Why Do We Need A Central Bank?
Well, the main reason we needed a central bank is to fund wars. It's no coincidence the Europeans created both the central bank and perfected repressive colonialism and empire. They go together like peanut butter and chocolate. Coincidentally the Federal Reserve's creation happened just as World War I broke out. Or maybe not so coincidentally since the winds of war were in the air at the time of the Federal Reserve's creation.
The United States profited handsomely by extending credit to European countries during WWI so they could pound each other into oblivion. None to ironically, there were substantial problems with mass desertions in WWI. It's easier to sell a war when you are able to make your enemy out to be evil or if they actually are evil such as Hitler was. WWI had relatives and neighbors killing each other for no good reason other than some fat ass sitting on a throne told people it was necessary. Not generally a motivating factor to encourage voluntary assignment to die. War is an old man's game where young men die. I have a better idea. Let's let those who start wars lead us into battle. The majority of conflict would be eradicated given most old men are better at killing other people's children than facing death themselves.
The U.S. extension of credit to Europe had multiple beneficial effects. One, American businesses profited by selling the Europeans armaments and supplies. This made American businessmen rich and provided American jobs. Two, by the Europeans blowing each other to smithereens, that left economic domination exclusively to the United States as the economy of these countries was left in shambles. And thirdly, we could manipulate the Europeans because they were indebted to us at the end of the war. All of this had an effect of continuing our economic and political domination. And, of course, allowing the U.S. to rise to become the global military superpower. I'm sure none of this ever crossed the mind of any political leaders. Rather war is always a matter of good vanquishing evil.
Of course, look what Wall Street will do for a few billion dollars. Imagine what impact on the human psyche a few trillion dollars has. In today's world it is unsustainable military spending that is bankrupting the U.S.
..........War is the common harvest of all those who participate in the division and expenditure of public money, in all countries. It is the art of conquering at home; the object of it is an increase of revenue; and as revenue cannot be increased without taxes, a pretense must be made for expenditure. In reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes..........
.............Every war terminates with an addition of taxes, and consequently with an addition of revenue; and in any event of war, in the manner they are now commenced and concluded, the power and interest of Governments are increased. War, therefore, from its productiveness, as it easily furnishes the pretense of necessity for taxes and appointments to places and offices, becomes a principal part of the system of old Governments; and to establish any mode to abolish war, however advantageous it might be to Nations, would be to take from such Government the most lucrative of its branches................
As many great minds have noted, war is the health of the state. War on drugs, War on terror, War on crime, War on poverty ...... Curiously, where is the war on the tyranny of wars? On the suffering of innocent people? And where is the war on unemployment in the U.S.? It seems the military contractors and banksters won that war long ago. Apparently the unemployed in the U.S. is the enemy combatant in that war.
Anyway, this was just a mini rant leading into an interesting article at public broadcasting. I would argue that many of the points made in this article are really begging the question of why do we need private banking? Localized public banking would serve the community, local development and employment. And it would not only be capitalistic but unlike private banking, it would be democratic. And because it would be public, its operation would be completely controlled by a democratic society. Isn't it time we marry all of capitalism with democratic principals? Oh the horror of such a concept. It would mean elitists would be held accountable to democratic ideals instead of their often feudalistic tyranny imposed on society by many sociopathic CEOs and Wall Streeters.
As a final note, as I've said before, I'm not so much against a central bank as I am against the source of government spending and our national banking system being private. It should be public. If private financial institutions want to compete with a public banking system, that's fine by me. That happens in countless countries throughout the world.
The United States profited handsomely by extending credit to European countries during WWI so they could pound each other into oblivion. None to ironically, there were substantial problems with mass desertions in WWI. It's easier to sell a war when you are able to make your enemy out to be evil or if they actually are evil such as Hitler was. WWI had relatives and neighbors killing each other for no good reason other than some fat ass sitting on a throne told people it was necessary. Not generally a motivating factor to encourage voluntary assignment to die. War is an old man's game where young men die. I have a better idea. Let's let those who start wars lead us into battle. The majority of conflict would be eradicated given most old men are better at killing other people's children than facing death themselves.
The U.S. extension of credit to Europe had multiple beneficial effects. One, American businesses profited by selling the Europeans armaments and supplies. This made American businessmen rich and provided American jobs. Two, by the Europeans blowing each other to smithereens, that left economic domination exclusively to the United States as the economy of these countries was left in shambles. And thirdly, we could manipulate the Europeans because they were indebted to us at the end of the war. All of this had an effect of continuing our economic and political domination. And, of course, allowing the U.S. to rise to become the global military superpower. I'm sure none of this ever crossed the mind of any political leaders. Rather war is always a matter of good vanquishing evil.
Of course, look what Wall Street will do for a few billion dollars. Imagine what impact on the human psyche a few trillion dollars has. In today's world it is unsustainable military spending that is bankrupting the U.S.
..........War is the common harvest of all those who participate in the division and expenditure of public money, in all countries. It is the art of conquering at home; the object of it is an increase of revenue; and as revenue cannot be increased without taxes, a pretense must be made for expenditure. In reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes..........
.............Every war terminates with an addition of taxes, and consequently with an addition of revenue; and in any event of war, in the manner they are now commenced and concluded, the power and interest of Governments are increased. War, therefore, from its productiveness, as it easily furnishes the pretense of necessity for taxes and appointments to places and offices, becomes a principal part of the system of old Governments; and to establish any mode to abolish war, however advantageous it might be to Nations, would be to take from such Government the most lucrative of its branches................
As many great minds have noted, war is the health of the state. War on drugs, War on terror, War on crime, War on poverty ...... Curiously, where is the war on the tyranny of wars? On the suffering of innocent people? And where is the war on unemployment in the U.S.? It seems the military contractors and banksters won that war long ago. Apparently the unemployed in the U.S. is the enemy combatant in that war.
Anyway, this was just a mini rant leading into an interesting article at public broadcasting. I would argue that many of the points made in this article are really begging the question of why do we need private banking? Localized public banking would serve the community, local development and employment. And it would not only be capitalistic but unlike private banking, it would be democratic. And because it would be public, its operation would be completely controlled by a democratic society. Isn't it time we marry all of capitalism with democratic principals? Oh the horror of such a concept. It would mean elitists would be held accountable to democratic ideals instead of their often feudalistic tyranny imposed on society by many sociopathic CEOs and Wall Streeters.
As a final note, as I've said before, I'm not so much against a central bank as I am against the source of government spending and our national banking system being private. It should be public. If private financial institutions want to compete with a public banking system, that's fine by me. That happens in countless countries throughout the world.
<< Home