<?xml version="1.0"?>










<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Michael Donihe For Congress]]></title>
    <link>http://michaeldoniheforcongress2008.webs.com/blog.htm</link>
    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <generator>Freewebs</generator>

    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[The Mandrake Mechanism (How the Fed Creates Money out of nothing)]]></title>
      <link>http://michaeldoniheforcongress2008.webs.com/blog.htm?blogentryid=3567473</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<a id="top" target="_self" href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts" style="text-decoration: none;"><font color="black" size="+1"><b>The Mandrake Mechanism-(How the Fed Creates Money)</b></font></a><br>

<small>
<b><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/griffin.htm#four" target="_blank">The Creature from Jekyll Island -Book Excerpt ^</a>
</b>
 &#124; May 1998
 &#124; G. Edward Griffin
</small><h3><br></h3><h3><b>Chapter Ten</b></h3>
 <h2>THE MANDRAKE&nbsp;<br> MECHANISM</h2>
 <blockquote>
  <blockquote>
   <blockquote>
    <blockquote>
     <p><i>The
Method by which the Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing; the
concept of usury as the payment of interest on pretended loans; the
true cause of the hidden tax called inflation; the way in which the Fed
creates boom-bust cycles.</i></p></blockquote>
   </blockquote>
  </blockquote>
 </blockquote>
 <p>&nbsp;</p><p>In the 1940s, there was a comic strip character called <a href="http://www.toonopedia.com/mandrake.htm"> Mandrake the Magician</a>.
His specialty was creating things out of nothing and, when appropriate,
to make them disappear back into that same void. It is fitting,
therefore, that the process to be described in this section should be
named in his honor.</p><p><a name="return1">In the previous chapters, we examined the technique developed by the political and monetary scientists to create money out of</a>
nothing for the purpose of lending. This is not an entirely accurate
description because it implies that money is created first and then
waits for someone to borrow it. On the other hand, textbooks on banking
often state that money is created out of debt. This also is misleading
because it implies that debt exists first and then is converted into
money. In truth, money is not created until the instant it is borrowed.
It is the act of borrowing which causes it to spring into existence.
And, incidentally, it is the act of paying off the debt that causes it
to vanish.<sup><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts#one">1</a></sup>&nbsp;
There is no short phrase that perfectly describes that process. So,
until one is invented along the way, we shall continue using the phrase
"create money out of nothing" and occasionally add "for the purpose of
lending" where necessary to further clarify the meaning.</p><p>So, let us now...see just how far this money/debt-creation process has been carried -- and how it works.</p><p>The
first fact that needs to be considered is that our money today has no
gold or silver behind it whatsoever. The fraction is not 54% nor 15%.
It is 0%. It has traveled the path of all previous fractional money in
history and already has degenerated into pure fiat money. The fact that
most of it is in the form of checkbook balances rather than paper
currency is a mere technicality; and the fact that bankers speak about
"reserve ratios" is eye wash. The so-called reserves to which they
refer are, in fact, Treasury bonds and other certificates of <i>debt</i>. Our money is pure fiat through and through.</p><p>The
second fact that needs to be clearly understood is that, in spite of
the technical jargon and seemingly complicated procedures, the actual
mechanism by which the Federal Reserve creates money is quite simple.
They do it exactly the same way the goldsmiths of old did except, of
course, the goldsmiths were limited by the need to hold <i>some</i> precious metals in reserve, whereas the Fed has no such restriction.</p><p><span><b>the federal reserve is candid</b></span></p><p><a name="return2">The Federal Reserve itself is amazingly frank about this process. A booklet published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New</a>
York tells us: "Currency cannot be redeemed, or exchanged, for Treasury
gold or any other asset used as backing. The question of just what
assets 'back' Federal Reserve notes has little but bookkeeping
significance."<sup><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts#two">2</a></sup></p><p><a name="return3">Elsewhere in the same publication we are told: "Banks are creating money based on a borrower's promise to pay (the</a> IOU)...Banks create money by 'monetizing' the private debts of businesses and individuals."<sup><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts#three">3</a></sup></p><p>In a booklet entitled <i><a href="http://landru.i-link-2.net/monques/mmm2.html">Modern Money Mechanics</a></i>, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago says:</p><blockquote>
  <p>In
the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as
commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper.
Deposits are merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as
metal, but generally far less than their face amount.</p><p><a name="return4">What, then, makes these instruments -- checks, paper money, and coins -- acceptable at face value in payment</a>
of all debts and for other monetary uses? Mainly, it is the confidence
people have that they will be able to exchange such money for other
financial assets and real goods and services whenever they choose to do
so. This partly is a matter of law; currency has been designated "legal
tender" by the government -- that is, it must be accepted.<sup><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts#four">4</a></sup></p></blockquote>
 <p>In
the fine print of a footnote in a bulletin of the Federal Reserve Bank
of St. Louis, we find this surprisingly candid explanation:&nbsp;</p><blockquote>
  <p><a name="return5">Modern monetary systems have a fiat base -- literally money by decree -- with depository institutions, acting as</a>
fiduciaries, creating obligations against themselves with the fiat base
acting in part as reserves. The decree appears on the currency notes:
"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." While no
individual could refuse to accept such money for debt repayment,
exchange contracts could easily be composed to thwart its use in
everyday commerce. However, a forceful explanation as to why money is
accepted is that the federal government requires it as payment for tax
liabilities. Anticipation of the need to clear this debt creates a
demand for the pure fiat dollars.<sup><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts#five">5</a></sup></p></blockquote>
 <p><span><b>money would vanish without debt</b></span></p><p>It is difficult for Americans to come to grips with the fact that their total <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current"> money supply</a>
is backed by nothing but debt, and it is even more mind boggling to
visualize that, if everyone paid back all that was borrowed, <i>there would be no money left in existence. </i>That's
right, there would not be one penny in circulation -- all coins and all
paper currency would be returned to bank vaults -- and there would be
not one dollar in any one's checking account. In short, all money would
disappear.</p><p>Marriner Eccles was the Governor of the Federal
Reserve System in 1941. On September 30 of that year, Eccles was asked
to give testimony before the House Committee on Banking and Currency.
The purpose of the hearing was to obtain information regarding the role
of the Federal Reserve in creating conditions that led to the
depression of the 1930s. Congressman Wright Patman, who was Chairman of
that committee, asked how the Fed got the money to purchase two billion
dollars worth of government bonds in 1933. This is the exchange that
followed.</p><blockquote>
  <p>ECCLES: We created it.<br> PATMAN: Out of what?<br> ECCLES: Out of the right to issue credit money.<br> PATMAN: And there is nothing behind it, is there, except our government's credit?<br> ECCLES: That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn't be any money.</p></blockquote>
 <p>It
must be realized that, while money may represent an asset to selected
individuals, when it is considered as an aggregate of the total money
supply, it is not an asset at all. A man who borrows $1,000 may think
that he has increased his financial position by that amount but he has
not. His $1,000 cash asset is offset by his $1,000 loan liability, and
his net position is zero. Bank accounts are exactly the same on a
larger scale. Add up all the bank accounts in the nation, and it would
be easy to assume that all that money represents a gigantic pool of
assets which support the economy. Yet, every bit of this money is owed
by someone. Some will owe nothing. Others will owe many times what they
possess. All added together, the national balance is zero. What we
think is money is but a grand illusion. The reality is debt.</p><p>Robert
Hemphill was the Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta.
In the foreword to a book by Irving Fisher, entitled <i>100% Money</i>, Hemphill said this:</p><blockquote>
  <p><a name="return6">If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in</a>
circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent
on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in
circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money
we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a
permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture,
the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible --
but there it is.<sup><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts#six">6</a></sup></p></blockquote>
 <p><a name="return7">With the knowledge that money in America is based on debt, it should not come as a surprise to learn that the Federal</a> Reserve System is not the least interested in seeing a reduction in <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1"> debt</a>
in this country, regardless of public utterances to the contrary. Here
is the bottom line from the System's own publications. The Federal
Reserve Bank of Philadelphia says: "A large and growing number of
analysts, on the other hand, now regard the national debt as something
useful, if not an actual blessing....[They believe] the national debt
need not be reduced at all."<sup><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts#seven">7</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;</sup></p><p><a name="return8">The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago adds: "Debt -- public and private -- is here to stay. It plays an essential role in</a> economic processes.... What is required is not the abolition of debt, but its prudent use and intelligent management."<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts#eight"><sup>8</sup></a></p><p><span><b>what's wrong with a little debt?</b></span></p><p>There
is a kind of fascinating appeal to this theory. It gives those who
expound it an aura of intellectualism, the appearance of being able to
grasp a complex economic principle that is beyond the comprehension of
mere mortals. And, for the less academically minded, it offers the
comfort of at least <i>sounding</i> moderate. After all, what's <i>wrong</i> with a little debt, prudently used and intelligently managed? The answer is nothing, <i>provided</i> the debt is based on an honest transaction. There is plenty wrong with it if it is based upon fraud.</p><p>An
honest transaction is one in which a borrower pays an agreed upon sum
in return for the temporary use of a lender's asset. That asset could
be anything of tangible value. If it were an automobile, for example,
then the borrower would pay "rent." If it is money, then the rent is
called "interest." Either way, the concept is the same.</p><p>When we
go to a lender -- either a bank or a private party -- and receive a
loan of money, we are willing to pay interest on the loan in
recognition of the fact that the money we are borrowing is an asset
which we want to use. It seems only fair to pay a rental fee for that
asset to the person who owns it. It is not easy to acquire an
automobile, and it is not easy to acquire money -- <i>real</i> money,
that is. If the money we are borrowing was earned by someone's labor
and talent, they are fully entitled to receive interest on it. But what
are we to think of money that is created by the mere stroke of a pen or
the click of a computer key? Why should anyone collect a rental fee on <i>that</i>?</p><p><a name="return9">When banks place credits into your checking account, they are merely <i>pretending</i> to lend you money. In reality, they have</a>
nothing to lend. Even the money that non-indebted depositors have
placed with them was originally created out of nothing in response to
someone else's loan. So what entitles the banks to collect rent on <i>nothing</i>?
It is immaterial that men everywhere are forced by law to accept these
nothing certificates in exchange for real goods and services. We are
talking here, not about what is legal, but what is <i>moral</i>. As
Thomas Jefferson observed at the time of his protracted battle against
central banking in the United States, "No one has a natural right to
the trade of money lender, but he who has money to lend."<sup><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts#nine">9</a></sup></p><p><span><b>third reason to abolish the system</b></span></p><p>Centuries ago, <i>usury</i>
was defined as any interest charged for a loan. Modern usage has
redefined it as excessive interest. Certainly, any amount of interest
charged for a <i>pretended</i> loan is excessive. The dictionary, therefore, needs a new definition. <i>Usury: The charging of any interest on a loan of fiat money.</i></p><p><a name="return10">Let us, therefore, look at debt and interest in this light. Thomas Edison summed up the immorality of the system when he said:</a></p><blockquote>
  <p>People
who will not turn a shovel of dirt on the project nor contribute a
pound of materials will collect more money...than will the people who
will supply all the materials and do all the work.<sup><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts#ten">10</a></sup></p></blockquote>
 <p>Is
that an exaggeration? Let us consider the purchase of a $100,000 home
in which $30,000 represents the cost of the land, architect's fee,
sales commissions, building permits, and that sort of thing and $70,000
is the cost of labor and building materials. If the home buyer puts up
$30,000 as a down payment, then $70,000 must be borrowed. If the loan
is issued at 11% over a 30-year period, the amount of interest paid
will be $167,806. That means the amount paid to those who loan the
money is about 2 1/2 times greater than paid to those who provide all
the labor and all the materials. It is true that this figure represents
the time-value of that money over thirty years and easily could be
justified on the basis that a lender deserves to be compensated for
surrendering the use of his capital for half a lifetime. But that
assumes the lender actually had something to surrender, that he had
earned the capital, saved it, and then loaned it for construction of
someone else's house. What are we to think, however, about a lender who
did nothing to earn the money, had not saved it, and, in fact, simply
created it out of thin air? What is the time-value of nothing?</p><p>As
we have already shown, every dollar that exists today, either in the
form of currency, checkbook money, or even credit card money -- in
other words, our <i>entire</i> money supply -- exists only because it was borrowed by someone; perhaps not you, but <i>someone</i>.
That means all the American dollars in the entire world are earning
daily and compounding interest for the banks which created them. A
portion of every business venture, every investment, every profit,
every transaction which involves money -- and that even includes <i>losses</i> and the payment of <i>taxes</i>
-- a portion of all that is earmarked as payment to a bank. And what
did the banks do to earn this perpetually flowing river of wealth? Did
they lend out their own capital obtained through investment of
stockholders? Did they lend out the hard-earned savings of their
depositors? No, neither of these were their major source of income.
They simply waved the magic wand called fiat money.</p><p>The flow of
such unearned wealth under the guise of interest can only be viewed as
usury of the highest magnitude. Even if there were no other reasons to
abolish the Fed, the fact that <i>it is the supreme instrument of usury</i> would be more than sufficient by itself.</p><p><span><b>who creates the money to pay the interest?</b></span></p><p>One of the most perplexing questions associated with this process is "Where does the money come from to pay the <a href="http://www.visi.com/%7Emts/wonder.html">interest</a>?"
If you borrow $10,000 from a bank at 9%, you owe $10,900. But the bank
only manufactures $10,000 for the loan. It would seem, therefore, that
there is no way that you -- and all others with similar loans -- can
possibly pay off your indebtedness. The amount of money put into
circulation just isn't enough to cover the total debt, including
interest. This has led some to the conclusion that it is necessary for
you to <i>borrow</i> the $900 for interest, and that, in turn, leads to still <i>more</i> interest. The assumption is that, the more we borrow, the more we <i>have</i> to borrow, and that debt based on fiat money is a neverending spiral leading inexorably to more and more debt.</p><p>This
is a partial truth. It is true that there is not enough money created
to include the interest, but it is a fallacy that the only way to pay
it back is to borrow still more. The assumption fails to take into
account the exchange value of <i>labor</i>. Let us assume that you pay
back your $10,000 loan at the rate of approximately $900 per month and
that about $80 of that represents interest. You realize you are hard
pressed to make your payments so you decide to take on a part-time job.
The bank, on the other hand, is now making $80 profit each month on
your loan. Since this amount is classified as "interest," it is not
extinguished as is the larger portion which is a return of the loan
itself. So this remains as spendable money in the account of the bank.
The decision then is made to have the bank's floors waxed once a week.
You respond to the ad in the paper and are hired at $80 per month to do
the job. The result is that you earn the money to pay the interest on
your loan, and -- this is the point -- the money you receive is the <i>same</i>
money which you previously had paid. As long as you perform labor for
the bank each month, the same dollars go into the bank as interest,
then out of the revolving door as your wages, and then back into the
bank as loan repayment.</p><p>It is not necessary that you work directly for the bank. No matter where you earn the money, its <i>origin</i> was a bank and its ultimate <i>destination</i>
is a bank. The loop through which it travels can be large or small, but
the fact remains all interest is paid eventually by human effort. And
the significance of that fact is even more startling than the
assumption that not enough money is created to pay back the interest.
It is that the total of this human effort ultimately is for the benefit
of those who create fiat money. It is a form of modern serfdom in which
the great mass of society works as indentured servants to a ruling
class of financial nobility.</p><p><span><b>understanding the illusion</b></span></p><p>That's
really all one needs to know about the operation of the banking cartel
under the protection of the Federal Reserve. But it would be a shame to
stop here without taking a look at the actual cogs, mirrors, and
pulleys that make the magical mechanism work. It is a truly fascinating
engine of mystery and deception. Let us, therefore, turn our attention
to the actual process by which the magicians create the illusion of
modern money. First we shall stand back for a general view to see the
overall action. Then we shall move in closer and examine each component
in detail.</p><p><b><span>the mandrake mechanism: an overview</span></b></p><blockquote>
  <p>The
entire function of this machine is to convert debt into money. It's
just that simple. First, the Fed takes all the government bonds which
the public does not buy and writes a check to Congress in exchange for
them. (It acquires other debt obligations as well, but government bonds
comprise most of its inventory.) There is no money to back up this
check. These fiat dollars are created on the spot for that purpose. By
calling those bonds "reserves," the Fed then uses them as the base for
creating 9 additional dollars for every dollar created for the bonds
themselves. The money created for the bonds is spent by the government,
whereas the money created on top of those bonds is the source of all
the bank loans made to the nation's businesses and individuals. The
result of this process is the same as creating money on a printing
press, but the illusion is based on an accounting trick rather than a
printing trick. The bottom line is that Congress and the banking cartel
have entered into a partnership in which the cartel has the privilege
of collecting interest on money which it creates out of nothing, a
perpetual override on every American dollar that exists in the world.
Congress, on the other hand, has access to unlimited funding without
having to tell the voters their taxes are being raised through the
process of inflation. If you understand this paragraph, you understand
the Federal Reserve System.</p></blockquote>
 <p>Now for a more
detailed view. There are three general ways in which the Federal
Reserve creates fiat money out of debt. One is by making loans to the
member banks through what is called the <i>Discount Window</i>. The
second is by purchasing Treasury bonds and other certificates of debt
through what is called the Open Market Committee. The third is by
changing the so-called <i>reserve ratio</i> that member banks are
required to hold. Each method is merely a different path to the same
objective: taking IOUs and converting them into spendable money.</p><p><b>THE DISCOUNT WINDOW</b></p><p><a name="return11">The Discount Window is merely bankers' language for the <i>loan</i> window. When banks run short of money, the Federal</a>
Reserve stands ready as the "bankers' bank" to lend it. There are many
reasons for them to need loans. Since they hold "reserves" of only
about one or two per cent of their deposits in vault cash and eight or
nine per cent in securities, their operating margin is extremely thin.
It is common for them to experience temporary negative balances caused
by unusual customer demand for cash or unusually large clusters of
checks all clearing through other banks at the same time. Sometimes
they make bad loans and, when these former "assets" are removed from
their books, their "reserves" are also decreased and may, in fact,
become negative. Finally, there is the profit motive. When banks borrow
from the Federal Reserve at one interest rate and lend it out at a
higher rate, there is an obvious advantage. But that is merely the
beginning. When a bank borrows a dollar from the Fed, it becomes a
one-dollar <i>reserve</i>. Since the banks are required to keep reserves of only about ten per cent, they actually can loan up to <i>nine</i> dollars for each dollar borrowed.<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts#eleven"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp;</p><p><a name="return12">Let's take a look at the math. Assume the bank receives $1 million from the Fed at a rate of 8%. The total annual cost,</a>
therefore, is $80,000 (.08 X $1,000,000). The bank treats the loan as a
cash deposit, which means it becomes the basis for manufacturing an
additional $9 million to be lent to its customers. If we assume that it
lends that money at 11% interest, its gross return would be $990,000
(.11 X $9,000,000). Subtract from this the bank's cost of $80,000 plus
an appropriate share of its overhead, and we have a net return of about
$900,000. In other words, the bank borrows a million and can almost
double it in one year.<sup><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts#twelve">12</a></sup>&nbsp; That's <i>leverage</i>! But don't forget the <i>source</i> of that leverage: the manufacture of another $9 million which is added to the nation's money supply.</p><p><b>THE OPEN MARKET OPERATION</b></p><p>The
most important method used by the Federal Reserve for the creation of
fiat money is the purchase and sale of securities on the open market.
But, before jumping into this, a word of warning. Don't expect what
follows to make any sense. Just be prepared to know that this is how
they do it.</p><p>The trick lies in the use of words and phrases which
have technical meanings quite different from what they imply to the
average citizen. So keep your eye on the words. They are not meant to
explain but to deceive. In spite of first appearances, the process is <i>not</i> complicated. It is just absurd.</p><p><b>THE MANDRAKE MECHANISM: A DETAILED VIEW</b></p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Start with...</p><p align="center"><b><u><span><a name="return13">GOVERNMENT DEBT</a></span></u></b></p><blockquote>
  <p>The
federal government adds ink to a piece of paper, creates impressive
designs around the edges, and calls it a bond or Treasury note. It is
merely a promise to pay a specified sum at a specified interest on a
specified date. As we shall see in the following steps, this debt
eventually becomes the foundation for almost the entire nation's money
supply.<sup><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts#thirteen">13</a></sup>&nbsp;
In reality, the government has created cash, but it doesn't yet look
like cash. To convert these IOUs into paper bills and checkbook money
is the function of the Federal Reserve System. To bring about that
transformation, the bond is given to the Fed where it is then
classified as a...</p><p align="center"><b><u><span>SECURITIES ASSET</span></u></b></p><p align="left">An
instrument of government debt is considered an asset because it is
assumed the government will keep its promise to pay. This is based upon
its ability to obtain whatever money it needs through taxation. Thus,
the strength of this asset is the power to take back that which it
gives. So the Federal Reserve now has an "asset" which can be used to
offset a liability. It then creates this liability by adding ink to yet
another piece of paper and exchanging that with the government in
return for the asset. That second piece of paper is a...</p><p align="center"><b><u><span>FEDERAL RESERVE CHECK</span></u></b></p><p align="left">There
is no money in any account to cover this check. Anyone else doing that
would be sent to prison. It is legal for the Fed, however, because
Congress wants the money, and this is the easiest way to get it. (To
raise taxes would be political suicide; to depend on the public to buy
all the bonds would not be realistic, especially if interest rates are
set artificially low; and to print very large quantities of currency
would be obvious and controversial.) This way, the process is
mysteriously wrapped up in the banking system. The end result, however,
is the same as turning on government printing presses and simply
manufacturing fiat money (money created by the order of government with
nothing of tangible value backing it) to pay government expenses. Yet,
in accounting terms, the books are said to be "balanced" because the
liability of the money is offset by the "asset" of the IOU. The Federal
Reserve check received by the government then is endorsed and sent back
to one of the Federal Reserve banks where it now becomes a...</p><p align="center"><b><u><span>GOVERNMENT DEPOSIT</span></u></b></p><p align="left">Once
the Federal Reserve check has been deposited into the government's
account, it is used to pay government expenses and, thus, is
transformed into many...</p><p align="center"><b><u><span>GOVERNMENT CHECKS</span></u></b></p><p align="left">These
checks become the means by which the first wave of fiat money floods
into the economy. Recipients now deposit them into their own bank
accounts where they become...</p><p align="center"><b><u><span>COMMERCIAL BANK DEPOSITS</span></u></b></p><p align="left">Commercial
bank deposits immediately take on a split personality. On the one hand,
they are liabilities to the bank because they are owed back to the
depositors. But, as long as they remain in the bank, they also are
considered as assets because they are on hand. Once again, the books
are balanced: the assets offset the liabilities. But the process does
not stop there. Through the magic of fractional-reserve banking, the
deposits are made to serve an additional and more lucrative purpose. To
accomplish this, the on-hand deposits now become reclassified in the
books and called...</p><p align="center"><b><u><span>BANK RESERVES</span></u></b></p><p align="left">Reserves
for what? Are these for paying off depositors should they want to close
out of their accounts? No. That's the lowly function they served when
they were classified as mere assets. Now that they have been given the
name of "reserves," they become the magic wand to materialize even
larger amounts of fiat money. This is where the real action is: at the
level of the commercial banks. Here's how it works. The banks are
permitted by the Fed to hold as little as 10% of their deposits in
"reserve." That means, if they receive deposits of $1 million from the
first wave of fiat money created by the Fed, they have $900,000 more
than they are required to keep on hand ($1 million less 10% reserve).
In bankers' language, that $900,000 is called...</p><p align="center"><b><u><span>EXCESS RESERVES</span></u></b></p><p align="left">The
word "excess" is a tipoff that these so-called reserves have a special
destiny. Now that they have been transmuted into an excess, they are
considered as available for lending. And so in due course these excess
reserves are converted into...</p><p align="center"><b><u><span>BANK LOANS</span></u></b></p><p align="left">But
wait a minute. How can this money be loaned out when it is owned by the
original depositors who are still free to write checks and spend it any
time they wish? The answer is that, when the new loans are made, they
are <i>not</i> made with the same money at all. They are made with brand <i>new</i>
money created out of thin air for that purpose. The nation's money
supply simply increases by ninety per cent of the bank's deposits.
Furthermore, this new money is far more interesting to the banks than
the old. The old money, which they received from depositors, requires
them to pay out interest or perform services for the privilege of using
it. But, with the <i>new</i> money, the banks <i>collect</i> interest,
instead, which is not too bad considering it cost them nothing to make.
Nor is that the end of the process. When this <i>second</i> wave of
fiat money moves into the economy, it comes right back into the banking
system, just as the first wave did, in the form of...</p><p align="center"><b><u><span>MORE COMMERCIAL BANK DEPOSITS</span></u></b></p><p align="left">The
process now repeats but with slightly smaller numbers each time around.
What was a "loan" on Friday comes back into the bank as a "deposit" on
Monday. The deposit then is reclassified as a "reserve" and ninety per
cent of that becomes an "excess" reserve which, once again, is
available for a new "loan." Thus, the $1 million of <i>first</i> wave fiat money gives birth to $900,000 in the <i>second</i> wave, and that gives birth to $810,000 in the <i>third</i>
wave ($900,000 less 10% reserve). It takes about twenty-eight times
through the revolving door of deposits becoming loans becoming deposits
becoming more loans until the process plays itself out to the maximum
effect, which is...</p><p align="center"><b><u><span><a name="return14">BANK FIAT MONEY = UP TO 9 TIMES GOVERNMENT</a></span></u></b></p><p align="left">The
amount of fiat money created by the banking cartel is approximately
nine times the amount of the original government debt which made the
entire process possible.<sup><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts#fourteen">14</a></sup>&nbsp; When the original debt itself is added to that figure, we finally have...</p><p align="center"><b><u><span>TOTAL FIAT MONEY = UP TO 10 TIMES GOVERNMENT</span></u></b></p><p align="left">The
total amount of fiat money created by the Federal Reserve and the
commercial banks together is approximately ten times the amount of the
underlying government debt. To the degree that this newly created money
floods into the economy in excess of goods and services, it causes the
purchasing power of all money, both old and new, to decline. Prices go
up because the relative value of the money has gone down. The result is
the same as if that purchasing power had been taken from us in taxes.
The reality of this process, therefore, is that it is a...</p><p align="center"><b><u><span>HIDDEN TAX = UP TO 10 TIMES THE NATIONAL DEBT</span></u></b></p><p align="left">Without realizing it, Americans have paid over the years, in <i>addition</i>
to their federal income taxes and excise taxes, a completely hidden tax
equal to many times the national debt! And that still is not the end of
the process. Since our money supply is purely an arbitrary entity with
nothing behind it except debt, its quantity can go down as well as up.
When people are going deeper into debt, the nation's money supply
expands and prices go up, but when they pay off their debts and refuse
to renew, the money supply contracts and prices tumble. That is exactly
what happens in times of economic or political uncertainty. This
alternation between period of expansion and contraction of the money
supply is the underlying cause of...</p><p align="center"><b><u><span>BOOMS, BUSTS, AND DEPRESSIONS</span></u></b></p><p align="left">Who
benefits from all of this? Certainly not the average citizen. The only
beneficiaries are the political scientists in Congress who enjoy the
effect of unlimited revenue to perpetuate their power, and the monetary
scientists within the banking cartel called the Federal Reserve System
who have been able to harness the American people, without their
knowing it, to the yoke of modern feudalism.</p></blockquote>
 <p align="left"><span><b>Reserve Ratios</b></span></p><p align="left">The
previous figures are based on a "reserve" ratio of 10% (a
money-expansion ratio of 10-to-1). It must be remembered, however, that
this is purely arbitrary. Since the money is fiat with no
previous-metal backing, there is no <i>real</i> limitation except what
the politicians and money managers decide is expedient for the moment.
Altering this ratio is the third way in which the Federal Reserve can
influence the nation's supply of money. The numbers, therefore, must be
considered as transient. At any time there is a "need" for more money,
the ratio can be increased to 20-to-1 or 50-to-1, or the pretense of a
reserve can be dropped altogether. There is virtually <i>no</i> limit to the amount of fiat money that can be manufactured under the present system.</p><p align="left"><b>NATIONAL DEBT NOT NECESSARY FOR INFLATION</b></p><p align="left">Because
the Federal Reserve can be counted on to "monetize" (convert into
money) virtually any amount of government debt, and because this
process of expanding the money supply is the primary cause of
inflation, it is tempting to jump to the conclusion that federal debt
and inflation are but two aspects of the same phenomenon. This,
however, is not necessarily true. It is quite possible to have either
one without the other.</p><p align="left"><a name="return15">The banking cartel holds a monopoly in the manufacture of money. Consequently, money is created only when IOUs are</a>
"monetized" by the Fed or by commercial banks. When private
individuals, corporations, or institutions purchase government bonds,
they must use money they have previously earned and saved. In other
words, no new money is created, because they are using funds that are
already in existence. Therefore, the sale of government bonds to the
banking system is inflationary, but when sold to the private sector, it
is <i>not</i>. That is the primary reason the United States avoided
massive inflation during the 1980s when the federal government was
going into debt at a greater rate than ever before in its history. By
keeping interest rates high, these bonds became attractive to <i>private</i> investors, including those in other countries.<sup><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts#fifteen">15</a></sup>&nbsp;
Very little new money was created, because most of the bonds were
purchased with American dollars already in existence. This, of course,
was a temporary fix at best. Today, those bonds are continually
maturing and are being replaced by still <i>more</i> bonds to include
the original debt plus accumulated interest. Eventually this process
must come to an end and, when it does, the Fed will have no choice but
to literally buy back all the debt of the '80s -- that is, to replace
all of the formerly invested private money with newly manufactured fiat
money -- plus a great deal more to cover the interest. <i>Then</i> we will understand the meaning of inflation.&nbsp;</p><p align="left">On the other side of the coin, the Federal Reserve has the option of manufacturing money even if the federal government does <i>not</i>
go deeper into debt. For example, the huge expansion of the money
supply leading up to the stock market crash in 1929 occurred at a time
when the national debt was being paid off. In every year from 1920
through 1930, federal revenue exceeded expenses, and there were
relatively few government bonds being offered. The massive inflation of
the money supply was made possible by converting commercial bank loans
into "reserves" at the Fed's discount window and by the Fed's purchase
of banker's acceptances, which are commercial contracts for the
purchase of goods.</p><p align="left">Now the options are even greater. The Monetary Control Act of 1980 has made it possible for the Creature to monetize virtually <i>any</i>
debt instrument, including IOUs from foreign governments. The apparent
purpose of this legislation is to make it possible to bail out those
governments which are having trouble paying the interest on their loans
from American banks. When the Fed creates fiat American dollars to give
foreign governments in exchange for their worthless bonds, the money
path is slightly longer and more twisted, but the effect is similar to
the purchase of U.S. Treasury Bonds. The newly created dollars go to
the foreign governments, then to the American banks where they become
cash reserves. Finally, they flow back into the U.S money pool
(multiplied by nine) in the form of additional loans. The cost of the
operation once again is born by the American citizen through the loss
of purchasing power. Expansion of the money supply, therefore, and the
inflation that follows, no longer even require federal deficits. As
long as <i>someone</i> is willing to borrow American dollars, the
cartel will have the option of creating those dollars specifically to
purchase their bonds and, by so doing, continue to expand the money
supply.</p><p align="left">We must not forget, however, that one of the
reasons the Fed was created in the first place was to make it possible
for Congress to spend without the public knowing it was being taxed.
Americans have shown an amazing indifference to this fleecing,
explained undoubtedly by their lack of understanding of how the
Mandrake Mechanism works. Consequently, at the present time, this cozy
contract between the banking cartel and the politicians is in little
danger of being altered. As a practical matter, therefore, even though
the Fed may also create fiat money in exchange for commercial debt and
for bonds of foreign governments, its <i>major</i> concern likely will be to continue supplying Congress.</p><p align="left"><a name="return16">The
implications of this fact are mind boggling. Since our money supply, at
present at least, is tied to the national debt, to pay</a> off that debt would cause money to disappear. Even to seriously <i>reduce</i> it would cripple the economy.<sup><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888963/posts#sixteen">16</a></sup>&nbsp; Therefore, as long as the Federal Reserve exists, America will be, <i>must</i> be, in debt.</p><p align="left">The
purchase of bonds from other governments is accelerating in the present
political climate of internationalism. Our own money supply
increasingly is based upon <i>their</i> debt as well as ours, and they, too, will not be allowed to pay it off even if they are able.&nbsp;</p><p align="left"><b>EXPANSION LEADS TO CONTRACTION</b></p><p align="left">While
it is true that the Mandrake Mechanism is responsible for the expansion
of the money supply, the process also works in reverse. Just as money
is created when the Federal Reserve <i>purchases</i> bonds or other
debt instruments, it is extinguished by the sale of those same items.
When they are sold, the money is given back to the System and
disappears into the inkwell or computer chip from which it came. Then,
the same secondary ripple effect that created money through the
commercial banking system causes it to be <i>withdrawn</i> from the
economy. Furthermore, even if the Federal Reserve does not deliberately
contract the money supply, the same result can and often does occur
when the public decides to resist the availability of credit and reduce
its debt. A man can only be tempted to borrow, he cannot be forced to
do so.</p><p align="left">There are many psychological factors involved
in a decision to go into debt that can offset the easy availability of
money and a low interest rate: A downturn in the economy, the threat of
civil disorder, the fear of pending war, an uncertain political
climate, to name just a few. Even though the Fed may try to pump money
into the economy by making it abundantly available, the public can
thwart that move simply by saying no, thank you. When this happens, the
olds debts that are being paid off are not replaced by new ones to take
their place, and the entire amount of consumer and business debt will
shrink. That means the money supply also will shrink, because, in
modern America, debt <i>is</i> money. And it is this very expansion
and contraction of the monetary pool -- a phenomenon that could not
occur if based upon the laws of supply and demand -- that is at the
very core of practically every boom and bust that has plagued mankind
throughout history.</p><p align="left">In conclusion, it can be said
that modern money is a grand illusion conjured by the magicians of
finance in politics. We are living in an age of fiat money, and it is
sobering to realize that every previous nation in history that has
adopted such money eventually was economically destroyed by it.
Furthermore, there is nothing in our present monetary structure that
offers any assurances that we may be exempted from that morbid roll
call.</p><p align="left">Correction. There is <i>one</i>. It is still within the power of Congress to abolish the Federal Reserve System.</p><p align="left"><b><span>Summary</span></b></p><p align="left">The
American dollar has no intrinsic value. It is a classic example of fiat
money with no limit to the quantity that can be produced. Its primary
value lies in the willingness of people to accept it and, to that end,
legal tender laws require them to do so. It is true that our money is
created out of nothing, but it is more accurate to say that it is based
upon debt. In one sense, therefore, our money is created out of <i>less</i>
than nothing. The entire money supply would vanish into the bank vaults
and computer chips if all debts were repaid. Under the present System,
therefore, our leaders cannot allow a serious reduction in either the
national or consumer debt. Charging interest on pretended loans is
usury, and that has become institutionalized under the Federal Reserve
System. The Mandrake Mechanism by which the Fed converts debt into
money may seem complicated at first, but it is simple if one remembers
that the process is not intended to be logical but to confuse and
deceive. The end product of the Mechanism is artificial expansion of
the money supply, which is the root cause of the hidden tax called
inflation. This expansion then leads to contraction and, together, they
produce the destructive boom-bust cycle that has plagued mankind
throughout history wherever fiat money has existed.</p><p align="left"><br></p><meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 2.3  (Linux)">
	
	
	<style type="text/css">
	<!--
		@page &#123; size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in &#125;
		P &#123; margin-bottom: 0.08in &#125;
	-->
	</style>

<p><b>This is the root of all our problems in America, and much of
the world today. Whereby letting the central and international
banksters controlling the issuance of our currency,&nbsp; creating
wealth out of debt. (More precise, wealth out of nothing!) No other
reform, be it healthcare, housing, energy cost, school tuitions, etc.
can ever be resolved or achieved, until we first have banking and
monetary reform. And that reform is the abolishment of the Federal
Reserves System and restore sound banking and sound money that has
intrinsic value, such as gold and silver.   </b>
</p>
]]></description>
      <comments>http://michaeldoniheforcongress2008.webs.com/blog.htm?blogentryid=3567473#topBox</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://michaeldoniheforcongress2008.webs.com/blog.htm?blogentryid=3567473</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:37:00 -0100</pubDate>
    </item>

  </channel>
</rss>

