|
In
Part I, I talked about how the Fed creates money
and why it doesn’t make sense for banks, bank employees
and/or their private owners to benefit personally from the
interest received on funds that banks are able to create out
of nothing, which they then lend to bank customers (which in some cases is
the government). The
bankers were given authority to create those funds out of
nothing in order to control the supply of money for the sole
benefit of The People. Bankers,
when they make loans, (to the extent they are creating and
lending newly created money) are acting as agents of The
People. The People
are the true and sovereign owner of those funds and so it is
The People, (i.e., the government), that should be the
recipient of those interest payments.
Of course
banks ought to be adequately compensated for the legitimate
services they do provide.
That would include interest and fees for lending out
capital that banks own by virtue of accumulated earnings or
investor contributions, fees for processing loan applications,
and fees for evaluating and controlling the amount of money
the economy needs to prosper in an optimum and sustainable
manner. But banks shouldn’t be compensated for services they
don’t provide, which is to say, they shouldn’t gain or be
compensated with the interest they receive on funds that were
lent by creating that money out of nothing, nor should they be
allowed to profit from inside information that might become
available to them in the course of managing the money supply;
nor should the power that has been entrusted to them ever be
used to benefit the bank or bank employees or owners or to
influence the legitimate operation of other government
functions.
The Fed was
entrusted to perform a sacred duty for which they have a
fiduciary1 responsibility to perform:
to manage the money supply for the benefit of the
economy, which is to say, The People, or society as a whole.
That duty precludes them from profiting over and above
a legitimate remuneration for carrying out its essential
duties. If they
betray the trust implied by that fiduciary duty, they ought
to be removed and/or prosecuted for fraud or breach of trust
as the case may be.
Apparently, a
good case can be made that some banks, bankers, and bank
owners have breached that trust for a long, long time.
That means those illegitimate beneficiaries ought to be
liable for the fraud and damage they have caused in the
process of accumulating their illegitimate power and wealth.
They surely ought not to be rewarded for all the
poverty, death, and destruction that their infidelity has
caused. In fact,
they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for
any fraud and/or other criminal acts they have perpetrated.
Of course the
arrangement by which the Fed operates, which is to say the
legislation that authorizes the Federal Reserve System, might
in and of itself be flawed, and it appears that it is.
In fact, how the system was supposed to work was not
spelled out clearly from its inception.
Nevertheless, the Chairman of the Fed and it’s
governors took an oath in which they pledged allegiance to the
Constitution before they took on their duties and I maintain
that that oath, properly interpreted, says exactly what I have
just said but in different words.
No one should
be in the business of banking, either at the Fed or at any of
its member banks, who doesn’t understand what it means to be
a fiduciary or is unworthy of the honor of being trusted with
fiduciary responsibilities.
Our elected
government officials are also fiduciaries.
Unfortunately, we cannot trust the government we now
have to redesign the Federal Reserve System or to prosecute
any crimes that banks and bankers have committed over the
years. The
government we now have has refused to prosecute the crimes and
misdemeanors of prior administration officials, such as war
crimes and other illegal or unconstitutional acts, and, in
fact, has engaged in similar acts themselves.
How can they be trusted to prosecute the illegal acts
of others when they have in the past, and continue
in the present, to engage in similar crimes themselves?
In fact, with respect to the Fed, our government has
already rewarded banks and bankers with billions or trillions
of dollars when we all know they instead should have been
prosecuted for fraud and other crimes.
When a
fiduciary fails to uphold the honor of their office, that
person ought to be removed from office.
And who has the duty to remove such a person from
office? Answer:
The person or persons who put them in office; the
person or persons who have legitimate power to hire or fire
that person. And that would be us.
____________________________
What
You Need to Know to Save Your Ass - Part 3
1Fiduciary
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary
When a fiduciary duty is imposed, equity requires a stricter standard of
behavior than the comparable tortuous
duty of
care at common law. It is said the fiduciary has a duty
not to be in a situation where personal interests and
fiduciary duty conflict, a duty not to be in a situation where
his fiduciary duty conflicts with another fiduciary duty, and
a duty not to profit from his fiduciary position without
express knowledge and consent. A fiduciary cannot have a conflict
of interest. It has been said that fiduciaries must
conduct themselves "at a level higher than that trodden
by the crowd"[3]
and that "[t]he distinguishing or overriding duty of a
fiduciary is the obligation of undivided loyalty."[4]
Return to Commentary
|