Sorry to have to break it to you. The truth is that President-elect Donald Trump is not anti-establishment. Certainly he is the opposite to Hillary Clinton in many ways; he will bring different policies to the country and a new look to the White House. Yet these two are only opposite in the same way day is different from night. Day and night together make up one 24 hour cycle of a calendar day. Similarly, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton together comprised the whole of the 2016 presidential election.
What I’m trying to say is that, all things considered, these two are just two sides of the very same nothing-really-new coin. How could I imagine such a thing? To date, Hillary Clinton and now president-elect Donald Trump have both shown they are beholden to the Federal Reserve Banking System – the root cause of all things financial in the U.S. I concur with what Nassim Nicholas Taleb, philosopher and author of the book, The Black Swan, once said,
“What we need to do is break the financial community’s grip on society.”
In all probability, a Donald Trump presidency won’t break that grip. Certainly a Clinton presidency would perish the thought. The Office of the President intersects with, but does not have final authority over, Fed monetary decisions or policies. Yes, a president can elect new members to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and also the chairperson and vice-chairperson for a new term. And yes, these elections give a president potential influence over the direction of monetary policy, but that’s it.
I like to use the analogy of nesting dolls to further illustrate my view. When considering the man-made systems of the world (scientific, political, educational, monetary, health, etc.) as nesting dolls, the largest/outside doll would represent the monetary system. The political system then fits neatly inside it as the 2nd largest, 2nd most powerful, and so forth. As such, the monetary system asserts an overriding impact on each and all other man-made systems.
In 2007 we learned something about the Fed from Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan.
“The Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take.”
“No agency” includes the Office of the President. Yet somehow many believe the political power of a president “trumps” all, including that of the financial sector. (Pun intended.)
We learned more about the Fed the year following Alan Greenspan’s statement. In 2008 Bloomberg LP sued the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to discover which banks they had bailed out and for how much. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System appealed in 2009, arguing that they met the requirements of Exemption 4 of the FOIA request because the Federal Reserve Banks in question were “persons,” i.e. private corporations; therefore disclosure would harm them. Though the Board of Governors lost the appeal and turned over documentation in 2011, what they submitted has been reported to have been mostly inconsequential to Bloomberg LP’s FOIA request and expectation.
But wait…there’s more. As the prime mover of all things financial, the Fed, no matter the truth of its legal structure, remains the bottom-line issue when it comes to U.S. economic success. That means no president, no matter how opposed to the one before them, is ever truly anti-establishment until and unless they take on the Federal Reserve Banking System.
A monetary system which issues currency that literally depreciates like a car (worth approximately 3 cents today) and decreases purchasing power at the register at an alarming and accelerating pace cannot be trusted. Quietly and systemically it undermines long-term economic growth and stability for everyday Americans. Since financial giants benefit from the current economic set-up, this awareness is not popular. It’s money that rules the world, not politicians.