Banking should be a public service, not a for-profit enterprise. _"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."_ *- Henry Ford*
Johnson the common man is woke and pissed...currently 33 countries or so arr revolting that are overlapping, and the USA is ready to snap. I am also seeing the signs of Canada as well on verge of implosion as well. Who will go off first with other almost spontaneously combusting as well? Insults from Ford yes but now those insults are tinged in fear...the guillotine is too good for our elites/Zionist/NWO pieces of s***!
He was wrong though. People know and have known for a while. Still not angry enough but one day when they're hungry enough or cold enough we'll get around to fixing it. Not much longer i think.
Question: "Want to be robbed every 10 to 15 years? Answer: "Keep trusting the same crooked companies/businesses." Just propping them up, only makes a bigger pop next time. Time for PEOPLE's banks, not corporate debt loaners.
We need to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and put the creation of money back in the hands of the US Treasury as dictated in the Constitution rather than create money via debt.
The Chair of the Federal Reserve is appointed by the President of the U.S. and the Fed doesn't really have much power outside of what Congress lets them do. The real problem with the Federal Reserve is that our President's have appointed Wall Street Bankers who, of course, are gonna be on the side of Corporatists and other Wall Street bankers. That's how Wall Street was bailed out. What we need is a President who will appoint an economist who isn't from Wall Street.
The Federal Reserve is nothing more than a cartel that has the power to print money. They give that money to their commercial banks who sell it against a higher interest rate. It's called usury! If you haven't cottoned on to the extent of the corruption and deception then I suggest you check out people like Eustace Mullins, Edward G. Griffin, or E. Michael Jones. Bill Still has an interesting documentary on this topic too.
Congress lets them do what ever they please. Their books are a secret to congress for God's sake. The one issue you see is that it is run by the wrong people. The fact that it has always been run by those wrong people should suggest strongly that this is not a broken monopolistic cartel system that just needs more scientific altruistic souls to operate it, but rather this is exactly how a banking cartel system operates; for its own interests at the expense of everyone elses.
To his great credit, Dennis Kucinich tried to pass a bill making the immense power of money creation a public utility - owned by "we the people" - while he was in the U.S. Congress ...
@@andybunn6096 it is not a fantasy. Read history Andrew Jackson crushed the bank in 1835 and they did not renew the charter until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson sold our collective soul to the devil. Abolish the fed and print money treasury. Why would we want a private cooperation controlling the value of our money?
The United States lost the war of independence in 1913 when it signed on to The Federal Reserve. Which is neither Federal nor operates with reserves. In this same year, income tax was imposed and never repealed. After that, the United States fought wars for foreigners, to this day.
The Federal Reserve is Federal. That's why the chair and the board are populated by presidential nominees confirmed by the senate. The government doesn't get to decide who runs private banks, that's what makes them private, and how you know the Fed Reserve is not.
@@annoloki Only three in twelve members are appointed. It is a private banking system. In the Constitution, Congress is supposed to issue and control the supply of money. Central banks 'row' the economy with booms and busts. Never did they keep the promise to control inflation or avoid market crashes. Congress does not have the power to audit the Federal Reserve because it is not Federal the Supreme Court has affirmed that. (looking for that reference now)
@@annoloki But it's still quite bad. In the united states there's a 2 party oligopoly that are very much the same during their terms, sucking off large corporations. Once we elect someone from either party they then elect someone to be fed chairman. It's not like the people even have direct access to vote on who is the chairman you have to let someone else pick that for you whilst they're corrupt themselves. This is why I oppose the fed, It's a monopoly so you get no option and it's undemocratic which are both red flags.
The Federal Reserve of St. Louis has a complete breakdown of how banks become member banks. There's only about 35 banks that get to participate in quantitative easing, because they are member banks of the Federal Reserve.
"Key phrase" ...."Monetary Policies that help bank profits more than wages and employment, etc" RATES ARE MEANINGLESSLY LOW. Many real people can't get loans despite low rates. They're keeping the stock market casino going.
Linclon and Mckinley opposed the federal reserve as well. The three presidents that stood up tall against them all bot blasted. They put all the people who opposed them on the money to moch them. With the exception of Woodrow Wilson who sold Americas soul.
President Wilson signed into law the Federal Reserve Act. Did he regret it? Here's what he said: "I am a most unhappy man--unwittingly I have ruined my country." "The bill passed on December 22, 1913, and President Wilson signed it into law the next day.
Just legalise competing currencies. The bankers will not allow you to nationalize the banks anyways. It was not banks or governments who invented money, it was the people through market democracy. When governments or big business monopolize the money, they protect themselves at the expense of the wage earners, pensioners, retirees, and savers.
Certainly worth while discussion but think it misses a very important aspect and that is an alternative to a 'independent' central bank. That could for example be a National Bank that has eg the function of borrowing for big infrastructure investments to the benefit of the whole nation, not narrow private interest. A reference from history could be what Alexander Hamilton did.
The banking is controlled by the people well should be that's your answer everything in the United States should be created and work for the people and citizenry of the United states
The constitution does not specify any particular economic system. Hamilton's solution was a national bank, with shares available to the general public. Jackson, whose main adviser was Aaron Burr, (Yes, THAT Aaron Burr!), opposed a national bank. We need to federalize the Fed and make it a national bank, restore Glass-Steagall, have Congress create huge amounts of credit to be spent on infrastructure projects, and fund large scale, science driven projects. Projects like fusion energy research, space colonization, and asteroid defense. Projects like these are science drivers. They force science to expand research into fundamental issues of physics, chemistry, etc. It then forces research engineers to figure out how to turn those new discoveries into useful tools, like computers, satellites, and moon mining equipment.
Economics should be based on human needs and not money. We just use money so's we don't have to carry goats and eggs to trade for axes and baskets. Money will be pointless once robots are making everything. Now, for the kicker. These aren't my ideas. They all come from Lyndon LaRouche. They're the reason he got railroaded into jail and was officially relegated to fringe lunatic cult status.
I do subscribe to the network, but Greg Wilpert's laconic interviewing technique leaves me cold. Possibly the most somnambulant correspondent in progressive journalism today.
Anyone who uses terms like neofascist liberalism clearly has no clue what they are talking about and completely clueless about political theory and organization. Given that this guy uses such terms so flipantly how can anyone take this guy serious. Its appauling to see someone with a PHD talk this way. Neoliberal authoritarian clientelism is nothing like real fascism. Modern day social democratic countries are more fascist than neoliberal. Political terms have meaning dude
Too Big to Fail
Too Big to Jail
Too Big to Unveil
ViolentHistoryChannel -And also to big to try & smell! (is that also a good hip-hop rapping song line, to go in it?) 😁
Banking should be a public service, not a for-profit enterprise.
_"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."_
*- Henry Ford*
Yeah, this is the whole truth and nothing but. We will have to fight for it. And obfuscations, i.e. cryptocurrencies.
@Lynette Hicks Sure, but to come to this solution you need central banks (FED) to become socially owned and responsible to the people not the bankers.
Johnson the common man is woke and pissed...currently 33 countries or so arr revolting that are overlapping, and the USA is ready to snap. I am also seeing the signs of Canada as well on verge of implosion as well. Who will go off first with other almost spontaneously combusting as well? Insults from Ford yes but now those insults are tinged in fear...the guillotine is too good for our elites/Zionist/NWO pieces of s***!
He was wrong though. People know and have known for a while. Still not angry enough but one day when they're hungry enough or cold enough we'll get around to fixing it. Not much longer i think.
Question: "Want to be robbed every 10 to 15 years?
Answer: "Keep trusting the same crooked companies/businesses."
Just propping them up, only makes a bigger pop next time.
Time for PEOPLE's banks, not corporate debt loaners.
We need to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and put the creation of money back in the hands of the US Treasury as dictated in the Constitution rather than create money via debt.
That's it right there. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is the biggest trojan horse style hack of modern times.
The Chair of the Federal Reserve is appointed by the President of the U.S. and the Fed doesn't really have much power outside of what Congress lets them do. The real problem with the Federal Reserve is that our President's have appointed Wall Street Bankers who, of course, are gonna be on the side of Corporatists and other Wall Street bankers. That's how Wall Street was bailed out. What we need is a President who will appoint an economist who isn't from Wall Street.
The Federal Reserve is nothing more than a cartel that has the power to print money. They give that money to their commercial banks who sell it against a higher interest rate. It's called usury! If you haven't cottoned on to the extent of the corruption and deception then I suggest you check out people like Eustace Mullins, Edward G. Griffin, or E. Michael Jones. Bill Still has an interesting documentary on this topic too.
Congress lets them do what ever they please. Their books are a secret to congress for God's sake. The one issue you see is that it is run by the wrong people. The fact that it has always been run by those wrong people should suggest strongly that this is not a broken monopolistic cartel system that just needs more scientific altruistic souls to operate it, but rather this is exactly how a banking cartel system operates; for its own interests at the expense of everyone elses.
of course who puts out the people to be appointed not the President
Abolish the Federal Reserve. We'll all be better off without it.
Except for the global economic chaos such a move would create...
We would econamically be bettwr off without a doubt ,just like we were before we had it. From 1835 to 1913.
To his great credit, Dennis Kucinich tried to pass a bill making the immense power of money creation a public utility - owned by "we the people" - while he was in the U.S. Congress ...
"abolition" is a unrealizable fantasy. Nationalization is possible. Is that what you want?
@@andybunn6096 it is not a fantasy. Read history Andrew Jackson crushed the bank in 1835 and they did not renew the charter until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson sold our collective soul to the devil.
Abolish the fed and print money treasury.
Why would we want a private cooperation controlling the value of our money?
The United States lost the war of independence in 1913 when it signed on to The Federal Reserve. Which is neither Federal nor operates with reserves. In this same year, income tax was imposed and never repealed. After that, the United States fought wars for foreigners, to this day.
The Federal Reserve is Federal. That's why the chair and the board are populated by presidential nominees confirmed by the senate. The government doesn't get to decide who runs private banks, that's what makes them private, and how you know the Fed Reserve is not.
@@annoloki Only three in twelve members are appointed. It is a private banking system. In the Constitution, Congress is supposed to issue and control the supply of money. Central banks 'row' the economy with booms and busts. Never did they keep the promise to control inflation or avoid market crashes. Congress does not have the power to audit the Federal Reserve because it is not Federal the Supreme Court has affirmed that. (looking for that reference now)
@@annoloki But it's still quite bad. In the united states there's a 2 party oligopoly that are very much the same during their terms, sucking off large corporations. Once we elect someone from either party they then elect someone to be fed chairman. It's not like the people even have direct access to vote on who is the chairman you have to let someone else pick that for you whilst they're corrupt themselves. This is why I oppose the fed, It's a monopoly so you get no option and it's undemocratic which are both red flags.
Big agree. Nationalize the federal reserve
#MMT
Why does any country allow private bankers to put the country in debt? We need to reoccupy the banks again!
The Federal Reserve of St. Louis has a complete breakdown of how banks become member banks. There's only about 35 banks that get to participate in quantitative easing, because they are member banks of the Federal Reserve.
"Key phrase" ...."Monetary Policies that help bank profits more than wages and employment, etc" RATES ARE MEANINGLESSLY LOW. Many real people can't get loans despite low rates. They're keeping the stock market casino going.
we all know what happened to JFK when he tried to take on the fedrsv.
Puh-leeze!
Linclon and Mckinley opposed the federal reserve as well. The three presidents that stood up tall against them all bot blasted.
They put all the people who opposed them on the money to moch them.
With the exception of Woodrow Wilson who sold Americas soul.
REAL NEWS , THANKS FOR ALL " THE WORK ON POWER AND MONEY, IN AMERICA .
President Wilson signed into law the Federal Reserve Act. Did he regret it? Here's what he said: "I am a most unhappy man--unwittingly I have ruined my country." "The bill passed on December 22, 1913, and President Wilson signed it into law the next day.
Just legalise competing currencies. The bankers will not allow you to nationalize the banks anyways. It was not banks or governments who invented money, it was the people through market democracy. When governments or big business monopolize the money, they protect themselves at the expense of the wage earners, pensioners, retirees, and savers.
Lets destroy money ... Enough of ball-TALK about and against banks .. just kidding, carry on business as usual duh
Certainly worth while discussion but think it misses a very important aspect and that is an alternative to a 'independent' central bank. That could for example be a National Bank that has eg the function of borrowing for big infrastructure investments to the benefit of the whole nation, not narrow private interest. A reference from history could be what Alexander Hamilton did.
The banking is controlled by the people well should be that's your answer everything in the United States should be created and work for the people and citizenry of the United states
UMASS-amherst in the house! Richard Wolff taught there also. I took Ear Training there.
The constitution does not specify any particular economic system. Hamilton's solution was a national bank, with shares available to the general public. Jackson, whose main adviser was Aaron Burr, (Yes, THAT Aaron Burr!), opposed a national bank. We need to federalize the Fed and make it a national bank, restore Glass-Steagall, have Congress create huge amounts of credit to be spent on infrastructure projects, and fund large scale, science driven projects. Projects like fusion energy research, space colonization, and asteroid defense. Projects like these are science drivers. They force science to expand research into fundamental issues of physics, chemistry, etc. It then forces research engineers to figure out how to turn those new discoveries into useful tools, like computers, satellites, and moon mining equipment.
Economics should be based on human needs and not money. We just use money so's we don't have to carry goats and eggs to trade for axes and baskets. Money will be pointless once robots are making everything. Now, for the kicker. These aren't my ideas. They all come from Lyndon LaRouche. They're the reason he got railroaded into jail and was officially relegated to fringe lunatic cult status.
How will you prevent people from just voting themselves more money? What about hyperinflation?
The federal Reserve was created by Congress in Dec 1913....to Mandate interest rates and to hold private banks reserves.
Lol. I guessed, without looking, that the comment section would be a condensed dose of skitzophrenia... I think I'm psychic
👑
Legislators got us here.
It’s going to take better legislation to get us out.
Period.
I do subscribe to the network, but Greg Wilpert's laconic interviewing technique leaves me cold. Possibly the most somnambulant correspondent in progressive journalism today.
Some people find Mr. Wilpert's no-nonsense intellectual style a pleasant alternative to the loudmouth screamers out there...
EPSTEIN!!!!!???? BROTHER?
Anyone who uses terms like neofascist liberalism clearly has no clue what they are talking about and completely clueless about political theory and organization. Given that this guy uses such terms so flipantly how can anyone take this guy serious. Its appauling to see someone with a PHD talk this way. Neoliberal authoritarian clientelism is nothing like real fascism. Modern day social democratic countries are more fascist than neoliberal. Political terms have meaning dude
You're talking straight out of your uninformed ignorant ass