Why Bankers Created the Fed 100 Years Ago

The Market Oracle, UK ^ | 23 December, 2013 | Christopher_Westley

[Errant]

The Democratic Party gained prominence in the first half of the nineteenth century as being the party that opposed the Second Bank of the United States. In the process, it tapped into an anti-state sentiment that proved so strong that we wouldn't see another like it until the next century.

Its adversaries were Whig politicians who defended the bank and its ability to grow the government and their own personal fortunes at the same time. They were, in fact, quite open about these arrangements. It was considered standard-operating procedure for Whig representatives to receive monetary compensation for their support of the Bank when leaving Congress. The Whig Daniel Webster even expected annual payments while in Congress. Once he complained to the Bank of the United States President Nicholas Biddle, “I believe my retainer has not been renewed or refreshed as usual. If it be wished that my relation to the Bank should be continued, it may be well to send me my usual retainer.”

[Partisan Gunslinger]

...sells the paper currency to the Federal Reserve Banks at manufacturing cost,...

Hell of a gig, if you can get it.

[trisham]

A lot has gone wrong in this country due to government interference.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

A lot has gone wrong in this country due to government interference.

Yeah, a lot of false flag events too. The power-grabbers favorite tool.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks. Partisan Gunslinger is kind of allergic to facts.

[trisham]

I’m for the dismantling of most government entities, but I am not optimistic. Even most self-described conservatives are not willing to make those choices.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Economic problems in Europe prompted the failure of Jay Cooke & Company, the largest bank in the United States, which burst the post-Civil War speculative bubble. The Coinage Act of 1873 also contributed by immediately depressing the price of silver, which hurt North American mining interests. The deflation and wage cuts of the era led to labor turmoil, such as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. In 1879, the United States returned to the gold standard with the Specie Payment Resumption Act. This is the longest period of economic contraction recognized by the NBER. The Long Depression is sometimes held to be the entire period from 1873–96

[Toddsterpatriot]

They're are the ones profiting from the loss of value of currency in the banks.

You just can't explain how.

[trisham]

Many of us may be unaware of what some of these agencies are, and what they really do.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

Thanks. Partisan Gunslinger is kind of allergic to facts.

Your facts are anything but. lol

[Toddsterpatriot]

A bank that doesn't lend, as you said in post 341.

I said they hardly lend any money out. Their portfolio is mostly bonds. LOL!

[Partisan Gunslinger]

I’m for the dismantling of most government entities, but I am not optimistic. Even most self-described conservatives are not willing to make those choices.

Yeah. I believe it's going to take an outside example to show the folly of our system. There's a reason we didn't let the international banksters in from BUS to 1913

[Partisan Gunslinger]

Economic problems in Europe prompted the failure of Jay Cooke & Company, the largest bank in the United States, which burst the post-Civil War speculative bubble. The Coinage Act of 1873 also contributed by immediately depressing the price of silver, which hurt North American mining interests. The deflation and wage cuts of the era led to labor turmoil, such as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. In 1879, the United States returned to the gold standard with the Specie Payment Resumption Act. This is the longest period of economic contraction recognized by the NBER. The Long Depression is sometimes held to be the entire period from 1873–96

And the GDP loss was less than during the Great Depression. So what's your point?

[trisham]

I think it’s going to take more of what is happening now. It’s going to take a grim realization of what liberal policies really entail.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

You just can't explain how.

If a Federal Reserve district bank is allowed to lend money that doesn't exist beforehand to a rate of 3% inflation, that's interest payments created from nothing. They are constantly expanding the money supply, that's what inflation is. They draw interest from the expansion. The workers pay, even by the second, no matter where the money is.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

I said they hardly lend any money out. Their portfolio is mostly bonds. LOL!

Mid-stream change there. lol

[Partisan Gunslinger]

I think it’s going to take more of what is happening now. It’s going to take a grim realization of what liberal policies really entail.

They have the American people so dumbed down that they'll just embrace the next slavocracy thrown their way, and it will be worse than this one.

[trisham]

They have the American people so dumbed down that they'll just embrace the next slavocracy thrown their way, and it will be worse than this one.

***************************

That's very possible. I wish that I could argue against your statement, but I can't at the moment. Although I feared that the elections would not go our way in 2008 and 2012, I still had some hope. Not so much now.

[Toddsterpatriot]

They draw interest from the expansion.

Their spreadsheet is currently about $4 trillion. Much more than that has been lent into existence.

If you lose 3% on your $1000, that $30 doesn't end up in the hands of the Fed. Sorry.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I could explain the difference between a bank loan and a bond, but you’re in over your head already.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

That's very possible. I wish that I could argue against your statement, but I can't at the moment. Although I feared that the elections would not go our way in 2008 and 2012, I still had some hope. Not so much now.

Even when we get one of ours in there, we continue to drift toward unsustainability due to the liberal media constantly lying by omission and outright bias.

I've spent years thinking about this problem and I don't see what would be wrong with each nation declaring ten (or so) core beliefs. Each citizen of each nation would have to make a public declaration of allegiance to his/her nation's core beliefs. If that person would be unwilling to do so, then they would be obliged to move to a nation that more closely matches their core beliefs. It seems to me that having the people of every nation having to live with their neighbors whom they have nothing in common with is only causing hate, death, and strife. I would like to live in a Christian, free trade, gun rights, gold standard, death penalty for murderers and rapists, property rights, strong defense, pro business, anti-union, information-based rather than nanny-state type of free country, and I don't really want to live around to many people that disagree on more than a couple of those. I think the world would be a better place if we separated rather than fought tooth and nail every day.

Of course the nation I would choose would be the happiest, most prosperous one since they embrace those ten core beliefs I just listed, so I guess there would still be a lot of jealousy from the people who chose the others. :^)