Two Counter Opposing Basic Principles

 In 1913, two events with contrary principles took place that precipitated the exact opposite effects on the people of this Constitutional Republic.  The one was enacted when Henry Ford doubled his hired worker’s pay and the other was the Federal Reserve Act which took almost 100 years to come out of the closet to demonstrate its profound effects on the people of this Constitutional Republic.  We are just beginning to discover the true character of the Federal Reserve as a glorified ponzi scheme by the demonstration of its nefarious effects on our civilization in the early stages of the 21st Century.

 Henry Ford is credited with creating the first assembly line to assemble automobiles (Model T’s) using interchangeable parts.  Henry, being the “hands on” business man that he was, noticed that his workers couldn’t afford to purchase his cars with the current wages he was paying them.  This observation caused Henry to double his workers’ pay over one weekend.  As a result his worker’s disposable compensation, i.e., money spendable in the local community after necessities, was effectively increased by an order of magnitude.  Since the average worker was living hand to mouth, so to speak, that is to say that between he and his family they were consuming all that he made just to house, feed, and cloth his family (necessary essentials), he had very little, if any, disposable compensation left over to participate in the local market for the purpose of improving his standard of living.  Consequently, except for the grocery and clothing businesses, very little money was circulating within the local community as a result of Henry Ford’s automobile assembly line plant prior to his doubling of their pay.  Following the huge expansion of the Ford worker’s disposable compensation, not only could the workers now buy Model T Fords, but the local economy and the wellbeing of all the local residents’ sky rocketed from the added disposable compensation of the Ford workers and now the local business owners and workers could also afford to buy Henry Ford cars.  This could be labeled as a prime example of the Free Market.

 Unfortunately, as afore said, that same year, 1913, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, which unconstitutionally transferred Congress’ own duty to coin money and regulate the value thereof to a consortium of wealthy private bank owners.  Because the Federal Reserve Act, which allowed money and debt to be created out of thin air by means of the printing press[1] through a mechanism called Fractional Reserve Banking, this Republic was to learn nearly a hundred years later that between the income tax, Fractional Reserve Banking and the nefarious shenanigans between Congress and the owners of the Federal Reserve, the country would be saddled with trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt created by the (counterfeiting) printing press and various mortgage contracts void of any consideration whatsoever. In contradistinction to Henry Ford’s doubling of his worker’s pay, the outcome of the Federal Reserve (and Congress) has been to nearly eliminate all disposable revenue for the middle class by the income tax and debt obligations, thereby crippling commerce and the ability for productive individuals to support themselves and their families.  In the case of Henry Ford’s management decision, the results occurred almost immediately.  On the other hand, in the case of the Federal Reserve the pilfering of the disposable revenue of the producers of America was slow and painful but deliberate.  The Federal Reserve through its Ponzi scheme of Fractional Reserve Banking[2] together with the income tax took nearly a hundred years to siphon off most of the property of the populous before they woke up to discover that something was wrong – almost too late to establish a workable cure.  Somewhere along the way to accruing this humongous debt, the Union States on their own, whether by accident or by design, forfeited their constitutionally secured sovereignty.  My book, The Reformation of Union State Sovereignty shows what took place to cause such forfeiture to occur, what some of the Constitutional/political ramifications exist as a result of said forfeiture, who may be culpable for civil damages, some possible solutions for the Union States to assert their sovereignty, and what cause and effect unfinished business may still be necessary once the Union States have restored asserted their Sovereignty.  This could be labeled as a prime example of the private monopolization of money and credit by a very wealthy private consortium.


[1] Absent consideration. Consideration represents the element of bargaining to indicate that each party agrees to surrender something of value for in return for what is to be received.  It is consideration that distinguishes a contract from a mere gift. (emphasis in original) Barron’s Law Dictionary, 1996

[2] Fractional Reserve Banking is a façade scheme where it fools the public into believing that each Federal bank holds back the amount of the reserve requirement to cover bad loans and save the financial integrity of the bank in question.  So if the Reserve Requirement is 10%, one might conclude that on a 1000 dollar deposit, 100 dollars would be put up as the reserve to be deposited with the FDIC as the reserve allowing the bank to loan out 900 dollars.  However, the bank deposits the total 1000 dollars with the FDIC permitting it to loan out 10,000 dollars, the amount of the 1000 dollars deposit plus 9000 dollars of money created out of thin air.  Consequently, for 18% annual interest, the amount of money collected in interest is 1,800 dollars for a customer deposit of 1000 dollars.  That’s how you turn 18% loans (like credit cards) into 180%.  While that may not be usury in the revised sense of the word because none of the borrowers pays the 180%, it certainly must be a violation of the common law statute against unjust enrichment.


Leave a Reply