The Banks Don't Trust Each Other, So Why Should We?

"Banks no longer trust each other because of bad debts."

So say BBC financial experts. Which raises the obvious question. They don't trust each other, and in spite of the $150 billion-plus of U.S. taxpayers money, they are still not lending money to one another and credit markets are still stalled. Maybe they understand better than anyone just how untrustworthy they are.

So why would we want to pour yet more hundreds of billions of dollars into their coffers? Just last week the Government Accountability Office reported:

"Treasury has yet to address a number of critical issues, including determining how it will ensure that CPP [the Capital Purchase Program] is achieving its intended goals and monitoring compliance with limitations on executive compensation and dividend payments."

So, for all we know, we taxpayers may be taking thousands of dollars out of our wallets (and our kids' and grandkids' wallets) to pay for gold-plated executive bonuses and big shareholder pay-offs.

There are likely more credit crises coming down the pike, and we'll probably see a steady stream of credit card companies, car loan executives, and others coming to Congress for bailouts.

But wait, we still need some money to pay for Obama's promising economic recovery program, which has the big advantage of funding needed infrastructure and school repair, and energy efficiency upgrades, instead of the global casino economy. That's all good, but if the Obama administration follows usual practice, the U.S. government will borrow money at interest from those self-same banks we are bailing out, plus a bunch of foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds. Is it just me, or does this not make sense?

It turns out there is another option. The U.S. government does not need to borrow money from private banks -- it can own the banks and thus create the money itself. Or it can just print the money. The right to issue money is in the Constitution, and no, it doesn't have to be inflationary. Attorney and author Ellen Brown explains how it can be done in a remarkable article featured on the YES! magazine website. And before you dismiss it as too good to be true, imagine what it would mean to our taxes and the debt of future generations if we could stop borrowing money, at interest, from the banks, and instead issue money ourselves. Check it out.

Follow Sarah van Gelder on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SarahVanGelder

Comments

[outnow]

Ellen Brown understands the "creation of money." We are slaves to the banksters who finally passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Woodrow Wilson signed the law. later stating that he had sold the country down the road to perdition. William Jennings Brant finally supported the Act because the word "Federal" was used to mislead people into ignoring that the European System of private central bankers was the main reason behind the American Revolution. The Bank of England and the East India Company were set up in England in 1763 to promote a colonial system of exploitation. The "fiat" money and "fractional Reserve system" allow bankers to charge interest to the taxpayers on money they issue in the form of credit.

The "free trade" was opposed by many patriotic presidents, including Lincoln. Central banking by private interests controlled from Europe was also opposed. Reading the Constitution, the US government is given the power to "coin money." Congress was assured that central banking would eliminate the business cycle of bust and boom - right up until the the crash of 1929, only 16 years after the "Fed" was created.

It is time to realize that US citizens are merely wage slaves to corporate interests, including the banksters. Karl Marx understood that unregulated capitalism would destroy itself. Benjamin Franklin and Abrahan Lincoln knew that the fastest way to the bottom was delegating the creation of money to private banks. The Fed is no more "federal" than Federal Express.

[drjay79]

If their not doing what we hoped for just take the money back.