'Economic stabilizer' fails to deliver
Political clout, influence makes Federal Reserve an unelected monarchy
Michael Stevens
Issue date: 2/20/08 Section: Viewpoints
|
President Woodrow Wilson regretfully made this statement after signing the Federal Reserve Act into law.
In 1913, this decree established a central bank in our country that came to be known as the Federal Reserve, which has been usurping the power of our government ever since.
Contrary to its unassuming name, the Federal Reserve is actually anything but "federal;" rather, it is a private, profit-hungry business. This should prove to be quite shocking when one considers the inherent powers this bank has been endowed with: control over our nation's money supply and interest rates.
The Fed does not merely print our money and supply our government with it, the Fed actually loans it to them "at interest." This means that the central bank is forcing our government into perpetual and mounting debt, and gains vast amounts of wealth each time our nation requires more money for wars or social programs. This economic power translates into political control, which is persistently used to plot our country's agendas and policies.
The implications of this gross misallocation of power to an unelected entity were not lost on our founding fathers. When the king of England unfairly prohibited the colonies from using their own currency and instead forced them into borrowing money from the central bank of England with interest, the American Revolution erupted.
So why in God's name did we willfully forsake the blood of our nation's revolutionaries and relinquish power to an updated version of the monarchy?
Well, the Fed was promised to be an "economic stabilizer" during the recession-prone years of the early twentieth century, but has never lived up to this standard.
The Great Depression, anyone?
The horrific outcomes of having the wealth of a few manipulate the nation's economy for their own monetary gains has been the salient, unlearned lesson of our history. Such abuses have manifested themselves in times of war, when U.S. banks shamefully funded our enemies in order to sustain conflict and keep our government borrowing more money for defense contracts.
Simply put, the Fed needs to keep the fountain of blood flowing during wartime in order to accrue enough profit for their board members.
So instead of risking your presidential vote on a potential loser, consider endorsing the establishment that is sure to win - "All hail the heir of King George III!"
In the words of M. R. Rothschild, founder of a banking dynasty: "Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."
2008 Woodie Awards

Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
Matt
posted 2/20/08 @ 2:27 PM EST
Mr.Stevens' article suffers from a serious lack of knowledge about the Federal Reserve, economic policy, and institutional governance.
First, The U. (Continued…)
Rob
posted 2/20/08 @ 5:16 PM EST
As far as the idea that the Fed has failed as an economic stabilizer goes, I feel Mr. Stevens should consider "Black Monday" of '87. On October 19, 1987 the stock market experienced its largest single day drop in history, somewhere around 20% (following a drop of over 30% since August). (Continued…)
livefree7
posted 2/20/08 @ 6:13 PM EST
Mr. Stevens is right on with this article. I have been studying the Fed run economy for years. RL
Bring Back Josh Rabon
posted 2/21/08 @ 1:18 AM EST
Can we honestly get someone who understands something about economics to write about the Fed instead of this guy?
Post a Comment