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.
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.
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.