Amend The Fed

[Keith Alan]

http://ellenbrown.com/2013/12/07/amend-the-fed-we-need-a-central-bank-that-serves-main-street/

Interesting proposal,

Bernanke delivered the money to the creditors because that was all the Federal Reserve Act allowed. If the Fed is to fulfill its mandate, it clearly needs more tools; and that means amending the Act. Harvard professor Ken Rogoff, who spoke at the November 2013 IMF conference before Larry Summers, suggested several possibilities; and one was to broaden access to the central bank, allowing anyone to have an ATM at the Fed.

[David Merrill]

That effectively happened in trust back in 1933:

[Keith Alan]

That effectively happened in trust back in 1933:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1483[/ATTACH]

Yes, but if they ever do something like that, I think the troubles that many seem to be experiencing with banks by making demand would just go away.

Also, the article was illuminating in other areas. It talked about Bernanke creatiing debt free money with which to buy Fed credit, which was deposited with banks as Quantitative Easing. I find that fascinating. If Treasury is doing that, then the inverse is also possible: creating debt free money and depositing it in accounts through those ATMs.

Treasury is/was creating $85 billion per month, and selling it to the Fed for credit. Why would it do that? Why not simply redeem the debt outstanding? I'm just thinking out loud here, but if the national banks were insolvent, and needed a bailout, why not just redeem the debt? That would solve the bank's and the government's problem.

[David Merrill]

I apologize for commenting solely on your quote. Ellen BROWN does indeed look to be worth reading.

To your last question:

I may have already thought that through. If China was to redeem its debt with the US, what would we do? - Send them a planeload of paper? Sure! Why not? What would they do with it? They would come over here and buy land, groceries, homes etc. They might even plan ahead and build Ghost Cities so that when the native Americans find themselves sinking in class, we grab 3-Year Contracts to go fill those cities in Little America Wards where we get on a bus and ride to our daily shift making zippers or sunglasses...

I have my own plan for abolishing the Fed. You all know what it is. I will be celebrating the Anniversary all right!

[Keith Alan]

I apologize for commenting solely on your quote. Ellen BROWN does indeed look to be worth reading.

To your last question:

I may have already thought that through. If China was to redeem its debt with the US, what would we do? - Send them a planeload of paper? Sure! Why not? What would they do with it? They would come over here and buy land, groceries, homes etc. They might even plan ahead and build Ghost Cities so that when the native Americans find themselves sinking in class, we grab 3-Year Contracts to go fill those cities in Little America Wards where we get on a bus and ride to our daily shift making zippers or sunglasses...

I have my own plan for abolishing the Fed. You all know what it is. I will be celebrating the Anniversary all right!

Those are great points.

[David Merrill]

BERNANKE is probably anticipating my celebration...

Introductory remarks.

Concluding remarks.

[allodial]

It might be worth pondering just who or what controls China. Also, its interesting to consider that China is a member of UN, NY. There is substantial evidence that the British were backing Japan all along during WWII in an effort to diminish the U.S.'s Naval Dominance by sinking ships.

Flag of the Republic of China



Flag of Allied / US Occupation of Japan



Note the 12 rays on the flag of the RoC. Could there be something concealed behind all of this? Could it at all be even remotely possible that China makes lots of things for the U.S. because China has long been the U.S. slave colony rather than the rising-super-power-and-rival-to-the-USA-and-Great-Britain it has seemed to be?

Current flag of the Phillipines:



The Philippines fought against Japan with the United States. The Phillipines was under open U.S. control at least from 1898 - 1946.

(november 2012) China is a colony of the USA. When talking about China-USA relations, most commentators begin by pointing out that the USA owes China a trillion dollars (not quite, but let's keep it simple). While this is technically true (China has been purchasing the debt of the USA year after year), it would help to restate it as "The USA funds China's GDP". The USA has been the main contributor to China's growth after the end of the Cold War just like it was the main contributor to Western Europe's growth and to Japan's growth after World War II. In all three cases (Western Europe, Japan, China), growth would have been much slower if the USA had not absorbed a sizeable percentage of the exports of those countries. The products in question were mostly low-tech products that the USA was happy to import instead of producing.

...

Therefore, when one looks at the money that the USA owes China, one is really looking at the "favor" that the USA is doing China. That money is the very money that keeps the Chinese economy going. The USA does this for multiple reasons (last but not least, to fund its own growth), but that's another story. So far, China has been a beneficiary of the generosity of the USA, not the other way around. Whether China's growth continues or not depends in part on its own decisions (check how Western Europe self-destroyed with its reckless policies), but also on what the USA decides to do with China. The vice versa is not true. If the economy of the USA collapses, China's economy will suffer tremendously. If the Chinese economy collapses, the only people who will notice in the USA are the ones who invested in Chinese business and in the Chinese stock market (it will certainly take a toll on the Dow Jones index).
(Source)

Diverting attention from the Federal Reserve System, perhaps consider another new (~2004 to 2008) matter pertaining to the financial freedom of Americans: the so-called Money Service Business laws (related to money laundering related laws and the US PATRIOT Act) and Sale of Checks laws. Imagine issuing a draft or a promissory note being made a felony unless you have a "banking license". Hmmmm. Such appears to have a corollary in the passage of laws against private banking in U.S. States after the U.S. Civil War.

[David Merrill]

Imagine issuing a draft or a promissory note being made a felony unless you have a "banking license".

That would be the auto-cannibalism of criminal syndicalism.

[allodial]

It seems rather 'coincidental' that computer software becomes more readily available to the 'average guy' by 2001, a major 'terrorist event' is staged and laws are passed to protect a monopoly on control of exchange in the United States of America. Canada doesn't have Money Service Business laws --yet. It is interesting that in the cases that FINCEN refers to in its notice, there was no mention of any of the clients of the so called "IVTSs" having been defrauded unlike licensed banks which seem to be in the business of defrauding folks. Its also interesting that banks are effectively hired by FINCEN as 'police' to protect their own monopoly at doing something most anyone honest could do and much much better. While it might be important to maintain integrity of a financial system, in view of the Bailout and many protected banking scams -- what is the real intent of the BSA and the MSB laws?

The Sale of Checks laws of many states refer to 'sale' as issuance.

(3) "Check" means any check, draft, money order, personal money order or other instrument

A promissory note that is negotiable is an 'instrument' (i.e. a 'negotiable instrument'). The point here is: (i) remedy is available; (ii) to shed light on the MSB, BSA and Sale of Check 'laws' which could be used to restrain free exchange without a participating bank. It might be worth noting the significance of an SSN with respect to a promissory note issued with respect to a mortgage or a car note.

If the motive was to protect 'consumers', one might wonder why U.S. States simply didn't remind of the applicability of theft and larceny laws in the event someone fails to perform a monetary transfer rather than requiring complex licensing and bonding for providing such a very simple service. Consider that storage of money for others could be viewed as 'deposit taking'. Why not just keep it informal as long as the person isn't dealing with sums exceeding $1M per year?

Also, someone has even suggested issuance of a promissory note could be prosecuted as 'counterfeiting'.

Consider that in order for their respective officers to avoid both criminal and civil liability Paypal, Amazon and Western Union you might find are registered in most every U.S. state as an MSB.

[allodial]

Lessee acknowledges that the safe deposit box is not intended to store, by way of example without limitations, such things as domestic or foreign currency whether in paper, coin or other form.(Source)

From an interesting sight regarding safe deposit boxes. The above is allegedly from the terms of the safe deposit agreement.

[David Merrill]

If I was to sell a check I would just call it an IOU.

[allodial]

Let's not leave out the definition of 'person' in that portion of the "Delaware Code":

For the purposes of this chapter:

(1) "Person" means any individual, partnership, association, joint stock association or corporation, but does not include the United States government or the government of this State.

[Keith Alan]

Let's not leave out the definition of 'person' in that portion of the "Delaware Code":

Another good point. It seems the governments have a rock solid legal monopoly on the storage, sale, and transmitting of money. It makes me wonder how organizations like Ithaca Hours exist.

[allodial]

Another good point. It seems the governments have a rock solid legal monopoly on the storage, sale, and transmitting of money.

Again, it is sovereign prerogative in back of money. Residents of the 50 States of the United States might lack that prerogative apart from a banking license or the like.

... It makes me wonder how organizations like Ithaca Hours exist.

They probably are tapping into a "government exemption". If the City of Ithaca is behind it that could be the case.

[Freed Gerdes]

@Allodial, it seems to me that such 'Sale of Checks' laws are just further adhesion contracts with which to ensnare the unsuspecting, converting them to statutory citizens. A check is just a negotiable instrument instructing the bank to transfer funds to another. The Fed already assumes that issuing such a negotiable instrument constitutes 'dealing in Federal Reserve debt securities' and thus obligates one to filing an income tax return and paying taxes on the private credit used. Or could such laws be intended to somehow impact transactions in bitcoin and related digital currencies?