Jason Hartman starts this Flashback Friday episode by talking about capitalism, private financing, and community banks. Afterward, Jason Hartman welcomes the author of Web of Debt, Ellen Brown. They talk about shadow banking, QE2, national debt, and Glass-Steagall. Jason and Ellen also discuss the United States’ debt ceiling and a brief explanation of how money came to equal debt.

Announcer 0:00
This show is produced by the Hartman media company. For more information and links to all our great podcasts visit Hartman media.com.

Announcer 0:09
Welcome to the flashback Friday edition of the creating wealth show with Jason Hartman. As he rapidly approaches 1000 episodes of this podcast, he has hand picked individual episodes that he feels is going to be good review for you to prepare you for the future by listening to the past. Let’s dive in.

Announcer 0:29
Welcome to the creating wealth show with Jason Hartman. You’re about to learn a new slant on investing some exciting techniques and fresh new approaches to the world’s most historically proven asset class that will enable you to create more wealth and freedom than you ever thought possible. Jason is a genuine self made multi millionaire who’s actually been there and done it. He’s a successful investor, lender, developer and entrepreneur who’s owned properties in 11 states had hundreds of tenants Get involved in thousands of real estate transactions. This program will help you follow in Jason’s footsteps on the road to your financial independence day. You really can do it. And now here’s your host, Jason Hartman with the complete solution for real estate investors.

Jason Hartman 1:19
How’s everybody doing? Thank you so much for all your interest in the last couple of shows. I know a lot of you were just jumping out of your chairs at the financing that really frankly very unbelievable financing that we talked about on episode number 241 for foreign nationals and Ira buyers and people with more than 10 properties. It’s just a phenomenal opportunity. So there’s some really good stuff and you know, what is so nice about this, folks? Never in all my years and there are more years I’ve been in this business than Frankly, I care to admit, but you’ve heard me slip a couple times on the show, so you probably know the number. But anyway, in all my years I’ve really never seen a scenario where private money or hard money financing really works for both the lender and the borrower like I am seeing today. And why is that? Well, it’s because capitalism, it’s not perfect. It’s just better than everything else. And capitalism has rushed in to fill the void left by the dysfunctional, complete scams known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the secondary market and Wall Street and their collateralized debt obligations and all that garbage out there. And it’s rushing to fill the gap. But it’s also rushed in and another way that capitalism has worked so well, and it would work a lot better, frankly, if the government would get out of the way. But the market has adjusted so much that the combination of people buy properties based on a payment, right. They don’t really care much about the price of the house or the apartment complex. They can About the effective cost and the effective cost consists of what can you obtain financing for? And what is the price? It’s the blend of those two items. And of course, there are other items in there expenses, property taxes, etc. But really, it’s the major thing is the fact that the difference of the price and the combination with the financing, right, and so prices have corrected so much in some markets where you’re buying far below the cost of construction, and then you get financing that’s reasonably good. And why is that financing reasonably good? Well, the reason private financing actually can make sense for a borrower now. Okay, and what we talked about, by the way, I’m kind of blending two subjects here. But what we talked about on episode number 241, was not private financing, in the strictest sense, that is through a bank in a community bank. And a lot of times you can get these pretty good deals through community banks. And that is I don’t know Want to say totally exclusive to us, but it’s almost exclusive because it came through a special relationship, a banking relationship with our vendor who we have a long relationship with. And you’re not going to hear about that much of anywhere else there will be I don’t want to say totally not anywhere else, because there will be when a certain competitor of ours is back from vacation, that competitor will probably be offering it but you know, then again, folks, we don’t really have any competition. That’s the that’s what I always learned from Earl Nightingale in the old days. If you constantly think of how your business will be done five years from now, 10 years from now, you really don’t have any competition. And when you look at a company like apple, the most valuable company on the planet by far, especially with their stock lately, that’s just incredible, but an amazing company, no question about it. When you look at that, you know, a company that thinks in the future and thinks in an innovative way. I mean, Really? Do they really have much competition at all? Well, not really. Remember, you’re listening to flashback Friday. Our new episodes are published every Monday and Wednesday. But anyway, back to this banking thing. So you see a special deal like that, that we talked about on the last episode. Unbelievable financing IRA buyers for nationals with more than 10 properties, even people that are credit challenged and you see the private financing that so many of you have expressed an interest in lately and by the way, if you are interested, just email me Jason and Jason Harmon calm again, I’ll make the introductions is because when it reaches a good effective cost, and it makes sense for the borrower and the lender alike, everything really meets and that’s when you have what’s known as price discovery. So you have price discovery in terms of this private financing now, making it a great deal for both parties. Oddly enough, someone might be a borrower on some of this private financing offered through our network and a lender at the same time and you think how can that be? Isn’t it like going to the casino and betting on red and black and roulette? Well, not exactly. Because different deals happen in different timeframes and in different marketplaces and so forth. So it’s, it’s really kind of interesting how I’m seeing that unfold with our clientele, how sometimes they’ll be a lender. And then other times that very same person who lend money to another party will be a borrower. And boy, it just works both ways because of the particular circumstances in which they find themselves. So some great stuff there. We’re going to talk a lot more about private lending. At our next meet the Masters event in March. And by the way, we just booked a totally new speaker on land trust and I’m really quite excited about that. I got his package reviewed It’s pretty darn interesting not hypee, not scammy. Like so many speakers on that subject out there. I interviewed him for the show. And he will be a speaker at our meet the Masters event. So we’re getting some variety, we’re getting some new speakers. So for those of you groupies out there, we appreciate you coming back every time some of you have been to every single meet the Masters event, and we love to see you coming back. But we are a little worried that you might get bored and you need some new speakers. So we’re going to have some and this will be the first time we present the St. Louis market at any of the meet the Masters events. So we’ve got that lined up. And I think that’s going to be a real showstopper. And we’re going to do another another thing that we’re going to do that’s really interesting. You know, we’ve done client panels before at that event, but this time, we’re actually going to do a local market specialist panel. And we might even pick on the clients just a little bit. Because what we’re going to do is we’re going to have you hear from people Who are very, very experienced vendors or local market specialists, and investors in their own right. And we’re gonna have you hear about some of the problems and some of the things and some of the areas in which investors shoot themselves in the foot, some of their own mistakes that they’ve made over the years over many years. And just kind of really open it up to hear about that. So we’re not doing a client panel this time, but this will be the first time that we’re actually doing a vendor panel. And I think that’s gonna be very interesting. So that’ll be Saturday night, and it’s just gonna be an awesome event. We’re trying to keep it new and stimulating for those of you who keep coming back.

And also of course, for those of you new attendees as well, before we get into today’s interview, we’ve got our guest today is Ellen Brown. She is the author of web of debt. She talks a lot about monetary policy, fiscal policy, Federal Reserve, that kind of stuff and she has been on the show before A long, long time ago. And I want to say that’s back and like number 90 or 100, right around there. But we’re going to have her on today on show number 242 to talk about some fairly new developments, and that interview was recorded just about, I don’t know, two months ago, maybe so we’ve got to get it aired. Again, these interviews don’t always have to be super timely, because this stuff changes sort of slowly. It’s not like breaking news, but it’s still very interesting. And one of our clients Steve sent me and a really telling article, and it fits in with today’s guest interview a little bit, because she really is an expert on Federal Reserve stuff. And I guess what happens is the federal and I say federal in quotes, because the Federal Reserve is just about as federal as Federal Express. Of course, you all know that it’s a pseudo governmental entity created back in 1913. And it’s really, largely been a scam but we know how we can exploit that scam to our benefit as investors. And by the way, I did an interview today with the author of an interesting book I read a couple months ago, entitled The age curve. And he’s a demographer, talks about how demographics affect the economy and so forth. Similar to way Harry dent does. And of course, we had Harry dent on the show in the past, but this was interesting, because he predicted on the show that you’ll hear in several episodes, we’ll play that one for you. But he predicted that Obama was going to win the election in November. And most of you regular listeners probably know how I feel about that. And that’s not positive. I’m not a fan of any big government socialist type policy, which, you know, I think Obama represents that all too well, because, you know, he’s the first president in history that has increased our debt by $5 trillion. That’s trillion with a tea and inside of, you know, basically three years. So what if we give them five more years in office? And, and he doesn’t have to worry about reelection. I, you know, I think he’s really gonna go all out. But hey, you know what, who cares? As much as I may hate it philosophically, we know how because we were studying this stuff, we know how to exploit the heck out of that as investors. And that’s going to benefit us big time. But what I want you to hear in this article, and frankly, I kind of hate to read to you because I’m not a voiceover person. So I always think my reading does not sound very good. But this is a New York Times article. And what’s interesting about it is I guess what happens and I didn’t know this before reading this is that the Federal Reserve transcripts of their meetings are kept private or secret. The Federal Reserve is very secretive, first of all, but I guess the transcripts of their their meetings are released after five years. So this is interesting, because this article, details a meeting that the Federal Reserve had and back in 2006 Okay. Now you all know what was going on 2006 we were on the verge of catastrophe back then. And, you know, life looked pretty grim there for a while, but you know, obviously life goes on and, and the market adjust and things are really kind of coming back. And, you know, I have to say from my side of the spectrum, I see the investors coming out of the woodwork. I see business being very strong right now is pretty decent last year, but I think this year will be even better. And this this is this article just blew my mind reading this, okay, New York Times article. And forgive me, our client, Steve sent it to me on January 13. But I do not see a date on this article. So I’m just going to read you some of it. And I hope and I kind of think you can tell where my snarky commentary comes in. And what is in the article. It’s sort of too hard to chop it up and say when I’m commenting, but I think you can kind of tell and I’ll try and make that obvious in the inflection in my voice, but the article is entitled and you know, if you want to Google this article, read it yourself because I’m not going to read the whole thing. But the articles entitled, inside the Fed in 2006, colon, a coming crisis and banter. And it’s just really, really telling. And it’s amazing to me how the people who are charged with leading our economy that the brightest guys in the room, so to speak, the smartest guys in the room, there was a documentary about Enron with that name. That by the way, is really interesting. And if you haven’t seen it, I recommend you. I don’t know if it’s on Netflix, but look it up and and check it out. That’s the smartest guys in the room about Enron. But it’s really amazing how stupid these people are. Just Just how stupid how careless, how just wrong. They have been in so many ways. And I want to make my full disclosure here, because one of the parts in this article talks about how they did not realize how intertwined The housing market had become and how it had become so intertwined with Wall Street in the financial markets. Just a reminder, you’re listening to flashback Friday, our new episodes are published every Monday, every Wednesday years ago, those were really kind of two separate things. You know, housing was housing, real estate was real estate, and Wall Street and banking. And and, and when I say banking, I don’t mean mortgage lending and foreclosures. I mean, the broader concept of banking before Glass Steagall and or back in the days of Glass Steagall, I should say, and all of that stuff. They really weren’t intertwined the way they are now. And you know what, I didn’t realize that either. And that’s one of the reasons I underestimated how bad this crisis would become. Because look, I knew in 2003 2004 2005 I mean, I was in the business I saw it and I knew lending was far too carolis I knew that a lot of these borrowers would default, I knew that there was a massive amount of fraud going on in the mortgage business. Heck, I had a mortgage rep who worked for me remember, I owned a couple different mortgage businesses. Within my traditional real estate company, platinum properties International. I sold that company to a Coldwell Banker affiliate back in 2005. And, you know, I had a couple different mortgage arrangements over the years, some that I owned outright, and some that were affiliated business arrangements or net branches. You know, they had all these different hybrids of businesses. And I knew there was a lot of fraud. I mean, I had this one guy that worked for me, and if he asked me, the guy was a crook, it just almost didn’t matter what the truth was, I don’t think, you know, in the mortgage business and then in the heyday there and it was really disgusting, frankly, but I weeded him out of my business as quick as I could, but I knew that that was going on. I knew there would be a foreclosure issue, but Gosh, did I know about These complicated crazy derivatives and collateralized debt obligations and forms of fake insurance that were being traded on Wall Street and that bankrupted the country of Iceland. Heck, no, I didn’t know any of that. But Gosh, I’m just a commoner. I’m just an everyday guy that pays attention and studies the economy in the markets. I’m not an insider and the Federal Reserve or the Treasury Department. I mean, they should know Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan they should know and you’re gonna see how woefully ignorant Bernanke he was in this article. So without further ado, let me just read some of this stuff to you. Okay. It’s mind boggling. Washington as the housing bubble entered its waning hours in 2006. Top Federal Reserve officials marveled at the desperate antics of homebuilders seeking to lower buyers. The officials laughed about cars that builders were offering as signing bonuses. In other words, what that means, folks, is that builders were offering it give you a car if you’d buy a house or a condo is amazing and about efforts to make empty houses look occupied, they joked, remember, this is a transcript of a meeting. That was a private meeting among Federal Reserve officials. Okay. That’s my commentary. And, and here you’re hearing about what happened behind closed doors. They joked about one builder who said that inventory was, quote rising through the roof. But officials meeting every six weeks to discuss the health of the nation’s economy gave little credence to the possibility that the faltering housing market would weigh on the broader economy according to transcripts the Fed route released on Thursday. Instead, they continue to tell one another throughout 2006 that the greatest danger was inflation, the possibility that the economy would grow too fast. Are you kidding me that It’s just amazing that someone would think that in 2006, right. Okay, back to the article, quote, we think the fundamentals of expansion going forward still look good, unquote, Timothy Geithner. That’s Turbo Tax Timmy right. Timothy Geithner, then president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York told his colleagues when they gathered in Washington in December of 2006. Some officials, including Susan Bs, I guess, is how you pronounce that a Fed governor suggested that the housing downturn would actually bolster the economy by redirecting money into other kinds of investments. And there was General acclaim for Alan Greenspan, who stepped down as chairman at the beginning of the year for presiding over one of the longest economic expansions in the nation’s history. Now, now, what’s funny there my commentary that Greenspan, in his early days, was a friend and a fan of the famous author, the late famous author, I enraged Who wrote a great book entitled Atlas Shrugged which if you have not read Atlas Shrugged, you need to read that book. It is the most incredible 1200 pages you’re likely to read anytime soon. And the fountainhead and many other books if you want to short iron Rand book to read, by the way, one that I like is just a collection of essays and the title really has nothing to do with the contents, but it’s called the virtue of selfishness. And I would highly recommend you read it really interesting little collection of essays there. Anyway. What’s interesting about Greenspan here, my commentaries that Greenspan being a devotee of Ayan Rand who actually gave a eulogy at her funeral, and I think she passed away in the early 80s, if I’m not mistaken, and Greenspan became the total sellout. The total Keynesian primed the pump, print fake money, create inflation, create money out of thin air, totally contradictory to anything Iran would have ever believed okay. And so that’s just amazing to me. Right? My little commentary on Greenspan there. Anyway, it says Mr. Geithner suggested that Greenspan’s greatness still was not fully appreciated, in opinion now held by a much smaller number of people. Meanwhile, by the end of 2006, the economy already was shrinking by at least one important measure total income. And by the end of the next year, the Fed had started its desperate struggle to prevent the collapse of the financial system and to avert the onset of what could have been the nation’s first full fledged depression in about 70 years. The transcripts of the 2006 meetings released after a standard five year delay now my comment, why the heck aren’t they released right away. Why is any of this stuff secret? Well, why do we even have a Federal Reserve in the first place? My Thinking But back to the article clearly shows some of the nation’s pre eminent economic minds did not fully understand the basic mechanics of the economy, that they were charged with shepherding The problem was not a lack of information. It was a lack of comprehension. Born in part of their deep confidence in economic forecasting models that turned out to be broken. Quote, it’s embarrassing for the Fed, said Justin Wolfers, an economics professor at the University of Pennsylvania quote, you see an awareness that the housing market is starting to crumble, and you see a lack of awareness of the connection between the housing market and the financial markets, unquote, quote, it’s also embarrassing for economics, he continued, my strong guess, is that we had if that if we had a transcript of any other economist, there would be at least as much fodder Many of the officials who appear in the transcripts have since spoken publicly about the feds failings in the years before the crisis. But the transcripts provide a raw and detailed account of those errors as they were made evidence of the problems in the housing market accumulated at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee which sets policy for the central bank. Quote, we are getting reports that builders are now making concessions and providing upgrades such as marble countertops, and by the way, they got that wrong. I’m sure they weren’t marble, they were probably granted. People don’t usually do marble countertops, because Marvel’s too porous and absorbs liquids. So granite would be a better choice anyway, and other extras, and in one case, even throwing in a FREE Mini Cooper to sweeten the deal. George Gwynn, I guess is how you say that then president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta said at the June meeting, the committee consists of governors the Federal Reserve and the presidents of the two Well, regional banks, quote, the speed of the fall off and housing activity and the deceleration in housing prices continue to surprise us, said Janet Yellen, then president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said in September, one builder she spoke with said, quote, toured some new subdivisions on the outskirts of Boise and discovered that the houses most of which are unoccupied, are now being dressed up to look occupied with curtains, things in the driveway and so forth. So as not to discourage potential buyers. Wow. Can you believe it, folks? What a scam, you know, I mean, it’s just like window dressing everywhere you look. Anyway, back to the article for a famously private institution known for its cryptic formulaic statements. The meeting transcripts offer a rare glimpse of senior officials in relatively unguarded conversation, somewhat akin to the tapes that some presidents made in the Oval Office. Comment. Are you thinking richard nixon there, folks? Wasn’t it like eight? I’m just talking now, wasn’t it eight minutes it disappeared. That was missing tapes from the Oval Office. Anyway, back to the article. The Fed officials exchange jokes, gossip about people who are not present and speak much more frankly about the economy and policy than they did in public remarks that they made contemporaneously. The results are unlikely to burnish any of their reputations in as much as they could not see the widening cracks beneath their feet. But the feds Chairman Ben Bernanke, he appears as the most consistent voice of warning that problems in the housing market could have broader consequences. Well, Ben, I’m impressed by that. You know, I think Ben is largely full of it. When I hear him on 60 minutes. What’s he been on 60 minutes twice. Now a sitting Federal Reserve Chair has never ever been on 60 minutes before. That’s how crazy the times we live. All right. Anyway, the general consensus on the board, summarized by Mr. Geithner was that the problems in the housing market had few broader ramifications, quote, we don’t see troubling signs yet of collateral damage, and we’re not expecting much unquote. Geithner said at a September meeting, Mr. Bernanke, he initially agreed, telling colleagues that his first meeting as chairman in March, quote, I think we are unlikely to see growth being derailed by the housing market. Can you imagine, folks, my commentary, these are the smartest guys in the room, and they have access to information we don’t have. They know things we don’t know. They have insider information. And can you believe how optimistic they are? But Bernacchi starts to get a little cautious and I’m impressed the article goes on. As the year rolled along. However, Mr. Bernanke increasingly took the view that his colleagues were too similar. England quote, I don’t have quite as much confidence as some people around the table, that there will be no spillover effect. He said. As for Mr. Geithner, who became treasury secretary in 2009. Of course, remember Obama appointed the guy who can even file his own tax returns. And now he’s treasury secretary craziness. Okay, back to the article in 2009. His spokesman Anthony Cooley said quote, Secretary Geithner was an early source of initiative at the Fed to reduce risk and make the financial system more resilient even before 2006 unquote. Some Fed officials argued that a housing slowdown would be good for the broader economy now. We’ll think about that one. Now, this is interesting quote, I really believe that the drop in housing is actually on net going to make liquidity available for other sectors, rather than being a drain going forward. And that will also get the growth rate more positive. unquote, Miss B’s told colleagues at the committee’s June meeting, but she could not be reached for comment Thursday. I’m almost done here, folks. And even Ms. Yellen did not believe that the problems in the housing market would have broader consequences, quote, of course, housing is a relatively small sector of the economy and its decline should be self correcting. She said, Well, folks, you know what, that’s kind of true. It would be more self correcting with out so much government intervention. My comment. One fundamental reason for this blindness was that Fed officials did not understand how deeply intertwined the housing sector and financial markets had become. They were also convinced that financial innovations by distributing risk of losses more broadly, had increased the strength and resilience of the system as a whole folks, you can just google and find In this article and read it for yourself, but that to me is mind boggling. It is scary. how little the smartest people in the room the people who are we have charged to lead our country to lead our economy Geitner appointed by Obama. I mean just I’m not gonna say what I want to say on the show because that’s just mind boggling here really is. Anyway, let’s get to Ellen Brown, author of web of debt, this meet the Masters event coming up in March Be sure to join us. We are labeling the theme for this and Doug thought of it. So thank you for this one. The theme for this meet the Masters event will be Revenge of the cash flow investor. That’s right, Revenge of the cash flow investor. So we’re going to talk a lot about cash flow at this next event in March. So be sure to register at Jason Hartman calm and we look forward to seeing you there. And we will be back with Ellen brown in just a moment.

Announcer 29:00
If any sometimes I think of Jason Hartman as a walking encyclopedia on the subject of creating wealth.

Announcer 29:06
Well, you’re probably not far off from the truth bridge. Jason actually has a six book set on creating wealth that comes with over 100 hours of the most comprehensive ideas on investing in business. They’re in high quality digital download audio format, ready for your car, iPod, or wherever you want to learn.

Announcer 29:26
Yes, and by the way, he’s recently added another book to the series that shows you investing the way it should be. This is a world where anything less than a 26% annual return is disappointing.

Announcer 29:37
Jason actually shows us how we can be excited about these scary times and exploit the incredible opportunities this present economy has afforded us.

Announcer 29:47
We can pick local markets that are untouched by the economic downturn, exploit packaged commodities investing and achieve exceptional returns safely and securely.

Announcer 29:57
I like how he teaches us how to protect Back to the equity in your home before it disappears and how to outsource your debt obligations to the government.

Announcer 30:06
He’s recorded interviews with Harry dent Peter Schiff, Robert Kiyosaki, Pat Buchanan, Katherine Austin Fitz Dr. Denis waitley, t harv, eker, and so many others who are experts on the economy, on real estate and on creating wealth, and the entire set of advanced strategies for wealth creation is being offered with a savings of $385.

Announcer 30:29
Now to get your creating wealth encyclopedia series complete with over 100 hours of audio and six books, go to Jason hartman.com forward slash store. If you want to be able to sit back and collect checks every month, just like a banker. Jason’s creating wealth encyclopedia series is for you.

Jason Hartman 31:00
It’s my pleasure to welcome Ellen brown to the show. She’s the author of web of debt. And she is talking to us today from Basel, Switzerland. So we’re going to try and make the sound quality as good as possible. And if you’ve heard her on the show before, you’ve heard that she talks a lot about monetary and fiscal issues, and it’s going to be really interesting because we’re going to get her perspective a little bit from Europe and, and on the latest crises and things that are going on talk about the debt ceiling, etc. Ellen, welcome. How are you?

Ellen Brown 31:28
Hi, thanks, Jason. I’m fine.

Jason Hartman 31:30
Well, good. It’s good to have you on the show. So first of all, the most recent big fiasco in the news as far as monetary issues and fiscal issues is, of course, the debt ceiling. You say that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional.

Ellen Brown 31:44
Tell us what you mean by that? Well, it’s in the constitution that the government should will pay all its Yes, or all its agreements, everything is already agreed to. And the debt ceiling involves a budget that has already been passed. So we’ve You agreed, we’re already committed to those things includes things like social security. I mean, it’s these are legal agreements. And so that would be a violation of that constitutional amendment to impose a debt ceiling after the fact. And we’ve had this debt ceiling contradiction ever since. For a while for about 100 years it had to do with World War One, when we were attempting to persuade our creditors that we weren’t going to just continue to finance things through debt, but it was sort of like this would be a temporary measure. We just issued these bonds. And of course we did, we kept raising the debt ceiling periodically. And it’s always been assumed that we’ve raised the debt ceiling. So that’s it that that it would be a breach of the President’s duty to actually pay on time. It’s a duty in the nation.

Jason Hartman 32:54
So what what do you think with another increase in the debt ceiling and we’ve had so many So far and just the the amount of easing and money printing out there. What what are your thoughts about inflation and deflation? I mean, the deflation is say there’s still more deleveraging coming, but maybe we’ve gone through the major share of it. The inflation is say the money printing is rampant and the future is very inflationary. And frankly, I think the present is already pretty inflationary in so many things. What are your thoughts on inflation versus deflation?

Ellen Brown 33:28
Well, there’s two definitions of inflation. One involves prices and the other involves the size of the money supply and the money supply has actually shrunk. And the reason is that in 3d what they used to report up until 2007,

Jason Hartman 33:42
right that they stopped reporting. Now, that’s a little bit suspicious as a way to maybe hide inflation but go ahead with what you’re saying.

Ellen Brown 33:50
Well, it included what’s called the shadow banking system. So it included the money market and the savings or the the money of large institutional investors and they tended to put it in the money market. So the whole shadow banking system is the thing that collapsed in the fall of 2008. There was a freeze in the money markets, and that’s what precipitated this whole crisis. So that shrunk by $5 trillion. And you can see it particularly in housing prices. I mean, if you consider that loans are an asset, or, or, you know, they’re counted as an asset and on the books of the banks and, and the value of all these properties have has shrunk. And in that sense, the money supply is shrunk. So, the Fed has only put back two or three of that too, anyway. And so there’s still a large gap between the amount of money in circulation available for trade compared to what was there in 2007. Before we started to have all these problems,

Jason Hartman 34:52
that’s because what you’re saying is that the credit supply has shrunk and money in circulation plus credit available, I guess, Maybe a

Ellen Brown 35:01
minute. Right. Sure. virtually the same Bitcoins.

Jason Hartman 35:05
Yeah, that goes into a bit of a more esoteric thing, which I’d love for you to explain. And the listeners have heard about that before, how money is debt? But do you do you want to maybe just explain that real quickly? Because a lot of that’s a, it’s pretty hard for people to get their head around that concept. Initially, when they’re looking at this stuff.

Ellen Brown 35:22
Well, most people assume you see these, you learn this in school and you see pictures is that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing of these printing presses running, and their government printing presses. So you figure that the government prints money, but that’s not really where our money comes from. It’s the Federal Reserve that authorizes the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to print and it gets these bills for I think now six cents a bill even if it’s $100 bill or whatever it is. So these are this is Federal Reserve money, bank notes that goes back to the 19th century when bank notes were literally issued by Individual banks and they had the name of the individual bank on it in 1913. The Federal Reserve took over that process. And so instead of many banks issuing their own banknotes, you had one central bank issuing, supposedly the currency of the country. But when the Fed issues the money, they don’t just hand it over to Congress to do with it. Well, they lend it so all that money comes into, it gets into the money supply in the form of a loan, and then they basically lend it to banks as as they need it. And that’s still only a small portion of the money supply. Most of the money supply is created by banks themselves private banks, when they issue loans. So that’s another misconception. Most people think that banks are lending their depositors money, but in fact, they make this loan first. They make a loan whenever a credit where the borrower walks in the door. And they write the loan into the account of the borrower as a deposit. And beyond when they need the deposit is when that borrower writes, checks on his account that go into another bank or for some reason leaves the bank. And then the checks has to clear and they clear usually through the Federal Reserve, which is just watching the money coming in, and the money going out. And at the end of the day, you have to have as much coming in as going out because the banks are always, you know, right at the at the margin, they always operate at the limit because they don’t want extra money sitting around doing nothing so so get that money to clear their checks, they have to borrow from other they typically borrow from other banks, or they borrow from their own depositors. But they’re still not actually lending the money they got from the depositors. all they’re doing is clearing the checks with it. I mean, they’re just making the books balance, but the money still belongs to the depositors. So you’re double counting that How is it that when you never go to the bank and they say, Sorry, we just lent your money out to Mr. Smith come back in 30 years they owe it’s always available for you. And yet supposedly, the deposits are backing the loans to their borrowers. So what they’re what they’re doing is they’re drawing from this pool. So there’s just a limited pool here and they’re, they’re using it, well under fractional reserve lending, you could, you could use it, you could make it grow by a factor of 10. So if you had a 10% reserve requirement, you would have to hold back 10% of your deposits and you could lend out 90% But meanwhile, the deposits always stay in the bank and yet you’re allowed to issue alone equal to 90% of your deposits. And then that, that loan would become a cheque would go into another bank, which would now have say it was a nine $900 loan. Now they can lend 80 $100 to that. holding back 10% So, so that’s how it multiplies until $100 becomes $1,000

Jason Hartman 39:06
It’s unbelievable. The way to look at this is that money is lent into existence, right? Is that Is that a fair way to say that money is lent into existence? Hmm. I want listeners to remember that money is lent into existence. Very, very important concept. And, and really, it’s, it’s hard to get one’s head around that it really is. You really have to think about the way that happens there. But that’s good explanation. So

Ellen Brown 39:33
and they, they don’t want us to get our heads around it best. You know, when this recently Bernie Sanders, you know, there was a $16 trillion audit, I mean, an audit of the Fed that showed that there were $16 trillion that had been advanced for the banks in short term loans in order to save them from the credit crisis. I mean, I guess that’s been advanced ever since 2007. But Ben Bernanke he resisted and resist And he said no it, you know, people would lose confidence in their banks, if they understood. If they knew all these details.

Jason Hartman 40:08
If they knew the scam, this is being portrayed, right?

Ellen Brown 40:11
If they saw how the sausage is made, the point is that the banks don’t have the money, they never have the money until after they make the loan, and then they scramble around and find it. They borrow it from some other bank. But it’s still a deposit in the other bank. You know, they’re they’re borrowing against these deposits basically are lending against us. Yeah, so so it’s all like a hand.

Jason Hartman 40:36
Yeah, it really is worth except for one. Sorry, we didn’t hear you there.

Ellen Brown 40:40
Coins are created by the government and they’re issued outright. So they’re real money. I mean, they’re debt free money. But that’s only a billion dollars out of the hole. That’s like 110 thousandth of the money supply. And then, arguably, the money that the Fed has added by quantitative easing is interest free money. I mean, Do mended into the system, but they didn’t defend it and borrow it to get that money.

Jason Hartman 41:04
Well, let’s talk about QE two for a moment here. So QE two quantitative easing to not to be confused with the Queen Elizabeth to the ship. Because it’s funny, they refer to that as the QE two also. So what is it in in? Did it fail? Or did it work? I think it failed.

Ellen Brown 41:24
It did. But I think they do need a QE three. I mean, it was not a bad idea. But the problem was QE two was it was $600 billion. That was supposedly for the purchase of long term government debt. But in the 1930s, there was a law passed that said that the Federal Reserve could not buy bonds directly from the government. Now, this is just a banker ruse. As far as I can see, it’s just to make sure that the banker middlemen get in there. So Well, I mean, the justification was it would be too easy for Congress. to just walk right over to the Fed and get the money, you know, it’s right out. Just borrow it. So instead, the Fed has to borrow on the open market, which means they have to borrow from these particular bond dealers, I think there’s 22 of them, or there were 22 that are allowed to sell bonds to the Fed. Well, more than 20 I guess. So 12 of these are now foreign banks. And they when they do it in a secret auction, so these foreign banks one shouldn’t I mean, most most of this money was sold to foreign banks, because they had a more incentive to get the monies. And then the other than the other banks, they have this problem in Europe for one thing they have, they have their own credit crisis. And they could do this carry trade where they can get a nice, they can just turn around and use this very cheap money for collateral for their own investment purposes. Anyway, somehow wound up largely informed by foreign banks. And they it’s just sitting on their books. I mean, I think the major mistake that the Fed made on that was that they agreed to pay interest on these excess reserves. So they’re now $1.6 trillion in excess reserves, sitting on the books of the banks not doing anything. So that was a mistake that the reason the Fed pays that interest is to, to maintain control over the Fed funds rate, which is so arcane and obscure, it’s really hard to even I mean, to understand, let alone explain, but their theory is that they don’t have any other means of control. So they figured as long as they can control the interest rate of banks borrowing from each other, that’s the Fed funds rate, then they still have some control over the money supply, but they don’t they absolutely have no control over the money supply. But anyway, the Fed funds rate they don’t want it to go any lower than that. 0.25% and so they figure if they, if they pay interest like that themselves, then there’s no incentive for the banks to borrow from each other. But, I mean, surely the Fed itself understands how the whole banking system works, they have to borrow from each other. That’s how that’s where you get credit. I mean, that’s where you get your credit lines. So, you could argue, well, there’s 1.6 trillion sitting on in excess reserves sitting on the books of the banks, what do they need to borrow from for but the thing is, they’re only sitting on the books of particular banks, largely these foreign banks. So the local banks, these are the ones that make the loans to local business, they cannot get, they cannot borrow cheaply from the other banks like they used to be able to. So therefore, they can’t that’s why all these businesses, they’re having their credit lines are turned into credit cards. The bank cannot do credit lines to a bunch of different businesses because they don’t know when these businesses are going to put in For a loan, they might all put in for loan, same time, like maybe you’re in the fall when they’re preparing for Christmas or something, or farmers, you know, might need all at it all at one time, you need a lot of liquidity. So if they can’t get ahold of that if they can’t get the deposits to cover these loans, that they’re gonna make it they won’t make the loans. So it’s the credit freeze at the local level, even though you’ve got plenty of excess reserves. On the books of the banks, they’re not on the books to the right bank.

Jason Hartman 45:32
Well, is this this interesting you say that so which banks First of all, and Is this what you call Ellen, when you talk about the silent liquidity squeeze? Why banks are lending? Is that what that is? Is that what you’re referring to? Yeah.

Ellen Brown 45:45
So in the in a sense, I mean, I, somebody else who’s in money reform person, and he’s a professor, and I’m sure, he said, Well, they don’t need liquidity. They’ve got $1.6 trillion in excess reserves, but they’re sitting on the Those are the reserves that were that are sitting on the books of these bond dealers. Well, 600 billion of them anyway are sitting on the books of bond dealers that are these foreign banks. They’re not even us banks, they have branches in the US. And that’s why they’re part of that whole auction system. So they’re not letting it out of there.

Jason Hartman 46:20
So you’re saying that regular, maybe small to medium sized us banks, they don’t have liquidity. They do have a credit crisis, if you will, where where they don’t have money to lend? Because people have been vilifying the banks for the last couple of years last year and a half at least saying that, why aren’t they lending? Why aren’t they lending? The Fed is pumping money into the system and and the banks aren’t lending it. We’re just holding on to it. And that is really causing a problem, especially for small businesses in the real estate market.

Ellen Brown 46:54
Do they not have the money? Is that is that what you’re saying? They’re their banks and their business. banks that the big Wall Street banks are flush and they’re doing fine. But they’re not using their money to make loans to local businesses. They have much more lucrative things they can do with it now that they can get this money at 0.2%.

Jason Hartman 47:14
And they buy treasuries, right?

Ellen Brown 47:17
Well, yeah, that’s one thing they can do. And they can just keep the, you know, it’s like two or 3%, they just keep this spread. And it’s absolutely risk free money. Or they can use it to speculate, you know, commodities, etc, or you spreads and all kinds of derivative things that they can use it for collateral, even though it’s still sitting on their books, they use this money for collateral for their speculative investment. So the local banks are the ones that are suffering, and they’re the ones that have the have the arrangements with the local businesses. So that’s, if you want to get into what my particular solution is, and the thing we’re working on is state owned banks. This is one state in the whole country that does not have the traveling.

Jason Hartman 48:01
North Dakota. Is that is that North Dakota? Yeah.

Ellen Brown 48:06
Tell us about Yeah, yeah. It’s the only state that don’t owns its own bank. They’ve only owned it since 1919. And the bank, the state owned bank provides the liquidity for the local banks, they share the local bank deals with the customer. So the Bank of Mexico does not compete with the local banks, they, they just help them out. But they’re like big brother to the to the local banks. And so they provide liquidity they, they provide guarantees, so they so they help them out with their capital requirements. They have a credit line directly to the government. So if the North Dakota itself goes over budget, they can just tap up their credit line with their own bank. They have credit lines with the with the individual cities, they do things like disaster relief, like when they had a big flood, they just stepped in and they didn’t need FEMA. They need to wait for FEMA. They just said threading with their own their own money. And we’ve, we’ve talked to that. Well, I’m now president of the public banking Institute. So we’ve been just spreading information on this alternative, which seems to me like a no brainer and it’s worked out so well for bank the next Kota.

Jason Hartman 49:18
Yeah, but but the question is who who does that there are entrenched power structures, of course, and entrenched people who are benefiting and entities that are benefiting from the system as it is, I mean, who loses in that plan, not to won’t let it happen, right.

Ellen Brown 49:33
It’s a no no brainer for us. But you’re right. They’re big forces that we have to deal with. So that’s why I think it’s important for people to understand the basic concepts here. Otherwise, if we don’t, we need the people power. In fact, even I’m from California, and we’ve heard it rumored and I don’t know this for a fact that that Jerry Brown would be in favor if he had a groundswell of popular Support? Well, you’re not going to get the grants well, and so people understand what we’re talking about here. Because their first reaction is, what do we need another bank for, or I don’t trust banks, or, you know, it’s not the type of thing where you can go into a supermarket and set up a table and get signatures on it, you know, on a ballot or something. So that’s what we’re working on. But anyway, so we’re so we have 14 states that have bills of various sorts pending like, either builds for an actual actual bank or for a feasibility study to look into the possibilities, etc. But so we actually make quite a bit of progress, considering we’re totally a volunteer organization.

Jason Hartman 50:40
Yeah, that’s, that’s great. Just I want to circle back to that subject of inflation and deflation. And you talked about how when we look at the credit supply, contracting, but the money supply increasing, but yes, of course, the the credit supply is the money supply. So I understand that. I’m just trying to segment the to what you said the What $5 trillion was missing from the the size of the money supply that is trapped by that much. Right. Right. Okay. So one of the things that the deflationists say, and I think it’s a ridiculous statement, but they say it, they say things like, well, there is so much deleveraging that the government can’t print enough money to offset that and cause inflation. And I think that statement is just completely stupid on its face, because the amount of money they can create and print is an old fashioned term. Of course, they don’t print all the money anymore. But you know, that’s kind of just a metaphor, I guess. They they can create as much money as they want. There’s absolutely no limit to that whatsoever. I mean, look at hungry. Look at Mr. Republic, look at Zimbabwe, Money Creation is completely infinite and unlimited in every way. Your thoughts on that?

Ellen Brown 51:53
Yeah. Well, in terms of the physical process, you could, you don’t need to print you you just write it into an account. Count, which is what the Fed does is most of the money they create.

Jason Hartman 52:03
It’s a couple of clicks of the mouse.

Ellen Brown 52:06
Yeah, well, that’s when they brought up you know, QE one was they brought up toxic assets. And there there was an NPR there too to said, employees were interviewed on how they did it. And they said, yeah, it’s quite remarkable. They just, that’s what they did a click of a mouse and they, they created money to buy all these properties. They just found the properties they wanted and click, click clicked, and they had them. But what I liked for an idea is that the trillion dollar coin idea, I mean, just you may buy it, but the government itself is authorized to issue points. I mean, it’s in the Constitution, the government still has power coin money and regulate the value thereof. So it doesn’t say how big these coins are. So you could have like 15 $1 trillion coins and you’d have solved the federal debt problem. Now you may say, Well, Most people will think Well, that would be inflationary. But here’s the thing you’re not. You’re not actually necessarily spending the coins but let’s just say you put them in the Treasury’s bank account. So now the Treasury has the money.

Jason Hartman 53:12
And you’re saying, these are these are physical coins? I’m trying to envision a trillion dollar coin.

Ellen Brown 53:18
Well, you making change, I know. But you don’t necessarily have to make changes to senior. You do sort of like your

Jason Hartman 53:26
it’s like your gold supply in the theoretical gold supply in Fort Knox is what it is. Yeah, well, it’s a it’s a it’s a it’s a way to limit money creation, you know, create a monetary discipline, right? Is that what you’re talking about?

Ellen Brown 53:43
Well, if you use those coins, to buy up all the, all the bonds that are out there, you know, there were to pay off the debt. You would not have increased the money supply because the bonds are actually part of the money. people. people consider it when if you’ve got your money and buy How much money do you think you have? Like, let’s say you have $5,000 in bonds and some other money in stocks and some other money in cash and you look at your account, how much money do you have you count those bonds is, is your money, that’s money that you have. I mean, it’s no different from the deposits that are counted, double counted when they become loans. So the fact that the government has borrowed that money, it’s still your money, it’s still you could cash that out at any time and you would have the money. So you know, it’s part of the liquidity and the money supply. So it’s turned it into cash so that we acknowledge that what we’re talking about here is it’s not a debt when it when the government does it. It’s not a debt when the government issues it. It’s the credit of the people. So these coins are just the same thing as a bond. In other words, a bond is an IOU. A Federal Reserve Note is an IOU a bank note was a promissory note, it was the note of the bank saying we owe you we knowledge that you have $1,000 in the bank, we owe you $1,000. So it’s no different when you call it a bond, which is an IOU, or you call it a Federal Reserve Note, which is an IOU. It just, it just makes everybody feel better instead of all this running around in panic, because how can we ever pay off a $16 trillion debt? Well, of course, we can’t pay it off. We don’t need to pay it off. We haven’t paid it off since 1835. And it’s we’ve been doing well you know that as the debt grows, the money supply grows, the debt is the money supply. It’s a misconception we should never have called the debt in the first place. That was something that Andrew Jackson did, because they didn’t have gold and nobody would. At that time, nobody believed in anything but gold and so they faked it. They made it look like they had gold they didn’t have by taking the limited amount of gold that they had to put it in first US Bank you know, they set up this thing, put their limited amount of gold in it and then the bank started issuing bank notes, supposedly backed by gold. So it was the same deal. They just meant they multiplied their money by a factor of 10 by making the gold be a backing for this paper instead of the gold itself being the money, but what it meant was that now the government was in debt for its own money. Basically, you’ve had to borrow these borrow from the bank and owed money back to the bank. So this debt just grows and grows and grows. But what you could have done was just call it money in the first place, which is what the American colonists did. They just issued the money. They issued it as colonial scripts, and it worked fine. I mean, it works better some places than others, but properly, fine. Yeah, I

Jason Hartman 56:42
hear what you’re saying there. But in the more simplistic form, and I’m calling the the reserve banking system and fractional reserve lending, and so forth. I’m gonna call that the more esoteric concept, but just in the more simplistic concept I mean, we have, at minimum, a 60 to $75 trillion, some say more obligation, the size of our economy is what 12 trillion a year. We’re we’re in a pickle. I mean, we’re in debt. simplistic. Now.

Ellen Brown 57:20
I think you were misperceiving. What money is I mean, what are those debts? First of all, you’re talking about social security that’s years away. When it comes, you know, that 50%? Well, 42% or something like that, of the of the federal debt is owed to the federal government. I mean, you could wipe out half the debt by just boiling out the half that we owe to ourselves. That includes Social Security. Everybody says, well, the government always spent already spent the money. Well, of course they did. That’s what you do with bonds. I mean, you lend it to somebody else to use the money. But the government can always pay that money back because the government is this or it should Be the issuer of money. It’s a sovereign government and money is just a representation of an obligation owed, you know, it’s just a unit of value. Basically we’re saying everybody who retires is guaranteed X amount of money when they retire and so when they do retire, just give them the money and then you can borrow it then you don’t need to be right now that those bonds are drying what at best they’re drying to percentages. So dry very little. So just spend that money you know, boy doubt the bonds void out that 50% of the debt that we owe to ourselves and then and then when it when it comes due, then create the money or borrow it if you if you feel more comfortable borrowing but you’re still just borrowing it against yourself. And the idea model is in I would say is in Japan, everybody thinks Japan is doing so poorly but Japan is actually doing very well because they owe that debt to themselves. nail it largely to their own central bank, which is totally interest free. And they owe it to the Japan post bank, which is also a government owned bank. It’s the largest depository bank in the world now. And the Japanese people are the savers who have their money in the Japan post bank. So, so again, they owe interest to their own banks. So their own bank is not going to worry about credit ratings and, you know, do all these things, it’ll drive the interest rate up and make make them very vulnerable, that they know that they have this very low interest that they have to pay on this debt, even though their debt is 240% of their GDP. They’re still getting along fine. So do you

Jason Hartman 59:44
really, really, Ellen, this is this is kind of shocking for me to hear this. I just want to make sure I’m clear on this. So people talk about Japan’s lost decade, which is really almost two decades now. Do you think that that I mean, you disagree with that when you look at Japan’s real estate market If you look at its situation, I think it’s largely caused by demographics. And the fact that, you know, Japanese people just aren’t having kids. But that’s sort of another issue I just want to talk about from a monetary and fiscal standpoint. And you know, in terms of their markets and economy and prosperity, you think they’re okay really

Ellen Brown 1:00:18
well, in 1988. They were the world’s largest creditors, they their banks were taking over, and they were our largest creditors. And that’s when the Bank for International Settlements imposed Basel one, which is the first capital requirement and it was done specifically. I mean, I wrote an article on this I quoted sources, it was apparently done to get the Japanese banks to bring them down to size. So the capital requirement was raised to 8%. And the Japanese banks were thinly capitalized and this broke the banks and that the banks went bankrupt. They were nationalized, even though they didn’t call it that. Then the stock market broke. And collapse, we were also responsible for that we talked him into setting it up the way they did in it. But anyway, so so. So that all happened to him. And it was the external banking system that was responsible for that. So the Japanese just laid low after that, first of all, they’re not aiming for growth. I mean, they’re a small country. They’re aiming for lifestyle. So they have a very good social security system. They have very good educational system. They have all these things that make for a secure life. And as Hazel Henderson argues that we we don’t value GDP, right? We only count GDP in GDP, things that you sell, and we don’t count the things that the government makes. Well, the things that the government makes are lifestyle things and then the government pays for Social Security and health care, a lot of health care, I think they pay for health care. They’re not really sure what their health care situation is. But anyway, all these benefits. That’s it government pays for our cutting in GDP. But they should be considered definitely something that improves our quality of life. We count in GDP, weapons, weapons that we sell abroad, I mean, really horrible things that don’t improve our quality of life at all. If I had to say I like count.

Jason Hartman 1:02:18
Ellen, I gotta tell you, that is a fascinating perspective. It really is that I see what you’re saying the part where maybe I take issue with you. And I just kind of want to understand where you’re coming from is that personally, I’m just not a fan of government. I don’t think the government really makes much of anything. I know we need it. But I’d like to keep it real small and real lien. And I just look at the government as something that sucks money out of the private economy, takes a giant handling fee and gives a little bit of it back. Do you disagree with that? You probably do. Sounds like

Ellen Brown 1:02:52
yeah, I probably do. Well, I mean, there’s government news go, you know, there’s government to government we have it’s corrupted. I mean, it’s been taken Get over by big banks and big corporations. Sure,

Jason Hartman 1:03:04
clearly it’s a it’s it’s a it’s a it’s a corporatocracy, it’s it’s fascist in a way. People on the right keep talking about socialism and I definitely see their point but it’s more like corporate fascism in a way you know, and it’s big corporate fascism. Because the the people on the left, they’re okay with big government, the people on the right are okay with big business. But I think they’re both wrong. I’m not okay with either one.

Ellen Brown 1:03:31
But that’s not properly set up. government could be very good and useful. I mean, here in Switzerland, for example, they have they have probably think publicly on banks they have or say France. I mean, I actually think Francis, very nice lifestyle, they have a lot more days off than we do. They have, they have very good health care provided by the government. I mean, there are are ways to work it so that it so that it’s quite, quite good and I think the Japanese do it. Well, I know there’s a lot of, I mean, it’s sort of a patriarchal

Jason Hartman 1:04:03
Well, it’s patriarchal. It’s totally insular. I mean, try and come and be an outsider in Japan and do business there. It’s impossible. I mean, it’s a very, it’s just a very different society over there. And I love you know, I’ve been to Japan only one time, but I love my visit there. I mean, the people are so polite. It’s a really nice place, but it’s very insular. I mean, that’s that’s the word. I would really give it a year. Just it’s it’s cut off from the outside world in a lot of ways.

Ellen Brown 1:04:28
Yeah. Well, going back to North Dakota, which I think is a little like Japan, they take care of their own, you know, we we had contact with that we have some people on our third consultants for the public banking Institute who work for the Bank of North Dakota, and we were just we had a conference call last week and the man are talking to you just talking about we said, Where did they get the money to, to find this infrastructure? You know, there are a lot of funds that have money sitting around. So we We just borrow from those funds, you know, like rainy day funds or whatever. I mean, he’s not even thinking about it, it would be so difficult to do that in California, you’d have to Tesla. And everybody say no, no, that was for the forestry, whatever.

Jason Hartman 1:05:13
Right? And social interest. Yeah, right.

Ellen Brown 1:05:17
is one big family. I’m like, Well, look, we’ve got the money. It’s sitting over here. It’s not doing anything. So let’s use that. And so they have a separate entity in the government that its business is to fund infrastructure, I think. And he said, of course, you know, it’s really only two guys in there in the big North Dakota. I mean, they’re in the building in the bank notes today. So they’re all sitting there walking across the hall and, and supporting each other, you know, like, we need to guarantee so that we don’t have to deal with chapter requirements. Sure, we’ll do that for you. So I don’t think they even realize how very common sense their approaches. I mean, they don’t realize what they how good the thing is that they have because they don’t realize how bad it is everywhere.

Jason Hartman 1:06:00
Yeah, very interesting. No, I, the North Dakota model is of great interest to me. I don’t know that much about it. But I think it’s fascinating what they do. One more thing, I’d like to just ask you all and before we go, and I appreciate you talking to us from such a long distance, you probably have some opinions about Glass Steagall, and I just wanted to get your take on that before we go. If I if I could, if you if you have any thoughts about Glass Steagall?

Ellen Brown 1:06:26
Well, they should reinstate it if they they could, what would that do for them in the 30s, and they set up rules in general to prevent all the disasters but now we’re going to again, because we got rid of the I mean, we’ve already done this once we’re repeating history 1937 you know, they did it went into all this deficit reduction, and then that class and other depression and we’re doing the very same thing they get in the 30. Hopefully, we won’t have to have world war three in order to get out of it.

Jason Hartman 1:06:58
I want to give the listeners here Your websites you’ve got two different websites. So I think web of debt, which is the the title of your book that I originally knew you for, and then about the public banking, give out those two websites if you would,

Ellen Brown 1:07:10
okay, web of debt.com. And that’s my book web of debt. And I actually have 11 bucks, but that’s the one that’s most relevant right now. And public banking Institute dot o RG

Jason Hartman 1:07:25
public banking institute.org so you can find out what Ellen’s up to there. And thanks so much for being on the show today. Ellen will talk to you soon. Okay.

Announcer 1:07:36
But now’s your opportunity to get the Financial Freedom Report. The Financial Freedom Report provides financial self defense in uncertain times. And it’s your source for innovative forward thinking investment property strategies and advice. Get your newsletter subscription today. You get a digital download and even more, go to Jason hartman.com to get yours today This show is produced by the Hartman media company All rights reserved for distribution or publication rights and media interviews, please visit www dot Hartman media.com or email media at Hartman media.com. Nothing on this show should be considered specific personal or professional advice. Please consult an appropriate tax legal real estate or business professional for individualized advice. opinions of guests are their own and the host is acting on behalf of Platinum properties investor network, Inc. exclusively.

Jason Hartman 1:08:42
Thank you so much for listening. Please be sure to subscribe so that you don’t miss any episodes. Be sure to check out the show’s specific website and our general website Hartman Mediacom for appropriate disclaimers and Terms of Service. Remember that guest opinions are their own and if you require specific legal or tax advice or advice and any other specialized area, please consult an appropriate professional. And we also very much appreciate you reviewing the show. Please go to iTunes or Stitcher Radio or whatever platform you’re using and write a review for the show we would very much appreciate that. And be sure to make it official and subscribe so you do not miss any episodes. We look forward to seeing you on the next episode.