Citibank Sold the Federal Reserve To The
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
ARABS
For $7.5 billion dollars, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority -- a private equity firm in the United Arab Emerates -- got 4.9% of Citibanks shares. That makes ADIAthe single largest owner of Citigroup.
Notice how the article mentions that Citigroup got permission from its biggest regulator, the Federal Reserve board.
But, Citibank is the second largest owner of the NY Federal Reserve bank itself. [That was in 1997, right behind Chase. In 1982, Citi was the largest owner.]
So Citibank got approval from itself?
Before you people go calling political candidates crazy, you may want to read this petition regarding the Federal Reserve and get through all 55 points of redress.
Hopefully after comprehending (in short form) the crimes against your liberties commited, you will turn a bit towards the light.
After this sale,
Citigroup is now owned in 10% share by the middle east.
a. 5% to ADIA, of the United Arab Emerates
b. 5% to Prince Walid bin Talal of Saudi Arabia
a analyst on CNBC today said that China is also talking about investing in Citibank -- and therefore YOUR money supply.
Congress has been allowed to give away its authority to make (and thus distribute to YOU) money. This authority is now owned by a private corporation known as the Federal Reserve. The FR is owned by large banks:
[a 1997 list for NY Fed --
Chase Manhatten Bank
Citibank
Morgan Guaranty Trust Company
Fleet Bank
Bankers Trust
Bank of New York
Marine Midland Bank
Summit Bank]
Some of the largest owners are selling themselves to foreign owners.
Foreigners now own the right to issue your money, and the right to control interest rates.
DO these sorts of things concern to folks around here, do you just not get it, not care, or think it is crazy to care?
I just don't understand the complacency and willing rejection of basic freedoms.
For $7.5 billion dollars, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority -- a private equity firm in the United Arab Emerates -- got 4.9% of Citibanks shares. That makes ADIAthe single largest owner of Citigroup.
Notice how the article mentions that Citigroup got permission from its biggest regulator, the Federal Reserve board.
But, Citibank is the second largest owner of the NY Federal Reserve bank itself. [That was in 1997, right behind Chase. In 1982, Citi was the largest owner.]
So Citibank got approval from itself?
Before you people go calling political candidates crazy, you may want to read this petition regarding the Federal Reserve and get through all 55 points of redress.
Hopefully after comprehending (in short form) the crimes against your liberties commited, you will turn a bit towards the light.
After this sale,
Citigroup is now owned in 10% share by the middle east.
a. 5% to ADIA, of the United Arab Emerates
b. 5% to Prince Walid bin Talal of Saudi Arabia
a analyst on CNBC today said that China is also talking about investing in Citibank -- and therefore YOUR money supply.
Congress has been allowed to give away its authority to make (and thus distribute to YOU) money. This authority is now owned by a private corporation known as the Federal Reserve. The FR is owned by large banks:
[a 1997 list for NY Fed --
Chase Manhatten Bank
Citibank
Morgan Guaranty Trust Company
Fleet Bank
Bankers Trust
Bank of New York
Marine Midland Bank
Summit Bank]
Some of the largest owners are selling themselves to foreign owners.
Foreigners now own the right to issue your money, and the right to control interest rates.
DO these sorts of things concern to folks around here, do you just not get it, not care, or think it is crazy to care?
I just don't understand the complacency and willing rejection of basic freedoms.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Come on people.
The man is preaching long forgotten common sense.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
yeah i am but wtf it's so hard to understand all this shit and what are we to do who do we complain to ?? ,i hear you i get pissed too .....
Sadly,
i don't think we complain to anyone at this point.
Of course you can always call a congressman,
but the awareness just isn't there to get enough complaints to make an impact.
Now is the time for raising public awareness.
The American people need to be made aware of issues like this. No TV or government source is going to explain to you that the Federal Reserve is not Federal and has no reserves. No one is going to lay it out and tell you that it is actualy a private entity backed by private banks.
Most people are incredulous when you tell them.
I was at my aunt & uncles for thanksgiving, and Greenspan came up. I dovetailed that in to a Fed comment, and my uncle just sneered at me like i was a fool, "Citibank owns the Federal Reserve?" he asked, rhetoricaly, as if i had no clue what i was talking about.
Um, yes, folks, your money supply is printed by private banks. Maybe when ENOUGH people start to realize that, we can affect some change.
But first, there has to be some popular uprising -- sentiment has to turn from ignorance to outraged awareness -- then we can get somewhere.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
this video is a bit on the long side (3.5 hrs), but it packs in a lot of info on the history of banking, money creation, and federal reserve:
The Money Masters - How Int'l Bankers Gained Control of America
all the stuff they didn't teach us in history class.. and after watching this, you'll know why.
I'm trying to figure out in my own mind how they can eventually fuck us with all of this. I realize its a global economy and all that jazz, but it seems like we are opening the door to somehow enabling them to do "something" down the road that could complete screw our economy.
Kind of like, if they can't get us with bombs or whatnot, they will just screw our economy until we are broke and we need them so badly that they will own everything and we'll have no choice to but to allow it.
Is that the point? What am I missing?
I'll try to watch that video you posted, DPrival, but sometimes that stuff is blocked from work. *edit* damn, it is blocked.
Carlyle Group, manages the Kuwait Investment authority who's heavily invested in Chrysler. Who just brokered the deal to buy Chrysler. Cerberus who brought Chrysler has as Chairman, John Snow the former Secretary of Treasurer under Geroge W. Bush. Former vice president Dan Quayle under George H. Bush is a top negotiator at Cerberus and brokered the Chrysler deal.
Funny how one of the largest U.S. taxpayer bailouts of a failing company results in a takeover by a private equity fund.
How do you stop insiders, who control the government machine and now the courts and constitution?
That said, the foreign investment is a bit scary, and certainly raises some eyebrows over the trustworthiness I just mentioned. But your petition to get rid of the Fed is just ridiculous.
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
that seems to be the general jist of it.. the end game for them, in their own words, is a one world government - now i realize that may sound nutty to some, but when you look into it, it's pretty plain to see that that is the case. these guys haven't exactly been shy about it either - you can find plenty of quotes out there where they clearly state their intentions (i can try to post some links later). and when we see things like natfa, gatt, the european union, the plans for a north american union.. it all stops sounding so nutty.
and not too long ago, we actually had presidents who tried to stand up to these guys and take away their power to create money and arbitrarily control its value. andrew jackson, james garfield, lincoln, and kennedy all moved against the banks in one way or another.. and, coincidence or not, everyone of them had assassination attempts carried out against them, with jackson being the only one to survive.
here are what some prominent people have had to say about the banking system:
http://www.seek2know.net/money.html
def. check out the video when you get a chance.. it's an eye opener.
she could be ANOTHER CLONE!! nice name
Citibank is a SHAREHOLDER in the fed. Simply saying it is a "member bank" is a misrepresentation of fact.
They physicaly hold and OWN shares in the Federal Reserve system.
I disagree both with your assertion about the broader economy in the early 1900s and with the appropriate remedy for bank regulation.
The solution to banks wrecklessly investing depositors savings, not having funds to cover withdrawals, and basicaly just being too risky is most certainly NOT to condone such behavior by making it more profitable to do so and guaranteeing the deposits of any bank regardless of their investment strategy ... and it is certainly NOT to allow such ridiculously high levles of fractional reserve lending backed by nothing.
All the fed does is delay crisis by pushing more and more money in to the system.
This is why you have been hearing for the past month and a half that the Fed will probably not be able to cut rates in December because inflation is already so bad that the dollar cant take another rate cut...
and yet, today, the Fed is indicating that it probably WILL cut rates in decemer ... HUH?
What changed?
The citibank deal?
Hogwash.
7 Billion was a drop in the citibank bucket.
Their off balance sheet SIV related liabilities are NINETY BILLION.
How will that go away with a rate cut?
It WONT.
A rate cut is like giving $700 to a family that is not able to make its mortgage work month to month.
Yeah, they can make next months payment, go to Macys and Mortons, but the month after that they are in a world of shit again.
Come Februrary, America will be deep in the shit yet again.
Nothing has changed, and the Fed (despite what you seem to think) is NOT helping.
They are just delaying the inevitable fall out (and BAILOUT) by printing more money and giving away more cheap bank account 1s and 0s to the banks ... all while devaluing YOUR dollar further.
Yeah.
I'm SO glad we have that system.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Well I'm not going to refute this whole thing... Suffice it to say that no, we shouldn't put our trust in banks who are risky in their strategies or lack the means to pay us back. Fractional reserve banking is more complex than just "reserves do not equal deposits". True, if everyone tried to cash in their accounts at the same time the demand could not be meet immediately.
I'm not sure how you disagree with my description of early 1900 American banking. It was dominated by local or regional banks who at the very least had poor practices and at worst were printing their own currency. Bank defaults in the depression were through the roof because of a lack of broadly applicable rules and regulations.
As much as you hate it, the Fed was started with the correct intentions. It's importance today may not be as large, but I defy you to show me another system we could easily adopt.
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
Citibank owns shares of the Fed.
I own the fed.
all you assholes need to send me all that money thats my property in your wallet.
You are obviously an Arab then meaning that you must be a terrorist.
Damn, this thread made me smart.
-- Rothschild Brothers of London
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" -- Mayer Amschel Rothschild
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." --Thomas Jefferson
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance".
-- James Madison
"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
-- Henry Ford
"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it".
-- Congressman Louis T. McFadden
"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. ...but are independent,
privately owned and locally controlled corporations." -- Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239
9th Circuit 1982
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." -- Thomas Jefferson
BEFORE HE SOLD OUT TO "THE MAN", GREENSPAN WAS AN HONEST GUY:
"GOLD AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM"
-Alan Greenspan
An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense-perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire-that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.
In order to understand the source of their antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society.
Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.
The existence of such a commodity is a precondition of a division of labor economy. If men did not have some commodity of objective value which was generally acceptable as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms and forgo the inestimable advantages of specialization. If men had no means to store value, i.e., to save, neither long-range planning nor exchange would be possible.
What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. First, the medium of exchange should be durable. In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium, since all exchanges would occur only during and immediately after the harvest, leaving no value-surplus to store. But where store-of-value considerations are important, as they are in richer, more civilized societies, the medium of exchange must be a durable commodity, usually a metal. A metal is generally chosen because it is homogeneous and divisible: every unit is the same as every other and it can be blended or formed in any quantity. Precious jewels, for example, are neither homogeneous nor divisible.
More important, the commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury. Human desires for luxuries are unlimited and, therefore, luxury goods are always in demand and will always be acceptable. Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations, but not in a prosperous society. Cigarettes ordinarily would not serve as money, but they did in post-World War II Europe where they were considered a luxury. The term "luxury good" implies scarcity and high unit value. Having a high unit value, such a good is easily portable; for instance, an ounce of gold is worth a half-ton of pig iron.
In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions. However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value, will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.
Whether the single medium is gold, silver, sea shells, cattle, or tobacco is optional, depending on the context and development of a given economy. In fact, all have been employed, at various times, as media of exchange. Even in the present century, two major commodities, gold and silver, have been used as international media of exchange, with gold becoming the predominant one. Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has always been considered a luxury good. It is durable, portable, homogeneous, divisible, and, therefore, has significant advantages over all other media of exchange. Since the beginning of Would War I, it has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange.
If all goods and services were to be paid for in gold, large payments would be difficult to execute, and this would tend to limit the extent of a society's division of labor and specialization. Thus a logical extension of the creation of a medium of exchange, is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into, gold.
A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus to create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy. Individual owners of gold are induced, by payments of interest, to deposit their gold in a bank (against which they can draw checks). But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits (which means that he holds claims to gold rather than gold as security for his deposits). But the amount of loans which he can afford to make is not arbitrary: he has to gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.
When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth.
When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one--so long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital. Credit, interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the "easy money" country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.
A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold, and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post- World War I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.
But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline- argued economic interventionists-why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely--it was claimed--there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks (paper reserves) could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.
When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates.
The "Fed" succeeded: it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market-triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's.
With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain's abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed "a mixed gold standard"; yet it is gold that took the blame.)
But the opposition to the gold standard in any form-from a growing number of welfare-state advocates-was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.
[CONT]
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which-through a complex series of steps-the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets.
The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the "hidden" confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard. -- ALAN GREENSPAN [As reprinted from the book "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal"
by Ayn Rand with additional articles by Alan Greenspan - 1967]
That, explained by no crazy fool, but the "venerable" Greenspan, is WHY WE HAVE THE FEDERAL RESERVE!
To take your money and spend it AS THE GOVERNMENT SEES FIT! To redistribute your wealth, and to provide the banker with otherwise unachievable profit and CONTROL!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
just send me a check and you'll be all set. any amount will do..
but honestly.. who knows what to do? there's talk of returning to a gold standard in the event of some major crash, but that really wouldn't change anything, because who owns the gold? the big bankers. just like they do with the dollar, they could inflate and deflate the economy. the problem isn't that our currency is fiat (not backed by a commodity) - the problem is that it's value is arbitrarily controlled by the bankers, who will inflate/deflate in order to fill their pockets.
the way to fix the problem is to return the money issuing power to the u.s. treasury. then, issue out just enough dollars to match production - no more, no less. this would keep the dollar from devaluing, and their wouldn't be any interest to pay back to any private central bank.
check out the video i posted earlier in this thread. it will explain things much better.
when people like warren buffet and bill gates have started running from the dollar, that can't be a good sign..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say