Tag: banks

No Central Bank Wants To Stop Price Inflation

Many citizens want more government control of the economy to curb rising prices. It is the worst strategy imaginable. Interventionist governments never reduce consumer prices because they benefit from inflation, dissolving their political spending commitments in a constantly depreciated currency. Inflation is the perfect hidden tax. The government makes the currency less valuable by issuing more units of fiat money, partially dissolves its debt in real terms, collects more taxes, and presents itself as the solution to rising prices with subsidies in an increasingly worthless currency.

That is why socialism and hyperinflation go hand in hand.

Socialism rejects human action and economic calculation and sells a false image of a government that can create wealth at will by issuing more units of fiat currency. Obviously, when inflation arrives, the socialist government will use its two favorite tools: propaganda and repression. Propaganda, which accuses stores and businesses of driving up prices, and repression, which occurs when social unrest intensifies and citizens legitimately hold governments accountable for scarcity and high prices, are the two main strategies.

If you want lower prices, you need to give less economic power to the government, not more. Only free markets, competition, and open economies help decrease consumer prices. Many readers might think that we currently have a free market with competitive and open economies, but the reality is that we live in increasingly intervened and overregulated nations where central banks and governments work to perpetuate unsustainable public deficits and debt. Therefore, they continue to print more money, leading many to question why it is getting harder for families to make ends meet, buy a home, or for small businesses to prosper. The government is slowly eating away the currency it issues. They call it “social use of money.”

What is “social use of money”? In essence, it means abandoning one of the main characteristics of money, the reserve of value, to give the government preferential access to credit to finance its commitments. Therefore, the state can announce larger entitlement programs and increase the size of the public sector relative to the economy, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. The state issues more currency, which makes people’s money less valuable. Citizens become more dependent on the state, and they will demand more subsidies paid in the currency the state issues. It is, in essence, a process of control through debt and currency depreciation.

When governments and central banks talk about price stability, it means a two percent annual depreciation of the currency. Aggregate prices rising an average of two percent is hardly price stability because it is measured by the consumer price index, which is a carefully crafted basket of goods and services weighted by the same people who print the money. That is why governments love CPI as a measure of inflation. It fails to fully reflect the erosion of the currency’s purchasing power. This is why the CPI’s basket calculation fluctuates so frequently. Even if it accurately measures, it will underestimate the rise in prices of non-replaceable goods and services by adding them to a basket of things we consume maybe once or twice a year at best. When you put together shelter, food, health, and energy with technology and entertainment, there will always be distortions.

Thus, governments and central banks are never going to defend price stability. If aggregate prices fell, competition soared, and citizens saw their real wages rise and their deposit savings increase in real value, their jobs would disappear.

When a central bank like the Fed cuts rates and increases the money supply after an accumulated 20.4% inflation in four years, it is not defending price stability; it is defending price increases. This strategy serves to conceal the government’s financial insolvency. A currency with a declining value.

Keep reading

Barron Trump Shut Out by Bank Amid Cancel Culture Accusations

Barron Trump, the youngest son of President Donald Trump, recently faced rejection while attempting to open a new bank account, according to claims from his mother, Melania Trump. She attributed the denial to political discrimination, labeling it as part of a larger “cancel culture” that she believes has targeted her family, raising significant concerns about potential civil rights violations.

Melania Trump, who shared this account in her newly released memoir titled “Melania,” expressed her deep frustration with the situation, revealing that she herself had been debanked.

The former first lady disclosed that shortly after the Trumps departed the White House in early 2021, her son, now 18, was blocked from opening an account at the financial institution she had long preferred.

Trump didn’t name the bank.

“I was shocked and dismayed to learn that my long-time bank decided to terminate my account and deny my son the opportunity to open a new one,” Melania wrote. She described the incident as an example of politically motivated bias, going so far as to question whether it constituted a breach of civil rights. Despite the gravity of the accusations, she chose not to reveal the name of the financial institution involved.

This denial, she argues, is just one example of the broader culture of exclusion and suppression her family has endured, a backlash that intensified in the wake of the January 6th Capitol events. According to Melania, this “venomous” form of cancel culture has extended beyond the political sphere, negatively affecting both her charitable efforts and business opportunities.

“The ‘cancel mob’ now includes corporations, traditional media, influential social media figures, and cultural institutions,” she wrote in her memoir, warning of the dangerous precedent this sets in modern society. She goes on to highlight how businesses—both large and small—continue to participate in this “disheartening trend,” one that she finds increasingly pervasive.

Debanking, the practice of denying individuals or organizations access to financial services based on their political, ideological, or social positions, has emerged as a controversial trend within the broader phenomenon of cancel culture. It represents a significant escalation in the methods used to isolate or punish those whose views or actions fall outside mainstream acceptability, raising critical concerns about freedom of expression, civil rights, and the role of private corporations in regulating societal behavior.

Keep reading

Banking on Betrayal: UK Government’s New Plan for Mass Bank Spying

Civil rights advocates may be saying, “stop bank spying” – but authoritarian-presenting governments are sure to be thinking, “who better to spy on you with?”

Banks not only have fine-grained information about their clients’ financial situation, but also their behavior and habits – and as recent incidents, for example in Canada, but also the UK in different circumstances show, they are not above using their power to debank and therefore censor people. On behalf of governments.

This time in the UK, the Labor cabinet looks set to bring back a legislative plan that would give financial institutions new mass surveillance powers. Now as before, the premise, activists say, is combating welfare fraud.

But the result would be mass bank spying – and “a severe intrusion into the nation’s privacy,” as Big Brother Watch put it.

In a letter to Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendall, the privacy group and a number of like-minded allies informed the official that they oppose the Fraud, Error and Debt Bill, and refer to it as work to usher in mass financial surveillance powers in the UK.

This time via banks, with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) as the government actor.

Keep reading

The “Financial Coup” That Seized America

In the wake of the 2008 Financial Crisis, former chief economist of the IMF Simon Johnson warned that the same dysfunctional policies he saw in his basketcase banana republics had taken hold in the United States.

Johnson warned that if America didn’t act fast, we would plunge into a “Quiet Coup” as the American financial system effectively captures the government, bailing itself out until we run out of money.

Well, we didn’t act fast. In fact, we got worse.

And here we are.

Our Bankrupt Financial System

In recent videos I’ve talked about the trillion of distress in the financial system, the common thread being that you, the taxpayer, will be bailing them all out – we saw this in the 2023 bank bailouts, pre-paid in the dark.

Of course, given our $35 trillion in national debt, we can’t afford it. But pay it we will, driving that $35 trillion to, according to the CBO, $50 trillion-plus.

At some point, it gets too big to bail out. This means either hard default – they stop paying interest. Or the more likely soft default – they let inflation rip, melting away the national debt along with our life savings. And between here and there is a wholesale fleecing of the middle class and the working class who rely on them for a job.

The Ignored Warning

So, first, the ignored warning by Simon Johnson. I’m no fan of the IMF – their role is essentially feeding their client dictators fresh drugs at massive taxpayer expense. But one thing the IMF does know is dysfunctional governments.

Keep reading

The Vampire Fiat Money System: How It Works and What It Means for Your Wealth

Who doesn’t know them: the blood-sucking vampires, the eerie undead, immortalized in countless films, and inspired primarily by Bram Stoker’s novel Dracula (1897). Just think of iconic movies like the silent film Nosferatu – A Symphony of Horror (1922), Dracula (1958) with Christopher Lee, Roman Polanski’s parody The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967), or Nosferatu – Phantom of the Night (1979), starring Klaus Kinski as Count Dracula. 

Vampires are demons who rise from their graves at night, seeking to drain the blood of innocent victims. Not only do they steal the life force that sustains them, but they also spread their curse. Many victims, bitten by vampires, are “turned,” becoming undead themselves, thus joining the vampire’s dark domain.

The enemies and hunters of vampires face a formidable challenge: vampires can disguise themselves, transforming into creatures like wolves or bats, and often display immense, superhuman strength. They can only be repelled by traditional defenses—garlic cloves, rosaries, holy water, or the Christian cross. But truly destroying a vampire requires decapitation, driving a wooden stake through its heart, or bright sunlight that turns them to dust.

The vampire is an ancient and widespread myth. The image of a blood-sucking undead creature, or similar concepts, has existed across many cultures. This demon embodies superstition—acting as a projection of primal fears, the inexplicable, and evil as the counterpart to good. The notion of a creature that emerges at night, drains its victims’ blood, and draws them from light into darkness is undoubtedly a profoundly threatening one. 

When you reflect a little longer on the horror story of the vampire demon, you will inevitably begin to see parallels (or at least points of contact) with the fiat money system that exists worldwide today.

Keep reading

Fifty Shades of Central Bank Tyranny

The United States has had a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) since the late 1990s—or possibly even as far back as the 1970s, depending on how you define it. Definitions matter. Just as the bestselling novel 50 Shades of Gray explores the complex dynamics of control and submission in a relationship, our financial system has evolved into what could be called “50 Shades of Central Bank Tyranny.”  

Each layer of our digital currency system peels back the seductive mask of freedom, revealing progressively darker shades of control. As we delve deeper, what seems like autonomy at first glance is only an illusion where more intricate and pervasive forms of dominance lay hidden, its grip tightening with every layer.

Our politicians work their sleight of hand by manipulating language itself to give a false impression, masking either a different intent or simply trying to gain the appearance of a victory with little or no actual underlying achievement. After all, the Patriot Act was anything but “patriotic.” The CARES Act, while sounding warmly empathetic, cared more about large multinational corporations than small businesses, about Big Pharma over American health, and above all, about the expansion of the surveillance state and protection of the censorship industrial complex over the liberty and free speech of the American people.

Just as 50 Shades of Gray reveals the intricate power plays in a seemingly consensual relationship, so too does our current financial system reveal its true nature as a digital dominatrix—one that has been steadily adding links to the chain of financial enslavement, tightening its grip on our autonomy for decades.

In this article, I will define what a Central Bank Digital Currency is by exploring its major categories. I’ll demonstrate that the US already operates with a form of CBDC, albeit without the flashy labels. I will also show that the Federal Reserve (the Fed) can introduce more dystopian elements into this system—such as programming restrictions on when, how, and where you can spend your money without requiring Congressional approval.

However, the fear of central bank control over your transactions is, in fact, a red herring. The real threat lies with our government, which has already perfected the art of surveillance. Adding programmability is just the next logical step. Ultimately, both Republicans and Democrats are steering us toward the same destination: total digital control. They may use different words and different propaganda, but their goals converge. While we can’t simply vote out of this predicament, we can opt out entirely.

Keep reading

GOP Congressman Will Attempt To Remove Marijuana Banking Protections From Spending Bill Due To ‘Overwhelming’ Concerns

A GOP congressman says he’s “overwhelmingly concerned” with a provision of a spending bill that would provide limited protections for banks that work with state-legal marijuana businesses, and he’s threatening to file an amendment to strip the language as the underlying measure advances.

During a markup of the Fiscal Year 2025 Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations measure on Wednesday, Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-NC) spoke out against the cannabis banking section, which subcommittee chairman Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH) secured in the base bill.

“I understand it’s not in order to propose amendments at this level, but I certainly intend to raise that issue at the appropriate time,” Edwards said, signaling that he will propose an amendment to remove the section in the full committee or on the floor.

He said that the proposal is not germane to an appropriations bill because, he argues, it is “an affirmative authorization disguised as a limitation” on the spending of funds. But his primary contention is with the policy substance of the measure, which would prevent federal regulators covered under the FSGG bill from using their funding to penalize financial institutions that service state cannabis businesses.

Keep reading

BIDENOMICS: $517 Billion in Unrealized Losses Cripple US Banking System, 63 Lenders Teeter on the Brink of Insolvency, FDIC Reports

A ticking time bomb.

In another stark example of the economic mismanagement under the Biden regime, a new report from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) reveals a staggering $517 billion in unrealized losses within the US banking system, The Daily Hodl first reported.

This alarming figure, largely due to exposure to the residential real estate market, is a clear indication of the damaging effects of Biden’s failed policies.

The FDIC’s Quarterly Banking Profile report paints a grim picture of the current state of our nation’s financial institutions. Banks are now burdened with more than half a trillion dollars in paper losses on their balance sheets.

Although banks can hold securities until they mature without marking them to market on their balance sheets, these unrealized losses can become an extreme liability when banks need liquidity, per the Daily Hodl.

According to Investopedia, an unrealized loss is a “paper” loss that results from holding an asset that has decreased in price, but not yet selling it and realizing the loss. These losses become “realized” only when the asset is sold at a price lower than its original purchase price.

Keep reading

Mastercard’s Controversial Digital ID Rollout in Africa

One wouldn’t have pegged Mastercard for that corporation that is “driving sustainable social impact” and caring about remote communities around the world struggling to meet basic needs.

Nevertheless, here we are – or at least that’s how the global payment services behemoth advertises its push to proliferate the use of a scheme called Community Pass.

The purpose of Community Pass is to enable a  digital ID and wallet that’s contained in a “smart card.” Launched four years ago, the program – which Mastercard says, in addition to being based on digital ID, is interoperable, and works offline – targets “underserved communities” and currently has 3.5 million users, with plans of growing that number to 30 million by 2027.

According to a map on Mastercard’s site, this program is now being either piloted or has been rolled out in India, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, and Mauritania, while the latest announcement is the partnership with the African Development Bank Group in an initiative dubbed, Mobilizing Access to the Digital Economy (MADE).

Keep reading

World War I Incited the Vampires

Commentaries about World War I frequently talk about causes and consequences but almost never mention the enablers.  At best, they might mention them approvingly, as if we were fortunate to have had the Fed and the income tax, along with the ingenuity of the Liberty Bond programs, to finance our glorious role in that bloodbath.

Economist Benjamin Anderson, whose Economics and the Public Welfare has contributed greatly to our understanding of the period 1914-1946, and is a book I highly recommend, nevertheless takes as a given that the Fed and income tax had a job to do, and that job was supporting U.S. entry into World War I.  After citing figures purporting to show how relatively restrained bank credit expansion was during the war, he writes:

We had to finance the Government with its four great Liberty Loans and its short-term borrowing as well. We had to transform our industries from a peace basis to a war basis. We had to raise an army of four million men and send half of them to France. We had to help finance our allies in the war, and above all, to finance the shipment of goods to them from the United States and from a good many neutral countries. [p. 35]

We had to do none of these things.

Only the government made them necessary, and the government was not acting on behalf of its constituents when it formally entered the war in April, 1917.  The U.S. was not under serious threat of attack.  The population at large, Ralph Raico tells us, “acquiesced, as one historian has remarked, out of general boredom with peace, the habit of obedience to its rulers, and a highly unrealistic notion of the consequences of America’s taking up arms.”  Later on he reports that

In the first ten days after the war declaration, only 4,355 men enlisted; in the next weeks, the War Department procured only one-sixth of the men required.

Bored with peace they may have been, but it was hardly reflected in the number of volunteers.  For more details about US response to the war see this.

Keep reading