David Icke's Official Forums (https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php)
-   Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty (https://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=60)
-   -   The central banking scam (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=317854)

iamawaveofthesea 30-08-2018 05:02 PM

Ron Paul: End The Fed Or Face The Consequences

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/O7yymDlu4fw" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

iamawaveofthesea 10-09-2018 05:18 PM

Century of Enslavement: The History of The Federal Reserve

<iframe width="741" height="417" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5IJeemTQ7Vk" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

iamawaveofthesea 17-09-2018 05:29 PM

The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire (Documentary)

<div style="position:relative;height:0;padding-bottom:56.28%"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/np_ylvc8Zj8?ecver=2" style="position:absolute;width:100%;height:100%;le ft:0" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

iamawaveofthesea 07-10-2018 11:57 AM

The Real Rape Culture
By Kurt Nimmo
2 hours ago

Did you know Senator Susan Collins enables rape? She voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, so what other conclusion can be reached? Not that Kavanaugh was accused of rape and it turned out to be almost impossible to prove he forced himself on a girl three long decades ago.

Republican Congress critters were stalked, harangued, and bullied as they left the temple. This harassment, described as a protest, was sponsored by the Center for Popular Democracy, a nonprofit funded by Soros’ Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation, the latter a longtime CIA front.

If we are to believe these folks, Senator Collins might as well have held down a fifteen year old girl while drunken Republicans defiled her. Collins’ vote for Kavanaugh is a vote for the “patriarchy” and “rape culture.”

During her tenure as the Senator from Maine, Collins has taken campaign money from finance, real estate, insurance, and “defense” corporations, same as the majority of her colleagues.

Ms. Collins and practically every other member of Congress serve the real rape culture, the one hardly ever mentioned—the rape of the American people by the financial class and its interlocked and crossbred transnational corporations.

This topic is assiduously avoided by the careerists in Congress. They’re more comfortable with the Kavanaugh political theater, the Grand Distraction, even if a few of them are chased down the street by people suffering from a brevity of logic and higher brain functioning.

Ever since the Federal Reserve was created in the dead of night during Christmas of 1913, the bankers have raped America.

Former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke admitted the privately held cartel masquerading as a government institution engineered the Great Depression. It enabled Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan’s manipulation of hedge funds and selling short the toxic subprime mortgages they created.

All the while, Congress stood beside these criminal racketeers, facilitating wholesale theft and looting. It passed the Garn-St. Germaine Depository Institution Act in 1982, thus deregulating the Savings and Loan industry and allowing wild speculation that resulted in a crisis that ultimately cost the American taxpayer over $200 billion. Three years before, Congress had loosened up regulations on pensions and this brought in the financial class vultures.

In 1999 Republican Phil Gramm led the charge to trash the Glass-Stiegel Act, a law passed during the Great Depression to erect a firewall between investment and commercial banking. This resulted in a long-term sacking by the Goths and Huns of the financial class.

But these entitled vandals were far from finished. The following year Gramm stuck the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in a must-pass bill. This sneaky law gave a green light for unchecked derivatives transactions between “sophisticated parties,” that is to say the financial elite. These unrestrained derivatives led to the infamous credit default swap and are directly responsible for the 2008 financial crisis and the hobbled economy eating away at the middle class.

“It was all a lie—one of the biggest and most elaborate falsehoods ever sold to the American people,” writes Matt Taibbi. “We were told that the taxpayer was stepping in—only temporarily, mind you—to prop up the economy and save the world from financial catastrophe. What we actually ended up doing was the exact opposite: committing American taxpayers to permanent, blind support of an ungovernable, unregulatable, hyper concentrated new financial system that exacerbates the greed and inequality that caused the crash, and forces Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup to increase risk rather than reduce it.”

Trillions of dollars in amassed debt now hangs by a thread over our heads like the mythical Sword of Damocles.

According to the Treasury Department, as of October 2 the “debt held by the public” is $15,757,097,388,254.30. It has increased by $1,271,158,167,126.72 since Trump took office. It is projected the national debt will hit $99 trillion dollars by 2048.

None of this appears on the radar of the American people, soon to be witless victims of another artificially created “Great Recession” as shiny new asset bubbles prepare to burst and rain immiseration down on the American people.

Meanwhile, there is a nonstop Kavanaugh-Mueller-Manafort-etc. circus performance to distract us from the mudslide of economic reality that inches closer every day.

sparkplug 09-10-2018 10:31 AM

I've just watched the video 'The Spiders Web' and wow!

No wonder this country is in such a mess. We have a country within a country, no companies paying any tax, people sending their massive fortunes abroad and paying no tax, the former head of HMRC seemingly in the pocket of the elite, and even the HMRC buildings are owned by an off shore company!

Then it goes on about how we are still draining former colonies of their money, PFI which Tony Blair (peace envoy) championed, and how they are planning on bringing in PFI into Africa.

It's a long video, but not a boring one. So much information. So much corruption!

Why should anyone who goes to work pay tax when the elite and global business don't!

iamawaveofthesea 09-10-2018 10:37 AM


Originally Posted by sparkplug (Post 1063043895)
the former head of HMRC seemingly in the pocket of the elite, and even the HMRC buildings are owned by an off shore company!

the HMRC has no government minister to oversee it

it has its roots in the 'exchequer' which was created by the jewish administrators of william the conqueror to tax his new subjects

in the middle of the 'city of london' banking district is 'the temple' which was the property of the knights templar who were jewish bloodlines who formed the worlds first transnational corporation which was a banking powerhouse

the order was run by ceremonial magicians and their red cross is still on the emblem of the city of london today which depicts the dragon of matter clutching the bloody cross of the rose-crucian templars which itself is a sex magic symbol as the cross is the phallus and the blood is menstrual blood

according to a policeman i saw interviewed on the keiser report the british police cannot investigate fraud in the city of london without first obtaining the signature of the secretary of state who therefore acts as a gatekeeper of the square mile banking district


Originally Posted by sparkplug (Post 1063043895)
Why should anyone who goes to work pay tax when the elite and global business don't!

the super rich keep their wealth offshore beyond the hands of the tax man while the rest of us are taxed on everything from clothes to food and drink to petrol as well as on our income

iamawaveofthesea 15-10-2018 05:43 PM

Fed Inspector Turned Whistleblower Reveals System Rigged For Goldman Sachs
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 19:25

Five years after we first reported on the "Goldman whistleblower" at the NY Fed, Carmen Segarra, the former bank examiner is out with a new book based on more than 46 hours of secret recordings.

"Noncompliant: A Lone Whistleblower Exposes the Giants of Wall Street" is a 340-page exposé which vastly expands on the breadcrumbs Segarra has been dropping since word of her recordings first came to light, according to the New York Post.

Segarra was a former bank examiner who looked into Goldman Sachs for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and claims she got fired in 2012 after making too much noise about Goldman’s alleged conflicts.

The New York Fed has often been blasted for its lackadaisical approach to overseeing banks leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. Its last president, William Dudley, was named in 2009 after spending 21 years at Goldman. But Segarra’s book claims that the problem persisted for years after the crisis, with regulators happy to act on the banks’ behalf.

“We want [Goldman] to feel pain, but not too much,” her boss — who goes by the pseudonym Connor O’Sullivan in the book — told her, Segarra claims. -NY Post

The recordings were made over a seven month period while Segarra worked at the New York Fed. Neither Goldman nor the NY Fed have disputed the authenticity of the tapes.

Central to allegations of shady reglulation was a 2012 deal in which energy giant Kinder Morgan would acquire rival El Paso Corp. for $21.1 billion - a deal which Goldman advised both sides of, while "its lead banker advising El Paso, Steve Daniel, owned $340,000 in Kinder Morgan stock" according to the Post.

That didn't matter to newly minted CEO David Solomon, who took over for Lloyd Blankfein last week.

"A conflict is a perception, OK, of something that could affect the advice you’re giving, the judgment, et cetera," said Solomon during a secretly recorded meeting with the New York Fed. "Our job … is to discuss those things and to work collectively with [clients] to decide whether or not those perceptions inhibit us."

Solomon made the comments after Delaware Judge Leo Strine referred to Goldman's double-dealing in the Kinder - El Paso deal "disturbing" and "tainted by disloyalty" when he reluctantly OK'd the deal (and despite a class-action lawsuit brought by El Paso shareholders, alleging that the deal was designed to benefit Goldman). The shareholders ultimately won a $110 million judgement, wiping out the $20 million it would have collected in fees.

Segarra describes the New York Fed as "conflict-ridden, with regulators trading on inside information from bankers they're supposed to keep in line," writes the Post.

When Segarra told one unnamed colleague that insider trading was illegal, he quipped, “Not if you don’t get caught,” according to the book.

Another boss, Michael Silva, pushed Segarra to gloss over the fact that Goldman didn’t have a written conflict-of-interest policy, she claims. Silva, who now works in private practice, declined to comment.

Goldman spokesman Jake Siewert denied impropriety, telling the Post that "For decades we have had a dedicated team that reviews potential transactions to assess both potential conflicts and client sensitivities given the broad reach of our client franchise," and that "the firm takes that responsibility seriously, and the head of that group sits on our most senior leadership team."

Segarra's new book isn't the only bad press Goldman has received recently - after the New York Times reported in September that Solomon urged James Katzman, a former Goldman banker, to drop 2014 complaints that other traders tried to milk him for inside information. Solomon chalked Katzman's concerns up to nothing more than "the way Wall Street worked."

Goldman calls the exchange a miscommunication.

Meanwhile, the New York Fed says of Segarra's claims: "We continue to categorically reject Ms. Segarra’s allegations from her brief seven-month tenure as a junior examiner almost seven years ago," according to spokeswoman Andrea Priest, who added that "the staff of the New York Fed work diligently and with the utmost integrity in the fulfillment of their responsibilities."

Then again, Goldman is paid a $50 million penalty to settle accusations that former banker Rohit Bansal took New York Fed analyst, Jason Gross, to Peter Luger Steak House in Brooklyn - while receiving secret examination documents in return. Both men received probation and paid fines.

iamawaveofthesea 31-10-2018 10:43 PM

Court Rules Federal Reserve is Privately Owned
Case Reveals Fed's Status as a Private Institution

Below are excerpts from a court case proving the Federal Reserve system's status. As you will see, the court ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency:

Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant,
United States of America, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 80-5905
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 2, 1982.
Decided April 19, 1982.
As Amended June 24, 1982.

Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David W. Williams, J., dismissed holding that federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of Act and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.


1. United States

There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, but critical factor is existence of federal government control over "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of an entity. . . .

2. United States

Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of each bank is exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations nor as "mixed ownership" corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names. . . .

3. United States

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when a tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Bank, which performs important activities for the government. . . .

4. Taxation

The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation.

5. States Taxation

Tests for determining whether an entity is federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, is very broad: whether entity performs important governmental function.


Lafayette L. Blair, Compton, Cal., for plaintiff/appellant.

James R. Sullivan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for defendant/appellee; Andrea Sheridan Ordin, U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before Poole and Boochever, Circuit Judges, and Soloman, District Judge. (The Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation)

Poole, Circuit Judge:

On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Clains Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

In enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. . . . Specifically, the Act creates liability for injuries "caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of any federal agency acting within the scope of his office or employment. . . . "Federal agency" is defined as:

the executive departments, the military departments, independent
establishments of the United States, and corporations acting
primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not
include any contractors with the United States.

28 U.S.C. Sect. 2671. The liability of the United States for the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank employee depends, therefore, on whether the Bank is a federal agency under Sect. 2671.

[1,2] There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of that entity. . . . Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . ., whether the government is involved in the entity's finances. . . ., and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activites include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 341-361.

Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activites without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made.

It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:

It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over
the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when
necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on
through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which
require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which
determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other
words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the
exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to
individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of

H.R. Report No. 69 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees travelling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.

The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 856, a factor considered is Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. . . .

Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys . . ., and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. Sect. 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.

[3] The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a "public official" under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting "for or on behalf of the Government." . . . The test for determining status as a public official turns on whether there is "substantial federal involvement" in the defendant's activities. United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the FTCA, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks, which perform important activities for the government.

[4, 5] The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. . . . The test for determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . . The Reserve Banks, which further the nation's fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function.

Performance of an important governmental function, however, is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. . . . State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity's ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. . . . Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal's ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . .

Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. Sect. 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the "important governmental function" test and concluded that the term "Federal Government" in the Service Contract Act must be "liberally construed to effectuate the Act's humanitarian purpose of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government." Id. 288 Mich. at 120, 284 N.W.2d 667.

Such a liberal construction of the term "federal agency" for purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.

For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgement of the district court.


It is clear from this that in some circumstances, the Federal Reserve Bank can be considered a government "instrumentality", but cannot be considered a "federal agency", because the term carries with it the assumption that the federal government has direct oversight over what the Fed does. Of course it does not, because most people who know about this subject know that the Fed is "politically independent."

The only area where one might disagree with the judge's decision is where he states that the Fed furthers the federal government's fiscal policy, and therefore performs an important governmental function. While we would like to think that the federal government and the Fed work cooperatively with each other, and they may on occasion, the Fed is by no means required to do so. One example is where Rep. Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, said in the Congressional Record back in the '60s, that depending on the temperament of the Fed's Chairman, sometimes the Fed worked with the government's fiscal policy, and other times either went in the complete opposite direction, or threatens to do so in order to influence policy.

The common claim that the Fed is accountable to the government, because it is required to report to Congress on its activities annually, is incorrect. The reports to Congress mean little unless what the Chairman reports can be verified by complete records. From its founding to this day, the Fed has never undergone a complete independent audit. Congress time after time has requested that the Fed voluntarily submit to a complete audit, and every time, it refuses.

Those in the know about the Fed, realize that it does keep certain records secret. The soon-to-be-former Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Henry Gonzales, has spoken on record repeatedly about how the Fed at one point says it does not have certain requested records, and then it is found through investigation that it in fact does have those records, or at least used to. It would appear that the Fed Chairman can say anything he wants to to Congress, and they'll have to accept what he says, because verification of what he says is not always possible.

alisa2 01-11-2018 05:14 PM

Federal Reserve System = the Law Merchant. It's all about buy$ng and sell$ng. What stock to buy, what stock to sell: Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, or Google (aka FANG stocks)?

Money should be completely phased out of Human existence. Let all the stock market indices the world over go down to zero!

oneriver 01-11-2018 06:12 PM


Originally Posted by alisa2 (Post 1063046708)
Federal Reserve System = the Law Merchant. It's all about buy$ng and sell$ng. What stock to buy, what stock to sell: Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, or Google (aka FANG stocks)?

Money should be completely phased out of Human existence. Let all the stock market indices the world over go down to zero!

The system can not be fixed by the system. You are correct about it having to be torn down, along with political, industrial and legal structures too.

alisa2 16-11-2018 04:13 PM

Take heed.

"When this thing finally blows (economy, gov't, stock market crash) then it won't matter how much money you make, what kind of car you drive, what kind of house you live in, how much money you have saved up in the bank, or how much money you have invested in stocks or other investments. All that will matter is can you take the "hit", survive it, protect your body from thugs and zombies and have plenty of water, food and supplies to live off of until the chaos and mayhem is all over and order is finally restored in the big cities. That's all that will matter to you and your family when this thing finally hits." Andrew Cortes

iamawaveofthesea 02-12-2018 07:54 PM

This Is How The “Everything Bubble” Will End
By PatriotRising -
November 30, 2018

I think there’s a very high chance of a stock market crash of historic proportions before the end of Trump’s first term.

That’s because the Federal Reserve’s current rate-hiking cycle, which started in 2015, is set to pop “the everything bubble.”

I’ll explain how this could all play out in a moment. But first, you need to know how the Fed creates the boom-bust cycle…

To start, the Fed encourages malinvestment by suppressing interest rates lower than their natural levels. This leads companies to invest in plants, equipment, and other capital assets that only appear profitable because borrowing money is cheap.

This, in turn, leads to misallocated capital – and eventually, economic loss when interest rates rise, making previously economic investments uneconomic.

Think of this dynamic like a variable rate mortgage. Artificially low interest rates encourage individual home buyers to take out mortgages. If interest rates stay low, they can make the payments and maintain the illusion of solvency.

But once interest rates rise, the mortgage interest payments adjust higher, making them less and less affordable until, eventually, the borrower defaults.

In short, bubbles are inflated when easy money from low interest rates floods into a certain asset.

Rate hikes do the opposite. They suck money out of the economy and pop the bubbles created from low rates.
It Almost Always Ends in a Crisis

Almost every Fed rate-hiking cycle ends in a crisis. Sometimes it starts abroad, but it always filters back to U.S. markets.

Specifically, 16 of the last 19 times the Fed started a series of interest rate hikes, some sort of crisis that tanked the stock market followed. That’s around 84% of the time.

You can see some of the more prominent examples in the chart below.

Let’s walk through a few of the major crises…

• 1929 Wall Street Crash

Throughout the 1920s, the Federal Reserve’s easy money policies helped create an enormous stock market bubble.

In August 1929, the Fed raised interest rates and effectively ended the easy credit.

Only a few months later, the bubble burst on Black Tuesday. The Dow lost over 12% that day. It was the most devastating stock market crash in the U.S. up to that point. It also signaled the beginning of the Great Depression.

Between 1929 and 1932, the stock market went on to lose 86% of its value.

• 1987 Stock Market Crash

In February 1987, the Fed decided to tighten by withdrawing liquidity from the market. This pushed interest rates up.

They continued to tighten until the “Black Monday” crash in October of that year, when the S&P 500 lost 33% of its value.

At that point, the Fed quickly reversed its course and started easing again. It was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan’s first – but not last – bungled attempt to raise interest rates.

• Asia Crisis and LTCM Collapse

A similar pattern played out in the mid-1990s. Emerging markets – which had borrowed from foreigners during a period of relatively low interest rates – found themselves in big trouble once Greenspan’s Fed started to raise rates.

This time, the crisis started in Asia, spread to Russia, and then finally hit the U.S., where markets fell over 20%.

Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) was a large U.S. hedge fund. It had borrowed heavily to invest in Russia and the affected Asian countries. It soon found itself insolvent. For the Fed, however, its size meant the fund was “too big to fail.” Eventually, LTCM was bailed out.

• Tech Bubble

Greenspan’s next rate-hike cycle helped to puncture the tech bubble (which he’d helped inflate with easy money). After the tech bubble burst, the S&P 500 was cut in half.

• Subprime Meltdown and the 2008 Financial Crisis

The end of the tech bubble caused an economic downturn. Alan Greenspan’s Fed responded by dramatically lowering interest rates. This new, easy money ended up flowing into the housing market.

Then in 2004, the Fed embarked on another rate-hiking cycle. The higher interest rates made it impossible for many Americans to service their mortgage debts. Mortgage debts were widely securitized and sold to large financial institutions.

When the underlying mortgages started to go south, so did these mortgage-backed securities, and so did the financial institutions that held them.

It created a cascading crisis that nearly collapsed the global financial system. The S&P 500 fell by over 56%.

• 2018: The “Everything Bubble”

I think another crisis is imminent…

As you probably know, the Fed responded to the 2008 financial crisis with unprecedented amounts of easy money.

Think of the trillions of dollars in money printing programs – euphemistically called quantitative easing (QE) 1, 2, and 3.

At the same time, the Fed effectively took interest rates to zero, the lowest they’ve been in the entire history of the U.S.

Allegedly, the Fed did this all to save the economy. In reality, it has created enormous and unprecedented economic distortions and misallocations of capital. And it’s all going to be flushed out.

In other words, the Fed’s response to the last crisis sowed the seeds for an even bigger crisis.

The trillions of dollars the Fed “printed” created not just a housing bubble or a tech bubble, but an “everything bubble.”

The Fed took interest rates to zero in 2008. It held them there until December 2015 – nearly seven years.

For perspective, the Fed inflated the housing bubble with about two years of 1% interest rates. So it’s hard to fathom how much it distorted the economy with seven years of 0% interest rates.
The Fed Will Pop This Bubble, Too

Since December 2015, the Fed has been steadily raising rates, roughly 0.25% per quarter.

I think this rate-hike cycle is going to pop the “everything bubble.” And I see multiple warning signs that this pop is imminent.

• Warning Sign No. 1 – Emerging Markets Are Flashing Red

Earlier this year, the Turkish lira lost over 40% of its value. The Argentine peso tanked a similar amount.

These currency crises could foreshadow a coming crisis in the U.S., much in the same way the Asian financial crisis/Russian debt default did in the late 1990s.

• Warning Sign No. 2 – Unsustainable Economic Expansion

Trillions of dollars in easy money have fueled the second-longest economic expansion in U.S. history, as measured by GDP. If it’s sustained until July 2019, it will become the longest in U.S. history.

In other words, by historical standards, the current economic expansion will likely end before the next presidential election.

• Warning Sign No. 3 – The Longest Bull Market Yet

Earlier this year, the U.S. stock market broke the all-time record for the longest bull market in history. The market has been rising for nearly a decade straight without a 20% correction.

Meanwhile, stock market valuations are nearing their highest levels in all of history.

The S&P 500’s CAPE ratio, for example, is now the second-highest it’s ever been. (A high CAPE ratio means stocks are expensive.) The only time it was higher was right before the tech bubble burst.

Every time stock valuations have approached these nosebleed levels, a major crash has followed.
Preparing for the Pop

The U.S. economy and stock market are overdue for a recession and correction by any historical standard, regardless of what the Fed does.

But when you add in the Fed’s current rate-hiking cycle – the same catalyst for previous bubble pops – the likelihood of a stock market crash of historic proportions, before the end of Trump’s first term, is very high.

That’s why investors should prepare now. One way to do that is by shorting the market. That means betting the market will fall.

Keep in mind, I’m not in the habit of making “doomsday” predictions. Simply put, the Fed has warped the economy far more drastically than it did in the 1920s, during the tech or housing bubbles, or during any other period in history.

I expect the resulting stock market crash to be that much bigger.

st jimmy 03-12-2018 10:32 AM


Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea (Post 1063049977)
I think there’s a very high chance of a stock market crash of historic proportions before the end of Trump’s first term.

It must be easy to bust the bubble, when you control the markets and media:

Oil prices jumped by more than 5 percent on Monday after the United States and China agreed to a 90-day truce in a trade dispute, and ahead of a meeting this week of the producer club OPEC that is expected to agree to cut supply.

U.S. light crude oil CLc1 rose $2.92 a barrel to a high of $53.85, up 5.7 percent, before easing slightly to around $53.50 by 0830 GMT. Brent crude LCOc1 rose 5.3 percent or $3.14 to a high of $62.60 and was last trading around $63.15.

Maybe articles like the one you posted even help "them" to orchestrate crashes...

iamawaveofthesea 03-12-2018 11:14 AM


Originally Posted by st jimmy (Post 1063050043)
It must be easy to bust the bubble, when you control the markets and media:.

its controlled by expansion and contraction of the money supply

they make credit cheap to create boom times like the 'roaring twenties' then they restrict credit to cause the busts like the 'great depression' that came at the end of the roaring twenties

each time they do it they repossess everyones assets at pennies on the dollar like fleecing sheep

st jimmy 03-12-2018 03:46 PM


Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea (Post 1063050054)
its controlled by expansion and contraction of the money supply

they make credit cheap to create boom times like the 'roaring twenties' then they restrict credit to cause the busts like the 'great depression' that came at the end of the roaring twenties

If you want to know more about the dynamics of creating bubbles and crashes, I suggest you read William Engdahl's book: https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...8&postcount=18

iamawaveofthesea 11-12-2018 07:20 PM

Ron Paul: “Who Will Get Blamed for the Collapse?”
December 10, 2018 by IWB

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wk_MCTj0O_A" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

iamawaveofthesea 31-12-2018 11:18 AM

The argument is made here that deregulation of the financial sector is what caused the financial crisis however a further point must be considered which is that it was the promise of government to bail out banks if they failed that encouraged reckless lending

The government DID indeed then step in to bail out the banks when they inevitably failed

Can we really say that a lack of government intervention in the markets is responsible when the government has not only propped up the corrupt but also creates tax environments favourable to them?

If we could just get the cabal out of government, some might argue, we could see proper regulation but perhaps government itself is a source of the corruption? Corporations act with the complicity of government who favour them over the small operators. Government protects the big cabal owned corporations. They are ultimately one and the same so this isn't really a story about the light hand of government as the government does not have a light hand for small operators and offered the insurance of bailouts to the financial sector which then led to the reckless lending (which i would argue was deliberate sabotage rather than just negligence)

How the City of London has made Britain and the world worse off
By John Brindley (Staff Author)
1 hour ago

THE CITY of London was a major player in the world financial crisis, claims investigative journalist and best-selling author Nicholas Shaxson.

The 52-year-old tackles the criminal methods of banks and other financial high flyers inside the shadowy Square Mile in his brilliant new book The Finance Curse.

Shaxson dismisses the widespread narrative that London’s financial powerhouse is good for the British economy, then explains why its malevolent influence contributed to the worldwide financial disaster from 2007.

Taking an historical and political approach, Shaxson records that the first ‘seeds of trouble’ were sown in the 1950s as Britain lost its empire and the City ‘faced powerful democratic forces at home which curbed its profits and its power’.

Yet with the rate of taxation for the wealthy set at 99.25 per cent in the UK during the Second World War and 97.5 per cent for most of the 1950s, Western Europe grew by an average 4.1 per cent from 1950 to 1973.

He writes: “The mainstream narrative in Britain is that the City of London is the goose that lays the golden egg. But the finance curse reveals the City to be a different bird: a cuckoo in the nest that is crowding out other sectors.”

He adds: “It is no coincidence that the decline of British manufacturing since the 1970s has been so much faster than in other industrial economies, at the same time as Britain’s financial sector assets have grown so much larger as a share of the economy than in comparable Western nations.

“It is no co-incidence, either, that – for all the trillions of dollars that sluice through the City of London and the glitzy Oligarchs who populate our restaurants and theatres – the United Kingdom is no better off than it’s peers: if anything, it’s worse off.

“Britain’s GDP per capita is lower than that of its Northern European peers, but it is also a much more unequal place, and with power overall scores on health and well-being.”

Shaxson quotes US finance academics Professor Gerald Epstein, of the University of Massachusetts, one of America’s best-known authorities on financialisation, and Juan Montecino, of Columbia University, as estimating that Britain’s oversized finance sector has cost the UK economy upwards of £4.5 trillion. This is equivalent to two and a half years’ economic output or £170,000 per household.

Shaxson traces Britain’s move towards a more financial services-based economy to Margaret Roberts, then president of the Oxford University Conservative Association, being enraptured by the ideas of Austrian economist Frederick Hayek, now recognised as the founder of neoliberalism, in his book The Road to Serfdom.

According to Hayek, competition and the price system were the only legitimate arbiters of what was good and true.
It was the future Mrs Thatcher’s massive financial deregulation when Prime Minister in 1986 that gave the City of London the freedom to become what he describes as ‘Britain’s second Empire.’

Thatcher ignored advice that this would lead to ‘unethical behaviour’ and ‘boom and bust economies’ and was ironically given strong support by John Redwood, head of her policy unit, who is to become a knight in The Queen’s New Year’s Honours list after showing better judgement by highlighting the flaws in Theresa May’s current Brexit withdrawal bill.

The author then goes on to explain in a chapter entitled The London Loophole how the City and is links with off-shore tax havens allowed financial criminals to run amok and endanger the world’s economy.

“Were Britain and the City of London somehow ‘worse’ than Wall Street in terms of financial regulation, so more to blame for the global financial meltdown?..............And the answer is, without a doubt, yes,” he writes.

He argues that the growth of global finance not only fostered a step change in Britain’s contribution to the rising global crime wave, but also ‘put it at the centre of a series of changes that would lead to the global financial crisis.

“In both areas London and the spider’s web affected other countries’ financial systems in two main ways: first by providing an escape route and second as a ‘competitive’ battering ram, offering Wall Street lobbyists an example and a threat to justify further deregulation.”

The author quotes financial criminologist and former US bank regulator Bill Black referring to the ‘three Ds’ that incubated the crisis – deregulation, desupervision and the de facto criminalisation of financial firms.

Black says: “By God, London won the competition in regulatory laxity with the United States which is why it became the financial cesspit of the world.”

Shaxson details how the City tried to deflect the crisis during the BCCI scandal. Instead of closing BCCI down when it discovered it was financing terrorism and laundering drug money, the Bank of England helped the bank shift its headquarters, officers and records away from Britain to Abu Dhabi.

He goes on to record how then Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair forcefully underlined Britain’s anti-regulation approach in 2005 by slamming Britain’s Financial Services Authority for being ‘hugely inhibitive of efficient business by perfectly respectable companies that have never defrauded anyone.’

Still closer to the crisis becoming evident, Chancellor and future Prime Minister Gordon Brown also showed his misjudgement of the situation by congratulating a group of City financial and political bigwigs on ‘an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London’.

The Financial Curse is a compelling and astonishing read by the author of international bestseller Treasure Islands. It is currently available in Waterstones for £20.

iamawaveofthesea 14-01-2019 06:22 PM

Catherine Austin Fitts – Federal Government Running Secret Open Bailout

$21 trillion in “missing money” at the DOD and HUD that was discovered by Dr. Mark Skidmore and Catherine Austin Fitts in 2017 has now become a national security issue. The federal government is not talking or answering questions, even though the DOD recently failed its first ever audit. Fitts says, “This is basically an open running bailout. Under this structure, you can transfer assets out of the federal government into private ownership, and nobody will know and nobody can stop it. There is no oversight whatsoever. You can’t even know who is doing it. I’m telling you they just took the United States government, they just changed the governance model by accounting policy to a fascist government. If you are an investor, you don’t know who owns those assets, and there is no evidence that you do. . . . If the law says you have to produce audited financial statements and you refuse to do so for 20 years, and then when somebody calls you on it, you proceed to change the accounting laws that say you can now run secret books for all the agencies and over 100 related entities.” In closing, Fitts says, “We cannot sit around and passively depend on a guy we elected President. The President cannot fix this. We need to fix this. . . . This is Main Street versus Wall Street. This is honest books versus dirty books. If you want the United States in 10 years to resemble anything what it looked like 20 years ago, you are going to have to do it, and there is no one else who can do it. You have to first get the intelligence to know what is happening.” Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Catherine Austin Fitts, Publisher of “The Solari Report.”

<iframe width="731" height="411" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Mi6S4zrFjPg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

iamawaveofthesea 15-01-2019 10:03 AM

Widespread ignorance about what constitutes REAL money:

People Choose Free Candy Bar over Free 10 oz Silver Bar (Worth $150) in Experiment

<iframe width="731" height="411" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bYhTFz_SGw0" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

iamawaveofthesea 15-01-2019 11:08 AM

In Defense Of Powell's Restoration Of Price Discovery
by Tyler Durden
Mon, 12/24/2018 - 09:30
Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,
Relying on fakery and addictive stimulus is the acme of fragility and vulnerability.

Having become addicted to the Federal Reserve's nearly free money for financiers and the infamous Fed Put, stock market players are now weeping and thrashing about in the agony of withdrawal as Fed chair Jay Powell has instituted a cold-turkey withdrawal from the financial stimulus of the Bernanke-Yellen days.

Let's be clear: the policies of nearly free money for financiers (QE) and the Fed Put were unmitigated disasters, as they distorted financial markets so severely that the markets' pricing mechanisms have been crippled.

The policies of the Bernanke-Yellen Fed also directly exacerbated wealth-income inequality, as the wealth effect of rising equity valuations-- the supposed goal of monetary stimulus-- only benefited the top 5%, and most of the gains flowed to the top 0.1%.

Stripped of addictive stimulus and the backstop of the Bernanke-Yellen Fed Put, the markets are experiencing the pain of withdrawal and the traumatic return of price discovery. Although we're taught that capital has financial, intellectual and social forms, trust is also a form of capital, and thanks to the gross distortions and perverse incentives of the Bernanke-Yellen Fed, nobody trusts the market's price discovery mechanisms any more.

This is why market participants are so skittish and so easily panicked: they have no way of knowing what market valuations will be once the markets get through cold-turkey withdrawal from Fed smack and start discovering price via supply, demand, risk, cost of credit, discounting future cash flows, etc.--all the market mechanisms of transparent price discovery.

In effect, the Bernanke-Yellen Fed institutionalized the destruction of trust in U.S. markets in the pursuit of continued gains in equity valuations. Nobody trusted markets' price discovery, but they trusted the Fed to bail out the stock market should any latent price discovery take markets lower.

Everybody knew it was fake, but it was too profitable not to drink the Kool-Aid. Just as the punter high on cocaine feels he can conquer the world while onlookers marvel at his disconnect from reality, the Bernanke-Yellen Fed offered up addictive stimulus that generated an illusion of stability and an illusion of price discovery, illusions no sober participant believed.

If the punter on coke starts handing out $100 bills, why not take some? That's the Bernanke-Yellen Fed in a nutshell.

Addicts always think they can quit any time they choose. Stock market players reckoned they could discern when the Fed drug would wear off or trigger mass overdoses, and they'd exit the market with their gains well before things got out of hand. But the exit is small and the venue is cavernous and crowded: easier said than done.

Powell is trying to restore trust in the market by stripping it of the Bernanke-Yellen Fed Put. After a decade of addiction to Fed stimulus, it's tough to surrender the delusional convictions of the addict and start engaging the world as it is, which in financial markets mean transparent price discovery of all things, including risk and credit.

If we can dare to be honest for a moment, we'd confess that everybody knew the markets of the past decade were fake. When people can no longer tell the difference between fakes and the real deal, fraud is incentivized as trust is lost.

We are circling the financial Black Hole: reliance on fakery and the destruction of trust in markets have systemic consequences. We should be grateful to Jay Powell and his Board of Governors for refusing to steer the U.S. financial system and economy into the Black Hole from which there is no return.

Relying on fakery and addictive stimulus is the acme of fragility and vulnerability. If we want an anti-fragile, adaptive and durable financial system and economy, we need to start dealing with reality, and the first step is to restore markets' price discovery mechanisms, regardless of the short-term pain.

Short-term pain, long-term gain.

* * *

My new book Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic is discounted ($5.95 ebook, $10.95 print): Read the first section for free in PDF format. My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF). My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format. If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $10/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:44 PM.