Rouble Nationalization – the Way to Russia’s Freedom. Nikolay Starikov

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ you take – it will have less gold in the reserves than currency[14] Therefore it would be more sensible to call such reserves foreign currency and gold ones.[15] But you had better get used to it – in the financial mirror-world all terms are designed to confuse the situation rather than make things clear.

      3. It is not the United States of America but a private institution called the Federal Reserve System of the USA that issues the main currency of the world.[16] Private initiative has nothing to do with it. The US dollar just does not belong to the USA. The fact that the dollar is issued by a private institution is even stated on the dollar bill. But who reads that? Meanwhile, it says everything quite clearly. No one hides anything. American money says nowadays: Federal Reserve Note.

      You are not holding a US dollar, you are holding a dollar of the Federal Reserve System.[17] But this strange situation has not always existed in the USA. It will soon be 100 years since the American government decided to privatise emission of the dollar. The Fed was established in December 1913, when President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act.[18] When money was issued by the Government and not by a private institution, dollar bills said a different thing: United States Note. Can you feel the difference? There used to be state money (bills) and now there is corporate money (bills). But, alas, there is no state money in the USA any more.

      Even on the Federal Reserve official website you will find public information about its private nature: The Fed is a mixture of public and private elements.[19] This phrase is rather misleading – a bit like what they say about mixtures of raisins and nuts. Can such a phrase be found on a governmental institution website? Say, at the US Navy website? Or on the US Air Force website? Even the National Guard cannot say that it is a 'mixture of public and private elements'. Because the army, navy and police in the USA, as anywhere in the world, are run by the state. Whereas the organisation that issues American money is not. We do live in a strange world! Although, what is so strange? Who controls the wallet controls everything.

      You can often hear statements that the Fed is controlled by the US government, which, allegedly, makes it a state organisation.[20] Refuting this statement is very easy. All it takes is to look at the founders of this institution. The Fed was established by twelve Federal Reserve banks scattered across the USA. It would seem that the Fed is a federal organisation since it consists of federal banks. But this is just a facade, a mimicry. There is not a single state-run bank in the USA! All the banks that have the word Federal in their names, were actually established by ordinary commercial banks which had been grouped according to their location. And who are the founders of American commercial banks? Via a chain of companies, shares, trusts and funds, it is always INDIVIDUALS. Therefore, the twelve Federal Reserve banks comprising the Fed are owned by unknown individuals, and not the American state. And each of these twelve Federal Reserve banks has the right to issue dollar bills.[21] If you are curious, you can take a note you have and read where it comes from.[22]

      For an outsider, all proprieties are observed. An illusion is created that the Federal reserve is controlled by the state, although it is actually independent. It is about the independence of the Federal Reserve that you will read in all reference books. And it will be presented as a great advantage. The Fed is an 'independent financial institution established in order to function as the central bank and perform centralised control over the US commercial bank system'.[23]

      So, what is the Federal Reserve System independent from? From the government. This means that the President of the United States has no influence on the policy of the Federal Reserve. Otherwise, what independence are they talking about? If the head of a corporation can appoint or dismiss the head of one of the companies within its corporate group, we can hardly talk of any independence. And if the head of the corporation has no right to dismiss him or make him to pursue a policy needed by the group, what kind of head of corporation is that? This is not authority any more but mere illusion. Similarly, speaking of the independence of the Fed on the one hand and of the control exercised by the state, on the other, is creating an illusion. One cannot be slightly pregnant, it is either one thing of the other.

      The essence is simple: in the capitalist world everything is decided by shareholders, that is by owners of companies. If they want, they can appoint a CEO, otherwise, they can give him the sack. No American president could make Coca-Cola or Pepsi shareholders dismiss or appoint the CEO of these companies because neither he, nor the American government owns the control stock of these organisations. The situation with the Fed is similar. How many shares of the Federal Reserve System belong to the American Government? None. How can the President appoint or sack the head of the Fed? He cannot.

      It does all look decent though. The Federal Reserve banks establish the governing body of the Fed, called the Board of Governors, and delegate one member each.[24] Each member of the Board of Governors is appointed for a term of 14 years.[25] These Governors then elect the Chairman of the Fed. He is appointed for four years and the US President confirms him at the position.

      What do we see? This is an imitation of subordination. This is what you will find in the book written by the Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan: 'Federal Reserve System, formally independent from the White House'.[26] What is informal dependence then? In a world where the whole management structure is strictly vertical, such dependence simply does not exist. No structure has one. There are always superiors and subordinates, ordered according to the staffing establishment, law or criminal practices.

      We are dealing with an imitation. An imitation of formal subordination. Going back to the Coca-cola example, its shareholders can write in the corporate charter that every CEO has to be confirmed by the President of the United States. The head of the White House does not own any shares and therefore cannot vote. But he is granted the honourable right to sign the confirmation of the head of the company. The situation with the Fed is exactly the same because the appointment of the Fed Chairman is the most important appointment in today's world economy and hierarchy. Far more important than that of the US President.

      You will also read that the FRB is accountable to the US Congress. But this is an imitation as well. It is as though the head of the Coca-Cola company made a statement in Congress and members of Congress heavily criticised it for the high concentration of sugar in the drink and for using the plastic packaging. What could they do apart from criticising? Nothing – Coca-Cola would continue to produce the same drink, with the same concentration of sugar and in the same packaging. In a similar manner, the FRB is accountable to Congress for its performance. And members of the Congress can criticise the organisation as much as they please, they can stamp their feet in anger and blame them for causing the recession and bad performance but it would have no legal implications.

      As a result, we get a very peculiar image.

      The main money for trading and main money for saving on the global scale is issued by an organisation owned by an unknown group of private bankers. But why should we care about the USA and the rest of the world – we should be primarily interested in our own country. It is high time we discussed the rouble. Let us look at it. Let us read what it is written on it. This is something that an ordinary person in everyday life never does. We are, frankly speaking, only interested in the value of the bill and not in what it says. Now, let us have a look. A note of the Bank of Russia'. Does it mean that the note was made in Russia? Geographically, yes. And de jure – no. Why? Remember the Federal Reserve System that issues green dollars with portraits of American presidents, an independent Central СКАЧАТЬ