Replies

But a national bank is a fact of life because every nation needs access to quick money in case of emergency, especially war.

The US Treasury does not borrow from the Federal Reserve. The Fed does not lend money to the Treaury in case of emergency or even war. The US Treasury issues bonds that are sold into the financial marketplace by primary dealers, i.e., a syndicate of the largest banks. If the Federal Reserve went away, that government borrowing process of issuing bonds via the primary dealers would simply continue.

And loans are better than taxes.

When Congress spends more than it takes in in taxes, and authorizes the Treasury to borrow by issuing bonds to get the cash to do so, the bond debt has to be paid by future tax revenue. The government is, therefore, spending dollars that it will have to collect in taxes in the future. Of course, the government is paying interest on the bonds. Which is another expense that must be paid in cash.

Loans are not "better" than taxes - loans are simply indebting the government to a third party who then has a claim on future taxes. Not having enough tax revenue was the reason for the borrowing. But the loan means there will be even less tax revenue available for spending, since some will need to be used to repay the loan with interest.

This stuff is so obvious that if sensible citizens were asked to authorize government borrowing they never would. Such things were only passed in Congress because of complete corruption of the body.

Everything I see in your posts is like it was written by and for the international banking cabal. Why not write a book on how benevolent the East India Company was, or how the Opium Wars were a shining moment of morality in the history of the British Empire. I think Rothschild, Rockefeller & Warburg Publishing would love to publish that book.

I doubt you'll ever change your stated positions because the banking cabal does not tolerate its minions "jumping ship".