JimMac, I'm one of those people who barely understand what is going on economically (other than the general fact that we are being robbed blind -- not that there is anything NEW in that, just that it is more blatant than usual and a heist of such proportions that it is unprecedented in the entire history of civilization). Now, I've watched the Money Masters, I understand we have a debt based system that is, essentially, being controlled (if that is the right word--sometimes it seems like the situation is mostly out of control, even their control) by the central banks and global banking interests. I understand that, essentially, our (US dollar) currency has "value" only to the extent people "think" it does -- that at this point what is backing it up, bottom line, is the perceived threat of the US military as an intervention and procurement mechanism to control critical resource markets (by proxy) as needed. I vaguely understand all this and yet I still feel fairly clueless.
Help me understand what is going on here, precisely.
Beginning on page 17 through 19, Volcker writes:
The Treasury, fully recognizing the need for such broad oversight, has essentially recommended a council of regulatory agencies under Treasury chairmanship. I write with some confidence that a council of variegated agencies with their own particular challenges, policies, and constituencies cannot be expected to efficiently and effectively serve as a coordinating body. In practice, the burden would be on the Treasury, an agency for which I have had enormous respect and pride and in which I have served in my years in Government. I also know that it would need to build staff, competence and experience in the regulatory arena from a standing start. It is subject more directly to funding constraints and political forces and direction that may inhibit action. The needed cooperation and coordination of regulatory and supervisory practice internationally has been, and I think should remain, heavily dependent on national central banks, most of which have a substantial role in prudential regulation.
In sum, I believe the needed oversight and coordinating role should be in the hands of the Federal Reserve rather than the Treasury. In considering the responsibilities of the Federal Reserve, it does seem to me entirely appropriate that when under “unusual and exigent” circumstances the Fed is called upon to use emergency lending powers, it seek the formal assent of the President through the Treasury. I believe that has, in any event, properly been done as a matter of practice. However, with taxpayer money ultimately at risk, there should be no doubt about approval for the exercise of the emergency authority.
There is also an interesting question as to the period over which events are both “unusual and exigent”. What is involved in emergency lending is the need to act immediately and forcefully, which only the Fed may be able to do. But after several months, the Congress working with the Administration should be able to determine the proper amount and time for continuing extraordinary assistance.
This is already a long statement, and I cannot cover other important points at issue, including protection for consumers and investors involved in financial transactions. In time, Congress must direct its attention to rebuilding the national mortgage market, avoiding, I trust, the now failed approach of mingling private and public responsibilities of so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises. I also urge consideration of making a national insurance charter available to insurance companies willing to accept Federal prudential standards. Large issues with accounting and credit rating agencies remain.
Those are matters for another day. What is critically important is to establish now the basic framework for regulation and supervision, in the process recognizing the special role of the central bank. Going forward, I also urge that the United States recognize the need to coordinate with the authorities of the other major countries regarding the oversight of international banking organizations, the open and timely sharing of information, and greater clarity on home and host responsibilities, including dealing with failing institutions. This will greatly assist in the closing of regulatory gaps, and raise standards, and help in developing a “level playing field”.
Alright, so the "Federal Reserve" (what would be a term for a word phrase that is, beyond being an oxymoron, utterly deceptive in that it is neither a part of the Federal government nor a reserve of anything?) LOANS the money to the Treasury at interest to accomplish all the things Government pays for (INCLUDING said proxy military preparedness and market interventions [better known as "wars"] which, as we know, take up the lions share of the US budget). Subsequently individual and corporate taxes go to pay back the interest on that perpetual loan, always at a loss, such that the US deficit has grown to such an astronomical figure it is incomprehensible in every-day terms. It looks to me like Volcker wants to make official a policy of "oversight" (meaning they can do whatever they damn well please any time they damn well please to do it) which is already tacitly in effect.
Do I have that more or less right?
Assuming I do, my question is: WHAT precisely
is a doable
alternative to this system? To my way of thinking, this is THE fundamental question. Chaotic situations -- and there can be little doubt in my mind that we are in a chaotic situation in terms of global 'finance' not to mention a whole host of other 'chaotic' elements which need immediate human attention -- invariably lead to opportunities
that were not present prior to the actual or perceived, even if fully 'controlled' or at any rate 'manipulated' chaos. That is to say, in a rigged game, the more the rules get adjusted, the more opportunity for those against whom the game is rigged have to bring into play previously unconsidered alternatives; to the point where it is conceivable to implement "new rules" which fundamentally alter the nature of the "game" itself. To the extent that our opponents controls the thesis-antithesis-synthesis paradigm which allows them to shift the rules in their favor, they "win". However, in a chaotic situation they may not always be able to control the outcome of this paradigm, PROVIDED we
begin to put into effect alternative
I'm speaking in very general terms because I'm a generalist. I sense the dynamics of a situation in general terms but haven't a grasp of the specifics. What I do understand is that they want to control the game -- that is the bottom line for wealth creation: CONTROL OF THE MARKET (regardless whether we're talking, money markets, energy markets, resource markets, etc.). But "markets" are not completely "fixed" and unchanging. They are fluid, dynamic and have within them fundamentally 'chaotic' (unpredictable) elements. The control
game has to do managing market chaotics
. For example, if I can control your perception of the value of a certain currency, then I can control (or at least strongly influence) the market in that currency.
What I've been suggesting for some time now is that we begin to think completely outside the box of market control strategy. What is needed is a "new idea," a completely new concept of what "wealth" is
. One that, preferably, could go viral
and completely undermine the current global economic system. Such genuine "revolutions" DO occur in the arena of human history and it is always the "unforeseen" or "not predicted" chaotic elements that cause the establishment to scramble and readjust their strategies in an attempt control that chaotic element or at least minimize its consequences in establishment terms. (This, I think, is precisely where we are historically -- establishment forces are attempting to control the emergence of increasingly chaotic elements in the system. 9/11 itself was one such 'move' in the chess game of total global market control.)
Perhaps what I'm saying doesn't make any sense. I certainly don't have a "practical," implementable alternative to the current system. However, I do believe such alternatives are possible
provided we begin to imagine them and, in some way, begin to implement them.