See other Business/Finance Articles
Title: Anna Schwartz Blames Fed For Sub-prime Crisis - Analysis From Revered Jew About A Jewish Corporation , About Jewish Fed Chairmen, and Jewish Owned Banks And An Apolgy For Last Depression Upon Death From A Jew. Any questions?
Source:
The Telegraph
URL Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/ma ... y/2008/01/13/ccschwartz113.xml
Published: Jan 14, 2008
Author: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Post Date: 2008-01-14 01:31:39 by Uncle Bill
Keywords: Abolish, The, Fed
Views: 104
Comments: 3
Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard January 14, 2008 Anna Schwartz, the revered economist, shares her views on the credit bubble with As rebukes go in the close-knit world of central banking, few hurt as much as the scathing indictment of US Federal Reserve policy by Professor Anna Schwartz. The high priestess of US monetarism - a revered figure at the Fed - says the central bank is itself the chief cause of the credit bubble, and now seems stunned as the consequences of its own actions engulf the financial system. "The new group at the Fed is not equal to the problem that faces it," she says, daring to utter a thought that fellow critics mostly utter sotto voce. "They need to speak frankly to the market and acknowledge how bad the problems are, and acknowledge their own failures in letting this happen. This is what is needed to restore confidence," she told The Sunday Telegraph. "There never would have been a sub-prime mortgage crisis if the Fed had been alert. This is something Alan Greenspan must answer for," she says. Schwartz remains defiantly lucid at 92. She still works every day at the National Bureau of Economic Research in New York, where she has toiled since 1941. Her fame comes from a joint opus with Nobel laureate Milton Friedman: A Monetary History of the United States. It revolutionised thinking on the causes of the Great Depression when published in 1965. The book blamed the Fed for causing the slump. The bank failed to use its full bag of tricks to stop the implosion of the money stock, and turned a bust into calamity by raising rates. "The book was a bombshell," says British monetarist Tim Congdon. "Until then almost everybody thought the free-market system itself had failed in the 1930s. What Friedman-Schwartz say was that incompetent government bureaucrats at the Fed had caused the Depression." "It had an enormous impact in revitalising free-market conservatism, and it broke the Keynesian stranglehold over policy," he says. Keynes himself was a formidable monetarist. He became a "Keynesian" big spender only once all else seemed to fail. The tale of the early 1930s is intricate, but worth rehearsing in the climate of today's credit crunch. The October 1929 crash did not cause the slump, it was merely a vivid detail. The US economy muddled through for another year, seemingly sound. Then it buckled as rising defaults in the farm belt set off a run on local banks. It was at this juncture that critics claim the Fed lost the plot. Washington prohibited the pros at the New York Fed from injecting sufficient stimulus through open market operations [buying bonds]. Contagion spread. The Jewish-owned Bank of the United States was allowed to collapse by fellow clearing banks, for reasons of snobbery and malice. The Chicago Fed insisted into the depths of the deflation that inflation still lurked, that there was an "abundance of funds", that speculators had to be punished, and that bad banks should fail. The staggering blindness of Fed backwoodsmen from 1930-1933 is hard to exaggerate. Schwartz warns against facile comparisons between today's world and the Gold Standard era. "This is nothing like the Depression. I don't really believe the economy as a whole is going to fall apart. Northern Rock has been the only episode of a bank failure so far," she says. Over 4,000 US banks - a fifth - collapsed in the 1930s. There was no deposit insurance. Real economic output fell by a third, prices by a quarter, and unemployment reached a third. Real income fell by 11 per cent, 9 per cent, 18 per cent, and 3 per cent in the years to 1933. According to Schwartz the original sin of the Bernanke-Greenspan Fed was to hold rates at 1 per cent from 2003 to June 2004, long after the dotcom bubble was over. "It is clear that monetary policy was too accommodative. Rates of 1 per cent were bound to encourage all kinds of risky behaviour," says Schwartz. She is scornful of Greenspan's campaign to clear his name by blaming the bubble on an Asian saving glut, which purportedly created stimulus beyond the control of the Fed by driving down global bond rates. "This attempt to exculpate himself is not convincing. The Fed failed to confront something that was evident. It can't be blamed on global events," she says. That mistake is behind us now. The lesson of the 1930s is that swift action is needed once the credit system starts to implode: when banks hoard money, refusing to pass on funds. The Fed must tear up the rule-book. Yet it has been hesitant for three months, relying on lubricants - not shock therapy. "Liquidity doesn't do anything in this situation. It cannot deal with the underlying fear that lots of firms are going bankrupt," she says. Her view is fast spreading. Goldman Sachs issued a full-recession alert on Wednesday, predicting rates of 2.5 per cent by the third quarter. "Ben Bernanke should be making stronger statements and then backing them up with decisive easing," says Jan Hatzius, the bank's US economist. Bernanke did indeed switch tack on Thursday. "We stand ready to take substantive additional action as needed," he says, warning of a "fragile situation". It follows a surge in December unemployment from 4.7 per cent to 5 per cent, the sharpest spike in a quarter century. Inflation fears are subsiding fast. Bernanke insists that the Fed has leant the lesson from the catastrophic errors of the 1930s. At the late Milton Friedman's 90th birthday party, he apologised for the sins of his institutional forefathers. "Yes, we did it, we're very sorry, we won't do it again." ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE - Rep. Ron Paul 
Anna Schwartz blames Fed for sub-prime crisis 
In hindsight, it seems astonishing that the Fed raised the discount rate twice in late 1931 to 3.5 per cent even as global finance was disintegrating. It did so to halt bullion flight and defend the Gold Standard, but it failed to offset the effects with bond purchases. Britain was forced off the Gold Standard in September 1931 after the Atlantic Fleet "mutinied" at Invergordon over 10 per cent pay cuts. That proved a providential crisis - the pound fell. The Bank of England was soon able to slash rates. The slump proved less serious than in the US, and not a single bank collapsed in the British Empire.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Former World Bank Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz Predicts Global Crash
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”
As the leader of the gang promised to rob no more and cried oceans of Crocodile tears for past wrong doing. Meanwhile back in the darkest recesses of the cave ...
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
The question has been raised as to what would happen to all the gold, silver, and debt fraudulently gathered by them if the Fed were simply abolished. Would the thieves simply walk away from their crime with all their loot, leaving us to pay for it FOREVER? And with them owning controlling interests in the big banks, and mortgage companies and the like http://www.greatreddragon.com/co...oOwnsMoneyCenterBanks.htm , they are poised to pick up America for a song, after they have driven us into bankruptcy via all their contrived wars in which Americans died by the hundreds of thousands, and by their fraudulent usury and tax schemes. Other options have been suggested: AMERICAN MONETARY ACT - An Act to restore the Constitutional power to create Money to the Congress of the United States "....TITLE IV – RECONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE AS A BUREAU WITHIN THE UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT SEC. 401 RECONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE (1) No later than 90 days from the effective date of this section, the Secretary shall purchase on behalf of the United States all net assets in the Federal Reserve System at current market value denominated in United States Money. (2) The Federal Reserve in its role as a central bank of issue, a national fund processing clearinghouse, and a fiscal agent for the Government shall be reconstituted as a bureau within the United States Department of the Treasury. (3) The Federal Reserve shall be administered by a commissioner and deputy commissioner appointed for six-year terms by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. (4) The Federal Reserve shall administer on behalf of the Secretary the monetary targets established and authorized by the Monetary Control Board and shall administer lending of United States Money to authorized financial institutions in order to assure one-hundred percent reserve banking, also known as deposit banking, within the United States....." http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=70451 I've read it through, but I don't totally understand it, and I do have to wonder if it is another wolf in sheep's clothing....I don't know. I have LONG been curious about BUYING BACK THE FED FOR $450 MILLION as it supposedly said we could do in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 [I started a search this morning to see if I could find the Act, but got sidetracked on other Fed Reserve articles]. That way, all the debt owed would be to the AMERICAN PEOPLE [ "....he Federal Reserve Act (1913) "Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate....." http://www.apfn.net/DOC-100_bankruptcy.htm ], and the debt to ourselves written off by bills of exchange or something like that [I confess I don't really understand the ins and outs of that either, just the basic concept]: "....THE SOLUTION Currently all we do is exchange FED money (interest attached) for real U.S. money (interest-free) dollar for dollar as Kennedy tried to do. We should not be required to pay interest on our own currency. According to Benjamin Franklin, this was one of the primary reasons we fought the Revolutionary War. Today we are still fighting the same family of bankers (Reference 4, Reference 1, P. 211, 212). The U.S. Government can buy back the FED at any time for $450 million (per Congressional record). The U.S. Treasury could then collect all the profit on our money instead of the 300 original shareholders of the FED. The $4 trillion of U.S. debt could be exchanged dollar for dollar with U.S. non- interest bearing currency when the debt becomes due. There would be no inflation because there would be no additional currency in circulation. Personal income tax could be cut if we bought back the FED and therefore, the economy would expand. According to the Constitution, Congress is to control the creation of money, keeping the amount of inflation or deflation in check. If Congress isn't doing their job, they should be voted out of office. Unfortunately, voters can't vote the FED or its Chairman out of office. If the government has a deficit, we could handle it as Lincoln and Kennedy did. Print money and circulate it into the economy, but this time interest-free. Today the FED, through foreign banks, owns much of our debt and therefore controls us. The FED will cease to exist as taxpayers become informed and tell other taxpayers. The news media and Congress will have no choice but to meet the demands of grass roots America. (Reference 1, P. 17, 22) AMERICA DECEIVED By law (check the Congressional record), we can buy back the FED for the original investment of the FED's 300 shareholders, which is $450 million (Reference 1, P. 227, Reference 17, P. 36). If each taxpayer paid $25, we could buy back the FED and all the profit would flow into the U.S. Treasury. In other words, by Congress allowing the constitutionally illegal FED to continue, much of your taxes go to the shareholders of the FED and their bankers. Note: The people who enacted the FED started the IRS, within months of the FED's inception. The FED buys U.S. debt with money they printed from nothing, then charges the U.S. taxpayers interest. The government had to create income tax to pay the interest expense to the FED's shareholders, but the income tax was never legally passed (Reference 20 shows details, state-by-state why it was not legally passed). The FED is illegal, per Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Not one state legally ratified the 16th Amendment making income tax legal. ....." The Federal Reserve is a Privately Owned Corporation http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=70798 Biblically speaking, I know we have been slaves to the money powers of the City of London, that nation within a nation within a nation [Genesis 15:14], which is the Judeo-British parent of the Federal Reserve, and that we have put in our Biblically-mandated servitute of 400 years, and that Micah 4:13 says we are to take back their ill-gotten gain. I knew they CAUSED the Great Depression, and I KNOW they have been working diligently to bring us this one for a very long time. I have since discovered this wasn't the first depression they manufactored: ".... The London Money Kings certainly prepared and engineered the panic of 1873, just as they did the crash of 1837 and 1857. We find their motive in the fact that it gave them an excuse for locking up $600,000,000, and thus causing the ruin that followed, with the hard times and low prices, in which they reaped a rich harvest of profit to themselves. They can make good times or hard times whenever they please; so completely have they gotten our country in their hands. They hold our prosperity completely in their grasp. We are become entirely dependent upon them. When they wish to make good times, they put out their money freely, in building railroads, in making city improvements, in establishing new enterprises all over the country, and in lending money to everybody who wishes to borrow and has property to mortgage as security. Then we have flush times for several years; and everybody, under their leading, rushes into speculation, and everybody gets into debt. Then, in order to make hard times, the Money Kings have only to lock up the money they make as profits out of their various enterprises in the country. They stop building railroads: they stop all outlays for city improvements: they stop all investments in new enterprises; and they stop loans to borrowers. They simply lock up their profits, and let the money lie idle. And at once business is at a stand still: the improvements which had given activity to business cease: established businesses, such as farming, manufacturing, railroading go on: everything else stops. There is universal stagnation: prices fall: a flood of bankruptcy sweeps over the land: thousands are ruined--and the Money Kings revel in low prices of produce, and cheap purchases of bankrupt property. This was the way in which the Money Kings operated the hard times of 1873, and several years afterwards. But they had to have a visible cause that would account for the hard times to the public, on accepted business principles. The failure of Jay Cooke did this. it destroyed confidence, and in the eyes of the public justified the locking up of the money, with all the subsequent ruin. They thus made our people believe that the crash was an unavoidable disaster, due to regular business causes, and not to their own malignant intention. But it was done on purpose, with malicious intent to bring about the very result that followed. That it was the work of the London Money Kings is demonstrable. They were building the Northern Pacific Railroad. Jay Cooke was their agent in doing that work. They had engaged to build the Northern Pacific Railroad, and had started the work. Jay Cooke failed, and his failure brought on the panic. The failure was a trick, a sham. Does anybody believe that the London Money Kings who had undertaken to build the Northern Pacific Railroad were unable to carry out their contract? that they had not money enough to complete the work, if they chose? The idea is too absurd to be entertained for a moment. They let the enterprise drop, because they chose to do so: they had their agent, Jay Cooke, to fail, because they knew that his failure would bring on a crash which they were resolved to produce, and in whose ruin they desired to glut their avarice. They stand convicted before the eyes of the world, of an atrocious crime against the country, and against humanity. They did not even have the grace to let the London house of Jay Cooke share in the failure. They sent him to America as a dynamite bomb, to explode and destroy the prosperity of the United States. And they sent him carefully disconnected from his London house, so that the ruin he wrought would not effect the London house with which he was connected. Jay Cooke may have been an innocent victim of their purposes. They do not inform their agents of their designs. The time may come when all the particulars of this infamous plot will be revealed to the world. They may hide their tracks as carefully as they can; but the eye of history may, in the future, be able to gather many facts now hidden, and make the plot stand out, as St. Bartholomew stands, revealed to the loathing of mankind. It is a dreadful thought that the Money Kings have our industries so completely in their power that they can cause another panic such as that of 1873, whenever they choose. They could start one tomorrow far worse than that, as their control of our industries is far more complete now than then. Our prosperity is entirely at their mercy......." IT EVEN SOUNDS LIKE THEY CAUSED THE GREAT FIRE OF 1871 TO GET CONTROL OF CHICAGO AS PART OF THEIR FIENDISH PLOT: "....The Money Power Devours Chicago The Money Power, owning the railroads, and seeking to get into its clutches all our industries, as we shall see it has done, needed to have a great city, upon which to center the railroads and the trade controlled by it. In 1870, Chicago was rapidly becoming a railroad and business center for the Northwest. it was the city best adapted to become the trade center of the country, except perhaps St. Louis. But St. Louis was out of the question, its business being operated by home capital well established. In order that the Money Kings might be able to centralize the trade of the country in their hands, it was necessary for them to get a secure clutch upon Chicago. The great fire of 1871 afforded them their opportunity. Nobody ever knew how it originated. A high wind prevailing at the time swept the flames through the heart of the city, leaving a path of desolation three-fourths of a mile wide. The business center of Chicago was reduced to ashes. The business community had been doing business in cheap two-story houses. In rebuilding, they would, no doubt, have preferred to erect cheap two-story buildings again; for the lower stories furnished all the room needed for business purposes. But there has never been any money to be obtained for building, in this country, public improvements on a large scale, except in London. Chicago could only be rebuilt with London capital. The Money lenders could dictate the style of buildings to be erected--splendid structures, from six to ten stories high, the upper stories of which could only be rented for offices or lodgings. Before the rebuilding was completed, the hard times of 1873 came on; the crisis being engineered, as we shall see, by the London Money Power. The panic caught the Chicago business men in the trough of the sea. Business was prostrate: renters were lacking for the upper stories: payments could not be made: mortgages were foreclosed; and the most of the grand Chicago business blocks became the property of the Money Kings mortgagees. It was said that Chicago was rebuilt by loans of Eastern capital. We have learned, of late years, that Eastern capital means London capital. London is the point from which we have always had to get money for all improvements. At the time of the Chicago fire, the Money Kings had established many loan agencies in the Eastern states, as a part of their policy for concealing their money-loaning operations. And these loan agencies were the source whence the money was obtained to rebuild Chicago......." 4um The Great Red Dragon (Imperialistic Capital) - Foreign Money Power in the United States http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=70561 / http://greatreddragon.com/chap6.htm I have to admit I am discouraged, and in a fit of frustration last night, asked God why not let them just kill us all and get it over with, and when they have it all, to wake us up after He has judged them, because I for one am tired of fighting. But Micah 4:13 says it doesn't work that way, and He will work through us......my two cents worth. By law (check the Congressional record), we can buy back the FED for the original investment of the FED's 300 shareholders, which is $450 million (Reference 1, P. 227, Reference 17, P. 36). btw, I've read that was most likely another book-keeping entry, and a paper check, and there was nothing of value put up for it, either. [EDIT: I'll take that back...I think that was Alexander Hamilton's first money-lender's bank that probably put up zilch...sorry]
President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913. History proved that on that day, the Constitution ceased to be the governing covenant of the American people, and our liberties were handed over to a small group of international bankers. - Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins
#2. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
Bernanke insists that the Fed has leant the lesson from the catastrophic errors of the 1930s. At the late Milton Friedman's 90th birthday party, he apologised for the sins of his institutional forefathers. "Yes, we did it, we're very sorry, we won't do it again."
#3. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
(Edited)
Re Abolish the Federal Reserve
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest