The Origins of the Federal Reserve: A Secret Meeting on Jekyll Island
In a book written by G. Edward Griffin called “The Creature of Jekyll Island”, Edward details how the Banking Cartel got ahold of our US Economy. The establishment of the Federal Reserve System in the United States is often viewed through the lens of necessity in the face of economic instability. However, the origins of this pivotal institution trace back to a clandestine meeting held in November 1910 on Jekyll Island, Georgia. This gathering, attended by a select group of powerful bankers and politicians, including J.P. Morgan and Senator Nelson Aldrich, was shrouded in secrecy and aimed at addressing what they perceived as a fragile banking structure. The participants of the Jekyll Island meeting were motivated by a series of financial crises in the years leading up to 1910, particularly the Panic of 1907, which exposed the vulnerabilities of the American banking system. Their objective was to devise a new central banking system that could provide stability and liquidity during economic downturns. Aldrich, representing the interests of the banking elite, was instrumental in orchestrating this meeting. He sought to create a framework that would allow more control over the money supply and, ultimately, the economy. As the discussions unfolded, significant concerns arose surrounding the lack of transparency and the concentration of power among the participants. Critics of the Federal Reserve’s formation argue that the assembly’s covert nature fostered an environment ripe for potential conflicts of interest. The implications of these decisions would resonate throughout the subsequent history of American finance, sparking debates about accountability and governance within the banking sector. Thus, the Jekyll Island meeting represents not just the inception of the Federal Reserve, but also the beginning of a controversial debate regarding the appropriateness of central banking in a democratic society.The Federal Reserve’s Impact on the Economy: Inflation and Devaluation
G. Edward Griffin’s critique of the Federal Reserve highlights its significant influence on the U.S. economy, particularly regarding inflation and the devaluation of the dollar. Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has been accused of manipulating monetary policy in a way that creates economic cycles—periods of boom followed by inevitable busts. These cycles often lead to inflation, wherein the purchasing power of the dollar diminishes, resulting in higher prices for basic goods and services that most citizens depend on. One of the most troubling effects of the Federal Reserve’s policies is how they contribute to the broader phenomenon of inflation. For example, the significant quantitative easing measures adopted during the 2008 financial crisis and in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have dramatically increased the money supply. While these measures aimed to stimulate the economy, they also led to soaring asset prices and gradually increased consumer prices, negatively affecting average Americans. As inflation rises, the real value of savings diminishes, burdening those who rely on fixed incomes, such as retirees. Moreover, the devaluation of the U.S. dollar is notably linked to the Federal Reserve’s actions. The dollar’s depreciation can be illustrated through its falling value against other currencies over the years. This decline means that imported goods become more expensive, placing additional strain on consumers. Griffin indicates that this continuous cycle of devaluation serves private banking interests rather than the public good, favoring debtors over creditors and perpetuating systemic inequalities in wealth distribution. In conclusion, the Federal Reserve’s impact on inflation and the devaluation of the U.S. dollar illustrates the broader concerns regarding its influence on the economy. The critique posits that the institution’s policies may primarily benefit a select group, raising critical questions about its true alignment with public interests.The Case for a Return to a Gold-Backed Monetary System
The debate surrounding monetary policy has been ongoing for decades, with many advocating for a return to a gold-backed monetary system. Proponents, including author G. Edward Griffin, argue that a gold standard provides historical stability that is increasingly absent in today’s fiat currency system. By linking currency value directly to a tangible asset like gold, national economies can benefit from a more reliable and predictable financial framework. Historically, gold standards have served various countries well during times of economic turmoil, offering a means to check inflationary pressures caused by excessive money printing. When governments have the ability to issue currency freely without tangible backing, the risk of inflation rises dramatically, eroding purchasing power and destabilizing economies. By contrast, a gold-backed monetary system inherently limits the capacity to inflate the currency, thereby constraining government spending and promoting fiscal responsibility. Supporters of this return to a gold standard also highlight the potential for increased public confidence in the monetary system. When currency derives its value from a universally accepted commodity, individuals and businesses may be more likely to participate in economic activities, knowing that their wealth is not subject to arbitrary manipulation. Furthermore, this approach could potentially deter financial crises triggered by excessive debt and speculative practices that often accompany unbacked currencies. Nevertheless, critics of re-establishing a gold-backed monetary system raise valid concerns regarding its feasibility in the modern context. They argue that the global economy has evolved beyond what a strictly gold-based system can adequately support, particularly given the complexities of international trade and monetary policy today. Additionally, some fear that anchoring currency to a single commodity could lead to economic stagnation and hinder monetary responses in times of crisis. The ongoing debate about the viability of a gold-backed monetary system presents a compelling discussion regarding economic stability, inflation control, and the role of government in financial markets. Understanding both perspectives is vital for developing informed opinions on the future of monetary policy and its implications for economic health.Restoring Sovereignty: Reclaiming Control from International Banking Cartels
The influence of international banking cartels on the financial landscape has become increasingly pervasive, leading to a situation where citizens feel disconnected from the monetary system that governs their lives. These institutions often operate behind closed doors, prioritizing profit over the welfare of the populace. As a result, many communities are trapped in cycles of debt and poverty, acquiring a sense of helplessness in the face of economic policies that serve elite interests rather than those of the average citizen. The necessity for transparency within our banking systems cannot be overstated. Citizens must understand the mechanisms through which these cartels manipulate financial markets, leading to unfavorable outcomes for ordinary individuals. This lack of clarity fosters mistrust and a feeling of disenfranchisement, which ultimately undermines the democratic foundations of our society. Empowering citizens with knowledge about how global financial institutions operate can inspire them to advocate for change, demanding accountability from policymakers. Restoring financial sovereignty involves the promotion of a monetary system that prioritizes the needs of the community over the interests of international banking elites. A potential pathway to achieving this involves a shift toward local banking solutions, allowing communities to harness their resources for local economic development. By supporting credit unions, community banks, and alternative financial models, citizens can begin to reclaim control over their financial futures. Furthermore, policymakers play a crucial role in this movement towards reform. By drafting legislation that limits the power of multinational banking entities and enforces stricter regulations, elected officials can create an environment where financial decisions are made with the interests of the people at heart. Through collective action and a renewed commitment to fiscal responsibility, we can pave the way for a more equitable economic future. Bible Interest Prohibition In the Bible God prohibits charging interest on loans to fellow Israelites, referred to as “brothers,” emphasizing a covenantal relationship rooted in mutual support and compassion Deuteronomy 23:19 states, “You shall not charge your brother interest on money, food, or any other type of loan,” a command reiterated in Exodus 22:25 and Leviticus 25:35-37, which instructs that one should not lend money at interest or sell food for profit to a fellow countryman in need This prohibition is grounded in the principle of caring for the poor and vulnerable, reflecting the broader biblical theme of loving one’s neighbor and trusting in God’s provision rather than exploiting others for personal gain The command extends to all forms of lending, including money, food, and other goods, highlighting its comprehensive nature While the law permits charging interest to foreigners, it strictly forbids it among fellow Israelites, with the promise that God will bless those who follow this command in all their endeavors This principle is echoed in other parts of Scripture, such as Psalm 15:5 and Ezekiel 18:8, which commend those who lend without interest and condemn those who engage in usury Although Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Law, many interpret these passages as a call to generosity and mercy, especially toward fellow believers, encouraging low or no interest loans and even gifts in times of needAbout the Author
Discover more from
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.