Ladies and Gentlemen of DU, I'd like to introduce you to - the "Money Trust."

[Cerridwen]

There are many reasons I hope many of you will take a look at the "Money Trust."

There is a belief; that bush caused all this, that what we are living through today began in 2000 or during reagan or because of nixon, or that it is in some other manner, recent in history and can be attributed to but one person or one small group of people specific to this time, or that it is the result of one or another political party.

That belief, regardless of the form, is simplistic at best, dangerous at worst.

What is finally being exposed is part of a cycle in human history in which, those who have power over their fellow humans, will exert their power to the detriment of their fellow humans. This latest cycle involves capital, that is, currency as the tool/representation of power. During other times in history the tools/representations of power have included, cattle, land, title (landLORD), "religious" position, weaponry/arms/armies, and so on. As you can see, I'm focused primarily on "western" or "European" history though I think we can extrapolate from "western" to "eastern" history without much effort.

The way these tools of power and control have been wielded are myriad and I won't go into them here. The latest incarnation of these "power brokers" can be seen in the "Money Trust." Suffice it say, each tool of power buttresses and validates the others. The use of these tools has created a web of interconnected systems used by a minority to control the majority. It does not matter if the systems put into place are capitalistic, communistic, or socialistic. In each, those who would use power over others to the detriment of humans/humanity and the planet as a whole, frequently (always? to date) rise to the top of what ultimately becomes a toxic system. The idea that any of these systems can be "well regulated," and therefore less toxic, may be seen as the hopeless case it is when one stops to think that the very ones to be regulated are the very ones to do the regulating.

The accompanying idea that it has always been thus and must always be thus, combined with the "common knowledge" that traveling forward in time means, by default, that it is progress has led many to accept these cycles as "natural" occurences of human "progress." We adopt or absorb our "values" accordingly. Many times we do not question those "values" or their source. Many times, we do not even question if they are...ooooo, the English language makes the selection of this next word tough. We do not even question if they are right(?), correct(?), ethical(?), moral(?), valuable(?), valid(?), accurate(?)...maybe, healthy(?).

Some questions I think are worth asking of ourselves. Is hierarchy the only viable structure for institutions and systems? Is an authoritarian "mind set" the only way we are capable of thinking? Is it possible to effect change without punitive measures? Is the framework in which we currently live healthy? Yeah, I'm trying to get you to think...here it comes..."outside the box," or to use a pop-cuture reference, I encourage you to "take the red pill."

Will you continue to pursue the "American Dream," and work hard and "play by the rules" and teach your children and their children to do the same? Will you continue to support and perpetuate "what has 'always' been?" Or will you consider...an alternative?

Without further ado, I bring you, direct from the Federal Reserve Archival System for Economic Research, the "Money Trust"

In 1912, a special subcommittee was convened by the Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, Arsene P. Pujo. Its purpose was to investigate the "money trust," a small group of Wall Street bankers that exerted powerful control over the nation's finances. The committee's majority report concluded that a group of financial leaders had abused the public trust to consolidate control over many industries. The Pujo Committee report created a climate of public opinion that lead to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914.

The hearings were conducted between May 16, 1912 and February 26, 1913. The transcript of the hearings was published in three volumes. It is presented in the original 29 parts with the index, a table of interlocking directorates of 18 financial institutions, and the majority/minority report of the committee.

***DIAL-UP Warning for the following .pdf documents. They are protected pages so copy and paste is not possible for me.***

The report from the committee (.pdf protected)

{Beginning middle of page 159}

     We are not unmindful of the important and valuable part that the gentlemen who dominate this inner group and their allies have played in the development of our prosperity....

     It is also recognized that cooperation between them is frequently valuable, and often essential to the public interest as well as their own...

     But these considerations do not involve their taking control of the resources of our financial institutions or of the savings of the people in our life insurance companies nor that they shall be able to levy tribute upon every large enterprise: nor that commercial credits or stock exchange markets and values shall wait upon their beck and call. Other countries finance enterprises quite as important as our own without employing these methods.

{much more at link}

"Agents of Concentration" begins on page 6. (.pdf protected)

A diagram of the interconnected web of "power brokers." (.pdf protected)

Another diagram showing more threads of the web. (.pdf protected)

Wiki-links to background on the "Agents of Concentration".

JP Morgan & Co.
Kidder, Peabody & Co.
Kuhn, Loeb & Co.
The First National Bank of New York and First National City Bank today known as Citibank
Lee, Higginson & Co.
Bank mergers since 1930 to help track where the institutions of the "money trust" are today.

Click around the Wiki-links provided to see the history of families and family names that will sound familiar even today.

For additional names involved with and manipulated by, the "money trust," get out your old Monopoly™ game and look at the board. B&O Railroad, Reading Railroad, Pennsylvania Railroad. Add to your Monopoly™ board names some of those late, great names such as, United Fruit, AT&T, Western Union, Amalgamated Copper. Mix in some Drexel, Chemical, and grab a life insurance company or two. If you're into "old timey" music, you might want to groove to the tune, "On the Atchison, Topeka, and the Santa Fe."

Railroads, communications, copper, banks, Wall Street, "blind pools," steel, oil, stock exchanges, clearing houses, government. These guys were there "first" and their legacy continues. Do you honestly expect that to change simply by changing the "players?"

A bit of background on the Panic of 1907 that, in part, prompted the committee to investigate.

In the summer of 1907, the American economy was showing signs of weakness as a number of business and Wall Street brokerages went bankrupt. In October, the respected Knickerbocker Trust in New York City and the ¹Westinghouse Electric Company both failed, touching off a series of events known as the Panic of 1907.

Please notice this tidbit that mentions what may have been a contributing factor to the Panic.

1: Westinghouse Electric was the victim of foul business practices by J.P. Morgan. Morgan controlled General Electric and Thomas Edison’s Direct Current, (DC) electrical patents. He contended with Westinghouse Electric, who controlled Nicola Tesla’s Alternating Current, (AC) electrical patents. Morgan and Edison strove for control of all electrical power in America. Edison used deceptive demonstrations of the supposed increased dangers of AC and Morgan had spread rumors in Wall Street that Westinghouse was insolvent, causing Westinghouse stock to collapse, along with the stock of the Westinghouse backers. {Note: this site may have a left-leaning (or maybe right-leaning?) bias. Take with as many grains of salt as you see fit.}

Trusts versus the Clearing Houses as viewed in an article at the NY Times. (.pdf scanned image and another dial-up warning)

The Panic of 1907 and the commission's report led, in part to Owen-Glass Federal Reserve Act.

Public sentiment had been supportive of national monetary reform since the Panic of 1907. The National Monetary Commission, created under the Aldrich-Vreeland Act, issued a report in 1912, which called for creation of what many regarded as a third to the string of Banks of the United States. All major European powers had developed centralized controls over their banking systems, but the U.S. remained alone in failing to do so. Full centralization of banking had not proved popular earlier in the country's history, but the recurring bank panics and instability of the currency clearly pointed to the need for major reform.

Following Wilson’s victory in 1912, Arsène P. Pujo of Louisiana, chairman of the House Banking Committee, led the so-called Pujo Commission in a wide-ranging examination of the nation’s financial ills. Among other actions, Pujo brought in J.P. Morgan to testify and eventually came to the conclusion that a “money trust” existed in the country and the central banking solution offered by the Monetary Commission would not work.

In 1913, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and crafted a regional, rather than fully centralized, approach to banking reform. Carter Glass of Virginia headed matters in the House and Robert L. Owen of Oklahoma did so in the Senate. The final legislation created 12 Federal Reserve Banks* that would act as central banks for all national banks and other member state institutions. The Banks would not be federal bodies, but private ones owned by the member banks. A Federal Reserve Board was formed to oversee the system and establish policy. Members of the Board would be appointed by the president, providing a considerable measure of federal direction over the system. {more at link and notice previous disclaimer about site's potential bias.}

More on the Federal Reserve from the same site that may deny (or confirm) previous claims of bias. :D

Stabilizing America's economy

The central banking system in the U.S. is the Federal Reserve System, commonly known as "The Fed".*

The Fed's creation was controversial. The Owen-Glass Federal Reserve Act of 1913 created an institutionalized monopoly of special-purpose banks located in major cities throughout the country. 12 Federal Reserve Banks are led by the Bank of New York, which is a publicly traded corporation started by New York businessmen and Alexander Hamilton on June 9, 1784.

As America's central banking system, the Fed is a system of banks for bankers. The Federal Reserve Board (board of governors) members are appointed by the U.S. president. The Regional Federal Reserve Banks are corporations whose stock is owned by member banks located within the region of each branch Fed bank. The Fed is highly regulated and thus has great credibility.

There is a brief snapshot of the "money trust" and some of its more famous or notorious "players" and the system(s) they put in place.

If we keep in place that which is there and only change the names and players, do we change anything? If "my" whole plan is to continue banging a nail into the wall, will calling my hammer a shoe make it any less a hammer? Though it may slow it down, will using a shoe change the end result?

[underpants]

1. Marking for later

personally the whole thing smells like the JP Morgan et al move in 1932 and Gen. Butler's rejection of their plans

[Cerridwen]

2. Thanks, underpants.

Old JP started long before 1932. Bless his shriveled little.........................heart.

[Cerridwen]

3. It's long, it ain't sexy, but it's important.

:kick:

[leftstreet]

4. K&R

Wow. Lots of good stuff here

Thanks for posting!

[Cerridwen]

5. Thanks, leftstreet.

This is just a "drop in the ocean" of what's out there to learn.

*sigh*

At least I finally got all of it out of my head. It was giving me headaches just "sitting" there. LOL

:D

[leftstreet]

6. Thank you!

I'm glad you dumped your head out!

:o

Great resources.

[Cerridwen]

9. :D

Oh, it'll fill up again soon enough.

Now, where are those aspirin? LOL

[Greyhound]

7. The questions, yes. How do we ask ourselves these questions and consider possible answers

when so very few of us have even a rudimentary understanding of how it all works?

We, most of us, believe that the banking, financial, and currency systems are either one and the same or inextricably intertwined, none can survive without the others. The idea that there are alternatives rarely occurs to us when we think of it at all. Is the fish aware of water?

To borrow and extend your closing analogy, do we even question if the nail needs to be driven into the wall at all?

Great post.
:kick: & R

[Cerridwen]

8. Some of the questions we *can* ask even if we don't quite understand

the system or systems. We can look at our own beliefs and values of how we ascertain and assign value. Then we can look at where in our personal "hierarchy of values" we put each thing, or person, judged.

A basic question that seems pertinent to today's discussions is, is a house a "home" or an investment or some hybrid of each? What is the value in each case? A friend once told me, "if you want to control a man, give him a mortgage." How does that fit in with and evaluation of value? Does it fit? Should it even be considered? How does being "tied" to a job because one has a mortgage compare to...indentured servitude or is is "just" stability?

I think if each of us sat down and examined our beliefs and our values, we might find some surprises as to what we value and why we value it.

As to your last, there's a thread on the board that asks, "could we rebuild civilization as we know it." My question would begin, "should we...?"

[pleah]

10. K&R

Thanks.

[Cerridwen]

14. You're welcome.

Thanks for the K & R.

:)

[nashville_brook]

11. whenever i find myself thinking this is only a repug problem, i tell myself: remember Glass-Stegall

[Wiley50]

12. Well, the core problem of a "Money Trust" is that the two words are allergic to each other

Any street level drug dealer can tell you that. The first thing one learns about scoring drugs is "Don't Trust no honest junkie. He'll take your Money and run" This comes from the scam of someone who says he can buy drugs for you asks to hold the money and then goes off to buy the drugs. 99 times out of 100 that's the last time you'll see him....or your money.

But, sticking with the op's purpose... Yes we have come to exactly the same place as we were in 1912. Or rather, we never ever left it. The "cure" that was put forth then "The Fed and the 12 central banks who own it" was just keeping the power in the hands of the criminals who were to blame for the situation in the first place. Or to be more accurate, it involved turning the Federal Treasury over to those very crooks. Some fucking cure.

The problem is that there are people who feel the need to control everyone else. The money is just the means they use to get it.

I don't know what to do about people like that. Those who have an insecurity only sated by controlling others. I know what I do in a personal setting with people like that... I've been married to a couple: I divorce myself of them, whatever the cost. As a society, I bear no illusion that that could be done as they themselves Own the politicians who would have to create the laws that would exile them. Maybe that's why it didn't work in 1912.

Really, the only solution would be to clear the entire table with a revolution. It may come to that yet. And, have no illusion, it would be very bloody.

The trick is that the new ones in power do not recreate the situation. Always hard, because anyone who would want control is not fit to have it.

edit: typos..as always

[Cerridwen]

13. "Those who want it aren't fit to have it."

I paraphrased ya.

It's "always" the case, isn't it. Those who want power are probably the last who should have it. The saddest part is, for those who think about it, those are the very people who seek and run for public office. The very "nature of the beast" that is politics is pitting one person wanting control against another wanting control leaving us with no choice but to vote for those who want to control.

Even a revolution would just put us in a place in which we had whole lot of broken system with nothing to replace it. Especially if we still have our brains wrapped around the current ideas.

The only thing I can think of that might work, is to get people to question their values. Question everything, actually, but especially ourselves and our beliefs. Now you know one of my reasons for posting the OP. :D

[Wiley50]

15. Ah, but that's the reason for the mortgages

When one is working so hrd to make the mortgage nut one has no time to question ones values.

It won't work. There are just too many people who refuse or are unable to think for themselves

That's why, after I lost the house to foreclosure and the wife to the foreclosure too, I was free to seek other shelter. The only thing I could pay for outright was this sailboat, which suits me just fine, but I wish I had had enough to buy a better sailboat. And could still work to get this tub back in the water and off to Central America. My close buddy, Joe Bageant is very happy under the Blue Mango tree down in Belize.

[Greyhound]

16. "If you wish to control a man, give him a mortgage".

I want to do what you have done, live on a sailboat. I used to have access to a real nice 42' with all those cool computer controlled power winches, so 1 person could easily sail it. Alas, no money and dogs that sink like rocks.

[Cerridwen]

17. 'Tis true.

Many things we have to do just to get by day-to-day seem to be designed to keep us stressed and too exhausted to think.

I agree with Justice Brandeis (as I quoted recently):

The American Standard of Living

What does this standard imply? In substance, the exercise of those rights which our Constitution guarantees; the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life, in this connection, means living not existing; liberty, freedom in things industrial as well as political; happiness includes, among other things, that satisfaction which can come only through the full development and utilization of one's faculties. In order that men may live and not merely exist -- in order that men may develop their faculties, they must have a reasonable income; they must have health and leisure. High wages will not meet the worker's need unless employment be regular. The best of wages will not compensate for excessively long working hours which undermine health. And working conditions may be so bad as to nullify the good effects of high wages and short hours. The essentials of American citizenship are not satisfied by supplying merely the material needs or even wants of the worker.

Every citizen must have education -- broad and continuous. This essential of citizenship is not met by an education which ends at the age of 14 -- or even at 18 or 22. Education must continue throughout life. A country cannot be governed well by rulers whose education and mental development is limited to their attendance at the common school. Whether the education of the citizen in later years is to be given in classes or from the public platform, or is to be supplied through discussion in the lodges and the trade unions, or is to be gained from the reading of papers, periodicals, and books, - in any case freshness of mind is indispensable to its attainment. And to the preservation of freshness of mind a short workday is as essential as adequate food and proper conditions of working and living. The worker must, in other words, have leisure. But leisure does not imply idleness. It means ability to work not less but more -- ability to work at some thing besides breadwinning -- ability to work harder while working at breadwinning, and ability to work more years at breadwinning. Leisure, so defined, is an essential of successful democracy.

Furthermore the citizen in a successful democracy must not only have education; he must be free. Men are not free if dependent industrially upon the arbitrary will of another. Industrial liberty on the part of the worker cannot, therefore, exist if there be overweening industrial power. Some curb must be placed upon overweening industrial power. Some curb must be placed upon capitalistic combination. Nor will even this curb be effective unless the workers cooperate, as in trade unions. Control and cooperation are both essential to industrial liberty.

{this quote is from http://www.law.louisville.edu/library/collections/brandeis/node/224">this link}

[bertman]

18. Actually, Cerridwen, I think it started millenia before your thesis states. But, this latest

incarnation is good to know about.

[Cerridwen]

20. But of course. But think about it, if you think this post was long,

imagine if I'd gone back to the "beginning"! LOL

I had to pick a brief (relatively speaking) moment.

:D

[bertman]

21. Understood. I applaud your brevity. Only so much time in a day.

:hi:

[Cerridwen]

23. Actually, I'm pretty sure I can pontificate for hours and pages.

I took pity on DU. LOL

:)

[Richard Steele]

19. K&R

[Cerridwen]

22. Thank you.

This poor thread needs all the help it can get. :)

[Greyhound]

24. Good morning. n/t

[Cerridwen]

25. Aw, you kicked me.

How nice. :D

[truedelphi]

26. Someone else doing fine research here on DU

Autorank calls the "Money Trust" The "Money Party"

It was not only Reaganites who allowed the entire theory of Economics to be overhauled to the tune of the "Chicago School" of Economics. On edit: No, members of both parties allowed this to happen. After all, most of those in Congress are millionaires. The changes to our economy under Reagan helped the rich of both parties. Neither party protested outsourcing - even Hillary and Barack have said that there is a need for HB 1 Visas. The Clintons brought forth NAFTA, and NAFTA was very destructive to the poorest of the Mexicans.

Thus NAFTA helped to "encourage" low income people from south of the border to cross the border and enter our society, thus undermining wages on this side of the border. But NAFTA insured a steady supply of low cost goods - as NAFTA's effects meant that the local restuarants didn't have to raise prices on meals because there was never a need to raise wages to the immigrants working at the jobs, or that the textiles could be made in Belize at a fraction of what they cost when made in the Carolinas.

In order to change a system, a group of people must take over the language. Until the 1980's, it was understood by one and all that creating local jobs, and having tariffs to protect those jobs was indeed an "economic" given. Of course, people in politics fought all the time over tariffs - was there too much protectionism in any given industry, etc?

Those who were involved in the events leading up to the Revolutionary War were well aware that in "blockading" products from England, a local job base would be secured. These policies stayed in place for the next two hundred years.

So the "economists" under Reagan brought forth "Supply Side" economics. You can read pages of this theory, not dozens, but hundreds of pages of these policies and never encounter the word "jobs."

No, in this new "economy," jobs were something that was to no longer be considered. The new meme was that by having unlimited supplies of cheap goods, the entire nation of "consumers" could buy themselves into prosperity. At the Federal level, IN ORDER to buoy up this nonsense, Greenspan et al created and maintained artificially low credit rates. You could buy a house and receive a mortgage rate of less than 5%. Unless your finances were really in a wicked state, then you could have a mortgage in which the rate was only 1% - with the supposition that the rate would increase some three years down the road. Credit cards were offered the population at large - and often these credit card offers started with interest rates at 0%.

BY 1999, the banks were bored with their staus in this new system of the financial markets. They wanted full de-regulation - the ability to be offering not only loans to consumers, but bets, er, sorry I mean investments that although not considered to be insudrance, acted as insurance. "See, I have this block of sub prime mortgages, made up of hundreds of thusands of snippets of real mortgages out there, and you, my friendly invester, can "bet" on whether or not these mortgages will ever be paid. And as far as the overall risk, no one at my bank is even worrying about whether or not too many gamblers, er I mean investors are placing this type of bet."

We have all seen how well this turned out.

[Cerridwen]

28. Thank you so very much for adding more and important information

to this thread.


:yourock:

[truedelphi]

29. Why thank you. Being flat on my back for about 45 days while the

Great American Economy was sinking (Oct 2008) and with only some books on events leading up to the American Revolution to entertain myself with, I became somewhat conversant with a bit of this.

And the internet/google thingie helped a lot also.

[Cerridwen]

30. You're welcome. Your analysis is spot on.

It's also a great way to "connect the dots" from past to present; which I hope more and more here will do.

I'm sorry to hear about Oct. 2008. I apologize if you've posted at DU about it and I missed it. I'm horribly and rudely lax at partaking of the more social aspects of DU. I hope things have improved for you since.

As I read your paragraph about internet/google I had to chuckle. In a recent thread, a poster asked what we did before "the google." That question prompted warm, fuzzy feelings about days browsing through hard-back, hard-copy, printed and bound Encyclopedias and books and printing off images from microfiche and using other "ancient" technologies (newspaper morgue, anyone?). Of course, schlepping around volumes of Encyclopedia may not be conducive to being flat on one's back. Long live the google!

:D

[earth mom]

27. K & R & Bookmarked. nt

[Hannah Bell]

31. kcik

[Hannah Bell]

32. kick

[Cerridwen]

33. Thank you.

I didn't see your earlier kick or I'd have said the same then.

:hi:

[Hannah Bell]

34. you're welcome. folks should know the continuity here....

[autorank]

35. Kick - Excellent

Well worth studying. The truth must get out. We can no longer rely on anyone but each other to learn
what a series of screwings we've taken. They'll try to deliver one more by making us pay for their mistakes
and huge debts. No way, not this time, not ever again.

:kick: