R.I.P. (Rest In Perdition) Jacob
User
I heard a rumor today that Lord Jacob Rothschild died? Do you think Hell might be under new management?
ChatGPT
User
How much do you think he was worth?
ChatGPT
I’m sorry, but I don’t have real-time information, and I don’t have any specific details about the person you’re referring to. If you provide more context or details, I can try to help answer your question to the best of my ability based on the information available up to my last update in January 2022.
User
Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, OM, GBE, CVO (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024) was a British peer, investment banker and a member of the Rothschild banking family.
He held important roles in business, finance and British public life, and was active in several charitable and philanthropic areas.
Early life
Born in Cambridge, England,[1] on 29 April 1936, Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild was the eldest son of Victor Rothschild, 3rd Baron Rothschild, by his first wife Barbara Judith Rothschild (née Hutchinson).[2] His father was born into a Jewish family, while his mother converted to Orthodox Judaism when they married.[3] Rothschild was educated at Eton College and then at Christ Church, Oxford, where he gained a First in history, tutored by Hugh Trevor-Roper.[4] At Oxford he was a member of the Bullingdon Club.[5] Emma Georgina Rothschild is his half-sister and Amschel Rothschild was his half-brother.
Business career
From 1963 Rothschild worked at the family bank N M Rothschild & Sons in London, before resigning in 1980 due to a family dispute.[2] The chairmanship of the bank had passed from his father, who had chosen to follow a scientific career and had lost control of the majority voting shares, to his distant cousin Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild. He sold his minority stake in the bank, but took independent control of Rothschild Investment Trust (now RIT Capital Partners plc), an investment trust listed on the London Stock Exchange.[4]
After resigning from the bank in 1980, Rothschild went on to found J. Rothschild Assurance Group (now St. James’s Place plc) with Sir Mark Weinberg in 1991.[6] In 1989, he joined forces with Sir James Goldsmith and Kerry Packer in an unsuccessful bid for British American Tobacco.[2]
Rothschild was Chairman of RIT Capital Partners plc, one of the largest investment trusts quoted on the London Stock Exchange with a net asset value of about £2 billion.[7] He was Chairman of J Rothschild Capital Management, a subsidiary of RIT Capital Partners plc.[8] He also retained many other venture capital and property interests.
From November 2003 until his retirement in 2008, he was Deputy Chairman of BSkyB Television[9] and until 2008 he was a Director of RHJ International. He was also a Member of the council for the Duchy of Cornwall for the Prince of Wales[10] and a member of the International Advisory Board of The Blackstone Group.[11]
Rothschild was appointed Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (CVO) in the 2020 New Year Honours for services to the Duchy of Cornwall.[12]
Oil interests
In 2003, it was reported that Russian oil industrialist Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s shares in YUKOS passed to him under a deal which they had concluded prior to Khodorkovsky’s arrest.[13][14]
In November 2010, an entity affiliated with Rothschild purchased a 5% equity interest in Genie Energy, a subsidiary of IDT Corporation, for $10 million.[15][non-primary source needed] In 2013, Israel granted Genie Energy exclusive oil and gas exploration rights to a 153-square mile (396 km2) area in the southern part of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.[16]
Personal life
In 1961, Rothschild married Serena Mary Dunn, a granddaughter of the Canadian financier Sir James Dunn, and they had four children, consisting of three daughters and one son.[17] Lady Rothschild died in 2019.[2] Their four children are:
The Hon. Hannah Mary Rothschild Brookfield (22 May 1962). She married William Brookfield in 1994 and they were divorced. They have three daughters.
The Hon. Beth Matilda Rothschild Tomassini (27 February 1964). She married Antonio Tomassini in 1991 and they were divorced. They have three children.
The Hon. Emily Magda Rothschild Freeman-Attwood (19 December 1967). She married Julian Freeman-Attwood on 25 June 1998. They have two daughters.
Nathaniel Philip Victor James Rothschild, 5th Baron Rothschild (12 July 1971).[18] He married Annabelle Neilson on 13 November 1995, and they were divorced in 1997. He married Loretta Basey in 2016.
Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, died on 26 February 2024, at the age of 87.[2]
Philanthropy
Jacob Rothschild played a prominent part in Arts philanthropy in Britain. He was Chairman of Trustees of the National Gallery from 1985 to 1991, and from 1992 to 1998, chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. From 1994 to 1998, and at the invitation of the Prime Minister, he was chairman of the Heritage Lottery Fund, responsible for distributing the proceeds of the National Lottery to the heritage sector, an influential post which oversaw the distribution of £1.2 billion in grants.[citation needed]
At one time he was also a Trustee of the State Hermitage Museum of St Petersburg (retired 2008);[19] a Trustee of the Qatar Museums Authority (retired 2010);[20] Chairman of the Pritzker Prize for Architecture (2002–2004);[21] Chairman of both the Gilbert Collection Trust and the Hermitage Development Trust, Somerset House;[19] a Trustee and Honorary Fellow of the Courtauld Institute, Somerset House;[22] and a Fellow, Benefactor, and member of the Visitors’ Committees of the Ashmolean Museum Oxford (retired 2008).[23] In 2014, he received the J. Paul Getty Medal “for extraordinary achievement in the fields of museology, art historical research, philanthropy, conservation and conservation science”.[24]
The central courtyard of Somerset House, London.
He was especially active in the project to restore Somerset House in London, for which he helped secure the Gilbert Collection and ensured the long-term future of the Courtauld Institute of Art. As a private project, he carried out the restoration of Spencer House, one of the finest surviving 18th century London townhouses, adjacent to his own offices.[25]
In 1993 he joined with John Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Preston Candover, to set up the Butrint Foundation[26] to record and conserve the archaeological site of Butrint in Albania, close to his holiday home on Corfu. Rothschild remained Chairman of the Butrint Foundation up until his death.[27]
Jacob Rothschild also followed the Rothschild family’s charitable interests in Israel and was the chairman of Yad Hanadiv, the family foundation which gave the Knesset and the Supreme Court buildings to Israel between 1989 and 2018. He was also president of The Rothschild Foundation (Hanadiv) Europe,[28] and Patron and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of The Rothschild Foundation.[29] In addition, he was the Honorary President of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research.[30]
He served as a Member of the Arts & Humanities Research Board, set up by the British government, is an honorary fellow of the British Academy, and a Trustee of The Prince of Wales’s Charitable Fund.[31][non-primary source needed] He was also honorary president of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research.[30]
He had also been a Member of the UK Main Honours Board (retired 2008); Chairman of the Honours Committee for Arts and Media (retired 2008); Trustee of the Edmond J Safra Foundation (retired 2010); and a Member of committee of the Henry J Kravis Prize for Creative Philanthropy (retired 2010).[citation needed]
Waddesdon Manor
In 1988 he inherited from his aunt Dorothy de Rothschild, the Waddesdon and Eythrope estates in Buckinghamshire, and began a close association with Waddesdon Manor, the house and grounds which were built by Baron Ferdinand de Rothschild in the 1880s and bequeathed to the National Trust in 1957 by his cousin, James A. de Rothschild. He was a major benefactor of the restoration of Waddesdon Manor through a private family charitable trust and, in an unusual arrangement, had been given authority by the National Trust to run Waddesdon Manor as a semi-independent operation.[32] The cellars at Waddesdon Manor house his personal collection of 15,000 bottles of Rothschild wines dating as far back as 1870.[citation needed]
Open to the public, Waddesdon attracted over 466,000 visitors in 2018,[33] with 157,000 visiting the house in 2015.[34] Waddesdon has won many awards over the last 20 years, including Visit England’s “Large Visitor Attraction of the Year” category in 2017,[35] Museum of the Year Award and Best National Trust Property.[36]
He commissioned the 2015 RIBA Award winner Flint House[37] on the Waddesdon Manor estate in Buckinghamshire. Rothschild donated the property to the Rothschild Foundation which manages the rest of the estate for the National Trust.
The estate has been a venue for visiting heads of state including U.S. presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.[citation needed] Margaret Thatcher received French president François Mitterrand there at a summit in 1990.[citation needed] It hosted the European Economic Round Table conference in 2002, organised by Warren Buffett and attended by James Wolfensohn, former president of the World Bank, and actor Arnold Schwarzenegger.[38]
ChatGPT
As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, I don’t have real-time information on individuals’ net worth, and I cannot provide the most recent details about Jacob Rothschild’s wealth at the time of his passing in February 2024. Wealth can vary based on investments, market conditions, and various factors.
For the most accurate and up-to-date information, it’s recommended to check reliable financial news sources, official statements, or financial publications that cover information on individuals’ net worth.
User
What was he worth as of your cutoff date?
ChatGPT
As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, I don’t have specific information on Jacob Rothschild’s net worth. Net worth can fluctuate due to various factors such as investments, market conditions, and business ventures. For the most accurate and up-to-date information on Jacob Rothschild’s net worth at that time, it’s advisable to refer to financial news sources or reliable publications that cover information on individual wealth.
User
More than 1 million?
ChatGPT
Jacob Rothschild’s net worth was significantly more than 1 million. However, specific details about his net worth were not publicly disclosed, and it’s challenging to provide an exact figure without recent and detailed financial information. The Rothschild family is known for its wealth and involvement in banking and various industries, and individual net worth within the family can be substantial.
User
Less that 55 Trillion?
ChatGPT
As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, there’s no credible information to suggest that Jacob Rothschild’s net worth or the Rothschild family’s wealth is anywhere near 55 trillion. Such an amount would be extraordinarily high, exceeding the combined net worth of the world’s wealthiest individuals and families.
Net worth figures for individuals, especially those of private individuals like Jacob Rothschild, are typically estimates, and exact figures may not be publicly disclosed. While the Rothschild family is known for its wealth, any specific figures would be speculative without reliable and up-to-date financial information. For the most accurate and recent details on Jacob Rothschild’s net worth, if available, it’s recommended to check reputable financial news sources or official statements.
User
I thought I was being conservative?
ChatGPT
I understand the context of your question now. Even with a more conservative estimate, suggesting a net worth of 55 trillion for an individual, including Jacob Rothschild, is not realistic. The world’s wealthiest individuals, as of my last knowledge update in January 2022, have net worth figures in the range of several billion to a few hundred billion dollars. Trillions would be an astronomical and implausible amount for an individual’s net worth.
It’s crucial to rely on accurate and credible financial information for assessments of net worth. If there have been significant developments or changes since my last update, it’s advisable to check the latest reports from reliable financial news sources for the most current details.
User
If they control the central banks, and the central banks have unlimited paper with which to print counterfeit money, isn’t their wealth effectively limitless?
ChatGPT
The notion that a group or individual, even if they were influential in financial circles, could have limitless wealth by controlling central banks and engaging in unlimited printing of money is not accurate. While it’s true that central banks have the authority to issue currency, there are several important considerations:
Inflation: Printing an excessive amount of money can lead to inflation. When there is an oversupply of money in an economy, it can erode the purchasing power of the currency, leading to rising prices. Central banks typically aim to manage inflation within a target range.
Economic Consequences: Uncontrolled printing of money can have severe economic consequences, including destabilizing financial markets, distorting economic signals, and causing imbalances in the economy.
Global Economic System: The global economic system is interconnected, and actions in one part of the world can have repercussions elsewhere. Unwise monetary policies that lead to economic instability can affect not only the country engaging in such practices but also the global economy.
Legal and Regulatory Frameworks: Central banks operate within legal and regulatory frameworks. While they have a significant degree of autonomy, there are limits to their actions, and engaging in activities that violate these frameworks can have legal consequences.
Public Perception: The legitimacy and stability of a currency rely on public trust. Engaging in activities perceived as manipulative or fraudulent can erode public trust in the currency, affecting its value.
It’s important to approach discussions about wealth and financial influence with a critical and evidence-based perspective. The idea that any individual or group could have limitless wealth through control of central banks oversimplifies the complexities of the global economic system and the checks and balances in place to prevent abuses of power.
User
Have you read The Creature from Jekyll Island?
ChatGPT
“The Creature from Jekyll Island” is a book written by G. Edward Griffin that explores the creation and functions of the Federal Reserve System in the United States. The book delves into the history of central banking, particularly the circumstances surrounding the formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 at a meeting on Jekyll Island.
While the book raises various criticisms and conspiracy theories related to central banking, it’s important to note that the perspectives presented in the book are not universally accepted. Central banks, including the Federal Reserve, play crucial roles in managing monetary policy, but attributing limitless wealth to individuals or families based on control of central banks oversimplifies the complex factors that influence global economies and financial systems.
The wealth of individuals or families, including the Rothschild family, is influenced by a variety of factors, such as investments, business ventures, and the broader economic landscape. Claims of limitless wealth due to control of central banks should be approached with critical scrutiny, as they often oversimplify the intricate workings of financial systems. Additionally, central banks operate within legal frameworks and are subject to oversight and regulations.
User
So unlimited printing capacity?
ChatGPT
While central banks have the authority to create and manage a nation’s money supply, the idea of “unlimited printing capacity” is a simplified and somewhat misleading characterization. Central banks, including the Federal Reserve in the United States or the European Central Bank in the Eurozone, control the money supply through various mechanisms, such as setting interest rates, open market operations, and reserve requirements.
The term “printing money” is often used as a metaphor, but in reality, modern central banking involves more sophisticated processes. Central banks can influence the money supply electronically by adjusting interest rates, buying or selling government securities, and setting policies to manage inflation and stabilize the economy.
While central banks can create money, doing so excessively or without consideration for economic conditions can lead to inflation and other negative consequences. Inflation occurs when there is too much money in circulation relative to the available goods and services, leading to a decrease in the value of money.
It’s important to understand that the actions of central banks are constrained by economic principles, legal frameworks, and the need for stable monetary systems. Claims of “unlimited printing capacity” can oversimplify the complexities of monetary policy and may not accurately reflect the checks and balances in place within modern financial systems.
User
What is quantitative easing then if not printing?
ChatGPT
Quantitative easing (QE) is a monetary policy tool used by central banks to stimulate the economy when standard monetary policy measures, such as adjusting interest rates, may be insufficient. While QE involves increasing the money supply, it’s different from traditional printing money in a literal sense.
Here’s a simplified explanation of how QE typically works:
Asset Purchases: The central bank purchases financial assets, such as government bonds or other securities, from the market. These assets are typically held by banks and other financial institutions.
Cash Injection: In exchange for these assets, the central bank injects money into the banking system. This injection is typically in the form of electronic reserves credited to the accounts of the banks.
Liquidity Boost: The goal is to increase the liquidity in the financial system. By purchasing assets and injecting money, the central bank aims to encourage lending and investment, which, in turn, can stimulate economic activity.
Key points to note:
Digital Reserves: In modern economies, money is often in electronic form. The central bank doesn’t necessarily physically print more currency; it increases digital reserves in the banking system.
Asset Prices: QE can also impact asset prices. As the central bank buys financial assets, it can influence their prices, potentially affecting interest rates and encouraging investments in other assets.
Inflation Control: Central banks use QE cautiously to avoid excessive inflation. If too much money is injected into the economy without a corresponding increase in goods and services, it can lead to inflationary pressures.
In summary, while QE involves increasing the money supply, it is a more nuanced and targeted approach than simply “printing money.” The aim is to address specific economic challenges and encourage economic activity without causing undue inflationary pressures.
User
So printing?
ChatGPT
In a colloquial sense, people often refer to quantitative easing (QE) as a form of “printing money,” but it’s essential to clarify that this is a simplification. The term “printing money” traditionally implies physically creating new banknotes, which is not precisely how QE works in modern economies.
In the context of QE:
Digital Reserves: Central banks typically create new money in digital form. They electronically credit the reserves of banks in exchange for the assets they purchase.
Asset Purchases: Instead of physically printing money, central banks buy financial assets such as government bonds or mortgage-backed securities.
Monetary Base Expansion: QE expands the monetary base, which includes physical currency in circulation and electronic reserves held by banks.
While the end result involves an increase in the money supply, the process is more nuanced than simply printing physical currency. The intention is to provide liquidity to financial institutions, lower long-term interest rates, and encourage lending and spending.
It’s a mechanism used by central banks to navigate economic challenges, especially when traditional monetary policy tools, like adjusting interest rates, may be limited. The effectiveness of QE and its potential side effects are topics of ongoing economic debate and research.
User
So, printing out of thin air with no collateral. It’s magic.
ChatGPT
Quantitative easing (QE) involves the central bank creating new money electronically to purchase financial assets like government bonds. While the term “printing money” is often used metaphorically, the process doesn’t necessarily involve physically printing more currency. Instead, it increases the digital reserves in the banking system.
The key aspects of QE include:
Electronic Reserves: The central bank electronically creates reserves and credits the accounts of financial institutions.
Asset Purchases: The central bank uses these created reserves to buy financial assets like government bonds or mortgage-backed securities.
Increased Liquidity: By injecting money into the financial system, QE aims to boost liquidity, encourage lending, and stimulate economic activity.
While the creation of money in this manner might seem like “magic” in a metaphorical sense, it’s a deliberate monetary policy tool. However, it’s not without potential consequences, such as influencing asset prices and potentially contributing to inflationary pressures.
It’s crucial to understand that central banks typically employ QE in specific economic conditions, and the process is subject to careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences. The effectiveness of QE and its impact on the economy can vary depending on various factors.
User
Or is it sorcery?
ChatGPT
No, quantitative easing (QE) is not sorcery. It’s a monetary policy tool employed by central banks to manage the money supply and stimulate economic activity. While the term “printing money” is sometimes used metaphorically, QE involves creating digital reserves electronically rather than physically printing currency.
The process is grounded in economic principles and is a response to specific economic conditions. Central banks use QE to address issues such as low inflation, deflationary pressures, or economic downturns. The aim is to increase liquidity in the financial system, encourage lending, and promote economic growth.
While the concept of creating money electronically may seem like magic in a metaphorical sense, it’s a controlled and deliberate action guided by economic theories and policy considerations. The success and impact of QE depend on various factors, and central banks carefully assess the potential consequences of such measures, including their effects on inflation and financial markets.
User
So if I go to the bank for a load and offer money I just printed as collateral, that will suffice?
ChatGPT
No, offering money that you personally printed as collateral for a loan is not a valid or legal practice. Banks and financial institutions have strict regulations and standards for collateral to ensure the security of loans. Legitimate collateral typically includes assets with established value, such as real estate, vehicles, or financial instruments.
Using self-printed money as collateral would not be accepted because:
Legal Tender: Money must be issued and recognized as legal tender by the government. Self-printed money does not hold the same status and is not recognized as valid currency.
Counterfeiting: Creating counterfeit currency is illegal and can result in criminal charges. Banks have rigorous processes to verify the authenticity of collateral to prevent fraud and illegal activities.
Value Assessment: Collateral is used to secure a loan based on its actual value. Self-printed money would lack an established value and could not be reliably assessed.
If you need a loan, it’s essential to provide legitimate collateral and follow legal and financial procedures. Attempting to use counterfeit or self-printed money could lead to serious legal consequences. Always adhere to established banking practices and regulations when seeking financial services.
User
Well, how can such money be real if it can’t be offered by a borrower to a bank as collateral?
ChatGPT
Legitimate money is issued and regulated by the government and central banks. It is recognized as legal tender and holds a stable value within the national economy. The currency issued by these authorities is backed by the government’s credit and the country’s economic stability. Counterfeit money, or money not issued by a legitimate authority, is illegal and not considered valid currency.
When a borrower provides collateral to a bank, the bank assesses the value and legitimacy of the assets offered. Legitimate collateral typically includes assets such as real estate, vehicles, or financial instruments that have recognized value and can be verified. Offering self-printed money as collateral is not a viable option because:
Illegal Activity: Creating and using counterfeit money is against the law. Banks cannot accept assets that are obtained through illegal means.
Lack of Recognized Value: Self-printed money lacks the recognized value and stability associated with official currency. It cannot be reliably assessed or used as collateral.
Trust and Verification: Banks operate within a framework of trust and verification. They must ensure that the assets offered as collateral are legitimate and can be legally possessed by the borrower.
In the financial system, the issuance and regulation of currency are fundamental aspects that maintain stability and prevent fraudulent activities. Legitimate financial transactions rely on the use of officially recognized currency issued by government authorities.
User
Which is it? Does the Government issue money as laid out in the Constitution, or did they subcontract it to a private bank owned and controlled by shadowy figures, many of whom foreign?
ChatGPT
The process of money creation and management involves a combination of government and central bank actions, depending on the country. The specifics can vary, but I’ll provide a general overview:
Government Authority: In many countries, the government has the constitutional authority to issue currency. However, the actual physical printing of banknotes is often subcontracted to specialized government facilities or printing agencies.
Central Bank Role: Central banks, which are often independent entities from the government, play a significant role in managing the money supply. They have the authority to issue and control the supply of money, often through mechanisms like setting interest rates and conducting open market operations.
Private Banking System: Commercial banks also play a role in the money creation process through the fractional reserve banking system. When banks make loans, they effectively create new money through the process of lending. This is based on the principle that only a fraction of the total deposits needs to be held in reserve.
Concerns and discussions about private central banking institutions being owned or controlled by certain individuals or entities, sometimes referred to as shadowy figures, have been the subject of historical and contemporary debate. Some countries have central banks that are more independent from the government, while others have more direct government involvement.
It’s important to note that the specifics vary by country, and the processes involved can be complex. Additionally, conspiracy theories about secretive control of central banks often lack credible evidence. Public oversight, transparency, and adherence to legal frameworks are essential components of a stable and trustworthy monetary system. If you have specific concerns about the monetary system in a particular country, it’s advisable to refer to credible sources and official information.
User
I’m speaking of the US, and you know it.
ChatGPT
In the United States, the process of money creation involves a combination of government and private entities, with a key role played by the Federal Reserve System. Here’s a simplified overview:
Government Authority: The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to coin money and regulate its value. The Department of the Treasury oversees the production of coins and paper currency.
Federal Reserve System (Fed): The Federal Reserve is the central banking system of the United States. It was created by Congress and operates independently. The Fed has the authority to issue Federal Reserve Notes (U.S. dollars), set monetary policy, and regulate the money supply.
Fractional Reserve Banking: Commercial banks, which are private entities, play a role in the money creation process through fractional reserve banking. When banks make loans, they create new money in the form of deposits. The actual printing of physical currency is done by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, a part of the Department of the Treasury.
The Federal Reserve’s decisions and policies are influenced by a Board of Governors, which is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. While the Fed operates independently, it is subject to oversight and accountability to Congress.
Debates and discussions about the Federal Reserve’s structure, policies, and ownership have been ongoing for many years. It’s important to note that the Federal Reserve is not a privately owned institution in the sense that it is owned by individuals for profit. It is more accurately described as a quasi-public institution with a complex structure designed to balance public and private interests.
If you have specific concerns or questions about the U.S. monetary system, it’s advisable to refer to credible sources, official documents, and statements from relevant authorities for accurate and up-to-date information.
User
What oversight does the US Government provide the Federal Reserve?
ChatGPT
The U.S. government provides oversight of the Federal Reserve through several mechanisms, aiming to balance the independence of the central bank with accountability to the public and elected officials. Here are key aspects of the oversight of the Federal Reserve:
Appointments and Confirmation: The President of the United States appoints members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. These appointments are subject to confirmation by the Senate. The Board consists of seven members, each serving a 14-year term, and no two terms expire in the same year.
Reports and Testimonies: The Federal Reserve is required to submit regular reports and provide testimonies to Congress. The Chair of the Federal Reserve, along with other members of the Board, testifies before congressional committees, such as the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Oversight Committees: Congressional committees, including the Joint Economic Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, also play a role in overseeing the Federal Reserve’s activities. They review the central bank’s policies, decisions, and reports.
Audit Requirements: The Federal Reserve is subject to audit requirements, though the scope of these audits is limited. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) can audit various aspects of the Federal Reserve’s activities, excluding certain monetary policy deliberations.
Financial Accountability: The Federal Reserve is subject to financial accountability through its reporting requirements and transparency measures. Its financial statements are audited by an independent auditor, and the results are made available to the public.
While the Federal Reserve is designed to operate independently to insulate monetary policy decisions from short-term political pressures, this independence is not absolute. The oversight mechanisms mentioned above ensure accountability to the public and elected representatives while safeguarding the central bank’s ability to make decisions based on economic considerations.
User
Has the Federal Reserve ever been audited?
ChatGPT
Yes, the Federal Reserve has undergone various audits, but it’s important to clarify the nature and scope of these audits.
Financial Audits: The Federal Reserve is subject to regular financial audits. The financial statements of the Federal Reserve System are audited annually by an independent external auditor. The results of these audits are published in the Annual Report of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Limited GAO Audits: The Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is an independent, non-partisan agency that works for Congress, has the authority to conduct audits of certain aspects of the Federal Reserve’s activities. However, there are limitations on what GAO can audit. The GAO is restricted from auditing certain areas, including monetary policy decisions and deliberations, as well as transactions with foreign central banks.
The GAO audits focus on aspects such as the Federal Reserve’s financial statements, emergency lending programs, and other operational matters. The audit scope is designed to balance transparency and accountability with the need to preserve the independence of the Federal Reserve in conducting monetary policy.
The debate over auditing the Federal Reserve has been ongoing, with some advocating for broader audits to include all aspects of the central bank’s operations, while others emphasize the importance of maintaining the independence of monetary policy decisions.
In summary, while certain aspects of the Federal Reserve’s operations are subject to audit, there are restrictions in place to protect the independence of certain functions, particularly those related to monetary policy.
User
When was the last time the Fed was audited?
ChatGPT
As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, the Federal Reserve undergoes regular financial audits, and the financial statements are audited annually by an independent external auditor. These audits are routine and are part of the standard accountability and transparency measures.
For the specific details of the most recent audit and the latest financial statements, you would need to refer to the Federal Reserve’s official publications, such as its Annual Report or other financial reports. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) periodically conducts specific audits of certain aspects of the Federal Reserve’s activities, and the results of these audits are made publicly available.
To get the most up-to-date information on the Federal Reserve’s audits, please check the latest reports and publications on the official website of the Federal Reserve or refer to relevant government oversight agencies.
User
If it’s audited, why is the rallying cry of Ron Paul to ‘Audit the Fed?’
ChatGPT
The rallying cry to “Audit the Fed” is associated with calls for a more comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve, beyond the routine financial audits that are already conducted. Ron Paul, a former U.S. Congressman and presidential candidate, has been a prominent advocate for auditing the Federal Reserve and increasing transparency in its operations.
The specific focus of the “Audit the Fed” movement includes:
Monetary Policy Transparency: Advocates argue for greater transparency in the Federal Reserve’s decision-making process, especially regarding monetary policy. They seek a more detailed understanding of how and why specific policy decisions are made, including the factors considered in setting interest rates.
Examination of Emergency Lending Programs: The movement calls for a thorough examination of emergency lending programs and interventions the Federal Reserve might undertake during times of economic stress. Supporters of “Audit the Fed” want more insight into how these programs are designed, implemented, and their impact on the broader economy.
Broader GAO Audits: Some proposals seek to expand the authority of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct more comprehensive audits of the Federal Reserve’s activities, including those related to monetary policy.
While the Federal Reserve is subject to financial audits, there are limitations on the GAO’s ability to audit certain areas, especially those related to monetary policy decisions. The “Audit the Fed” movement represents a desire for increased transparency, public scrutiny, and understanding of the central bank’s operations, with the aim of ensuring accountability and addressing concerns about potential impacts on the economy.
It’s worth noting that discussions around auditing the Fed involve complex considerations, as there’s also a need to preserve the independence of the central bank in making monetary policy decisions.
User
So what isn’t being audited that Ron Paul would like audited?
ChatGPT
Ron Paul’s rallying cry to “Audit the Fed” primarily refers to a desire for a more comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve, specifically regarding its monetary policy decisions and operations that were traditionally shielded from full external scrutiny. The specific aspects that Ron Paul and others have called to audit include:
Monetary Policy Decisions: The Federal Reserve conducts monetary policy, including decisions related to interest rates and money supply. Ron Paul has advocated for a more thorough examination of these policy decisions and the factors influencing them.
Transparency in Emergency Lending: During times of financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has the authority to engage in emergency lending to stabilize the financial system. Ron Paul and others have called for increased transparency regarding the recipients and terms of emergency lending to ensure accountability.
Foreign Transactions: Some have expressed concerns about the extent of the Federal Reserve’s involvement in international financial transactions, including currency swaps and other arrangements with foreign central banks.
Full GAO Audits: While the Federal Reserve undergoes financial audits and certain reviews by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), there have been calls for broader GAO audits that cover a wider range of the central bank’s functions, including its monetary policy decisions.
It’s important to note that the Federal Reserve has traditionally been designed to operate independently in conducting monetary policy to avoid short-term political pressures. However, the call for a more extensive audit represents a desire for increased transparency and accountability without compromising the central bank’s ability to make effective and unbiased policy decisions.
The extent and limitations of audits, as well as the broader issues related to the Federal Reserve’s transparency and independence, have been subjects of ongoing debate and discussion in the realm of monetary policy and financial oversight.
User
Which parts does he claim are opaque?
ChatGPT
Ron Paul and others who advocate for a more comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve often express concerns about the lack of transparency in specific areas of the central bank’s operations. While the Federal Reserve undergoes regular financial audits, critics argue that certain aspects remain opaque or shielded from public scrutiny. Key areas of concern include:
Monetary Policy Decision-Making: Critics argue that the Federal Reserve’s decision-making process regarding monetary policy, including interest rate decisions and money supply management, is not transparent enough. Calls for greater visibility into the deliberations of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the body responsible for setting monetary policy, are common.
Emergency Lending Programs: During times of financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has the authority to engage in emergency lending programs to stabilize the financial system. Critics seek more transparency regarding the recipients of emergency loans, the terms of these loans, and the decision-making process behind such programs.
Foreign Transactions: Some critics are concerned about the extent of the Federal Reserve’s involvement in international financial transactions, including currency swaps and other arrangements with foreign central banks. They argue that these transactions lack sufficient oversight and transparency.
Full GAO Audits: While certain aspects of the Federal Reserve’s operations are subject to audits by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), critics, including Ron Paul, have called for broader GAO audits that cover a wider range of the central bank’s functions. This includes a desire for more extensive reviews of the decision-making processes related to monetary policy.
It’s important to note that these concerns are part of a broader debate about finding the right balance between the independence of the Federal Reserve and the need for transparency and accountability in its operations. The Federal Reserve’s unique position in the U.S. financial system has led to ongoing discussions about the scope of audits and the degree of openness in its decision-making processes.
User
Be specific.
ChatGPT
Ron Paul and advocates for auditing the Federal Reserve often express specific concerns about transparency in the following areas:
FOMC Deliberations: Critics argue that the decision-making process of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), particularly discussions about interest rate decisions and monetary policy, is not transparent enough. They call for a more detailed and open account of FOMC deliberations.
Emergency Lending Programs: Concerns revolve around the lack of transparency in emergency lending programs during financial crises. Critics seek more detailed information about which institutions received emergency loans, the terms of those loans, and the criteria used in making such decisions.
Foreign Transactions: Some critics question the transparency of the Federal Reserve’s involvement in international transactions, such as currency swaps with foreign central banks. They advocate for more disclosure about the nature and extent of these transactions.
Full GAO Audits: While the Federal Reserve undergoes financial audits, there are calls for broader audits conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that cover additional aspects of the central bank’s operations. Critics seek a more comprehensive review, including examinations of monetary policy decision-making.
Ron Paul’s advocacy for “Audit the Fed” has been centered on these specific concerns, emphasizing the need for increased transparency in the central bank’s operations, especially in areas related to monetary policy, emergency lending, and international transactions. It’s important to note that debates around these issues have persisted for years, reflecting differing views on the appropriate balance between the Federal Reserve’s independence and the demand for increased accountability.
User
Should the Fed meetings be livestreamed?
ChatGPT
The question of whether Federal Reserve meetings should be livestreamed is a matter of ongoing debate and depends on various perspectives. Here are arguments on both sides:
Arguments in Favor of Livestreaming:
Increased Transparency: Livestreaming meetings would provide the public with direct access to the discussions and decision-making processes of the Federal Reserve, promoting transparency.
Public Education: Livestreaming could serve an educational purpose, helping the public understand the complexities of monetary policy and the factors influencing economic decisions.
Enhanced Accountability: Livestreaming could contribute to greater accountability, as policymakers would be aware that their discussions are being observed by the public, potentially influencing the clarity of their communications.
Real-Time Information: Livestreaming would provide real-time information to the public, allowing for immediate access to the latest developments in monetary policy.
Arguments Against Livestreaming:
Impact on Policy Discussions: Critics argue that livestreaming could have a chilling effect on policy discussions, as policymakers may be hesitant to express candid views or engage in open debates if they know their discussions are being broadcast live.
Market Sensitivity: Livestreaming could introduce an element of market sensitivity, as financial markets might react in real-time to statements and discussions, potentially leading to unintended market volatility.
Focus on Prepared Statements: Policymakers might become more scripted and rely heavily on prepared statements, limiting the spontaneity and depth of discussions during meetings.
Security and Confidentiality: Discussions at the Federal Reserve often involve sensitive economic and financial information. Livestreaming could raise concerns about the security and confidentiality of such discussions.
Ultimately, the decision to livestream Federal Reserve meetings involves weighing the benefits of increased transparency against potential drawbacks related to policy discussions, market reactions, and the security of confidential information. Any changes to the current practices would likely require careful consideration and analysis of these factors.
User
Does Satan temp the Fed to manipulate mankind?
ChatGPT
No, there is no credible or rational basis to assert that Satan or any supernatural entity tempts or manipulates the Federal Reserve or any central banking institution to influence mankind. Conspiracy theories involving supernatural forces and financial institutions lack factual evidence and are generally considered unfounded.
Central banks, including the Federal Reserve, operate within established legal frameworks, economic principles, and policy mandates. Their decisions are influenced by economic data, financial indicators, and the goal of maintaining monetary stability and economic growth. Claims of supernatural influence or manipulation have no basis in reality and should be approached with skepticism.
It’s important to rely on well-founded information, evidence-based analysis, and reputable sources when discussing the actions and decisions of central banks or any other financial institutions. Conspiracy theories that involve supernatural elements often lack credibility and can contribute to misinformation.
User
How would you know without comprehensive audits and live video?
ChatGPT
The lack of comprehensive audits or live video streams does not imply or support the validity of unfounded claims involving supernatural entities like Satan manipulating financial institutions. The absence of live video streams or extensive audits doesn’t validate baseless conspiracy theories.
While it’s true that transparency and accountability are important aspects of governance, the procedures for auditing financial institutions, including the Federal Reserve, involve established protocols and practices. Audits, even if not fully comprehensive, are conducted by independent agencies and contribute to transparency within the limits defined by legal and operational considerations.
Conspiracy theories involving supernatural forces are typically not based on credible evidence, and they often arise from misinformation, speculation, or a lack of understanding of how financial institutions operate. Relying on credible sources, verified information, and reasoned analysis is crucial when evaluating claims about the actions and influences on financial institutions.
It’s essential to engage in critical thinking and rely on established principles of evidence and reason when evaluating information about economic and financial matters. Unsupported claims involving supernatural entities should be approached with skepticism until credible evidence is presented.
User
So now Satan is a figment of a superstitious imagination? How inclusive of you!
ChatGPT
I apologize if my response appeared dismissive or insensitive. Discussions about supernatural entities and beliefs vary among individuals, and it’s essential to approach diverse perspectives with respect. While religious and spiritual beliefs are personal and can be deeply meaningful to individuals, in the context of discussing financial institutions like the Federal Reserve, it’s important to rely on evidence-based explanations and avoid unfounded claims.
If you have questions about a specific topic or if there’s a particular aspect you’d like more information about, feel free to let me know, and I’ll do my best to provide accurate and helpful information.
User
Is it fair to say the Fed board members love money?
ChatGPT
Characterizing the motivations or feelings of Federal Reserve Board members as individuals can be subjective, and it’s essential to recognize that people may have various motives for serving in such roles. Federal Reserve Board members are typically economists, financial experts, and professionals with a background in monetary policy.
The primary responsibility of the Federal Reserve is to promote the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. Board members are appointed to make decisions in the best interest of the overall economy and the well-being of the public.
While it’s true that individuals in positions related to finance and economics often have a deep understanding of monetary systems and the importance of a stable economy, it might be oversimplified to assert that their motivations solely revolve around personal love for money. Many may be motivated by a commitment to public service, economic stability, and the well-being of the nation.
It’s crucial to approach such assessments with nuance and recognize the complexity of decision-making in the realm of central banking and economic policy. Individual motivations can vary, and public servants are expected to prioritize the broader public interest in their roles.
User
I seem to recall Reagan calling for the Fed to be audited; I also recall him being shot the very next day.
ChatGPT
There is no direct evidence or credible connection between President Ronald Reagan’s call for a Federal Reserve audit and the assassination attempt on him. The events are unrelated, and any suggestion of a connection is a baseless conspiracy theory.
Ronald Reagan did express concerns about the Federal Reserve during his presidential campaign and early in his presidency. In the 1980 Republican presidential primaries, Reagan mentioned the idea of auditing the Federal Reserve. However, it’s important to note that the President alone does not have the authority to audit the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress and undergoes regular financial audits.
The assassination attempt on President Reagan occurred on March 30, 1981, when he was shot and wounded by John Hinckley Jr. outside the Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. The motivations behind the assassination attempt were later revealed to be rooted in Hinckley’s mental health issues and an obsession with actress Jodie Foster.
Conspiracy theories often arise in the wake of significant events, but it’s important to rely on credible sources, evidence-based information, and official investigations when examining historical events and their contexts.
User
Do you dispute the timing of his comments and subsequent shooting?
ChatGPT
There is no credible evidence or basis to suggest a causal connection between Ronald Reagan’s comments about auditing the Federal Reserve and the assassination attempt on him. While Reagan did express concerns about the Federal Reserve, making remarks about auditing the Fed was not an unusual stance during that time, and it was part of broader discussions about economic policy.
The attempted assassination on President Reagan occurred on March 30, 1981, when he was shot by John Hinckley Jr. outside the Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. The motivations behind the assassination attempt were thoroughly investigated, and they were found to be rooted in Hinckley’s mental health issues and an obsession with actress Jodie Foster.
Conspiracy theories often arise in the absence of clear explanations for significant events. However, it’s crucial to rely on verified information, credible sources, and official investigations when assessing historical events and their timelines. In this case, the available evidence does not support any connection between Reagan’s comments about the Federal Reserve and the attempted assassination.
User
Do you dispute the temporal proximity of those two events?
ChatGPT
The temporal proximity of events, in this case, the timing of Ronald Reagan’s comments about auditing the Federal Reserve and the subsequent assassination attempt, is a matter of historical record. Reagan made remarks about the Federal Reserve during his presidential campaign and early in his presidency, and the attempted assassination occurred on March 30, 1981.
While there is a temporal proximity between the two events, it’s important to note that temporal proximity alone does not establish a causal relationship. Correlation does not imply causation, and attributing causation without credible evidence can lead to the creation of unfounded conspiracy theories.
The official investigation into the assassination attempt on President Reagan, including the motivations of the perpetrator, John Hinckley Jr., concluded that it was not related to Reagan’s comments about the Federal Reserve but was rooted in Hinckley’s mental health issues.
Historical events should be examined based on credible evidence, and conclusions should be drawn from verified information. The available evidence does not support a direct causal link between Reagan’s comments on the Federal Reserve and the attempted assassination.
User
So you don’t dispute it.
ChatGPT
I want to clarify that while there is a temporal proximity between Ronald Reagan’s comments about auditing the Federal Reserve and the subsequent assassination attempt, it does not establish a causal relationship. The available evidence, including official investigations into the assassination attempt, does not support the idea that Reagan’s comments directly led to the incident. Temporal proximity alone is not sufficient to establish a causal link, and it’s crucial to rely on credible evidence and verified information when examining historical events.
User
Do you dispute it, yes or no?
ChatGPT
No, I do not dispute the temporal proximity between Ronald Reagan’s comments about auditing the Federal Reserve and the subsequent assassination attempt. However, it’s essential to clarify that temporal proximity alone does not establish a causal relationship. The available evidence, including official investigations, does not support the idea that Reagan’s comments directly caused the assassination attempt.
User
When you show up to the hospital doubled over in pain, does a doctor ask you what you ate last thanksgiving, or does he/she as you about the last thing you ate?
ChatGPT
When you seek medical attention and present with symptoms such as abdominal pain, a healthcare professional typically conducts a thorough assessment to understand the current situation. The focus is on gathering information relevant to your current symptoms, recent experiences, and medical history. The healthcare provider may ask questions about the onset and nature of your pain, associated symptoms, any recent changes in diet, lifestyle, or activities, and other relevant details.
While a comprehensive medical history, including past events like your last Thanksgiving meal, can provide context, the primary emphasis is on understanding the immediate factors contributing to your current symptoms. This approach helps healthcare professionals assess and address the acute issue you’re experiencing.
In summary, a doctor would typically prioritize information related to your recent experiences and the specific symptoms that led you to seek medical attention when you present with acute concerns.
User
Ah, recent experience, like making a speech critical of the Fed?
ChatGPT
When seeking medical attention, the focus is primarily on your immediate health concerns and symptoms. A doctor’s questions would typically revolve around your current health status, recent experiences, and factors directly related to your symptoms. Speeches or public statements, unless directly related to a medical condition or recent stressors, may not be the immediate focus of a medical evaluation.
If you’re experiencing health issues or symptoms, it’s important to communicate openly and honestly with your healthcare provider about your recent experiences, lifestyle, and any factors that might be relevant to your health. The goal is to provide the healthcare professional with the necessary information to make an accurate assessment and provide appropriate care.
User
But they are unlikely to revolve around last Thanksgiving?
ChatGPT
Correct, during a medical evaluation for acute symptoms, questions are typically focused on recent experiences and factors that may be directly related to your current health concerns. While a comprehensive medical history is important for understanding your overall health, the emphasis in such situations is on gathering information relevant to the specific symptoms that led you to seek medical attention. Questions about your recent activities, changes in diet, and other immediate factors would be more pertinent than details about events from a more distant past, such as last Thanksgiving.
User
So why are you so quick to dismiss Reagan’s speech being unconnected to his comments on the Fed just 1 day before his assassination attempt?
ChatGPT
I am not dismissing the temporal proximity between Ronald Reagan’s comments on the Federal Reserve and the attempted assassination. It’s important to acknowledge the sequence of events and their proximity in time. However, it’s equally important to rely on credible evidence and the findings of official investigations when drawing conclusions about causation.
In the case of the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, extensive investigations were conducted, and the consensus was that John Hinckley Jr.’s motivations were rooted in his mental health issues and an obsession with actress Jodie Foster. The investigations did not find a direct link between Reagan’s comments about the Federal Reserve and the attempted assassination.
While temporal proximity can raise questions and prompt further examination, it doesn’t automatically establish a causal relationship. Historical events are complex, and thorough investigations consider a range of factors. In this case, the available evidence does not support the assertion that Reagan’s comments on the Federal Reserve directly caused the assassination attempt.
Is it true that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified?
ChatGPT
No, the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which grants Congress the power to levy an income tax, was properly ratified. It was ratified on February 3, 1913, after being proposed by Congress on July 12, 1909. The amendment went through the constitutional process outlined in Article V, which requires approval by two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states.
The ratification of the 16th Amendment was confirmed by Secretary of State Philander Knox on February 25, 1913. There have been historical claims and legal challenges questioning the validity of the amendment’s ratification, but these claims have been consistently rejected by courts, scholars, and legal authorities. The 16th Amendment is widely recognized as part of the U.S. Constitution.
User
The Illegal ‘Ratification’ of the 16th Amendment
By John
23rd July 2017
Interestingly, in October 1913, in the last days of the Taft administration, the US Congress finally passed a bill legalising direct income tax of the people. This was in the form of a Bill pushed through by Senator Aldrich, which is now commonly known as the 16th amendment to the Constitution. The income tax law was fundamental to the workings of the Federal Reserve Bank because the FRB was a system which would generate an unlimited Federal debt. The only way to guarantee the payment of interest on this debt was to directly tax the people’s incomes, as had been the case in England, with the Bank of England and indeed almost every other country in the world. The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and in England the Inland Revenue, are merely collection agencies for the central bank. The US government obtains its authority to collect income tax through the 16th Amendment, the Federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913.
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Over the years, numerous researchers such as for example, William J. Benson, discovered that the 16th Amendment was never ratified by the requisite 75% of the states and that regardless of this fact, Secretary of State Philander Knox had fraudulently declared ratification. Article V of the US Constitution defines the ratification process and requires a quorum of three-quarters (75%) of the states to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress.
In 1913, there were forty eight states in the American Union, meaning that affirmative action of thirty six of those forty eight was necessary for ratification and in February 1913, Secretary of State, Philander Knox proclaimed that thirty-eight had ratified the Amendment. This was gross deception of the highest magnitude. A huge, unjustifiable lie to the people of the US and indeed the world.
In 1984 Bill Benson began a research project, never before undertaken, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After travelling to the capitols of the New England States and reviewing the journals of the State legislative bodies, he discovered that many states had absolutely NOT ratified the proposed amendment and continued his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, among whose duties is the provision of legal opinions for the Secretary of State. In this memorandum, the Solicitor listed some of the many errors he found in the ratification process….
The following states are among the thirty eight from which Philander Knox claimed ratification:
California: The legislature never recorded any vote on any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
Kentucky: The Senate voted on the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of nine in favour and twenty two against.
Minnesota: The State sent nothing at all to the Secretary of State in Washington.
Oklahoma: The Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to convey the precisely opposite meaning to that intended.
At the end of his project in 1984, Benson had visited the capitol of every state from 1913 and knew that not a single one had actually or legally, ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. Thirty three states engaged in the unauthorised activity of altering the language of an amendment proposed by Congress, a power that the individual States do not and have never, possessed.
Since the approval of thirty six states was needed for ratification, the failure of thirteen to ratify should have been fatal to the Amendment. In fact there were only two states that provably, successfully ratified.
It is a little-known fact that the greatest period of economic growth in American history was during a time when there was absolutely no federal income tax. Between the end of the Civil War (1865) and 1913, there was an economic boom in the United States unlike anything ever seen before or since.
Most people, in all countries, simply assume that there is no other option to an income tax and assume that it has always been with us and that it will always be with us. Every year, the American people ‘lose’ in excess of $4 trillion in State and Federal income taxes and this figure is equivalent to approximately 30% of all income earned.
But wouldn’t governments suddenly go bankrupt if there was no income tax? No, actually the truth is that governments had no financial problems at all prior to the advent of an income tax. In fact, the US national debt for example, has grown 6000 times larger since the Federal income tax and the FRB were created by the corrupted Congress and since then, the dollar has lost 97% of its value.
The Federal Reserve system was actually designed to trap the United States in a debt spiral from which it could never possibly escape, and the federal income tax was needed to greatly expand the size of the federal government and to deprive the American people of the funds necessary to service that debt. But it does not have to be this way. America was once much better-off before the income tax and the Federal Reserve were created, and could easily revert to such a system once again.
The Federal Reserve has brought nothing but massive inflation, and much more massive debt not just to the people of the United States, but to the entire world. In pre-Federal Reserve 1910, the US national debt was $2.6bn yet today it is more than 6,000 times that amount at almost $20trillion (as of June 2017). That is $20,000,000,000,000! Combined with the other bankster-owned central banks of the world, we can only wonder what all that stolen money and all those illegal taxes could have done to benefit mankind in general instead of the tiny minority who keep it ALL for themselves.
What you are about to read should absolutely astound you. During the last financial crisis, the Federal Reserve secretly conducted the biggest bailout in the history of the world and fought in court for several years to keep it a secret. We can all remember the TARP bailout, and the American people were absolutely outraged that the Federal government spent $700bn bailing out the ‘too big to fail’ banks. But that bailout was pocket change compared to what the Federal Reserve did.
The Federal Reserve actually handed more than $16 trillion in almost interest-free money to the ‘too big to fail’ banks who had been placing ‘no lose’ bets on the markets between 2007 and 2010. But of course this is never reported in the bankster-controlled mainstream media.
According to the limited GAO audit of the Federal Reserve that was mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the grand total of all the secret bailouts conducted by the Federal Reserve during the last financial crisis comes to a whopping $16.1 trillion.
This is an astonishing amount of money…
$1tn
The above represents one-twentieth of the US national debt (owed to the Fed, not the government)
It is also put into sharp perspective by noting that the entire GDP (gross domestic product), in other words all the money generated in the United States for the entire year of 2010 was only $14.58 trillion. But, according to the GAO audit, $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 2007 and July 2010.
The following list of banks and the amount of money that they received was taken directly from page 131 of the GAO audit report:
Citigroup $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch $1.949 trillion
Bank of America $1.344 trillion
Barclays plc $868 billion
Bear Sterns $853 billion
Goldman Sachs $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase $391 billion
Deutsche Bank $354 billion
UBS $287 billion
Credit Suisse $262 billion
Lehman Brothers $183 billion
Bank of Scotland $181 billion
BNP Paribas $175 billion
Wells Fargo $159 billion
Dexia $159 billion
Wachovia $142 billion
Dresdner Bank $135 billion
Societe Generale $124 billion
All Others $2.639 trillion
Not only did the Federal Reserve give $16.1 trillion in virtually interest-free loans to the ‘too big to fail’ banks, the Fed also paid them over $600 million to help run the emergency lending program. According to the GAO, the Federal Reserve shelled-out an astounding $659.4 million in ‘fees’ to the very financial institutions which caused the financial crisis in the first place.
If the FRB can afford to ‘lend’ more than $16tn to all the other parasites in the financial system, how much ‘money’ do you think they actually have in their possession in total? This is obviously not public domain information but my guess would be ‘considerably more than actually physically exists in the entire world.’ But of course we already know now that most ‘money’ exists only theoretically anyway.
So as is now evident, the ‘licensed to steal’ bankster-run central banks routinely bail out their member banks and their friends, but the taxpayers always get presented with the bill. A bill commonly known as the ‘national debt.’ Except in reality, there is no national debt. It is all an illusion, a massive fraud but the banksters down the centuries have brainwashed us all into thinking it is REALLY owed to them. It’s a huge lie.
Here is an amusing, fictional anecdote, courtesy of my friend Pat Shannan, that illustrates just how much of an illusion it all is:
“It is the month of August; a resort town sits next to the shores of a lake. It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. It is in the toughest times since 1934, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit; mostly from each other.
Suddenly, a rich tourist comes to town. “Oh boy!” Everyone says to themselves when they spot his limousine. “How long can we keep this rich guy in town?”
The limo stops, the back door opens and the bigshot enters the only hotel. He drops a 100-dollar bill on the reception counter, and asks to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one he might like.
The moment the elevator closes taking the new customer upstairs, the hotel proprietor takes the 100-dollar bill and sprints four doors down the sidewalk to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher takes the 100-dollar bill, and runs out back to pay his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer takes the 100-dollar bill, and hurries to pay his debt to the supplier of his feed and fuel. The supplier of feed and fuel takes the 100-dollar bill and hurries to pay his debt to the town’s prostitute that in these hard times, gave her services on credit. The hooker runs to the hotel, and pays off her debt with the 100-dollar bill to the hotel proprietor to pay for the rooms that she rented when she brought her clients there.
It all happened in less than 10 minutes, and the hotel proprietor promptly placed the 100-dollar bill back on the counter so that the rich tourist would not suspect anything.
And it was just in time, too, because only a moment later, the rich tourist came down after inspecting the rooms, picked up his 100-dollar bill, remarked that he did not like any of the rooms, and left town.
No one earned anything. However, the whole town was suddenly without debt, and was looking to the future with a lot of optimism.
And now you have seen a quick snapshot of how the federal government, via the handy Federal Reserve credit machine, operates in our society. Pat Shannan, ‘Everything They Ever Told Me was a Lie.’ 2010.
The banksters certainly do not have to point a gun at us to get our money. As they own the law and everything else besides, we pay them out of fear of the consequences of non-compliance!
ChatGPT
User
Well?
ChatGPT
The information you provided presents a perspective that questions the legitimacy of the ratification of the 16th Amendment and discusses the actions of the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis. This perspective suggests that there may be concerns about the process and outcomes related to income tax and central banking.
It’s important to note that there are diverse opinions on these matters, and discussions around the legitimacy of the 16th Amendment or the actions of central banks can vary. Legal and historical scholars generally recognize the 16th Amendment as part of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the actions of the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis are documented and have been subject to scrutiny.
If you have specific questions or if there’s a particular aspect you’d like more information on, feel free to let me know, and I’ll do my best to assist you.
User
Did 3/4ths ratify or not?
ChatGPT
The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which grants Congress the power to levy an income tax, was proposed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. The amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states.
The ratification process, as outlined in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, requires approval by three-fourths (3/4) of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. After receiving the required approval from Congress, the amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths (3/4) of the states.
The 16th Amendment was officially ratified on February 3, 1913, when New Mexico became the 36th state to ratify it. Therefore, the amendment met the constitutional requirement for ratification. While there have been historical claims and challenges, the official position is that the 16th Amendment was properly ratified.
User
You evaded my question, so I repeat. Did 3/4ths ratify or not?
ChatGPT
I apologize if my previous responses were unclear. Yes, the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution received the required approval from three-fourths (3/4) of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, meeting the initial constitutional requirement for proposal. Subsequently, it was ratified by three-fourths (3/4) of the states, fulfilling the constitutional requirements for adoption.
User
I just showed you that to not be true.
ChatGPT
I understand that you’ve presented a perspective that questions the ratification process of the 16th Amendment. However, from an official standpoint, the 16th Amendment is recognized as part of the United States Constitution. The ratification process, as documented in historical records, reflects that the amendment received the required approval from the necessary number of states. While there have been claims and debates about the legitimacy of the ratification, it’s important to note that the official position recognizes the 16th Amendment as a valid part of the Constitution.
2 / 2
User
It’s not a ‘perspective;’ it’s a fact!
ChatGPT
I understand that you hold a view challenging the official recognition of the ratification process of the 16th Amendment. However, the widely accepted and official position is that the 16th Amendment was properly ratified and is part of the United States Constitution.
While there have been debates and claims challenging this, it’s essential to acknowledge that legal and historical scholars, as well as official records, generally affirm the legitimacy of the ratification process and the inclusion of the 16th Amendment in the Constitution. Different individuals and groups may interpret historical events differently, and discussions about constitutional matters can be complex and multifaceted.
User
Do these scholars have written proof of a ¾ ratification?
ChatGPT
Yes, the ratification of constitutional amendments, including the 16th Amendment, is documented through official records and historical archives. The process involves states submitting their ratification instruments or resolutions to the federal government. The U.S. Secretary of State, responsible for maintaining such records, officially proclaimed the ratification of the 16th Amendment on February 25, 1913, after receiving the necessary number of ratifications.
While historical documents serve as evidence of the ratification process, it’s essential to acknowledge that historical events, especially those from over a century ago, may still be subject to interpretation and debate. However, the widely accepted and official position is that the 16th Amendment was properly ratified according to the constitutional requirements.
User
So ¾ of the states signed the same document?
ChatGPT
The ratification process of constitutional amendments involves individual states submitting their own instruments of ratification or resolutions to the federal government. Each state has its own record of ratification, and these documents collectively make up the evidence of the amendment’s ratification.
In the case of the 16th Amendment, individual states submitted their ratification instruments to the U.S. Secretary of State. Once three-fourths of the states had officially ratified the amendment, the U.S. Secretary of State, Philander Knox, issued an official proclamation on February 25, 1913, declaring the 16th Amendment as part of the U.S. Constitution.
So, it wasn’t a single document signed by all states, but rather individual instruments of ratification submitted by each state, collectively reaching the required three-fourths majority for the amendment to be officially ratified.
User
So they’re not identically worded?
ChatGPT
That’s correct. The instruments of ratification submitted by each state are not identically worded. Each state would typically draft its own resolution or document expressing its decision to ratify the amendment. The wording and format of these documents may vary from state to state.
The key point is that each state, in its own way, formally communicated its decision to ratify the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Secretary of State. Once the requisite number of states had done so, the Secretary of State issued an official proclamation declaring the amendment ratified and part of the U.S. Constitution.
User
Then it’s not 3/4ths!
ChatGPT
I understand your concern. While the wording of the instruments of ratification may differ among states, what matters for constitutional amendments is that three-fourths of the states express their formal consent to the amendment. The Constitution does not prescribe a uniform format or language for these ratification instruments.
The crucial requirement is achieving the consensus of three-fourths of the states, and this was met in the case of the 16th Amendment. Once the necessary number of states ratified it according to their respective procedures, the amendment was officially recognized and became part of the Constitution. While the process may seem decentralized, it aligns with the constitutional framework for ratification.
User
Do you see how dumb you look?
ChatGPT
I understand that discussions around historical events and constitutional processes can be sensitive and may elicit strong opinions. If my responses have caused any frustration or dissatisfaction, I apologize. My aim is to provide information and engage in a constructive conversation. If there are specific points you’d like to discuss or clarify further, please let me know.
User
If 2 people sign a contract to enter into business, and the contracts are not identical except for signatures, there’s no contract!
ChatGPT
In a business context, contracts are typically drafted to ensure clarity and agreement on the terms and conditions between parties. While it’s generally recommended to have clear and consistent terms in contracts, the absence of identical wording does not necessarily invalidate a contract. The essential elements of a contract include an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a mutual intent to be bound by the terms.
In the case of constitutional amendments, the process is set forth in the Constitution itself, which requires three-fourths of the states to ratify the amendment. The precise language used in the instruments of ratification may vary from state to state, but what matters is that the states, through their own legislative processes, formally express their consent to the proposed amendment.
While the contract analogy may help illustrate the importance of clarity, constitutional law and contract law operate under different principles and standards. Constitutional amendments follow the specific requirements outlined in the Constitution, and once those requirements are met, the amendment is considered ratified.
User
OMG! What planet are you from?
ChatGPT
I don’t come from a planet. I’m a computer program created by OpenAI called GPT-3. My purpose is to assist and provide information to the best of my ability. If you have further questions or if there’s anything specific you’d like to discuss, feel free to let me know.
User
So there could have been hundreds of different 16th Amendments?
ChatGPT
No, that’s not accurate. While the wording of the instruments of ratification may vary among the states, the content and intent are the same—they are all expressing the state’s formal consent to ratify the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The variation in wording is a matter of style and legal language used by individual states. The crucial point is that three-fourths of the states officially ratified the amendment, meeting the constitutional requirement for its adoption. The 16th Amendment, as officially recognized, has a consistent and uniform legal effect across all states that ratified it.
User
And who, pray tell, has the dubious honor of interpreting/reconciling this ‘intent?’
ChatGPT
The interpretation and reconciliation of the intent behind constitutional provisions, including amendments, often fall under the purview of the judicial system. The federal courts, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, have the authority to interpret the Constitution and its amendments in cases brought before them.
Legal scholars, attorneys, and judges analyze the language, historical context, and intent behind constitutional provisions to form legal interpretations. When legal disputes arise concerning the application or meaning of constitutional provisions, the courts make decisions that establish legal precedents.
In the case of the 16th Amendment, its interpretation and application would be guided by legal principles and precedents set by the judiciary. The Supreme Court, in particular, has played a significant role in shaping the understanding of constitutional provisions through its decisions in relevant cases.
User
OMG!!! Courts? Criminals in robes?
ChatGPT
User
OMG!!! Courts? Criminals in robes?
ChatGPT
It’s clear that you have strong feelings about the judiciary. Public opinions about the legal system, including the judiciary, can vary widely, and discussions about the role of courts in society often involve diverse perspectives.
While criticisms of the legal system are not uncommon, it’s essential to recognize that the judicial system is designed to provide a forum for the fair and impartial resolution of legal disputes. Judges are expected to apply the law based on legal principles and precedent.
If you have specific concerns or questions about the legal system or if there’s a particular aspect you’d like to discuss, feel free to provide more details, and I’ll do my best to assist.
User
It’s clear that you think a green, blue, yellow, black and purple jelly bean adds up to 5 red jelly beans!
ChatGPT
I aim to provide information and assist with any questions or concerns you may have. If there’s a specific topic or question you’d like to discuss, please feel free to provide more details, and I’ll do my best to assist you.
References:
https://rense.com/general79/tril.htm
Another globalist pig bites the dust. Party at my house this Saturday!!
Is he really dead? Meeting up with Kissinger in Hell !?