|
Financial
OUTRAGE
www.FinancialOUTRAGE.org.uk |
|
by
Ellen Brown
One
of the most remarkable admissions by a banker concerning the mysteries of
his profession was made by Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of
England and the second richest man in Britain in the 1920’s.
Speaking at the University of Texas in 1927, he revealed: "The
modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight
of hand that was every invented. Banking
was conceived in inequity and born in sin …. Bankers own the earth.
Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money,
and with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back
again …. Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes
like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier
world to live in …. But if you want to continue to be the slaves of
bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to
create money and control credit." The
sleight of hand by which banks create money dates to the seventeenth
century, when paper money was devised by European goldsmiths.
Gold and silver coins, the standard currency in European trade,
were hard to transport in bulk and could be stolen if not kept under lock
and key. Many people
therefore deposited their gold with the goldsmiths, who had the strongest
safes in town. The goldsmiths
issued convenient paper receipts that could be traded in place of the
bulkier gold they represented. These
paper receipts were also used when people who needed gold came to the
goldsmiths for loans. The
mischief began when the goldsmiths noticed that only about 10 to 20
percent of their receipts came back to be redeemed in gold at any one
time. The goldsmiths could
safely ‘lend’ the gold in their strongboxes at interest several times
over, as long as they kept 10 to 20 percent of the value of their
outstanding loans in gold to meet the demand.
They thus created ‘paper money’ (receipts for loans of gold)
worth several times the gold they actually held.
They typically issued notes and made loans in amounts that were
four to five times their actual supply of gold.
The townspeople wound up owing the goldsmiths four or five sacks of
gold for every sack the goldsmiths had on deposit, gold the goldsmiths did
not actually have title to and could not legally lend at all. If
the goldsmiths were careful not to overextend this ‘credit’, they
could thus become quite wealthy without producing anything of value
themselves. Since more gold was owed than the townspeople as a whole
possessed, the wealth of the town and eventually of the country was
siphoned into the vaults of these goldsmiths-turned-bankers, as the people
fell progressively into their debt. As
long as the bankers kept lending, the money supply would expand and the
economy would be in a boom cycle. But
when the credit bubble got too large, the bankers would raise interest
rates and people who could not afford the new rates would default on their
loans or would be unable to take out new ones.
Their property would then revert to the banks, and the cycle would
start again. If
a farmer had sold the same cow to five people at one time and pocketed the
money, he would quickly have been jailed for fraud.
But the goldsmiths had devised a system in which they traded, not
things of value, but paper receipts for them.
The shell game became know as ‘fractional reserve’ banking
because gold held in reserve was a mere fraction of the banknotes it
supported. The Rise of the
Central Banking System
Fractional
reserve lending, in turn, became the basis of the modern central banking
system. It allowed private
banks to issue gold and silver notes that were many times in excess of the
banks’ holdings. Although
the scheme smacked of fraud, the new paper bank-notes were condoned and
even welcomed by kings short of gold, because they gave the appearance
of being backed by that scarce commodity.
An expandable money supply was needed to fund the economic
expansion of the Industrial Revolution.
The coinage system had put undue emphasis on metals.
Rapid industrialisation had led to repeated economic crises because
the availability of precious metal coins could not keep up with demand. The
charter for the Bank of England was granted to William Paterson, a
Scotsman, in 1694. Called
‘the Mother of Central Banks’, the Bank of England established the
pattern for the modern central banking system.
Paterson acknowledged, ‘The bank hath benefit of interest on all monies
which it creates out of nothing’.
The central bank had the legal right to issue notes (paper money)
against the ‘security’ of bank loans made to the Crown.
The Bank thus had the right to turn government debt into paper
money, a debt on which the government owed interest to the Bank.
The immediate purpose of the Act founding the Bank was to raise
money for William of Orange’s was with Louis XIV of France.
One of the Bank’s first transactions was to lend the government
1.2 million pounds at 8 percent interest for William’s war.
The money was to be raised by the novel device of a permanent
loan on which interest would be paid but the principal would not be
repaid. (1) This device
is still used by governments today. Funds
are generated by borrowing money that has been newly created by the banks,
with no intent that the loans will ever be repaid.
The interest is paid, but the principal portion of the loan is
simply rolled over (renewed) when it comes due. In
most modern central banking systems, a private central bank is chartered
as the nation’s primary bank, which lends exclusively to the national
government. It lends the
central bank’s own notes (printed paper money), which the government
swaps for ‘bonds’ (its’ promises to pay) and circulates as a
national currency. Today in
the United States, dollars are printed by the US Bureau of Engraving and
Printing at the request of the Federal Reserve (the US private central
bank), which ‘buys’ them for the cost of printing them and calls them
‘Federal Reserve Notes’. Today,
however, there is no gold on ‘reserve’ backing the notes.
The dollar reflects a debt for something that doesn’t exist. The
Bank of England was nationalised in 1946, but the coins and notes it
issues constitute only about 3 percent of the money supply.
Like in the United States, the rest of the money supply comes from
commercial banks in the form of loans – loans created out of thin air
with an accounting entry. The House the Debt
Built
The
result of this illusive credit-money system is that today we’re living
in a ‘credit bubble’ of ominous proportions.
In 1959, when the Federal Reserve first began reporting the annual
money supply, M3 (the widest reported measure) was a mere $288.8 billion. By
February 2004 – in only 45 years – M3 had multiplied by over 30 times
to $9 trillion. Where
did this new money come from? No
gold was added to the asset base of the country, which went off the
gold standard in 1934. The
answer to this riddle is that the money didn’t come from anywhere.
It exists only
as a debt. If that concept is
hard to fathom, it is because it actually makes no sense.
It is ‘a fiction based on a fraud’. Robert
H Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta during
the Great Depression, wrote in 1934: "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 of complete grasp of the picture, the tragic
absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is.
It is the most important subject intelligent persons can
investigate and reflect upon.
It is so important that our present civilisation may collapse
unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied soon." With
the exception of a few coins, all of our money is borrowed;
and it is
borrowed from banks that never had it to lend.
Today the just create it as a data entry on a computer screen.
An aggressive
experiment
Richard
Duncan, writing in the London Financial Times on February 10, 2004,
pointed to an even more disturbing development.
The Bank of Japan was reported to be printing yen and
using the money to buy US dollars, which were then invested in US
government bonds. The United
States was going deeply into debt to a private foreign bank – in
debt for a loan of money created out of nothing. Duncan
called it ‘the most aggressive experiment in monetary policy ever
conducted’. He wrote: "Japan
is printing yen in order to buy dollars in such extraordinary amounts that
global interest rates are being held at much lower levels than would have
prevailed otherwise …. Since the beginning of 2003, monetary authorities
in Japan have created Y27,000bn with which they have acquired
approximately $250bn. (This
sum) would amount to $40 per person if divided among the entire population
of the world. (It is) enough to finance almost half of America’s
$520bn budget deficit this year …. Japan is carrying out the most
audacious endeavour as conjure wealth out of nothing since John Law sold
shares in the Mississippi Company in 1720." US is now the
world’s largest debtor
By
the time the great Asian tsunami hit on December 26, 2004, the US federal
debt was up to $7.6 trillion; and half of the privately-held
portion was owned by foreigners. Just
during the week of the disaster, the Federal Reserve reported that foreign
central banks purchased another $5.6 billion in US government debt. How much is $5.6 billion?
The United States promised to send $350 million abroad in the form
of disaster relief. That
means the United States took back to full $350 million it promised to send
abroad in about half a day in the form of loans.
The US is now the world’s largest debtor, borrowing an estimated
80 percent of the world’s savings annually.
Moreover, the foreign investors who buy US bonds are essentially
giving the money away, because under the existing monetary scheme the
debt never will or can be repaid. (2)
Why this is true, and why foreign central banks lend the money
anyway, is complicated; but to validate the point, here is a quote from a
noted economist, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote in 1975: "In
numerous years following [the Civil War], the Federal Government ran a
heavy surplus.
It could not [however] pay off its debt, retire as securities,
because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank
notes.
To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply." That
is one reason the debt can’t be paid off: our money supply is
debt and can’t exist without it. But
there is another obvious reason: the debt is simply too big.
To get some sense of the magnitude of a $7.6 trillion obligation,
if you took 7 trillion steps you could walk to the planet Pluto, which is
a mere 4 billion miles away. If
the government were to pay $100 every second, in 317 years it would have
paid off only one trillion dollars of this debt.
That’s just for the principal.
If interest were added at the rate of only 1 percent compounded
annually, the debt could never be paid off in that way, because the
debt would grow faster that it was being repaid. (3).
To pay it off in a lump sum through taxation, on the other hand,
would require increasing the tax bill by about $100,000 for every family
of four, a non-starter for most families. The
US federal debt hasn’t been paid off since the presidency of Andrew
Jackson nearly two centuries ago. (4)
In fact in all but five fiscal years since 1961 (1969 and 2998
through 2001), the government has exceeded its projected budget, adding
to the national debt. When President Clinton announced the largest budget surplus
in history in 2000, and President Bush predicted a $5.6 trillion budget
surplus in 2001, many people got the impression that the federal debt had
been paid off; but this was another illusion.
The $5.6 trillion budget ‘surplus’ not only never materialised
(it was just an optimistic estimate projected over a ten-year period,
based on an anticipated surplus for the year 2001 that never materialised),
but it entirely ignored the principal owing on the federal debt.
Like the deluded
consumer who makes the minimum monthly interest payment on his credit card
bill and calls his credit limit ‘cash in hand’, politicians who speak
of ‘balancing the budget’ include in their calculations only
the interest on the national debt. By
2000, when President Clinton announced the largest-ever budget surplus,
the federal debt had actually topped $5 trillion; and by March 2005, when
the largest-ever projected surplus had turned into the largest-ever budget
deficit, it had mushroomed to $7.7 trillion. Financial Weapon of
Mass Destruction?
For
the foreign holders of US debt, this could be the ultimate ‘weapon of
mass destruction’: they have the power to pull the plug on the US
economy. Foreign central
bans, concerned with the dramatic flip from a US budget surplus of $236.4
billion in 2000 to a deficit of $413 billion by the end of 2004, are
quietly switching their reserves from dollars to Euros and yen.
Mark Weisbrot, do-director of the Center for Economic and Policy
Research in Washington, observed in January 2005: "The
timing of any drastic move by big players is very hard to predict.
China and Japan for example, either one of those, can cause a
complete crash, a total collapse of the dollar just by selling a small
portion of their reserves.
In fact, probably they won’t have to sell their reserves, all
they have to do is stop accumulating or slow down their rate of
accumulation and it will be dollar crash. (5)" According
to a January 2005 Asia Times article: "All
Beijing has to do is to mention the possibility of a sell order going down
the wires. It would devastate
the US economy more than a nuclear strike." When
China withdraws its support from the US account deficit, the US could be
facing the sort of currency devaluation that ‘crashed’ the German mark
and turned it into worthless paper in the 1920’s.
If the United States has to declare bankruptcy, its foreign loans
will dry up, and it will be thrown back on its own resources.
But that spectre is not something new to the United States.
The American colonists faced such a challenge in the eighteenth
century, when they found themselves son the frontier of the New World
without the precious metals that served as money in the Old World.
The same solution the colonists came up with then could be used to
extricate the country from its financial crisis today. Returning the Money
Power to the People
The
American colonies were an experiment in utopia.
In an uncharted territory, you could design new systems and make
new rules. In England, paper
money in the hands of private bankers was becoming a tool for manipulating
and controlling the people; but in the American colonies, paper money was
being generated by provincial governments for the benefit of the people. The colonists’ new paper money worked surprisingly well,
financing a period of prosperity that was remarkable for isolated colonies
lacking their own silver and gold. By
1750, Benjamin Franklin was able to write of New England: "There
was abundance in the Colonies, and peace was reigning on every border.
It was difficult, and even impossible, to find a happier and more
prosperous nation on all the surface of the globe.
Comfort was prevailing in every home.
The people, in general, kept the highest moral standards, and
education was widely spread." Different
provinces experimented differently with the new paper money.
Under the Massachusetts plan, it was issued by the provincial
government and spent into the economy.
The system worked well until the Massachusetts government got
overzealous and issued too much, when the paper ‘scrip’ became
seriously devalued. Despite
that flaw, the Massachusetts scrip served to fund rapid economic
development that would not otherwise have occurred. But it was the colonial scrip of the Pennsylvania provincial
government that was the admiration of all.
The Pennsylvania bank lent money into the community, to be
repaid by borrowers at interest to the provincial government.
Because the scrip was returned to its source, the money supply did
not become over-inflated and the currency retained its value.
It also returned profits to the government, sometimes funding half
the province’s budget. (6) This
paper money scheme, said Franklin, was the reason Pennsylvania "has
so greatly increased in inhabitants" having replaced "the
inconvenient method of barter" and given "new life to business
[and] promoted greatly the settlement of new lands (by lending small sums
to beginners on easy interest)." The Real Cause of the
American Revolution
The
colonies thrived without silver or gold until 1751, when paper ‘legal
tender’ was outlawed in New England by King George II.
The result was to force the colonists to borrow the British
bankers’ silver and gold (or their paper banknotes that were ostensibly
receipts for it). In 1764,
Parliament extended the ban on paper money to all of the colonies, and
ordered that only gold and silver could be used to pay taxes.
Only a year later, Franklin wrote in his Autobiography, the streets
of the colonies were filled with unemployed beggars, just as they were in
England. The money supply had
been suddenly reduced by half, leaving insufficient funds to pay for the
goods and services these workers could have provided.
This, Franklin said, was the real reason for the Revolution.
It was "the poverty caused by the bad
influence of the English bankers on the Parliament which has caused in the
colonies hatred of the English and …. The Revolutionary War." The
colonists won the Revolution against the British Crown, but they lost the
right to create their own money to the British bankers and their cronies
in America. The bankers won
by stealth, propaganda, and misrepresentation concerning the nature of
money and banking. In 1863,
Congress under President Abraham Lincoln broke free and again issued its
own paper notes, which were used to finance the North’s victory in the
Civil War. But after the war
was over, the ‘Greenbacks’ were withdrawn and bankers paper notes were
substituted. In 1913, the
exclusive right to issue the nation’s currency was usurped by a private
central bank called the ‘Federal Reserve’, although it is not federal
and keeps no gold reserves. In
1934, President Franklin Roosevelt took the country off the gold standard.
Today, all of our money is ’fiat’ money (money ‘by
decree’), issued by private banks as credit either to the government or
to individuals and corporations. The Greenback
Solution
A
$7.7 trillion debt tsunami is currently bearing down on the United States.
Congress needs to liquidate it before it liquidates the United
States. But how?
The debt was created by sleight of hand.
It can be eliminated by sleight of hand.
Factional reserve lending can be abolished by legislative fiat.
The Federal Reserve can be made what most people think it now is
– a truly ‘federal’ institution – and the power to create money
can be returned to the people. The
$7.7 trillion federal debt was created with accounting entries on a
computer screen. It can be
eliminated in the same way. The
simplicity of the procedure was demonstrated in January 2004, when the US
Treasury called a 30-year bond issue before its due date.
The Treasury’s action generated some controversy, since
government bonds are generally considered good until maturity.
(7) But calling (or
paying off) a bond before its due date is done routinely by other issuers.
Corporations and municipalities buy back their bonds whenever it is
advantageous for them to do so. When
interest rates fall, they call their bonds in order to refinance their
debt at lower rates. The
difference between a bond called by a corporation and one called by the US
Treasury is that the Treasury has the power to make payment solely with a
bookkeeping entry, without ‘real’ money backing it up.
And that appears
to be exactly what was done in this case.
The Treasury cancelled its promise to pay interest on these
particular bonds simply by announcing its intention to do so (or by fiat,
as they say in French). Then
it paid the principal with an accounting entry.
Here is its January 15, 2004 announcement: TREASURY CALLS 9-1/8
PERCENT BONDS OF 2004-09
"The
Treasury today announced the call for redemption at par on May 15, 2004 of
the 9-1/8% Treasury Bonds of 2004-09, originally issued may 15, 1979, due
May 15, 2009 (CUSIP No 9112810CG1). There
are $4,606 million of these bonds outstanding, of which $3,109 million are
held by private investors. Securities
not redeemed on May 15, 2004 will stop earning interest. These
bonds are being called to reduce the cost of debt financing.
The 9-18% interest rate is significantly above the current cost of
securing financing for the five years remaining to their maturity.
In current market conditions, Treasury estimates that interest
savings from the call and refinancing will be about $544 million. Payment
will be made automatically by the Treasury for bonds in book-entry form,
whether held on the books of the Federal Reserve Banks or in Treasury
/Direct accounts." (8) The
provision for payment ‘in book entry form’ means that no dollar bills,
cheques or other paper currencies are to be exchanged.
Numbers will simply be entered into the Treasury’s direct online
money market fund (‘Treasury Direct’).
The investments will remain in place and intact and will merely
change character – from interest-bearing to non-interest-bearing, from a
debt owed to a debt paid. Where
did the government plan to get the money to ‘refinance’ this $3
billion bond issue at a lower interest rate?
Whether it was from the private banking system on the open market,
or from the Bank of Japan with notes printed up for the occasion, or from
the Federal Reserve as the purchaser of last resort, the money was no
doubt created out of thin air. As
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Marriner Eccles testified before the House
Banking and Currency Committee in 1935: "When
the banks buy a billion dollars of Government bonds as they are offered
…. they actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars." Treasury securities
If
the Treasury can cancel its promise to pay interest on its bonds simply by
announcing its intention to do so, and if it can pay off the principal
just by entering number sin an online database, it can pay off the
entire federal debt in that way. It just has to announce that it is
calling all of its bonds and securities, and that they will be paid ‘in
book-entry form’. No cash
needs to change hands. The
usual objection to this solution is that it would be dangerously
inflationary, but would it? Paying
off the US federal debt by ‘monetising’ it would not change the size
of the money supply, because the US money supply already includes the
federal debt; in fact, it consists of the federal debt.
Treasury debt takes the form of Treasury securities (bills,
bonds and notes); and Treasury securities are a major component of the
money market funds and other time deposits included in the Fed’s
calculations of M2 and M3. Converting
bonds (government promises to pay) into cash (actual payment) would not
change the total of these money measures.
It would just shift the funds from M2 and M3 into M1.
Treasury securities are already treated by the Fed and the market
itself just as if they were money. These
are traded daily in enormous volume among banks and other financial
institutions around the world just as if they were money.
People put their money into highly liquid Treasury bills in money
market funds because the consider this to be the equivalent of holding
cash. Converting Treasury bills and other securities into actual
cash (US Notes) would not affect the size of the money supply.
It would just change the label on the funds.
The market for goods and services would not be flooded with
‘new’ money that inflated the prices of consumer goods, because the
bond holders would not consider themselves any richer than they were
before. The bond holders
presumably had their money in bonds in the first place because they wanted
to save it rather than spend it. They
would no doubt continue to save it, either as cash or by investing it in
some other interest-generating securities. A Newer Deal
In
1933, President Roosevelt pronounced the country officially bankrupt,
exercised his special emergency powers, waved the royal Presidential fiat,
and ordered the promise to pay in gold removed from the dollar bill.
The dollar was instantly transformed from a promise to pay in legal
tender into legal tender itself. Seventy
years later, Congress could again acknowledge that the country is
officially bankrupt and propose a plan of reorganisation.
By simple legislative fiat, it could transform its ‘debts’ into
‘legal tender’. Roosevelts’s
plan of reorganisation was called the ‘New Deal’.
In this ‘Newer Deal’, foreign creditors would actually be
getting the best deal possible. They
have enormous amounts of money tied up in US government bonds, which the
US cannot possibly pay off with tax revenues.
If America’s creditors wee to propel it into bankruptcy, the US
government would have to simply walk away from its debts, and the
creditors would be out of luck. If
the United States pays off its debts with real ‘legal tender’, the
creditors will have something they can take to the bank and spend in the
global market. If it looks
like a dollar, and feels like a dollar, it is a dollar.
The only difference will be that the dollar will have been issued
by the federal government rather than ‘borrowed’ from a bank. One
objection that has been raised to paying off the federal debt by
‘monetising’ it is that foreign investors would be discouraged from
purchasing US bonds in the future. But
once the government reclaims the power to create money from the banking
cartel, it will no longer need to sell its bonds to investors.
It will no longer even need to levy income taxes.
It will have other ways to finance its budget. A Modest Proposal for
Eliminating the Personal Federal Income Tax
Returning
the power to create money to the government and the people it represents
would generate three new sources of revenue for the public purse: 1.
The interest earned on loans would be returned to the government Using
the figures for 2002 (the last relatively normal year before the United
Sates was at war in Iraq), total assets in the form of bank credit for all
US commercial banks were reported to be $5.89 trillion. (9)
Assuming an average interest rate of 6 percent, about $353 billion
in interest income was thus paid to commercial banks. This interest was earned, not be lending anything of their
own, but by advancing the ‘full faith and credit of the United
States.’ Returning this
interest to the collective body of the people to whom it properly belongs
would thus have generated revenue for the government of $353 billion in
2002. 2.
Congress could issue new interest-free US Notes (Greenbacks) to the
extent (and only to the extent) needed to ‘grow’ the money supply in
order to cover productivity and interest charges. In
the monetary scheme of Benjamin Franklin, paper money was issued ‘in
proper proportions to the demands of trade and industry’.
What is the ‘proper proportions’ of monetary growth?
One way to approach the problem is to look at current growth.
The money supply (M3) grew from $7.96 trillion in November 2001 to
$8.49 trillion in November 2002, an increase of $529 billion or 6.6
percent. (10) Under the
present system, the expansion in the money supply needed to keep up with
productivity and interest charges must come from federal borrowing, since
private borrowing zeroes out on repayment.
If the government were to quit ‘borrowing’ money into
existence, this source of growth would dry up, and there would be
insufficient money to cover the interest due on commercial loans.
Like in a grand game of musical chairs, some borrowers would have
to default. If
the average collective interest rate is 6.6 percent, and if the government
can no longer ‘borrow’ that money into existence, it will need to
issue enough new Greenbacks to increase the money supply by 6.6 percent
just to keep the system in balance. In
2002, that would have meant creating $529 billion in new debt-free US
Notes. 3.
If the government were to pay off the federal debt with new
Greenbacks, it would no longer need to budget for interest on the debt. Using
2002 figures, money paid in interest on the federal debt came to £333
billion. Paying off
the debt would have reduced the collective tax bill by that sum. Combining
these three sources of funding - $353 billion in interest income, $529
billion in new US Notes to cover annual growth in the money supply, and
$333 billion saved in interest payments on the federal debt – the public
coffers could have been swelled by $1,215 billion in 2002.
Total personal income taxes that year came to only $1,074 billion.
Thus by reclaiming the power to create money from the private banking
system, Congress could
have eliminated individual income taxes in 2002 with $141 billion to
spare. How much is $141 billion?
According to the Unites Nations, a mere $80 billion added to
existing resources in 1995 would have been enough to cut world poverty and
hunger in half, achieve universal primary education and gender equality,
reduce under-five mortality by two-thirds and maternal mortality by
three-quarters, reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, and halve the proportion
of people without access to safe water world-wide (11) REFERENCES (1)
J Lawrence Broz, et al., Paying
for Privilege: The Political Economy of Bank of England Charters,
1694-1844 (January 2002), page 11, www.econ.burnard.columbia.edu. (2)
"How
much are we giving to Asia? Nothing,
Really" (3)
George
Humphrey, Common Sense (4)
‘The Presidential Facts Page’, The History Ring, www.scican.net/-dkochan. (5)
Mead McKay, ‘Central Banks Dump Dollar for Euro’, Asia Times, www.atimes.com
(January 27, 2005) (6)
Stephen Zarlenga, The Lost Science of Money (Valatie, New
York: American Monetary Institute, 2002), pages 367-71. (7)
‘US Treasury Defaults on 30 Year Bond Holders’, www.rense.com
(January 20, 2004) (8)
Department of the Treasury, ‘Public Debt News’, Bureau of the
Public Debt, Washington, CD 20239 (January 15, 2004). (9)
Federal Board of Governors, ‘Total Bank Credit Outstanding’,
see W Hummel, ‘Financial Data Current and Historical: Money Stock’, www.wfhummel.cnchost.com/linkshistoricaldata.html (10)
Federal Reserve Statistical Release, ‘Money Stock Measures’
(January 2, 2003) Ellen
is an attorney in Los Angeles, California and the author of ten books,
including the best selling Nature’s Pharmacy, co-authored with Dr
Lynne Walker. This article is
drawn from her forthcoming book The
Wizards of Wall Street and How They Are Bankrupting America. Published
in Namaste Volume 8 Issue 3
|