Monday, January 24, 2011

Intro To The Federal Reserve Bank and Federal Reserve System


Submitted by: Francis Soyer
Intro To The Federal Reserve Bank and Federal Reserve System


Many investors today, as they learn more about the nature of the Federal Reserve, are asking themselves how the US, the supposed land of the free, permit a non-Government-based cartel to take control of its monetary system? Who controls the Fed? And just how did they attain this unbelievable power to operate with the Government’s approval?

To answer all of these questions, we need to put on our winter coats and step back in time to a New Jersey train platform on a cold wintery night in November 1910…

At first glance, nothing around us would look unusual. The train at the platform was comprised of your standard chair cars which would be converted to sleepers at night. Poorer passengers took the cars closer to the engine, while the more well off sat and slept in cars behind the dining car.

However, one thing was very unusual about this particular train. And that something unusual was a single private train car located at the end of the train.

Unlike the others cars whose interiors were dreary affairs of metal and wood, this car’s interior was filled with rich mahogany, velvet, and polished brass. And unlike the other cars which had regular train porters, this car had private servants who were scurrying about stocking the bar and cigar boxes. Finally, unlike the other railcars whose sides were marked with numbers, this particular car had a single plague reading “Aldrich.”

As in Senator Nelson Aldrich, Republican “whip,” investment associate of JP Morgan, and father in law to John D Rockefeller, Jr.

Aldrich arrived at the train car first, decked out in the finest clothes imaginable and accompanied by several porters carrying his luggage. However, once he arrived, he was soon joined at his private car by six guests.

Each guest arrived separately so as not to imply that they knew each other. Indeed, two of them bumped into each other on the platform, they feigned ignorance of each other’s identity. They only addressed one another by first name both in public and in Aldrich’s private car. In fact, their identities were kept so secret that even Aldrich’s servants didn’t know who the six guests were.

Fortunately for us, G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature From Jekyll Island has painstakingly proved their identities. As he notes, they were:



1) Nelson Aldrich, Senator of Rhode Island and Republican “whip,” Chairman of the National Monetary Commission business associate of JP Morgan and father-in-law to John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

2) Abraham Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

3) Frank Vanderlip, President of National City Bank of New York, the most powerful US bank at the time, representing William Rockefeller and the international investment house of Kuhn, Loeb, & Co.

4) Henry Davidson, Senior Partner at the JP Morgan Company.

5) Charles Norton, President of JP Morgan’s First National Bank of New York.

6) Benjamin Strong, head of JP Morgan’s Bankers Trust Company.

7) Paul Warburg, partner of Kuhn, Loeb, & Co, a representative of the Rothschild banking dynasty in England and France, and brother to Max Warburg who was head of the Warburg banking consortium in Germany and the Netherlands.

Together, these six men, represented interests that controlled one fourth of the world’s entire wealth. That is not a typo. These individuals represented the

four most powerful groups in the Anglo-American banking world. They were:



From the US From Europe

Rockefellers Rothschilds

Morgans Warburgs

The train took Aldrich’s private car to Georgia where it was unfastened from the rest of the train. The men then boarded a ferry to Jekyll Island: a private vacation resort recently purchased by JP Morgan and several business associates. To maintain secrecy, the resort’s normal staff were put on vacation and all new servants and porters were brought in.

During the next nine days, these seven men (still only using their first names to avoid recognition) hatched out a plan to create the system that would eventually become the Federal Reserve banking system.

The reason for their doing this was simple: competition.

The Nationals Vs. The Non-Nationals

Before the creation of the Federal Reserve banking system, the US’s banking system was divided into two types of banks: national banks and non-national banks.

National banks received their charters from the Federal Government and could issue their own notes, or money. These were the “old money” vanguard of the banking system, the elite banks based in NY and backed by the noble class families mentioned before.

In contrast, non-nationals were private banks that operated without government charters. These were the “upstarts” of the US banking industry, springing up mainly in the south and west.And the nationals were none too pleased about their presence.

The upstarts were not only giving banking a bad name (the industry suffered 1,748 bank failures from 1890 to 1910), but they were also eating into the Old Vanguard’s profits: as early as 1896, non-national banks controlled up to 54% of the US’s savings deposits.

A second, more pressing issue was also on the minds to the Anglo-American banking giants as they journeyed to Jekyll Island: the US monetary system was moving away from debt usage to private capital.

Because there was no centralized system for determining interest rates, banks set their own interest rates. This in turn, kept the money supply relatively tight as there were strict limits on how many loans banks could generate relative to their assets. Because of this, many corporations were seeking funding privately or from operations (cash reserves).

G. Edward Griffin, in The Creature From Jekyll Island, notes that from 1900 to 1910, some 70% of corporate funding was generated internally, rather than taking out loans.

In other words, big business was moving away from dealing with the banks. This was a huge issue for the Anglo-American banking giants as I shall explain.

Let’s say that back in 1900, Joe America makes a deposit of $100 in ABC bank, earning an interest rate of 1%. ABC then turns around and using Joe’s $100 as reserves, lends out as much as $1,000 at an interest rate of 5%.

In essence the bank has just created $900 out of thin air. However, by doing this the bank is now earning $50 in interest (5% on $1,000) while paying out $1 to Joe (1% of $100) thus pocketing $49 in profits.

As you can imagine, this set-up was obscenely profitable for the banks, which is why the Morgans, Rothschilds, et al were so concerned that Corporate America was moving away from borrowing to fund growth.

Moreover, the fractured nature of the banking system (there were no set rates or capital standards) meant that banks had a tendency to go under. Consider that in the early 20th century, banks in general often lent out ten times the amount of money they held in deposits, assuming it unlikely that any large number of customers might decide to cash out at the same time.

Even more insane, more reckless banks typically only had 3% of deposits in actual cash on hand (the rest was often tied up in short-term loans and investments).

This obviously put the bank in a very tenuous position. Suppose Joe decides to withdraw his $100? Or what if Joe wrote a check for $50 to buy some groceries? Well, if the grocery store clerk used the same bank as Joe, there was no problem because no physical cash had to actually leave its vaults.

However, if the Grocer took the check to another bank and cashed it, then $50 in actual physical cash would have to leave Joe’s bank and be transferred to the other bank. Multiply this by a few hundred transactions at a time when most banks only had 3% of reserves in physical cash and you quickly realize why nearly 2,000 banks went under between 1890 and 1910.
A Review And Look At Global Events In The Upcoming Week


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/24/2011 06:59 -0500
Bank of EnglandBOEBritish PoundCentral BanksConsumer ConfidenceCPIEuropean Central BankEurozoneGross Domestic ProductHungaryIndiaIsraelMonetary PolicyPresident ObamarecoveryTrade BalanceTrichetUnemploymentUnited KingdomYen
Week in review
Last week, some small downside surprises in US data led to a correction in risky assets. This is not to say that trends in US data demonstrated any sign of a marked deterioration last week but rather that expectations on US data may have risen quite fast and too soon. What is even more interesting, however, is that the EUR traded strong despite equity weakness and despite the fact that the much awaited ECOFIN meeting on Monday/Tuesday did not lead to announcements on policy initiatives to alleviate the crisis. Similarly the visit of China’s President Hu to the US did not lead to any major surprises.
With respect to the EUR/$, markets are starting to focus on the possibility that European leaders may now be more determined to finally agree on more decisive measures to address the debt crisis, even if that decision takes a few more weeks to reach. Moreover, front end Eurozone interest rates shot up following the ECB meeting, after Trichet signalled a shift in focus back to more traditional monetary policy concerns, like growth and inflation. Finally, on Friday, the IFO continued to strengthen to further record highs supporting the EUR upside further. (as of now i.e. this morning the dollar is rallying against the Euro, this will put pressure on U.S. Equities and could be the source of a long awaited pull back 1 to %2)
Week Ahead
The week ahead will have interesting GDP prints out of the UK and the US in store. The market has recently shifted to price in a stronger US recovery and a higher probability for BOE hikes – so both prints will be watched closely and will inform investor decisions. Also worth watching are the German and Eurozone PMIs and if they confirm the signs of ongoing strength by the IFO. Against the strong growth back drop in the Eurozone, political events always the potential to increase uncertainty and the prospect of earlier Irish elections than the previously scheduled March date could be a concern.
The US FOMC is expected to acknowledge the improvement in the macro data but not to change its policy stance. President Obama’s state of the Union address will likely focus on budget consolidation and policy to support employment. Hungary’s and Israel’s central banks are both expected to raise base rates on Monday, and so is India’s on Tuesdsay. The minutes from the recent MPC meeting in the UK should continue to indicate that the MPC will likely see through the volatile nature of the commodity price pressures which have led to higher CPI inflation against the drag that fiscal consolidation may pose on domestic demand ahead. (Francis Soyer is expecting no change in fed direction. If anything the fed will use upcoming non farm payroll numbers which are expected to be horrific with plenty of negative revisions will use this as reason for further easing a possible QE 3)
Monday 24th
German and Eurozone Flash Manufacturing PMI (Jan). German PMI is expected to stay at very high levels of 60.5 very close to the prior reading and consensus. (no one cares)
Hungary Monetary Policy Meeting (Jan): Rates are expected to rise from 5.75% to 6.00%, in line with consensus.
Israel Monetary Policy Meeting (Jan): As core inflation continues to rise, BOI will continue to normalize policy rates by raising rates to 2.25% from 2.0% as consensus anticipates as well.
Tuesday 25th
BOJ Meeting: BOJ Monetary Policy Board is expected to confirm that it is maintaining an accommodative monetary policy stance.
India Monetary Policy Meeting (Jan): Central bank to raise rates by 25bps. (India will follow lockstep Policy with China)
UK GDP (Q4 Prelim): With the recent elevated inflation prints, market expectations have picked up for a BOE hike in the next few months; GBP has also traded strong on the back of this. Growth, however, is likely to be a decisive factor on that front. Market will therefore keep a close watch on the GDP print; consensus expectations of 0.5%.
US Consumer Confidence: Consensus expects small improvement relative to the last print of 52.5 at 54.2 (we have no where to go but up, however as real unnenployment breaches %25 we could see this number take a dive into the low 40's high 30's. From a historical point of view these numbers have been and continue to be abysmal.)
President Obama’s State of the Union Address: Labour markets and the timing of fiscal consolidation will likely the key issues. (all he can really do as of now is speak to long term prospects for economic balance and sanity. He has no real power to make anything happen, his commentary is about as valuable as our dollar, declining and headed to zero. The state of the union address should really be given by Big Ben as spokesman for those who have the real power and authority over U.S. affairs.)
Wednesday 26th
Korea GDP (Q4): We expect Q4 GDP to rise by 0.4% qoq resulting in annual growth of 6.1% for 2010.
UK Minutes of MPC Meeting (Jan). With the recent high headline inflation numbers, the market is focusing on the potential for a policy shift for the UK MPC in the months ahead. Minutes of this last meeting are expected to continue to focus on the volatile nature of commodity prices which have driven inflation higher, the softer trends in core and the impact of fiscal consolidation ahead.
US FOMC Meeting (Jan): The FOMC’s assessment of economic conditions is likely to improve. No changes in policy. (the only improvement is the rise of the S&P etc. as for the real economy, jobs core inflation those things remain in the crapper. Expect the crapper pieces of data to be used for further easing or at least leaving the door open to it in Feds commentary.)
Thursday 27th
Japan Trade Balance (Dec): Exports appear to have remained firm in December, and we are forecasting a reading of +9.6% yoy (+9.2% in November, consensus +9.3%). Export value liekly increased more sharply than import value, and that as a result the trade surplus widened to ¥448.5 billion from ¥161.1 billion in November (consensus ¥465.0bn).
US Durable Goods Orders (Dec): Durable goods orders have likely risen by 1% in December. Consensus anticipates an increase of 1.5%.
US Weekly Claims
Friday 28th
Japanese Labour Market Data (Dec): Employment conditions are improving, but at a slow pace. Expectations for improvements in both the unemployment rate, a lagging economic indicator, to 5.0% in December, better than consensus at 5.1% and from 5.1% in November. The effective ratio of job offers to applicants, a coincident indicator, to 0.58 from 0.57 (same as consensus).
Japanese CPI (Dec): Do not expect any major change in the core-core CPI trend, consensus looking for -0.8% in December (-0.9% in November).
US GDP (Q4 advanced): Consensus expects a 3.5% qoq annualized print (Goldman is at 3%). (These numbers can no longer be trusted at all. They get revised down continually and I will post net numbers (non fabricated) numbers in the articles to come. The long and short of it is that there has been no gain in GDP numbers on the contrary they are negative and substantially so since 2008.)

Origin of the Federal Reserve and why the system is broken

Seven Men, Nine Days, One New Monetary Cartel
Submitted by Phoenix Capital Research on 01/23/2011 17:15 -0500


Thus, on a wintery day in November 1910, seven men retreated to JP Morgan’s private Jekyll Island resort to plan a system of banking that would address all of these problems, while simultaneously expanding their power and influence over the US banking system.
G. Edward Griffin, in The Creature From Jekyll Island, puts their primary goals as the following:
1) To stop the growing influence of smaller banks and increase the Anglo-American banking giants’ grip on the US financial system
2) To shift US banking to a more “loan heavy” structure thereby expanding the monetary base more dramatically (making money more “elastic”)
3) To pool all national banks reserves and set nation-wide standards for loans to reserves ratios, thereby minimizing the risks of bank runs and failure
4) To establish a means of shifting the losses from bank failures away from the banks and onto the public
And finally…
5) To develop a PR campaign that would result in the US populace accepting the implementation of a full-scale private banking cartel
I do not have time to detail the precise proceedings of the meetings these men held over their nine day stay at Jekyll Island, nor is there room to explain precisely how they infiltrated the US political system and managed to introduce a banking plan that was written by Frank Vanderlip and Benjamin Strong (who represented the Rockefeller and Morgan families, respectively) as if it were a bill produced by members of Congress.
However, a brief overview is as follows:

Initially Senator Aldrich proposed something quite similar to the Bank of England, in which there would be one single large bank. However, the Rockefeller interests (who had ample experience with the US populace’s reaction to monopolies) thought this would be too much for Americans to stomach. Instead, they proposed the creation of 12 regional banks largely to maintain the illusion that the Fed would be a union, not a single central bank.
This is where the expertise of Paul Warburg, who had the most experience with European-style central banking cartels, came in. Warburg proposed creating a banking structure that would be more conservative at first so that the general public would be more willing to accept it, then stripping away the conservative props once the system was in place.
For instance, Warburg proposed the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, a group of semi-elected officials who would meet and decide Fed policy on interest rates and the like. This created the illusion that the Fed would resemble a normal banking corporation with a board of directors. However, in point of fact the Fed Board was a means to keep all the key decision making centralized at one bank in Washington DC (close to New York where the Bank Oligarchs were headquartered).

Warburg also came up with the name “Federal Reserve” which evoked the sense that the organization was aligned with the Government and was secure. His view was that the words “central” and “bank” must be avoided at all costs.
However, the most daring and provocative of all Warburg’s proposals was that the Fed would take over the issuance of ALL money in the US. For the first time in US history, money would be produced by privately held banks, NOT the US Government.

From then on, US Federal Reserve notes would be legal tender for settling all debts public or private. Thus, if someone was owed money and refused to accept Federal Reserve Notes (Dollars) as payment, he or she could go to jail. The Dollar even says this in the top left corner of its face.
Obviously, getting the public to swallow this proposal wasn’t going to be easy. The bankers put together a special committee to investigate the plan. However, the Pujo Committee was largely a farce in which various members of Congress (all bought out by the banks) questioned the bankers on the more innocuous portions of the proposal.
As part of their PR campaign, the bankers also donated some $5 million to Harvard, Princeton, and the University of Chicago (the last of which was founded using contributions from John D Rockefeller) all of which began turning out studies and academic papers promoting the virtues of the proposed system.

However, the bill remained a tough pill to swallow especially given Senator Aldrich’s close affiliation with Wall Street (remember, he was an associate of JP Morgan). The “Aldrich Bill” as it was known never even made it to vote in the Senate.

Splitting the Vote… and Backing All Three Candidates

Bruised, but not defeated, the bankers knew that in order to get their plan put into action they needed support from the very TOP of the US Government: the President of the United States. Consequently, they engaged in one of the most sophisticated lobbying efforts in history, backing all THREE candidates (Taft, Wilson, and Roosevelt) in the 1912 election.

In fact, it was JP Morgan’s associates who pushed Roosevelt to run in the first place (giving him the monetary backing to do so) in order to pull voters from Taft who was publicly recognized as pro-Wall Street and so would not have been as effective at getting the bankers plan implemented without public outcry.
Thus the 1912 election consisted of three pro-Wall Street candidates, though only one of them (Taft) was publicly recognized as such. Roosevelt and Wilson were both backed by private banking money, though their backers urged them to sound out an “anti Wall Street” bank campaign (which they did with great success).

The results worked as hoped. Roosevelt served as the “anti-bank” foil to Taft’s pro-Wall Street/ Big Business status, splitting the vote and allowing Wilson to win with just 42% of votes (the other 58% were split between Taft and Roosevelt). The bankers now had a supporter in the White House, most importantly, one who was thought by the public to be against the banks and their “Aldrich Plan” plan as it had come to be known.
Officially Backed and Bailed Out By Uncle Sam

Ready to make a second attempt at implementing their plan, the bankers enlisted the Democratic Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, Carter Glass, to draft a new banking bill. Glass, who by his own admission knew nothing about banking, was merely a front, a figurehead who denounced the Aldrich Plan, pointed out its biggest flaws to the public, and the proposed an identical plan with the very same flaws included.

The Glass-Owen bill (it was co-sponsored by Senator Robert Owen) moved along towards becoming law much more quickly than the Aldrich Plan, largely due to the fact that the Wall Street banks engaged in a massive PR campaign in whch they publicly decried it as wrong and evil and against their interests (despite the fact they themselves wrote it).
The final coup was accomplished when William Jennings Bryan, the most powerful Democrat in Congress, met with Glass and said he would pass the bill provided that the money issued by the Federal Reserve was backed by the US Government and that the Governor of the Federal Reserve would be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate: two clauses that the Wall Street bankers wanted but had intentionally left out of the draft so that they could be used as “bargaining chips” to make it appear as though compromises were made.
G. Edward Griffin, repeats a quote Fed mastermind Paul Warburg regarding their success:

While technically and legally the Federal Reserve note is an obligation of the United States Government, in reality it is an obligation, the sole responsibility for which rests on the reserve banks… The Government could only be called to take them up after the reserve banks failed.

Here lies the ultimate triumph of the cartel, not only would the Federal Reserve issue money (collecting interest on the loans since the money was technically being leant to the US), but should the system ever go bust, the US Government would be required to step in and bailout the Federal Reserve’s losses.

It had taken three years and countless strategies and deceptions, but on December 23 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed into law. From then on, the US monetary system would be controlled by private interests in a government-backed cartel.

The above account is a very condensed version of the history of the Federal Reserve’s creation. The actual story is even more rife with twists and power struggles. For those of you who are interested in knowing more about it, I highly recommend reading The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. It’s a stunning book and full of revelations that range from shocking to outright infuriating.

Best Regards,
Graham Summers