Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6s3x49-the-federal-reserve.html
The Federal Reserve System, often referred to as the Fed, is the central bank of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law. This act was largely a response to a series of financial panics, especially the Panic of 1907, which exposed the need for a more stable and elastic currency, as well as a centralized mechanism to manage monetary policy and banking oversight. Before the Fed’s creation, the U.S. economy was frequently rattled by booms and busts, bank failures, and limited ability to respond quickly to economic crises.
The founding of the Federal Reserve is surrounded by controversy. Critics argue that it represented a power grab by a handful of elite bankers who wanted control over the nation’s money supply. The groundwork was laid during a secret meeting in 1910 on Jekyll Island, Georgia, attended by powerful bankers and politicians, including representatives from J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller interests, and European banking families like the Rothschilds. While the Federal Reserve is nominally a government institution, it has private elements, leading many to call it a “quasi-government” or “quasi-private” entity.
One of the most debated aspects of the Fed is its relationship with the national debt and money creation. The Fed does not literally “print” money—that’s the role of the Treasury—but it does control the money supply through mechanisms like open market operations, interest rate settings, and reserve requirements. When the federal government needs more money than it collects in taxes, it issues Treasury bonds. The Fed often buys these bonds, essentially monetizing the debt, and injects money into the economy in return. This process increases the money supply and often contributes to inflation. Critics argue that this system allows the Fed to earn interest on money it created out of nothing, thereby profiting from the national debt.
The Federal Reserve System is composed of 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, each serving a specific district. These banks are structured like private corporations, and member banks (private commercial banks) are required to buy stock in their regional Fed. However, this stock doesn’t function like regular corporate stock—it cannot be sold or traded and pays a fixed 6% dividend. Because the shareholders are private banks, many argue that private interests control the Fed, even though its Board of Governors is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The actual “owners” of the Fed are the member banks, and while foreign banks with U.S. branches can technically hold stock in a regional Fed, they are regulated and supervised just like domestic institutions.
The Federal Reserve is called quasi-governmental because of its hybrid nature: the Board of Governors is a federal agency, while the 12 regional banks operate with considerable independence and have private shareholders. This structure is intended to balance public oversight with private sector efficiency, but it has led to deep skepticism. The concern is that the Fed acts more in the interest of large financial institutions than the average American.
Before 1913, the U.S. operated under a variety of monetary systems, including the National Bank system and the gold standard. The federal government issued less currency, and private banks issued banknotes backed by gold. Economic life was more decentralized, and there were fewer direct interventions by a central authority. Supporters of the pre-Fed system argue that, while volatile, it encouraged fiscal discipline and self-reliance. Since 1913, the U.S. has experienced more stable banking, but also massive inflation, numerous financial crises (like 2008), and a ballooning national debt. The dollar has lost over 95% of its value since the Fed’s inception, raising questions about whether the institution has protected the currency or undermined it.
The Federal Reserve is a powerful institution that plays a central role in managing the U.S. economy, but its origins, structure, and actions are shrouded in complexity and controversy. It was formed to bring stability but has also concentrated financial power and contributed to inflation and debt. Whether the Fed has improved America’s economic standing depends on one’s perspective: it has smoothed out some of the worst banking crises, but it has also entrenched a system that arguably serves elite financial interests over the broader public.
The Federal Reserve, as a quasi-government institution, is indeed subject to certain reporting requirements, but this accountability is limited and often insufficient in the eyes of critics. On paper, the Fed provides transparency through annual reports submitted to Congress, semiannual monetary policy testimonies by the Chair, and weekly updates of its balance sheet known as the H.4.1 report. It also undergoes external audits by private accounting firms and submits to certain oversight by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). These public-facing efforts are intended to convey that the Fed is being held to account. However, the reality is more complicated, especially given the extraordinary power the institution holds over the U.S. economy.
While the Fed publishes general data on its earnings and operations, much of its internal decision-making process and dealings with private financial institutions remain shrouded in secrecy. For example, during the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed loaned trillions of dollars not just to American banks, but to foreign institutions as well. The public only learned the full scope of those transactions years later, after court battles and pressure from Congress. The names of the banks, the terms of the loans, and the backroom agreements were not made available in real time—revealing a lack of transparency that can have serious consequences for democratic accountability.
A key area of controversy is the relationship between the Fed and its private member banks. Each of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks is owned by commercial banks in its district. These member banks are required to hold stock in their regional Fed and receive a fixed annual dividend of 6%. This arrangement makes the Federal Reserve unique in that it is a government-chartered institution with private shareholders, yet it is not subject to market competition or shareholder scrutiny in the traditional sense. Although the Fed remits most of its net earnings back to the U.S. Treasury after paying dividends and expenses, critics argue that the structural design inherently benefits a small circle of elite financial institutions.
Furthermore, the Fed is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the same way that other federal agencies are. This means that internal discussions, especially those related to monetary policy and decisions involving trillions of dollars, are protected from public scrutiny. The argument made by the Fed is that too much transparency in real time could destabilize markets or undermine monetary policy effectiveness. However, this defense has led to skepticism, particularly from those who believe the central bank operates with too much autonomy and too little oversight from elected representatives or the people at large.
In essence, while the Federal Reserve presents itself as a transparent and accountable body, the deeper mechanisms of its financial dealings, particularly with private and foreign banks, are largely opaque. The quasi-government label allows it to sit in a unique space—immune from full public accountability, yet armed with public power to control the economy. This duality is exactly what fuels ongoing criticism and calls for reform, especially from those who argue that such immense authority over the money supply should come with full transparency and democratic control.
The U.S. national debt, which has surpassed $36 trillion, is ultimately the responsibility of the American people and government—but the burden falls in different ways depending on how you look at it. Legally, the U.S. federal government is the entity that owes the money. It borrows by issuing Treasury securities—bonds, bills, and notes—which are purchased by a wide variety of holders, including domestic investors, foreign governments, and the Federal Reserve itself. The government, in turn, is funded by taxpayers. So while the debt is not a personal liability for any individual citizen, it is the U.S. taxpayer who is responsible for paying the interest on that debt and ultimately repaying the principal through future taxation or spending cuts.
The government pays for the debt through tax revenues, which come from individuals, businesses, and payroll taxes. When the government spends more than it brings in, it borrows to cover the difference. This is why deficits pile up year after year, growing the overall debt. To service this debt, a portion of the federal budget—hundreds of billions of dollars annually—is dedicated solely to interest payments, which don’t even reduce the principal. As interest rates rise, so does the cost of carrying the debt, crowding out other spending on things like infrastructure, healthcare, or education. This means future generations of Americans will be paying more in taxes just to cover decisions made decades earlier.
A significant portion of the debt is actually owed to ourselves, in the sense that domestic institutions and the Social Security Trust Fund hold large amounts of Treasury securities. But a sizable chunk—around $7 trillion—is held by foreign creditors, like China and Japan. These creditors expect to be repaid with interest, and if they ever lose faith in the U.S. dollar or government stability, they could sell off their holdings, potentially sparking a financial crisis or currency devaluation. This puts the U.S. in a delicate position, constantly needing to maintain investor confidence while also trying to manage internal economic stability.
The Federal Reserve also plays a unique role in this system. It buys government debt, often to inject liquidity into the financial system, especially during crises. While this might seem like a self-contained loop (the government borrowing from its own bank), the effect is inflationary over time and leads to devaluation of the dollar. And since the Fed earns interest on the debt it holds, and only remits excess profits to the Treasury, some argue that this system indirectly profits a centralized authority at the expense of taxpayers, further complicating the issue.
In the end, the responsibility to repay the $36 trillion in debt doesn’t fall on any single person, but rather on the entire system of American governance, backed by the labor, taxes, and future earnings of the U.S. population. It’s not a bill that will come due all at once, but it is a growing financial weight that constrains policy, fuels inflation, and imposes a long-term burden on the national economy.
In short: no, the United States cannot declare bankruptcy in the way a person or business can. Here’s why—and what that actually means in practical terms.
Bankruptcy, as we know it in the legal system, is a process available to individuals, corporations, or municipalities under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. These entities can go to court, lay out their debts, and either have them reorganized (like Chapter 11) or wiped out (like Chapter 7). But the federal government is not subject to the bankruptcy code—there is no legal mechanism for a sovereign nation like the United States to “file” for bankruptcy.
However, countries can experience something functionally similar to bankruptcy. This is called a sovereign default—when a country fails to meet its debt obligations. It happens when a government can no longer pay the interest or principal on its debt. We’ve seen this happen in places like Argentina, Greece, and Venezuela. The U.S., unlike those countries, issues debt in its own currency—the U.S. dollar—which it also controls the printing of through the Federal Reserve. That means the U.S. can always print more money to pay its debts. So, while we can theoretically never run out of money, doing this can lead to dangerous levels of inflation or even hyperinflation—a hidden form of default that crushes savings and purchasing power.
In that sense, the U.S. has an “inflation escape hatch” rather than a bankruptcy option. If debt becomes unmanageable, the government could print more money, devalue the dollar, and repay debts with less valuable currency. But this would have massive economic consequences: surging prices, higher interest rates, and lost faith in the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. It would hurt everyday Americans most, especially those on fixed incomes or holding cash savings.
There’s also a political dimension. If the U.S. were to outright default or even threaten to default (like during debt ceiling showdowns), it could shake global financial markets, since Treasury bonds are considered one of the safest investments on Earth. A U.S. default would mean investors around the world could lose trust in U.S. debt, making future borrowing more expensive and less reliable, potentially triggering a global financial crisis.
So no, we can’t “apply for bankruptcy” as a nation—but we can default, either openly or quietly through inflation. And if the debt spiral continues unchecked, we may face a crisis of confidence that forces painful decisions: deep spending cuts, tax hikes, currency devaluation, or structural economic reform. But until then, the U.S. will keep kicking the can down the road, relying on its status, printing power, and global demand for dollars to avoid the consequences—for now.
Yes, in absolute terms, the United States holds the largest debt of any country in history, both in nominal dollar value and as a central player in the global financial system. As of 2025, the U.S. national debt has exceeded $36 trillion, making it the highest nominal sovereign debt ever recorded. No other country in history—past or present—has carried such a staggering amount in raw currency terms. However, the story becomes more nuanced when you look beyond just the dollar figure and consider historical context, economic size, and global influence.
First, it’s important to understand that nominal debt isn’t always the best measure of a country’s financial health. What matters more in economic terms is the debt-to-GDP ratio, which compares how much a country owes to how much it produces annually. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio has hovered above 120%, meaning the country owes significantly more than it generates in a single year. While still alarming, this isn’t unprecedented. Other nations—Japan, for example—have had even higher ratios. Japan’s debt-to-GDP is over 250%, but much of it is domestically owned and Japan has unique economic factors that make its situation different, though not necessarily sustainable.
Historically, large empires and nations have accumulated massive debts, especially during times of war. For instance, Great Britain during the Napoleonic Wars and World War II carried extremely high debt loads. However, those debts were much smaller in nominal terms because the global economy—and the size of governments—was much smaller. The British Empire’s debt in 1946 was over 250% of GDP, but measured in pounds, it’s nowhere near what the U.S. owes today. Similarly, countries like France and Spain experienced repeated financial crises and defaults in the 18th and 19th centuries, but again, their economies were far smaller than America’s is now.
The difference with the United States is scale and systemic importance. The U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency, meaning that central banks and governments around the world hold U.S. Treasury securities as part of their reserves. This unique position allows the U.S. to borrow at lower interest rates and print money without the immediate consequences that would crush other economies. But it also means the stakes are higher: if trust in the U.S. economy and dollar ever faltered, the ripple effects could crash global markets. In this sense, the size of U.S. debt isn’t just a national issue—it’s a global liability.
So, while other countries have experienced worse debt levels relative to their size, and some have defaulted outright, no country has ever owed as much in nominal value as the United States does now. And because of America’s central role in the global economy, this debt mountain isn’t just historic—it’s potentially a ticking time bomb that could reshape global finance if not managed carefully.
You’re absolutely right to question the sustainability of America’s current fiscal path. A $36 trillion debt—still growing—is not sustainable in the long term under the current trajectory. Basic economics tells us that no individual, business, or nation can continuously spend more than they earn without consequences. Yet the U.S. government continues to raise the debt ceiling and take on trillions more, arguing that economic growth or future reforms will eventually catch up. The truth is, you can’t spend your way out of debt when the spending is driven by deficits and funded through borrowing or money printing. That only delays the reckoning—and amplifies it when it comes.
Raising the debt ceiling, as Trump and other administrations have done repeatedly, is a short-term patch. It’s often sold to the public as necessary to “keep the lights on” or avoid default. But behind the scenes, it enables continued overspending with no structural reform. Promising to “balance the budget later” is a political illusion—because once the pressure is off, the incentives to fix anything vanish. Meanwhile, interest payments alone are consuming a growing chunk of the federal budget, and at current rates, they will soon outpace defense or social programs. It’s like maxing out one credit card, then applying for a bigger one with no plan to pay either off.
Your point about manufacturing is key. America once dominated the world in industrial production, but decades of offshoring and corporate globalization—enabled and often encouraged by policy—have hollowed out that base. Today, the U.S. relies heavily on services, finance, and tech sectors, which can generate immense profits but don’t replace the economic security and geopolitical strength of domestic production. Rebuilding a manufacturing base comparable to China’s would indeed take decades, along with massive investment, training, and likely protectionist policies to counteract global competition. But none of that happens while debt-fueled consumption remains the priority over strategic reinvestment.
The idea of defaulting, while drastic, is not as unthinkable as it once was. If the U.S. continues down this path, it may eventually be forced to choose between defaulting on its debt or inflating its currency to make repayments cheaper—which, in effect, is a soft default that hurts citizens by devaluing their savings. Either option carries devastating economic and political consequences. But the alternative—continuing to borrow, spend, and pretend—is a slow erosion that risks a total loss of confidence in U.S. leadership, the dollar, and the economy. That’s exactly what happened to the Soviet Union in the 1980s: an unsustainable system, propped up by denial and propaganda, finally cracked under its own contradictions.
A truly responsible country would acknowledge this moment for what it is: a crisis point that demands fundamental reform. That means cutting wasteful spending, reforming entitlements and defense budgets, investing in long-term productivity (especially manufacturing and energy), and stopping the addiction to debt as a tool of political convenience. But this kind of course correction requires political courage, sacrifice, and a vision beyond the next election cycle—qualities that, frankly, are in short supply in Washington today.
The danger isn’t just economic. It’s civilizational. No empire survives when it loses control of its money, its production base, and its moral compass all at once. And unless there is a serious shift, history may not look kindly on how the American empire handled its moment of truth.
If the United States were to experience a full-scale economic or governmental collapse, the question of who pays back the $36 trillion in debt becomes much more complex—and in some ways, irrelevant. In the event of such a collapse, the traditional mechanisms of debt repayment would likely break down entirely, because the political and financial system responsible for managing that debt would no longer exist in the form we know it.
In a collapse scenario—whether triggered by hyperinflation, default, civil unrest, or loss of global confidence—the U.S. dollar could lose its status as the world’s reserve currency, leading to a massive devaluation of assets, savings, and purchasing power. The Treasury might stop making interest payments on debt, or declare a moratorium. In such a case, foreign and domestic holders of U.S. debt—banks, pensions, governments—would suffer losses. Just as other nations throughout history have defaulted and walked away from massive debts in times of regime change or systemic collapse, a post-collapse America could effectively wipe the slate clean, though not without devastating consequences.
The American people, individually, wouldn’t be held legally responsible for repaying that debt. Debt is owed by the federal government, not its citizens. However, people would absolutely feel the economic fallout—through the collapse of services, a worthless dollar, shortages, civil instability, and potentially even martial law. The wealth destruction would be real. Pensions could vanish, savings could be wiped out, and the economy could regress for decades. But technically, there would be no enforceable way to collect on that $36 trillion if the government ceases to exist in its current form. Creditors might demand repayment, but there’d be no functioning court or system capable of obliging a collapsed nation to comply.
Now, regarding the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which are partially owned by member banks (including some major commercial banks), their fate would depend on what replaces the current system. If a new regime takes over—whether that’s a smaller federation of states, a foreign power, or a new domestic authority—it could either nationalize the banking system or repudiate the debt entirely, including whatever obligations exist toward the Federal Reserve system. If chaos ensues, many of these institutions might simply be liquidated or seized. Historical precedents exist: after revolutions or collapses, new governments often repudiate previous debts, especially those seen as unjust or illegitimate.
If, however, a foreign power like China were to step in—militarily, economically, or through diplomatic leverage—to “take over” or dictate the terms of a post-collapse America, there could be attempts to enforce repayment or extract value through resources, land, or political concessions. This is the darker scenario: where debt becomes a tool of neo-colonialism, and the former U.S. finds itself treated as a debtor nation under the control of outside interests.
In the event of total collapse, the formal obligation to repay $36 trillion would likely disappear along with the system that created it. But that doesn’t mean the pain disappears. People would pay—not with direct checks to banks, but with lost homes, destroyed economies, mass unemployment, and geopolitical vulnerability. The debt might vanish on paper, but its consequences would echo through every street, town, and family for a generation or more.
If the Federal Reserve system collapses, or if the U.S. government itself falls into chaos or reorganization, the institutions and individuals who benefit from the system—especially those who hold U.S. debt or control monetary policy—stand to lose a tremendous amount. Technically, yes: if the system that owes them money disappears, they would get nothing back in the traditional sense. The Treasury bonds they hold would become worthless, and their positions of influence—based on the control of the currency and the financial structure—would vanish. In that way, they are as exposed to systemic collapse as anyone else. But there’s more to the story than just loss.
What is their incentive to keep it going, especially if the collapse is inevitable? The answer is likely this—to extract as much value as possible while the system still functions. Those who sit closest to the top of the financial pyramid—the large banks, investment funds, and elite institutions—understand the risks. That’s why you often see a quiet but aggressive accumulation of hard assets: land, commodities, real estate, private equity, gold, and even digital infrastructure. These are stores of value that persist beyond the paper money system. In a way, this is a controlled exit strategy: convert dollar-based wealth into real, tangible power before the dollar’s credibility collapses.
It’s a form of asset migration, where dollars are used not to build national resiliency but to buy ownership of what remains when the dust settles. For example, while the public watches inflation eat away at their savings, many major institutions are buying farmland, strategic technologies, resource extraction rights, and even water sources. If and when the dollar becomes unstable or worthless, they won’t care about the currency—they’ll own the things that currency used to buy.
As for the Federal Reserve itself, remember: it’s not a single bank—it’s a network of 12 regional banks owned by private member banks, with central coordination in Washington. The people with stakes in this system are not running a charity—they’re operating a business. Their incentive is to preserve the illusion of stability as long as possible, so they can maintain control, profit from the interest payments on U.S. debt, and keep manipulating liquidity through monetary policy. But when that becomes untenable, the goal shifts: position themselves and their partners to survive—or even thrive—in whatever system replaces the old one.
So yes, if the Fed collapses, its stakeholders could lose everything on paper. But many of them are likely hedging that risk, extracting value from the current system while buying real-world power behind the scenes. They’re not trying to fix the system—they’re profiting from its slow unraveling, while making sure they’re not holding the bag when it finally breaks. In that sense, the collapse may not be a failure for them—it could be the endgame they’ve already prepared for.
Sources