Bankers: Civil War Era

 

RK:      And, in order to, let us say—bankers were really pretty crooked. Not that they have changed that much. I am talking about the big bankers, not your average guy, who you know, makes out your loan or whatever, but the international bankers. They have found all kinds of ways to rob nations of their substance and accumulate it for themselves. Of course, then they could buy almost anything, including the nations as time went by. They sought to have some kind of respectability because they were not very much respected—moneychangers and goldsmiths and whatever did not have a good reputation as far as most people were concerned.

 

CJ:       From the scripture on forward, yeah.

 

RK:      Yes. Well, the usury that they charged crippled most anybody who will fell into their clutches, including nations. Kings would borrow large amounts of money and, in many cases, would borrow credit and then have to pay back in gold and bankrupt their own nations. But at any rate, they always looking for respectability and, functioning through the king, they were given titles. They didn’t give them big titles or anything like that unless they were able to buy them later on, but they called them Esquire, and the International Bar Association—

 

 

The Causes of the S&L Failures

 

JUNIOR:   How much of the banking crisis that we have had, and believe me it is a lot more, in my opinion, that what has actually been expounded on, to the extent that we have lost thousands of local banks, state, national banks, little banks, that have now become the property of about six major money interests in this country. How much of that actually happened because of economic conditions and how much of it was artificially created and the same for the S&L? I will stand by to listen for his answer.

 

CHARLIE:  Junior, thank you.

 

RICHARD:  When the S&Ls were allowed to enter many of the same areas that the commercial banks were dealing with, almost exclusively, for many years, the S&Ls really did not know how to handle that. They ??? the wrong way. One of the problems was that the S&Ls were in competition with the major banks and the major banks wanted to have control of the deposits that were coming in and I think that is why Congress allowed the S&Ls to get in over their head. Because that is exactly what would happen and that is what did happen.

 

CHARLIE:  So, the St. Germaine act, back in the early ‘80s arranged a situation where the S&L’s could do things in a way that they had been prohibited from doing them before?

 

RICHARD:  Right.

 

CHARLIE:  And got in over their heads?

 

RICHARD:  Right. Almost immediately because they knew the pressures—how they were using their deposits and to make more money—in many cases—just for example, for instance. The S&Ls would take in money from their depositors and the object of it was to provide housing for local areas. In other words, your neighbors were actually providing the funds by which you could borrow money and have a home. That was the whole object of it in the first place. The local banks, say for instance—not banks, the S&Ls, in Illinois would invest in housing—there were other S&Ls in California and Florida and Texas where they could get more interest. For instance, there were usury laws in many of the states which prevented the S&Ls from charging higher interest rates to their local populace.

 

CHARLIE:  What they could not do locally they did long distance in other areas?

 

RICHARD:  Right. And that meant that—let us say, for instance, in Illinois, they had a usury limit. I believe it was six percent. They could get eight percent and ten percent in other places so why would they support the local needs, whether for farmer’s home or for just the average city dwellers or renting a place or want to own his own place—the money was just not available. The money was flowing in huge quantities—in billions to the states with higher interest permissible to be charged.

 

CHARLIE:  So, basically taking the deposits that had been accrued by the people locally and using those accrued monies to produce interest bearing functions at far, remote locations they were short-changing the communities that made the S&Ls strong. Doing so was immoral. And, in so doing, it weakened the economic system immeasurably?

 

RICHARD:  Well, it certainly weakened certain parts of the economy—the people who would be constructing those homes in states who had usury limits that were much lower than some of the other states, obviously, their economies were suffering because their construction was way down. Construction was high here in Texas. We used to say, you know, the state bird was the construction crane for quite a long period of time. So, economies flowed to those other states. And that was just like for two points of interest or something like that—percent.

 

CHARLIE:  If you pump enough billions in that two percent is significant?

 

RICHARD:  Right. And the commercial banks saw this huge flow of money and they wanted parts of it too but they could not loan money through for long-range projects like that that the S&Ls were permitted to do. So, it was a kind of jealousy that was involved. The S&Ls thought this was the best thing that could happen to them and they just hog-wild and started, you know—they would take on just about any project and even started going into things like oil and what have you. So, that is what happened there. But, I think the big bankers—the cool cats who watch from a distance—knew what was going to happen—they could predict it just from the trends that were already happening and they were just going to take over all of the stuff for themselves as time went by. And that was another thing too, in Texas, for instance, people always prided themselves on having home-based big banks rather than dealing with banks from New York City, for instance—Bank of America. The bankers here in Texas were taught a lesson by the big boys because the big boys now owned the banks in Texas. They were no longer Texas controlled.

 

CHARLIE:  That is what Junior in Houston was saying.

 

RICHARD:  Right. And that was punishment. This has not been talked about much but it is a fact. The fact that we were being given fiat money over and over again by the Federal Reserve System caused many people to say, “This is going to lead (people who were in the know, let us say) this is going to lead to the destruction of our country and we need to save some parts of it. And in the State of Texas there were a number of people who said, “We have to set up our own sound currency.” Now, this definitely is going against all the Federal rules that you can imagine. But there was a couple of people who decided—the Hunt brothers were involved in this incidentally. I hope the Hunt brothers forgive me for talking about a thing that they had kept pretty quiet for quite a long time. Their object was to corner silver and base the Texas-type of dollar on silver—John Connelly was in on this also. There was a fellow by the name of Jonathon Mays, an Englishman, who worked out a system for basing a currency, which would eventually spread throughout the United States, that would far exceed what the value of Federal Reserve Notes would be. That is not looked upon very kindly either by the banking community or by the Federal government. Once it became obvious what the people here in Texas were doing the Feds and banking system came down on them very hard. Mays is still in prison and will be for a long time. They just completely broke Connelly and so reduced the power of the Hunts to accomplish anything along those line that they were just out of the question of being able to do anything any further. (07-1993)

 

 

 

Return