February 11, 2016
A Nobel prize winning economist, former
chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank, and
chairman of the President's council of economic advisers (Joseph
Stiglitz) says that the
International Monetary Fund and World
Bank loan money to third world countries as a way to force
them to open up their markets and resources
for looting by the West.
Do central banks do something
Economics professor Richard Werner
- who created the concept of quantitative easing - has documented
central banks intentionally impoverish their host countries to
justify economic and legal changes which allow looting by foreign
He focuses mainly on the Bank of Japan,
which induced a huge bubble and then deflated it - crushing Japan's
economy in the process -
as a way to promote and justify structural "reforms".
The Bank of Japan has used a heavy hand
on Japanese economy for many decades, but Japan is stuck in a
But Werner says the same thing about
the European Central Bank (ECB).
The ECB has
used loans and liquidity
as a weapon to
loot European nations.
...and other European countries have all
lost their national sovereignty to the
ECB and the other members of
ECB head Mario Draghi
said in 2012:
The EU should have the power to
police and interfere in member
states' national budgets.
"I am certain, if we want to restore
confidence in the Eurozone,
countries will have to transfer part of their sovereignty
to the European level."
"Several governments have not yet
understood that they lost their
national sovereignty long ago. Because they ran up huge
debts in the past, they are now dependent on the goodwill of the
And yet Europe has been stuck in a
worse than the Great Depression, largely due to the
What about America's central bank…
the Federal Reserve (FED)?
Initially - contrary to what many
Americans believe - the Federal Reserve had admitted that it is
not really federal (more).
But - even if it's not part of the government - hasn't the FED acted
in America's interest?
Let's have a look …
an enormous [stock] market rally".
Professor G. William Domhoff demonstrated that
the richest 10% own 81% of all stocks and mutual funds (the
top 1% own 35%).
The great majority of Americans - the
bottom 90% - own less than 20% of
all stocks and mutual funds. So the FED's effort
overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest Americans… and
Allowed the giant banks to grow
into mega-banks, even though most independent economists and
financial experts say that
the economy will not recover until the giant banks are
For example, Citigroup's former chief executive
says that when Citigroup was formed in 1998 out of the
merger of banking and insurance giants, Greenspan told him,
"I have nothing against size. It doesn't bother me at all"
Had a hand in Watergate
and arming Saddam Hussein, according to an economist with
the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services
Committee for eleven years, assisting with oversight of the
Federal Reserve, and subsequently Professor of Public
Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. See this and this
Moreover, the FED's main program for
dealing with the financial crisis - quantitative easing -
benefits the rich and hurts the little guy, as confirmed by,
Indeed, a high-level Federal Reserve
official says quantitative easing
greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time".
Some economists called the bank bailouts
which the FED helped engineer the
greatest redistribution of wealth in history.
Tim Geithner - as head of the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York - was complicit in Lehman's
accounting fraud, (and see this),
and pushed to
pay AIG's CDS counterparties at full value, and then to keep the
And as Robert Reich notes,
"very much in the center of the
action" regarding the secret bail out of Bear Stearns without
William Black points
"Mr. Geithner, as President of the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York since October 2003, was one of
those senior regulators who failed to take any effective
regulatory action to prevent the crisis, but instead covered up
Indeed, the non-partisan Government
Accountability Office calls the FED corrupt and riddled
with conflicts of interest.
economist Joe Stiglitz
World Bank would view any country which had a banking structure like
the FED as being corrupt and untrustworthy.
The former vice president at the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas said he worried that the failure of the
government to provide more information about its rescue spending
could signal corruption.
in government programs is always associated with corruption in
other countries, so I don't see why it wouldn't be here," he
But aren't the FED and other central
banks crucial to stabilize the economy?
Not necessarily… the FED caused
the Great Depression and the current
economic crisis, and many
economists - including several Nobel prize winning economists -
say that we should end the FED in its current form.
They also say that the FED does not help
stabilize the economy.
Thomas Sargent, the New York
University professor who was announced Monday as a winner of the
Nobel in economics… cites Walter Bagehot, who,
"said that what he called a
'natural' competitive banking system without a 'central'
bank would be better…
'nothing can be more
surely established by a larger experience than that a
Government which interferes with any trade injures that
trade. The best thing undeniably that a Government can
do with the Money Market is to let it take care of
Earlier U.S. central banks caused
mischief, as well.
For example, Austrian economist Murray Rothbard wrote:
The panics of 1837 and 1839… were
the consequence of a massive inflationary boom fueled by the
Whig-run Second Bank of the United States.
Indeed, the Revolutionary War was
largely due to the actions of the world's first central bank, the
Bank of England.
Specifically, when Benjamin Franklin
went to London in 1764, this
is what he observed:
When he arrived, he was surprised to
find rampant unemployment and poverty among the British working
classes… Franklin was then asked how the American colonies
managed to collect enough money to support their poor houses.
He reportedly replied:
"We have no poor houses in the
Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put
in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single
unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps."
In 1764, the Bank of England used
its influence on Parliament to get a Currency Act passed that
made it illegal for any of the colonies to print their own
The colonists were forced to pay all
future taxes to Britain in silver or gold. Anyone lacking in
those precious metals had to borrow them at interest from the
Only a year later, Franklin said,
the streets of the colonies were filled with unemployed beggars,
just as they were in England. The money supply had suddenly been
reduced by half, leaving insufficient funds to pay for the goods
and services these workers could have provided.
He maintained that 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
This, he said, was the real reason
for the Revolution:
"the colonies would gladly have
borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not
been that England took away from the colonies their money,
which created unemployment and dissatisfaction."
(For more on the Currency Act, see this.)
And things are getting worse…
rather than better...
As Professor Werner tells Washington's
Central banks have legally become
more and more powerful in the past 30 years across the globe,
yet they have become de facto less and less accountable.
In fact, as I warned in my book New
Paradigm in Macroeconomics in 2005, after each of the 'recurring
banking crises', central banks are usually handed even more
This also happened after
the 2008 crisis.
[Background here and here.]
So it is clear we have a regulatory
moral hazard problem: central banks seem to benefit from crises.
No wonder the rise of central banks to ever larger legal powers
has been accompanied not by fewer and smaller business cycles
and crises, but more crises and of larger amplitude.
Georgetown University historian Professor
Carroll Quigley argued that
the aim of the powers-that-be is,
"nothing less than to create a world
system of financial control in private hands able to dominate
the political system of each country and the economy of the
world as a whole."
This system is to be controlled,
"in a feudalist fashion by the
central banks of the world acting in concert by secret
agreements," central banks that "were themselves private
Given the facts set forth above, this
may be yet another conspiracy theory confirmed as conspiracy fact.
Read also "Central
Bankers Admit that Central Banks Have Failed to Fix the Economy".