The danger of slogans about the Fed. Once the population thinks all problems are solved simply by nationalizing or even removing the Fed, it still leaves other mechanisms of the elites in place.

Does Alex Jones talk about ending the BIS?

Euro-Med.dk (unfortunately, along with the handy economic analysis, there is some over the top language, but we’re all adults, now, and surely a little screechy language (I’ve cut it out) is a fair price for good links:

“The power of the BIS to make or break economies was demonstrated in 1988, when it issued a Basel Accord raising bank capital requirements from 6% to 8%. By then, Japan had emerged as the world’s largest creditor; but Japan’s banks were less well capitalized than other major international banks. Raising the capital requirement forced them to cut back on lending, creating a recession in Japan like that suffered in the U.S. today. Among other collateral damage produced by the Basel Accords was a spate of suicides among Indian farmers unable to getloans.

“BIS regulations serve only the single purpose of strengthening the international private banking system, even at the peril of national economies. The IMF and the international banks regulated by the BIS are a team: the international banks lend recklessly to borrowers in emerging economies to create a foreign currency debt crisis, the IMF arrives as a carrier of monetary virus in the name of sound monetary policy, then the international banks come as vulture investors in the name of financial rescue to acquire national banks deemed capital inadequate and insolvent by the BIS.”

When governments fall into the trap of accepting loans in foreign currencies, however, they become “debtor nations” subject to IMF and BIS regulation.

Large international banks managed to escape the rules, although they actually carried enormous risk because of their derivative exposure. The mega-banks succeeded in avoiding the Basel rules by separating the “risk” of default out from the loans and selling it off to investors, using a form of derivative known as “credit default swaps.”
However, it was not in the game plan that U.S. banks should escape the BIS net. When they managed to sidestep the first Basel Accord, a second set of rules was imposed known as Basel II. The new rules were established in 2004, but they were not levied on U.S. banks until November 2007, the month after the Dow passed 14,000 to reach its all-time high. It has been all downhill from there. Basel II had the same effect on U.S. banks that Basel I had on Japanese banks: they have been struggling ever since to survive.8

Basel II requires that banks on a daily basis assess their assets according to a market price of their securities, a rule called “mark to market.” If a bank does not have 8% net capital it is technically insolvent.  It was imposed ex post facto, after the banks already had the hard-to-market assets on their books. Lenders that had been considered sufficiently well capitalized to make new loans suddenly found they were insolvent. At least, they would have been insolvent if they had tried to sell their assets, an assumption required by the new rule. (Thus, Bear Stearns became technically insolvent – to be bought by JP Morgan for a song – even with plenty of money from the Fed. No wonder that JP Morgan has just booked a big profit!!) Financial analyst John Berlau complained: Imposing the mark-to-market rule on U.S. banks caused an instant credit freeze, which proceeded to take down the economies not only of the U.S. but of countries worldwide.”

Comment:

If you go back and look at my articles from 2008, I argued for restoring mark-to-model to prevent the banking sector from being completely cannibalized by the “connected” banks, a position quite different from those who think ideologically and argue that any regulation is always and everywhere bad, even when it has a strategic use.

On this blog, back in 2009, I also pointed out (as did others) that ending the Fed, without addressing the global central bank, is pointless.  End the Fed, then, would only mean a step in the direction of more central control, at a higher level, through the mouthpieces of the supranational government, operating in the media (Wikileaks, social media  speculator-media complex, spy agencies).