ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Economics

Banking in most of the world

Updated on October 1, 2012

comment on the economy

I don't really understand what they mean by a right to work state.We all have the right to work,just not the right to force anyone to hire us.That's what I think they mean by right to work.The right to work for an employer of our choosing.Come to think of it ,union closed shops seem to be the only truely right to work "states" I know of.unless you include self-employment if you have the money to start your own business.Former president WOODROW WILSON was con-vinced by rockerfeller to sign the federal reserve system into law.That's was the biggest mistake he made and he knew it.Before he died he made the statement that -I'm paraphasing here "I fear that I have may have unwittingly betrayed my country"F.D.R.signed a law con-fecating all of American's gold coins,bullion and gold certificates redeemable in gold.All we were allowed to keep was gold jewlery and antiques made with gold.The Federal Reserve then proceeded to create monitized debt.I.O.U's.Pomises to pay.That's what we call money these days.Which makes sense only if the value of those promises are kept.The Federal Reserve definitely hasn't kept those promises stable as gold would have.That's why they had to get rid od gold as a way to measure the value of the dollar relative to a more or less fixed amount of gold.Now we use oil to fix the value of the dollar and the value of oil can go up or down based on demand for it.If we had almost free energy ,oil's value as a backing for the dollar would be volitle to say the least.So the Federal Reserve as well as the oil companies owner's and investor's will do what ever is needed to keep energy expensive .It's in their best interest. The question is it in the interest of the majority of the people.I think not.Our political and moral views are at odds.Will we become like the communists and be forced to go along with an Insane economic system ,so a few people can stay wealthy at the expense of the majority.If ,that's a result of the capitalist system ,then the system should make room  for more reasonable ideas or risk losing what have invested.Only an insane person doesn't change for their own good .i DON'T MEAN CHANGE FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE ALONE..My idea of change is for the better,and not just the tired old retort 

  Social security is better than nothing when it comes to some kind of safety net for the poor unfortunate individuals or families who have no way to support themselves.The problem is with the funding.It was never really funded properly and all of the money paid out was borrowed money in the trillions of dollars I understand.The government has just been paying the interest on those loans.Why? You would think that they would have found a way to fund it by making investments with a portion of the money paid into the system.As it is they were using social security money to fund or pay into something else.Come to think of it I don't recall hearing or seeing a balance sheet on the social security fund or the federal reserve banking system.And since the federal reserve banks are all private banks,the government can probably audit them ,if it weren/t for the fact that the the private enforcement branch of the federal reserve banks and they would never be so audacious as to audit there employers books .Would they?

The reason the federal reserve law was passed was so foriegn as well as domestic regional banks called the federal reserve banks could print up our money at the cost of ink and paper and lend it out to all of the states banks as well as the federal government at face value plus a small percentage markup in to all the regional member banks unlike the huge percentages they wanted to charge the government to pay for the revolutionary and civil wars at 25 percent or more.which is adding insult to injury seeing as it only cost the fed the insignificant amount of the printing cost to do it.In fact it cost them more to print a one dollar bill than a hundred dollar bill by the virtue of the fact of the face value of a hundred dollar bill is a hundred times more than a dollar billAs long as those member banks kept a small percentage of their customers deposits on their books to keep their "legally passed" scam solvent .The idea was that 90 percent of their customers never withdrew 100 percent of their money.You know like in that famious movie that usually comes out on T.V.every year or can be seen on dvd or vcr tape "It's a wonderful life" with Jimmy Stewart who plays a manager of a savings and loan which did the very same thing.Telling his customers all of whom were trying to get all of their money out all at the same time.Of course he couldn't do that as he told them in the movie ,your money is in other members house's. You were lending your money so other members could build their houses and that they wouldn't want to foreclose on their fellow member's houses.Dismissing the fact that the savings and loan as well as all member banks can borrow money from the federal reserve banks as long as they deposit a percentage of their savings and loan or savings from a regular bank with the fed banks as a kind of collateral,or good faith gesture and if they all tried taking out all of their money at the same time it would effectively bankrupt all of them. That's a sort of suliminal message like they do in commercials these days.The message here is never ask for all of your money from your bank because you know what would happen if everyone tried to do it.

Like they say power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely.The power to control our money supply is absolute power and F.D.R. new that and all the presidents we have had knew that.Especially J.F.K and Lincoln who both signed an executive order to print up unitedstates bank notes for prior to their assassination Abraham Lincoln ordered the printing of millions of dollars in greenbacks to use in the north to pay for the civil war debts.That's when the south's confederate notes became worthless Like they say money is power.The foreign and domestic bankers were funding both sides hedging their bets on either side so no matter who won they didn't lose They tried to charge Lincoln about 25 percent interest on loans to pay for the north's prosecution of the war,which by the way Lincoln called a police action because he saw it as bringing the union back together.He didn't want the south to split from the union and the southern congressional representitives could have come into congress and had their grievence's brought before the rest of the states for consideration .But they chose to declare war on the north.It's my opinion that the powers that were behind slavery had something to do with that,but that's just my opinion.War is the biggest money making human "business"beside slavery since there are two major reasons for war.Power and money.As you know Abraham Lincoln and J.F.K had at least two things in common.Both printed up alternate money supplies to what was available to the government and the people and both were assassinated because of it.I'm still amazed at the coinsidences both presidents had in common Lincioln had a secretary named Kennedy,and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln and their assassinations happened one hundred years apart 1863 and 1963.

As for recessions and depressions or Inflation.They were all manipulated by the federal reserve or their predicessors .The federal reserve act was passed into law to keep us from having Inflations ,depressions and recessions. The reason for the ups and downs is interest payments and the fact that we never had enough printed money in circulation at times of depression and resession or we had too much money in circulation in inflationary times by simply printing it up and charging face value plus interest for paper and ink.This is done consciously by the federal reserve as a way to constantly swing the economy one way or the other suposedly to stablize the economy The fact is it is,does control the economy.In times of depression they can take over defaulted land, homes, and businesses before most people can pay off their loans because of low demand for goods and services due to a lack of money in circulation and in the case of Inflation they make new loans available because of renewed demand for them increases due a glut of low cost homes to sell over again and the low interest rates as a result of the huge market they created by the foreclosure process which increases the demand for more loans for speculators looking to rent those very same homes ,or sell them at a profit which eventually causes a bubble in the economy with inflated prices for goods and services due to the demand and the availability of low interest loans.Then back we go to high interest loans that no one can afford and banks are unwilling to lend to people who cant pay them off which we call either a recession or depession depending on how long it goes on.So,around and around the econmony goes where it stops only the federal reserve knows.It sure seems designed to fail .If nothing else it's deliberately unstable. There is no rational reasoning to any sane person as to why the system can't be made more stable.The only conclusion I can come to is who or whatever controls the system doesn't want it to be stable.Most people go along with the system thinking ,if there is no one smart enough to fix the system then we have to live with as best we can.The average person at a bank is no different than in any other business.They work for their employer,and must do as they are told or get fired.Even if they see something going on that's immoral like seeing loans go through that shouldn't.Seeing as commissions are involved with the loans and they stand to make money as a result they accually have some incentive to give the loan approval.

conspiracy speech by J.F.K.

J.F.K. tells the truth

Greenspan comments on thr fed

the federal reserve

Is the federal reserve a branch of the federal government

See results


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

      Wesman Todd Shaw 7 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      I wish everyone would jump on this wagon, but they are all distracted by whatever the MSM is pushing.

      Libya will soon know all about Rothschild banking.

    • jayb23 profile image

      jayb23 8 years ago from India

      I agree with many of your points. Banking today has come a long way, but it has caused alot more pain too. Hopefully some regulations are in place. Good hub.

    • bgamall profile image

      Gary Anderson 8 years ago from Las Vegas, Nevada

      Nice hub but Woodrow Wilson signed the fed reserve into law in 1913. FYI.

    • someonewhoknows profile image

      someonewhoknows 8 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

      I may have given the impression that the fed was in exisitance when Lincoln was president,but I did say that there were other such banks in exisitance long before the federal reserve .In fact the federal reserve was voted in to stop unstable economic ups and downs.F.D.R realized that he had been duped.I agree that the statement isn't in history books ,and I honestly can't recall where I saw it.But let me assure you I did see it.Though it doesn't really matter.The point is the federal reserve and all of it's predicessors have all failed to do what they were intended to do.That is a fact.

    • SweetiePie profile image

      SweetiePie 8 years ago from Southern California, USA

      Actually there have been recessions and depressions in the world way before the creation of the Federal Reserve, which came into existence in 1913. A right to work state is one where unions are not encouraged. For example, Arizona is a right to work state, which means there is not teacher's union there. In Arizona teachers are expected to work for lower wages as in states that have a teacher's union, such as California, but the living expenses can be just as high. I am not sure why you used my screen name in your hub because that seemed really random to me.

      Also, I want to point out you take the words of Roosevelt out of context and have not sited the sources from which you quote, hence the paraphrasing. This hub is more editorial opinion that economic history.