So they control Bernanke? I thought he was appointed by the President.
The president chooses from a list of candidates
prepared by the banking cartel.
So the answer to your question is, yes.
True, but it would take an area several football fields in size to store half the world's wealth in gold (assuming that gold made up at least half the world's wealth in 1850) underground. Using 1850s technology, it would have taken thousands of people chipping away at rock for years. There was no way such an engineering feat could have avoided a massive amount of publicity, if not from outlets supposedly controlled by the Rothschilds, by normal people just showing up and later telling others.
The Manhatten project was successfully kept under wraps for years,
and that involved thousands of people.
This conspiracy has just gotten too big. The truth is that the Rothschilds didn't have $6 Billion back in 1850; heck, the French/English branch of the family barely has $1 Billion, today. If it were otherwise, my bosses would have spent 1/2 their time talking on the phone with the Rothschilds. The truth is that they didn't.
I assume you are talking about selling the Rothschilds wealth management services?
Do you really think they would need any of that, given their legendary history.
A lot of smart people have come up with easily verifiable claims that put "The Money Masters" in perspective. One of them is that the federal reserve refunds all of its profits, except a tiny dividend, to the federal government. The other is that Bernanke, and the other members of the FOMC, are appointed by the President. I'm not saying the Fed isn't a stupid system, but I am saying that there's a great deal of verifiable evidence that the current conspiracy about it being privately owned isn't correct.
It isn't a stupid system at all, it is a extremely cleverly designed, but ultimately destructive system.
I've heard that before about the Fed giving interest back to the Federal Government,
and I have no reason to believe it isn't true.
But how does this prove the Fed isn't privately controlled?
In England we have a similar but different array of things designed to confuse anyone looking for answers,
the BOE was "nationalised" in 1946, but the government still needs to borrow money into existence
from its own "nationlised" bank. It was also declared that this "nationalised" bank
was to be made "independent" in 1997.
Then if you look on the BOE's own website it tells you that the highest level of management
at this bank, is appointed by "The Crown". A huge secretive corporation, which is hundreds of
years old and operates outside the control of government. The queen is a front for this
entity, I don't believe she ultimately controls it though.
Who gets the interest? An easily verifiable claim is that the interest gets refunded to the federal government. Again, the vast majority of the fed's profits wind up in the hands of the federal government. A very small percentage, which amounted to $100 million in 1985, went to member banks:
Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. In addition, nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.
-Edward Flaherty, PhD.
So now you attest that they are privately owned, but not privately controlled,
whereas above you said they the idea that they are privately owned is not correct.
I agree control is the important issue here. You can say the board of governors is
"publically-appointed", but it is from a list of candidates prepared by the banking
I'm saying that if you're claiming that the federal reserve is privately owned, the first question from the contrarian in me, is:
1.) Who controls it?
2.) Where do its profits go?
Why wasn't the information that the FOMC controls monetary policy (the ability to print money) and that the Fed refunds interest it charges to the federal government (and would refund everything it had, save a small dividend for member banks if market conditions allowed) not included in the video?
There's a limit to how much you can fit into 3 hours.
The FOMC is part of the federal reserve system,
are we basically in agreement then that the privately-owned
federal reserve system controls the volume of money in
circulation, not the federal government.
It seems like in many areas, you know a lot more about econ and finance than I do. I've always taken it as a given that banks can create money by having money on deposit since I took Macroeconomics.
That's true, but when we allege something that 99% of the country would think we're crazy to allege, we weaken our argument.
It doesn't take much to convince people that the Fed causes inflation and weakens the dollar. Just pull out a graph of the cost of an ounce of gold over the past 200 years.
However, all of that common sense convincing is undone when we start alleging that a whole bunch of sneaky money men are pulling the strings at the Federal Reserve, and can now print or create all of the money they want and make trillions of dollars.
It's certainly a difficult thing to explain to people.
For many reasons, it is made-purposefully difficult to understand,
some people don't want to understand because to believe the world
is run by unaccountable elites isn't what they want to hear.
Aaron Russo's new film freedom to fascism, is a good attempt at
raising awareness in this area, he even claims to have known