim the problem is that the FED is "privately owned" which is technically true but an irrelevant legal point. Right now it is a form of fascism (corp & govt "partnership") but if the govt ever took it over and kicked out the "private owners" the same fraud would continue as a form of socialism (govt only).
All you need to know about the FED is that the essence of the operation is a legalized check-kiting scheme. That's it -- a govt sanctioned fraud. The agreement between the govt and the supposedly "private" owners is the govt makes the fraud legal, giving them monopoly power to defraud people and they'll split the theft in various complicated ways.
I'm not trying to discourage anyone from doing their own research but it is a very complex subject and made even more difficult due to a century of intellectual frauds that justify the system. Don't get lost in the weeds. I recommend Von Mises "Theory of Money and Credit" if you want to learn.
Excellent effort.
You've got a good baseline understanding, but please include the 17th Amendment when you discuss 1913.
I don't have time to address some small corrections I'd make in your explanation, but allow me to share a site from a friend of mine. He is a forensic accountant who teaches classes on Fed Ed.
I think you'll find this helpful and perhaps you can fine tune your narrative:
https://feded.us
(It seems only the first 6 modules are free at this point, but if you DM me I can share the entire series for free. This is not my site, and I didn't recall that some of the content was behind a paywall)
What happened on Feb 11, 2022?