Central Banking is Socialism

[Andylusion]

It is true that the Federal Reserve had to be created in order to have a uniform common currency.
It is also true, that the common currency allowed for an income tax, where it would not have been possible without a common currency.

That said, I don't think the Federal Reserve could not operating without an income tax. Of course it could. There were many central banks that governments had, which existed before a universal income tax.

The Federal Reserve could operate from any tax base at all. Sales tax. Estate tax. Tariffs. You name it.

Nevertheless, none of that really matters. Here's the bottom line....

We're not going back to a commodity backed currency. Just write that down, and memorize it, and move on. It will never happen.

Fed this, and 1913 that... it's nice to have little history lessons, but we're not going back to a pre-1913 era. It will never happen.

Better to spend your time arguing for positions that have the possibility of happening, then living in a dream land where we could get rid of the Fed. It's not happening.

If we did that... if we had some sort of revolution in the US, and revolutionaries somehow got into government, and wiped out the Federal Reserve, and went back to a gold standard or something, the net result would be to utterly wipe out the US as a world super power. It would push us back not only to the policies of 1913, but we'd end up being 1913. We would regress as a nation a 100 years.

I think we're witnessing the end of the Fed by its own doing anyway. It's clearly demonstrating that it's lost control of the cost of money.

By what logic? What aspect of the nation currency is "out of control"? Last I checked (before the current virus caused disruptions), the inflation rate was barely 1.8%. Inflation is about the only aspect of currency that the Federal Reserve can directly control.

So... what part of this is 'out of control'?

 

[Natural Citizen]

By what logic? What aspect of the nation currency is "out of control"? Last I checked (before the current virus caused disruptions), the inflation rate was barely 1.8%. Inflation is about the only aspect of currency that the Federal Reserve can directly control.

So... what part of this is 'out of control'?

Inflation is supposed to mean the creation of new currency. That's what inflating the money means.

Today, everybody seems to think inflation means rising prices. Well, rising prices are only a consequence of inflating the money supply. It's not how inflation is properly defined.

After three rounds of QE, really we're in the middle of a fourth round of QE but few are being honest about that reality, which is effectively printing money...inflating the money supply, mainstream economists can say oh, hey, look, no inflation. It's a complete and total distortion of the dollar's unit of value. Really, you can't even define a dollar now. There is no meaningful unit of value.

The Fed was caught completely off-guard wit hall of those overnight bailouts late last year. They had to scramble. Since then they've created billions more and continue to do so.

All of this has destroyed the consumer's purchasing power. The price of money. It's robbed their savings. And will continue to do so.

By the way. There are no government agencies with shareholders. I was reading your exchange with sparky.

 

[Andylusion]

Well, a bank takes in $100 in deposits and loans out a fraction, for instance $90, while
holding $10 in reserve.

Except that now there's $190 in existence from the $100 dollars that that sparky deposited.

Sparky's bank account still says that he has 100 dollars even though the bank stole $90 of it. It's because the bank left IOUs that it created called 'bank credit' in its place.

To reference the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, they say that "Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU."

These are nothing but numbers that the banks type into their computers. And even though these 'bank credit' IOU numbers are very different from 'base currency' numbers, because they only exist in computers, they are still considered 'currency.'

So here they've again inflated the money supply.

So the borrower takes the $90 that the bank loaned to him from sparky's account and he pays the seller of an item. Then the seller deposits that money into his account and his bank loans out 90% of that currency and again leaves bank credits in its place. So now there are $271 in existence from the original 90 taken from Sparky's bank account. This process repeats and repeats and repeats until it's under a 10% reserve ratio and all backed by $100 of ''vault cash."

What you are saying is entirely true, but the issue is, this was true before the Federal Reserve existed.

Before there was a Federal Reserve at all, they had fractional reserve banking.

Additionally, you seem to have missed something important in this discussion. That being, If out of the original $100 Dollars, you end up with $271 in usable currency, then logically we should be having a massive, ever increasing inflation rate.

But all you need to do is look at the inflation rates, and you can see clearly that we are not having catastrophic inflation, that you see in Venezuela.

What is the difference? Well the difference is that ultimately, no matter how many time you deposit and lend out money, you still always have the exact same amount of physical cash.

Venezuela was, and still is, literally printing physical cash, which is why like Zimbabwe, the value of the cash is zero.

So what makes the theoretical increase in the money supply from fractional reserve, different from directly printing physical cash?

Well there is a fundamental difference. That difference is that banks giving out loans, are having that money paid back starting the very next month. That $90 loaned out, starts coming back, immediately. So the money lent out, starts returning almost as soon as the loan is finalized.

Additionally, there is still a physical limit on how much currency there is, and thus, a limit on how many loans can be made.

As a large group, if the people depositing $100 in the bank, start asking for their money back, the bank would move to reduce loans in proportion to how much reserve money they have. This serves to limit the effects of the fractional reserve on the money supply.

Which is exactly why you don't see massive inflation, even though we have vast massive amounts of fractional reserve lending.

Now that doesn't mean the effect is zero. There is an effect.

For example in 2009, when cash was king, and everyone was de-leveraging, and personal debt was decreasing nationally, the result was de-flation of approximately -2.5%. I wager a good part of this was due to reversing of fractional reserve caused inflation.

But -2.5%, is no worse than the average +2.5% inflation we had before and after the sub-prime crash.

So there is an effect, but it is far too small to be of any real concern.

 

[Andylusion]

By what logic? What aspect of the nation currency is "out of control"? Last I checked (before the current virus caused disruptions), the inflation rate was barely 1.8%. Inflation is about the only aspect of currency that the Federal Reserve can directly control.

So... what part of this is 'out of control'?

Inflation is supposed to mean the creation of new currency. That's what inflating the money means.

Today, e verybody seems to think inflation means rising prices. Well, rising prices are only a consequence of inflating the money supply.

After three rounds of QE, really we're in the middle of a fourth round of QE but few are being honest about that reality, which is effectively printing money...inflating the money supply, mainstream economists can say oh, hey, look, no inflation. It's a complete and total distortion of the dollar's unit of value. Really, you can't even define a dollar now. There is no meaningful unit of value.

The Fed was caught completely off-guard wit hall of those overnight bailouts late last year. They had to scramble. Since then they've created billions more and continue to do so.

All of this has destroyed the consumer's purchasing power. It's robbed their savings. And will continue to do so.

By the way. There are no government agencies with shareholders. I was reading your exchange with sparky.

That's partially true. Yes the dollar has no meaningful value, but I would argue that it never did.

Everything in the world, only has value, because people give it value. Everything.

Years ago, there was a Camero that was sold multiple times for $1 Million dollars. It was not a pristine classic muscle car, but rather a 1980s Camero. Some guy had sold the car for $1 Million dollars on purpose. Ironically to make fun of how much sports cars were going for. Instead the car was sold again for a Million dollars, and again to someone else for a million dollars.

It was similar stunt to the one where the artist guy sold a banana ducked taped to a wall for $100,000 dollars.
This Banana Was Duct-Taped to a Wall. It Sold for $120,000.

The point of all that is this... value is subjective. It always has been. It always will be.

Even gold backed currency, still has a subjective value, because gold itself has a subjective value.

If you doubt that, then why does the price of gold go up and down in wild fluctuations?

I knew a guy who bought a ton of gold in 2012, and a year later lost 1/3rd it's value. Ended up selling it, and losing tons of money in the process.

Gold does not have 'intrinsic value'. Nothing has intrinsic value. The only value anything has, is what someone else is willing to trade you for it.

If society does in fact implode in on itself... people are going to be looking for food, water, and weapons. Not gold bricks.

If society does not implode in on itself, we'll be using currency, just like we are. And that currency will have value, because people give it value.

 

[Andylusion]

It is true that the Federal Reserve had to be created in order to have a uniform common currency.
It is also true, that the common currency allowed for an income tax, where it would not have been possible without a common currency.

That said, I don't think the Federal Reserve could not operating without an income tax. Of course it could. There were many central banks that governments had, which existed before a universal income tax.

The Federal Reserve could operate from any tax base at all. Sales tax. Estate tax. Tariffs. You name it.

Nevertheless, none of that really matters. Here's the bottom line....

We're not going back to a commodity backed currency. Just write that down, and memorize it, and move on. It will never happen.

Fed this, and 1913 that... it's nice to have little history lessons, but we're not going back to a pre-1913 era. It will never happen.

Better to spend your time arguing for positions that have the possibility of happening, then living in a dream land where we could get rid of the Fed. It's not happening.

If we did that... if we had some sort of revolution in the US, and revolutionaries somehow got into government, and wiped out the Federal Reserve, and went back to a gold standard or something, the net result would be to utterly wipe out the US as a world super power. It would push us back not only to the policies of 1913, but we'd end up being 1913. We would regress as a nation a 100 years.

I think we're witnessing the end of the Fed by its own doing anyway. It's clearly demonstrating that it's lost control of the cost of money.

I'm told those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

The Jekyll island contingent first met after a 'run on banks' a few years prior, convincing then governance centralization was the key to a stabilized monetary system

Of note would be those original players ancestors still rule the roost
The Federal Reserve Cartel – Eight Families own the USA #BIS, IMF, World Bank – Dean Henderson - Herland Report

not more than 15 years after the creation of our Fed reserve,came the '29 crash

after which Congressional response was the Glass Steagal 'leash' ,, mitigating to extent the 'bank profits via public risk'

FF this through 1/2 century of keynesian policies , then another 1/2 century after leaving the gold standard , and into the Financial Services Modernization Act, essentially allowing commercial banking to follow Wall Street's high-risk speculative crap shoot

Ending in a Congressional crescendo with this blabbering fool hat in hand...

followed by this banking executive's 'fix'>>>

as well as the cast of wall street tools

and we start to see how our debt driven system really works

socialism for the rich.....capitalism for the rest of us....

2020, and this isn't even news worthy anymore....

~S~

after which Congressional response was the Glass Steagal 'leash' ,, mitigating to extent the 'bank profits via public risk'

This is actually false. In fact, Glass Steagal did the exact opposite. It did not mitigate profits, nor did it mitigate the risk.

In fact, it very much increased risk to the public, which is why we had far more bank failures in the US, than Canada did, both then, and during the sub-prime crash, and now.

The reason for this is very simple.

Having multiple business units, allows you to diffuse risk of any single failure. This is a very simple concept, much like "don't put all your eggs in one basket".

It's the same reason why all good investors diversify. You don't put all your money into one stock, like say Enron, and then if that one company crashes, you lose your entire retirement.

So as it relates to banking and Glass Steagal, what Glass Steagal did, was say that a retail bank, and a commercial bank, and an investment bank, and a insurance company, must be separate.

So for example, Countrywide Financial, under Glass Steagal, was not legally allowed to also run a retail banking, or an insurance company, or anything else.

Having multiple business units, means that while one unit may come into hardship, others may not, allowing the entire company to weather the storm without going under.

Again, this is why the vast majority of banks that were single purpose banks, that followed Glass Steagal regulations, were the ones that failed. AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman, IndyMac, WaMu, all of which were single purpose banks, and when bankrupt in the crash.

AIG was a particularly brutal example, because even up to the point of the bailout, AIG never once had a liquidity problem. They never has a cash bind at any point. The CEO testified to this on capital hill.

Instead, the entire failure of AIG was entirely due to regulations. The regulations said they had too little in reserves, verse the amount of liabilities.. If government had stayed out of it, there is no evidence that AIG would have gone under. But because they didn't meet the regulations, they were forced into a bailout.

My main point though is this... Glass Steagal did not protect the industry. Glass Steagal did not prevent risk, and if anything created risk. And most certainly, the lack of Glass Steagal did not cause the crash.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm kind of tired of the thread, fellers. Actually I'm kind of tired of the whole upstairs area. I think I'm really just tired of debating/discussing stuff back and forth that we can't control anyway. Gives me a headache.

Besides, the government's gonna do what it wants anyway. And the media's gonna run interference for it. The don't give a shit about us serfs, we're basically just product.

 

[sparky]

It is true that the Federal Reserve had to be created in order to have a uniform common currency.
It is also true, that the common currency allowed for an income tax, where it would not have been possible without a common currency.

That said, I don't think the Federal Reserve could not operating without an income tax. Of course it could. There were many central banks that governments had, which existed before a universal income tax.

The Federal Reserve could operate from any tax base at all. Sales tax. Estate tax. Tariffs. You name it.

Nevertheless, none of that really matters. Here's the bottom line....

We're not going back to a commodity backed currency. Just write that down, and memorize it, and move on. It will never happen.

Fed this, and 1913 that... it's nice to have little history lessons, but we're not going back to a pre-1913 era. It will never happen.

Better to spend your time arguing for positions that have the possibility of happening, then living in a dream land where we could get rid of the Fed. It's not happening.

If we did that... if we had some sort of revolution in the US, and revolutionaries somehow got into government, and wiped out the Federal Reserve, and went back to a gold standard or something, the net result would be to utterly wipe out the US as a world super power. It would push us back not only to the policies of 1913, but we'd end up being 1913. We would regress as a nation a 100 years.

I think we're witnessing the end of the Fed by its own doing anyway. It's clearly demonstrating that it's lost control of the cost of money.

I'm told those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

The Jekyll island contingent first met after a 'run on banks' a few years prior, convincing then governance centralization was the key to a stabilized monetary system

Of note would be those original players ancestors still rule the roost
The Federal Reserve Cartel – Eight Families own the USA #BIS, IMF, World Bank – Dean Henderson - Herland Report

not more than 15 years after the creation of our Fed reserve,came the '29 crash

after which Congressional response was the Glass Steagal 'leash' ,, mitigating to extent the 'bank profits via public risk'

FF this through 1/2 century of keynesian policies , then another 1/2 century after leaving the gold standard , and into the Financial Services Modernization Act, essentially allowing commercial banking to follow Wall Street's high-risk speculative crap shoot

Ending in a Congressional crescendo with this blabbering fool hat in hand...

followed by this banking executive's 'fix'>>>

as well as the cast of wall street tools

and we start to see how our debt driven system really works

socialism for the rich.....capitalism for the rest of us....

2020, and this isn't even news worthy anymore....

~S~

after which Congressional response was the Glass Steagal 'leash' ,, mitigating to extent the 'bank profits via public risk'

This is actually false. In fact, Glass Steagal did the exact opposite. It did not mitigate profits, nor did it mitigate the risk.

In fact, it very much increased risk to the public, which is why we had far more bank failures in the US, than Canada did, both then, and during the sub-prime crash, and now.

The reason for this is very simple.

Having multiple business units, allows you to diffuse risk of any single failure. This is a very simple concept, much like "don't put all your eggs in one basket".

It's the same reason why all good investors diversify. You don't put all your money into one stock, like say Enron, and then if that one company crashes, you lose your entire retirement.

So as it relates to banking and Glass Steagal, what Glass Steagal did, was say that a retail bank, and a commercial bank, and an investment bank, and a insurance company, must be separate.

So for example, Countrywide Financial, under Glass Steagal, was not legally allowed to also run a retail banking, or an insurance company, or anything else.

Having multiple business units, means that while one unit may come into hardship, others may not, allowing the entire company to weather the storm without going under.

Again, this is why the vast majority of banks that were single purpose banks, that followed Glass Steagal regulations, were the ones that failed. AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman, IndyMac, WaMu, all of which were single purpose banks, and when bankrupt in the crash.

AIG was a particularly brutal example, because even up to the point of the bailout, AIG never once had a liquidity problem. They never has a cash bind at any point. The CEO testified to this on capital hill.

Instead, the entire failure of AIG was entirely due to regulations. The regulations said they had too little in reserves, verse the amount of liabilities.. If government had stayed out of it, there is no evidence that AIG would have gone under. But because they didn't meet the regulations, they were forced into a bailout.

My main point though is this... Glass Steagal did not protect the industry. Glass Steagal did not prevent risk, and if anything created risk. And most certainly, the lack of Glass Steagal did not cause the crash.

Unsubstantiated contrarians do not rate a response

~S~

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By what logic? What aspect of the nation currency is "out of control"? Last I checked (before the current virus caused disruptions), the inflation rate was barely 1.8%. Inflation is about the only aspect of currency that the Federal Reserve can directly control.

So... what part of this is 'out of control'?

Inflation is supposed to mean the creation of new currency. That's what inflating the money means.

Today, everybody seems to think inflation means rising prices. Well, rising prices are only a consequence of inflating the money supply. It's not how inflation is properly defined.

After three rounds of QE, really we're in the middle of a fourth round of QE but few are being honest about that reality, which is effectively printing money...inflating the money supply, mainstream economists can say oh, hey, look, no inflation. It's a complete and total distortion of the dollar's unit of value. Really, you can't even define a dollar now. There is no meaningful unit of value.

The Fed was caught completely off-guard wit hall of those overnight bailouts late last year. They had to scramble. Since then they've created billions more and continue to do so.

All of this has destroyed the consumer's purchasing power. The price of money. It's robbed their savings. And will continue to do so.

By the way. There are no government agencies with shareholders. I was reading your exchange with sparky.

Inflation is supposed to mean the creation of new currency. That's what inflating the money means.

If the money supply grows 10% and prices grow 2%, should we worry?

There are no government agencies with shareholders.

Can the Fed "shareholders" vote themselves a higher dividend?
Can they vote to change interest rates?
Can they buy or sell "shares" whenever they want?
What is the current value of a "Fed share"?

 

[Andylusion]

It is true that the Federal Reserve had to be created in order to have a uniform common currency.
It is also true, that the common currency allowed for an income tax, where it would not have been possible without a common currency.

That said, I don't think the Federal Reserve could not operating without an income tax. Of course it could. There were many central banks that governments had, which existed before a universal income tax.

The Federal Reserve could operate from any tax base at all. Sales tax. Estate tax. Tariffs. You name it.

Nevertheless, none of that really matters. Here's the bottom line....

We're not going back to a commodity backed currency. Just write that down, and memorize it, and move on. It will never happen.

Fed this, and 1913 that... it's nice to have little history lessons, but we're not going back to a pre-1913 era. It will never happen.

Better to spend your time arguing for positions that have the possibility of happening, then living in a dream land where we could get rid of the Fed. It's not happening.

If we did that... if we had some sort of revolution in the US, and revolutionaries somehow got into government, and wiped out the Federal Reserve, and went back to a gold standard or something, the net result would be to utterly wipe out the US as a world super power. It would push us back not only to the policies of 1913, but we'd end up being 1913. We would regress as a nation a 100 years.

I think we're witnessing the end of the Fed by its own doing anyway. It's clearly demonstrating that it's lost control of the cost of money.

I'm told those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

The Jekyll island contingent first met after a 'run on banks' a few years prior, convincing then governance centralization was the key to a stabilized monetary system

Of note would be those original players ancestors still rule the roost
The Federal Reserve Cartel – Eight Families own the USA #BIS, IMF, World Bank – Dean Henderson - Herland Report

not more than 15 years after the creation of our Fed reserve,came the '29 crash

after which Congressional response was the Glass Steagal 'leash' ,, mitigating to extent the 'bank profits via public risk'

FF this through 1/2 century of keynesian policies , then another 1/2 century after leaving the gold standard , and into the Financial Services Modernization Act, essentially allowing commercial banking to follow Wall Street's high-risk speculative crap shoot

Ending in a Congressional crescendo with this blabbering fool hat in hand...

followed by this banking executive's 'fix'>>>

as well as the cast of wall street tools

and we start to see how our debt driven system really works

socialism for the rich.....capitalism for the rest of us....

2020, and this isn't even news worthy anymore....

~S~

after which Congressional response was the Glass Steagal 'leash' ,, mitigating to extent the 'bank profits via public risk'

This is actually false. In fact, Glass Steagal did the exact opposite. It did not mitigate profits, nor did it mitigate the risk.

In fact, it very much increased risk to the public, which is why we had far more bank failures in the US, than Canada did, both then, and during the sub-prime crash, and now.

The reason for this is very simple.

Having multiple business units, allows you to diffuse risk of any single failure. This is a very simple concept, much like "don't put all your eggs in one basket".

It's the same reason why all good investors diversify. You don't put all your money into one stock, like say Enron, and then if that one company crashes, you lose your entire retirement.

So as it relates to banking and Glass Steagal, what Glass Steagal did, was say that a retail bank, and a commercial bank, and an investment bank, and a insurance company, must be separate.

So for example, Countrywide Financial, under Glass Steagal, was not legally allowed to also run a retail banking, or an insurance company, or anything else.

Having multiple business units, means that while one unit may come into hardship, others may not, allowing the entire company to weather the storm without going under.

Again, this is why the vast majority of banks that were single purpose banks, that followed Glass Steagal regulations, were the ones that failed. AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman, IndyMac, WaMu, all of which were single purpose banks, and when bankrupt in the crash.

AIG was a particularly brutal example, because even up to the point of the bailout, AIG never once had a liquidity problem. They never has a cash bind at any point. The CEO testified to this on capital hill.

Instead, the entire failure of AIG was entirely due to regulations. The regulations said they had too little in reserves, verse the amount of liabilities.. If government had stayed out of it, there is no evidence that AIG would have gone under. But because they didn't meet the regulations, they were forced into a bailout.

My main point though is this... Glass Steagal did not protect the industry. Glass Steagal did not prevent risk, and if anything created risk. And most certainly, the lack of Glass Steagal did not cause the crash.

Unsubstantiated contrarians do not rate a response

~S~

If that makes you feel better, about leaving an argument you can't refute...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In many ways it is. That's why the Founders spoke against a central bank that was private.

Which would just make it more socialist, then, were it a part of the government.

And it was only some of the founding fathers opposed, while others were strongly for the idea.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If destroyed will you give me yours given that destroyed things are usually worthless???

Heh heh. No. I don't even know you. And, really, you're starting to get annoying.

You said our currency has been destroyed by the Fed. Do you get annoyed when you learn you were wrong???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm a Mises guy. I'm not really all that interested in Friedman. But you're free to to be. Knock yourself out.

To your question, before the Fed the income tax was 0%.

1) Mises was primarily responding to 10,000% inflation in 1920's Weimar Germany. A great guy for sure but very very inexperienced compared to today's conservative economists. You have already learned that libertarian monetary policy was officially declared dead in 2008 when the massive inflation they warned us about never happened. Why not update your reading list to include the modern era??

2) We were not talking about income tax rates before the Fed, but rather if you had a superior monetary system that would not cause what you called, distortions??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm a proponent of free-markets and sound money. Pretty much everyone on this board knows that as much as I pop off about it.

does that mean a gold standard of some kind??? What Kind??

I covered that question in my 'here's how it works' post.

As I recall it was a 4 page meandering rant, not a statement taking into account a huge Fed balance sheet and no inflation to speak of. Care to try again??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm a proponent of free-markets and sound money. Pretty much everyone on this board knows that as much as I pop off about it.

does that mean a gold standard of some kind??? What Kind??

I covered that question in my 'here's how it works' post.

actually this is a debate site where you defend your positions not where you merely state them. Do you get the difference?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I think I'm really just tired of debating/discussing .

You are not debating. You are constantly changing the subject and ignoring questions to avoid debate. Sorry

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's not how inflation is properly defined.
.

A word, by definition, is properly defined by the people who use it most often. Inflation is in fact a rise in the general price level cause by creating enough money to have that effect.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Inflation is supposed to mean the creation of new currency. That's what inflating the money means.

Totally wrong; inflation is the creation of enough money to keep prices constant in order for the free market to function most efficiently.

 

[sparky]

If destroyed will you give me yours given that destroyed things are usually worthless???

Heh heh. No. I don't even know you. And, really, you're starting to get annoying.

You said our currency has been destroyed by the Fed. Do you get annoyed when you learn you were wrong???

DO YOU?



How much value has the US dollar lost since 1913?

1913 is when the Federal Reserve, which is actually a privately-owned central bank, took over the US banking system. As you can see, it's been pretty much downhill since the Fed took over. In fact, the dollar has lost over 96% of its value. That means today's dollar would be worth less than 4 cents back in 1913.

~S~

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If destroyed will you give me yours given that destroyed things are usually worthless???

Heh heh. No. I don't even know you. And, really, you're starting to get annoying.

You said our currency has been destroyed by the Fed. Do you get annoyed when you learn you were wrong???

DO YOU?



How much value has the US dollar lost since 1913?

1913 is when the Federal Reserve, which is actually a privately-owned central bank, took over the US banking system. As you can see, it's been pretty much downhill since the Fed took over. In fact, the dollar has lost over 96% of its value. That means today's dollar would be worth less than 4 cents back in 1913.

~S~

he Federal Reserve, which is actually a privately-owned central bank

It isn't.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

All of this has destroyed the consumer's purchasing power.

???? GDP is $20 trillion???? who's purchasing all that stuff???