Orwellian Nightmare: How JP Morgan Could Control Our Digital Currency!

Macro

In recent times, discussions about central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) have permeated mainstream media, causing concerns over the potential erosion of privacy and the emergence of Orwellian control.

However, I have a startling revelation to share with you: it may not be the Federal Reserve that issues the CBDC, but rather JP Morgan.

In this article, I will present three simple steps to shed light on this possibility and unravel the intricate web of ownership and influence surrounding the Federal Reserve.

Rebel Capitalist Pro

Understanding the Ownership Structure of the Federal Reserve

To comprehend the potential scenario where JP Morgan assumes control over the Federal Reserve, we must first delve into the ownership structure of this institution.

The Federal Reserve System comprises 12 regional banks across the United States, with the New York Fed serving as the central hub.

Contrary to the claim that the Federal Reserve is not owned by anyone, the truth is that these regional reserve banks are individually operated and owned by member banks within their respective regions.

For instance, if we consider the New York Fed as an example, let's assume that JP Morgan, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs are the only three banks in the region. The New York Fed would issue shares to these banks based on their size, with JP Morgan potentially holding the majority of outstanding shares, followed by Citibank and Goldman Sachs. Thus, the largest bank would effectively control the Federal Reserve.

Unveiling the Secrets Behind the First Republic Deal

To further understand the potential influence of JP Morgan, we need to examine the recent First Republic deal and its implications. The mainstream media portrays this as a competitive bidding war, with JP Morgan emerging as the victor due to its willingness to take risks and make sacrifices. However, a closer look reveals a different story.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) guarantees most of the losses incurred in such deals. In the case of JP Morgan's acquisition of First Republic, the FDIC absorbed significant losses, ensuring that JP Morgan mainly focused on maximizing its profits.

Moreover, the FDIC not only assumes the losses but also provides a loan of $50 billion to facilitate the deal.

Consequently, JP Morgan stands to gain substantial annual profits, estimated at $500 million, in addition to the initial gain of $2.6 billion.

The Emergence of JP Morgan as a Central Bank Digital Currency Issuer

If JP Morgan were to absorb other banks in the future, acquiring their assets and shares in the Federal Reserve, it could eventually become the sole owner of the Federal Reserve System.

In this scenario, the lines between the central bank and the commercial bank would blur, potentially paving the way for the issuance of a central bank digital currency.

While some may question the connection between JP Morgan's dominance and the introduction of a CBDC, it is crucial to note that the world's first CBDC was established over 100 years ago.

The Russian Central Bank, known as Gosbank, operated as the only bank in the country from 1922 to 1991. Gosbank controlled industry, monitored transactions, and distributed loans according to government directives—resembling the features of a CBDC.

The key factor here is not the specific term “CBDC” but the consolidation of deposits onto a single ledger. This consolidation is what we must resist to safeguard our privacy, freedom, and financial autonomy.

The potential rise of JP Morgan as the dominant force behind the Federal Reserve raises significant concerns about the concentration of power and the erosion of individual liberties.

The immediate implementation of a CBDC is on the horizon, and the consolidation of deposits onto a central bank digital ledger system is a step toward an Orwellian nightmare.

To protect our financial sovereignty, it is crucial to remain vigilant, challenge the narrative, and question the motivations behind the push for centralization. The battle for freedom and privacy lies in preserving the decentralized nature of our financial system and avoiding the consolidation of deposits under a single entity's control.

Let us not be deceived by the illusion of independence and instead focus on safeguarding our fundamental rights and the integrity of our monetary landscape. The future of our financial freedom depends on our ability to navigate the complex web of ownership and influence that shapes the world of global finance.