The EyeOpener Report- How to Replace the Federal Reserve

The proposals for alternative monetary systems to the current Federal Reserve paradigm

This clip from The Corbett Report's new feature length documentary, "Century of Enslavement: The History of the Federal Reserve," outlines some of the proposals for alternative monetary systems to the current Federal Reserve paradigm. Featured ideas include Ellen Brown on state banks, Paul Glover on LETS hour currencies, and Roger Ver on bitcoin. (To watch the full documentary, please visit: http://www.corbettreport.com/federalreserve/)

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.

Comments

  1. tonywicher says:

    Corbett’s understanding of economics is upside down and backwards like the rest of his anarcho-libertarian cohort. The first and second banks of the United States were NOT privately owned central banks but national banks making use of sovereign credit for national economic development. Alexander Hamilton was an economic genius who literally forged the economic union of this nation, without which it could not have survived ten years against the British Empire. Hamilton’s American System economics is what made the United States the economic miracle and envy of the world. Andrew Jackson, or rather the British imperialists who controlled him, mainly the assassin of Hamilton, the traitor and British agent Aaron Burr, was arguably the worst president in U.S. history, although there have been other contenders for that honor recently. Jackson’s destruction of the Second National Bank destroyed the U.S. economy for the next thirty years and led to the civil war. Although Lincoln never re-established a National Bank, his greenback program similarly used sovereign credit for national economic development and which again led to a tremendous industrial boom. It was Franklin D. Roosevelt who correctly said that Wall Street had owned the U.S. government since the days of Andrew Jackson

  2. tonywicher says:

    (continued) FDR wanted to create a third national bank to manage the New Deal, but would up having to use the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to do the job. Nevertheless, the investments that were make led to the greatest period of economic growth, prosperity and rising standard of living of any nation in history. What we need to do now is not “end the Fed” but convert the Fed into what Hamilton originally created, a national bank issuing sovereign credit for economic development.

  3. tonywicher says:

    (continued)

    I should add that James could educate himself on economics as well as American History by reading about
    “How Andrew Jackson Destroyed the United States. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2012/3949jackson_v_usa.html
    If he wishes to educate himself about national banking, sovereign credit and American system economics, he could also read this draft legislation to restore the original bank of the United States by the same author:
    http://larouchepac.com/restorethebank

  4. I disagree with you tonywicher. From all I have read the 1st & 2nd Banks of US were privately owned. Are you saying the Fed Reserve printing the nation’s money at interest is good for the American people? If so, how? This clip, of course, is about how we might make changes in the way money is gotten and used in US. Where are you coming from?

  5. tonywicher says:

    Judith,
    I appreciate your question. If you want to know where I’m coming from, read the two links above that I have supplied above. It is called American System economics, and it is diametrically opposed to British “free market” economics. It should be taught to every school child in the country, but instead most people have never heard of it, and that is because the British and their oligarchical U.S. counterparts, such as the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, have done their best to bury the very memory of it in the minds of Americans. It is what the British empire has feared and loathed above all else, then and now, because their system cannot compete with it. Its widespread adoption would mean the end of the British financial empire which has pretty much ruled the planet, including this country, for several hundred years, and still does, although it is now, let us hope, on its deathbed. Anarcho-Libertarians like Corbett are really victims of 250 years of British disinformation. American System economics has been practiced in various forms only by our greatest presidents – George Washington and his Treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, FDR and JFK. If you want to understand why most people have never heard of it, study the 1954 report of Norman Todd to the Reece commission. According to the Wikipedia article on the Reece commission,

    “The final report was submitted by Norman Dodd, and because of its provocative nature, the committee became subject to attack. He began by listing criticisms of the Cox Committee, and then moved on to content.

    In the Dodd report to the Reece Committee on Foundations, he gave a definition of the word “subversive”, saying that the term referred to “Any action having as its purpose the alteration of either the principle or the form of the United States Government by other than constitutional means.” He then argued that the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Endowment were using funds excessively on projects at Columbia, Harvard, Chicago University and the University of California, in order to enable oligarchical collectivism. He stated, “The purported deterioration in scholarship and in the techniques of teaching which, lately, has attracted the attention of the American public, has apparently been caused primarily by a premature effort to reduce our meager knowledge of social phenomena to the level of an applied science.” He stated that his research staff had discovered that in “1933-1936, a change took place which was so drastic as to constitute a “revolution”. They also indicated conclusively that the responsibility for the economic welfare of the American people had been transferred heavily to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government; that a corresponding change in education had taken place from an impetus outside of the local community, and that this “revolution” had occurred without violence and with the full consent of an overwhelming majority of the electorate.” He stated that this revolution “could not have occurred peacefully, or with the consent of the majority, unless education in the United States had been prepared in advance to endorse it .”

    Here is a truly mind-blowing interview of Norman Todd by G. Edward Griffin in 1989, recently posted at BFP by another commenter, shortly before Todd’s death, that all Americans should hear:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz-ouH2MRfQ. This is why the only economics taught in our colleges today is the “free market” economics of the British empire. A “free market” in the British sense means that oligarchs can do anything they want, with no laws or regulations to prevent maximum exploitation. This is what oligarchs call “freedom”, and what they have done ideologically is to brainwash people into identifying the oligarch’s interests with their own. Someday, they foolishly think, they too could become oligarchs. American System economics, on the contrary, says that our representative government, “of, by and for the people” has an indispensable role in managing and developing the economy for the benefit of the country as a whole. This, the British empire and its acolytes have called evil “socialism”, and identified it with Stalinist Communism. But American System economics is totally different from Stalinist command and control economics. In Soviet Russia, all industry was nationalized. This created an unwieldy, unworkable and unproductive system, where individual initiative and free enterprise was buried in bureaucratic regulation. In American System economics, everything remains privately owned EXCEPT the banking system, which is nationalized and run by the government as a public utility under very close and strict supervision. The purpose of this national banking system is to stimulate “free enterprise”, not to suppress it. It does so by providing credit to entrepreneurs to start businesses that develop the economy and raise the national standard of living. It provides zero money for financial speculation, which does not produce any real wealth for the nation or raise the standard of living but only drains it into the hands of the speculators while impoverishing everybody else. The National Bank is able to finance economic development by making use of the principle of sovereign credit – that is, the power of a sovereign nation to create and control its own currency. This is the key to ending the dominance of the “globalist” oligarchs over the nation’s and the world’s economy. Here’s how it’s supposed to work: Let’s suppose, for example, that Congress decided that it is long past high time to really do something about drought conditions in the Western United States. If the country waits for “free enterprise” to solve this problem, it will wait until everybody west of the Mississippi dies of thirst – as we are doing now. Back in the 60’s when we briefly had a real American System oriented president named John F. Kennedy, there was a proposal on the boards called NAWAPA, the North American Water and Power Alliance, which was to be a cooperative project of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to bring vast amounts of water from Alaska and northern Canada, where it rains very heavily and the water flows unused through the Yukon and McKenzie Revers to the ocean, through a system of aqueducts, reservoirs and pumping stations that could double the amount of usable water in the Western U.S. and northern Mexico, greening up the whole Great American Desert. Such a project would greatly enrich the whole country, providing hundreds of millions of acres of land suitable for agriculture, new cities, and millions of well-paid science, engineering and construction jobs. Let’s say this would take twenty years to build at a cost of a trillion dollars a year, or about the same as our “defense” budget. The process begins with legislation by Congress, exercising its Constitutional power of the purse to direct that NAWAPA should be built. Once the legislation is passed by Congress and signed by the President in accordance with our Constitution, it then falls to the National Bank to implement this legislation by financing the development. The development itself is done by a myriad of large and small private companies financed by low or zero interest loans. Where does this money come from? The taxpayers? Hardly. The economy is in shambles and the taxpayers are broke. But American System economics allows us to lift ourselves by our bootstraps, as we did after the Revolution, after the Civil War and in the Great Depression. The Bank simply issues credit (“prints money”) as needed for economic development. This newly created money is loaned a very low interest rate (less than one percent, just to cover the bank’s administrative costs). Using this money, private companies are able to hire and train millions of construction workers, engineers and scientists to do the construction. This gives the economy of the whole country as huge boost. All these people will pay new taxes to finance the government’s operations. As the water is brought down, opening up vast areas of what is now desert for agricultural, industrial and residential development, the productivity of American workers and the wealth of the nation as a whole rises. If the NAWAPA investment is a wise one, the creation of the money to finance it is not inflationary. At the end of twenty years, we added 20 trillion in new money to the economy, but in the process we have built a system that increases the real wealth of the country by far more – say hundreds of trillions over then next 50 years. This is the diametrical opposite of our current central banking system, which is creating money and giving it to private banks which (since the repeal in 1999-2000 of FDR’s basic American System bank regulation called Glass-Steagall) has been used by these private banks entirely for financial speculation, not invested in the real economy. A national bank is a central bank for the nation. The Fed is a central bank for bankers. The Fed is the British perversion of what was once a real national banking system. We the people can shake off the grip of the British Empire and the globalists by nationalizing the Fed and forcing it to serve the people instead of the oligarchs. As to the first and second national banks being “privately owned”, the legislation of the Second National Bank specified 25% ownership by the Federal Government, and that the Government had to be the largest and therefore the decisive influence on the operations of the BUS. However, it also operated under a public charter specifying its purpose as national economic development, and its director was Nicholas Biddle, and American System Hamiltonian economist, not some oligarch motivated by private profit. Corbett distorts the true nature of the Bank by saying that was majority privately owned and by implication controlled by private bankers. It was not, and that is the key difference. Here is Wikipedia on the subject of the Second National Bank: “The Second Bank of the United States was America’s central bank, comparable to the Bank of England and the Bank of France, with one key distinction – the United States government owned one-fifth (20%) of its capital. Whereas other central banks of that era were wholly private, the BUS was more characteristic of a government bank.[95]

    Under its charter, the Bank had a capital limit of $35 million, $7.5 million of which represented the government-owned share. The central bank was required to remit a “bonus” payment of $1.5 million, payable in three installments,[7] to the government for the privilege of using the public funds, interest free, in its private banking ventures.[96] The institution was answerable for its performance to the US Treasury and Congress[97] and subject to Treasury Department inspection.[7]

    As exclusive fiscal agent for the federal government,[98] it provided a number of services as part of its charter including: holding and transfer of all US deposits, payment and receipt of all government transactions, and processing of tax payments.[99] In other words, the BUS was “the depository of the federal government, which was its principal stockholder and customer”.[100]

    The chief personnel for the Bank comprised twenty-five directors, five of whom were appointed by the President of the United States, subject to Senate approval.[7] Federally appointed directors were barred from acting as officials in other banks. Two of the three BUS presidents, William Jones and Nicholas Biddle, were chosen from among these government directors.[97]”.

    So where am I coming from? You can call me a Democratic Socialist, I suppose, because I do believe in a national banking system and am opposed to “free market” economics, which befits only oligarchs and oppresses everyone else. I am happy to see that Russia and China are now adopting American System economics for their own economies, and what this country needs to do is join them in vast cooperative projects to develop the world economy, not try to destabilize their governments and destroy their economies as the oligarchs who have hijacked our government are now doing.

  6. tonywicher says:

    What is this “oligarchical collectivism” that Norman Dodd states was being promoted by the Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford Foundations? It’s the idea of oligarchy, or of a ruling class consisting of the richest people in society. But the oligarchs have successfully conflated such “collectivism” with “socialism” in the minds of libertarians and right-wingers. “Socialism” as I understand it is the diametrical opposite of oligarchical collectivism; it is the democratization of the economy through a government of, by and for the people. It says that the economy must be managed and directed by the people’s elected representatives for the benefit of the nation, of the people as a whole, and not for the benefit of an oligarchy.

  7. Khalil Shalash says:

    Larouche’s view is very, how to say it?, unconventional.
    Mises institute and austrian economists have actually done very deep work about the monetary history of the U.S, and it’s the best read I had on the matter, lookup the works of Joe Salerno, Lawrence White and George Selgin.
    FDR wasn’t an angel, and just to remind you, the gold theft of 1933 was under FDR, the breaking of the gold standard, and the war economy all happened with the glass-steigel act instated.

Speak Your Mind