What the Federal Reserve really said

Pay attention: when Bernanke & Co. say "the economy will actually shrink and unemployment will rise higher," it's not so much a prediction as it is the Fed and feds revealing their designs on the economy -- how they will so "graciously" permit the economy to perform. Does anyone still wonder why I call this the Reichstag fire of the financial world?

And now Alan Greenspan is publicly supporting bank nationalization. Like all government programs, it'll start small. The bureaucrats will claim specific targets, but the language of the legislation will in no way confine them to a limited scope. Just a few of the "most troubled" banks, then a few more, and suddenly "mission creep" becomes an understatement. A formal takeover of all banks won't be necessary, anyway. De facto nationalization will come with sufficient control of the web, something like nationalizing a super-majority so that all other banks are effectively isolated from each other. At that point, the non-nationalized banks can do no business (no transfers, no borrowing, i.e. no financial conduits whatsoever) except with nationalized banks.

In the Book of Revelation it is written about the second beast, who "exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,"

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

This isn't just trusting an arsonist to putting out the fire he caused. This is an arsonist setting your house on fire, forcing you to trust him to put it out, forcing you to hire him to rebuild it according to his specifications, and all payable via a loan he'll so generously give you! The government created the crisis, fueled it, and now insists it alone can "fix things" (as it always does). This will involve a complete uprooting of every profit-engendering quality of the financial system, such as banks no longer lending to creditworthy people, but rather anyone "underprivileged" or "never got a fair shake in life." And the cherry on top is all the massive new federal debt that future generations will be paying.

Mark my words here: as bad as it is now, we haven't yet seen how finance will become politicians' ultimate weapon to stifle dissent and ensure obedience. Under such a system, much like in African dictatorships, any suspicion that you're not loyal, have mocked or derided a politician, etc., means blacklisting. Financial blacklisting. That means an inability to deposit savings, get a loan, or transmit money electronically. It's not impossible to live that way, but most people don't have the stomach and would rather lick the hands that feed them. Be watchful, for I believe in the coming years we'll see (and most won't realize until too late) what "the mark of the beast" is. Without control of the financial infrastructure, how else could the tyranny of the last days prevent (most) people from engaging in commerce sans the mark?

Greenspan is such a liar. There was never anything "free market" about what he did, like tightening monetary policy too much and causing the 2000-2001 downturn, and keeping interest rates too low for too long after that downturn to fuel today's housing bubble. He wants to scapegoat "the free market" when the free market wasn't even there. By definition, anything he did as a central banker was contrary to the free market, and he knows it, which is why he's flat-out lying. It's one thing for banks to pool resources voluntarily into a fund from which a troubled member can borrow, but quite another for the government to set up a central bank that devalues everyone's money in order to "save" a favored institution.

That word "favored" reminds me. I've always forgotten to mention something here that most of you didn't know. JP Morgan given a sweetheart $29 billion loan from the New York Federal Reserve Bank, but Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail. Like many, I naturally figured that it was because JPM had friends/allies at the New York Fed, and Lehman didn't.

Of course, it had nothing to do with the fact that Jamie Dimon, JPM's CEO, was sitting and still sits on the New York Fed board of directors. Nothing at all...right? Good lord, we shouldn't be surprised. Who needs a friend on the inside when your own chief is on the inside!

And where is the outcry about this blatant conflict of interest, other than a few relatively unknown bloggers? I never saw anything in the Wall Street Journal, which should have been on top of this. Geraldo Rivera didn't have a special investigation. I haven't seen a single major political columnist or blogger talk about this, even Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Instapundit or Michelle Malkin.

Where has JPM's General Counsel been, considering that Dimon participating in NY Fed decisions is a crime if JPM benefits? Even recusing himself can still taint any decisions. Sitting on the board of a Federal Reserve bank is something so extreme that even I, being on the compliance end and thus far from business strategy, could (and never should) get approval from my firm's Chief Compliance Officer and General Counsel. There would always be an inherent conflict of interest, and any reasonable person would have an insuperable suspicion that I was not impartial.

Dick Fuld, former CEO of Lehman, used to sit on the New York Fed board, so we can only guess that he wasn't as popular with the boys. Keeping Lehman Brothers alive just wasn't part of The Plan. On the other side of the pond, though, keeping Lloyds and Barclays was, and the latter snapped up Lehman's remains after a mere seven-hour hearing in front of an American judge. Democrats have accused Bush, Cheney and Halliburton of corruption because Halliburton got no-bid contracts. Where is their outcry about banks buying "failed" ones via government-arranged-and-approved deals, with no competitive bidding, like JPM did with Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual?