The Economy's search for the "New Normal"

When the reality of the economic crisis first made itself known, many who realized what was happening dubbed it “the greatest crisis since the Great Depression.” This description was more than bombast; it was a sober analysis of the immensity of the economic problems in the country — problems that had been building up for years.

The mainstream media is now — for political reasons — in a constant clamor for the economy's elusive “rock bottom.” This is so people will be more hopeful, less agitated, and more willing to let those who destroyed the economy continue running the country un-challenged. Every time a new economic indicator comes out that wasn't “as bad as expected,” Wall Street cheers and politicians give their “we've turned the corner” speeches. Reality is thus turned on its head.

Regardless of what the media says, the reasons for calling this crisis the “worst since the Great Depression,” still exist. Not only this, but new problems are being created that are compounding the old.

One of the original, major concerns of the economy was the fact that the banks were bankrupt. This problem still persists, even after trillions of dollars of taxpayer money was given away, not to mention a “stress test” where the banks in fact “negotiated” the terms of the test. By pretending this problem doesn't exist, the Obama administration is continuing the Bush-era approach to the banks: don't ask, don't tell. Banks will thus continue to be bailed out when their problems are too explosive to be ignored; credit will continue to be restricted, and a general level of instability will taint the system itself.

Another major problem of the economy is that consumers are bankrupt. Unemployment continues to skyrocket, ensuring that every month hundreds of thousands of less people will be able to consume, driving more establishments out of business. The people who lose their jobs thus fail to pay their mortgages, credit cards, student loans, etc., all furthering the losses of the banks.

The issue of debt is fundamental to understanding the current crisis: households, corporations, banks, and the government have all taken on massive levels of debt.

Getting rid of the debt is often referred to as “de-leveraging.” On all levels of society a gigantic de-leveraging is taking place; and only after this process is done will the elusive “bottom of the recession” be found, amidst a society that looks far different than the one we're used to.

For example, households are rapidly getting rid of expenses they can no longer afford, due to either joblessness, low wages or lack of credit. They are thus saving more than they are spending. For an economy that depends on 70 percent consumer spending, this is a huge problem, not only for the U.S., but for the world as well, since many countries constructed their economies as export machines directed towards U.S. consumers.

Is this problem likely to go away anytime soon? Probably not. The recession is creating such dramatic effects on so many people that the consuming culture is being changed, much like what happened after the Great Depression. The New York Times notes:

“...forces that enabled and even egged on consumers to save less and spend more — easy credit and skyrocketing asset values — could be permanently altered [!] by the financial crisis that spun the economy into recession.” (May 9, 2009)

If the U.S. consumer can no longer be the driving force of the economy, what will replace it? The elitist Economist magazine offered a cure: because consumer spending will be debilitated, “something else will have to grow more quickly. Ideally that would be exports and investment.” (May 6, 2009)

There is in fact little else that can be done if one is playing by the strict rules of the market economy. Obama again gave his allegiance to this broken system by agreeing with the Economist, when he stated, “We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity, where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad.”

The average person will be totally uninspired by this “solution.” Nevertheless, Obama should have answered an important question: why isn't the U.S. an exporting economy now? And what would it take for it to be one in the future? The answers to these questions are intertwined with Obama's proposal that Americans “consume less.”

In order for US corporations to sell products (export) on the world marketplace, they must have competitive prices. Labor is a key ingredient in determining the price of a commodity, since the other ingredients have relatively stable prices. The price of labor in the U.S. was, in part, the result of a strong labor movement, which achieved a living wage. This not only drove down profits for corporations, but made them less competitive on the world market — they consequently defected to countries that pay slave wages.

How, then, does Obama plan to “send more exports abroad?” The answer is simple: by insuring that Americans are able to “consume less.” For example, Obama's Auto Task Force told Chrysler and GM workers that their incomes were too high, that they needed to make less so that their companies could “remain viable” (compete) on the global market. They were thus threatened with bankruptcy if they did not offer “significant concessions.” The workers conceded, and bankruptcy happened anyway — a phenomenon bound to happen again soon at GM — unless workers fight back.

If such a “restructuring” happens at a company the size of GM, the precedent would be haunting. Corporations of all kinds are looking to “de-leverage” in the same way to successfully survive the recession. They need to balance the books, and workers' wages are one of the few options they have. Obama's Auto Task Force is overseeing the destruction of the U.A.W., and clearing the path for this restructuring to happen across the U.S.

But falling wages have a negative side effect, aside from disgruntled workers. As Nobel Prize- winner Paul Krugman points out:

“Families are trying to work that debt down by saving more than they have in a decade — but as wages fall, they're chasing a moving target. And the rising burden of debt will put downward pressure on consumer spending, keeping the economy depressed.” (New York Times, May 3, 2009 )

His conclusion is sobering: “The risk that America will turn into Japan — that we'll face years of deflation and stagnation — seems, if anything, to be rising.”

Equally concerning is the amount of debt the U.S. government has taken in bailing out banks and fighting foreign wars. The New York Times notes:

“[the national debt] has prompted warnings from the Treasury that the Congressionally mandated debt ceiling of $12.1 trillion [!] will most likely be breached in the second half of this year.” (May 3, 2009)

The debt is so high that those financing it are getting worried, and thus demanding a higher rate of interest in repayment (since they correctly think they'll be paid back in inflated dollars). Already the U.S. pays $176 billion a year in simply paying the interest on the debt, a number that is expected to reach $806 billion by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

This debt is of course unsustainable. There are numerous signs that overseas' buyers are likely to reduce their investment, worried as they are about the U.S. money printing bonanza. In an effort to bolster confidence, Obama has plans to balance the budget by the end of his presidency. Again, a massive de-leveraging of debt will need to happen. Obama has made no secret of where this restructuring will come from: he has made repeated references to “reforming entitlement programs” (Social Security, Medicare, etc.).

It should be noted that the only other way Obama could balance the budget is if he taxed the super rich at a high rate while slashing military spending, neither of which is going to happen on its own. Nevertheless, these items must be central demands for the American worker, who is already under immense economic pressure, with more to come.

The recession is creating a “fight or die” environment for corporations and governments around the world. The super rich that currently control both entities are using their influence to ensure that workers carry the brunt of this burden. It doesn't have to be so.

The fight for jobs, a living wage, progressive taxation, social security, and single payer healthcare are all topics capable of uniting the vast majority of U.S. citizens. If properly organized, and with the Labor Movement playing a leading role, such a coalition would have no problem overcoming the objections of those who oppose it — the tiny group of super rich benefiting from how things are currently.

Web of Debt: The Inner Workings of The Monetary System

This is the first of several articles on Ellen Brown's superb 2007 book titled "Web of Debt," now updated in a December 2008 third edition. It tells "the shocking truth about our money system, (how it) trapped us in debt, and how we can break free." Given today's global economic crisis, it's an appropriate time to review it and urge readers to digest the entire work, easily gotten through Amazon or Brown's webofdebt.com site. Her book is a remarkable achievement - in its scope, depth, and importance.

In the forward, banker/developer Reed Simpson said:

"I have been a banker for most of my career, and I can report that even most bankers (don't know) what goes on behind (top echelon) closed doors....I am more familiar than most with the issues (Brown covered, and) still found it an eye-opener, a remarkable window into what is really going on....(Although many banks follow high ethical practices), corruption is also rampant, (especially) in the large money center banks, in one of which I worked."

"Credible evidence (reveals) a world (banking) power elite intent on gaining absolute control over the planet and its natural resources, including its subservient human (ones)." Money is their "lifeblood," and "fear (their) weapon." Ill-used, they can "enslave nations and ensure perpetual wars and bondage." Brown exposes the scheme and offers a solution.

Debt Bondage

What president Andrew Jackson called "a hydra-headed monster...." entraps entire nations in debt. Financial commentator Hans Schicht listed how:

-- by making concentrated wealth invisible;

-- "exercising control through leverage(d) mergers, takeovers" or other holdings "annexed to loans;" and

-- using a minimum of insider front-men to exercise "tight personal management and control."

Powerful bankers want to rule the world by creating and controlling money, the very lifeblood of world economies without which commerce would cease. Professor Henry Liu calls the monetary system a "cruel hoax" in that (except for government issued coins) "there is virtually no 'real' money in the system, only debts" - to bankers "for money they created with accounting entries....all done by a sleight of hand," only possible because governments empowered them to do it.

The solution is simple but untaken. As the Constitution mandates, money-creation power must "be returned to the government and the people it represents." Imagine the possibilities:

-- the federal debt could be eliminated, at least a more manageable amount before it mushroomed to stratospheric levels;

-- federal income taxes could as well; entirely for low and middle income people and at least substantially overall;

-- "social programs could be expanded....without sparking runaway inflation;" and

-- financial resources would be available to grow the nation economically and produce stable prosperity.

It's not pie-in-the-sky. It happened successfully under Abraham Lincoln and early colonists. More on that below.

Brown's book explains that:

-- the Federal Reserve isn't federal; it's a private banking cartel owned by its major bank members in 12 Fed districts;

-- except for coins, they "create" money called Federal Reserve notes, in violation of the Constitution under Article I, Section 8 that gives Congress alone the right "To coin (create) money (and) regulate the value thereof....;"

-- "tangible currency (coins and paper money comprise) less than 3 percent of the US money supply;" the rest is in computer entries for loans;

-- money that banks lend is "new money" that didn't exist before;

-- 30% of bank-created money "is invested for their own accounts;"

-- banks once made productive loans for industrial development; today they're "a giant betting machine" using countless trillions for high-risk casino-type operations - through devices like derivatives and securitization scams;

-- since Andrew Jackson's presidency (1829 - 1837), the federal debt hasn't been paid, only the interest - to private bankers and other owners of US obligations;

-- the 16th Amendment authorized Congress to levy an income tax; it was done "to coerce (the public) to pay interest to the banks on the federal debt;"

-- the amount has mushroomed to about $500 billion annually and keeps rising;

-- creating money doesn't cause inflation; it's "caused by banks expanding the money supply with loans;"

-- developing nations' inflation was caused "by global institutional speculators attacking local currencies and devaluing them on international markets;"

-- it could happen in America or anywhere else just as easily; and

-- escaping this trap is simple if Washington reclaims its money-issuing power; early colonists did it; so did Lincoln.

As long as bankers control our money, we'll remain in a permanent "web of debt" and experience cycles of boom, bust, inflation, deflation, instability and crisis. Yet none of this has to be nor repeated and inevitable bubbles - created by design, not chance, to advantage empowered "moneychangers," much like today with its fallout causing global havoc.

Prior to the Fed's creation, the House of Morgan was dominant in contrast to the early colonists' model. Operating out of Philadelphia, the nation's first capital, it favored state-issued and loaned out money, collecting the interest, and "return(ing) it to the provincial government" in lieu of taxes.

Lincoln used the same system to finance the Civil War, after which he was assassinated and bankers reclaimed their money-issuing power. Wall Street's "silent coup (was) the passage of the (1913) Federal Reserve Act," the most destructive ever congressional legislation, thereafter extracting a huge toll amounting to permanent debt bondage with national wealth transference from the public to private bankers - with most people none the wiser.

From Gold to Federal Reserve Notes

After the 1862 Legal Tender Act was rescinded (the so-called Greenback law letting the government issue its own money), new legislation replaced it empowering bankers by making all money again interest-bearing. Here's the problem. "As long as the money supply (is an interest-bearing) debt owed back to private bankers....the nation's wealth (will) continue to be drained off into private vaults, leaving scarcity in its wake."

Dollars should belong to everyone. Early colonists invented them as "a new form of paper currency backed by the 'full faith and credit' of the people." Today, a private banking cartel issues them by "turning debt into money and demanding" due interest be paid.

Ever since, it's controlled the nation and public by entrapment in permanent debt bondage, and they do it through the Federal Reserve that's neither federal nor has reserves. It doesn't have money. It creates it with electronic entries, any amount at any time for any purpose, the main one being to enrich its owner banks.

This body is a power unto itself, secretive, unaccountable, and independent of congressional oversight or control. It's a money-creating machine by turning debt into money, but only a small fraction of the total money supply. Individual commercial banks create most of it.

A 1960s Chicago Fed booklet (called Modern Money Mechanics) explained how - through "fractional reserve" alchemy. It states:

(Banks) do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts."

Money is created by "building up" deposits in the form of loans. They, in turn, become deposits, not the reverse. "This unique attribute of banking" goes back centuries, the idea being that paper receipts could be issued and loaned out for the same gold (in those days) many times over, so long as enough gold was held in "reserve" so depositors had access to their money. "This sleight of hand (became known) as 'fractional reserve' banking," using money to create multiples more of it.

As for credit market debt, William Hummel (on the web site Money: What It Is, How It Works) explains that banks create only about 20% of it. The rest is by other non-bank financial institutions, including finance companies, pension and mutual funds, insurance companies, and securities dealers. They "recycle pre-existing funds, either by borrowing at a low interest rate and lending at a higher (one) or by pooling (investor) money and lending it to borrowers." In other words, just like banks, "they borrow low and lend high, pocketing the 'spread' as their profit."

But banks do more than borrow. They also "lend the deposits they acquire....by crediting the borrower's account with a new deposit." Banks thus increase total bank deposits that grow the money supply. It amounts to a sleight of hand like "magically pull(ing) money out of an empty hat."

The US "money supply is the federal debt and cannot exist without it. (To) keep money in the system, some major player has to incur substantial debt that never gets paid back; and this role is played by the federal government." It's why the nation's debt can't be repaid under a banker-controlled system. Today's size and debt service compounds the problem, around double the amount Brown cited, growing exponentially to unimaginable levels.

Colonial Paper Money - Another Way Predating the Republic's Birth

In 1691, three years before the Bank of England's creation, Massachusetts became "the first local government to issue its own paper money...." in the form of a "bill of credit bond or IOU....to pay tomorrow on a debt incurred today." This money "was backed by the full 'faith and credit' of the government."

Other colonies then did the same, some as IOUs redeemable in gold or silver or as "legal tender" money to be legally accepted to pay debts. Cotton Mather, a famous New England minister, later redefined money - not as gold or silver, but as a credit: "the credit of the whole country."

Benjamin Franklin so embraced the "new medium of exchange" that he's called "the father of paper money," then called "scrip." It made the colonies independent of British banks and let them "finance their local governments without" taxation. It was done in two ways, and most colonies used both:

-- direct issue "bills of credit" or "treasury notes;" essentially government-backed IOUs to be repaid by future taxes, with no interest owed bankers or foreign lenders; "they were just credits issued and sent into the economy on goods and services;" and

-- a system of generating "revenue in the form of interest by taking on the lending functions of banks; a government loan office called a 'land bank' (issued) paper money and (loaned) it to residents (usually farmers) at low interest rates....the interest paid....went into the public coffers, funding the government;" it was the preferred way to assure a stable currency rather than by issuing "bills of credit."

Pennsylvania did it best. It's 1723-established loan office showed "it was possible for the government to issue new money (in lieu of) taxes without inflating prices." For over 25 years, it collected none at all. The loan office provided adequate revenue, supplemented by liquor import duties. Throughout the period, prices remained stable.

Prior to this system, Pennsylvania lost "both business and residents (for) lack of available currency." With it, its population grew and commerce prospered. The "secret was in not issuing too much, and in recycling the money back to the government in the form of principal and interest on government-issued loans."

Colony-based British merchants and financiers objected strongly to Parliament. Enough so that in 1751, King George II banned new paper money issuance to force colonists to borrow it from UK bankers. In 1764, Franklin petitioned Parliament to lift the ban. In London, Bank of England directors asked him to explain colonial prosperity at a time Britain experienced rampant unemployment and poverty. It's because Colonial Scrip was issued, he stated, "our own money" with no interest owed to anyone. He added:

"You do not have too many workers, you have too little money in circulation, and that which circulates, all bears the endless burden of unrepayable debt and usury."

With banks loaning money into the economy, more was "owed back in principle and interest than was lent in the original loans (so) there was never enough in circulation to pay interest and still keep workers fully employed." Unlike banks, government can both lend and spend money in circulation - enough to pay "interest due on the money it lent, (keep) the money supply in 'proper proportion' and (prevent) the 'impossible contract' problem (of having) more money owed back on loans than was created (from) the loans themselves."

Franklin's efforts notwithstanding, the Bank of England got Parliament to pass a Currency Act making it illegal for the colonies to issue their own money. It turned prosperity into poverty because the money supply was halved with not enough to pay for goods and services. According to Franklin:

"the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament" got colonists to hate the British enough to spark the Revolutionary War. "The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters (if) England (hadn't taken their money), which created unemployment and dissatisfaction." So much that outraged people again issued their own money in spite of the ban. As a result, they successfully financed a war against a major power - with almost no hard currency and no taxation. Thomas Paine called it the Revolution's "corner stone."

However, British bankers responded by attacking its "competitor's currency," the Continental, driving down its value by flooding the colonies with counterfeit scrip. It was "battered but remained stable." Where Britain failed, speculators succeeded - "mostly northeastern bankers, stockbrokers and businessmen, who bought up the revolutionary currency at a fraction of its value after convincing people it would be worthless after the war." It had "to compete with states' paper notes and British bankers' gold and silver coins....The problem might have been avoided by making the Continental the sole official currency, but the Continental Congress (didn't have) the power to enforce" such an order - with no courts, police or authority to collect taxes "to redeem the notes or contract the money supply."

Having just rebelled against British taxation, colonists weren't about to let Congress tax them. Speculators took advantage and traded Continentals at discounts enough to make them worthless and give rise to the expression "not worth a Continental."

How the Government Was Persuaded to Borrow Its Own Money

John Adams once said: "there are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." The latter method is stealth enough so people don't know what's happening and submit to their own bondage. Openly, nothing seems changed, yet a whole new system becomes master "in the form of debts and taxes" that people think are for their own good, not tribute to their captors. That's today's America writ large.

After the Revolutionary War, "British bankers and their Wall Street vassals" pulled it off by acquiring a controlling interest in the new United States Bank. It discredited paper scrip through rampant Continental counterfeiting and so disillusioned the Founders that they omitted mentioning paper money in the Constitution. Congress was given power to "coin money (and) regulate the value thereof, (and) to borrow money on the credit of the United States...." It left enough wiggle room for bankers to exploit to their advantage - but only because Congress and the president let them.

Alexander Hamilton bears much blame, the nation's first Treasury Secretary and Tim Geithner of his day (1789 - 1795). He argued that America needed a monetary system independent of foreign control, and that required a federal central bank - to handle war debts and create a standard form of currency. In 1791, it was created, hailed at the time as a "brilliant solution to the nation's economic straits, one that disposed of an oppressive national debt, stabilized the economy, funded the government's budget, and created confidence in the new paper dollars....It got the country up and running, but left the bank largely in private hands" - to be manipulated for private gain, much like today. Worse still, "the government ended up in debt for money it could have generated itself."

Instead, it had to pay interest on its own money in lieu of creating it interest free. Today, Hamilton is acclaimed as a model Treasury Secretary. For Jefferson, he was a "diabolical schemer, a British stooge pursuing a political agenda for his own ends." He modeled the Bank of the United States on the Bank of England against which colonists rebelled. It so angered Jefferson that he told Washington he was a traitor. It fostered a bitter feud between them with Jefferson ultimately prevailing.

Hamilton's Federalist Party disappeared after 1820 while Jefferson and Madison's Democratic-Republicans became the forerunner of today's Democrats after the party split into two factions, the Whigs no longer in existence and Jacksonians that by 1844 officially became the Democratic Party. Shamefully they veered far from Jacksonian and Jeffersonian principles.

For his part, Hamilton wasn't entirely bad. He stabilized the new economy and got the country on its feet. He restored the nation's credit, established a national currency, and made it economically independent. However, his legacy has a dark side - a "privileged class of financial middlemen (henceforth able) to siphon off a perpetual tribute in the form of interest." He delivered money power into private hands, "subservient to an elite class of oligarchical financiers," the same Wall Street types today holding the entire nation hostage - in permanent debt bondage.

From Abundance to Debt

Charging excessive interest is called "usury," but originally it meant charging anything for the use of money. The Christian Bible banned it, and the Catholic Church enforced anti-usury laws through the end of the Middle Ages.

Old Testament scripture was more lenient, prohibiting it only between "brothers." Charging it to foreigners was allowed and encouraged, which is why Jews unfairly were called "moneychangers." They, like others, suffered greatly from money-lending schemes. For centuries, they were "persecuted for the profiteering of a few," then scapegoated to divert attention from the real offenders.

Fiat money is legal tender by government decree - a simple tally representing units of value to be traded for goods and services. Paper money was invented in 9th century Mandarin China and successfully used to fund its long and prosperous empire. The same was true in medieval England. The tally system worked well for over five centuries before banker-controlled paper money began demanding payment in the form of interest.

History portrays the Middle Ages as backward, impoverishing, and a form of economic enslavement only the Industrial Revolution changed. In fact, the era was entirely different, characterized by 19th century historian Thorold Rogers as a time when "a labourer could provide all the necessities for his family for a year by working 14 weeks," leaving nearly nine discretionary months to work for himself, study, fish, travel, or do what he pleased, something today's overworked, over-stressed, underpaid workers can't imagine.

Some attribute Middle Age prosperity to the absence of usurious lending. Instead of paying tribute in the form of interest, "people relied largely on interest-free tallies." They avoided depressions and inflation since the supply and demand for goods and services grew in proportion to each other, thus holding prices stable. "The tally system provided an organic form of money that expanded naturally as trade (did) and contracted (the same way) as taxes were paid."

No bankers set interest rates or manipulated markets to their advantage. The tally system kept Britain stable and thriving until the mid-17th century, "when Oliver Cromwell (1599 - 1658)....needed money to fund a revolt against the Tudor monarchy."

The Moneylenders Take Over England

In the 19th century, the Rothchild banking family's Nathan Rothchild said it well:

"I care not what puppet (sits on) the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British empire, and I (when he ran the Bank of England) control the British money supply."

Centuries early, moneylender power was absent. But after the 1666 Coinage Act, money-issuing authority, once the sole right of kings, was transferred into private hands. "Bankers now had the power to cause inflations and depressions at will by issuing or withholding their gold coins."

King William III (1672 - 1702), a Dutch aristocrat, financed his war against France by borrowing 1.2 million pounds in gold in a secret transaction with moneylenders, the arrangement being a permanent loan on which debt would be serviced and its principle never repaid. It came with other strings as well:

-- lenders got a charter to establish the Bank of England (in 1694) with monopoly power to issue banknotes as national paper currency;

-- it created them out of nothing, with only a fraction of them as reserves;

-- loans to the government were to be backed by government IOUs to serve as reserves for creating additional loans to private borrowers; and

-- lenders could consolidate the national debt on their government loan to secure payment through people-extracted taxes.

It was a prescription for huge profits and "substantial political leverage. The Bank's charter gave the force of law to the 'fractional reserve' banking scheme that put control of the country's money" in private hands. It let the Bank of England create money out of nothing and charge interest for loans to the government and others - the same practice central banks now employ.

For the next century, banknotes and tallies circulated interchangeably even though they weren't a compatible means of exchange. Banker money expanded when "credit expanded and contracted when loans were canceled or 'called,' producing cycles of 'tight' money and depression alternating with 'easy' money and inflation." In contrast, tallies were permanent, stable, fixed money, making banknotes look bad so they had to go.

For another reason as well - because of King William's disputed throne and fear if he were deposed, moneylenders again might be banned. They used their influence to legalize banknotes as the money of the realm called "funded" debt with tallies referred to as "unfunded," what historians see as the beginning of a "Financial Revolution." In the end, "tallies met the same fate as witches - death by fire."

They were money of the people competing with moneylending bankers. After 1834 monetary reform, "tally sticks went up in flames in a huge bonfire started in a House of Lords stove." Ironically, it got out of control and burned down Westminster Palace and both Houses of Parliament, symbolically ending "an equitable era of trade (by transferring power) from the government to the" central bank.

Henceforth, private bankers kept government in debt, never demanding the return of principle, and profiting by extracting interest, a very lucrative system always paying off "like a slot machine" rigged to benefit its operators. It became the basis for modern central banking, lending its "own notes (printed paper money), which the government swaps for bonds (its promises to pay) and circulates as a national currency."

Government debt is never repaid. It's continually rolled over and serviced, today with no gold in reserve to back it. Though gone, tallies left their mark. The word "stock" comes from the tally stick. Much of the original Bank of England stock was bought with these sticks. In addition, stock issuance began during the Middle Ages as a way to finance businesses when no interest-bearing loans were allowed.

In America, "usury banks fought for control for two centuries before" getting it under the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. An issue that once "defined American politics," today is no longer a topic for debate. It's about time it was reopened.

Jefferson and Jackson Sound the Alarm

Moneylenders conquered Britain, then aimed to entrap America - by provoking "a series of wars. British financiers funded the opposition to the American War for Independence, the War of 1812, and both sides of the American Civil War." They caused inflation, heavy government debt, the chartering of the Bank of the United States to fund it, thus giving private interests the power to create money.

Jefferson opposed the first US Bank, Jackson the second, and both for similar reasons:

-- distrust of profiteers controlling the nation's money; and

-- concern about the nation's banking system falling into foreign hands.

Jefferson got Congress to refuse to renew the first US Bank charter in 1811 and learned on liquidation that two-thirds of its owners were foreigners, mostly English and Dutch and none more influential than the Rothschilds. Later, Madison signed a 20-year charter. However, when Congress renewed it, Jackson vetoed it.

The Powerful Rothschild Family

The House of Rothschild was British in name only. In the mid-18th century, it was founded in Frankfort, Germany by Mayer Amschel Bauer, who changed his name to Rothschild, fathered 10 children, and sent his five sons to open branch banks in major European capitals. Nathan was the most astute and went to London. "Over the course of the nineteenth century, NM Rothschild would become the biggest bank in the world, and the five brothers would come to control most of the foreign-loan business of Europe."

Belatedly, Jefferson caught on to the scheme - that "private debt masquerading as paper money....owed to bankers" placed the nation in bondage. In his words, "deliver(ing) itself bound hand and foot to bold and bankrupt adventurers and bankers...." Jefferson's idea for a national bank was a wholly government-owned one issuing its own credit without having to borrow it from private interests.

Jackson believed the same thing in calling the Bank of the United States "a hydra-headed monster." When the bank charter was renewed, he promptly vetoed it, yet understood that the battle was just beginning. "The hydra of corruption is only scotched, not dead," he said.

He was right. The Bank's second president, Nicolas Biddle, retaliated "by sharply contracting the money supply. Old loans were called in and new ones refused. A financial panic ensued, followed by a deep economic depression." However, Biddle's victory was short-lived. In April 1834, the House rejected re-chartering the Bank, then January 1835 became Jackson's "finest hour."

He did something never done before or since. He paid off the first installment of the national debt, then reduced it to zero and accumulated a surplus. In 1836, the Bank's charter expired. Biddle was arrested and charged with fraud. He was tried and acquitted but spent the rest of his life in litigation over what he'd done. "Jackson had beaten the Bank." Imagine today if Obama defeated the Fed and its Wall Street puppeteers instead of embracing them with limitless riches.

Lincoln Foils the Bankers and Pays with His Life

Like Jackson, Lincoln faced assassination attempts, before even being inaugurated. "He had to deal with treason, insurrection, and national bankruptcy" during his first days in office. Considering the powerful forces against him, his achievements were all the more remarkable:

-- he built the world's largest army;

-- "smashed the British-financed insurrection,"

-- took the first steps to abolish slavery; it became official on December 6, 1865 when the 13th Amendment was ratified, eight months after Lincoln was assassinated;

-- during and after his tenure, the country became "the greatest industrial giant" in the world;

-- "the steel industry was launched; a continental railroad system was created; the Department of Agriculture was established; a new era of farm machinery and cheap tools was promoted;"

-- the Land Grant College system established free higher education;

-- the Homestead Act gave settlers ownership rights and encouraged new land development;

-- government supported all branches of science;

-- "standardization and mass production was promoted worldwide;"

-- labor productivity increased by 50 - 75%; and

-- still more was accomplished "with a Treasury that was completely broke and a Congress that hadn't been paid" as a result.

It was because the government issued its own money. "National control was reestablished over banking, and the economy was jump-started with a 600 percent increase in government spending and cheap credit directed at production." Roosevelt did the same thing with borrowed money. Lincoln did it with United States Notes called Greenbacks. They financed the war, paid the troops, spurred the nation's growth, and did what hasn't been done since - let the government print its own money, free from banker-controlled debt slavery, the very system strangling us today the way Lincoln feared would happen.

His advisor was Henry Carey, a man historian Vernon Parrington called "our first professional economist." Lincoln endorsed his prescription:

-- "government regulation of banking and credit to deter speculation and encourage economic development;"

-- its support for science, public education and national infrastructure development;

-- "regulation of privately-held infrastructure to ensure it met the nation's needs;"

-- government-sponsored railroads and "scientific and other aid to small farmers;"

-- "taxation and tariffs to protect and promote productive domestic activity;" and

-- "rejection of class wars, exploitation and slavery, physical or economic, in favor of a 'Harmony of Interests' between capital and labor."

Leaders like Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln are sorely missed, but for Lincoln it was costly.

He Loses the Battle with "the Masters of European Finance"

German Chancellor Otto von Bismark (1815 - 1898) called them that in explaining how they engineered the "rupture between the North and the South" to use it to their advantage, then later wrote in 1876:

"The Government and the nation escaped the plots of the foreign bankers. They understood at once that the United States would escape their grip. The death of Lincoln was resolved upon." The last Civil War battle ended on May 13, 1865. Lincoln was assassinated on April 15.

European bankers tried but failed to trap him "with usurious war loans," at 24 - 36% interest had he agreed. Using government-issued Greenbacks shut them out entirely, so they determined to fight back - eliminate the thorn, then get banker-friendly legislation passed, achieved through the National Bank Act reversing the Greenback Law. It was "only a compromise with bankers, (but) buried in the fine print," they got what they wanted.

Although the Controller of the Currency got to issue new national banknotes, it was just a formality. In fact, the new law "authorized the bankers to issue and lend their own paper money." They "deposited" bonds with the Treasury, but owned them so "immediately got their money back in the form of their own banknotes." It was an exclusive franchise to control the nation's money forcing government back into debt bondage where it never had to be in the first place. A whole series of private banks were then chartered, all empowered to create money in lieu of debt free Greenbacks.

One other president confronted bankers and paid dearly as well - James Garfield. In 1881, he charged:

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce....And when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."

Garfield took office on March 4, 1881. On July 2, he was shot. He survived the next two and half months, then died on September 19. It was a time of depression, mass unemployment, poverty, and starvation with no safety net protections. "The country was facing poverty amidst plenty," because bankers controlled money and kept too little of it in circulation - an avoidable problem if government printed its own.

Gold v. Inflation - Debunking Common Fallacies

The classical "quantity theory of money" holds that "too much money chasing too few goods" causes inflation, excess demand over supply forcing up prices. The counter argument is that if paper money is tied to gold, an inflation-free stable money supply will result. Another fallacy is that adding money (demand) raises prices only if supply remains fixed.

In fact, if new money creates new goods and services, prices stay stable. For thousands of years, the Chinese kept prices of its products low in spite of their money supply being "flooded with the world's gold and silver, and now with the world's dollars....to pay for China's cheap products."

What's important is not what money consists of but who creates it. "Whether the medium of exchange (is) gold or paper or numbers in a ledger," when created by and owed to private lenders with interest, "more money would always be owed back than was created...spiraling the economy into perpetual debt....whether the money takes the form of gold or paper or accounting entries."

Today's popularism is associated with the political left. However, 19th century Populists saw "a darker, more malevolent force....private money power and the corporations it had spawned, which was threatening to take over the government unless the people intervened."

Lincoln also feared it saying:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few and the Republic is destroyed."

Today's America is the reality he feared. A tiny elite own the vast majority of the nation's wealth in the form of stocks, bonds, real estate, natural resources, business assets and other investments. In contrast, 90% of Americans have little or no net worth. Of all developed nations, concentrated wealth and inequality extremes are greatest here with powerful bankers sitting atop the pyramid, now more than ever with their new riches extracted from public tax dollars and Fed-created money.

Is Economics Rational???

Classical/neoclassical economics has consistently protected the wealth of the privileged; it has preserved the status quo. This is capitalism's intent, and the evidence for it is overwhelming. It has impeded the improvement of the human condition for two hundred years, and unless it is scrapped, it will continue to do so. No mere change in government can stop it.

Aristotle defined human beings as rational animals, and even today, few people would openly describe themselves as irrational; yet many are. Even so, people don't generally go around calling their decisions, choices, and expectations rational or calling what they do rational activity. Except, that is, economists! They modify sundry and diverse nouns with "rational." In a short search of a few documents, the nouns actors, calculations, choices, decisions, expectations, firms, foundations, investors, outcomes, prices, responses, self-interest, societies, systems, and workers are all modified by "rational," and some seem oxymoronic when so modified. For instance, how is it possible to have an irrational self-interest? And if that isn't possible, what sense does modifying "self-interest" with "rational" make? Why economists feel the need to continually cite the rationality of classical economics is curious. Astronomers, physicists, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, engineers, and others have never felt a similar need. Physicists never speak of rational forces, rational particles, or rational mass. Chemists don't speak of rational reactions. Mathematicians never speak of rational calculations. One begins to wonder whether economists can be likened to the proverbial errant child who almost automatically utters, "I didn't do it!" when everyone knows that s/he did. One wonders whether they continually call themselves and economics rational because that's the only exculpatory response they can think of when what they proclaim turns out, as it so often does, to be wrong.

But if rationality is a human attribute, it is at best a latent one. Activating it requires care and nurture. And some studies have suggested that the ability to activate it declines as people age. Anyone who has tried to teach even basic logic to college students knows that most never acquire enough facility to become even moderately proficient. Many professors who are tasked with teaching it lack the ability to construct even moderately advanced chains of valid reasoning, and for decades, the most used textbook for such courses presented a set of logical rules so deficient that even if a student mastered them all, s/he would have been unable to apply them efficiently. Furthermore the findings of psychologists who have devised experiments to measure rationality claim to have shown that few people consistently behave in rational ways. But this finding is not interesting. Who, other than economists, hasn't known it? Even Aristotle must have known it more than two millennia ago; after all, he was familiar with the irrational claims Plato clearly exposed in his Socratic Dialogues. So the acute question is why economists don't know it, why they persist in accepting classical economic theory?

Those psychological experiments, however, when examined carefully are difficult to interpret. Although the psychologists claim to be measuring rationality, what, if anything, is really being measured is not easily seen. For instance, Prof. Daniel Kahneman is reported to have devised this experiment:

"let's take two groups of people and ask the first if the tallest tree in the world is taller than 300 meters. Then let's ask them how tall the tallest tree in the world is. Then we repeat the exercise with the second group, asking them whether the tallest tree in the world is taller than 200 meters, and then how tall it is. At the end of the experiment, we find that the first group's average answer to the second question is, around 300 meters, and the second's is around 200 meters. Why? [Because] People tend to latch on to a certain 'anchor"—usually one they come across by chance—instead of trying to use a more rational way to gather and process data and make economic decisions." [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1077151.html]

But it is difficult to see how this experiment proves anything about rationality. The experiment requires the participants to merely guess, and guessing is not a rational activity. No rational participant would have even answered the initial question. S/he would have responded by asking something like, How would I know?, and the experiment would have collapsed.

But other experiments are more revealing. For instance,

"One of the more compelling studies described . . . involved trick-or-treaters. A few Halloweens ago, Ariely laid in a supply of Hershey's Kisses and two kinds of Snickers—regular two-ounce bars and one-ounce miniatures. When the first children came to his door, he handed each of them three Kisses, then offered to make a deal. If they wanted to, the kids could trade one Kiss for a mini-Snickers or two Kisses for a full-sized bar. Almost all of them . . . opted for the two-Kiss trade. At some point, Ariely shifted the terms: kids could now trade one of their three Kisses for the larger bar or get a mini-Snickers without giving up anything. In terms of sheer chocolatiness, the trade for the larger bar was still by far the better deal. But, faced with the prospect of getting a mini-Snickers for nothing, the trick-or-treaters could no longer reckon properly. Most of them refused the trade, even though it cost them candy. Ariely speculates that behind the kids' miscalculation was anxiety. As he puts it, “There's no visible possibility of loss when we choose a FREE! item (it's free).” Tellingly, when Ariely performed a similar experiment on adults, they made the same mistake. “If I were to distill one main lesson from the research described..., it is that we are all pawns in a game whose forces we largely fail to comprehend.”

[http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2008/02/25/080225crbo_books_kolbert]

What are the problems with this experiment? There is absolutely no evidence that any child or adult involved did any "reckoning," and if no reckoning took place, no "miscalculation" could possibly have occurred. After all, people do make choices on impulse. So how does this experiment prove anything about rationality?

Just ask how a calculation, choice, decision, expectation, outcome, responses, or anything else can be determined to be rational. The only answer is by examining the reasoning process that led to it. But the experiment was built in a way that made any examination of any reasoning involved impossible. The description above says that when the experiment was performed on adults, "they made the same mistake," that is, they selected the free bite-sized Snickers bar. The "mistake" was that they didn't select the larger bar and maximize the amount of chocolate they were receiving. But what if they didn't want to maximize the amount of chocolate? Suppose, for instance, that an adult desired more chocolate than was in the three Hershey Kisses but was also trying to lose weight and didn't want to over indulge. Or suppose that an adult wanted more chocolate, didn't want to eat it immediately, but instead, wanted to put it in a pocket but had no available pocket large enough in which to comfortably place the larger bar. Or again, suppose that an adult wanted more chocolate but wanted to eat it in one bite so that his hands were free for other tasks. In all three of these cases, selecting the mini-Snickers was the rational choice. The mistake made in this experiment was made by the designer, not the participants. He assumed that the only rational choice was the one that maximized the amount of chocolate obtained. But rationality cannot be determined by arbitrary definition. Rationality is an attribute of deliberative processes and nothing that does not involve a deliberative process can be called rational. Human beings do engage in thoughtless activities. When doing so, they are not engaged in rational behavior. But they also sometimes think about what they are doing. When their thinking conforms to well-known norms of logic and is based on true premises, it is rational, when it doesn't, it is not. The thinking, not the result, is the deciding factor.

This experiment, however, is revealing, because economists do exactly what the experiment's designer has done. Defining the maximization of the amount of chocolate is perfectly analogous to maximizing one's income, and economists define that result as the only possibly rational one. Thus everything economists describe as rational is mere tautology. Unfortunately tautological theories, being hollow, are not rational, so neither are classical economics and the economists who advocate it.

In fact, rationality is a poorly understood concept. Consider this quotation from the Haaretz article cited above:

"Psychology today differentiates between two methods of thinking: There is the intuitive method, and there is the rational one. The intuitive method is characterized by rapid learning, and it concludes very quickly that what has happened the last three times will happen forever, again and again."

But what is here described as the intuitive method is nothing but an example of a well-known fallacious mode of reasoning known as hasty generalization, so what is described as "two methods of thinking" amounts to nothing more than good and bad, which is hardly a remarkable observation.

In fact, none of the fifteen nouns mentioned in the first paragraph that economists modify with "rational" are rational in themselves. They can only be called rational after the deliberative processes that lead to them have been examined, but no economic theory could ever do that. And to merely assume they are rational when they lead to a predefined result is as irrational as making choices on impulse. So why do economists believe in their theory?

Once put into practice, rational people judge theories, policies, and practices by how well they satisfy the intentions which led to their implementations. Unless the intentions are known, no sound judgment can be made. For instance, some years ago the Congress enacted harsh, mandatory sentencing of criminals. What was the Congress' intent? If the intent was to reduce crime, the policy has failed. If the intent was to merely punish criminals, it might be said to have succeeded. But what is some Congressmen intended the former and some the latter?

When we look at classical/neoclassical economics, how can it's intent be determined? In the absence of any stated purpose, one can examine the things it does and those it doesn't. In the two plus centuries it has been practiced, orthodox classical capitalism has not brought a growing or even a stable level of prosperity to the peoples who inhabit the countries in which it has been practiced. Spurts of apparent prosperity have been continuously destroyed by economic crashes that have over and over again ruined the lives of millions.

But what if its intent has never been the promotion of the people's prosperity? What, if any, result has it attained consistently? Well, it has consistently protected the wealth of the privileged; it has preserved the status quo. The wealthy privileged increase their wealth in good times and in bad. The system works for the privileged just as the market works for stock brokers who make money when prices are rising and when they are falling. If this is capitalism's intent, and the evidence for it is overwhelming, understanding the Obama administration's, and the developed world's, response to the current economic downturn is easy. As the meager apparent wealth that the common people acquired during the better years now disappears, as they lose their jobs and homes, the wealthy institutions and the people who manage them and created the downturn are rewarded and prevented from failing by obligating the common people to someday repaying a growing colossal national debt incurred for the sake of those privileged. None of this makes sense unless capitalism's intention is to preserve the status quo at the people's expense.

Of course, we're told that a stable financial system is essential to economic prosperity. We're told that credit must be easily acquired again, so that businesses can meet payroll and consumers can resume buying. But these claims are also irrational. Businesses properly should be capitalized by investment and products should be purchased with earnings. So why do governments claim businesses and consumption need to be financed by debt? The answer is really very simple. The wealthy increase their wealth by lending and they do it without even having to use their own money by means of the Ponzi scheme known as fractional reserve banking. And when debtors cannot meet their obligations, their assets are acquired by the wealthy at fire sale prices who then become even wealthier. This is what capitalism does; it does it consistently and spectacularly. It really can have no other purpose. Credit is good only for creditors; debtors always lose.

What is there about this that economists cannot understand? Are they absolutely irrational or complicit? Each must answer for him/herself. But the economic system they advocate is nothing but an irrational tower of Babel that is based on principles derived from simplistic, imaginary situations and assumptions about rationality that are contradicted by hundreds of years of evidence, and is devoted to the worship of Mammon which benefits only the rich. Capitalism has been very successful; it has impeded the improvement of the human condition for two hundred years, and unless it is scrapped, it will continue to do so. No mere change in government can stop it.

What caused the Economic Crisis?

Warren Buffett called them “weapons of mass destruction” in 2003.

President Bush said they had to be regulated.

So did the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the current head of the Federal reserve.

As did the G-20 group of the world's 20 richest nations.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan - after being one of their biggest cheerleaders - now says they are dangerous.

And a Nobel prize-winning economist said they should be “blown up or burned”, and we should start fresh.

What Are They Talking About?

What are the above-listed folks talking about?

A financial instrument called “credit default swaps” (CDS for short).

CDS are like an insurance contract, where the purchaser buys "insurance" that a company won't go out of business from a seller. If the company stays in business, the purchaser pays premiums to the seller, but if the company goes belly up, the seller has to pay the face value of the CDS "policy".

Why are CDS so dangerous?

According to the experts, CDS were largely responsible for bringing down Bear Stearns, AIG (and see this) and other giant financial companies.

Indeed, many leading experts say that CDS were the main cause of the financial crisis. As just 3 examples:

Newsweek called CDS "The Monster that Ate Wall Street"
Former SEC chairman Christopher Cox said "The virtually unregulated over-the-counter market in credit-default swaps has played a significant role in the credit crisis''
And - as mentioned above- a Nobel economist is so concerned about them that he thinks that existing CDS contracts must be "blown up or burned"
I'll explain the reason that CDS are so dangerous in a future post (basically, they let the financial players to pretend that they had less risk, less stretched-too-thin leverage, and more stability then they really did). But for now, just keep in mind that some of the world's top financial experts say that they are extremely dangerous. They are not the only cause of the financial crisis, but they are one of the main causes.

But At Least the Risk from CDS is Over, Right?

But at least the risks from CDS are over, right?

Not exactly . . .

Credit default swaps continue to bring down large companies, partly because they make it less likely that the companies can restructure.

And one of the main reasons that banks have been hoarding the bailout money instead of lending to consumers it because of CDS.Wall Street firms and banks have been hoarding cash. As the Financial Times wrote on October 7th:

Banks are hoarding cash in expectation of pay-outs on up to $400bn (£230bn) of defaulted credit derivatives linked to Lehman Brothers and other institutions, according to analysts and -dealers.

And as Fox News put it:

Massive positions are just starting to be unwound in the credit default swaps market as tens of billions of dollars worth of these contracts are now getting settled in the aftermath of several high-profile flops.

Banks are hoarding cash in expectation of expected payouts on anywhere from $200bn to $1 tn–no one knows the amount, adding to volatility–for defaulted credit derivatives linked to the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the government's seizure of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government's rescue of American International Group, and the failure of Washington Mutual.

And guess where most of the AIG bailout went? Yup - to corporations which bought CDS from AIG. $13 billion dollars worth of the bailout money paid to AIG went to Goldman Sachs for CDS contracts. $40 billion dollars worth of AIG's bailout money (and see this) went to foreign banks for CDS contracts. (Even AIG's former chief said that the government used AIG "to funnel money to other institutions, including foreign banks").

Unless something is done to change things, taxpayers may have to continue shelling out bailout money to keep bailing out CDS contract-holders.

Well, At Least the Regulators are Bringing CDS Under control so That They Can't Cause Damage Indefinitely. Right?

Unfortunately, regulators have so far caved into lobbying pressure from those in the CDS industry, and have failed to take any decisive action to reign CDS in.

As Newsweek writes:

Major Wall Street players are digging in against fundamental changes. And while it clearly wants to install serious supervision, the Obama administration—along with other key authorities like the New York Fed—appears willing to stand back while Wall Street resurrects much of the ultracomplex global trading system that helped lead to the worst financial collapse since the Depression.

At issue is whether trading in credit default swaps and other derivatives—and the giant, too-big-to-fail firms that traded them—will be allowed to dominate the financial landscape again once the crisis passes. As things look now, that is likely to happen. And the firms may soon be recapitalized and have a lot more sway in Washington—all of it courtesy of their supporters in the Obama administration...

The financial industry isn't leaving anything to chance, however. One sign of a newly assertive Wall Street emerged recently when a bevy of bailed-out firms, including Citigroup, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs, formed a new lobby calling itself the Coalition for Business Finance Reform. Its goal: to stand against heavy regulation of "over-the-counter" derivatives, in other words customized contracts that are traded off an exchange...

Geithner's new rules would allow the over-the-counter market to boom again, orchestrated by global giants that will continue to be "too big to fail" (they may have to be rescued again someday, in other words). And most of it will still occur largely out of sight of regulated exchanges...

The old culture is reasserting itself with a vengeance. All of which runs up against the advice now being dispensed by many of the experts who were most prescient about the crash and its causes—the outsiders, in other words, as opposed to the insiders who are still running the show.

Credit default swaps may continue to deepen the economic crisis and prevent a recovery - and cause future crises - unless regulators stand up to the lobbyists and take real action to reign them in.

Obama's Cockeyed Optimism

Retail sales fell in March as soaring job losses and tighter credit conditions forced consumers to cut back sharply on discretionary spending. Nearly every sector saw declines including electronics, restaurants, furniture, sporting goods and building materials. Auto sales continued their historic nosedive despite aggressive promotions on new vehicles and $13 billion of aid from the federal government. The crash in housing, which began in July 2006, accelerated on the downside in March, falling 19 percent year-over-year, signaling more pain ahead. Mortgage defaults are rising and foreclosures in 2009 are estimated to be in the 2.1 million range, an uptick of 400,000 from 2008. Consumer spending is down, housing is in a shambles, and industrial output dropped at an annual rate of 20 percent, the largest quarterly decrease since VE Day. The systemwide contraction continues unabated with with no sign of letting up.

Conditions in the broader economy are now vastly different than those on Wall Street, where the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrials have rallied for 5 weeks straight regaining more than 25 percent of earlier losses. Fed chief Ben Bernanke's $13 trillion in monetary stimulus has triggered a rebound in the stock market while Main Street continues to languish on life-support waiting for Obama's $787 billion fiscal stimulus to kick in and compensate for falling demand and rising unemployment. The rally on Wall Street indicates that Bernanke's flood of liquidity is creating a bubble in stocks since present values do not reflect underlying conditions in the economy. The fundamentals haven't been this bad since the 1930s.

The financial media is abuzz with talk of a recovery as equities inch their way higher every week. CNBC's Jim Cramer, the hyperventilating ringleader of "Fast Money", announced last week, "I am pronouncing the depression is over." Cramer and his clatter of media cheerleaders ignore the fact that every sector of the financial system is now propped up with Fed loans and T-Bills without which the fictive free market would collapse in a heap. For 19 months, Bernanke has kept a steady stream of liquidity flowing from the vault at the US Treasury to the NYSE in downtown Manhattan. The Fed has recapitalized financial institutions via its low interest rates, its multi-trillion dollar lending facilities, and its direct purchase of US sovereign debt and Fannie Mae mortgage-backed securities. (Monetization) The Fed's balance sheet has become a dumping ground for all manner of toxic waste and putrid debt-instruments for which there is no active market. When foreign central banks and investors realize that US currency is backed by dodgy subprime collateral; there will be a run on the dollar followed by a stampede out of US equities. Even so, Bernanke assures his critics that "the foundations of our economy are strong".

As for the recovery, market analyst Edward Harrison sums it up like this:

"This is a fake recovery because the underlying systemic issues in the financial sector are being papered over through various mechanisms designed to surreptitiously recapitalize banks while monetary and fiscal stimulus induces a rebound before many banks' inherent insolvency becomes a problem. This means the banking system will remain weak even after recovery takes hold. The likely result of the weak system will be a relapse into a depression-like circumstances once the temporary salve of stimulus has worn off. Note that this does not preclude stocks from large rallies or a new bull market from forming because as unsustainable as the recovery may be, it will be a recovery nonetheless." (Edward Harrison, "The Fake Recovery", Credit Writedowns)

The rally in the stock market will not fix the banking system, slow the crash in housing, patch-together tattered household balance sheets, repair failing industries or reverse the precipitous decline in consumer confidence. The rising stock market merely indicates that profit-driven speculators are back in business taking advantage of the Fed's lavish capital injections which are propelling equities into the stratosphere. Meanwhile, the unemployment lines continue to swell, the food banks continue to run dry and the homeless shelters continue to burst at the seams. So far, $12 trillion has been pumped into the financial system while less than $450 billion fiscal stimulus has gone to the "real" economy where workers are struggling just to keep food on the table. The Fed's priorities are directed at the investor class not the average working Joe. Bernanke is trying to keep Wall Street happy by goosing asset values with cheap capital, but the increases to the money supply are putting more downward pressure on the dollar. The Fed chief has also begun purchasing US Treasuries, which is the equivalent of writing a check to oneself to cover an overdraft in one's own account. This is the kind of gibberish that passes as sound economic policy. The Fed is incapable if fixing the problem because the Fed is the problem.


Last week, the market shot up on news that Wells Fargo's first quarter net income rose 50 percent to $3 billion pushing the stock up 30 percent in one session. The financial media celebrated the triumph in typical manner by congratulating everyone on set and announcing that a market "bottom" had been reached . The news on Wells Fargo was repeated ad nauseam for two days even though everyone knows that the big banks are holding hundreds of billions in mortgage-backed assets which are marked way above their true value and that gigantic losses are forthcoming. Naturally, the skeptics were kept off-camera or lambasted by toothy anchors as doomsayers and Cassandras. Regretably, creative accounting and media spin can only work for so long. Eventually the banks will have to write down their losses and raise more capital. Wells Fargo slipped the noose this time, but next time might not be so lucky. Here's how Bloomberg sums up wells situation:

"Wells Fargo & Co., the second biggest U.S. home lender, may need $50 billion to pay back the federal government and cover loan losses as the economic slump deepens, according to KBW Inc.'s Frederick Cannon.

KBW expects $120 billion of “stress” losses at Wells Fargo, assuming the recession continues through the first quarter of 2010 and unemployment reaches 12 percent, Cannon wrote today in a report. The San Francisco-based bank may need to raise $25 billion on top of the $25 billion it owes the U.S. Treasury for the industry bailout plan, he wrote.


“Details were scarce and we believe that much of the positive news in the preliminary results had to do with merger accounting, revised accounting standards and mortgage default moratoriums, rather than underlying trends,” wrote Cannon, who downgraded the shares to “underperform” from “market perform.” “We expect earnings and capital to be under pressure due to continued economic weakness.”


What happened to all those nonperforming loans and garbage MBS? Did they simply vanish into the New York ether? Could Wells sudden good fortune have something to do with the recent FASB changes to accounting guidelines on "mark to market" which allow banks greater flexibility in assigning a value to their assets? Also, Judging by the charts on the Internet, Wells appears to have the smallest "ratio of loan loss reserves" of the four biggest banks. That's hardly reassuring.

http://www.housingwire.com/2009/04/09/credit-cost-smoke-at-mirrors-at-wells-fargo/


Paul Krugman takes an equally skeptical view of the Wells report:

"About those great numbers from Wells Fargo....remember, reported profits aren't a hard number; they involve a lot of assumptions. And at least some analysts are saying that the Wells assumptions about loan losses look, um, odd. Maybe, maybe not; but you do have to say that it would be awfully convenient for banks to sound the all clear right now, just when the question of how tough the Obama administration will really get is hanging in the balance."

The banks are all playing the same game of hide-n-seek, trying to hoodwink the public into thinking they are in a stronger capital position than they really are. It's just more Wall Street chicanery papered over with vapid media propaganda. The giant brokerage houses and the financial media are two spokes on the same wheel gliding along in perfect harmony. Unfortunately, media fanfare and massaging the numbers won't pull the economy out of its downward spiral or bring about a long-term recovery. That will take fiscal policy, jobs programs, debt relief, mortgage writedowns and a progressive plan to rebuild the nation's economy on a solid foundation of productivity and regular wage increases. So far, the Obama administration has focused all its attention and resources on the financial system rather than working people. That won't fix the problem.

Deflation has latched on to the economy like a pitbull on a porkchop. Food and fuel prices fell in March by 0.1 percent while unemployment continued its slide towards 10 percent. Wholesale prices fell by the most in the last 12 months since 1950. According to MarketWatch, "Industrial production is down 13.3% since the recession began in December 2007, the largest percentage decline since the end of World War II"....The capacity utilization rate for total industry fell further to 69.3 percent, a historical low for this series, which begins in 1967." (Federal Reserve) The persistent fall in housing prices (30 percent) and losses in home equity only add to deflationary pressures. The wind is exiting the humongous credit bubble in one great gust.


Obama's $787 billion stimulus is too small to take up the slack in a $14 trillion per year economy where manufacturing and industrial capacity have slipped to record lows and unemployment is rising at 650,000 per month. High unemployment is lethal to an economy where consumer spending is 72 percent of GDP. Without debt relief and mortgage cram-downs, consumption will sputter and corporate profits will continue to shrink. S&P 500 companies have already seen a 37 percent drop in corporate profits. Unless the underlying issues of debt relief and wages are dealt with, the present trends will persist. Growth is impossible when workers are broke and can't afford to buy the things the make.

The stimulus must be increased to a size where it can do boost economic activity and create enough jobs to get over the hump. Yale economics professor Robert Schiller makes the case for more stimulus in his Bloomberg commentary on Tuesday:


"In the Great Depression ... the U.S. government had a great deal of trouble maintaining its commitment to economic stimulus. 'Pump- priming' was talked about and tried, but not consistently. The Depression could have been mostly prevented, but wasn't.... In the face of a similar Depression-era psychology today, we are in need of massive pump-priming again.

It would be a shame if we are so overwhelmed by anger at the unfairness of it all that we do not take the positive measures needed to restore us to full employment. That would not just be unfair to the U.S. taxpayer. That would be unfair to those who are living in Hoovervilles...; it would be unfair to those who are being evicted from their homes, and can't find new ones because they can't find jobs. That would be unfair to those who have to drop out of school because they, or their parents, can't find jobs.

It is time to face up to what needs to be done. The sticker shock involved will be large, but the costs in terms of lost output of not meeting either the credit target or the aggregate demand target will be yet larger." (Robert Schiller, Depression Lurks unless there's more Stimulus, Bloomberg)

Even though industrial production, manufacturing, retail and housing are in freefall, the talk on Wall Street still focuses on the elusive recovery. The S&P 500 touched bottom at 666 on March 6 and has since retraced its steps to 852. Clearly, Bernanke's market-distorting capital injections have played a major role in the turnabout. Former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and economics professor at University of Cal. Berekley, Robert Reich, explains it like this on his blog-site:

"All of these pieces of upbeat news are connected by one fact: the flood of money the Fed has been releasing into the economy. ... So much money is sloshing around the economy that its price is bound to drop. And cheap money is bound to induce some borrowing. The real question is whether this means an economic turnaround. The answer is it doesn't.

Cheap money, you may remember, got us into this mess. Six years ago, the Fed (Alan Greenspan et al) lowered interest rates to 1 percent.... The large lenders did exactly what they could be expected to do with free money -- get as much of it as possible and then lent it out to anyone who could stand up straight (and many who couldn't). With no regulators looking over their shoulders, they got away with the financial equivalent of murder.

The only economic fundamental that's changed since then is that so many people got so badly burned that the trust necessary for consumers, investors, and businesses to repeat what they did then has vanished.... yes, some consumers will refinance and use the extra money they extract from their homes to spend again. But most will use the extra money to pay off debt and start saving again, as they did years ago....

I admire cockeyed optimism, and I understand why Wall Street and its spokespeople want to see a return of the bull market. Hell, everyone with a stock portfolio wants to see it grow again. But wishing for something is different from getting it. And cockeyed optimism can wreak enormous damage on an economy. Haven't we already learned this? (Robert Reich's Blog, "Why We're Not at the Beginning of the End, and Probably Not Even At the End of the Beginning")

If the purpose of Bernanke's grand economics experiment was to create uneven inflation in the equities markets and, thus, widen the chasm between the financials and the real economy; he seems to have succeeded. But for how long? How long will it be before foreign banks and investors realize that the Fed's innocuous-sounding "lending facilities" have released a wave of low interest speculative liquidity into the capital markets? How else does one explain soaring stocks when industrial capacity, manufacturing, exports, corporate profits, retail and every other sector have been pounded into rubble? Liquidity is never inert. It navigates the financial system like mercury in water darting elusively to the area which offers the greatest opportunity for profit. That's why the surge popped up first in the stock market. (so far) When it spills into commodities--and oil and food prices rise--Bernanke will realize his plan has backfired..

Bernanke's financial rescue plan is a disaster. He should have spent a little less time with Milton Friedman and a little more with Karl Marx. It was Marx who uncovered the root of all financial crises. He summed it up like this:

"The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their limit." (Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 3, New York International publishers, 1967; Thanks to Monthly Review, John Bellamy Foster)

Bingo. Message to Bernanke: Workers need debt-relief and a raise in pay not bigger bailouts for chiseling fatcat banksters.

Bailouts and Manipulations: Save Wall Street, at the Expense of Main Street

Wall Street is in the midst of a huge rally, primarily sparked by two recent occurrences.

The first was the “surprising” announcement that Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America -- major “zombie” banks laden with “toxic assets,” on the verge of collapse, and the recipients of billions in government (US taxpayer) bailout money -- mysteriously posted profits this year. Wells Fargo, regarded as one of the healthier big banks, and a recipient of $25 billion, also reported a profit last week, rallying the stock markets again before the Easter holiday.

We now know, based on insider reports from securities traders, that a massive fraud and manipulation by AIG funneled “bailout” funds (US taxpayer money) to AIG's counterparties, the very same big “toxic” banks that are now posting profits: Exclusive: Big Banks' Recent Profitability Due to AIG Scam?

The second big event occurred when the Obama administration and Congress threw out the “Mark to Market” rules. Banks and financial institutions, which by law were previously obligated to price, or “mark,” the toxic holdings to the current market price (honestly take huge losses), now have carte blanche to magically erase all of these losses, and price these toxic assets however they wish.

In other words, Wall Street has been given the green light to lie -- with the full blessing of the Obama administration and Congress. “Toxic assets”? Gone, just like that.

In yet another example of collusion and cover-up, federal regulators have told the nation's largest banks to “keep quiet” about their performance in the Obama administration's “stress tests”: Feds tell banks to keep quiet on outcome of stress tests

This blatant cover-up, ordered at the top, prevents negative news from spoiling the bogus Wall Street rally. Obama himself will announce the results later, after he and his economic minions have had a chance to “manage” the data.

So much for accountability. So much for transparency and disclosure. So much for the populist hot air and propaganda gases spewing from the Obama administration, Ben Bernanke's Federal Reserve, Tim Geithner, and Larry Summers.

The momentum from the latest fabrication and the latest fraud must not be broken. The worst is over, according to the new noise, and the constant “are we there yet?” yammering from CNBC. No, it's already time for The Recovery, despite the fact that the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression began mere months ago, and despite the fact that the “toxins” -- the magnificent bubble of derivatives, leverage, hedging and other interlocking Ponzi finance schemes that began the crisis to begin with -- are still out there, still unpopped.

The books are cooked and the numbers are faked anyway. Why not? Who's going to know?

So while the US auto industry is strong-armed into massive restructuring, and the common people of Main Street are told to get used to the suffering, Wall Street is not only given a free pass, but the additional gift of back-door swindles and a massive cover-up.

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear President Obama:

The world was transfixed on that remarkable day in January when, to poetry, song, and dance, you gazed upon Abraham Lincoln's likeness at the Lincoln Memorial and searched for wisdom to navigate these difficult times. Indeed, you have so many things in common with that venerable President that one might imagine you were his reincarnation in different dress. You are both thin and wiry, brilliant speakers, appearing on the national stage at pivotal times. Fertile imaginations could envision you coming back triumphantly as one of those slaves you freed, to prove once and for all the proposition that all men are created equal and can achieve great things if given a fighting chance. But as Wordsworth said, our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting; and if that is true, you may have forgotten a more subtle form of slavery from which Lincoln freed his countrymen, even if you were there at the time. You may have forgotten it because it has been omitted from the history books, leaving Americans ill-equipped to interpret the lessons of our own past. This letter is therefore meant to remind you.

We are now met on another battlefield of that same economic war that visited Lincoln and the Founding Fathers before him. President Obama, the fate of our economy and the nation itself may depend on how well you understand Lincoln's monetary breakthrough, the most far-reaching “economic stimulus plan” ever implemented by a U.S. President. You can solve our economic crisis quickly and permanently, by implementing the same economic solution that allowed Lincoln to win the Civil War and thus save the Union from foreign economic masters.

Lincoln's Monetary Breakthrough

The bankers had Lincoln's government over a barrel, just as Wall Street has Congress in its vice-like grip today. The North needed money to fund a war, and the bankers were willing to lend it only under circumstances that amounted to extortion, involving staggering interest rates of 24 to 36 percent. Lincoln saw that this would bankrupt the North and asked a trusted colleague to research the matter and find a solution. In what may be the best piece of advice ever given to a sitting President, Colonel Dick Taylor of Illinois reported back that the Union had the power under the Constitution to solve its financing problem by printing its money as a sovereign government. Taylor said:

“Just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes . . . and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also. If you make them full legal tender . . . they will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money; as Congress is given that express right by the Constitution.”

The Greenbacks actually were just as good as the bankers' banknotes. Both were created on a printing press, but the banknotes had the veneer of legitimacy because they were “backed” by gold. The catch was that this backing was based on “fractional reserves,” meaning the bankers held only a small fraction of the gold necessary to support all the loans represented by their banknotes. The “fractional reserve” ruse is still used today to create the impression that bankers are lending something other than mere debt created with accounting entries on their books.1

Lincoln took Col. Taylor's advice and funded the war by printing paper notes backed by the credit of the government. These legal-tender U.S. Notes or “Greenbacks” represented receipts for labor and goods delivered to the United States. They were paid to soldiers and suppliers and were tradeable for goods and services of a value equivalent to their service to the community. The Greenbacks aided the Union not only in winning the war but in funding a period of unprecedented economic expansion. Lincoln's government created the greatest industrial giant the world had yet seen. The steel industry was launched, a continental railroad system was created, a new era of farm machinery and cheap tools was promoted, free higher education was established, government support was provided to all branches of science, the Bureau of Mines was organized, and labor productivity was increased by 50 to 75 percent. The Greenback was not the only currency used to fund these achievements; but they could not have been accomplished without it, and they could not have been accomplished on money borrowed at the usurious rates the bankers were attempting to extort from the North.

Lincoln succeeded in restoring the government's power to issue the national currency, but his revolutionary monetary policy was opposed by powerful forces. The threat to established interests was captured in an editorial of unknown authorship, said to have been published in The London Times in 1865:

“If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic during the late war in that country, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

Lincoln was assassinated in 1865. According to historian W. Cleon Skousen:

“Right after the Civil War there was considerable talk about reviving Lincoln's brief experiment with the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the European money-trust intervened, it would have no doubt become an established institution.”
The institution that became established instead was the Federal Reserve, a privately-owned central bank given the power in 1913 to print Federal Reserve Notes (or dollar bills) and lend them to the government. The government was submerged in a debt that has grown exponentially since, until it is now an unrepayable $11 trillion. For nearly a century, Lincoln's statue at the Lincoln Memorial has gazed out pensively across the reflecting pool toward the Federal Reserve building, as if pondering what the bankers had wrought since his death and how to remedy it.

Building on a Successful Tradition

Lincoln did not invent government-issued paper money. Rather, he restored a brilliant innovation of the American colonists. According to Benjamin Franklin, it was the colonists' home-grown paper “scrip” that was responsible for the remarkable abundance in the colonies at a time when England was suffering from the ravages of the Industrial Revolution. Like with Lincoln's Greenbacks, this prosperity posed a threat to the control of the British Crown and the emerging network of private British banks, prompting the King to ban the colonists' paper money and require the payment of taxes in gold. According to Franklin and several other historians of the period, it was these onerous demands by the Crown, and the corresponding collapse of the colonists' paper money supply, that actually sparked the Revolutionary War.2

The colonists won the war but ultimately lost the money power to a private banking cartel, one that issued another form of paper money called “banknotes.” Today the bankers' debt-based money has come to dominate most of the economies of the world; but there are a number of historical examples of the successful funding of economic development in other countries simply with government-issued credit. In Australia and New Zealand in the 1930s, the Depression conditions suffered elsewhere were avoided by drawing on a national credit card issued by publicly-owned central banks. The governments of the island states of Guernsey and Jersey created thriving economies that carried no federal debt, just by issuing their own debt-free public currencies. China has also funded impressive internal development through a system of state-owned banks.

Here in the United States, the state of North Dakota has a wholly state-owned bank that creates credit on its books just as private banks do. This credit is used to serve the needs of the community, and the interest on loans is returned to the government. Not coincidentally, North Dakota has a $1.2 billion budget surplus at a time when 46 of 50 states are insolvent, an impressive achievement for a state of isolated farmers battling challenging weather.3 The North Dakota prototype could be copied not only in every U.S. state but at the federal level.

The Perennial Inflation Question

The objection invariably raised to government-issued currency or credit is that it would create dangerous hyperinflation. However, in none of these models has that proven to be true. Price inflation results either when the supply of money goes up but the supply of goods doesn't, or when speculators devalue currencies by massive short selling, as in those cases of Latin American hyperinflation when printing-press money was used to pay off foreign debt. When new money is used to produce new goods and services, price inflation does not result because supply and demand rise together. Prices did increase during the American Civil War, but this was attributed to the scarcity of goods common in wartime rather than to the Greenback itself. War produces weapons rather than consumer goods.

Today, with trillions of dollars being committed for bailouts and stimulus plans, another objection to Lincoln's solution is likely to be, “The U.S. government is already printing its own money – and lots of it.” This, however, is a misconception. What the government prints are bonds – its I.O.U.s or debt. If the government did print dollars, instead of borrowing them from a privately-owned central bank that prints them, Uncle Sam would not have an eleven trillion dollar millstone hanging around his neck. As Thomas Edison astutely observed:

“If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good, also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way.
It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people.”

A Wake-up Call

Henry Ford observed at about the same time:

“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.”

Today we the people are starting to understand our banking and monetary system, and we are shocked, dismayed, and furious at what we are discovering. The wizard behind the curtain turns out to be a small group of men pulling levers and dials, creating an illusory money scheme that, behind all the talk and bravado, is mere smoke and mirrors. These levers are controlled by a privately-owned, unaccountable central bank called the Federal Reserve, which has recently dispensed billions if not trillions in funds to its banker cronies, without revealing where these monies are going even under Congressional inquiry or in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. As Chris Powell pointed out recently in conjunction with an FOIA request brought by Bloomberg News, which the Fed declined to comply with:

“Any government that can disburse $2 trillion secretly, without any accountability, is not a democratic government. It is government of, by, and, for the bankers.”4

There was a time when private central bankers were the heavyweights in control, able to run their ultra-secret agenda with impunity; but that era is coming to an end. The bankers are scrambling, trying to patch up their crumbling creations with schemes, bailouts and sleight of hand. That effort, however, must ultimately prove futile. As investment adviser Rolfe Winkler said in a recent article:

“The great Ponzi scheme that is the Western World's economy has grown so big there's simply no ‘fixing' it. Flushing more debt through the system would be like giving Madoff a few billion to tide him over. Or like adding another floor to the Tower of Babel. To what end? The collapse is already here. The question is: How much do we want it to hurt? Using the public's purse to finance ‘confidence' in a system that is already kaput may delay the Day of Reckoning, sure, but at the cost of multiplying our losses. Perhaps fantastically.”5

The bankers are on the run, feverishly trying to use the collapse of the current system to steer us toward an “Amero”-style North American currency, or a one-world private banking system and privately-issued global currency that they and only they control. We the people will not accept those solutions, however, no matter how bad things get. We demand real solutions that empower us, not further enslave us.

Abraham Lincoln had such a solution. President Obama, you can finally bring his monetary solution to fruition. Manifest the vision of Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin, and we the people will make sure you are placed in the pantheon of our greatest leaders and are revered for all time. America's greatest days can still be ahead of us; but for this to happen, we need to expose and root out the deceptive banking scheme that would enslave us to a future of debt and increasing homelessness in this great country our forefathers founded. The time has come for democracy to rise superior to a private banking cartel and take back the power to create money once again. Such a transformation would represent the most epochal and empowering shift that humanity has ever seen. As you recently said:

“This country has never responded to a crisis by sitting on the sidelines and hoping for the best. Throughout our history we have met every great challenge with bold action and big ideas.”

Your words are a timely reminder of our long legacy of action and bold solutions in the face of adversity. Can we do this? Yes we can.