RETURNING THE MONEY TO THE PEOPLE!
by Ellen Brown
"Is it not obvious that there are serious defects in our
banking system and our tax system that deprive most of us of
fundamental rights and bestow enormous privileges on
others? How many riots must we endure? How many
prisons must we build? How many of our rights must we
lose? How many of our young people must be sent away to
fight in foreign wars before we decide that enough is
enough?"
Robert de Fremery - (1916 - 2000)
One of the most remarkable admissions by a banker concerning
the mysteries of his profession was made by Sir Josiah Stamp,
president of the Bank of England and the second richest man in
Britain in the 1920's. Speaking at the University of
Texas in 1927, he revealed:
"The modern banking system manufactures money out of
nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece
of sleight of hand that was every invented. Banking was
conceived in inequity and born in sin .. Bankers own the
earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to
create money, and with a flick of a pen, they will create enough
money to buy it back again .. Take this great power away from
them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then
this would be a better and happier world to live in .. But if you
want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of
your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and
control credit."
The sleight of hand by which banks create money dates to the
seventeenth century, when paper money was devised by European
goldsmiths. Gold and silver coins, the standard currency in
European trade, were hard to transport in bulk and could be
stolen if not kept under lock and key. Many people
therefore deposited their gold with the goldsmiths, who had the
strongest safes in town. The goldsmiths issued convenient
paper receipts that could be traded in place of the bulkier gold
they represented. These paper receipts were also used when
people who needed gold came to the goldsmiths for loans.
The mischief began when the goldsmiths noticed that only
about 10 to 20 percent of their receipts came back to be redeemed
in gold at any one time. The goldsmiths could safely
'lend' the gold in their strongboxes at interest several
times over, as long as they kept 10 to 20 percent of the value of
their outstanding loans in gold to meet the demand. They
thus created 'paper money' (receipts for loans of gold)
worth several times the gold they actually held. They
typically issued notes and made loans in amounts that were four
to five times their actual supply of gold. The townspeople
wound up owing the goldsmiths four or five sacks of gold for
every sack the goldsmiths had on deposit, gold the goldsmiths did
not actually have title to and could not legally lend at all.
If the goldsmiths were careful not to overextend this
'credit', they could thus become quite wealthy without
producing anything of value themselves. Since more gold was
owed than the townspeople as a whole possessed, the wealth of the
town and eventually of the country was siphoned into the vaults
of these goldsmiths-turned-bankers, as the people fell
progressively into their debt. As long as the bankers kept
lending, the money supply would expand and the economy would be
in a boom cycle. But when the credit bubble got too large,
the bankers would raise interest rates and people who could not
afford the new rates would default on their loans or would be
unable to take out new ones. Their property would then
revert to the banks, and the cycle would start again.
If a farmer had sold the same cow to five people at one time
and pocketed the money, he would quickly have been jailed for
fraud. But the goldsmiths had devised a system in which
they traded, not things of value, but paper receipts for
them. The shell game became know as 'fractional
reserve' banking because gold held in reserve was a mere
fraction of the banknotes it supported.
The Rise of the Central Banking System
Fractional reserve lending, in turn, became the basis of the
modern central banking system. It allowed private banks to
issue gold and silver notes that were many times in excess of the
banks' holdings. Although the scheme smacked of fraud,
the new paper bank-notes were condoned and even welcomed by kings
short of gold, because they gave the appearance of being backed
by that scarce commodity. An expandable money supply was
needed to fund the economic expansion of the Industrial
Revolution. The coinage system had put undue emphasis on
metals. Rapid industrialisation had led to repeated
economic crises because the availability of precious metal coins
could not keep up with demand.
The charter for the Bank of England was granted to William
Paterson, a Scotsman, in 1694. Called 'the Mother of
Central Banks', the Bank of England established the pattern
for the modern central banking system. Paterson
acknowledged, 'The bank hath benefit of interest on all
monies which it creates out of nothing'. The central
bank had the legal right to issue notes (paper money) against the
'security' of bank loans made to the Crown. The
Bank thus had the right to turn government debt into paper money,
a debt on which the government owed interest to the Bank.
The immediate purpose of the Act founding the Bank was to raise
money for William of Orange's was with Louis XIV of
France. One of the Bank's first transactions was to
lend the government 1.2 million pounds at 8 percent interest for
William's war. The money was to be raised by the novel
device of a permanent loan on which interest would be paid but
the principal would not be repaid. (1) This device is still
used by governments today. Funds are generated by borrowing
money that has been newly created by the banks, with no intent
that the loans will ever be repaid. The interest is paid,
but the principal portion of the loan is simply rolled over
(renewed) when it comes due.
In most modern central banking systems, a private central
bank is chartered as the nation's primary bank, which lends
exclusively to the national government. It lends the
central bank's own notes (printed paper money), which the
government swaps for 'bonds' (its' promises to pay)
and circulates as a national currency. Today in the United
States, dollars are printed by the US Bureau of Engraving and
Printing at the request of the Federal Reserve (the US private
central bank), which 'buys' them for the cost of printing
them and calls them 'Federal Reserve Notes'. Today,
however, there is no gold on 'reserve' backing the
notes. The dollar reflects a debt for something that
doesn't exist.
The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946, but the coins
and notes it issues constitute only about 3 percent of the money
supply. Like in the United States, the rest of the money
supply comes from commercial banks in the form of loans - loans
created out of thin air with an accounting entry.
The House the Debt Built
The result of this illusive credit-money system is that today
we're living in a 'credit bubble' of ominous
proportions. In 1959, when the Federal Reserve first began
reporting the annual money supply, M3 (the widest reported
measure) was a mere $288.8 billion.
Special Note: M1 is what we usually think of as money -
coins, dollar bills and the money in our chequing accounts.
M2 is M1 plus savings accounts, money market funds, and other
individual or 'small' time deposits. M3 is M1 and
M2 plus institutional and other larger time deposits (including
institutional money market funds) and American dollars
circulating abroad.
By February 2004 - in only 45 years - M3 had multiplied by
over 30 times to $9 trillion. Where did this new money come
from? No gold was added to the asset base of the country,
which went off the gold standard in 1934. The answer to
this riddle is that the money didn't come from
anywhere. It exists only as a debt. If that concept
is hard to fathom, it is because it actually makes no
sense. It is 'a fiction based on a fraud'.
Robert H Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank
of Atlanta during the Great Depression, wrote in 1934:
"We are completely dependent on the commercial
Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in
circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample
synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We
are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one
gets of complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of
our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it
is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons
can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that
our present civilisation may collapse unless it becomes widely
understood and the defects remedied soon."
With the exception of a few coins, all of our money is
borrowed; and it is borrowed from banks that never had it to
lend. Today the just create it as a data entry on a
computer screen.
An aggressive experiment
Richard Duncan, writing in the London Financial Times on
February 10, 2004, pointed to an even more disturbing
development. The Bank of Japan was reported to be printing
yen and using the money to buy US dollars, which were then
invested in US government bonds. The United States was
going deeply into debt to a private foreign bank - in debt for a
loan of money created out of nothing.
Duncan called it 'the most aggressive experiment in
monetary policy ever conducted'. He wrote:
"Japan is printing yen in order to buy dollars in such
extraordinary amounts that global interest rates are being held
at much lower levels than would have prevailed otherwise .. Since
the beginning of 2003, monetary authorities in Japan have created
Y27,000bn with which they have acquired approximately
$250bn. (This sum) would amount to $40 per person if
divided among the entire population of the world. (It is)
enough to finance almost half of America's $520bn budget
deficit this year .. Japan is carrying out the most audacious
endeavour as conjure wealth out of nothing since John Law sold
shares in the Mississippi Company in 1720."
US is now the world's largest debtor
By the time the great Asian tsunami hit on December 26, 2004,
the US federal debt was up to $7.6 trillion; and half of the
privately-held portion was owned by foreigners. Just during
the week of the disaster, the Federal Reserve reported that
foreign central banks purchased another $5.6 billion in US
government debt. How much is $5.6 billion? The United
States promised to send $350 million abroad in the form of
disaster relief. That means the United States took
back to full $350 million it promised to send abroad in about
half a day in the form of loans. The US is now the
world's largest debtor, borrowing an estimated 80 percent of
the world's savings annually. Moreover, the foreign
investors who buy US bonds are essentially giving the money away,
because under the existing monetary scheme the debt never will or
can be repaid. (2) Why this is true, and why foreign
central banks lend the money anyway, is complicated; but to
validate the point, here is a quote from a noted economist, John
Kenneth Galbraith wrote in 1975:
"In numerous years following [the Civil War], the
Federal Government ran a heavy surplus. It could not
[however] pay off its debt, retire as securities, because to do
so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank
notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money
supply."
That is one reason the debt can't be paid off: our money
supply is debt and can't exist without it. But there is
another obvious reason: the debt is simply too big. To get
some sense of the magnitude of a $7.6 trillion obligation, if you
took 7 trillion steps you could walk to the planet Pluto, which
is a mere 4 billion miles away. If the government were to
pay $100 every second, in 317 years it would have paid off only
one trillion dollars of this debt. That's just for the
principal. If interest were added at the rate of only 1
percent compounded annually, the debt could never be paid off in
that way, because the debt would grow faster that it was being
repaid. (3). To pay it off in a lump sum through taxation,
on the other hand, would require increasing the tax bill by about
$100,000 for every family of four, a non-starter for most
families.
The US federal debt hasn't been paid off since the
presidency of Andrew Jackson nearly two centuries ago.
(4) In fact in all but five fiscal years since 1961 (1969
and 2998 through 2001), the government has exceeded its projected
budget, adding to the national debt. When President Clinton
announced the largest budget surplus in history in 2000, and
President Bush predicted a $5.6 trillion budget surplus in 2001,
many people got the impression that the federal debt had been
paid off; but this was another illusion. The $5.6 trillion
budget 'surplus' not only never materialised (it was just
an optimistic estimate projected over a ten-year period, based on
an anticipated surplus for the year 2001 that never
materialised), but it entirely ignored the principal owing on the
federal debt. Like the deluded consumer who makes the
minimum monthly interest payment on his credit card bill and
calls his credit limit 'cash in hand', politicians who
speak of 'balancing the budget' include in their
calculations only the interest on the national debt. By
2000, when President Clinton announced the largest-ever budget
surplus, the federal debt had actually topped $5 trillion; and by
March 2005, when the largest-ever projected surplus had turned
into the largest-ever budget deficit, it had mushroomed to $7.7
trillion.
Financial Weapon of Mass Destruction?
For the foreign holders of US debt, this could be the
ultimate 'weapon of mass destruction': they have the
power to pull the plug on the US economy. Foreign central
bans, concerned with the dramatic flip from a US budget surplus
of $236.4 billion in 2000 to a deficit of $413 billion by the end
of 2004, are quietly switching their reserves from dollars to
Euros and yen. Mark Weisbrot, do-director of the Center for
Economic and Policy Research in Washington, observed in January
2005:
"The timing of any drastic move by big players is very
hard to predict. China and Japan for example, either one of
those, can cause a complete crash, a total collapse of the dollar
just by selling a small portion of their reserves. In fact,
probably they won't have to sell their reserves, all they
have to do is stop accumulating or slow down their rate of
accumulation and it will be dollar crash. (5)"
According to a January 2005 Asia Times article:
"All Beijing has to do is to mention the possibility of
a sell order going down the wires. It would devastate the
US economy more than a nuclear strike."
When China withdraws its support from the US account deficit,
the US could be facing the sort of currency devaluation that
'crashed' the German mark and turned it into worthless
paper in the 1920's. If the United States has to
declare bankruptcy, its foreign loans will dry up, and it will be
thrown back on its own resources. But that spectre is not
something new to the United States. The American colonists
faced such a challenge in the eighteenth century, when they found
themselves son the frontier of the New World without the precious
metals that served as money in the Old World. The same
solution the colonists came up with then could be used to
extricate the country from its financial crisis today.
Returning the Money Power to the People
The American colonies were an experiment in utopia. In
an uncharted territory, you could design new systems and make new
rules. In England, paper money in the hands of private
bankers was becoming a tool for manipulating and controlling the
people; but in the American colonies, paper money was being
generated by provincial governments for the benefit of the
people. The colonists' new paper money worked
surprisingly well, financing a period of prosperity that was
remarkable for isolated colonies lacking their own silver and
gold. By 1750, Benjamin Franklin was able to write of New
England:
"There was abundance in the Colonies, and peace was
reigning on every border. It was difficult, and even
impossible, to find a happier and more prosperous nation on all
the surface of the globe. Comfort was prevailing in every
home. The people, in general, kept the highest moral
standards, and education was widely spread."
Different provinces experimented differently with the new
paper money. Under the Massachusetts plan, it was issued by
the provincial government and spent into the economy. The
system worked well until the Massachusetts government got
overzealous and issued too much, when the paper 'scrip'
became seriously devalued. Despite that flaw, the
Massachusetts scrip served to fund rapid economic development
that would not otherwise have occurred. But it was the
colonial scrip of the Pennsylvania provincial government that was
the admiration of all. The Pennsylvania bank lent money
into the community, to be repaid by borrowers at interest to the
provincial government. Because the scrip was returned to
its source, the money supply did not become over-inflated and the
currency retained its value. It also returned profits to
the government, sometimes funding half the province's budget.
(6) This paper money scheme, said Franklin, was the reason
Pennsylvania "has so greatly increased in inhabitants"
having replaced "the inconvenient method of barter" and
given "new life to business [and] promoted greatly the
settlement of new lands (by lending small sums to beginners on
easy interest)."
The Real Cause of the American Revolution
The colonies thrived without silver or gold until 1751, when
paper 'legal tender' was outlawed in New England by King
George II. The result was to force the colonists to borrow
the British bankers' silver and gold (or their paper
banknotes that were ostensibly receipts for it). In 1764,
Parliament extended the ban on paper money to all of the
colonies, and ordered that only gold and silver could be used to
pay taxes. Only a year later, Franklin wrote in his
Autobiography, the streets of the colonies were filled with
unemployed beggars, just as they were in England. The money
supply had been suddenly reduced by half, leaving insufficient
funds to pay for the goods and services these workers could have
provided. This, Franklin said, was the real reason for the
Revolution. It was "the poverty caused by the bad
influence of the English bankers on the Parliament which has
caused in the colonies hatred of the English and .. The
Revolutionary War."
The colonists won the Revolution against the British Crown,
but they lost the right to create their own money to the British
bankers and their cronies in America. The bankers won by
stealth, propaganda, and misrepresentation concerning the nature
of money and banking. In 1863, Congress under President
Abraham Lincoln broke free and again issued its own paper notes,
which were used to finance the North's victory in the Civil
War. But after the war was over, the 'Greenbacks'
were withdrawn and bankers paper notes were substituted. In
1913, the exclusive right to issue the nation's currency was
usurped by a private central bank called the 'Federal
Reserve', although it is not federal and keeps no gold
reserves. In 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt took the
country off the gold standard. Today, all of our money is
'fiat' money (money 'by decree'), issued by
private banks as credit either to the government or to
individuals and corporations.
The Greenback Solution
A $7.7 trillion debt tsunami is currently bearing down on the
United States. Congress needs to liquidate it before it
liquidates the United States. But how? The debt was
created by sleight of hand. It can be eliminated by sleight
of hand. Factional reserve lending can be abolished by
legislative fiat. The Federal Reserve can be made what most
people think it now is - a truly 'federal' institution -
and the power to create money can be returned to the people.
The $7.7 trillion federal debt was created with accounting
entries on a computer screen. It can be eliminated in the
same way. The simplicity of the procedure was demonstrated
in January 2004, when the US Treasury called a 30-year bond issue
before its due date. The Treasury's action generated
some controversy, since government bonds are generally considered
good until maturity. (7) But calling (or paying off)
a bond before its due date is done routinely by other
issuers. Corporations and municipalities buy back their
bonds whenever it is advantageous for them to do so. When
interest rates fall, they call their bonds in order to refinance
their debt at lower rates. The difference between a bond
called by a corporation and one called by the US Treasury is that
the Treasury has the power to make payment solely with a
bookkeeping entry, without 'real' money backing it
up. And that appears to be exactly what was done in this
case. The Treasury cancelled its promise to pay interest on
these particular bonds simply by announcing its intention to do
so (or by fiat, as they say in French). Then it paid the
principal with an accounting entry. Here is its January 15,
2004 announcement:
TREASURY CALLS 9-1/8 PERCENT BONDS OF 2004-09
"The Treasury today announced the call for redemption at
par on May 15, 2004 of the 9-1/8% Treasury Bonds of 2004-09,
originally issued may 15, 1979, due May 15, 2009 (CUSIP No
9112810CG1). There are $4,606 million of these bonds
outstanding, of which $3,109 million are held by private
investors. Securities not redeemed on May 15, 2004 will
stop earning interest.
These bonds are being called to reduce the cost of debt
financing. The 9-18% interest rate is significantly above
the current cost of securing financing for the five years
remaining to their maturity. In current market conditions,
Treasury estimates that interest savings from the call and
refinancing will be about $544 million.
Payment will be made automatically by the Treasury for bonds
in book-entry form, whether held on the books of the Federal
Reserve Banks or in Treasury /Direct accounts." (8)
The provision for payment 'in book entry form' means
that no dollar bills, cheques or other paper currencies are to be
exchanged. Numbers will simply be entered into the
Treasury's direct online money market fund ('Treasury
Direct'). The investments will remain in place and
intact and will merely change character - from interest-bearing
to non-interest-bearing, from a debt owed to a debt paid.
Where did the government plan to get the money to
'refinance' this $3 billion bond issue at a lower
interest rate? Whether it was from the private banking
system on the open market, or from the Bank of Japan with notes
printed up for the occasion, or from the Federal Reserve as the
purchaser of last resort, the money was no doubt created out of
thin air. As Federal Reserve Board Chairman Marriner Eccles
testified before the House Banking and Currency Committee in
1935:
"When the banks buy a billion dollars of Government
bonds as they are offered .. they actually create, by a
bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars."
Treasury securities
If the Treasury can cancel its promise to pay interest on its
bonds simply by announcing its intention to do so, and if it can
pay off the principal just by entering number sin an online
database, it can pay off the entire federal debt in that way. It
just has to announce that it is calling all of its bonds and
securities, and that they will be paid 'in book-entry
form'. No cash needs to change hands.
The usual objection to this solution is that it would be
dangerously inflationary, but would it? Paying off the US
federal debt by 'monetising' it would not change the size
of the money supply, because the US money supply already includes
the federal debt; in fact, it consists of the federal debt.
Treasury debt takes the form of Treasury securities (bills, bonds
and notes); and Treasury securities are a major component of the
money market funds and other time deposits included in the
Fed's calculations of M2 and M3. Converting bonds
(government promises to pay) into cash (actual payment) would not
change the total of these money measures. It would just
shift the funds from M2 and M3 into M1. Treasury securities
are already treated by the Fed and the market itself just as if
they were money. These are traded daily in enormous volume
among banks and other financial institutions around the world
just as if they were money. People put their money into
highly liquid Treasury bills in money market funds because the
consider this to be the equivalent of holding cash.
Converting Treasury bills and other securities into actual cash
(US Notes) would not affect the size of the money supply.
It would just change the label on the funds. The market for
goods and services would not be flooded with 'new' money
that inflated the prices of consumer goods, because the bond
holders would not consider themselves any richer than they were
before. The bond holders presumably had their money in
bonds in the first place because they wanted to save it rather
than spend it. They would no doubt continue to save it,
either as cash or by investing it in some other
interest-generating securities.
A Newer Deal
In 1933, President Roosevelt pronounced the country
officially bankrupt, exercised his special emergency powers,
waved the royal Presidential fiat, and ordered the promise to pay
in gold removed from the dollar bill. The dollar was
instantly transformed from a promise to pay in legal tender into
legal tender itself. Seventy years later, Congress could
again acknowledge that the country is officially bankrupt and
propose a plan of reorganisation. By simple legislative
fiat, it could transform its 'debts' into 'legal
tender'.
Roosevelts's plan of reorganisation was called the
'New Deal'. In this 'Newer Deal', foreign
creditors would actually be getting the best deal possible.
They have enormous amounts of money tied up in US government
bonds, which the US cannot possibly pay off with tax
revenues. If America's creditors wee to propel it into
bankruptcy, the US government would have to simply walk away from
its debts, and the creditors would be out of luck. If the
United States pays off its debts with real 'legal
tender', the creditors will have something they can take to
the bank and spend in the global market. If it looks like a
dollar, and feels like a dollar, it is a dollar. The only
difference will be that the dollar will have been issued by the
federal government rather than 'borrowed' from a
bank.
One objection that has been raised to paying off the federal
debt by 'monetising' it is that foreign investors would
be discouraged from purchasing US bonds in the future. But
once the government reclaims the power to create money from the
banking cartel, it will no longer need to sell its bonds to
investors. It will no longer even need to levy income
taxes. It will have other ways to finance its budget.
A Modest Proposal for Eliminating
the Personal Federal Income Tax
Returning the power to create money to the government and the
people it represents would generate three new sources of revenue
for the public purse:
1. The interest earned on loans would be returned to
the government
Using the figures for 2002 (the last relatively normal year
before the United Sates was at war in Iraq), total assets in the
form of bank credit for all US commercial banks were reported to
be $5.89 trillion. (9) Assuming an average interest rate of
6 percent, about $353 billion in interest income was thus paid to
commercial banks. This interest was earned, not be lending
anything of their own, but by advancing the 'full faith and
credit of the United States.' Returning this interest
to the collective body of the people to whom it properly belongs
would thus have generated revenue for the government of $353
billion in 2002.
2. Congress could issue new interest-free US Notes
(Greenbacks) to the extent (and only to the extent) needed to
'grow' the money supply in order to cover productivity
and interest charges.
In the monetary scheme of Benjamin Franklin, paper money was
issued 'in proper proportions to the demands of trade and
industry'. What is the 'proper proportions' of
monetary growth? One way to approach the problem is to look
at current growth. The money supply (M3) grew from $7.96
trillion in November 2001 to $8.49 trillion in November 2002, an
increase of $529 billion or 6.6 percent. (10) Under the
present system, the expansion in the money supply needed to keep
up with productivity and interest charges must come from federal
borrowing, since private borrowing zeroes out on repayment.
If the government were to quit 'borrowing' money into
existence, this source of growth would dry up, and there would be
insufficient money to cover the interest due on commercial
loans. Like in a grand game of musical chairs, some
borrowers would have to default.
If the average collective interest rate is 6.6 percent, and
if the government can no longer 'borrow' that money into
existence, it will need to issue enough new Greenbacks to
increase the money supply by 6.6 percent just to keep the system
in balance. In 2002, that would have meant creating $529
billion in new debt-free US Notes.
3. If the government were to pay off the federal debt
with new Greenbacks, it would no longer need to budget for
interest on the debt.
Using 2002 figures, money paid in interest on the federal
debt came to £333 billion. Paying off the debt
would have reduced the collective tax bill by that sum.
Combining these three sources of funding - $353 billion in
interest income, $529 billion in new US Notes to cover annual
growth in the money supply, and $333 billion saved in interest
payments on the federal debt - the public coffers could have been
swelled by $1,215 billion in 2002. Total personal income
taxes that year came to only $1,074 billion. Thus by reclaiming
the power to create money from the private banking system,
Congress could have eliminated individual income taxes in 2002
with $141 billion to spare. How much is $141 billion?
According to the Unites Nations, a mere $80 billion added to
existing resources in 1995 would have been enough to cut world
poverty and hunger in half, achieve universal primary education
and gender equality, reduce under-five mortality by two-thirds
and maternal mortality by three-quarters, reverse the spread of
HIV/AIDS, and halve the proportion of people without access to
safe water world-wide (11)
REFERENCES
(1) J Lawrence Broz, et al.,
Paying for Privilege: The Political Economy of Bank of England
Charters, 1694-1844 (January 2002), page 11, <
http://www.econ.burnard.columbia.edu.>www.econ.burnard.columbia.edu.
(2) "How much are we
giving to Asia? Nothing, Really"Journal Inquirer
(January 13, 2005)
(3) George Humphrey, Common
Sense(Austin, Texas: George Humphrey, 1998), page 5
(4) 'The Presidential Facts
Page', The History Ring, <http://www.scican.net/-dkochan>www.scican.net/-dkochan.
(5) Mead McKay, 'Central
Banks Dump Dollar for Euro', Asia Times, <http://www.atimes.com/>www.atimes.com
(January 27, 2005)
(6) Stephen Zarlenga, The Lost
Science of Money (Valatie, New York: American Monetary Institute,
2002), pages 367-71.
(7) 'US Treasury Defaults
on 30 Year Bond Holders', <http://www.rense.com>www.rense.com
(January 20, 2004)
(8) Department of the Treasury,
'Public Debt News', Bureau of the Public Debt,
Washington, CD 20239 (January 15, 2004).
(9) Federal Board of Governors,
'Total Bank Credit Outstanding', see W Hummel,
'Financial Data Current and Historical: Money Stock',
<
http://www.wfhummel.cnchost.com/linkshistoricaldata.html>www.wfhummel.cnchost.com/linkshistoricaldata.html
(10) Federal Reserve Statistical Release,
'Money Stock Measures' (January 2, 2003)
(11) Jan Vandermoortele, Are the MDG's
Feasible (New York: United Development Program Bureau for
Development Policy, July 2002)
Ellen is an attorney in Los Angeles, California and the
author of ten books, including the best selling Nature's
Pharmacy, co-authored with Dr Lynne Walker. This article is
drawn from her forthcoming book The Wizards of Wall Street and
How They Are Bankrupting America.
Published in Namaste Volume 8 Issue 3
|