Friday, January 28, 2011

Fed Changes Rules to Prevent its own Losses

It is quite amazing how the financial elite rigs the game.  "Heads I win, Tails you lose" kind-of-thing.  Facing mounting catastrophic losses on its capital balance, the Fed simply changes the rules to book the losses elsewhere. 
"Elsewhere" is, of course, on the public, meaning, me and you.  Yup, the Fed Reserve, a private entity, representing mainly foreign banks, with complete immunity to public inspection or control, gets to transfer its losses to the American government's balance sheet.    
The circle is complete.  Profits are kept private, while losses are made public.  The government is now officially a financial subsidiary to the banks, the final absolute guarantor of assured profits.   Remarkable, really. 
Accounting Tweak Could Save Fed From Losses

"Could the Fed go broke? The answer to this question was 'Yes,' but is now 'No,'" said Raymond Stone, managing director at Stone & McCarthy in Princeton, New Jersey. "An accounting methodology change at the central bank will allow the Fed to incur losses, even substantial losses, without eroding its capital."

The change essentially allows the Fed to denote losses by the various regional reserve banks that make up the Fed system as a liability to the Treasury rather than a hit to its capital. It would then simply direct future profits from Fed operations toward that liability.

"Any future losses the Fed may incur will now show up as a negative liability as opposed to a reduction in Fed capital, thereby making a negative capital situation technically impossible," said Brian Smedley, a rates strategist at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch and a former New York Fed staffer.

"The timing of the change is not coincidental, as politicians and market participants alike have expressed concerns since the announcement (of a second round of asset buys) about the possibility of Fed 'insolvency' in a scenario where interest rates rise significantly," Smedley and his colleague Priya Misra wrote in a research note.

Friday, January 21, 2011

End the Fed - Save the Economy - Support Kucinich HR6550

Kucinich's End the Fed bill is causing the parasitic banking class and its media apologists to erupt in fits, because, plainly stated, the bill would drive a stake through their blood-sucking hearts. The bill is based on a cogent diagnosis of our current economic problems, and offers a brilliant solution that would positively revolutionize our national finances and government, reviving our national economy and improving our lives. As an opponent of elite financial power and an advocate for citizen rights and quality of life, I strongly support this bill.

The bill's two most important effects, that strike most directly at the heart of the financial elite's unjust powers:

a) The end of fractional reserve banking
b) The end of the national debt

The bill's two most important effects, that would result in a positive return for the average citizen:

c) The funding of full employment
d) The funding of infrastructure modernization

A) End of Fractional Reserve Banking - the source of financial elite power

Imagine your family is in financial trouble, and you have $100 cash in your wallet. So, you write a check for $500 to your mom, a check for $300 to your brother, and a check for $200 to your sister, and on top of that, you get to keep the $100 untouched in your wallet.

Of course, this would be an illegal fraud, UNLESS you are a bank, in which case it is called "fractional reserve lending with a 10% reserve ratio". In other words, under the 10% reserve ratio, you get to create $1000 in loans based on your $100 of cash. With a lower "reserve ratio", you could create more loans on top of your cash reserve.

That would be a pretty cool power, wouldn't it? The ability to create money at will, and charge interest on it, without actually loaning out your own cash. That's right! You even get to charge interest on the money you lend out, even though you never had the money to begin with! This is how banks create money, and thereby, create financial bubbles/bust and inflation/deflation cycles.

Kucinch's bill would end this ridiculous, illegal, and unjust abuse, which is the heart and soul of the power and influence of the financial establishment.

B) The end of the national debt - a yoke of perpetual slavery laid on the neck of the taxpaying public

Think about it: the ability to create a money supply is a sovereign power, meaning, the government does it. Since the government creates the supply of money, why would it need to borrow it? If you could literally create money, you would never need to borrow it, right? Why would you borrow money from someone else, and pay them back with interest, when you could create the money for yourself? It doesn't even make sense! The idea of a national debt is a repudiation of governmental sovereignty.

It is like a tribute payment, a tithe to the banking establishment. It's a line item in every budget that goes directly towards banking profits. It is nothing less than a government subsidy for the banking establishment.

Kucinich's bill would end this outrageous, immoral, and illogical exploitation of the tax-paying public.

C) The funding of full employment - bailing out the worker instead of the banks

The whole reason behind TARP and the other bank bailouts of the last 2 years was to avoid an economic collapse. But the collapse happened anyway, because the banks never "loaned" the money back to the public. Despite receiving interest free money from the government, credit cards continue to charge over 20%, small business loans have dried up, capital financing is limited, loans for the housing market have been heavily restricted, and thus, the economy has contracted leading to perpetually high unemployment.

Instead of bailing out banks, and hoping they loan the money back to the public to get the economy going, why not skip the middle man, and directly pay the public? This is called the funding of full employment. Lots of people need jobs, and there is lots of work to be done, so why not just pay those people directly to do the work?

Some libertarians object to the idea of expanding governmental scope like that, but let's think about the alternatives: government-administered overhead, or banking-administered overhead. It is one or the other, there is no escaping the "inefficiencies" or the "external controls" or "restrictions on freedoms". The way I see it, we either bow to the power of the financial elite-controlled banking establishment, or we use government to reign in their power and be a vehicle to advance the general good.

The idea that there is a "free market" is a total joke, a complete fiction, really. The parasite banking class has completely perverted our rules and laws to their own benefit. Kucinich's bill would seek to fight back and regain our real freedom from the financial oligarchy that currently rules.

D) The funding of infrastructure improvement - modernizing America

Why is China setting records for next-gen bullet trains and laying thousands of miles of new highways, while we are slashing budgets and can't even afford to repair our broken down streets, bridges, water lines, electrical grid, and so on? The answer is keyed to the money supply: we are suffocating from lack of money. We have millions of people able and willing to work, and millions of things which need to be done. A government jobs program is just the trick to meet those needs.

The alternative is what, borrow money to meet spending needs, under increasingly high interest rates? Think about it: either the government creates the money, or private banks create the money through fractional reserve banking!

The fear of hyperinflation is misguided. Either the money gets created to get the work done, or people continue to stay unemployed, and our infrastructure continues to crumble. The only question is: who creates the money. No one is going to print out worthless paper money under Kucinich's bill.

Money would be created only to finance work, which would "spend money into existence". This would lead to a stable money supply, with slight growth as a built-in feature. This is exactly what the Fed Reserve claims to attempt, and completely failed to deliver!

Which is better for a stable and healthy economy: debt-based money created by private banks to their personal enrichment, or a permanent no-interest no-debt money supply maintained by government according to popular will?

Creating the money through government program at least offers the possibility of pubic input, while avoiding the exploitation and injustice of usury. Allowing the parasitic banking elite to continue their control of our money supply simply guarantees more misery and exploitation, as the rich would continue to get richer.

Study the full text of Kucinch's proposal here, and please, help spread the word: