Skeptical questions about the Federal Reserve conspiracy claims

I'm wondering something. A lot of people and authors in the conspiracy movement simply tout these Federal Reserve banking conspiracy schemes like religious tenets without showing any evidence.

Even credible scholars like Edward G. Griffin have written a book about it called "The Creature From Jekyll Island". It's supposed to be the best one. Glenn Beck on Fox even did a special report about this, just before he was fired for it. You can see it on YouTube here: www.youtube.com...

If you want a step by step explanation for it, see the popular internet film "Zeitgeist Addendum". There are many documentaries about it on YouTube too.

However, I'm skeptical of this whole Federal Reserve conspiracy thing. Its claims are that:

- Every US dollar in circulation in the US economy is created by debt and is owed.
- The Fed prints money out of thin air backed by nothing, called "fiat money".
- The banking elite owns America and the US government by controlling its money supply and funding the government itself.
- The Federal government gets ALL its money from the Federal Reserve and international bankers, which is loaned at interest and can NEVER be repaid. The government does not print money and owes everything to the Fed.
- All the taxes you pay goes to pay the interest on the national debt, not to any domestic public services.

The reasons I'm skeptical about all this are:

- If all this were true, then wouldn't there be millions of whistleblowers talking about it from government and finance? It seems too black and white cartoonish.
- Also, wouldn't the leaders of other countries be exposing America for it? Why hasn't Putin talked about it on Russian news or the leaders of the Middle Eastern countries brought it up? Why isn't the whole world talking about it? How come its only talked about in conspiracy circles and alternative media?
- Wouldn't such a ponzi scheme have collapsed a long time ago? How could it have gone on since 1913?
- How can the banksters loan the government all its money at interest, which can never be repaid? What a stupid system. The people who own the banks must be a lot smarter than that.
- If all the trillions of national debt is owed to the banksters, then why don't they just cancel out some of it to help the economy? Why do they let the national debt keep growing forever? Can't they just cancel or write off some of it? What would they have to lose by writing off the national debt, since the money doesn't exist anyway and they have unlimited money?
- If the banksters could print unlimited money and had unlimited wealth, then why would they care about getting richer? Why would they start wars for profit? Wouldn't that be like adding ice to Antarctica? Why would they need any money at all if they are creating all of it?
- Why continue to tax the American public, if you already have unlimited money and can print it anytime? What's the point of the IRS or the income tax amendment?
- Why does one have to qualify for a loan from a bank, if the bank issues money it doesn't have out of thin air under "fractional reserve banking"? Why doesn't it just give everyone a loan and not ask it to be paid back, since the bank has nothing to lose when it distributes money out of nothing by typing it into a computer?
- Why don't the banksters give every American citizen a million dollars? The banksters that create money out of thin air would have nothing to lose right?
- Why doesn't Congress just do whatever it wants, since money is no object and can be printed out of thin air?
- Why would the Federal government allow the banksters to control the entire money supply and issue all currency in the first place? Why would they allow the banksters to own the government itself?

So you see, this theory doesn't make much sense. I'd like to see some evidence for it. What's the basis of it? Conspiracy people tout this like they are religious truths. But what's the evidence and basis for it? Does Ron Paul believe in this?

Can someone enlighten me? Where's the evidence or proof for all these claims?

reply to post by Eurofile007

If all this were true, then wouldn't there be millions of whistleblowers talking about it from government and finance? It seems too black and white cartoonish.

If you asked anybody in power about this, who understood economics, they would simply tell you to read Modern Money Mechanics and explain to you that it is ALL legal.

Also, wouldn't the leaders of other countries be exposing America for it? Why hasn't Putin talked about it on Russian news or the leaders of the Middle Eastern countries brought it up? Why isn't the whole world talking about it? How come its only talked about in conspiracy circles and alternative media?

They also operate on a fiat currency. All modern nations do. Any of them that have a central bank, or dealings with the IMF.

Wouldn't such a ponzi scheme have collapsed a long time ago? How could it have gone on since 1913?

Well yes, and it did in 2008. Something different happened this time though, instead of letting it fall apart, the government stepped in and gave them YOUR money to cover the bad debt. This is why the majority of the negative outcomes of an economical crash were avoided. It was the wrong thing to do.

How can the banksters loan the government all its money at interest, which can never be repaid? What a stupid system. The people who own the banks must be a lot smarter than that.

Because they can. It's the only way governments get money because the government didn't write the policy, the bankers did. Nobody in elected government has actually had any amount of sway or power in the process of economics in America, since 1913.

If all the trillions of national debt is owed to the banksters, then why don't they just cancel out some of it to help the economy? Why do they let the national debt keep growing forever? Can't they just cancel or write off some of it? What would they have to lose by writing off the national debt, since the money doesn't exist anyway and they have unlimited money?

No because their fiat currency relies on the debt being created. If all the debt was paid in the US, there would not be a single dollar in circulation. You could declare the debt odious and tell them to go blank themselves sure, but that doesn't solve the economic problem now does it?

If the banksters could print unlimited money and had unlimited wealth, then why would they care about getting richer? Why would they start wars for profit? Wouldn't that be like adding ice to Antarctica? Why would they need any money at all if they are creating all of it?

Why do greedy men want more things you ask? The answer is in your question. It's also the fact that whoever controls monetary policy, controls the country's politics and subsequently the people. This is a big thing for men and women who want power.

So you see, this theory doesn't make much sense. I'd like to see some evidence for it. What's the basis of it? Conspiracy people tout this like they are religious truths. But what's the evidence and basis for it? Does Ron Paul believe in this?

This is NOT a conspiracy. What you have been told is actual, economic fact. It's not a fairy tale. Sure, the explanations you received have been watered down so that you don't need a economic degree to understand it.

The premise however is VERY very sound. Nobody is required to provide proof, as the proof is public information.

It's linked right here.

It's not a hidden agenda, it's a transparent and clear agenda. Their only hope and a successful one so far, has been to keep us all ignorant of the facts.

~Tenth

The fed hides in plain sight, some of the things you claim are "conspiracy" are known facts.

The whole point of the fed was to create a system of currency that could be controlled to avoid the wide fluctuations that had occurred before its creation in America.

SO they create money from nothing, and than they sell bonds based on the government debt to them (manipulation of the inflation rate and such via the bonds).

So yea, the Fed controls and manipulates the entire currency market by its very nature, and to aid in its goal of controlling the fluctuations in currency can act with tremendous power, as well as the ability to simply print money into existence.

The reason its allowed is the associated debt attached to the actions which gets sold on the market via bonds.

Think of the Fed as Americas Credit Card, and the world(plus private investors) as the credit card company supplying the funds, They keep lending because the strength of the US credit.

reply to post by Eurofile007
Because they are all in it together and they don't care about the death eaters ( the tax payers ) long as the people pay their taxes then they are happy. Also these wars have been setup on purpose to get as much money from the wars from guess who? the tax payers again while killing our troops in the name of war. The leaders and elites don't hate each other they are good friends and the media portray them as hating each other to get wars started and money rolling. We all have been duped and will forever be slaves to the NWO elites.

reply to post by Eurofile007


read this first.
www.oftwominds.com...


Understand how the US Central Bank, an unelected 4th branch of the government answering to no one but corporate banks, creates money.

www.peakprosperity.com...

You're confusing yourself.

Your whole argument is somewhat circular, and non-sensical: 'if money is 'worthless' then why doesn't such and such just give so-and-so, or forgive the money owed, or whatever...'

Yes, our currency is backed by nothing, but it still represents something... Debt.

Debt means ownership and responsibility.

If you eliminate money - as your scenario is effectively suggesting - then people would still need to 'pay' for goods and services. Or Barter. Which is the whole reason why currency was created in the first place: so you wouldn't have to carry a huge inventory of crap. And, there is a universal 'bartering item'.

Starred and Flagged.

The OP has raised some very logical and typical questions, all of which are normally asked when one is essentially faced with the reality that one is a slave. It is such a rare and wonderful event to actually witness someone "waking up". This thread should be immortalized for all the rest that will /hopefully/ soon realize this reality.

Now go and spread the word and tell everyone that P < P + I, and all that it implies.

Welcome to the land of the real...

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

-Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

It's not so much that it is a stranglehold which was never seen before, or there was no precedence for. It's more like the stranglehold shifted hands and put new people in control, or gave tighter control to certain groups.

At one time, all the private banks in America failed.

At other times, entire kingdoms were in debt to but a few people, and they had power over the kingdom.

At an odd time, a very powerful king was in power and he and his lords held all the wealth and there were no powerful banks.

At a time not so long ago, business industries held the wealth, and they held commodities, and had control over many markets.


You notice how hard it is today to run a business? I mean, a real business. Something that's actually doing something. With real people running it. Say, 25 employees to 250.

A lot of these business run for mere scraps.

The amount of work and headache for the owners is crazy, and people would sooner come down on them for their problems rather than the CEO of an insurance company that just denied a health claim for them, and jacked the business owners rates, all while be backed by a bank loan, the bank oddly enough, owns the insurance company as a subsidiary.

Banks make money in bad business decisions and in good ones, and they are the only ones that make money with spiralling debt and interest.

And, no matter how far inflation goes, it's really not about some grand conspiratorial design, it's about a pie.

Cut a pie into 16ths, and check who's holding on to the pie. It doesn't matter if that pie is 1ft in diameter or 100000ft. You can only have 1/16th of pie. And it's only ever worth a 16th of pie. And some people have more servings than others.

Banks have manipulated the system so they are always holding on to a lot of pie.

Many of us ATS'ers know about how many government financial positions are/were held by many former/future 'big shots' at Goldman Sachs.



Goldman Sachs is an international banking company.

ETA: added A List of Goldman Sachs Ties to the Obama Government

reply to post by Eurofile007


The 'skepticism' is understandable.

The Federal Reserve is a complicated web of ownership.

This article gives a simple explanation....

Q: Who owns the Federal Reserve Bank?

A: There are actually 12 different Federal Reserve Banks around the country, and they are owned by big private banks. But the banks don’t necessarily run the show. Nationally, the Federal Reserve System is led by a Board of Governors whose seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Federal Reserve Bank Ownership


Many people deny that 'foreign' ownership exists.

But it does through large banks from 'foreign' countries who own stock in Federal Reserve Banks.


ETA: right from the horse's mouth;

Foreign banking institutions, which include foreign bank branches, agencies, and U.S.-chartered bank subsidiaries, hold approximately one-fourth of all commercial banking assets in the United States.

Foreign Banks and the Federal Reserve

"If the bankers could print unlimited money and create unlimited wealth"

Well, they could. But remember, the more money you print, the less worth there is on the money that is already out there.

Rockerfeller knew this. He instructed all his sons to give away at least half of their inheritances to charity. He knew that if they collected interest on their money, just the interest alone would be such a high payment, that the bankers would have to print more currency to pay them and the interest payments on their money would actually devalue the dollar.

reply to post by Eurofile007


Debt forgiveness?

reply to post by Eurofile007


You must be new here.

Just kidding. I'm glad and not at all surprised that so many members here can answer your questions. Since the Fed is one of my pet topics, I'd like to address a couple of points as well.

- Wouldn't such a ponzi scheme have collapsed a long time ago? How could it have gone on since 1913?

In your typical ponzi scheme, people are told they are investing in something, and that investment will increase in value. Ponzi schemes collapse when there are not enough new investors to pay off the old investors. Think Social Security when you have too many people drawing benefits and not enough people paying in.

The Fed scheme is different. In the Fed scheme, your "investment" is guaranteed to lose value. Think of every Federal Reserve Note as a share of a company that you invested in. Every year you hold on to a FRN, it loses value. FRNs have lost 98% of their value since 1913. So, why bother with FRNs at all? That leads to another question you asked.

- Why continue to tax the American public, if you already have unlimited money and can print it anytime? What's the point of the IRS or the income tax amendment?

You see, even the Fed admits it can't force people to trade in FRNs. People are still free to use whatever currency or exchange method they chose. Except when it comes to paying taxes. You must pay taxes with FRNs, and that creates the demand. You must accumulate FRNs to pay taxes, other people must accumulate, etc. Since you can't print your own, you trade your labor for FRNs. So when you pay your taxes to the IRS, with FRNs earned by your labor, you are essentially laboring for the IRS.

The official Tax Freedom Day for 2013 was April 18. What that means is that the average American worked from Jan. 1 to Apr. 18 just to earn enough money to pay their taxes. Last year, Tax Freedom Day was April 13, five days earlier. As this day comes later and later, it means that more and more of your labor is dedicated to the IRS. It's a very elegant form of slavery. Which answers this question.

- If all the trillions of national debt is owed to the banksters, then why don't they just cancel out some of it to help the economy?

The bankers don't want to "help the economy," they want to control the resources; land, water, metal, food, people, everything.

- Why would the Federal government allow the banksters to control the entire money supply and issue all currency in the first place? Why would they allow the banksters to own the government itself?

Bribery, coersion, blackmail, assasination, etc. Think about it, if you could print your own legal tender, who could you not "get to?" How much does it cost to buy a Supreme Court judge? They refuse to be bribed? Get some dirt on them and blackmail. Manufacture the dirt if you need to. They still won't play ball? Threaten their family. So many possiblities with unlimited resources. Laws you want get passed.

- If the banksters could print unlimited money and had unlimited wealth, then why would they care about getting richer? Why would they start wars for profit?

There is a difference between money, wealth, and what bankers print. Bankers trade what they print for real wealth. Remeber, every FRN you have today will be worth less in ten years, but an acre of land will still be an acre of land, and ounce of gold will still be an ounce of gold, and 8 hours of labor will still be 8 hours of labor.

Banks don't start wars for profits, they start wars for control. Both sides have to expend labor and resources to fight the wars, so they "borrow" the "money" to pay for it from banks. The future generations of both the "winners" and the losers are in debt to the banks.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Eurofile007

 

If all the trillions of national debt is owed to the banksters, then why don't they just cancel out some of it to help the economy? Why do they let the national debt keep growing forever? Can't they just cancel or write off some of it? What would they have to lose by writing off the national debt, since the money doesn't exist anyway and they have unlimited money?

No because their fiat currency relies on the debt being created. If all the debt was paid in the US, there would not be a single dollar in circulation. You could declare the debt odious and tell them to go blank themselves sure, but that doesn't solve the economic problem now does it?

You don't understand what I mean. I don't mean cancel all the debt. I mean it could at least cancel half of it or part of it. If the money doesn't exist, what do they have to lose? Why can't they just use the eraser from a pencil (figuratively) to erase some of the national debt and help the economy and give people hope again?

Or why doesn't it just lower the interest rate or cancel out the debt created by the interest rates?

Are you all saying that the Fed gives free money to the banks? A friend of mine said his dad started a commercial bank but never got any free money from the Fed. Why?

Also, why doesn't the Fed just give everyone a million dollars each? Since the money doesn't exist, what would they have to lose? lol

reply to post by Eurofile007


They don't want to cancel your debt because that's what forces you to go to work every day. A debt-based monitory system essentially makes slaves of the general population.

All money originates from the creation of a loan. All of the money that is ever 'printed' up eithèr digitally or with physical cash by the Federal Reserve must all eventually be paid back to the Federal Reserve 100%, plus interest. There is always more debt in the system than there is money by design.

Originally posted by Eurofile007

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Eurofile007

 

If all the trillions of national debt is owed to the banksters, then why don't they just cancel out some of it to help the economy? Why do they let the national debt keep growing forever? Can't they just cancel or write off some of it? What would they have to lose by writing off the national debt, since the money doesn't exist anyway and they have unlimited money?

No because their fiat currency relies on the debt being created. If all the debt was paid in the US, there would not be a single dollar in circulation. You could declare the debt odious and tell them to go blank themselves sure, but that doesn't solve the economic problem now does it?

You don't understand what I mean. I don't mean cancel all the debt. I mean it could at least cancel half of it or part of it. If the money doesn't exist, what do they have to lose? Why can't they just use the eraser from a pencil (figuratively) to erase some of the national debt and help the economy and give people hope again?

Or why doesn't it just lower the interest rate or cancel out the debt created by the interest rates?

Are you all saying that the Fed gives free money to the banks? A friend of mine said his dad started a commercial bank but never got any free money from the Fed. Why?

edit on 16-7-2013 by Eurofile007 because: (no reason given)

If you cancel some of the debt, then those who are holding that debt take losses. Who owns the majority of the debt? Banks, pension funds, hedge funds and the like. You know, those who wish to control the wealth in the first place. So you are suggesting that they take losses to help people. Its not gonna happen that way.

Banks create money themselves, that's where the free money comes in. When a bank lends money to somebody, the loan is first created as an asset on the bank's balance sheet and then the corresponding amount of cash is created as a liability and given to the person taking out the loan. What the bank needs to have is the amount in reserve with the Fed to allow the loan to be created, or capital in other countries where there are not reserves but capital requirements.

A simple numerical example. If you start a bank with $10m of your cash, and the Fed's reserve requirement is 10%, you can create $100m in loans and also $100m in deposits to give to your customers. This is how the free money is generated; its not given directly by the Fed, but it is due to allowing fractional reserve (or capital limited) lending to occur.

This is a complicated topic, and not one that many people actually understand at a deep level. While blogs and books give a general idea, it takes dedicated learning to fully understand the intricacies. You dont leanr it all by studying just one school of economics (though the Austrian school comes closest). You arent taught this in university level economic and finance courses; i'd say more than 90% of people who work at banks have no idea how it all works. Those that rise to the top DO know how it works. If you get a chance to speak to C-level banking executives it becomes very clear that what they preach in public and what they know in private are two different things.

Originally posted by Eurofile007
Also, why doesn't the Fed just give everyone a million dollars each? Since the money doesn't exist, what would they have to lose? lol

Because it devalues the existing stock of money. Let's take a lesson in how inflation really works.

Inflation devalues the purchasing power of money over time. What it means is that those who get first use of new money have the greatest benefit. If you have increased the money supply by 10% (meaning the value of existing money is now 10% less), the people who get the added 10% can buy stuff at the 'old' prices. As that money flows through the system prices gradually rise (the number of goods is the same, the amount of money is greater, so prices rise as people are willing to pay more for the same goods). You can look up the Cantillon Effect if you wish to know more about it.

The other reason is that if the money that is given to the banks is given to normal people, it will simply drive prices higher. If everybody is given money at the same time, nobody benefits. In fact, it can cause a currency crisis as people see the rising prices and try to buy before the prices rise further; this is the kind of activity that leads to hyperinflation as people lose trust in the currency.

Printing money is not without consequences.