Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Central banking is the enemy

Michael S. Rozeff explains why, and provides a good introduction to how the Fed is set up. Here's his summary of the problems it causes and how those problems result directly from the Fed itself:

Our current banking system has, from the viewpoint of the general public, three main ills. The first of these is that it produces economic instability, that is, a boom-bust cycle or expansion and recession (or depression). The second, which is related to the first, is that it produces a continuing loss in purchasing power of the dollar. Third is that the banking system provides support to ill-conceived and destructive spending policies of the State. These three ills retard a normal course of economic expansion and impoverish many persons in our country in a most unjust way.

Four separate elements are responsible for these failings of the banking system. One is that banks promise that demand deposits will be paid out on demand, but they cannot possibly meet this requirement for all depositors because they lend out the deposits. Furthermore, their lending results in a multiplied total of further deposits and further loans. Second is that the money used in these deposits is fiat money, that is, money declared to be money that has no sound backing or perceived intrinsic worth. Third is that the money in the banking system has been made legal tender by State law. This means that it must be accepted as a payment medium. Fourth is that deposits are insured by a State agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Consider why Andrew Jackson fought the central bank:

- It concentrated an excessive amount of the nation's financial strength in a single institution.
- It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.
- It served mainly to make the rich richer.
- It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
- It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.

Was he right? Today, Communist China holds over a half-trillion in Treasury bills. Big business has gobbled up family farms. As Rozeff explains, the New York banks run the system.

Where's Old Hickory when we need him?

4 Comments:

At April 22, 2008 11:49 AM , Blogger Pinky said...

.
You asked, "Where is Old Hickory when we need him?"
.
I don't know how much good he would do for us in today's economy.
.
Have you read any John Perkins?
.
http://www.economichitman.com/
.
I think he puts his finger on our problem.
.

 
At April 22, 2008 1:02 PM , Blogger Harold Thomas said...

Probably the most famous example of Ohio resisting the Federal Government was over this very issue, when in 1820, State Auditor Ralph Osborn ordered two employees to the Bank of the United States branch in Chillicothe to seize $50,000 in gold in payment of a tax that the State levied on Federal banks.

While politically popular here, it was challenged in the Supreme Court, and is the basis of Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824), which was a followup to Marbury v. Madison's famous "the power to tax is the power to destroy."

Most Ohioans at the time were staunch Jacksonians on this issue, and from discussions I have had recently, I think sentiment would favor a return to specie-backed currency.

Harold

 
At April 22, 2008 1:48 PM , Blogger Michael Tuggle said...

harold thomas,

I wasn't familiar with that case, but it does say a great deal about how the people of the once-sovereign States resisted the DC insiders.

We need that spirit of resistance again!

 
At April 22, 2008 1:51 PM , Blogger Michael Tuggle said...

pinky,

I checked out the site. Very interesting. I'd say you can gauge the relative stability of a regime by the number of former insiders who can't stomach the scam any more and oppose their former bosses. John Perkins is such an example, as is Karen Kwiatkowski.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski-arch.html

 

Post a Comment

<< Home