Ultra-Based Tucker Carlson vs. the Banks
Peter Navarro, known for his "America First" (see Sound Money Saved the American Revolution) economic policies and his role as a trade advisor in the Trump administration, has discussed the concept of a national bank. Navarro is a known critic of the Federal Reserve, blaming it for various economic issues and suggesting its gradual abolition. Navarro has advocated for the US dollar to be backed by a commodity like gold, which is a significant departure from the current fiat money system managed by the Federal Reserve. This view aligns with a desire for more direct government control over the money supply and less influence from an independent central bank. A national bank that creates money interest-free is the only option and is definitely worth exploring its potential implications within the American system. This is why Peter Navarro was tossed in prison. He challenged the imperial British monopoly over money and war.
President Trump has a history of confronting the Federal Reserve and its chair, Jerome Powell, a pattern that has continued since his return to office. This dynamic is a significant point of discussion in financial and political circles due to the long-standing principle of central bank independence. President Trump has called Jerome Powell "the worst fed chair in history." The Federal Reserve controls the US econmy through interest rates. A fact related to President Trump repeatedly calling for lower interest rates, arguing that "higher rates hinder economic growth, make it more expensive for the government to borrow, and put the U.S. at a disadvantage compared to other countries."
The first advantage would be the elimination of national debt interest (usury). One of the most significant potential benefits is the elimination of interest payments on the national debt. As of mid-July 2025, the U.S. national debt is approximately $36.2 to $36.6 trillion. That's debt slavery. If the government could create its own money interest-free, it wouldn't need to borrow from private banks or investors and pay interest, potentially freeing up trillions of dollars over time for public services, infrastructure, or tax cuts. This was the original American system.
There would then follow a reduced burden on taxpayers volunteering mostly under color of law. Without the need to finance interest on the national debt, the tax burden on subject citizens could potentially be significantly reduced.
There would be greater government control over the money supply that was removed when th Federal Reserve Act was slammed through the US congress in 1913. A national bank directly creating money (credit) would give the government more direct control over the money supply, potentially allowing for more precise targeting of economic goals like full employment or stable prices. The US government turned their responsibility for this over to the Federal Reserve.
There would be increased funding of public projects that have all come to an end in America. Interest-free money creation could directly fund essential public projects (infrastructure, education, healthcare) without the need for increased taxation or borrowing, potentially accelerating development and improving the quality of life for Americans.
America would achieve increased economic sovereignty it lost to the pirate City of London financial and monetary imperial British empire. It could be argued that such a system would enhance national sovereignty by reducing reliance on private financial institutions and international lenders.
It has been pushed by the central bankers there would exist political influence and abuse if there existed a national bank controlled by the government. Their reasoning is giving a national bank direct control over money creation without checks and balances could lead to political manipulation. Political manipulation? Look around you. Do you see political manipulation? The current monetary system thrives and is hinged on political manipulation with most US senators and congress members literally being owned by private interests. The central bankers then put out the ridiculous view that governments might be tempted to print money to fund popular but economically unsustainable programs, especially during election cycles, leading to boom-and-bust cycles. This is nothing but subterfuge by the central bankers seeded into the public discourse to maintain their private monopoly of money creation.
The idea of a national bank creating interest-free money presents a compelling vision for America of eliminating debt and funding public services directly. Whether such a radical shift would be "the best monetary policy" for America is a complex question with strong arguments on both sides. It would require a fundamental re-evaluation of economic principles, institutional structures, and the very nature of money itself. The bottom line is the Federal Reserve Notes you hold in your pocket are not yours, you didn't create them and you certainly do not own them. They are debt instruments.
________
Look who has all the money to buy homes in the US:
Related:
Termites in California recklessly spending, siphoning and embezzling:
DOT terminates $4B for California bullet train. 16 years, $15B spent, no track laid. Rail stocks exposed.
Don't fall for the techno geek bullshit about digital currencies either:
International Public Notice: Digital Currencies Are Not "Safe"
International Public Notice: Digital Currencies Are Not "Safe"
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.