Money, Banking and the Fed

CaryP

Senior Member
Messages
1,432
Money, Banking and the Fed

For those of you who've been wondering about the history of our income tax system, the Von Mises Institute publishe article today. Read and weep.

Cary

The Origin of the Income Tax

The Origin of the Income Tax
by Adam Young

[Posted September 7, 2004]

\"The freedoms won by Americans in 1776 were lost in the revolution of 1913,\" wrote Frank Chodorov. Indeed, a man's home used to be his castle. The income tax, however, gave the government the keys to every door and the sole right to change the locks.

Today the American people are no longer the master and the government has ceased to be the servant. How could this be? The Revolution fought in the name of the inherent natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness promised to enthrone the gains of individualism. Instead, federal taxation bribes the States and individuals to serve the interests of ever-greater submission to the centralized will.

How did tax slavery come to the land of the free?

1812

The first proposal to impose an income tax on America occurred during the War of 1812. After two years of war, the federal government had accumulated a then-staggering $100 million of debt. To fund the war against Britain, the government doubled the rates of its major source of revenue, customs duties on imports, which obstructed trade and ended up yielding less revenue than the previous lower rates. At the height of the war, excise taxes were imposed on goods and commodities, and housing, slaves and land were taxed. After the war ended in 1816, these taxes were repealed and instead a high tariff was passed to retire the accumulated war debt. Thankfully, the notion of an income tax was defeated.

However, the malevolent spirit of the income tax reappeared as a measure to fund the Union armies in the war to prevent the secession of the Confederacy. The war was expensive, costing on average $1,750,000 a day.[1] Struggling to meet this expenditure, the Republican Congress borrowed heavily, doubled tariff rates (the Morrill Tariff initially provoked the Deep South to secede), sold off public lands, imposed a maze of licensing fees, increased old excise tax rates and created new excise taxes. But none of this was enough.

1861

In July 1861, the Congress passed a 3% tax on all net income above $600 a year (about $10,000 today). However, no revenue was ever raised because a second tax passed before the first was due (on June 30, 1862). The war's demand on resources made the earlier tax ineffective, and the sale of bonds could not keep up with the expenditures of the administration and the armies. In March, the Congress passed an income tax of 3% on annual incomes of $600 to $10,000 and 5% on incomes from $10,000 to $50,000 and threw in a small inheritance tax too. Lincoln signed the bill on July 1, 1862 to take effect a month later. The Union debt then stood at $505 million.[2] This tax also included the first appearance of withholding and was applied to federal salaries and on interest and dividends.[3]

In 1863, Congress then passed a special 5% tax on incomes above $600 to pay for an army recruitment program that would pay men $2 per recruit and pay recruit's their first month's pay in advance.[4]

In mid-1864, the rates were raised again. The 3% tax on incomes above $600 was increased to 5%, a new 7.5% rate was introduced on incomes over $5,000, and the old rate of 5% on incomes above $10,000 was raised to 10%. The tax on interest and dividends was also raised from 3% to 5%.

And for the first time, with the changes, Americans now had to swear to the veracity of their tax returns, and government assessors could now challenge a return. The penalty for not filing a tax return was likewise doubled to 10%.[5]

At first, the income tax raised comparatively little revenue in relation to the war's demand for it. Harvesting only $2.7 million in 1862?1863, by the next year, the tax pulled in $20.2 million. And believing that many large-income earners were eluding the taxman, Congress raised the rate on incomes over $5,000 to 10% and gave the assessors the power to estimate income and increased the penalties for noncompliance, from fines of 25% to double that for filing fraudulent returns. By 1866, 30% of federal revenues derived from the income tax totaling $73 million, and derived primarily from just three states, New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.

In a move to increase compliance and the veracity of returns, the government even made tax returns available to the press. This practice was outlawed in 1870.[6]

The Confederacy also experimented with a progressive income tax, eventually imposing a tax in kind that further destroyed the already ruptured and blockaded economy of the South.[7]

1865

After the war ended, the income tax continued on to pay the government's gigantic debt, but resistance was building. In 1867, progressing rates were replaced with a flat tax of 5% on all incomes above $1000 a year. However, the penalty for failure to file was raised to 50% and the payment date was moved from June 30 to April 30.[8]

This income tax expired in 1870 and was replaced with a 2.5% tax on incomes above $2,000. Finally, when that law expired in 1872, the United States was again without an income tax.

In the post-war years, a booming economy produced tariff surpluses for decades, but this didn't deter many attempts to reintroduce an income tax, with members of Congress introducing sixty-eight bills to do so between 1874 and 1894.

1894

Amid the panic of 1893, an amendment was passed establishing a 2% tax on all incomes above $4,000 a year (about $50,000 today), but exempted the salaries of state and local officials, federal judges, and the president.



Democratic Senator David Hill of New York lamented, \"It may be impracticable that our distinctively American experiment of individual freedom should go on.\"[9]

President Cleveland opposed the income tax, but let it become law without his signature, believing it to be unconstitutional. In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against the income tax, saying that its provisions amounted to a direct tax, which was prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.[10]

Article I, Section 8 and 9 declares that direct taxes must be apportioned amongst the states according to the census. The Sixteenth Amendment was designed to get around this problem.

1895?1909

Aside from an attempt to float an income tax to pay for the Spanish-American war, the income tax largely disappeared as a major issue. Nonetheless, the Democratic Party, turning its back on its Jeffersonian heritage, endorsed a constitutional income tax amendment in their party platforms of 1896 and 1908.[11]

In 1908 Theodore Roosevelt endorsed both an income tax and an inheritance tax, becoming the first President of the United States to openly propose that the political power of government be used to redistribute wealth.

Meanwhile, factions within the Congress cobbled together a compromise amendment and in 1909, President Taft, known to be favorable to an income tax, if not necessarily an amendment, stated that although ratification may be difficult, he had \"become convinced that a great majority of the people of this country are in favor of vesting the National Government with power to levy an income tax.\"[12]

That same year, the income tax amendment passed overwhelmingly in the Congress and was sent off to the states. The last state ratified the amendment on February 13, 1913. The Springfield Republican reported \"The Sixteenth Amendment owes its existence mainly to the West and South, where individual incomes of $5,000 or over are comparatively few.\"[13]

1913

Richard E. Byrd, speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, predicted, \"a hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business. . . . Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the taxpayer. An army of Federal officials, spies and detectives will descend upon the state. . . .\"[14] Pandora had opened the box.

The presidential election of 1912 was contested between three advocates of an income tax. The winner, Woodrow Wilson, after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, called a special session of Congress in April 1913, which proceeded to pass an income tax of 1% on incomes above $3,000 and applied surcharges between 2% and 7% on income from $20,000 to $500,000. A few years later the Supreme Court kissed and blessed progressivity.

The income tax returned as the product of an unholy combine between statist intellectuals with visions of state-sponsored utopias, envious demagogues and the desire by established, wealthy interests to prevent any competition to their place and to offload business costs to an expanding regulatory welfare state.[15]

At first the revenue raised by the new income tax was disappointing: only $28 million in 1914. But then it accelerated. $41 million the next year, when the top rate was 7%, and nearly $68 million in 1916, when it was raised to 15%.[16] Eventually more than $1 billion would be pulled in by the income tax during the whole of World War I, when the rates were raised to 67% in 1917 and 77% in 1918, and make the hated tax the permanent feature it has become today.[17]

After the war, the top rate would fall to 73%. In the 1920's it fell to a low of 24% in 1929 but never again got as low as the pre-war rate of 7%. What would Americans do for a 7% rate today, one wonders? Hoover and the Republicans raised the rates to 25% in 1930, then to 63% in 1932. Under the corporate statism of the New Deal, rates leaped to 79% in 1936, 81% in 1940, finally exhausting itself at 94% in 1944?1945.

The lowest rates showed the same appetite, advancing from a 1% rate on incomes below $20,000 in 1915. In 1917, it became 2% up to $2,000, then 6% up to $4,000. By 1941, the lowest rate was 10% on incomes below $2,000. In 1945, this had jumped to 23%. Today it is 10% on annual income up to $7,000; 15% on income below $28,000. The top 10% of all income earners pay 60% of all tax revenue. And the top half pay over 95% of all revenue raised by the federal income tax.[18] The average American now works twenty years for the government simply to pay his taxes.[19]

In 1943, the government began withholding taxes on the advice of Milton Friedman.[20] After the war ended, this method of stealth taxation (and tax increases) continued.

Not until 1964 were the top rates lowered, down to 77%. In 1982, the top rate was lowered to 50% and by the late eighties the rate had been lowered to 28%.[21] But rates were raised again to 31% under George H.W. Bush, and again in 1993 to 39.6% under Clinton. George W. Bush apparently holds as an unshakeable principle that no American should be taxed more than a third of his income by the federal government. John Kerry, should he become president, appears likely to suggest the rates be raised back to the Clinton level.

The income tax lived up to its nature during World War II, devouring American wealth and liberties like a swarm of locusts, where it became the nearly universal tax we know today. In 1940, fewer than fifteen million tax returns were filed. Just ten years later in 1950, the number would be fifty-three million. In 1939 the income tax raised $1 billion. 16 years later it would raise $19 billion.[22] The state had found its most fertile harvests?middle class and working-class taxpayers. As Chief Justice John Marshall remarked, truly \"the power to tax involves the power to destroy.\"

Adjusting for inflation, in the 81 years between the enactment of the income tax in 1913 to 1994, government spending increased 13,592%![23]

The great critic of the income tax, Frank Chodorov wrote \"Whichever way you turn this amendment, you come up with the fact that it gives the government a prior lien on all the property produced by its subjects.\"[24] The United States government \"unashamedly proclaims the doctrine of collectivized wealth. . . . That which it does not take is a concession.\"[25]

It was with great honesty that Frank Chodorov lamented, \"America is no longer the America of the Declaration of Independence.\"[26]
 

Unintentional

Active Member
Messages
577
Money, Banking and the Fed

SUPER SPOOKY!! I was going to post some things from www.givemeliberty.org, the anti-income tax group and all their sites are down!! Is the government playing hard ball? To see the kind of stuff givemeliberty.org was doing, go to google.com and search for "givemeliberty". Google will give you summaries of most of their pages that USED to be there, but are now not...for some reason. Here is a sample from my search there:

We The People Foundation & We The People Congress
... End All IRS Abuse! Join The Class-Action Lawsuit www.GiveMeLiberty.org. These
offerings are now available from the WTP on-line store. ...
www.givemeliberty.org/ - 101k - Sep 7, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

We The People Store
... Stop All IRS Abuse! Join the Class-Action Lawsuit www.GiveMeLiberty.org.
1 ROLL of 500 - $50.00 (Shipping Incl.) 2\" x 4\" Small Size. ...
www.givemeliberty.org/store/default.htm - 72k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.givemeliberty.org ]

Give Me Liberty - GiveMeLiberty - givemeliberty.com
Discussion Forums: Visit our new discussion forums. Democracy is a cause
worth fighting for, as any good American knows. While the ...
www.givemeliberty.com/ - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

givemeliberty.com | Mission
Grassroots.org is a 501c3 non-profit organization that serves other
non-profits and information consumers worldwide. We provide ...
www.givemeliberty.com/do/Mission - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.givemeliberty.com ]
 

Unintentional

Active Member
Messages
577
Money, Banking and the Fed

Here are more "missing pages" from givemeliberty.org. I am trying to preserve them. Hopefully, just their server is down. Very nefarious indeed.
Freedom Drive Main Page
Main Information Page. NEW ! Final Drive Details: Feeder Routes, Logistics,
Hotel Info, Rally/Rendezvous Locations, Schedules and ...
www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Help WTP the Easy Way
Helping WTP: The Easy Way Thank You For Your Interest in The Special WTP
Phone Services Package. We The People receives a financial ...
www.givemeliberty.org/5linxdetails.htm - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

WTP Right to Petition Lawsuit News & Information Center
The Lawsuit to Restore Constitutional Order. The 1st Amendment Right of Petition.
Lawsuit Information Center. Note: Working links are in Blue, ...
www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/InfoCenter.htm - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

Give Me Liberty 2004
... of Chief Counsel. etc. Check back often for updates. Register On-Line Now!
Full Agenda. www.GiveMeLiberty.org, Crystal City Marriott,
www.givemeliberty.org/convention/GML2004.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

We The People Disclaimer
... For updated news and details see our website: www.givemeliberty.org. You Can Help. ...
e-mail: [email protected] phone: (518) 656-3578 Fax: (518) 656-9724. ...
www.givemeliberty.org/features/ 2002febHEARING/NYTimes02-10-02TEXT.htm - 51k - Cached - Similar pages

WTP-tv
WTP-tv. Welcome to WTP's On-Line Streaming Media Library. We The People presents
our multi-media streaming library of video and audio archives. ...
www.givemeliberty.org/wtp-tv/default.htm - 45k - Cached - Similar pages

Thank You New York Times
... NO Taxes,? and ?Obey The Constitution,? and ?Government Is Limited By Written
Constitutions, and ?The Truth At www.GiveMeLiberty.org.? They also ...
www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update09-21-03.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

July 26, 2004
... Before calling Mark Lane with your personal questions about the lawsuit, we STRONGLY
urge you to first e-mail your questions to [email protected] and to ...
www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/update04-Jul-26.htm - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT. Bill Benson's
findings, published in \"The Law That Never Was,\" make a ...
www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
 

Unintentional

Active Member
Messages
577
Money, Banking and the Fed

http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/bills/?bill=28657

Repeal 16th Amendment
Bill # H.J.RES.45

Original Sponsor:
Ron Paul (R-TX 14th)

Cosponsor Total: 3
(last sponsor added 06/13/2001)
? 3 Republicans

About This Legislation:
The United States existed for nearly 140 years without an income tax. During that time, the federal government generally adhered to its limited constitutional functions.
The federal income tax, authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, fundamentally changed the role of the federal government in American life. Income tax revenues enabled government to grow wildly beyond its legitimate functions. Today, the massive federal bureaucracy regulates virtually every aspect of national life. The federal income tax has resulted in a tragic loss of liberty for all Americans.

H.J. Res. 45 - The Liberty Amendment is very simple. It would abolish the Sixteenth Amendment, thereby eliminating the federal income tax. It would also abolish the federal capital gains and estate taxes. The federal government would get very little of our money, as only excise or sales taxes could be imposed. With little revenue, the federal government returns to its proper constitutional size. The Liberty Amendment would also prohibit the federal government from engaging in any business activity that competes with private businesses (except as provided by the Constitution) and require the federal government to sell properties that were used in those business activities.

Is eliminating the federal income tax impossible? No. Millions of Americans still believe in liberty. They, therefore, question the validity of the federal tax code, the I.R.S. and the Sixteenth Amendment itself. They understand that the federal leviathan is out of control. The Liberty Amendment can serve as a flashpoint for all of these millions of voices.

A citizen can verbally oppose the federal income tax or he can take action to abolish it. The Liberty Amendment is not an academic exercise. It is not a political statement or an abstract ideal. It is real legislation before the U.S. House of Representatives now. It can become law. It will become law if every liberty-minded American tells his U.S. representative that his re-election will depend on his support of the Liberty Amendment.

Okay, I am done for a while.

Edit: Still no sign of givemeliberty.com. Is there a missing persons bureau for anti-tax groups?

On the Fed. The video Cary posted is not there any more, so I can't watch it. What I have been taught though is there are three ways the Fed can collect money: taxes/tariffs/whatever you want to call it (stealing), borrowing, and just plain printing more money. The US (Fed) borrows via bonds it sells. All bonds are accounted for and for the US to have a 3 trillion dollar yearly deficit the US would have to sell almost 6 times the number of bonds it currently does. The other way the US could be spending 3 trillion more every year than it has collected or borrowed by printing more money. If the US was printing 3 trillion dollars a year extra every year that would result in two things: about a 25% inflation rate and only a modest increase in the national debt. What I am saying is there is no evidence that the US has a 3 trillion dollar yearly deficit. There would be signs in the economy (rampant inflation, abundance of treasury bonds) neither of which have manifested. Still I am still learning and have not made up my mind. I am even looking at this from a pro-Cary bias, such as when I read/look at stuff, I keep this thought in my mind: could the US government be spending 3 trillion more than it is taking in? Also, if the US was printing 3 trillion dollars a year "extra", it's "real" debt wouldn't go up at all, but everyone dollars would become a lot less valuable (talking 25% inflation here). That is why we don't just pay off the national debt by printing more money...inflation.
 

CaryP

Senior Member
Messages
1,432
Money, Banking and the Fed

On the Fed. The video Cary posted is not there any more, so I can't watch it. What I have been taught though is there are three ways the Fed can collect money: taxes/tariffs/whatever you want to call it (stealing), borrowing, and just plain printing more money. The US (Fed) borrows via bonds it sells. All bonds are accounted for and for the US to have a 3 trillion dollar yearly deficit the US would have to sell almost 6 times the number of bonds it currently does. The other way the US could be spending 3 trillion more every year than it has collected or borrowed by printing more money. If the US was printing 3 trillion dollars a year extra every year that would result in two things: about a 25% inflation rate and only a modest increase in the national debt. What I am saying is there is no evidence that the US has a 3 trillion dollar yearly deficit. There would be signs in the economy (rampant inflation, abundance of treasury bonds) neither of which have manifested. Still I am still learning and have not made up my mind. I am even looking at this from a pro-Cary bias, such as when I read/look at stuff, I keep this thought in my mind: could the US government be spending 3 trillion more than it is taking in? Also, if the US was printing 3 trillion dollars a year \"extra\", it's \"real\" debt wouldn't go up at all, but everyone dollars would become a lot less valuable (talking 25% inflation here). That is why we don't just pay off the national debt by printing more money...inflation.

Unintentional,

If you re-read the artcile from Gillespie Research you'll see that the $3.7 Trillion budget deficit for last fiscal year was largely due to "accrued" expenses of Social Security and other entitlement programs. "Accrued" means you accrued the expense but you haven't recorded or paid it yet. In an overly simplistic interpretation, you just haven't received a "bill" yet, but a liability was incurred. The accrued expenses in the $3.7 Trillion deficit sighted were for the current liabilities incurred for Social Security and other entitlement programs.

Without the accrued expenses and the cash surplus from Social Security, the "cash basis" deficit was $665 billion versus the $374 billion reported. The federal govt. uses the surpluses from the Social Security taxes received versus the Social Security benefits paid out to understate the actual deficit. No bonds have to be issued, and no new dollars have to be printed.

American corporations are required to record "accrued" expenses even though they haven't received a bill yet. If the federal govt. were accounting for its budget the way it requires American businesses to, it would have shown the $3.7 Trillion shortfall. Again, no bonds need to be issued, nor does new currency have to be printed up to achieve this accounting slight of hand. It's accounting gimmicks - the kind that corp. executives would go to jail for. Is this clearer for you?

No, the govt. did not take on in excess of $3 Trillion in new debt last year or print up that much in new currency. When the Treasury issues debt, it is a debt of the U.S. govt. When the Fed issues new currency, it uses it as an asset of the Fed (out of thin air) to buy US Treasury debt or loan that nearly free "money" to the US govt. It's a shell game. The Fed gets to issue currency at little or no cost, and then use that currency to loan it to the US govt. and collect interest on that debt for the PRIVATE BANKING CARTEL that owns the Federal Reserve. What most people believe to be dollars are Federal Reserve Notes in reality. Look at the currency in your wallet - they all say that at the top of the different denominations. You're holding Federal Reserve "monopoly money", not real US dollars. The taxes you pay go in part to pay interest on debt held by the Federal Reserve, a PRIVATE BANKING CARTEL, and is paid to its shareholders - private banks in the US and Europe. Any clearer for you?

To clarify one of your points, the Federal Reserve can not levy taxes, tarrifs or any other type of levy. Congress does that. The Federal Reserve can not borrow money. The Treasury does that. The Federal Reserve is not an agency of the US government. It is a private banking cartel, authorized by The Federal Reserve Act in 1913, and is unconstitutional. I'll post an article later which goes into more detail on this.

As for the video, Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve here's a link. The video is the sixth from the bottom. Apparently it was moved, but I've found it, in case you're still interested in watching it.

Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve

Cary
 

Unintentional

Active Member
Messages
577
Money, Banking and the Fed

Ah, I see. I agree with you 100%, the treasure DOES owe SS all that money and there will be hell to pay when SS actually needs it. Personally I think they should do away with the charade and stop collection income tax and fica tax separately. They have ALWAYS both gone into the general fund.
 

CaryP

Senior Member
Messages
1,432
Money, Banking and the Fed

I found an interesting article last week that ties in the Federal Reserve, market manipulation by central banks, complicity of the US govt. in 9/11 and several groups of the NWO. Talk about conspiracy theories, but the author is not some "nut job." Ed Steer, is director of GATA (Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee), and has been writing about and investigating the above topics for years. The article is way too long to post in its entirety, but I'll copy some "choice" paragraphs. For those of you interested in any of the above, the article is well worth the read. It will give you a "big picture" view of what's been going on and where we appear to be headed. It also has a ton of links to related topics.

Cary

T* Minus Ten

Central banks are engaged in a desperate battle on two fronts

What we see at present is a battle between the central banks and the collapse of the financial system fought on two fronts. On one front, the central banks preside over the creation of additional liquidity for the financial system in order to hold back the tide of debt defaults that would otherwise occur. On the other, they incite investment banks (JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup etc.) and other willing parties to bet against a rise in the prices of gold, oil, base metals, soft commodities or anything else that might be deemed an indicator of inherent value. Their objective is to deprive the independent observer of any reliable benchmark against which to measure the eroding value, not only of the US dollar, but all fiat currencies. Equally, their actions seek to deny the investor the opportunity to hedge against the fragility of the financial system by switching into a freely traded market for non-financial assets.

It is important to recognize that the central banks have found the battle on the second front much easier to fight than the first. Last November (2000), I estimated the size of the gross stock of global debt instruments at $90 trillion for mid-2000 (now $250+ trillion - Ed). How much capital would it take to control the combined gold, oil and commodity markets? Probably, no more than $200bn, using derivatives. Moreover, it is not necessary for the central banks to fight the battle themselves, although central bank gold sales and gold leasing have certainly contributed to the cause. Most of the world?s large investment banks (JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup et al) have over-traded their capital (bases) so flagrantly that if the central banks were to lose the fight on the first front, then their stock would be worthless. Because their fate is intertwined with that of the central banks, investment banks are willing participants in the battle against rising gold, oil and commodity prices.

Central banks, and particularly the US Federal Reserve, are deploying their heavy artillery in the battle against a systemic collapse. This has been their primary concern for at least seven years. Their immediate objectives are to prevent the private sector bond market from closing its doors to new or refinancing borrowers and to forestall a technical break in the Dow Jones Industrials. Keeping the bond markets open is absolutely vital at a time when corporate profitability is on the ropes. Keeping the equity index on an even keel is essential to protect the wealth of the household sector and to maintain the expectation of future gains. For as long as these objectives can be achieved, the value of the US dollar can also be stabilized in relation to other currencies, despite the extraordinary imbalances in external trade.

The whole article by Warburton falls into the must read category. It is hyper-linked above?and here. It will take you about fifteen minutes to go through it. I don?t agree with his conclusions, as gold and silver already fulfill this role if ?the powers that be? will allow it to happen. Someday they will have no choice.

The bottom line is that the ?powers that be? are doing absolutely everything possible to keep people on the ?paper? side of the street, rather than encourage them to invest in ?hard assets? that have intrinsic value. Of course the ultimate commodities that have intrinsic value are the two metals that have been money before (and through) all of recorded history?silver and gold. ?The powers that be? are not only shorting key commodities, but also seem to attempting to manage the share prices of some companies that produce them. And if they aren?t shorting the shares, they are managing the HUI and the oil and gas indexes in order to prevent them from indicating important buy signals. Their footprints in the HUI are more than obvious at times.

Back in December of last year I wrote an essay called "Twilight?s Last Gleaming." It is basically a story of how the ?powers that be? of this world are trying to destroy democracy (particularly in the United States) and impose one world government on us all. The story is hyper-linked above, but beware, it?s a long read.

Jay Taylor has talked about these ?powers that be? extensively in his weekly postings at http://www.gold-eagle.com/ over the last number of years. Here?s what he had to say back in January?

\"So why doesn't Mr. Greenspan resort to the correct policy? Does he need a small time newsletter writer like Jay Taylor to tell him how to construct monetary policy? Hardly. I think Mr. Greenspan knows entirely what he is doing, which in my view makes him even more culpable for the extreme harm that he is engineering for Americans. There are credible theories out there that the Federal Reserve bank has been in fact created to serve a few powerful global banking families primarily in England and the U.S. who are in the process of shaping our one-world government, with themselves (of course) in charge. For some insights into what I believe to be well-founded theories, subscribers are encouraged to read \"The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve,\" by G. Edward Griffin (also see http://www.realityzone.com/ and especially http://www.freedom-force.org/)

For confirmation of the views of Ed Griffin, I would also suggest you read \"Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time,\" by Carroll Quigley?who was President Clinton's history professor at Georgetown. Why would Quigley, who was near the inner sanctum of these ruling elite families, spill the beans on this issue? Because, in his view, the ruling elite have already become so entrenched in the political and economic fiber of the western world that their power cannot be reversed.

Griffin believes that these ruling elite families don't care two hoots about America's Constitution (which may be why it is being violated more and more over time). In fact, some believe these families see economic and/or political chaos as a means of securing more power and even more wealth for themselves. A little war here and there. A little depression now and then and people will be willing to give up their liberty without a fight, to ensure safety by \"Big Brother.\"

I believe?from a big picture perspective?that may well be part of what is going on with the Federal Reserve policy. Its policies drive the global economy further and further out of balance and thus ensure an ever more devastating collapse. And when the collapse comes, helpless citizens will turn ever more willingly toward Big Brother for help and will gladly submit to Big Brother's conditions in exchange for a morsel of food and clothing.

Nor are the benefits to the ruling elite accruing only in the long term. Banks create money out of thin air. Money is the banker's inventory. Do you know of any other business that can create its inventory out of thin air and then sell it? So in the short run, while it is laying the ground work for total control, the banking system continues to shift wealth in its direction by money that is not wealth, but only claims against the wealth?actually created by hard working honest Americans who, like sheep being led to the slaughter, have not a clue about all of this. In fact Americans are led to believe by CNBC's Curley and Moe and the Good Hair/Bad Hair guys that the Fed is a not-for-profit government agency acting kindly in favor of all Americans. So let the good times roll. Why worry about global trade imbalances or budget deficits that will never be paid, or rising bankruptcies even in an environment of low interest rates? End.

The Fed?a ?not-for-profit? agency of the U.S. government? I don?t think so, sports fans. Sir Alan and his ?merry men? are all appointees?a front for the real owners. The Federal Reserve is a private company (a banking cartel) owned by eight banks?only four of which are American, the rest are European or British. You?ll find the Federal Reserve Corporation in the white pages of the New York phone book?just like you would American Airlines or McDonalds?not under U.S. government agencies. Here are the card-carrying shareholders in the Federal Reserve Corporation?

Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
Israel Moses Sieff Banks of Italy
Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Goldman Sachs Bank of New York

So how are things going over at The New World Order Bar & Grill these days? Well, since the United States went into Iraq, I would say that there have been some major shifts in alliances around the world. It appears that the United States and Britain have taken it upon themselves to go it alone and see if they can really run the world?Pax Americana?a new \"Roman Empire\". Needless to say, this is has not impressed the Arabs, Europeans, Russians and the Chinese, et al.

The United States government, military and media are doing everything in their power to incite hatred against America by all of the Islamic countries. In this they have succeeded beyond their wildest imaginations.

It?s pretty well recognized that the ?powers that be? allowed 9/11 to happen?even helped out where they could. Michael Ruppert, the proprietor at http://www.fromthewilderness.com/ has not been a shrinking violet on this issue. On August 31, 2004?he gave a speech before the Commonwealth Club of California regarding 9/11 and peak oil that will just blow your socks off. The speech is hyperlinked here. Plus he?s got a new book coming out in October entitled \"Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil\". I would say that it might be worth the read.

Another book (which I mentioned nine months ago) that?s doing well on this issue is \"The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11\" by David Ray Griffin. Published in January, it?s still well up in the top one hundred on Amazon.com?s list of Top Political Books. His analysis is based on the theory that a significant external threat, on the scale of Pearl Harbor, was very much in the interest of the Bush administration, which he believes is intent on self-interested aggressive foreign policies.

Someone else who has recently stepped up to the plate and warned people about this New World Order is none other than ex-Swiss banker, Ferdinand Lipps?the author of "GOLD WARS: The Battle Against Sound Money as Seen From a Swiss Perspective". On page eight and nine of a speech entitled "Gold Wars: Military Conflicts, Gold and Currency Crises" that he gave at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland on 24 June 2004?Ferdinand had this to say?

When the gold standard was abandoned, central banks were the last barrier to rampant money creation, as long as they were able to maintain their independence. In the meantime, however, we have learned from bitter experience just how ineffective these so-called keepers have been. Central bank independence did not turn out how it was intended to be. Central banks became compliant pawns of the governments. (An even stronger case can be made for exactly the opposite scenario ? Ed) Indeed, it is precisely the central banks and the banking system that, through their creation of credit, have made deficit spending and war expenditures possible, and even promoted them in many instances. In his book \"Debt and Delusion,\" British economist Peter Warburton places most of the blame for the deterioration of economic and financial policy since the early 1980s on the central banks, as there are no ?golden brakes? anymore.

The most ominous and threatening event in central bank history was the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in the USA in 1913. The Bank of England and Germany?s Reichsbank served as a model. If you do not appreciate at the moment why I view the foundation of the Fed as ominous, I advise you to read the book \"The Creature From Jekyll Island ? A Second Look at the Federal Reserve System\" by G. Edward Griffin. Under the pretext of protecting the public against bank crashes and maintaining a stable value of money, the US Fed (which is not federal at all, but rather very private) is a cartel that is designed to protect its members against unwelcome competition and, in the event of losses, to pass these on to taxpayers. Its foundation flies in the face of the American Constitution envisioned by the founding fathers. Presidents like Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were always against the establishment of a central bank. It came into being in a very devious manner, as the Federal Reserve Act was pushed through Congress just prior to Christmas of 1913, when most delegates were already at home with their families. Its foundation violates the American Constitution, which states that only gold, and silver should be considered legal tender. End

Mr. Lipps goes into quite a bit of detail about G. Edward Griffin?s book in the paragraphs that follow the above quote, so I urge one and all to read Ferdi?s entire speech, which is hyperlinked here: Vortrag_UNISG_E_240604.pdf

Getting back to 9/11 for a moment, it?s my belief that this event was the start of a series of world events that ?the powers that be? will use to allow them to suck us all into believing that they know what?s best for us. We all know that they don?t, but they are going to give it the old college try anyway. Don?t forget what David Rockefeller said at the beginning of his meeting of The Trilateral Commission back in June of 1991? \"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.\"

However, the boys over at the Council on Foreign Relations do seem to have some problems right now. Iraq isn?t going too well, but that doesn?t matter. Bush and Kerry, both Yale graduates and members of the \"Skull and Bones\" fraternity, aren?t going to be changing their policies vis a vis the Middle East regardless of which one wins the White House. All attempts by the US (and British) governments and military to justify their presence in Iraq have fallen apart, and everyone knows that America and Britain have no legal right to be there. Their actions pretty well put the entire body of international law?agreed to by all nations to date?in serious jeopardy. The US and Britain are guilty of breaking just about every international law regarding national sovereignty that I can think of. Here?s a quote on this issue from the Introduction page in Richard Heinberg?s book \"POWERDOWN: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World\"?\"The recent declaration by the U.S. that it has the right to preemptive war, and its use of that 'right' as a rationale for its invasion of Iraq, could potentially plunge international affairs into a new era of lawlessness. Henceforth, an attack by any nation on any other could be justifiable as self-protection against imagined future threats.\"

Another enlightening quote on the New World Order and peak oil comes from Marshall Auerback over at David Tice?s website?http://www.prudentbear.com/. In an essay dated August 31, 2004 and entitled \"Putin and The Geopolitics of Oil\"?Marshall had this to say?\"In any event, the geopolitics of oil today suggest a backdrop looking less like a benign, happily globalized \"one world economy\" dominated by America Inc and its assorted \"branch plants\", and more a massive, overextended military power fighting a dangerous, and ultimately losing, battle against an angry, resistant globe, of which Russia is but one more growing manifestation.\"

What is going on in the world today is absolute insanity in all directions, and it will end in total disaster for the United States and the West?and that?s the plan. However, Americans attention will be diverted elsewhere and the powers that be will be blaming ?foreign influences??i.e. terrorists?when they (the powers that be) finally bring this financial game to an end.

The real fingers of blame should be pointed at the Federal Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, The Royal Institute of International Relations, and the entire banking system. Once again, refer to my essay \"Twilight?s Last Gleaming\". JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup are but handmaidens of American foreign and domestic monetary policy?remember Warburton?s three famous paragraphs. These three organizations (even though Goldman Sachs (part owner of The Federal Reserve) is an investment firm and not a bank) have a huge chunk of all the world?s derivatives in their portfolios and way over 75% of the gold and silver derivatives in the United States?all meant to keep commodity prices low, and the investing public on the paper side of the street. They will do anything?and I mean anything to keep us there?quite possibly down to the last 400 oz. good delivery bar?as Mike Bolser has said in the past. However, the jury is still out on that one.

The lynchpin of this whole Keynesian nightmare is the U.S. dollar. Its demise, when it comes, will be the final straw that breaks the camel?s back and will ignite a derivatives conflagration that will fry the international financial system virtually overnight. I couldn?t agree more with what Bob Landis had to say in his latest article over at http://www.goldensextant.com/.

While bringing up the subject of derivatives, one must not overlook the large U.S. banks and investment firms. I mentioned their gold derivatives in a previous paragraph, but these monetary amounts pale into virtual insignificance when compared to the other derivatives they hold?a lot of them interest rate related. JPMorgan, Citigroup, BankAmerica and Goldman Sachs and three other U.S. banks are sitting on over 90% of the total derivatives in the entire United States banking system. But they are no longer either banks or investment firms, but super-leveraged hedge funds in drag. As Peter Warburton said in this three famous paragraphs much earlier in this essay? "Most of the world?s large investment banks (JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup et al) have over-traded their capital (bases) so flagrantly that if the central banks were to lose the fight on the first front, then their stock would be worthless. Because their fate is intertwined with that of the central banks, investment banks are willing participants in the battle against rising gold, oil and commodity prices." Adam Hamilton has written extensively about that derivatives colossus, JPMorgan, over at his website http://www.zealllc.com/.

So what?s next?

I?m in the Mike Bolser camp on this one?or maybe he?s in mine? It?s my opinion that ?the powers that be? have their next 9/11-type event just around the corner. Whether it happens before the election?or after?I?m not sure about. Mike and I agree that everything is being held up?or down?as the case may be, until some preordained event occurs?or is allowed to occur. What it is?we don?t know. The only thing I do know is that we aren?t going to like it. However, the distortions in the world?s economic and financial system?and critical commodities?has becomes so far removed from reality that this situation cannot be held in check for much longer.

Mike calls it the T* (T-Star) date. T* is an invention of Professor Maurice Obstfelt, UC Berkeley. That economics department is focused on monetary issues including gold. Mike first brought it to the gold community?s attention with his essay \"Preemptive Selling of Gold: The Bigger Picture.\" T* star occurs when persons, institutions/hedge funds, central banks or governments make their last gasp attempt to get what?s left of the visible gold and silver supplies from the LBMA and the COMEX?and the whole price rigging scheme collapses.

Of course this New World Order has infinite patience, awesome power, money and a big time line. But with a financial system in ruins?! Like I said, they have no Plan B. Once the U.S. dollar caves in?then the rest of the world?s currencies become suspect. I just don?t think that they will be able to overcome the individual nations state?s survival instincts. Nations are made of individuals, and the ones making the decisions at that point in time will be making them for their own benefit?with one eye on what?s going to be in their countries best interests. Within their own countries, the decisions made will certainly not be made by just one person while all this is going on.

One thing is for sure though, when things blow up?and they will?it will be every man, woman, child, nation and currency for itself, as everyone scrambles for self-preservation. I don?t think that ?the powers that be? have thought this thing through. They might like to think they have, but I think that events will simply overwhelm them, and they?ll be picking through the financial and economic wreckage just like the rest of us.

In my opinion?David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Samuel Huntington and the rest of the boys at The Trilateral Commission are going to be blown out of the water. The Council on Foreign Relations will follow.


edit: Trying to fix the quotes ;)
 

CaryP

Senior Member
Messages
1,432
Money, Banking and the Fed

Sorry for the multiple posts, but I find myself alone in this research. If no one gives a rat's ass let me know, and I'll stop. I don't want to clutter up the board with stuff nobody really cares about. A lack of repsonse will be taken as "don't give a rat's ass." If there are at least some of you who are interested, let me know as well, and I'll keep adding to the research. Please add some of your own. You don't have to make a post. You can just PM me or tell me in chat. Here's another in the series of reports by Gillespie Research which document how the govt. is lying to us in their economic reports. This one deals with inflation or CPI (consumer price index) reports. According to Gillespie, Social Security payments should be 43% higher than current levels. Inflation numbers are purposely kept low to make the economy look better than it is (make the Gross Domestic Product - GDP - look better) and keeps raises for Social Security recipients low. Yeeha. Of course, raising SS payments by 43% would hasten the collapse of the empire, but what the hell. I'll shut up and copy and paste now.

Cary

Gillespie Research

\"GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU'VE SUSPECTED
BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK! -- THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX\"
(Part Three in a Series)

By Walter J. \"John\" Williams
[email protected]

________

Foreword

The source for most of the information this installment is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which generally has been very open about its methodologies and changes to same. The BLS Web site: www.bls.gov contains descriptions of the CPI and its related methodologies. Other sources include my own analyses of the CPI data and methodological changes over the last 30 years as well as interviews with individuals involved in inflation reporting.
______


Payments to Social Security Recipients Should be 43% Higher

Inflation, as reported by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is understated by roughly 2.7% per year. This is due to recent redefinitions of the series as well as to flawed methodologies, particularly adjustments to price measures for quality changes. The concentration of this installment on the quality of government economic reports will be first on CPI series redefinition and the damages done to those dependent on accurate cost-of-living estimates, and on pending further redefinition and economic damage.

The CPI was designed to help businesses, individuals and the government adjust their financial planning and considerations for the impact of inflation. The CPI worked reasonably well for those purposes into the early-1990s. In recent years, however, the reporting system has succumbed to pressures from miscreant politicians, who were and are intent upon stealing income from social security recipients, without ever taking the issue of reduced entitlement payments before the public or Congress for approval.

Changes made in CPI methodology during the Clinton administration have understated inflation significantly, and, through a cumulative effect, have reduced current social security payments by 30% from where they would have been otherwise. That means Social Security checks would be 43% higher. In like manner, anyone involved in commerce, who relies on receiving payments adjusted for the CPI, has been similarly damaged. On the other side, if your are making payments based on the CPI (i.e., the federal government), you are making out like a bandit.

Elements of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) had their roots in the mid-1880s, when the Bureau of Labor, later known as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), was asked by Congress to measure the impact of new tariffs on prices. It was another three decades, however, before price indices would be combined into something resembling today's CPI, a measure used then for setting wage increases for World War I shipbuilders. Although published regularly since 1921, the CPI did not come into broad acceptance and use until after World War II, when it was included in auto union contracts as a cost-of-living adjustment for wages.

The CPI found its way not only into other union agreements, but also into most commercial contracts that required consideration of cost/price changes or inflation. The CPI also was used to adjust Social Security payments annually for changes in the cost of living, and therein lay the eventual downfall to the credibility of CPI reporting.

Let Them Eat Hamburger

In the early 1990s, press reports began surfacing as to how the CPI really was significantly overstating inflation. If only the CPI inflation rate could be reduced, it was argued, then entitlements, such as social security, would not increase as much each year, and that would help to bring the budget deficit under control. Behind this movement were financial luminaries Michael Boskin, then chief economist to the first Bush administration, and Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Although the ensuing political furor killed consideration of Congressionally mandated changes in the CPI, the BLS quietly stepped forward and began changing the system, anyway, early in the Clinton administration.

Up until the Boskin/Greenspan agendum surfaced, the CPI was measured using the costs of a fixed basket of goods, a fairly simple and straightforward concept. The identical basket of goods would be priced at prevailing market costs for each period, and the period-to-period change in the cost of that market basket represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a constant standard of living.

The Boskin/Greenspan argument was that when steak got too expensive, the consumer would substitute hamburger for the steak, and that the inflation measure should reflect the costs tied to buying hamburger versus steak, instead of steak versus steak. Of course, replacing hamburger for steak in the calculations would reduce the inflation rate, but it represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a declining standard of living. Cost of living was being replaced by the cost of survival. The old system told you how much you had to increase your income in order to keep buying steak. The new system promised you hamburger, and then dog food, perhaps, after that.

The Boskin/Greenspan concept violated the intent and common usage of the inflation index. The CPI was considered sacrosanct within the Department of Labor, given the number of contractual relationships that were anchored to it. The CPI was one number that never was to be revised, given its widespread usage.

Shortly after Clinton took control of the White House, however, attitudes changed. The BLS initially did not institute a new CPI measurement using a variable-basket of goods that allowed substitution of hamburger for steak, but rather tried to approximate the effect by changing the weighting of goods in the CPI fixed basket. Over a period of several years, straight arithmetic weighting of the CPI components was shifted to a geometric weighting. The Boskin/Greenspan benefit of a geometric weighting was that it automatically gave a lower weighting to CPI components that were rising in price, and a higher weighting to those items dropping in price.

Once the system had been shifted fully to geometric weighting, the net effect was to reduce reported CPI on an annual, or year-over-year basis, by 2.7% from what it would have been based on the traditional weighting methodology. The results have been dramatic. The compounding effect since the early-1990s has reduced annual cost of living adjustments in social security by a total of 30%.

There now are three CPI measures, CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) and the Chained CPI-U (C-CPI-U). The CPI-U is the popularly followed inflation measure reported in the financial media. It was introduced in 1978 as a more-broadly-based version of the then existing CPI, which was renamed CPI-W. The CPI-W is used in calculating Social Security benefits. These two series tend to move together and are based on frequent price sampling, which is supposed to yield something close to an average monthly price measure by component.

The C-CPI-U was introduced during the second Bush administration as an alternate CPI measure. Unlike the theoretical approximation of geometric weighting to a variable, substitution-prone market basket, the C-CPI-U is a direct measure of the substitution effect. The difference in reporting is that August 2004 year-to-year inflation rates for the CPI-U and the C-CPI-U were 2.7% and 2.1%, respectively. Hence current inflation still has a 0.6% notch to be taken out of it through methodological manipulation. The C-CPI-U would not have been introduced unless there were plans to replace the current series, eventually.

Traditional inflation rates can be estimated by adding 2.7% to the CPI-U annual growth rate (2.7% +2.7% = 5.4% as of August 2004) or by adding 3.3% to the C-CPI-U rate (2.1% + 3.3% = 5.4% as of August 2004).

Hedonic Thrills of Using Federally Mandated Gasoline Additives

Aside from the changed weighting, the average person also tends to sense higher inflation than is reported by the BLS, because of hedonics, as in hedonism. Hedonics adjusts the prices of goods for the increased pleasure the consumer derives from them. That new washing machine you bought did not cost you 20% more than it would have cost you last year, because you got an offsetting 20% increase in the pleasure you derive from pushing its new electronic control buttons instead of turning that old noisy dial, according to the BLS.

When gasoline rises 10 cents per gallon because of a federally mandated gasoline additive, the increased gasoline cost does not contribute to inflation. Instead, the 10 cents is eliminated from the CPI because of the offsetting hedonic thrills the consumer gets from breathing cleaner air. The same principle applies to federally mandated safety features in automobiles. I have not attempted to quantify the effects of questionable quality adjustments to the CPI, but they are substantial.

Then there is \"intervention analysis\" in the seasonal adjustment process, when a commodity, like gasoline, goes through violent price swings. Intervention analysis is done to tone down the volatility. As a result, somehow, rising gasoline prices never seem to get fully reflected in the CPI, but the declining prices sure do.

How Can So Many Financial Pundits Live Without Consuming Food and Energy?

The Pollyannas on Wall Street like to play games with the CPI, too. The concept of looking at the \"core\" rate of inflation-net of food and energy-was developed as a way of removing short-term (as in a month or two) volatility from inflation when energy and/or food prices turned volatile. Since food and energy account for about 23% of consumer spending (as weighted in the CPI), however, related inflation cannot be ignored for long. Nonetheless, it is common to hear financial pundits cite annual \"core\" inflation as a way of showing how contained inflation is. Such comments are moronic and such commentators are due the appropriate respect.

Too-Low Inflation Reporting Yields Too-High GDP Growth

As will be discussed in the final installment on GDP, part of the problem with GDP reporting is the way inflation is handled. Although the CPI is not used in the GDP calculation, there are relationships with the price deflators used in converting GDP data and growth to inflation-adjusted numbers. The more inflation is understated, the higher the inflation-adjusted rate of GDP growth that gets reported.
 

Unintentional

Active Member
Messages
577
Money, Banking and the Fed

Is this the same Walter Williams who used to chair the Department of Economics at George Mason University? If so...BRAVO!! Him and Thomas Soul should be running the world.

In any case, the words are very wise, when I first read these posts I thought...nutjob! But as I read more and more and follow the links provided it makes more and more sense. Good job posting this.
 

CaryP

Senior Member
Messages
1,432
Money, Banking and the Fed

Originally posted by Unintentional@Sep 26 2004, 09:35 PM
Is this the same Walter Williams who used to chair the Department of Economics at George Mason University? If so...BRAVO!! Him and Thomas Soul should be running the world.

In any case, the words are very wise, when I first read these posts I thought...nutjob! But as I read more and more and follow the links provided it makes more and more sense. Good job posting this.


Don't know about Williams history with George Mason University. Wise words, maybe. The truth about the govt. lies and the long term plan to rob us of our country is more like it. As for the nut job comment, you're in good company. That's what my wife thinks. She finds all of this hard to believe, and says I sound like a crazy man screaming in the desert. Whatever man. The truth is out there. So few want to even look at it. Thanks Uni.

Cary
 

Top