reply to post by InformationAccount
if you mean this blurb, i would agree ... it reads like classic double-speak.
and, i believe it was intended that way. there wasn't much in the way of national communications back then ... debate and dispute was usually
contained within the circles of the decision-makers, not the ppl they represented.
From December 1912 to December 1913, the Glass-Willis proposal
was hotly debated, molded and reshaped. By December 23, 1913, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law, it stood as a
classic example of compromise—a decentralized central bank that balanced the competing interests of private banks and populist sentiment.
Explaining it in detail is more than i am prepared to do right now, but here's the gist of it ...
Although a truly centralized system, the FR was promoted to and accepted by the public as "de-centralized" due to the regional management, Board of
Governors and appointed districts (12 of'em).
these 12 regions or districts seemed
and were presented as "de-centralized" to those in both the private and public sectors ... especially to
those who demonized any
central or national system. (the majority btw)
with enough double-speak, the Act was passed (although not unanimously).
since that time, many changes to the system have occurred but it is still a centralized system that operates outside Constitutional authority. (and,
the majority [albeit a smaller one] still oppose it)
here's another link you may find helpful ... FDIC / historical analysis
this page link is to the savings & loan crisis from the 80s but you can surf & search the site at will.
the Federal Reserve, as primary manipulator / speculator, they and they alone control both inflation and deflation across the board. Add the other
Global banks into the mix and you can easily understand why the ppl need and should invest in themselves at a member-owned, community credit union.
fyi, mega-banks haven't always been in the investment/broker business ... they received that privilege around turn of the century ... 1999 or
thereabouts. This whole mess has been one manipulation after another with the sole purpose of driving the ppl into oppression via an imaginary
boogey-man (fiat funding)
The taxation of labor to fund a fiat leveraged (Fake) money system that benifits those who inheirit thier wealth is just plain wrong.
i cannot wholly agree with this statement (for the most part it's correct tho) but after you understand the system better, perhaps you're opinion will
it would be unfair and wrong to agree that everyone who inherits excessive wealth is evil or selfish or even undeserving. besides, it is not my place
to judge them.
sure, i have opinions about many of them but again, tis just an opinion.
edit on 7-11-2011 by Honor93 because: fix link