1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The audit of the fed was just released, and immediately the bunk starts. Most comes from a misunderstanding of what happened, and perhaps some deliberate misunderstanding.

    Example of the bunk:

    Here's the actual report:
    http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf

    And here's the table listing the amounts of loans given out:


    So yes, it shows about $16 Trillion in loans, and $2.5 Trillion to Citigroup.

    But they are not the outstanding amounts loaned. They are the total of a very large number of much smaller individual loans, often daily, given out over a period of about a year.
    And they are not even outstanding. Just about all the loans have been paid back.

    They were also NOT at zero interest. The PDCF loans were made at the Fed's primary credit rate (0.75%)

    Here's what the report says:
    So how much did they lend? And how much is owed back to the Fed? The peak was just over $1 Trillion, and it's just about all been paid back:

    Remember most of these loans were VERY short term, often as little as a day.

    Now I'm not suggesting there's no problem here. But if we want to deal with the problems of financial corruption and wealth inequality in this country, then we need to do it honestly, and with a clear understanding of the facts. Conspiracy theories based on lies are not going to help.

    See also:

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  2. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Would you please post evidence that these monies were indeed paid back, as Lord James of Blackheath asserts they are still outstanding?

    This appears to involve monies revealed on 1st Nov 2010 to The House of Lords by Lord James (see you tube Who is Foundation X) It also appears to be the same monies brought up earlier this year by Lord James (see you tube Lord James of Blackheath 15 Trillion dollar fraud. It is alleged that $15 T were loaned to the Fed by Yohannes Riyadi; Google 'the warmonger report 15 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT: DOES YOHANNES RIYADI EXIST? ', which has copies of the agreements as cited by Lord James. This appears to be an extension of the initial enigma of the $15 T being offered to U.K Treasury by 'Foundation X' at 0% interest over an open ended period and which The Treasury refused to touch on the basis that it was 'dodgy money'.

    Further, it appears very strange that The Fed should make available these unprecedented huge loans at 0% interest, without any debate in Congress, when much smaller bailouts have incurred ferocious debate which has been spead on the front pages of the world media.

    These loans are contrary to IMF ruling on how these matters must be handled. It is all the stranger when the benefited banks are then able to 'park' this money overnight at an interest rate of between 1 to 2.5%, which in the case of say Barclays $868 Billion loan 'parked' overnight would earn them $8.68 Billion profit at !%. Lord James thinks "every alarm bell in the land should be ringing". These are strange times and something highly unsavoury is happening here IMO.
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The evidence that the loans were repaid is that the GAO audit linked above says that they were.

    They were also NOT at zero interest. The PDCF loans were made at the Fed's primary credit rate (0.75%), I don't know of any of the loans that had a zero interest rate.

    Lord James seems to simply have been taken in by the Yohannes Riyadi scam, which is a more advanced form of the Nigerian advance-fee type email scam.


    Here's his speech.
  4. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    The links in the OP are evidence supporting the claim - try reading them!

    How about providing some evidence to support Blackheath's much ridiculed speech in the House of Lords? He did offer to provide such evidence, but AFAIK has never done so.
  5. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    I don't understand shorthand, please explain what OP and AFAIK are.

    As for Lord James being ridiculed, I can only find one place where this is apparent. Otherwise Lord James is recognised as the BoE's troubleshooter and is highly respected as someone who knows what he is doing 'at the highest financial/diplomatic levels', hardly a person to be victim of a Nigerian scam. Lord Sassoon, (The Treasury) has confirmed much of Lord James' concerns. My interpretation is that Lord James is a 'deniable' whistleblower acting on behalf of the BoE/Treasury to avoid diplomatic difficulties with the U.S but at the same time sending a clear message that they need to get their house in order.

    Perhaps someone would like to comment on the news blackout on this story.
    No explanation has been offered as to why Congress were not consulted.
    No explanation of where these massive funds originated in the first place.

    Intelhub appear to be right on the money with this in an indepth analysis which can be found at http://theintelhub.com/2012/02/23/t...an-banks-in-15-trillion-fraud-all-documented/
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Not really. All it does is repeat Lord James' story and add another story about a mysterious $27 trillions someone else claimed was somewhere.

    Where's all the evidence? Where are the documents?

    The writer of the article is Gordon Duff, who recently claimed in all seriousness that America and China had teamed up to wage ware against aliens. He makes claims, he says he has (deniable) sources and documents, and produces nothing. He's not credible.

  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Gordon Duff is interesting, his bio claims:


    Which all sounds rather suspicious. "The Adamus Group" in particular seems not to even exist. His "most recent project" seems to be this:


    Which also seems not to exist.

    It's all quite curious.
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Also curious, Veterans Today (where the Intelhub article originated) seems to be owned and run by Duff:


    Leo Wanta is apparently the source of the $27 Trillion. See:


  9. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    OP - original post - the first post in the thread
    AFAIK - As Far As I Know

    Was it ihis one?

    Indeed he was respected - and yet the Yohannes Riyadi scam has been known about for at least 5 years now:

    - old/archived fraud alerts from the NY Fed reserve

    nothing the Intelhub publishes ever qualifies as indepth analysis - it is just one hoax saying another one exists :(
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  11. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    The whole issue appears to be highly debatable on the grounds that Governments and their agencies, often carry out clandestine operations which are difficult to prove because they have 'plausible deniability' factored in. If such an operations went to the highest levels such as Bush, Benanke etc they are exceptionally difficult to prove due to the incredible power wielded by such people.

    What stands out thus far, is:
    You have offered no explanation as to where these funds originated.

    Why there is a media blackout on the 'mere' fact there has been an audit of the Fed despite Bernanke's fierce opposition.

    How the Fed were able to make these funds available without permission from Congress.
    Why there is a media blackout on the fact that these funds have been made available and sent through the banking system

    A media blackout on the fact that these huge sums have been made available to international banks
  12. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Your suggestion that I did not offered an explaination of where the fund originated begs the question that there are any funds at all. Biven that blackheaths allegations were based on a hoax my conclusion is that here are no funds, and so your question is meaningless.

    there are multiple reports available about the Fed audit - including the WSJ for example.

    But I think you are conflating 2 different things because of the amount involved - AFAIK Blackheaths 15 Trillion havenothing to do with the Fed audit does it?? Happy to learn otherwise, but that is my current impression.

    As for where did the $16 Trillion come from for the Fed bailout - the answer is "out of thin air". Literally. and when it was paid back it no longer existed again.


  13. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    “Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.” – Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England (appointed 1928). Reputed to be the 2nd wealthiest man in England at that time.

    Compliments on your research in supplying an explanation for how the money was created. If this is true, and I have no reason to disbelieve, it is mind bogglingly insidious. The claim that this money was subsequently 'uncreated' (ergo everything is fine) does not stand up. Billions were paid on interest gained on that money and the beneficiaries are the bankers who have already profiteered on an unprecedented scale by decimating the economies of nations by deliberately fabricating toxic debt to enslave the populace. Massive 'tent cities' totaling millions of people are to be found in the U.S. Riots in Europe are also a direct result of these bankers and Fed machinations and not one ounce of humility or guilt is assumed. No, lets blame the people; they are lazy, they are spendthrift, they are profane, they are cattle and sheep to feed the unending appetite of the power brokers. And you trumpet "Debunked". Shame on all involved and their supporters.

    However, would you be gracious enough to at furnish information as to whether Congress has sanctioned this or not and if not under what powers the Fed, Bernanke, are creating this money from thin air at a whim, bearing in mind this is all prior to the much lauded and also much ridiculed QE3.
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The loans actually cost most of the bankers money. They pay interest on the money, and the interest goes to the treasury, less a 6% (of profits) dividend to federal banks. So the beneficiaries are essentially the public, who get 94% of the profits. In 2010 and 2011 the fed made around $80 billion, so the reserve banks got a dividend (for the year) of less than $5 billion, the other banks had to pay that $80 Billon, so net win for us!

    The money was created as credit. It's still money, but it's expanding the money supply (one measure of the money supply) until it is repaid. Once it is repaid, then it's uncreated. This can be a difficult concept to grasp (it took me a while), and has led to numerous conspiracy theories. But it's not "free money", it's a short term low interest loan.
  15. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    The Ferderal Reserve's own page on its crisis response is here .

    AFAIK all the methods used were variations of systems already in use by the Fed Reserve under the provisions of the FR Act, and so needed no specific new authorisation from Congress.

    The page linked to above gives a number of links to FRB pages dealing with the various aspects used during the crisis, and links to the appropriate sections of the FR Act - eg on the page for Open Market Operations there is a link to section 14 of the FRA, which deals with Open Market Operations.

    While I have a lot of sympathy with people not understanding the high-flying financial deals (I have trouble with most of them) and the eye-watering amounts of money involved, I do wonder what those people think was going to happen if those operations were not carried out?? what do you think would be the effects of a banking collapse? (possibly a subject for a new thread??)
  16. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    I have not in all honesty had time to fully digest all this but it appears even more Machiavellian when you consider that this cannot even be justified under QE3 which is about literally printing money.

    To electronically create money out of thin air, lend it to banks who then earn interest of Billions, pay the loan back and then they have Billions on their accounts from nowhere. Even if the initial fabricated loan is subsequently 'uncreated', the interest isn't and that must come from somewhere and at who's expense. I am incandescent that all this is done in shadowy secret deals which virtually no one knows about. Congress cannot allow this.
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'd recommend you spend a little time reading about monetary policy and money creation on Wikipedia if you are really that worked up about the subject. It's pretty interesting.

    The interest is paid by the banks. Of course they also make profits from other things, and the bailout loans allowed them to continue to do this, so the interest payments are a cost of doing business, which may ultimately be passed on to the consumer. But it's a very small amount in the big picture.

    Consider as an upside how incredibly cheap mortgage rates are now. 30 year fixed at under %3.5.

    Downside is that the executives are still paying themselves tens of millions of dollars a year for no good reason.
  18. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    QE3 was not really about printing money -it was also, effectively, creating "money from nothing" in that the Fed's bought assets from troubled banks by "making the money" to do so.

    Why do you say it cannot be justified under QE3 - what would justify it under QE3, given tyhat it was not actually part of that as far as I can see?

    they do not make the money from nowhere - they make it from relending it at a higher interest rate for profit.

    Indeed - it comes from teh customers of the institutions of course - the same people it has always come from. and of course htey use it to make profit themselves - however they choose to define profit - by buying a house for security of accomodation, or to run a business that pays wages and salaries and dividends. that is normal business - and without it I suggest the United States would have collapsed - businesses would not have been able to operate without their normal overdraft facilities, people would have been chucked out of their houses, etc.

    And of course the institutions that borrowed the money paid interest back to the Feds too!!

    congress does allow it, and apaprently quite a lot of people know about it, since it is discussed on a lot of forums all over the world.
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    They do actually make money for the duration of the loan. The money did not exist before they loaned it. It ceased to exist after it was returned. It's the magic of expansionist money supply and fractional lending.


  20. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Yep - but as you say, between being created and "destroyed" the money does exist, and it can be invested (or at least it can stop existing investments from failing!!) and it can earn interest.

    the ACTUAL increase in the money supply from this and everything else was "merely" $2.1 Trillion - still an eyewatering amount.

    And I read today that there are problems for countries following more standard economic policies due to Europe & USA looking to continue to increase the money supply to cause "reflation" - eg New Zealand is an exporting country, but the value of the NZ$ is increasing against het US$ where a large proportion of exports head to, making them less competitive.

    Of course this is the whole point of the US increasing the money supply - to increase the competitiveness of it's domestic production vs imports and make exports more competitive, and bring jobs back to the USA.

    However I suspect that it will inevitably result in countries like NZ following the same path and negating much of the effect as unemployment increases here as a result.
  21. "What was revealed in the audit was startling:$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out"
    This statement is accurate. This was secret, until the audit. Hey maybe we should do a REAL audit of the fed? Like that will ever happen HAHAHA!

    Congress person: Tell us who got the money.
    Ben Bernanke: No.

    I rest my case.
  22. Does the interest exist after the loan is returned? Don't you find it a bit unethical to be charging interest on non existent money?
  23. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Congratulations - you have proved the it was secret until it wasn't, and the secret was revealed when a Govt audit "found it".......which everyone already knew.

    Stunning research.......:rolleyes:
  24. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    The interest exists, and continues to exist, because only the principle was "destroyed". No interest was charged on non existent money.
  25. Not quite. I proved that people were keeping secrets, and that they were discovered, not revealed. Reveal means to show. Discover means to find.

    You cannot destroy something that does not exist. Principle means the record of a monetary unit, not the money itself. If there is no record, then there cannot be interest.
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    If it does not exist, then why are you talking about it?
  27. I usually reply to statements so that I am not accused of dodging anything. As for having a discussion, one reply is hardly talking about it.
  28. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    right - well even better - congratulations - you proved that pepole keep secrets.....

    What was destroyed that did not exist?

    there are records of the interest - and indeed of the money "created" and "destroyed" - those records are what the audit looked at.
  29. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest


    In 2008 Congress were told they could face martial law if they didn't pass the bailout bill for a 'paltry' $700 Billion. The debate was World News. This 16 Trillion is virtually unheard of apart from a few forums and you say the WSJ, which only banksters and people 'involved in the markets', read. Likely, over 99% of people have not heard of it. It is therefore secret and a virtual media blackout exists even to the extent that it is rarely known the Fed has even been forced into a partial audit.

    George Bush struck down Posse Comitatus , thus making it legal for military to patrol the U.S. He has also legally established that in the "War on Terror," the U.S. is at war around the globe and thus the whole world is a battlefield. Thus the U.S. is also a battlefield.

    So why all this fuss over a mere $700 Billion and not a mention over $16 Trillion resulting in profits of $2.1 Trillion? What exactly has changed?
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Because it's not $16 Trillion, that's the total transactions, not the total amount. Read the OP.

    And where's the $2.1 Trillion profit figure coming from? Who made it?

    And when did George Bush strike down Posse Comitatus?
  31. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    The 6% dividend is on the initial capital banks were required to put up in order to become a member bank. It is not 6% of the Fed's balance sheet. I also understand the costs associated with running the Fed are taken from their universal check clearing operations, which are fee based. We do not take income from treasury notes and transfer it to bankers as far as I know.

    Yes, the 6% coupon is probably the best safe investment in the world. But remember, we a) required these banks to put that money up in the first place, and b) only took half the amount The Act allowed us to take from these banks. We decided half was enough to keep the system fully funded and working properly.

    -First time poster & reader today. Love the work I've read thus far.
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Ah yes, thanks. I misunderstood the wikipedia page. It does indeed say "after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks' capital investment is paid". That explains why the profits mentioned on Wikipedia were less that I expected.


    So, for the 2010 figures there, if the banks kept $3 billion, then does that mean that the capital investment of the federal reserve is just $50 billion?

    Just looking at the balance sheet in the above linked Wikipedia article - one can see why it's ripe ground for conspiracy theories - it's difficult to understand, and there's a lot of money involved.
  33. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    it was not "secret" - it was published in finincial-oriented newspapers that you did not to read.

    Sure 99% of people didn't know about it - 99% of people don't know all sorts of things - not because those things are kept secret, but because it is impossible to know everything that is going on.

    20,000 troops (out of 1 million or so) deployed in the USA are "available" to aid authorities with emergency relief. They were not "deployed on the streets" at all - the headline is make believe.

    (Yes - there are about 1 MILLION US service personnel deployed INSIDE the USA - I don't know why you don't have roadblocks on every street corner!! ;))

    This is not a breach of Posse Comitatus - the act has always allowed use of Federal troops for law enforcement when authorised by Congress, and this assignment isn't even for that!

    The Defence authorisation Act of 2006 gave the POTUS the power to suspend Posse Commitatus.....but then that section was repealed in 2008

    Why do you persist in this lie that there was "not a mention of $16 trillion"?? you have already noted your self that it WAS mentioned in the country's premier financial publication!!

    And you really shuold look for bdetter "evidence" than anything published on worldpress - even when it does get something basically right (like a stopped clock!) it usually sensationalises it to a ludicrous extent.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  34. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    I'm not sure. The reason I responded is because of the widely held conspiracy misbelief that the purpose of the Federal Reserve System is to transfer wealth from the US Treasury--taxpayers--to the grand conspirators and all the interest on the debt goes to some banking cabal. That's easy enough to debunk by showing income receipts from the Federal Reserve into The Treasury before and after the crash. What is now $80bln used to be sub-$40bln on higher paying paper, on average.

    The funny thing is all this QE stuff is actually making the Treasury more solvent, not less as it would be easy to believe.

  35. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Maybe some is exaggerated. Thats why I am prepared to check it out and debate it but when you refuse to acknowledge the bare facts and twist words to suit yourself, you are no better than those you criticise.
  36. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    It was published in a financial oriented paper that virtually no one reads, apart from co conspirator Banksters et al
    You are being deliberately obtuse. The £700 Billion was World News on every media outlet. 99% of people knew about it.

    Where is it touted on CNN, FOX, SKY, BBC, The Times, Reuters, Bloomburg?

    Do you still stick to the lie that there is a media blackout

    It was IMPORTANT. Why is the creation of $16 Trillion over 3 years resulting in an extra $2.1 Trillion in interest not widely announced in the same way.

    Why is $700 Billion a BIG DEAL and $16 T/$2.1T nothing?

    You can poo poo all you like about Posse Comitatus but the FACT remains, members of Congress are on official record as being told 'approve the (measly $700 B bailout or there will be Martial Law'.
  37. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    If it does not exist, then why are you talking about it?

  38. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

  39. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Active Member

    The woman who wrote the linked article is a whack job, just like Leo Wanta . No mention in her "about me" about the fact that she is also an astrologer and wrote "Cosmic Canine"....yes, thats right, using astrology to determine the right type of dog for you apparently. She's also a "gold fringed flag means martial law" nut job. I wouldn't trust her to be telling the truth if she told me the sky was blue, unless I looked outside first. The owner of the website where it was published is just as bad , if not worse.
  40. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    circulation of the WSJ is over 2 million per day - it is the largest daily paper in the USA!!!!

    I doubt it, but certainly more people knew about it than the trillions given in loans.

    Dunno - haven't looked.

    I stick to the fact that you have not actually shown that there was a media blackout - clearly ther was not - the WSJ IS media, even though you do not want to admit it.

    I agree it was important. But it was NOT "the creation of $16 Trillion over 3 years resulting in an extra $2.1 Trillion in interest " - you seem to have taken some figures that do exist and decided this is what they were - they were not.

    The loans requierd a total of about $1.1 Trillion to be "created" as per the story I linked to - here's the link again. The $2.1 trillion in extra money supply comes from that AND ALSO all the other QE activities that have been going on.

    ignoring for the moment your inaccurate figures, it is not nothing.

    I did not such thing - I told you what the PCA ACTUALLY allows - apparently you are taking imbridge because what it ACTUALLY allows is not what you THINK it allows.

    It is not my fault you don't know the reality.

    Lots of things get "told" to congress - the fact that something gets told to congress does not mean it is true.

    And they were NOT old "ther will be martial law" - they were told there COULD be martial law - stop changing the story!!

    And it did not take a rocket scientist to be able to predict that things might degenerate that far - if the banking system collapsed there would be 10's of millions of unemployed Americans looking to take it out on someone.

    that is called STATING THE BLEEDIN' OBVIOUS.

    Or do you think the collapse of the US Banking system would have heralded a tiem of prosperity and peaceful co-existance among all mankind???

    Also, AFAIK, congress had to authorise the $700 million because it involved the US Govt actually buying shares in the companies didn't it? teh Trilions of $$'s in loans did not invovle buying shares, and the increase in the money supply was already authorised by the QE legislation.

    Sure the Feds didn't want the loans made public - but they were unable to keep them secret for very long at all. I don't know why they wanted them kept secret - but I find it ironic that you are blaming a Govt conspiracy for trying to keep the secret when it was a Govt ofice that revealed it!!