The Creation of the Federal Reserve System

the bottom line is that your op is garbage

the federal reserve was created to take control of credit markets away from the money trust

the president controls who's nominated and congress confirms it

the aldrich plan is not essentially the same as the federal reserve act and noah's ark hasn't been discovered on mt judi, like g edward griffin claims

the federal reserve act wasn't passed with only three members of the house on the floor, like ron paul's nutty brother says, it was debated and amended over a period of months, then the bill passed legitimately with 289 yes votes from the house and 43 yeas from the senate

president wilson never lamented the day he unwittingly ruined his country by creating the fed, it's a fabrication that aaron russo dreamed up for his film, 'freedom to fascism', which features ron paul

at some point i would think a rational human being would start to question why there's so much false propaganda directed at the federal reserve

 

funny, that's not part of the charter.

 

it's not funny, it was the intention of president wilson and it worked

 

Sure did, credit is sure abundant at the moment!!!

 

Baseless claim.

Disproven by the OP. Most of the Federal Reserve Act was written by the money trust.

Ron Paul's brother never claimed that. And even if he did, what relevence does it have to anything in this thread?

When did either Ron Paul or I claim that Wilson lamented the day he unwittingly ruined his country by creating the Fed? Guilt by association is a strawman tactic.

I do. It's based on a misunderstanding of the facts.

 

you're wrong again

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HesLDikEets"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HesLDikEets[/ame]

you really don't see how this misinformation about the federal reserve is relevant to this thread?

the point is that the federal reserve act took control of credit markets away from the money trust

yes, it made credit more available to farmers and small businessmen

 

Who cares what Ron Paul's brother has to say? Wayne Paul is not Ron Paul. Wayne Paul is not running for President. Wayne Paul is irrelevent. Guilt by association is not a valid debate tactic; only a strawman tactic.

It's not relevent to the OP becuase there is zero misinformation in the OP.

 

not in the charter.

 

Lot's of what your OP is saying is probably true. It's the conclusions drawn from this information that is purely subjective. I'm sure wealthy bankers were apart of the discussion of the banking system, I'm sure JP Morgan and the "money trust" who fronted their money to stop the Panic of 1907 had a say in the system... the subjectivity comes from simple paranoia.

Your assumption is they created the Federal Reserve to have some sort of monopoly over others. But they already did have the monopoly, they had more money than anyone else, they were in charge of the banking system, they didn't need to create the Federal Reserve to get more money.

The Federal Reserve actually took the power away from the "money trust" and gave the power to the Govt (which represents the people) of our countries money supply. You are simply just drawing the wrong conclusions.

 

They wanted control over the money supply. They effectively acheived it.

Right. That's why the Federal Reserve Act was mostly written by the Money Trust. The money trust wanted to take their own power away. That's why the FRB's have always been loaded with direct banking representatives and individuals who answer directly to banking representatives. Gotcha.

 

it's in history books, why would you think it should be in the fed res act?

 

There's lots of things in "history books".

 

Of course the money trust was involved in the process. Of course bankers are in control of the banking system, lol. But your conclusion of this is that they did this with some malicious intent and that the Fed is set out to control, profit, and impoverish America.

It is simply your subjective paranoia that is not backed by any facts. JP Morgan didn't need to create the Federal Reserve to get more money, he had more than enough with out it. How do you know their intent wasn't to create a system that was evolutionary on how we can control our countries money supply and banking system and honestly prevent depressions and banking panics?

 

yes, and Bush wanted to spread democracy and freedom too.

 

Why would the money trust involve itself in writing a bill that takes power away from the money trust?

 

they wanted direct control of the central bank to be in the hands of commercial bankers and they didn't get it

no, they were reined in by the federal reserve and the clayton anti-trust act

what a joke your comments are

 

Maybe the money trust didn't want to be relied upon for preventing banking panics. Maybe JP Morgan and the bankers were telling the Govt they need to figure out how to handle these problems with out their money. Your conclusion is that they did this with malicious intent... therefore everything you believe about the Fed is bad.

 

And they don't have the kind of control over the money supply as you are making it out to be. They are actually limited in what they can do. But they never take or give you and I money.

They can't purchase debt directly from the Government
They can't print money to pay themselves

They don't have the kind of power you think they do.

 

What do you mean they "didn't get it"?

Most of the Federal Reserve Act was written by the money trust. Why would the money trust write a bill to rein in the money trust?

More baseless claims.

You're a troll and all of your posts are based on pure speculation and strawman tactics like guilt by association

 

Why would they not want to be relied on for preventing banking panics if they are able to make a lot of money off banking panics and war? It's called the Rothschild Formula. That doesn't make sense. The goal of the Federal Reserve was to break up the power of the money trust. And it was written by the money trust, which represented about 1/4 of the world's wealth at the time. Why would the money trust write a bill that was designed to break up the money trust?

 

I know. I never claimed they have any of the powers you are claiming I claimed they have.

 

here we go again

the money trust pushed for the aldrich plan which would have put commercial bankers in charge of the central banking system

the aldrich plan was roundly rejected by congress because of this

the money trust wanted to have control of the central bank, but they didn't get it, instead the bill that passed put a publicly appointed board in charge

 

That is the only noteworthy difference between the Aldrich Plan and the Federal Reserve Act. The two bills are essentially the same. Both were legislated by the Money Trust. As I've said many times, the Federal Reserve is a cartel between banks and government. The government controlling the Federal Reserve Board was simply a way for the government to become part of the cartel agreement.

The Federal Reserve Board has always historically had members that were representatives of its most influential member banks, or people who make decisions that favor its most influential banks. They pressure Congress and the President to make the "correct" appointments through campaign contributions and other lobbyism efforts. While they dont legislatively control the Federal Reserve, it's blatantly obvious that they actually are in control of the Federal Reserve Board, and the politicians who make the appointments to the Federal Reserve Board.

To deny that a powerful banking lobby exists in Washington is hopelessly naive.

 

no they aren't, if they were essentially the same, then the money trust, the american banker's association and other large banking interests wouldn't have opposed to glass-owen bill, instead they made it clear they wanted the aldrich plan

 

What other difference is there besides the minor technicality of who appoints members to the FRB?

Of course they made it appear that they opposed it. That was so that the public would believe that it really was a bill that broke up the money trust.
And you still haven't addressed this fundamental logical flaw in your argument: Why would they oppose a bill that they helped to construct?