AT: But the point is this! Many Trump supporters, especially the anti-war Q followers, are talking about federalizing the Fed…and that being a good thing. This is really a teaching moment!!!
Me: The problem is, nationalizing the FED is probably leaping from the frying pan into the fire. It’s a further consolidation of power and into a class of people who are at least as unethical as the financiers, namely the pols. Make no mistake….politics is about power. And this is why the real solution lies at the paradigm concept level….not just the reform or structural one. Power, profit and control are the watch words of the current monetary and financial paradigm of Debt Only and of the current zeitgeist of power. Monetary grace as in gifting is the new monetary and financial paradigm, and grace as in love in personal action/systemic policy is the emergent realization of the new zeitgeist.
EB: Yes agreed, Steve H., Steve Mnuchin isn’t necessarily the guy we want in charge. But it’s still a promising development, one we can work with and capitalize on. Here are questions I just asked one of our advisory board members who is a professor and lawyer. If anyone here knows the answers, great!
One thing I don’t understand are those SPVs the Fed and Treasury just set up. $400K plus in ESF funds from the Treasury will give the Treasury the power to draw on $4T in credit from the Fed, correct? I assume that will be interest free, since the Fed rebates its profits to the Treasury. For how long? Can the Treasury keep rolling the loans over? Can the $4T be used not just for loans to insolvent companies but for purchases, e.g. for stock? Does that mean the Treasury will own stock in big companies, maybe even a controlling interest? The money will wind up as reserves on the books of the banks from which the assets have been purchased. Can those reserves then be spent into the economy? Are the SPVs in effect acting as banks (or shadow banks), borrowing $9 for every dollar in capital or collateral from the ESF? Can the ESF get wiped out if all the loans go bad? Will the taxpayers have to replenish it? Can they be on the hook for more than the $400K plus already in the fund? It looks to me as if the Treasury Secretary (an unelected bureaucrat) is calling the shots, since the Treasury will own the SPVs. Can he use it for whatever he chooses? Does Jerome Powell have to approve what the money is used for? I wouldn’t think so. It looks like the SPVs will just become the equivalent of the primary dealers that can do business with the Fed and borrow from it at 0.25%, yes?
The questions to ask are:
Does any of this actually increase the amount of free and clear purchasing power in the hands of the individual and thus simultaneously increase systemic business revenue? Does it REVERSE the inevitable build up of personal and systemic debt and its servicing costs? Will it terminally end price and asset inflation by integrating price and asset DE-flation into profit making economic systems?
The monopoly monetary and financial paradigm is inherently dominating and de-stabilizing. No real progress will be made until the new paradigm is integrated into the system.
AT: A movement in the correct direction is a good thing. It should be encouraged.
Me: What right direction? A “reform” that still leaves the current monetary concept alone and the current bad actors still in the driving seat? Or a paradigm change that resolves the deepest problems of the economy and rejuvenates it for all agents?
AT: And, the most important question:
Is this raising awareness of OUR monetary and banking system, that has been hijacked by a private cartel? Answer: Yes.
Me: As has been shown before throughout history…which is worse a private cartel or a governmental one?
AT: I have seen folks discussing nationalizing the Fed, and seeing it as a good thing, as I am seeing now. THAT’s a good thing.
Me: Nationalizing the FED is a good thing because it affirms Occam’s Razor….but hoping and wishing that it is the solution to the paradigmatic problem which IS THE REAL AND UNDERLYING PROBLEM….won’t cut it.
AT: Steve Hummel: Any WHY are you in our PUBLIC BANKING group? To support or subvert?
Me: I’m here to integrate and elevate it conceptually and policy-wise from a systemic reform to a paradigm change.