Century of Enslavement: The History of The Federal Reserve

##########################################

Hi I'm Buck, your guide to the Federal Reserve. let me introduce you to one of the most complex, but effective institutions in the United States. But do not worry, I'll explain in simple language. Just next to me is a road map of where we're going. Together we walk through the Federal Reserve System. Literally..

And on the way I will show you what happened here, and why it is important. At the end of the tour you can also explain the Federal Reserve in simple language. There is no other public authority can overrule our actions That would be a takeover of monetary policy by Congress A rejection of the independence of the Federal Reserve, which would be very disruptive the stability of the financial system, the dollar and our national economic situation. all the Federal Reserve has no gold We have no more gold since 1934 [Crowd shouts: "Stop the FED"] Our whole lives have been told that economics is boring. It is tiring. It's not worth the time it takes to understand it. And if we are being lied to our lives. [Make emergency].

War. Poverty. Revolution. They all revolve around the economy. And the economy revolves around one key concept: Money..

Money. It is the economic water in which we spend our lives. We even call it 'cash'. It flows around us, leads us in its wake. drown those who are not careful. We use it in almost every transaction we perform every day. Our whole life we ??work for it, making us worry about, we save, spend it, are economical. It determines our social status. The compromise our morals. People are willing to fight, die and kill. But what is it? Where does it come from? How is it made? Who controls it? It is noteworthy that, given its central meaning in our lives, not one in a hundred people can answer such simple questions about money. Interviewer: If you were planning to start a family, you might want to know where babies come from. And this goes a lot about banking. So I ask you: Where does money come from? Interviewee 1: Where does the money come from? The Government expresses. It is pressed. Interviewer: How to create new money? Interviewee 2 :. Through labor. People work and produce wealth, and the money should be in line with those riches Interviewer: Where does money come from? Interviewee 3 :. I look differently at money. It comes from trees, right? But why is this?.

Why are we so ignorant about such an important topic? "Where does money come from?" Is a simple, childlike question. Why is our only response than the childish answer, funny meant: "It grows on trees?".

Such a deep state of ignorance does not come. From our childhood we are curious about the world and we want to learn how it works. And what could lead to a better understanding of the way in which the world works then the knowledge of money, creation and destruction. Yet this subject is carefully avoided in school and in everyday life. Our monetary ignorance is artificial, a smokescreen clears intentional with the help of complicated systems and unbearable economic jargon. But there is no economist needed to understand the importance of money. Deep down we all know that war, poverty, the violence that we see around us revolves around the question of money. It looks like a puzzle waiting to be solved. And that's it. The puzzle pieces together to create a picture of the Federal Reserve, the Bank of America and the heart of the banking system in the country. Despite its central importance to the economy, but have heard few of them, and even fewer people know what it is, despite the efforts of the bank to describe themselves: Our economy depends on a complex system of exchange of goods and services where money plays an important role. Coins, currency, savings, current accounts; the total supply of money is managed by the Federal Reserve. Money is the medium through which economic exchanges take place, and money as a standard of value, helps us to determine the prices of goods and services. The task of managing money, 'monetary policy' is to preserve the purchasing power of the dollar and ensure that sufficient funding is available to promote economic growth. The Federal Reserve also promotes the security and stability of the institutions we banking. It ensures that the mechanisms by which we make payments either cash, checks, or electronically, smoothly and efficiently. And in its fiscal role acts as banker for the United States government. These tasks include the main responsibilities of our central bank. But to truly understand the Federal Reserve, we must first understand the origin and context. We need to deconstruct the puzzle. The first piece of that puzzle is here in the White House. This is where the Federal Reserve Act, then known as the 'Currency Bill, was signed after the House and Senate had passed in late December 1913. The New York Times on Christmas Eve in 1913, described the festive scene: The meeting was imbued with the spirit of Christmas. Although the ceremony was less impressive than the signing of the Tarriff Act on October 3 in the same room, the spectators were more enthusiastic and seized every opportunity to applaud. In the White House on that fateful night of December, President Wilson threw away the last bit of control of the American money in a cartel; well organized gang of crooks, so successful so cunning, so well hidden that even now, a century later, few know of their existence, let alone know the details of their activities. But those details are decades openly admitted. Of course, as we were taught to economics to find boring, has taught us that this story is boring. This is the way the Federal Reserve says it: The United States was facing serious financial problems. At the beginning of the century, most banks issued their own currency from, called "notes." The problem was currency which was good in one state, sometimes it was worthless in another. People began to lose confidence in their money, because it was only as reliable as the bank that had issued it. Fearing that their bank could go bankrupt, they suddenly wanted to exchange banknotes for gold or silver. Because everyone tried to do this, they created the "Panic of 1907". During the panic flocked people flocked to the banks and demanded their funds in. The banks could not meet the demand. They had simply not enough gold and silver available. Many banks went under. People lost millions of dollars, corporate members, unemployment rose, and the stability of our economic system was threatened again. Well, this could not go on. If the country wanted to grow and prosper had to be found a way to achieve financial and economical stability. To prevent financial panic, as in 1907, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. But this is history as the victors tell: a revisionist vision, in which the creation of a central bank to control the money supply of a country just a boring historical footnote, just about as important as the invention of the zipper or an early 20th-century hoola-hoop craze. The truth is that the story of the secret group of banks calling in life the Federal Reserve Act is as exciting and dramatic as a Hollywood movie or detective novel, and all the more remarkable because it is all true. We begin the story, appropriately enough, in the dusk concealing. On the night of November 22, 1910, were a group of the richest and most powerful men in America on board of a railway wagon on a private inconspicuous station n Hoboken, New Jersey. The car, which was waiting with tinted windows to prevent onlookers to look inside, was Senator Nelson Aldrich, the father of billionaire and heir to the Rockefeller dynasty, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. A central figure in the influential Senate Finance Committee, where he oversaw the monetary policy of the nation, Aldrich was mentioned in the press, "General Manager of the Nation". He was that night accompanied by his private secretary Shelton, and the top of the banking and financial elite of the nation. Piatt Andrew, Minister of Finance; Frank Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York; Henry P. Davison, senior partner of JP Morgan Company; Benjamin Strong, Jr., a member of JP Morgan and the Chairman of Bankers Trust Co. and Paul Warburg, heir to the Warburg banking family and son in law of Solomon Loeb the famous New York investment firm, Kuhn, Loeb & Company. The men were arriving one by one after sunset to attract as little attention as possible. Secrecy was so important to their mission they only used their first names during the trip to conceal their true identity, even for their own service staff. An action of only one of them could have draw the attention of the hungry people in New York, especially in an era in which banking and monetary reform was seen as a key issue for the future of the nation; a meeting with all of them together would certainly have been the story of the century. And that was it. Their destination? The secluded Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia, home of the prestigious Jekyll Island Club whose members include the Morgans, Rockefellers, Rothschilds and Warburg. Their goal? Davison told local reporters who had had got wind of the meeting they would go duck hunting. But in reality, they wrote a reform of the banking sector of the country, in complete secrecy. G. Edward Griffin, author of the bestseller "The Creature from Jekyll Island ' Federal Reserve and experienced researcher, explains: The banks decided that since there still would be legislation to control their industries, that they would not wait and see what happens and hope it would be okay. They decided to do what so many cartels do today: they decided to take the lead. And they call themselves to regulation and reform. They love the word "reform." The American people fall for the word "reform." Put that in a corrupt piece of legislation, call it "reform" and people say, "Oh, I'm for 'reform'," and so they vote for it or accept it. So that's what they did. They decided, "We" reform "our industry" In other words: "We are forming a cartel and give the cartel power of government. We use our cartel to regulate ourselves in our favor and we call it "The Federal Reserve Act." And then we deal with these cartels to Washington and we convince those idiots out there to incorporate this into the law. " That was the strategy. It was a brilliant strategy. Of course, we see this happening all the time, especially today we see the same cartel in other industries. Currently, we see this happening in health care, but then it was the banking sector. So the banking cartel wrote their own rules and regulations, called it "The Federal Reserve Act," got it included in the law, and it was very much to their liking, because they had written it themselves. In fact, they have rules that made it possible to regulate their own industry, but they went even further than that. For me it is clear from their letters, calls from that moment, and the debates that they had never dreamed of that Congress would agree and would also entitle them to create the nation's money. They would not go alone regulate their own industry, they pursued from the beginning, but they were given an incredible gift that they did not dare to dream, although they negotiated it, and that was that Congress gave them the power to create money from the nation. Congress gave the sovereign right to create money out of the private banks. This was all in the Federal Reserve Act, and the Americans were joyful because they were told, and they were convinced, this was finally a way to control the large sample of Jekyll Island. Amazingly, they were successful, not only in their conspiracy to write the legislation that eventually became the Federal Reserve Act, but keep the secret of the conspiracy to the public for decades. It was first reported in 1916 by Bertie Charles Forbes, the financial writer who would later establish Forbes Magazine, but only a quarter of a century later fully admitted, when Frank Vanderlip wrote about the short meeting in the edition of February 9, 1935 by The Saturday Evening Post: "I was so secretive, so secretly, as any conspirator. It is no exaggeration to speak to Jekyll Island on our secret expedition as the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System " During their nine-day consultation at the Jekyll Island Club, they came up with a plan that was as overarching, so ambitious, they could hardly imagine that it would ever be passed by Congress. As Vanderlip it: "We knew we had to keep [our plans] absolutely secret, otherwise would have been wasted our time and effort. If it were publicly known that our group came together to write a banking law, that bill would have no chance of being passed by Congress. " So, what exactly are these conspirators conceived during their meeting on Jekyll Island? A plan for a central banking system would be owned by the banks themselves, a system that would organize the country's banks in a private cartel which would have exclusive control over the creation of money. At the end of the nine-day meeting, the bankers and financiers went back to their offices satisfied with what they had achieved. The details of the plan were modified between the time the report in 1910 and the final adoption of the Federal Reserve Act, but the essential ideas were present. But ultimately this is also happening on Jekyll Island just one piece of a larger puzzle. And like any other piece of the puzzle, it must be seen in the wider context so the bigger picture is visible. To understand the other pieces of the puzzle and its importance in the creation of the Federal Reserve, we must travel back in time. The story begins in the late 17th century in Europe. The Nine Years War raging across the continent and Louis XIV of France fights much of the rest of the continent on its territorial and dynastic claims. King William III of England loses a devastating naval battle, and gives his court commissioned to rebuild the British fleet. But there is one problem: money. The coffers of the government is exhausted by war and Williams credit dries up. A Scottish banker William Paterson, the solution of a banker: a proposal "to set up a company to borrow a million pounds to the government at six percent (Plus 5000 "handling fee") with the right to print money " In 1694 the plan was slightly modified (a ? 1,200,000 loan at 8 percent plus 4000 fees), but it continues. The generously titled 'Bank of England was founded. The name is a carefully constructed lie, designed to the bank to give the appearance of a public authority. But that is not it..

It is a private bank with private shareholders, for their own profit, with the approval of the king which allows them to create money from the people, from nothing, and lend to the crown. What happened here, in the development of the Bank of England in 1694, is the creation of a pattern that will be repeated all over the world: a privately controlled central bank, which lends money to the government at interest. Money they create out of nothing. And the jewel in the crown for the international bankers who created this system, the future economic superpower of the world, the United States. In many ways, the history of the United States The history of the struggle of the American people against the bankers who want to control their money. In 1780, while still colonies fighting for independence from the crown, get the bankers where they are from. In 1781, the United States is in financial turmoil. The Continental, paper money issued by the Continental Congress to pay for the war, collapsed because too much was printed by British and counterfeiting. Desperate for a way to finance the end of the war, Congress turns to Robert Morris, a wealthy merchant who was investigated for usury during the war, only two years earlier. Now, as "Superintendent of Finance" of the United States 1781-1784 He is considered the most powerful man in America, after General Washington. In his capacity as Superintendent of Finance Morris advocates the creation of a private central bank deliberately modeled on the Bank of England, where the colonies supposedly fought against. Congress, driven into a corner by war obligations and forced to do business with the bankers as King William in the 1690s, agrees with the Bank of North America, the first central bank of he country. And just as the Bank of England was created with a loan to the British crown of ? 1,200,000 BNA began loaning $ 1.2 million to Congress. By the end of the war, Morris had lost his political support and the currency of the Bank of North America has been unable to convince the skeptical public. The BNA is downgraded from a national central bank a private commercial bank, certified by the state of Pennsylvania. But the bankers had not given up. Before the ink had dried constitution, Does a group led by Alexander Hamilton all the creation of the private central bank for the newly formed United States of America. Hamilton is so brutal in carrying out this agenda, he does not hide his goals or that of the banking interests he serves: "A modest national debt, will be a national blessing for us," he wrote in a letter to James Duane in 1781. "It will be a powerful cements for our Union. It will also create the need for raising taxes to a level where, without being repressive, will be an incentive for the industry. " There is fierce opposition to Hamilton and his debt-based system for the finances of the US Led by Jefferson and Madison are the bankers and their system of debt slavery appointed as the destructive power that it is. Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The spirit of war and accusations [...] since the modern theory of perpetual debt, has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under constant rising costs. " Yet Hamilton wins. First Bank of the United States "was founded in 1791 according to the pattern of the Bank of England and the Bank of North America; a private central bank with the authority to lend money to the government, which it creates out of nothing. In fact the same people behind the new bank and behind the old Bank of North America. " It was Alexander Hamilton, Robert Morris' former assistant, Morris proposed for the function of financial regulator, and the director of the old Bank of North America, "Thomas Willing, is presented as the first Director of the First Bank of the United States. Meet the new bench boss, same as the old bank bosses. In the first five years of existence of the bank, lend the US government $ 8.2 million from the bank and prices rise by 72%. In 1795, Hamilton enters occasionally announces the new finance minister that the government needs more money and sells the paltry 20% share of the government in the bank, making it a completely private company. Again the US economy is looted, while the private banking cartel enters. The moment the license of the bank was to be renewed in 1811, the tide has turned to financial stakeholders behind the couch. Hamilton is dead, killed in a duel with Aaron Burr. The bank-friendly federalist party out of the government. The public is suspicious of foreign ownership of the central bank, and moreover, they not see the use of a central bank in peacetime. Therefore Voted renewal of the authorization was closed in 1811 in the Senate and the bank. Less than a year later, the US is once again at war with England. After two years of bitter struggle is the US government almost tripled from $ 45.2 million to $ 119.2 million. The trade came to a halt, with rising prices, inflation and rising debt, President Madison signed the charter for the creation of another central bank, the Second Bank of the United States in 1816. Like the previous two central banks, this in private hands for the most part and will have the power to borrow money that it creates out of nothing, to the government. The 20-year-old banking license expires in 1836, but during his first term President Jackson promised to let it die before the extension. It Assuming Jackson likely will not risk re-election in 1832, the bankers have a bill to renew the license of the bank in July of that year, four years ahead of schedule. Jackson speaks a veto on the renewal of the license and gambling on public support for his re-election. In his veto message, Jackson writes frankly about his opposition to the bank: "What interests or influences, public or private, underlie this law, it can not be found in the wishes or needs of the executive department, which found premature current actions and the power granted to her is not only unnecessary, but dangerous for the government and the country. It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. If we do not vest immediately, given the interest among misguided legislation, our government do what it should be, we can at least take a stand against all new licensed monopolies and exclusive privileges, against the prostitution of our government to the advantage of the few at the expense of the many, and for compromise and gradual reform our laws and system of political economy. " The crowd sided with Jackson and he was re-elected with its slogan, "Jackson and No Bank!" The president is his promise. In 1833 he announced that the government will not use more of the bank and paid off its debt. The bankers revenge in 1834 by organizing a financial crisis and Jackson try to blame but it makes no sense. On January 8, 1835 President Jackson succeeds there to repay the debt, and for the first and only time in history the United States freed from the debt of the bankers. In 1836 expires the license of the Second Bank of the United States and the bank loses its position as the central bank of America. It takes 77 years before the bankers can replace the jewel in their crown. But not because they did not try it. Immediately after the death of the bank, the bank oligarchs in England responded by withdrawing trade removing capital from the US, demanding hard currency for all exports and tighter credit conditions. This resulted in a financial crisis known as the Panic of 1837, and again get Jackson's campaign to kill the bank of the debt crisis. During the late 19th century the United States is plagued by panic over banks caused by wild speculation by the banks and large fluctuations in credit. At the beginning of the 20th century, most of the money in the US economy centralized in the hands of a small clique industrial magnates, each with a near monopoly in a sector of the economy. You have the Astors in real estate, the Carnegies and Schwab in steel, The Harri Mans, Stanfords and Vanderbilts in railroads, the Mellons and Rockefellers in oil. All these families to consolidate their fortunes and they are naturally attracted to the banking sector. And so they form a network of financial interests and institutions which largely revolve around a man, banking scion and informal central banker of America in the absence of a central bank, John Pierpont Morgan. John Pierpont Morgan, or "Pierpont" as he is called, rather, Born in Hartford, Connecticut in 1837 as the son of Junius Spencer Morgan, a successful banker and financier. Morgan comes on the tails of his father in the banking business and in 1871 he became a partner in his own business, the company that would eventually become JP Morgan and Company. It's Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt's finances New York Central Railroad. It was Morgan who is funding the launch of almost every major company in the period, AT & T, to General Electric to General Motors to Dupont. It's Morgan, who would gain Carnegie and the United States Steel Corporation founder, America's first billion-dollar company. It was Morgan who strikes a deal with President Grover Cleveland to "save" the gold reserves of the nation by selling 62 million dollars in gold to the Treasury in exchange for government bonds. And it was Morgan, who, in 1907, the crisis sets in motion leading to the creation of the Federal Reserve. That year Morgan spreads rumors about the precarious finances of the Knickerbocker Trust Company, a competitor Morgan and one of the largest financial institutions in the United States at that time. The resulting crisis, the Panic of 1907, the US financial system will shake to its foundations. Morgan pushes himself forward as a hero and courageous provides support for the faltering banks and trade offices to prevent them from going under. After a struggle for the finances of the nation, Congress sets up a committee to investigate "The Money Trust" the bankers and financiers who brought the country so close to the financial abyss and have such great power over the finances of the country. The audience follows the issue closely, and finally a handful of bankers identified as the main players in the activities of 'The Money Trust " including Paul Warburg, Benjamin Strong, Jr., and JP Morgan. Andrew Gavin Marshall, editor of The People's Book Project, explains: At the beginning of the 20th century there was an investigation into the biggest financial panic in 1907, and this study was focused on what was called "The Money Trust". which showed that three banks: JP Morgan, National City Bank, and the City Bank of New York basically controlled the entire financial system. Three banks. The public hatred was toward these institutions unprecedented. There was an overwhelming consensus in the country for the establishment of a central bank, but there were many different interests and everyone had his own goal to advocate for a central bank. So to represent the majority of people, there were farmers' interests, populists, progressives, which advocate a central bank, because they could not against the recurrent crisis but they wanted government supervision of the central bank. They wanted necessarily that it was under public scrutiny because they despised the banks in New York and feared because they had too much influence, So they saw the central bank as a way to curb the power of these private financial interests. On the other hand argue that same financial interests a central bank, to serve as a source of stability for their control of the system, and also to act as a credit bank for themselves so that they would never collapse. But to exert more control through a central bank New York private banking sector wanted a central bank under the exclusive control of themselves. Not surprising. So all those different interests came together. Obviously, the financial institutions in New York were the most influential. They had more in common with European financial institutions than American society. The main person behind the creation of the Federal Reserve was Paul Warburg, who was a partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, a European bank. His brothers were prominent bankers in Germany at that time, and he obviously had close ties with all major financial and industrial companies in the United States and Europe. And he discussed these ideas for a central bank with his countrymen. In 1910, Warburg was supported by Senator Nelson Aldrich, whose family later married into the Rockefeller family. That will happen. Aldrich invited Warburg and a number of other bankers for a secret meeting on Jekyll Island the coast of Georgia, where they met in 1910 to discuss the establishment of a central bank in the United States, that would be owned and interests would serve the private bankers. Aldrich presented it in 1911 as the "Aldrich Plan" in the US Congress and it was voted down. The public trusted the bankers Senator Aldrich and not rejected the "Aldrich Plan" of the Jekyll Island clique. But the clique does not give up. They simply give their plan a different name and a new public face, Senator Robert Owen and MP Carter Glass. "The Money Trust", which were behind the crisis of 1907, used the indignation of the public against them in order to complete their consolidation of control over the banking system. The renamed Federal Reserve Act was signed on December 23, 1913 and the Fed starts the following year with his business. "Is in the study of money, more than in all other economic areas, complexity to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it "-John Kenneth Galbraith. How does the Federal Reserve System? What does it do? Who owns and controls it? These are the basic questions that lead to the fundamental question: "What is money?" And that is why the answer to these questions is shrouded in impenetrable economic jargon. Even the educational propaganda of the Federal Reserve, with a lot of cute animations and simple language, barely manages to summarize the tasks and responsibilities of the Fed. According to the Fed: To achieve these goals, combines the Fed, then and now, a centralized national authority by the Board of Directors, with a healthy dose of independence by regional reserve banks. A third entity, the Federal Open Market Committee, brings this knowledge together to determine the national monetary policy. Which imaginary schoolchildren this economic gibberish mean? The simple truth hidden behind the magic trick of titles and magisterial economic jargon, is that a banking cartel has monopolized the most important aspect in our economy: money itself..

We are taught to view money as the paper or coins from the printing presses of the government. This is partially true, but the banknotes and coins in circulation in the economy today only a fraction of the total money supply. Over 90% of money is created by private banks as loans that must be repaid with interest. Although this simple fact is kept hidden by the wizards of Wall Street and the gods of money of the money-creation process, a kind of art of alchemy to make under close supervision by the government, the truth is not hidden from the public. In December 1977 the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published a new information brochure full of pictures and obtuse language for the general public in an attempt to explain the function of the Federal Reserve System. In black and white they carefully explain the process of money creation from: "Commercial banks create money in a bank account when granting a loan, simply by incorporating new deposits in their books in exchange for an IOU from a borrower. Banks create money by 'monetizing' private debts of companies and individuals. So they create money against the value of those IOUs ". There it is, in simple language: the majority of money in the economy, the money in our account with the bank that we use for our electronic payments, is not made by a printing press of the government, but by the bank itself. It is created out of nothing, as a debt that must be repaid to the bank that created it, at interest. This means that bank loans do not come from the money of other depositors, but new money that is simply created and placed on your account. And the bank is able to create much more money than it has money to serve as collateral. The Fed claims to be the entity that oversees the banking sector. It was founded, according to its own propaganda, in order to stabilize the system and to prevent the bank runs such as of the 1907 Crisis could happen again. For much of the 18th century, almost every organization who wanted to print his own money. And that is exactly what many states, banks and even a chemist from New York, did. At one time there were more than 30,000 different kinds of money in circulation. Imagine the confusion. There were many different types of coins, some were redeemable for gold and silver, others were supported by bonds spending regional governments. It was not uncommon for people to lose their faith in the value of their currencies and the entire financial system. If many people tried at once to withdraw their money, the banks had sometimes not enough money to pay off their depositors. When the money ran out, the banks temporarily suspend the payment and some were even closed. People lost their savings. Sometimes had regional economies suffer. It is clear that something had to happen. And in 1913 it happened. In that year, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act. This law created the Federal Reserve System for a safer and more stable monetary and banking system. If this was indeed the intention, it has failed to achieve this. By creating one of the biggest bubbles in American history until 1920, just ten years after its creation. The set course splashes of that bubble led directly to the Great Depression and one of the longest periods of mass poverty in American history. Economists have long argued that the Fed itself was the cause of the depression by its complete mismanagement of the money supply. As former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke admitted in a speech in honor of the 90th anniversary of Milton Friedman: "Regarding the Great Depression: You're right, we have done very sorry.. But thanks to you, we will never do it again. " "Price stability" is another principle the mandate of the Federal Reserve. But herein not the Fed manages to meet its own standards. Apart from the banking system, the Federal Reserve has a different responsibility, which is probably even more important. It is called the charge that 'monetary policy'. It means that they are trying to keep prices stable in order to prevent inflation. Suppose you today would buy a CD for $ 14. But what if the price would rise next year to $ 20 or $ 50, not because of a change in supply or demand, but because all the prices went up. That's inflation. There are many different causes of inflation, but one of the most important thing is too much money. The Fed can adjust the money supply by injecting money into the electronic system, or by withdrawing money from the economy. Think of it: the Federal Reserve has the ability to create money and disappear. What is the most important thing is what happens as a result. Each time money is changed, the effects are felt throughout the economy. The methods of the Fed have been changed to take advantage of the latest computers and electronics, but its mission remains the same: to seek price stability, full employment and a growing economy. 100 years ago, in 1913, the Fed was established, and that we did indicated by a vertical line. Consumer prices are now about 30 times higher than when the Fed was founded in 1913. Even paper money is the responsibility of the Federal Reserve. Therefore, the dollars in circulation no treasury bills, no credit, but Federal Reserve notes, based on debt and only guaranteed by the pledge of the government to pay, the 'bonds' insured by the taxpayers themselves. At one point the Federal Reserve banks were required by law to hold large stocks of gold reserves as collateral for these notes, but that obligation was lifted and now the bills are mostly guaranteed by government bonds. The Fed has no more gold are in the books, but gold "certificates" issued by the Treasury and not valued at the suggested retail price of $ 1,300 per troy ounce, but an arbitrary "statutory rate" of $ 42 2/9 per ounce. Ron Paul: But I have another question: During the crisis, or anytime that you are aware of, the Federal Reserve or the Treasury Department has participated in 'Gold Swap' schemes? Scott Alvarez: The Federal Reserve owns no gold. We have not had any gold owned since 1934, so we did not participate in "gold swaps". Ron Paul: But your balance is to have your gold. Scott Alvarez: What our balance state are gold certificates. Before 1934, the Federal Reserve gold or had in possession. We got that, according to law, and transferred to the Treasury received in exchange for gold certificates. Ron Paul: When the Ministry of Finance that ... because according to the Exchange Stabilization Fund I assume they have the legal authority to do it ... they would not be able to do it because you have the actual securities for all the gold? Scott Alvarez: No, we have no interest in gold that is owned by the Ministry of Finance. We simply an accounting document called "gold certificates" representing the value of the statutory interest which we gave to the Ministry of Finance in 1934. Ron Paul: And still worth $ 42 per ounce, which is totally unreasonable. It is clear that there is a discrepancy between what we think the Fed motives and what it actually does. To understand what is the real intention of the Fed it is first important to understand that the Federal Reserve is not a bank, but a system. This system codified, institutionalizes, supervises and supports a form of banking called "fractional reserve banking" which banks can lend more money than they actually have in their vaults. The decay and corruption trial begins with the so-called "fractional reserve banking". That is the technical name for it. And what that actually means is that while the banking institutions developed over the centuries, starting of course in Europe, developed a practice of legalizing certain unfair accounting procedures. In other words, at the very beginning people brought their gold or silver to the banks for safekeeping. And they said, "give us a receipt, we do not guard ourselves our silver and our gold, because someone can come in the night and kill us or tie or threaten and they will take away our gold and silver, we can not monitor it, so we take it to the bank and fit them out and we just want a receipt, so we can take back our receipt and can collect gold to us when we want to. " So in the beginning money was a receipt. Instead of exchanging gold coins, they could exchange the receipts, and people accepted the receipts as good as gold, knowing that they could get the gold. And this paper receipts were in circulation and were the first examples of paper money. The banks had that game quickly; they were sitting on a mountain of gold with all those paper receipts in circulation. People brought not return the receipts, maybe five or seven percent of the people brought back their paper receipts and asked for the gold. So they said, "Ah ha Why do not we just more receipts than we have gold? They'll never know it, because demands it up to seven percent of the people. So we can make more receipts for gold than we have. And we can interest questions because we lend to the economy. We will ask for interest on money we do not really have and then we're good for each other, right? "" Yes, of course! " And that's how "fractional reserve banking" has started. And now it is institutionalized and it is taught in school. No one doubts the integrity or the ethics of it. They say: "That's the way banks operate, and is not it great that we now these have flexible currency and prosperity, we have, and so forth. " So it all starts with the concept of "fractional reserve banking". The problem is that it usually works, but occasionally there are a few ripples along which are a bit larger than the other ripples are. Perhaps one of them called a wave. And more than seven percent will come asking for their gold, maybe twenty percent or thirty percent. Now the banks are embarrassed because the fraud comes to light. They say, "We need you not gold" "Why did you not our gold? I give it to you and put it on my bill and you would guard it. " "Well, we have not, we have lent" If it becomes known to everybody get his gold. And of course they have not, banks are closed, they have bank holidays. Banks are ashamed, they go bankrupt, people lose their savings and there were banks that collapse, which is reflected throughout the world at that time. And that caused concern to the American people. They wanted no more. They wanted it to end. That was, supposedly, the whole purpose of the Federal Reserve System; there to create an end. But because the people who designed the plan were the same people who carried out the these practices, it is no surprise that did not work out their solution to the American people. Their solution was to expand it. Not to check it, but in order to expand it. Previously, this game of "fractional reserve banking" localized at the level of the state. Each state had its own little "fractional reserve banking system. Each state actually had its own Federal Reserve. Central banks have been authorized by the laws of the State to do so. That caused all these problems, so when the Federal Reserve came and said: "No, we will not do more at the level of the state, because that's all caused problems. We're going to combine it all and we do it on a national level. " The key to the system is who has control over this incredible power to regulate the economy. by imposing reserve requirements and the target rate. The answer to this question is deliberately concealed. The Federal Reserve system is a deliberately confusing mixture of public and private interests, reserve banks, boards and committees, centralized in Washington and throughout the United States. You have the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, who is appointed by the president. That's the only part of this system is directly dependent on input from public which is the 'federal' part: the government, the president, in particular, may appoint some Governors. The twelve regional banks, the most powerful of which is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York which is located on Wall Street to represent Wall Street, is a representative of the big Wall Street banks that hold shares in the private, not federal, but private Federal Reserve Bank of New York. All other regional banks are private banks. The amount of influence they exercise varies, but the Kansas City Fed's influential, the St. Louis Fed, the Dallas Fed, but the New York Fed is really the center of this system because it represents the banks on Wall Street, which appoint the leadership of the New York Fed. So the New York Fed has a lot of public power, but no public accountability or oversight. It need not accountable to Congress, as the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors does and even the president of the Federal Reserve Board, which is appointed by the President, explains not accountable to the President or Congress. He made a statement at the Congress, but the policies they make independently. They have no interference from the government. The government, they can not legally tell what they need, and they obviously do not. Rep. John Duncan: Would it be a problem for the Fed or for the economy was adopted as law? Ben Bernanke: My concern about this legislation is that if the GAO exercises control, not only the operational aspects and details of our programs, but also judgments about our policy decisions, it would in fact be a takeover of monetary policy by Congress, a rejection of the independence of the Federal Reserve, which would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the dollar and our national economic situation. The Federal Open Market Committee is responsible for setting interest rates. In this committee, which has a lot of power, are the governor and the vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, but most members of the Federal Open Market Committee, the presidents of the regional Federal Reserve banks representing private interests. They have an important influence on the setting of interest rates. The interest is not established by a public institution, but by private financial and corporate interests. And that is whose interests they serve. The reason that the Federal Reserve is doing so much effort to be as confusing as possible the organizational structure is to hide the massive interest that underpin this system. In fact, there is the Federal Reserve System from a Board of Governors, 12 regional banks, and the Federal Open Market Committee. The private members of each Federal Reserve Bank vote for the majority of the directors of the Reserve Bank, and those drivers vote for members of the Federal Open Market Committee, which sets monetary policy. Moreover, Wall Street gets the most important place at the table, because tradition requires that the chairman of the powerful New York Federal Reserve Bank was appointed vice chairman of the FOMC and permanent member of the committee. In fact, the private banks are the most important factor in the composition of the FOMC which regulates the whole economy. According to the Fed's monetary policy decisions need not be approved by the President or by someone else in the executive or legislative, it receives no funding from Congress, and the term of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. " Or, in the words of Alan Greenspan: Interviewer: "What should be the proper relationship between a chairman of the Fed and the President of the United States?" "Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent institution and that means There is no other government agency that can overrule actions that we take. " The Fed continues to set its own myths that it is not focused private, for-profit institution. This characterization is unfair, or even an outright lie. The regional banks are private businesses, as evidenced by a ruling of the Supreme Court in 1928: "Institutions such as the National Bank or the Federal Reserve banks, in which private interests are represented, No government services. These are private companies in which the government has an interest. " This is admitted even by the top management of the Federal Reserve. Yvonne Mizusawa: Our regulations are terms and conditions for the loan of money, but the daily banking activities are performed by the Federal Reserve Banks. They are banks, and indeed they lend money Peter W. Hall: So they have their own agency in that respect? Yvonne Mizusawa: They are not agencies, Your Honor, they are "persons" in accordance with FOIA. The shares of each Federal Reserve Bank is owned by the member banks, 100% privately owned, with a private board of directors. The majority of the board are appointed by the independent banks, private banks in their district. They are not agencies. These private companies issue shares, which are owned by the member banks constituting the system, so the banks are the ultimate owners of the Federal Reserve Banks. Although the Fed's profits are returned each year to the Ministry of Finance, deliver shares of the banks affiliated to the Fed a dividend of 6%. According to the Fed indicates that they are not out to gain the fixed nature of this refund. In spite of such misleading description, it is important to understand the bankers who control the Federal Reserve indeed not directly make money from the Fed. Their advantages are less obvious, and much more insidious. The easiest way to understand this, as the past century and show the last financial crisis, is that the Fed was used to rescue the same bankers who own the Federal Reserve banks, a clear example of fascist conspiracy. Some financial institutions have enriched themselves by speculating on a large scale and market manipulation. And then they went to their governments and said: "We are now in a very difficult situation and you need to borrow money ... you have to give us money, to maintain the stability of the financial system. " And who lends that money really matter, who is funding the public debt? The same financial institutions that received bailout. And so you get a circular process. It is a diabolical process. You borrow money ... no, you give money to the major financial institutions, and this debt runs into the trillions. And then you say to those financial institutions we should issue new treasury bills and government bonds, of course, be sold to the public, but they are always mediated by the financial institutions, which derive their vitality from. And financial institutions are likely to purchase part of the public debt, so that in fact the government finances its own debt through bailouts. They hand over money to the banks, but because they are beholden to the same financial institutions and then they say: "We have to spend large amounts of government bonds Can you help us.?" And then tell the banks: "Well, your books are not quite right." And then the government says, "Of course they are not in order, because we have given you just $ 1.4 trillion bailout money and we are now in a very difficult situation, so we have to borrow money from the people who actually are the recipients of the bailout. " So this is where we have to deal with, it is a circular process. The 2008 crisis and the subsequent bailouts are only the latest and most blatant examples the fundamental conflict of interest at the heart of the US private central banking system. After the collapse of Lehman Bros. in September of that year, The Federal Reserve starts with an unprecedented program of bailouts and interest-free credit the same banks that caused the crisis. The cartel of the Federal Reserve structure, and not accidentally, were the same bank directors who oversaw the lending practices of their banks which ended up in the management functions of the Fed and voted on where the billions of dollars in bailout money would go. And, unsurprisingly, it went to their own banks. A shocking report by the Government Accountability Office examined $ 2,011 16,000,000,000,000 in bailout money extended by the Federal Reserve in the wake of the crisis, and explained the numerous examples of flagrant conflict of interest exposed. Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, was a director on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the same time the Fed's $ 16 billion financing provided by General Electric. Meanwhile, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon was also a member of the board of the New York Fed during the period when the Fed's $ 391 billion in emergency loans given to his own bank. In total, the board of the Federal Reserve were involved in $ 4 trillion in loans to their own banks. This money not only were used to prop up the banks, but to allow member banks the Fed to return to a period of record profits In the same period the average worker saw their real wages and slowly came to a stop the real economy. Ben Bernanke, then chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, was confronted with this conflict of interest by Senator Bernie Sanders after the GAO report was released in June 2012. Ben Bernanke: Senator, you mention an important point, namely that this is not something that has created the Federal Reserve. This is stated in the statute. Congress in the Federal Reserve Act to say that this is the board of the Federal Reserve and more specifically that bankers would be part of the board. Bernie Sanders: 6 9. Ben Bernanke: Sorry? Bernie Sanders: 6 out of 9 in the regional banks come from the banking sector. Ben Bernanke: That's right. And that's the law. The answer to your question is that Congress has set this up, I think we have made useful to something and valuable. It provides us with information. But if Congress wants to change it, we will of course look with you for alternatives. Bernanke is right. These conflicts are in fact a part of the institute. A structural feature of the Federal Reserve, which has been ingrained in the Federal Reserve Act, more than 100 years ago, by the bankers who conspired to transfer the money creation of the country in a cartel. This is the most direct reason why the Federal Reserve, this legalized cartel of banks, should be abolished. But this is not the only reason. Part Three: Stop the Fed "Those who control the credit of a nation determine the policies of governments and hold the fate of the people in their grasp. " We now know that the American people for centuries at war with the oligarchs of international banking. That war was lost in 1913, perhaps for good, with the creation of the Federal Reserve. With the adoption of Federal Reserve Act condemned President Woodrow Wilson the US population a century in which money creation was dependent on the vagaries of the banking cartel. A century of "booms" and "busts", bubbles and depressions, has led to a total redistribution of wealth toward the people at the top of the system. At the bottom of the toiling masses in relative poverty, households with a single income second earners were out of necessity, their quality of life is slowly, while the Federal Reserve notes, the dollars are called, continues to devalue. Moreover perpetuates the fraud Alexander Hamilton's persistent myth that a debt is necessary. The US is now locked in a system where the government issuing bonds to generate money for their activities, bonds that are guaranteed by taxes on labor of the people. Meanwhile, the perpetrators of this fraud in the shade, largely ignored by the people who would immediately recognize a new pop idol in Hollywood, but have no idea who does the CEO of Goldman Sachs or the New York Fed, let alone who they are. This cartel has no nationality, no philosophy or religion, no ethical code. They are not even motivated by greed but by power. The power that inevitably control over money creation entails. Once a person has everything you can buy with money in this world What is left over to wish? And the answer of course is power. Power over people. Money is power over people, but there is another power over people. And that is political power, social power. And I think that this has now become the dominant driving force of these people. They have all the money in their grip. Now they strive for the New World Order. That is their sure. They want in one political entity, they dominate the world. Not just with money, but with military and psychological means. And education, the media and propaganda. They want total control over every human being on the planet. And my heaven, they go pretty fast that way. It did not take long before this tyranny arose. In 1921, only seven years after the Fed began its activities same elite banking affiliates of JP Morgan who founded the Federal Reserve lijfde an organization called The Council on Foreign Relations with the aim to take over the foreign policy of the United States, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Here they were very successful. Although the organization has only 4,000 members, she has among its members 21 defense ministers, 18 finance ministers, 18 foreign ministers, 16 CIA directors and many other senior government officials, soldiers, business elite, and of course bankers. The first director of the CFR was John W. Davis, JP Morgan's personal attorney and himself a millionaire. Together with its sister organizations in Britain and elsewhere in the world, these groups would work together on a "New World Order" of total financial and political control directed by the bankers themselves. Carroll Quigley, a Georgetown historian and mentor of Bill Clinton, wrote in 1966, "Tragedy and Hope," a history of the world in our time: "The power of financial capitalism had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the world economy as a whole. This system would feudal manner are controlled by joint action of the central banks of the world, by secret agreements, agreed in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the central banks of the world, who are private companies. " That is why the bankers and their accomplices in government and industry conspired to create the 2008 crisis. Not because they seek money but power. Similarly, if the bankers used the Panic of 1907 in order to consolidate their control over money creation, they hope the crisis of 2008 and the ensuing panic, they have created themselves, to use in order to consolidate their political control. The international summit on the global financial crisis has been extended from June 7 - June 20, because the seven leading developed countries can not solve the crisis. This extended meeting raises the question of whether there will be opgezets a new financial system worldwide. Is this some kind of new world order, where Gordon Brown was referring to? British Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote "principles" discussed during the summit, These are: transparency, sound banking, responsibility, integrity and global governance. I guess the New World Order is on the rise and thus the foundations of a new and progressive era of international cooperation. The inevitable conclusion, which must follow from the true understanding of the situation, is that the Federal Reserve system should be thrown in the dustbin of history. After a century of slavery, it is time for the American public to shed the chains of debt of the bankers. If there was ever a point in human history to think about alternatives, it is now. The idea that the current system is our best option. How many of the best options lead to self-destruction? That does not sound like the best option. In a world with 7 billion people, we could probably come up with something better, than a system in which a few thousand people benefit as much to the detriment of the rest of the world. And at the expense of opportunities for the future of humanity. They exploit our future. As long as we accept this way of thinking, as long as we accept this dominant institutions, we will go that way. So I think reform is a good way to slow down and push back against the growing and changing power structures, but radical change is what is really needed and should be built from below. But I think these two processes can and should be parallel to each other. If you have sustained this far; congratulations. You are better informed about the economic history of the United States and the truth about the Federal Reserve than 99% of the population. Just spreading this information to the people around you will have a profound effect. Once they see through scams many are motivated to do something, and they will in turn inform others. This is the viral nature of suppressed truth, and it is the reason that more people are aware of and are excited about the Federal Reserve and the nature of money, than ever before. Perhaps even more remarkable is that this movement is spreading to other parts of the world. By recognizing the interconnectedness of the modern world economy and the international nature of the banking oligarchy, his movement for the abolition of the Federal Reserve surfaced in Europe, where protests against the central banking cartel will take place in over 100 cities with a weekly attendance of 20,000 people. Lars Maehrholz: I started this movement, because I realized that the Federal Reserve Act, in my opinion, is one of the worst laws throughout the world. So a private bank now lends money America, and in my opinion is not democratic anymore. The Federal Reserve is telling the government what to do, and that's a problem. Luke Rudkowski: It's a very big problem, especially in the US Why it is a global problem, and why are people here in Germany on its feet? Lars Maehrholz: Because when you realize that the financial system is a global system, you really have to start the system. And in my opinion it is also the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but at the beginning of all this is a law from 1913, signed by Woodrow Wilson, and this is the beginning of the hardcore capitalism which we now suffer. And the only way to stop this is to abolish this law. But what if the budding movement to end the Fed is successful? What system allow people to like the answer? There are various kinds of proposals have been made by various researchers. Some advocate a return to the American colonial roots of debt-money issued by the state-run banks, whereby the Bank of North Dakota is designated as an already functioning, successful model of this approach. We have two banking systems since 1860, with the banking system of the state and the federal banking system, and the federal banking system are the big Wall Street banks. They dominate the federal system. So, take over the business. In California, we have not even local banks where I live. We had two and I had accounts with both and now has become one Chase Bank and other US Bank. They are now both major Wall Street banks, they are taken over. They are the local banks who have an interest in serving the local business community. The big banks are not interested in loans go to local businesses; it's too risky, why would they bother. They have pretty much free money they can get from the Fed and from each other and it is much more profitable for them to speculate in commodities or other business abroad, or what works out very well for them to buy long-term government bonds at 3% because there is no need for capital. The capital requirements for bonds are zero. So they can buy so much as want. But if they provide loans for mortgages or loans to companies then they have to deal with capital requirements and once all their capital is, in other words, eight dollars of capital represents one hundred dollars in loans, then no loans can provide more and they have to wait thirty years before the loans are paid off. So if they do provide mortgages they sell them to investors and was the mortgage bubble that we have seen. They had no incentive to make sure borrowers could repay the loan, they just wanted to sell. And so they sold it to unwitting investors, could someone from Iceland or Sweden or pension funds. So that did not work properly. So help a state bank in cooperation with local banks to provide capital. In North Dakota, the state bank guarantees loans from local banks, allowing them to provide much larger loans than they could otherwise. The state bank provides liquidity to the small banks. That is why providing the small local banks are currently not lending to small businesses, because they are not sure that they can get money from other banks if needed. The way banks operate is that they only provide the loan, I mean, if you give credit to many different companies and when all at once their credit record then gets the money. That's a risk you take so, unless you are sure that you can get short-term loans from other banks. What is happening now, even if there is $ 1,600,000,000,000 of excess reserves on the books of the major banks, that money is not available to small banks, because the Fed's 0.25% pay interest on those reserves. So the banks have no incentive to lend it out to small banks. Why would you lend as much as you can earn by holding your reserves? And you can use it as collateral for bonds or something that you can still earn more. So the whole system is rotten and provides in North Dakota state bank liquidity to local banks. Others advocate a decentralized system of alternative and competing currencies which greatly reduces or even eliminates the need for a central bank. Paul Glover: 22 years ago in Ithaca, New York, I saw that there were a lot of people, especially friends, those skills and had time, but by the prevailing economy were not used or respected. While we'd wanted to create things and swapping with each other and many services could provide to each other, but we had no money. Because I have a background in graphic design, journalism and arrogance I went to my computer at work and designed paper Ithaca, New York. I designed beautiful colorful money with pictures of children and waterfalls, which were valued in working hours. A note of one hour, half hour, quarter, eight hours and two hours bills. When I gave the pioneers who had registered a specific starting amount, and the game began. An hour was basically worth $ 10, which is when 20 years ago it was twice the minimum wage. People who were accustomed to earning more than $ 10 per hour could charge more hours. This reminds us, as citizens of our community, that we are fellow citizens not only winners or losers in the battle for dollars. It brings us together on the basis of skills and services that we own, which have more proud to be converted into those for each other than is often the case with a conventional track, those are just the things we need to do to earn money to pay the bills. So through that process of acting on a more intimate scale in the community, we are easily able to be friends and lovers and political allies. James Corbett: An inspiring story. How much money has circulated through the community? It's important for people to understand how successful this has been. Paul Glover: Because we are not a computer, there is no specific volume of trade is known, but through stories, telephone surveys and by watching over the years how money moves we could well estimate that the equivalent of a few million dollars has been circulating in those years. Granting loans without interest to $ 30,000 value, That was the basic monetary revolution of our system. Moreover, we gave this money grants to more than a hundred civil society organizations. Some advocate currencies whose mathematical nature prevents them simply be created when a federal government wants to introduce a new war or wants to link a new wagon at the endless train of government tyranny and violence. Roger Ver: What people need to understand about Bitcoin is that it is a completely decentralized network. There is no central server, there is no overarching enterprise, there is no office, it's just free software that anyone can download on their computer can run anywhere in the world. And that Bitcoins can be transferred to anyone, anywhere in the world and it's impossible for a bank or government to block the sending or receiving bitcoins. There is a limited supply of Bitcoins, there will never be more than 21 million bitcoins exist. So the price is determined by supply and demand. Because the supply of Bitcoins is limited and demand is increasing as more people start using them and more and more websites they begin to accept the price of Bitcoins will, expressed in dollars, should increase, even more than the $ 500 per Bitcoin that it is today. James Corbett: Are there any disadvantages to using a crypto-currency? Roger Ver: If you are part of the current power elite part that can print money whenever they want then you will probably not benefit from as the world switches to Bitcoins. But if you're one of the ordinary people who work for the Federal Reserve or a central bank prints money to give to friends, then a Bitcoin world beautiful for you. Solid money. Crypto currency. State banks. LETS programs. Self-issued credit. These and many other solutions have been proposed, and many of them are in use today in several places. On the Internet to find information about all these ideas and how they are applied in different parts of the world. The question of what money is and how it should be created is perhaps the biggest question for humanity as a whole, and yet it is a question that is almost completely absent from the public debate. Until recently..

[Crowd shouts "End the Fed"] [Burn the paper.].





##########################################