I think you have an overly romantic view of the years before the fed. The economy went through constant boom bust cycles which was devastating to the American economy. Here is a link describing the bust cycles.
https://www.thoughtco.com/financial-panics-of-the-19th-century-1774020
Also your timeline is off. Austrian economics was developed in the late 19th century and soon after you get the fed which then led to keynesian economics.
You can't point to a time where pure capitalism existed and delivered what was promised, reality is it did not work and had to be saved by government intervention.
This seems like a good start honestly, however the problem is congress. They are forcing government spending to unprecedented levels.
Hopefully this helps put the brakes on the private sector banking system to stop giving out bad credit, but if they are intentionally doing it, this merger wont change that.
The theme here is that Austrian economics didn't work and Keynesian had to be used to stabilize the economy.
Here is a critique if you are interested.
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2010/09/economics-of-distributism-part-i-john-medaille.html
The great reset is inevitable if the current economic system stays in place. Soon interest repayments on the national debt will outpace the defense budget and it will be the largest expenditure. If it keeps going the way it is, you will eventually own nothing as the globalists say.
I got my numbers from this article. There is a footnote to where the numbers come from.
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2010/09/economics-of-distributism-part-i-john-medaille.html
Not quite no. It is the internal structure of the Fed and the private business interests that get appointed without government oversight.
What I am talking about is fully nationalizing the Fed and appointing people. This article is saying that the treasury and Fed are combining which is different.
Maybe, I dunno. Like I said I'm not a Q guy, I just thought it was an interesting observation.
But it wouldn't surprise me that if Joe is having trust issues with the NG that he wouldn't be calling in favors from Beijing, considering how much they have invested to get him here.
Sorry for the multiple replies, just going over some of your other points.
When you said the the fed is 100% private, how do you come to that conclusion? You surely know that is false and the public/private description is accurate. It is run by private interests with the full force of government.
Also when I said it is no longer possible to end the fed, you claimed that was flase. Yet you advocated that the problems could be solved by nationalizing it by merging it with the treasury. I had said in the OP that the debt could be solved by nationalizing it so what I said was not false.