Central Banks

[Jerry J. Fortin]

In my view the root problem on this planet today is privately owned and operated central banks. These entities hold the debts of nations, are not accessible or accountable to the public and are the primary cause of inflation internationally. They are one of the main reasons why citizens worldwide suffer from high taxation. These organizations were responsible for the creation of the IMF, the World Bank and the Bank for International Settlements. They are the ones that have real economic power and they are the ones that really control international and national monetary policy. These are the organizations that print the currencies of the nations, they are the ones that set the value of the nations currencies. When credit is controlled by private interests and the supply of hard currency is controlled by private interests then the nations have no control over their own monetary policies.

Thomas Jefferson once said;

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Another US President,

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe."

Abraham Lincoln

To prove the point,

"Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through the process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished."

American's Banker Association, 1924

Or how about;

"A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army...We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."

Thomas Jefferson

"Central banks were supposedly the guardians of money. Yet, they have created the biggest liquidity bubble in history."

The Economist

"Regarding the Great Depression, you’re right, we did it."

Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman

[Smallc]

How many countries actually have private central banks?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... These are the organizations that print the currencies of the nations, they are the ones that set the value of the nations currencies. When credit is controlled by private interests and the supply of hard currency is controlled by private interests then the nations have no control over their own monetary policies.

No...you are mixing public and private roles / functions, and painting many nations with the same brush.

Thomas Jefferson once said;

Another US President,

To prove the point,

If it must be a American references, then President Obama just destroyed your theory.

[Moonbox]

Yeah I don't know of any big ones. Maybe this thread can be moved to the business and eco sub forum?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

How many countries actually have private central banks?

Better question is how many do not...........???????

Don't take my word on this look it up, you will not be pleased with what you can find. From there start looking into the fractional reserve system used by the banks, and what the implications of that really are.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No...you are mixing public and private roles / functions, and painting many nations with the same brush.

If it must be a American references, then President Obama just destroyed your theory.

Those were American references because they fought tooth and nail for decades to avoid the problem. The Federal Reserve was not the first private central bank in the US. The others had their charters revoked when the country realized the mistake in granting it. This is the third version that you see now. Look it up.

[Smallc]

Better question is how many do not...........???????

Well, us, for starters....I don't think that any commonwealth country does.

[bush_cheney2004]

Those were American references because they fought tooth and nail for decades to avoid the problem. The Federal Reserve was not the first private central bank in the US. The others had their charters revoked when the country realized the mistake in granting it. This is the third version that you see now. Look it up.

Then change your topic to "American Central Banks"....clearly you have tried to invoke one nation's experience as representative of global circumstances and experiences with central banking and monetary policy. That dog don't hunt.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Then change your topic to "American Central Banks"....clearly you have tried to invoke one nation's experience as representative of global circumstances and experiences with central banking and monetary policy. That dog don't hunt.

The Bank of Canada was originally a privately owned bank, that changed in 1938. It is now a crown corporation.

I will suggest that you sniff around and see what the impact of centralized banking really was and is. The Bank of England was not nationalized until 1946, it was a private bank for more than 350 years. Just think of what can happen over three and a half centuries of banking.

The United States Federal Reserve Bank and the Deutsche Bundesbank are privately owned. The Bank of Japan is both private and public. There are numerous permutations to the system, but they are linked through the IMF and the World Bank.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Bank of Canada was originally a privately owned bank, that changed in 1938. It is now a crown corporation.

Then clearly it is not private now.

I will suggest that you sniff around and see what the impact of centralized banking really was and is. The Bank of England was not nationalized until 1946, it was a private bank for more than 350 years. Just think of what can happen over three and a half centuries of banking.

So what? You tried to make the claim that "private" was still the case.

The United States Federal Reserve Bank and the Deutsche Bundesbank are privately owned. The Bank of Japan is both private and public. There are numerous permutations to the system, but they are linked through the IMF and the World Bank.

Nope...the US Federal Reserve is a combination public-private entity. The US Mint is clearly public.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Then clearly it is not private now.

No, Canada "bought it out" how much we paid for it is very difficult find out, still working on that little tidbit.

So what? You tried to make the claim that "private" was still the case.

I did not, you have reading comprehension issues dude.

Nope...the US Federal Reserve is a combination public-private entity. The US Mint is clearly public.

Do tell! So just exactly what is the public part of the Fed?

[bush_cheney2004]

I did not, you have reading comprehension issues dude.

Do tell...here is your opening move:

In my view the root problem

on this planet today is privately owned and operated central banks

. These entities hold the debts of nations, are not accessible or accountable to the public and are the primary cause of inflation internationally.

Don't make it that easy.....it's boring...I prefer more of a challenge.

[Oleg Bach]

They attatch the word Federal to Reserve and we all imagine it being a public purse --one problem - the public can deposit but they can never with draw ---It's a private bank ---the biggest scam in the world. It reminds me of the Vatican - who took 10% for 2000 years and handed back 1% as a token gesture.

[bush_cheney2004]

They attatch the word Federal to Reserve and we all imagine it being a public purse --one problem - the public can deposit but they can never with draw ---It's a private bank ---the biggest scam in the world. It reminds me of the Vatican - who took 10% for 2000 years and handed back 1% as a token gesture.

The member banks are private...as they should be....but the governing board is appointed by government. Treasury is also a public agent. But enough about America....I'm sure you get too much as it is. LOL!

Edited June 24, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

The member banks are private...as they should be....but the governing board is appointed by government. Treasury is also a public agent. But enough about America....I'm sure you get too much as it is. LOL!

Feel like we are on a date sipping wine " So much for talking about me - now what about you"? Not paying to much attention to America or Canada these days...it's like worrying about your adult children going swimming --sink or swim - I did my best...if the thrive - wonderful - if they perish - sad - but I was not born to suffer...so good bye to all - and I wish you all ----think I will go fishing soon.... I see your lesson on the fed is good - but - when the rich and powerful need money - they go to the reserve - we can not - which means the money is on private property ---once you put money in the hands of others - It's almost impossible to extract.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... I see your lesson on the fed is good - but - when the rich and powerful need money - they go to the reserve - we can not - which means the money is on private property ---once you put money in the hands of others - It's almost impossible to extract.

Doesn't bother me one bit....I use the same banker as Jed Clampett....Mr. Milburn Drysdale.

"Never a lender or borrower be".

[Oleg Bach]

Doesn't bother me one bit....I use the same banker as Jed Clampett....Mr. Milburn Drysdale.

"Never a lender or borrower be".

I never borrow...why that would mean paying it back...and being so privledged i never pay back....as for lending - I give - and expect to be given back when in need..that's fair ----so how bout sendin up - a crisp Ben Franklin? I will invest it for you.......trust me...have I ever lied to you before.?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The member banks are private...as they should be....but the governing board is appointed by government. Treasury is also a public agent. But enough about America....I'm sure you get too much as it is. LOL!

The governor board of what is appointed by the government? You can't mean the Fed, because the US government only appoints two positions on that board.

Would you believe a court ruling that proves my point?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8518

Court Rules Federal Reserve is Privately Owned

Case Reveals Fed's Status as a Private Institution

Below are excerpts from a court case proving the Federal Reserve system's status. As you will see, the court ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency:

Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)

John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

United States of America, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 80-5905

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 2, 1982.

Decided April 19, 1982.

As Amended June 24, 1982.

Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David W. Williams, J., dismissed holding that federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of Act and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Affirmed.

1. United States

There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, but critical factor is existence of federal government control over "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of an entity. . . .

2. United States

Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of each bank is exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations nor as "mixed ownership" corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names. . . .

3. United States

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when a tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Bank, which performs important activities for the government. . . .

4. Taxation

The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation.

5. States Taxation

Tests for determining whether an entity is federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, is very broad: whether entity performs important governmental function.

--------------

Lafayette L. Blair, Compton, Cal., for plaintiff/appellant.

James R. Sullivan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for defendant/appellee; Andrea Sheridan Ordin, U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before Poole and Boochever, Circuit Judges, and Soloman, District Judge. (The Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation)

Poole, Circuit Judge:

On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Clains Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1346(. The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

In enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. . . . Specifically, the Act creates liability for injuries "caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of any federal agency acting within the scope of his office or employment. . . . "Federal agency" is defined as:

the executive departments, the military departments, independent

establishments of the United States, and corporations acting

primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not

include any contractors with the United States.

28 U.S.C. Sect. 2671. The liability of the United States for the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank employee depends, therefore, on whether the Bank is a federal agency under Sect. 2671.

[1,2] There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of that entity. . . . Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . ., whether the government is involved in the entity's finances. . . ., and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activites include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 341-361.

Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activites without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made.

It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:

It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over

the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when

necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on

through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which

require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which

determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other

words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the

exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to

individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of

routine.

H.R. Report No. 69 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees travelling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.

The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 856, a factor considered is Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. . . .

Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys . . ., and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. Sect. 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.

[3] The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a "public official" under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting "for or on behalf of the Government." . . . The test for determining status as a public official turns on whether there is "substantial federal involvement" in the defendant's activities. United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the FTCA, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks, which perform important activities for the government.

[4, 5] The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. . . . The test for determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . . The Reserve Banks, which further the nation's fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function.

Performance of an important governmental function, however, is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. . . . State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity's ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. . . . Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal's ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . .

Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. Sect. 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the "important governmental function" test and concluded that the term "Federal Government" in the Service Contract Act must be "liberally construed to effectuate the Act's humanitarian purpose of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government." Id. 288 Mich. at 120, 284 N.W.2d 667.

Such a liberal construction of the term "federal agency" for purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.

For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgement of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

It is clear from this that in some circumstances, the Federal Reserve Bank can be considered a government "instrumentality", but cannot be considered a "federal agency", because the term carries with it the assumption that the federal government has direct oversight over what the Fed does. Of course it does not, because most people who know about this subject know that the Fed is "politically independent."

The only area where one might disagree with the judge's decision is where he states that the Fed furthers the federal government's fiscal policy, and therefore performs an important governmental function. While we would like to think that the federal government and the Fed work cooperatively with each other, and they may on occasion, the Fed is by no means required to do so. One example is where Rep. Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, said in the Congressional Record back in the '60s, that depending on the temperament of the Fed's Chairman, sometimes the Fed worked with the government's fiscal policy, and other times either went in the complete opposite direction, or threatens to do so in order to influence policy.

The common claim that the Fed is accountable to the government, because it is required to report to Congress on its activities annually, is incorrect. The reports to Congress mean little unless what the Chairman reports can be verified by complete records. From its founding to this day, the Fed has never undergone a complete independent audit. Congress time after time has requested that the Fed voluntarily submit to a complete audit, and every time, it refuses.

Those in the know about the Fed, realize that it does keep certain records secret. The soon-to-be-former Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Henry Gonzales, has spoken on record repeatedly about how the Fed at one point says it does not have certain requested records, and then it is found through investigation that it in fact does have those records, or at least used to. It would appear that the Fed Chairman can say anything he wants to to Congress, and they'll have to accept what he says, because verification of what he says is not always possible.

[bush_cheney2004]

The governor board of what is appointed by the government? You can't mean the Fed, because the US government only appoints two positions on that board.

Would you believe a court ruling that proves my point?

Thank you for admitting it is not totally private.....nor is Treasury. I don't know why you insisted on this to start with....you can still make your beef with central banking systems either way.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Thank you for admitting it is not totally private.....nor is Treasury. I don't know why you insisted on this to start with....you can still make your beef with central banking systems either way.

The central banking system was all ORIGINALLY private. In some case it still is. The important point is how much grief did and do private central banks cause. How much did tax payers have to pay to buyout stockholders and cover debts incurred?

[bush_cheney2004]

The central banking system was all ORIGINALLY private. In some case it still is. The important point is how much grief did and do private central banks cause. How much did tax payers have to pay to buyout stockholders and cover debts incurred?

I don't think it matters.....how much do you think they would pay (and do pay) with public control?

Banks perform the financial magic and alchemy of capitalism. What kind of alternative do you propose? Matresses stuffed with money?

[Oleg Bach]

I don't think it matters.....how much do you think they would pay (and do pay) with public control?

Banks perform the financial magic and alchemy of capitalism. What kind of alternative do you propose? Matresses stuffed with money?

The decision will be made eventualy what is best for the general public - to have the money supply distributed and held by the general public - or to have wealth centralized ? Centralized banks are like centralized government - it's either that power lies in the hands of a very few or in the hands of all - as is in a representative democracy. Central banking is the ultimate goal and success of the elite - first they want a big company - then they want a bigger one - then they want to own their own bank - then they want to expand their company to be the size of a nation..and this is not democratic - we do not get to vote the banksters in or out - it becomes a quite and polite dictatorship - but it does not matter - what the public does not realize is just fine I suppose.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The decision will be made eventualy what is best for the general public - to have the money supply distributed and held by the general public - or to have wealth centralized ? Centralized banks are like centralized government - it's either that power lies in the hands of a very few or in the hands of all - as is in a representative democracy. Central banking is the ultimate goal and success of the elite - first they want a big company - then they want a bigger one - then they want to own their own bank - then they want to expand their company to be the size of a nation..and this is not democratic - we do not get to vote the banksters in or out - it becomes a quite and polite dictatorship - but it does not matter - what the public does not realize is just fine I suppose.

Central banks run economies, whether we believe the government does or not simply doesn't matter. In Canada our central bank has far more leverage than the government which owns it. That is why the government does not instruct the bank on how to act. Should the government choose to do so it could in fact eliminate the public debt to a great degree. It is a laughable situation when the Bank of Canada, a wholly owned crown corporation loans money to the Government of Canada at interest. That fiat currency is created as interest bearing debt, at great expense to the tax payer. Not all government debt is held by the Bank of Canada, some debt is owed to other central banks. The system is a joke, it is merely a fancy means of wealth distribution, a capitalistic version if you will.

[Pliny]

1. All central banks are privately owned.

2. There are three countries in the world without a central bank. Iran, Korea and Somalia.

3. It is almost impossible to find out the ownership of the central banks.

Jerry has done quite a bit of research on central banks.

I have brought them up on this forum once in awhile but I don't like to go into it too deeply most people don't know the purpose and function of a central bank. In Canada the central bank was established in 1933.

The owner of the central bank in Canada is said to be the Canadian government. All I have found out regarding it's corporate ownership is that there is only one share and it is held in trust by the Minister of Finance. I have my doubts that the owner is Canadian and is most likely British. The ownership of the Federal Reserve was published in 1913. Who owns it today are probably members of the same families as the original owners.

They are a problem and I would say they are the main factor in why there is currently a global economic meltdown. They are basically run by economists trained in the same economic theory who operate in co-operation with each other to manage the global economy as well as their own national economies.

The economic theory they operate from is based mainly on the works of Lord John Maynard Keynes (pronounced "canes").

Fractional reserve banking and government deficit financing are probably the main characteristics that have been beneficial to both government and the banks and the reason for their collaboration. They are a problem to society and the taxpayer because they allowed government to accrue debt and the banks to devalue the currency. But the main problem is the subject of money and the ignorance that has grown around it.

Odd but the socialist is fixated upon money and blames the capitalist for what is their own affliction - greed. All problems to the socialist are based upon money and the fact some people have too much. This is why, in my opinion, they will try to resolve environmental problems with taxation. All solutions to problems are merely how money is distributed in society. Government is the agency that will make the corrections and distribute it properly according to them.

Anyone who cares to see will notice that as government is increasingly doing this that injustices in the name of equality are determined to be justice.

Jerry - I know you have looked into Social Credit, what is your current idea of it?

[Pliny]

Well, us, for starters....I don't think that any commonwealth country does.

I will point this post out as an example of how socialists know little about economics and everything about how money should be distributed.