JFK and the Federal Reserve - A Historical Perspective

[Adele Edisen]

H.R. 2990, The National Emergency Employment Defense Act

The N.E.E.D. Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CaYuss28...e=youtu.be

Adele

[Magda Hassan]

[/url]
WTF?

I've used the link I posted for years.

[url=http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/fdrch.htm]http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/fdrch.htm


Now I get: - Page not found

The requested page "/acad/intrel/fdrpc.htm" could not be found.

And no way to get to those pages.

Is this the result of the commercialization of information on the e-net or something else?

Buy the book or take the class or remain ignorant???

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?u...th+Edition

That link was a rich resource.

What a loss. :>(

Have you tried the Way Back Machine at archives.org?

[Gary Craig]

WTF?

I've used the link I posted for years.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/fdrch.htm


Now I get: - Page not found

The requested page "/acad/intrel/fdrpc.htm" could not be found.

And no way to get to those pages.

Is this the result of the commercialization of information on the e-net or something else?

Buy the book or take the class or remain ignorant???

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?u...th+Edition

That link was a rich resource.

What a loss. :>(

Have you tried the Way Back Machine at archives.org?

Interesting site thanks. Couldn't make it work for me though?


Tried the old link and it now works??? :>)

[Adele Edisen]

Sun, May 20, 2012 6:09:06 AM
Washington's Blog: The Truth About JP Morgan's $2 Billion Loss
From: Global Research E-Newsletter <crgeditor@yahoo.com>


The Truth About JP Morgan's $2 Billion Loss

By Washington's Blog

Global Research, May 16, 2012
Washington's Blog


URL of this article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=30859


Before we can understand what's really going on with JP Morgan's loss (which will probably end up being a lot more than $2 billion), we need a little background.

JP Morgan:

Is the world's largest publicly-traded company
Is the largest bank in the U.S. ... the biggest of the too big to fail banks which are killing the American economy
Is the largest derivatives dealer in the world (and see this), and derivatives are inherently destabilizing for the economy
Essentially wrote the faux "reform" legislation for derivatives, which did nothing to decrease risk, and killed any chance of real reform
Is the creator of credit default swaps which caused the 2008 financial crisis, and is the asset class which blew up and caused the loss
Has had large potential exposures to credit default swap losses for years
Has replaced the chief investment officer who made the risky bets with a trader who worked at Long Term Capital Management ... which committed suicide by making risky bets
Went completely insolvent in the 1980s
... and again in 2007 ( and was saved both times by the government at taxpayer expense)
Heads with Goldman Sachs the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, which helps set government financial policy
Has a reputation of being the most risk-averse of the big Wall Street players
Was kept alive by a huge government bailout ... but used the money to invest in India and other projects which won't really help Americans
Has made a killing by kicking companies (and see this) and governments (and here) when they are down, engaging in various types of fraud (update), allegedly manipulating the silver market, and profiting on misery by acting as the largest processor of food stamps in America

In addition, JPM's CEO Jamie Dimon:

Is a Class A Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is the chief bank regulator for Wall Street (including JPM). Indeed, Dimon served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the same time that his bank received emergency loans from the Fed and was used by the Fed as a clearing bank for the Fed's emergency lending programs. In 2008, the Fed provided JP Morgan Chase with $29 billion in financing to acquire Bear Stearns. At the time, Dimon persuaded the Fed to provide JP Morgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from risk-based leverage and capital requirements. He also convinced the Fed to take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP Morgan Chase acquired this troubled investment bank
Has a reputation of being the "golden boy" and smartest guy on Wall Street
Has been the chief spokesman and advocate for deregulation of banks, and has lectured, scolded and cajoled everyone who has questioned his banking practices
Jokes about a new financial crisis happening "every five to seven years"

What Does It Mean?
Pundits and consumers alike are reacting to JP Morgan's loss like a startled herd of sheep.

They somehow believed that the "best of the breed" bank and CEO the biggest boy on the block was immune from losses. Especially since JPM has been so favored by the Feds, and Dimon was so favored that he was being groomed for Secretary of Treasury.

And the fact that the head cheerleader for letting banks police themselves has egg on his face is making a lot of people nervous.

And that the biggest of the too big to fails could conceivably fail.

The government says its launching a criminal probe into JPM's trades.

Ratings services have downgraded JPM's credit, and many commentators have noted that other banks may be downgraded as well.

Elizabeth Warren is calling for Dimon to resign from the New York Fed:


Even CNBC is now calling for Glass-Steagall to be put back in place.
Banking expert Chris Whalen writes:

Someone at the Fed should have at least secondary accountability for the JPM losses if the VaR model/process was faulty. Is there any accountability for incompetent, badly managed federal bank regulators? As our colleague Janet Tavakoli wrote in the Huffington Post: "The U.S. can count on JPMorgan to continue both long and short market manipulation and take its winnings and losses from blind gambles. Shareholders, taxpayers, and consumers will foot the bill for any unpleasant global consequences."

We think that the loss by JPM is ultimately yet another legacy of the era of "laissez-faire" regulation and even overt Fed advocacy for the use of OTC derivatives by US banks. Fed officials such as Pat Parkinson, who retired as head of the Fed's division of supervision and regulation in January, were effectively lobbyists for the large banks and their derivatives activities. It seems a little ridiculous for the same Fed officials who caused the problem over the years to now be tasked with investigating JPM, much less regulation of large bank dealings in OTC instruments.

And Reuters correctly notes:

JP Morgan Chase's loss is the perhaps inevitable result of the interaction of two policies: too big to fail and zero interest rates.

***

Too big to fail, the de facto insurance provided by the U.S. to financial institutions so big their failure would be disastrous, provides JP Morgan and its peers with a material advantage in funding and as counterparties. Depositors see it as an advantage, as do bondholders and other lenders. That leaves TBTF banks flush with cash.

At the same time, ultra-low interest rates make the traditional business of banks less attractive, naturally leading to a push to make money elsewhere. [See this.] With interest rates virtually nothing at the short end but not terribly higher three, five or even 10 years out, net interest margins, once the lifeblood of large money center banks, are disappointingly thin. Given that investors are rightly dubious about the quality of bank earnings, and thus unwilling to attach large equity market multiples to them, this puts even more pressure on managers to look elsewhere for profits.

Investors believe, rightly, that the largest banks won't be allowed to fail; what they also appear to believe is that they very well may not be able to prosper and that to the extent they do shareholders won't fairly participate.

What would you do if you had a built-in funding advantage but little demand for your services as a traditional lender, i.e., one which borrows short and lends long? If you are anything like JP Morgan Chase appears to be you will put some of that lovely liquidity to work in financial markets, hoping to turn a built-in advantage into revenue.

JP Morgan stoutly maintains that the purpose of the trades was to hedge exposure elsewhere, as opposed to being proprietary trading intended to generate profits. That's contradicted by a report from Bloomberg citing current and former employees of the chief executive office, including its former head of credit trading. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-14...ws-up.html

The Volcker Rule, now being shaped, is intended to stop such speculative trades, though in practice debating what is a hedge and what isn't is a sort of angels-dancing-on-the-heads-of-pins argument which makes effective regulation almost impossible.

***

The keys are motive, opportunity and ability. Profits and the investment office is reported to have made considerable ones in the past provide a more believable motive than simple hedging. Opportunity is afforded by the combination of a privileged funding cost combined with poor alternative places to put money to work elsewhere in the banking business. While there may be some active borrowers, and TBTF banks enjoy an unfair advantage in serving their needs, the trans-Atlantic balance-sheet recession means households and businesses are showing a preference for paying back loans rather than taking them out.

Bruce Lee, chief credit officer of Fifth Third Bancorp, which isn't TBTF, was frank about this recently, saying that the value of deposit funding was now at its lowest in his career.

Finally there is ability, and like common sense all bankers believe they have the ability to trade successfully despite the wealth of historical evidence to the contrary.

While events show clearly that JP Morgan wasn't able to adequately manage its own business, an attack on it engaging in speculation doesn't actually hinge on that.

There is clearly a public policy outrage here because should JP Morgan find itself in difficulties due to speculation the taxpayer will end up paying the freight. That's probably not even the worst of it. All of the profits that TBTF banks make through speculation have been subsidized and enabled by the taxpayer. It is obvious that managers and employees have an incentive to take risks because, after all, TBTF may not be forever but they will capture 35 or 40 percent of the inflated takings so long as it lasts. Even if JP Morgan never blew up speculative trades, we should still oppose them so long as they are made possible and profitable by government policy.

Raising interest rates in order to remove an incentive to speculation probably wouldn't work; low rates are the result of too much debt as well as a palliative for that disease.

The Volcker Rule won't be effective; it is impossible to distinguish hedges from speculation and either can blow up banks.

The better alternative is to end the policy of too big to fail, preferably while at the same time forcing all banks out of the business of market speculation through a revival of the kind of Glass-Steagall-like policy which encouraged a small and useful financial sector for decades, forcing those that want government insurance to act like utilities, taking deposits, processing payments and making simple loans.

Let the investment banks take their risks, take their chances and suffer their losses as separate entities.


Adele

[Adele Edisen]

Video - 40 minutes long

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTdx6vEUtIA

This History Channel Program includes narration by Jules Archer, author of THE PLOT TO SEIZE THE WHITE HOUSE. I had posted this some months ago, but am reposting it for the benefit of those who have not yet seen this video.

President Roosevelt became an enemy of the bankers and industrialists of Wall Street who wanted to put a dictator like Mussolini in his place, whom they could control. The American Liberty League was formed to oppose Roosevelt throughout most of the years of his administration until the beginning of World War II. The wealthiest families were members of this organization dedicated to the defeat of President Roosevelt, and quite a few of them were supporters of the Nazi Adolph Hitler, as well.

Thirty years after the attempted coup d'etat, John Kennedy, also an enemy of Wall Street and its banking interests, was assassinated in 1963. John Kennedy had issued an Executive Order requiring the Treasury Department to print interest-free monies, "U.S. Notes", which were introduced into circulation, replacing some of the interest-bearing Federal Reserve Notes earning interest for the privately owned Federal Reserve Banking System. The intent was to bolster the nation's economy and save money for the taxpayers

It may be of interest to some readers that three of our assassinated four presidents, Lincoln, Garfield, and Kennedy had opposed privately owned central banks for our country. (McKInley was the fourth assassinated president, and I have no information yet on his view of private central banks.) See MONEY MASTERS video (3-1/2 hours long) posted on page 1 of this topic. I am not claiming their opposition to private central banks to be the sole reason for their assassinations, but it is quite curious, I think.

Adele

[Adele Edisen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4n0J19yFMY

Presidents who opposed a privately-owned central bank (like our Federal Reserve System)



http://www.hardassetsofhouston.com/blog/...l-reserve/

Eight presidents who made statements opposing a privately-owned banking system

Note that all four of our assassinated presidents - Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy - all had opposed
privately-owned central banks for our nation.

Adele

[Adele Edisen]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=31125

Adele

[Adele Edisen]

(Note the reporter's naming of David Rockefeller as organizer (on Steering Committee) of these meetings, and note that MSM moguls are participants here - AE.)

If you need any further evidence that main stream media is
controlled, look no further than the fact that they will cover
anything and everything, except the Bilderberg 2012 meeting in
Chantilly, Virginia.

CNN has a story about E.T. finally being released on Blu-ray disc,
but they neglect to report, with any depth, that the worlds 130
most powerful people are meeting in secret right here in the U.S.

Fortunately, there are alternative to the corporate media...

Video: 9 minutes long

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/10837.html

Goodman Green
- Brasscheck

[Adele Edisen]

"Following the creation of the Fed (the Federal Reserve Banking System in 1913 - AE), the government would discover other uses for an elastic money supply aside from keeping the banking system from defaulting on its obligations. It would prove useful in funding war. It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking. When governments had to fund their own wars without a paper money machine to rely upon, they economized on resources. They found diplomatic solutions to prevent war, and after they started a war they ended it as soon as possible."
By Representative Ron Paul, author of END THE FED, Chapter 4, "Central Banks and War", 2009, 212 pages, Grand Central Publishes.

For European governments at the end of the 19th century, limits on war spending had been lifted by the presence of central banks of England and Germany.

Dr. Paul asks: "Might a diplomatic solution have been found for the struggles that led to World War I had the Germans and the English not had recourse to the printing press and a lender of last resort?"

And in the twenty-first century we now have perpetual wars.

Adele

[Adele Edisen]

http://democracyforamerica.com/activitie...reform-now


I have aleady signed this petition because the Federal Reserve Banking System, a privately owned corporation for profit, has been responsible for the unstable economy we have had for almost 100 years. The current depression cannot be alleviated by the Federal Banks, the banks of last resort. Mr. Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve has already asked Congress to address this issue because the Fed Reserve is apparently unable to do so.

You should know that the US Constitution states that only Congress is allowed "to coin money," which means that only Congress may print and create money as legal tender. The Constitution does not mention any private enterprise as having this power, which the Federal Reserve obtained in 1913.

President Woodrow Wilson, who signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, later apologized to the American people for doing so:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson

http://sociecity.com/rethink/the-fed-whe...-gets-lazy

Why did the writers of our Constitution nake Congress the only entity that could create or destroy money? Why not allow a privately owned entity to do this? Well, the Bank of England was established in 1694
and the colonists were burdened with heavy taxation which they paid to the Bank of England and had to use the English money as their legal tender. In addition, the East India Tea Company, a privately owned corporation requred heavy taxes on the tea they sold. The colonists had devised a money system of their own which they used in local transactions and it provided a stable economy for them. The American Revolution was born from these economic oppressions by the British.

"Taxation without representation is tyranny!"

Adele