So what is a central bank? A central bank is an institution that produces the currency of an entire nation. Based on historical precedent, two specific powers are inherent in central banking practice: the control of interest rates and the control of the money supply, or inflation. The central bank does not simply supply a government’s economy with money, it loans it to them at interest. Then through the use of increasing and decreasing of supply of money the central bank regulates the value of the currency being issued. It is critical to understand that the entire structure of this system can only produce one thing in the long run: DEBT.
Virtually all of the interest that the government pays to the Federal Reserve is rebated to the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury each yeah. Thus, the government pays no net interest.
It doesn’t take a lot of ingenuity to figure their scam now. For, every single dollar produced by the central bank is loaned at interest. That means every single dollar produced is actually the dollar plus a certain percent of debt based on that dollar. And since the central bank has the monopoly of the production of the currency for the entire country and they loan each dollar out with an immediate debt attached to it, where does the money that pay for the debt come from? It can only come from the central bank again. Which means the central bank has to perpetually increase its money supply to temporarily cover the outstanding debt created which in turn, since that new money is loaned out at interest as well creates even more debt? The end result of this system without fail is slavery for it is impossible for the government, and thus the public, to ever come out of the self-generating debt. The founding fathers of this country were well aware of this.
Yes, the Federal Reserve can create currency whenever it sees fit, but a bank's ability to create said currency is proportionate to the amount of reserves it has in its possession. Each and every bank must pay a competitive rate on its reserves, or they risk losing their customers to other banks. The interest that a bank pays on its reserves is a large portion of its overhead.
In 1910 a secret meeting was held at the J.P.Morgan’s estate on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. It was there that the central banking bill called the Federal Reserve Act was written. This legislation was written by bankers, not law makers. This meeting was so secretive, so concealed from Government and public knowledge that a 10 or so figures who intended disguised their names when on route to the island. After this bill was constructed, it was then handed over to their political front man, Senator Nelson Aldrich, to push through Congress. And in 1913, with heavy political sponsorship by the bankers, Woodrow Wilson became president, having already agreed to sign the Federal Reserve Act in exchange for campaign support. And two days before Christmas, when most of Congress was at home with their families, the Federal Reserve Act was voted in and Wilson in turn made it law.
This is where the conspiracy theory **** gets laid on pretty heavy. The fact that Peter Joseph would have anything like this in a film that is supposed to espouse "truth" is astounding.
I'm curious as to how Mr. Joseph became privy to information that he deemed as "so secretive", and "so concealed". As far as I can tell, this is nothing but a bold faced lie.
The House passed the bill 298-60 on the evening of Dec. 22, 1913. The Senate began debate the following day at 10am, and passed it 43-25 at 2:30pm. This is congressional record open to anyone who wishes to see it.
The missing senators made sure to have have their positions a part of public record. Out of the 27 votes that were not cast there were 11 "Yea" votes, and 12 "No" votes. So, had they been present the bill still would've passed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.
so all the interest the government pays to the FED goes back to the government? There's still interest on personal loans that people get and they don't get refunded for that. Some economists believe that by 2013 the income tax will have to be raised to 65% just to service the interest on our national debt.
yes it can create 9X as much money as it has in reserve. This could make their competitive rate negligible
Well here's what I know is truth about your 3rd part. The Federal Reserve act was signed to law Dec. 23, 1913. Congress does adjourn for holidays, President Wilson didn't call congress back into session. I'm not sure about the congressional quorum. There was a meeting at Jekyll island that drafted the federal reserve act. You can look up "the Jekyll Island Club"
so all the interest the government pays to the FED goes back to the government? There's still interest on personal loans that people get and they don't get refunded for that. Some economists believe that by 2013 the income tax will have to be raised to 65% just to service the interest on our national debt.
yes it can create 9X as much money as it has in reserve. This could make their competitive rate negligible
Well here's what I know is truth about your 3rd part. The Federal Reserve act was signed to law Dec. 23, 1913. Congress does adjourn for holidays, President Wilson didn't call congress back into session. I'm not sure about the congressional quorum. There was a meeting at Jekyll island that drafted the federal reserve act. You can look up "the Jekyll Island Club"
You're correct, individuals don't get refunded on their loans. Although, a plethora of people file bankruptcy every year eliminating their commercial debt entirely. I'd like some clarification on something though. Are you advocating a complete ban of the accumulation of debt? If not, what are you advocating? Also, do you know who those econmists are? I'd like to see how credible they are.
As far as the 'creation' of currency is concerned, Joseph called it "self-generating". The fact that the banks within the system are limited by not only their reserves, but by competition as well, would indicate that they can't create an "endless" supply of currency.
A quorum in the U.S. congress is merely a simply majority. That is, half the members plus one. A quorum is assumed to present, unless someone suggests otherwise. Regardless, a quorum was present because there were 68 members present in the senate.
On the last bit about Jekyll island, you're right. I was lazy and didn't bother looking. However, I would assert that Joseph is mischaracterizing the meeting. Making it seem more conspiratorial in nature than it actually was.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.
You're correct, individuals don't get refunded on their loans. Although, a plethora of people file bankruptcy every year eliminating their commercial debt entirely. I'd like some clarification on something though. Are you advocating a complete ban of the accumulation of debt? If not, what are you advocating? Also, do you know who those econmists are? I'd like to see how credible they are.
As far as the 'creation' of currency is concerned, Joseph called it "self-generating". The fact that the banks within the system are limited by not only their reserves, but by competition as well, would indicate that they can't create an "endless" supply of currency.
A quorum in the U.S. congress is merely a simply majority. That is, half the members plus one. A quorum is assumed to present, unless someone suggests otherwise. Regardless, a quorum was present because there were 68 members present in the senate.
On the last bit about Jekyll island, you're right. I was lazy and didn't bother looking. However, I would assert that Joseph is mischaracterizing the meeting. Making it seem more conspiratorial in nature than it actually was.
We actually propose the total removal of the monetary system. It was useful until 60 years ago but now it's falling apart. Debt collapses across the world, environmental destruction, 1/6 of the population on the verge of starvation, 1/4 of the world without access to clean water, and political corruption on a scale never before seen. Through some of it's own mechanisms, it was inherently designed to fail. Only now are these problems taking their toll.
The federal reserve, though a private bank, is free from competition as they are seen and protected as a government institution. They can print up money for loans to our government on a whim. As long as the government continues wasteful spending, they can endlessly increase the money supply. For other banks like Bank of America, they can print up money as long as people keep getting loans.
I still don't think it was fair because 1/3 of the senate was absent during the voting.
JP Morgan (one of the leaders of the meetings and one of the richest men in the world at the time) is in my opinion, a man willing to do bad things for money. He denied Nichola Tesla funding for a project that was going to eliminate "electric bill" from human language, claiming you can't charge people for free energy. I'll admit Peter was over exaggerating, but not by much.
Virtually all of the interest that the government pays to the Federal Reserve is rebated to the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury each yeah. Thus, the government pays no net interest.
Yes, the Federal Reserve can create currency whenever it sees fit, but a bank's ability to create said currency is proportionate to the amount of reserves it has in its possession. Each and every bank must pay a competitive rate on its reserves, or they risk losing their customers to other banks. The interest that a bank pays on its reserves is a large portion of its overhead.
This is where the conspiracy theory **** gets laid on pretty heavy. The fact that Peter Joseph would have anything like this in a film that is supposed to espouse "truth" is astounding.
I'm curious as to how Mr. Joseph became privy to information that he deemed as "so secretive", and "so concealed". As far as I can tell, this is nothing but a bold faced lie.
The House passed the bill 298-60 on the evening of Dec. 22, 1913. The Senate began debate the following day at 10am, and passed it 43-25 at 2:30pm. This is congressional record open to anyone who wishes to see it.
The missing senators made sure to have have their positions a part of public record. Out of the 27 votes that were not cast there were 11 "Yea" votes, and 12 "No" votes. So, had they been present the bill still would've passed.
yes it can create 9X as much money as it has in reserve. This could make their competitive rate negligible
Well here's what I know is truth about your 3rd part. The Federal Reserve act was signed to law Dec. 23, 1913. Congress does adjourn for holidays, President Wilson didn't call congress back into session. I'm not sure about the congressional quorum. There was a meeting at Jekyll island that drafted the federal reserve act. You can look up "the Jekyll Island Club"
You're correct, individuals don't get refunded on their loans. Although, a plethora of people file bankruptcy every year eliminating their commercial debt entirely. I'd like some clarification on something though. Are you advocating a complete ban of the accumulation of debt? If not, what are you advocating? Also, do you know who those econmists are? I'd like to see how credible they are.
As far as the 'creation' of currency is concerned, Joseph called it "self-generating". The fact that the banks within the system are limited by not only their reserves, but by competition as well, would indicate that they can't create an "endless" supply of currency.
A quorum in the U.S. congress is merely a simply majority. That is, half the members plus one. A quorum is assumed to present, unless someone suggests otherwise. Regardless, a quorum was present because there were 68 members present in the senate.
On the last bit about Jekyll island, you're right. I was lazy and didn't bother looking. However, I would assert that Joseph is mischaracterizing the meeting. Making it seem more conspiratorial in nature than it actually was.
NO
h8erz guna h8
We actually propose the total removal of the monetary system. It was useful until 60 years ago but now it's falling apart. Debt collapses across the world, environmental destruction, 1/6 of the population on the verge of starvation, 1/4 of the world without access to clean water, and political corruption on a scale never before seen. Through some of it's own mechanisms, it was inherently designed to fail. Only now are these problems taking their toll.
The federal reserve, though a private bank, is free from competition as they are seen and protected as a government institution. They can print up money for loans to our government on a whim. As long as the government continues wasteful spending, they can endlessly increase the money supply. For other banks like Bank of America, they can print up money as long as people keep getting loans.
I still don't think it was fair because 1/3 of the senate was absent during the voting.
JP Morgan (one of the leaders of the meetings and one of the richest men in the world at the time) is in my opinion, a man willing to do bad things for money. He denied Nichola Tesla funding for a project that was going to eliminate "electric bill" from human language, claiming you can't charge people for free energy. I'll admit Peter was over exaggerating, but not by much.