Analysis of Central Banking Policies

The central bankers met in Jackson Hole in two thou-, as I said,

summer of two thousand nineteen, and they reviewed a plan from the

BlackRock Investment Institute prepared by a group of

retired central bankers called the Going Direct Reset.

Now, we know that the central banking system

every eighty to a hundred and twenty

years, um, does a reset, and often that reset

is when you evolve the currency or you move the currency to a,

a different currency. So, um, we know this happens every,

you know, at some point you sort of flush the

system.

And so I assumed when that happened that we were, uh, going into a

new reset. The Going Direct Reset, Going Direct

refers to a radical change in policy.

Traditionally, when,

uh, a central bank like the Federal Reserve

added money to the system, it would

add it by investing in the r- or, or putting money into the

reserve track, and then the banks would use

that reserve track to then

put money in the system. Going direct was the Fed essentially injecting

enormous amounts of money directly without going through

reserve track but, but buying, um, among other things,

securities from the,

um, the non-depository institutions.

And what happened starting that September after the going

direct meeting, um, the Federal Reserve, uh,

with interventions in the market in September, but then with the

announcement of the pandemic, injected extraordinary

amounts of money into the system. Normally, um,

and, and different estimates are that was five trillion or six trillion dollars

invested or injected directly. Normally, any injection

like that would have extraordinary inflationary impact, and in

fact, um, there was one, uh, one former,

uh, undersecretary of the Treasury who, speaking with Swiss

investors, uh, said, you know, enormous inflation

is baked into the cake. We just won't feel it right away.

And the reason we won't feel it right away, as it turns out, was the

pandemic. Um, many of the pandemic,

uh,

uh,

uh, sort of actions of locking people down

or calling certain businesses, um, not,

uh, not essential and, uh, leaving other businesses open

and some non-essential, uh, created an enormous

deflationary offset. If you look at what happened in the United

States, um, we basically shut down Main Street, lots

of small businesses, left the publicly traded companies open,

and shifted enormous market shares out of the small businesses

into the big businesses that thus radically consol-

consolidating enormous amounts of economic activity.

So you inject five trillion, um, essentially

grossly oversimplified into Wall Street, and you shut down

Main Street, and then, um, Wall Street has money to go

shopping, and Main Street is in an economic squeeze.

There-- The last estimates I saw estimated

that thirty-five percent of the small

businesses in America were shut down.

Um, and, and in some places, I think San Francisco was as much as

forty-nine percent. So it was very, very successful at

consolidating economic activity into the big

players. One estimate was we, in the United States,

we created five hundred,

or maybe it's worldwide, we created five hundred new billionaires.

So,

so as I said, um, looking at this from the viewpoint

of what was happening financially around the world, it was pretty

clear to me that much of the pandemic,

um, was,

uh, essentially designed to implement the

reset

and using health policy as an excuse