The Secret World of Central Banks
by Michael Nystrom, MBA
August 7, 2007
Today, all eyes were on the Federal Reserve: How it would respond to the recent turmoil in global financial markets? Would it lower rates, and if so, would it do any good?
By the time you read this, the Fed's decision - made in secret - will have already been announced. Hundreds of news articles and blogs will argue over its wording and meaning. Was it dovish or hawkish? Discussed ad nauseam will be: what the policy statement does or does not clarify, what it leaves room for in the future, what it means for the economy, housing, jobs, and the prospects for recession or recovery.
What will not be discussed is the powerful role played by central banks themselves.
Central Banks = Centralized Economic Planning
If you thought that centralized economic planning disappeared with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, think again. Eight times each year, a group of twelve men meet to make secret decisions that have a profound impact on the US and global economies. None of these men are elected. Their meetings are closed to the public. Even members of the US Congress and the Senate Banking and Finance Committees are barred from attending, or even knowing what is discussed. No detailed account of arguments or discussions is ever made public. Listen to Congressman Ron Paul on the secrecy of the Fed:
In some parts of the world, this might be called a cabal. Here it is called the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC). Regardless of what you call it, it is profoundly unfair to the majority of Americans. Eight of the representatives at today's meeting - the Chairman and the Board of Governors - are political appointees of the President. All twelve men are bankers. Their secret decisions - made eight times each year - affect whether or not you can get a loan, what your payment will be, whether the economy booms or sinks into recession, and therefore whether or not you'll have a job.
What the Fed says and what it does are two different things. Today, with the Fed's stated "focus on inflation," I am reminded of Richard Russell's January 4, 2007 edition of his Dow Theory Letters, in which he had a short analysis of central banks. Mr. Russell 83 is years old and has been watching the market for well over fifty (50!) years. He's one wise & curious dude (the last two his own words) who's been writing non-stop since 1958.
This is what Russell has to say about central banks in general:
CENTRAL BANKS - I get a kick out of all these central bank governors, both here and overseas, constantly warning us about the "terrible danger of inflation." What a bunch of snake-oil salesmen these guys are. It's the central banks themselves that are pumping out all that extra fiat money that is creating the inflation. It's like an AIDS carrier indulging in all the sex he can handle while simultaneously warning about the spread of the disease.
So what's it all about with these central bankers? Simple, they like their cushy jobs along with the perks, and the only thing they're worried about is that the world will get wise to the central bank/fiat money racket, and maybe kill the beast. In other words, the central banks are afraid that voters will finally get rid of the whole private money business along with its nonstop production of intrinsically worthless fiat money.
You see, a real headwind of inflation would anger the public, in which case a few intelligent journalists might start putting the blame where it belongs - on the central banks, not the least of which is our own Federal Reserve. No, too much inflation, surging inflation, would be dangerous - it might expose the Fed and the central bankers for what they are - engines of inflation. When you've got a great racket going, like taking control of a nation's money, you want to protect that racket.
So its no wonder that the governors of our Federal Reserve take turns "warning us" about inflation while simultaneously telling us that "they'll keep everything under control." It's enough to cause this editor to "throw up his cookies." The curse of the Fed - it keeps going on and on and on. These freebooters know how to protect their racket. Create inflation, hide the evidence (as they did when they hid the figures on the broad M-3 money supply) and bravely act as our "protectors and saviors." Where was Congress when the Federal Reserve was first approved in 1913? Answer - At the same place it was when Congress handed over to President Bush the power to make war. End of that Russell rant. Whew!
Richard Russell hits the nail right on the head. You won't hear about this in the mainstream media anytime soon. Unlike the MSM, Richard Russell is independent - beholden to no advertisers. He can say what he wants; he is free to speak the truth.
Will the public ever wake up to what is going on with our money supply, and "finally get rid of the whole private money business along with its nonstop production of intrinsically worthless fiat money?" The first step towards that goal is awareness.
Since the Fed is worried about excessive inflation - which it has been creating itself, perhaps it is time for it to create a little deflation, i.e. monetary destruction. By limiting the supply of credit, assets that rely on ever increasing amounts of credit creation begin to lose value or disappear altogether. For those of you who think that deflation is impossible, I direct you to one of the most profound comments ever to appear on Bull! Not bull:
I am fascinated by the common perception that the Federal Reserve is a proven non-stop inflation machine. Inherently, the Federal Reserve uses inflation and deflation to whipsaw the average bystander out of his savings. I don't see how one economic machination is more favored over the other when the goal is to ensure that the public's savings ends up in the accounts of the shareholders of the Federal Reserve System.
Think about it. And stay tuned.
The World's Debt Money System
Last week, in response to my article 'Global Liquidity Defined' I received a question on our debt money system: "I have heard that if all debts were repaid, there would be no "money" left. Is this true?" The short answer to this - thanks to the central bankers - is yes. The long answer will come later this week. Please sign up here to be notified when it is released.
- New charts, news and financial links -- both the bull and the not bull -- updated each day on the homepage.
- For more articles like this, please see the Archive
- If you would like to be notified of updates, and new articles, subscribe to my low volume announcement list
Market Updates:














What does the Federal Reserve spend all THEIR money on?
Charging everybody all this interest on all these loans for nearly 100 years... you have to wonder what they're buying?
"...perhaps it is time for it to create a little deflation..."
No, no, no, no, no!
The cure for inflation is stabilization -- not deflation! People have suffered the ravages of planned currency depreciation for too long. It is not generally advisable to plunge a newly burned victim into a dry ice bath. Deflation would effectively, once and for all, pauperize the masses by means of a fatal scarcity of money.
Under a debt based money regime, money is borrowed into existence. All of this debt that people are complaining about is merely the means by which they have money to spend. If one has a dollar in his or her pocket, it is because someone has taken out a loan that includes this amount. Government debt merely represents that portion of the money supply that was created by government borrowing. Third world nation debt is simply the obverse side of the coin of international liquidity. Since an increase in aggregate debt is concomittant with a comparable increase in the money supply, debt can never be paid off in total. The economy, jobs, social order, etc, would collapse with a hard thud well before any sizeable paydown-dent in total debt occurred. The rabble would be assaulting the barricades with their pitchforks and torches!
When Schacht "cured" German inflation after the first world war and Erhard and Roepke did the same after the second one, they accomplished this through stabilization. In 1963, Jacques Rueff wrote, "The suddenness of Germany's recovery was even more striking than its scope. It was not spread out over months or even weeks, but has a specific date... the day the currency reform went into effect. Only those who were on the spot can bear witness to the literally instantaneous effect it had upon the reappearance of merchandise and customers in the stores."
Central bankers have played their fractional reserve con game for hundreds of years, and won tremendous amounts of real wealth in the process. Imagine -- making pretty pieces of paper at will and exchanging this needless crap for productive real estate, factories, homes, gold, silver, diamonds, etc! When the Fed was formed in 1913, the money trust won a battle they had been waging since before the founding of the Republic. The elite heirs of Rothschild, Biddle, and Morgan finally vanquished those humble heirs of those stalwart defenders of the common folk: Jackson; Lincoln; and Bryan. The Fed was, at first, largely empowered to discount trade acceptances. Threrfore, the money supply would expand and contract in accordance with business conditions. When the rabid Keynesians appeared on the scene in the late 1940s (Keynes, himself, was not a Keynesian!), the idea of perpetual budget deficits and infinite stimulus to the economy became ensconced. And inflation has become the way of life in most countries.
While economists believe that inflation has averaged around 3% per year since 1950 (the average is probably higher), this 3% per year is a really frightful number. Say, this year prices are higher than last year's by 3%; last year's were higher than the previous year's by 3% -- this sequence is characteristic of a curve increasing by logarithmic increments! This growth pattern ends when the curve is pointing to Heaven -- and we are now certainly in nosebleed territory.
I feel that not many years will pass before we are forced to adopt a new monetary regimen. There will be much widespread suffering. Unfortunately, it is not clear that the resolution of the upcoming, monetary crisis will result in a favorable environment conducive to a free society. As long as the elites presently in control remain at the helm, there will likely be a widening disparity between haves and have-nots. Consider a fact that should have us all in a current state of revolt -- 2% of Americans own 84% of the country's real wealth; up from 48% in 1950! I suppose we are doing nothing about this -- nor will we -- because we are much like frogs being boiled.
Regards,
Stevo
Ben Bernanke
Ben Bernanke is a scholar. We've never had anyone as competent. He should be given a life-time post at the Fed. He's the only Chairman that has ever followed the monetarist doctrine.
Bernanke & Fed
I'd love to see Bernanke as head of Fed for a life-time, too, but ONLY if the lifetime of the Fed was to expire about 4 weeks from now ! Get a clue ! The Fed is no more Fed than Federal Express. It's a banking conglomerate which has high-jacked our country and you can't see the empty vaults at Ft. Knox for the titillating scholarship of a fraud posing as head of an unconstitutional body of thieves !! With idiocy like this looming in the public, it's no wonder we're losing the country.
Alternative solution?
I agree that the current monetary system is dysfunctional and is counter to our democratic society. On the other hand, I would like to hear some ideas on what would replace the current banking system. Surely a new banking system would be accountable to the people and would be more transparent.
But I wonder about the printing of money. Could it be that a new banking system would still end up printing money thus creating inflation because it’s a necessary evil? I wonder is anything would change given the difficult balancing act of keeping the economy in a prosperous state.
Certainly a new currency backed by gold would help prevent the proliferation of money but I'm not sure if such a solution is dynamic enough for a growing and prospering economy.
Thoughts?
Money and banking
The money supply can be determined by the gold on deposit. Fewer dollars will buy more. Production increases. Detroit can produce automobiles faster now than in 1949. With increases in production and a stable currency prices will fall. In other words the money you have will appreciate in purchasing power due to production increases. If money remains static your purchasing power will increase. Interest will be relatively low without regulation because with the faith in static(honest) money and increased productivity interest plus appreciating currency value would be suficient income on loaned funds...To see how a country would function without a central bank. Study Hong Kong in most of 20th century, and the US in the 19th century. Both economies grew at an unpresidented rate.
Growth doesn't need more money.
Why does money have to be "dynamic"? How much money is enough? It's absurd to think that you need to "expand" the money supply to "expand" the economy. The solution is to abolish the FED and let private industry innovate an appropriate means of exchange and savings. Who knows how it would end up, the preference of the market and consumers would shape the eventual outcome.
don't rely on foreign sources of gold
a good thing that would come out of a gold backed currency would be the realization that we would need our own gold mines. mining could be a new growth industry in America.
plus it wouldn't hurt to drill for more oil in America! lol
da bear