(Editor’s Note: I would like to thank NH Tea Party for pointing out my typo with the date. My deepest apologies for this mistake. The End the Fed rallies are planned for Saturday, November 20th this year.)
End The Fed Rally, 11.22.2010
I dragged this video out of the vault to remind folks of what has been happening for almost a decade (not just since 2008).
Truth,The Us Dollar, The Federal Reserve, and Dr. Ron Paul
For more information about the true origins of the Federal Reserve System, grab your duct tape and hit the page at the top of the blog.
Neil Barofsky isn’t making any friends over at Treasury right now, considering he is slamming their changing methodology (without telling the American public) that make the losses at AIG looks significantly less than what they were 6 months ago.
Is anybody surprised? No; didn’t think so. I know I will have died and gone to heaven when the Federal Reserve no longer exists and the big wall street banks aren’t telling our government how it’s going to be anymore.
“In our view, this is a significant failure in their transparency,” said Neil M. Barofsky, the inspector general, in an interview on Monday.
In early October, the Treasury issued a report predicting that the taxpayers would ultimately lose just $5 billion on their investment in A.I.G., a remarkable outcome, since the insurance company was extended $182 billion in taxpayer money in the early months of its rescue. The prediction of a modest loss, widely reported as A.I.G., the Federal Reserve and the Treasury rushed to complete an exit plan, contrasted with an earlier prediction by the Treasury that the taxpayers would lose $45 billion.
And as an added bonus, Neil Cavuto covers the story of the Treasury looking for employees that know their way around the Freedom Of Information Act specifics. How’s that for transparency…? The Judge weighs in.
Capital is the body fat of banking: too much is debilitating, too little is fatal. During the financial crisis, as large banks burned through their capital reserves, governments were forced to add padding at public expense.
Now one of the most consequential decisions about new restraints on the banking industry — how much more capital banks should hold in their rainy day reserves — is being decided not on Capitol Hill but far from Washington, by a committee based in Basel, Switzerland, The New York Times’s Binyamin Appelbaum reports.
The Obama administration is pursuing an international agreement to make banks hold significantly larger reserves, which it regards as essential to increase the stability of the global financial system. It wants to complete the negotiations, which are being coordinated by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, by the end of the year.(emphasis mine)
The world’s largest banks have responded with consternation, arguing that the proposed standards would tie up too much money that otherwise could be used for lending, a loss that would curtail economic growth.
The debate between regulators and banks is about the proper balance of growth and safety, but the implications are much broader. In fixing reserve requirements, governments are deciding how much horsepower belongs under the hood of the global economy.
The first international agreement, known as Basel I, was reached in 1988. Work began almost immediately on a revision, but the standards known as Basel II were not completed until 2004. Now officials are racing to overhaul that framework in little more than a year.
“We’re going to be pushing through this year to make sure that happens. That’s an absolutely critical part of reform,” said Michael S. Barr, assistant Treasury secretary for financial institutions.
The Basel committee is still discussing how much to increase the minimum capital requirement. The amount will depend in part on the results of a study estimating the impact of the proposals on banks, scheduled for discussion at the next meeting of the G-20 in June.
What the NYTimes is not telling you is that this is the Bank of International Settlements. THAT bank.
Do we really want the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) issuing our global currency
In Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966), Dr. Carroll Quigley revealed the key role played in global finance by the BIS behind the scenes. Dr. Quigley was Professor of History at Georgetown University, where he was President Bill Clinton’s mentor. He was also an insider, groomed by the powerful clique he called “the international bankers.” His credibility is heightened by the fact that he actually espoused their goals. He wrote:
“I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. . . . [I]n general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”
Quigley wrote of this international banking network:
“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another 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 economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”
The key to their success, said Quigley, was that the international bankers would control and manipulate the money system of a nation while letting it appear to be controlled by the government. The statement echoed one made in the eighteenth century by the patriarch of what would become the most powerful banking dynasty in the world. Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild famously said in 1791:
“Allow me to issue and control a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its laws.”
Mayer’s five sons were sent to the major capitals of Europe – London, Paris, Vienna, Berlin and Naples – with the mission of establishing a banking system that would be outside government control. The economic and political systems of nations would be controlled not by citizens but by bankers, for the benefit of bankers. Eventually, a privately-owned “central bank” was established in nearly every country; and this central banking system has now gained control over the economies of the world. Central banks have the authority to print money in their respective countries, and it is from these banks that governments must borrow money to pay their debts and fund their operations. The result is a global economy in which not only industry but government itself runs on “credit” (or debt) created by a banking monopoly headed by a network of private central banks; and at the top of this network is the BIS, the “central bank of central banks” in Basel.(emphasis mine)
Behind the Curtain
For many years the BIS kept a very low profile, operating behind the scenes in an abandoned hotel. It was here that decisions were reached to devalue or defend currencies, fix the price of gold, regulate offshore banking, and raise or lower short-term interest rates. In 1977, however, the BIS gave up its anonymity in exchange for more efficient headquarters. The new building has been described as “an eighteen story-high circular skyscraper that rises above the medieval city like some misplaced nuclear reactor.” It quickly became known as the “Tower of Basel.” Today the BIS has governmental immunity, pays no taxes, and has its own private police force.4 It is, as Mayer Rothschild envisioned, above the law.
The BIS is now composed of 55 member nations, but the club that meets regularly in Basel is a much smaller group; and even within it, there is a hierarchy. In a 1983 article in Harper’s Magazine called “Ruling the World of Money,” Edward Jay Epstein wrote that where the real business gets done is in “a sort of inner club made up of the half dozen or so powerful central bankers who find themselves more or less in the same monetary boat” – those from Germany, the United States, Switzerland, Italy, Japan and England. Epstein said:
“The prime value, which also seems to demarcate the inner club from the rest of the BIS members, is the firm belief that central banks should act independently of their home governments. . . . A second and closely related belief of the inner club is that politicians should not be trusted to decide the fate of the international monetary system.”
In 1974, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision was created by the central bank Governors of the Group of Ten nations (now expanded to twenty). The BIS provides the twelve-member Secretariat for the Committee. The Committee, in turn, sets the rules for banking globally, including capital requirements and reserve controls. In a 2003 article titled “The Bank for International Settlements Calls for Global Currency,” Joan Veon wrote:
“The BIS is where all of the world’s central banks meet to analyze the global economy and determine what course of action they will take next to put more money in their pockets, since they control the amount of money in circulation and how much interest they are going to charge governments and banks for borrowing from them. . . .
“When you understand that the BIS pulls the strings of the world’s monetary system, you then understand that they have the ability to create a financial boom or bust in a country. If that country is not doing what the money lenders want, then all they have to do is sell its currency.”5
No Federal Reserve, no BIS involvement. Is it any wonder we have been screaming for the abolishen of these leeches for so long? American debt is 90.3% to GDP currently. Does anybody really think that Federal Reserve Notes are going to survive this? Are you ready for ‘global cash’?
WASHINGTON— Timothy Geithner’s role in calming the financial crisis landed him the coveted job of Treasury secretary last year. That same résumé is now dogging him.
In his next test, Mr. Geithner will find out this week how lawmakers are treating one of his main goals—revamping the nation’s financial regulations—when Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd unveils his new bill. In Washington, where perception can take on the status of fact, the political woes facing Mr. Geithner are diminishing his authority.
To boost his image, Mr. Geithner is waging a charm offensive. On Friday, he toured a supermarket in Philadelphia with first lady Michelle Obama to showcase efforts to reduce childhood obesity, an unusual event for a Treasury secretary. He demonstrated how a Treasury program offering tax credits in low-income communities can bring in businesses selling more nutritious food.
I’m still thinking that maybe, just maybe, the Secretary of the Treasurer should have some banking experience. Remember this? (Like not being able to pay his taxes wasn’t bad enough.)
It hasn’t helped that many people incorrectly think Mr. Geithner used to work on Wall Street. Sen. John Kerry made the mistake at a hearing last year. And during an April 2009 hearing of a panel overseeing TARP, Damon Silvers, associate general counsel of the AFL-CIO, made reference to Mr. Geithner’s having “been in banking.”
Mr. Geithner cut him off: “Actually, I have never actually been in banking. I have only been in public service.”
That should have been anybody’s first clue that Geithner isn’t qualified for anything other than pushing papers around some lowly governmental desk, and NOT being in charge of the Treasury and IRS.
“Well, a long time ago. A long time.”
“Investment banking I meant.”
“Never investment banking. Spent my entire life in public service.”
“Well, all right,” Mr. Silvers conceded.
When asked about the exchange, Mr. Silvers says he simply made a mistake.
The powers that be have not learned the lesson of the collapse they caused 18 months ago and are hell bent on not only repeating it, but making it even worse. The level of current taxpayer commitment to saving these two institutions is $3800 per household with that amount expected to rise if the Treasury continues on it’s current course.