State Central Banking vs Private Central Banking | Wen Tiejun

Let's delve into the core reasons underlying the strategic confrontation between the People's Republic of China and the United States of America, as this unveils a significant systemic discrepancy: [...] The issuance of the renminbi (RMB) is fundamentally based on the authority of the Chinese government, specifically through the People's Bank of China (PBC). The basis for the issuance of the renminbi is definitely not gold. The reason this money is valuable is because it is a sovereign currency issued by the state and backed by state authority. Empowering a sovereign currency establishes credit. The currency creates credit, and the sole resource available is political authority. Thus, political authority, governmental power, and the administration in control align with the currency system.

Wen Tiejun (温铁军) is a Chinese agricultural economist and a professor at the Renmin

University of China, best known for his studies on the Three Rural Issues in Mainland China.

 

On the other hand, the source of the US dollar's credit is an institution established by private bankers, not a country. Pay attention, this difference matters: The US dollar is actually issued by an institution called the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is neither an official entity nor a government institution; instead, it is an organization operated by private bankers. This particular organization possesses the authority to issue the national currency and determines the financial policy of the United States, which the government then implements.

 

 

» The root cause of global chaos is financial capital globalization, which is

supported by military hegemony. « Wen Tiejun's complete discourse video.  

 

This occurrence is quite rare across the globe, both in terms of nations and systems. In the majority of countries, it is the political power of the state that grants authority to its national currency, forming a sovereign currency. In a select number of nations, such as the United States, institutions are established by private banking entities, and the government subsequently enacts the policies of these private banker collectives.

[...] Therefore, throughout the extensive history of the United States, numerous influential presidents have attempted to reclaim monetary authority. All of them ultimately failed. Almost every president who was resolute in their determination to reclaim monetary authority ended up deceased, including the widely recognized Kennedy assassination. These events all share similar demands to restore monetary rights back to the government, yet none of these plans have been fully realized.

[...] China continues to maintain its national control over financial capital. For what specific purpose? In recent years, when China faced global crises and a decline in exports, the Chinese government mainly relied on national finance, investing in infrastructure that may not yield immediate profits. A straightforward example is the allocation of funds for the construction of roads and railways in rural, mountainous, and even desert regions. All these investments cannot be recovered in the short term, and it's also difficult to recover them in the long term. So, should we invest? We should, because if we don't, businesses will have no market and workers will become unemployed. On the other hand, the government would have to use its finances to pay for unemployment benefits. Rather than doing that, it's better to invest. 

» The United States exploits the world's wealth with the help of "seigniorage." It costs only about 17 cents to produce a 100 dollar bill, but other countries had to pony up 100 dollar of actual goods in order to obtain one. It was pointed out more than half a century ago, that the United States enjoyed exorbitant privilege and deficit without tears created by its dollar, and used

the worthless paper note to plunder the resources and factories of other nations. The hegemony of the US dollar 

is the main source of instability and uncertainty in the world economy. «

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, 2023. 

[...] I perceive this as one of Trump's most proactive and forward-thinking policies—to focus on the advancement of infrastructure development. His most significant challenge is that the US lacks the so-called state-owned enterprises (SOEs) similar to those in China. Additionally, it doesn't have a state-owned banking system. China's system uses state banks to receive currency from the government, which is directly paid to state-owned enterprises. These enterprises then directly engage in infrastructure construction, maintaining China's economic growth and sustaining employment. The US uses private banks to issue more currency to buy government bonds, which then leads to a virtual capital expansion, with two hands shifting the crisis to the whole world.

[...] Analyzing this with American theory suggests China's state-owned banks and state-owned enterprises are inefficient. They don't provide tax revenue and occupy a large amount of capital. But just because financial resources are utilized doesn't mean nothing is produced. A significant amount of wealth is indeed generated, but this wealth manifests in the form of airports, seaports, train stations, highways, and high-speed railway systems. None of these investments can generate returns in the immediate short term. Consequently, a substantial amount of capital in China's state-owned banks is currently tied up. According to general free-market economic theory, those that can't be recovered soon should all go bankrupt. As long as you genuinely and sincerely execute what is purportedly stated in the media today, China's economy should have gone bankrupt long ago because its large investments can't be recovered quickly.

» I think he [US Fed chairman Jerome Powell] is a very stupid person, actually. «
Not-calling-the-shots POTUS, July 13, 2025.

 

[...] How Trump might approach the situation? He doesn't have China's methods. So, how will he do it? By relying on private bankers to reform America's railways? How long will it take to recoup the investment? Why would private individuals invest in rebuilding American roads and airports? Private investment is dropping. This is similar to what's happening in China: whenever there's an economic crisis, China's private investment decline is inevitable. So, how do you counter it? You have to rely on state investment to push it up. One goes down, the other goes up. That's how it is. 

 

» The US uses private banks to issue more currency to buy government bonds, which then 
leads to a virtual capital expansion, with two hands shifting the crisis to the whole world. «

 

A significant number of individuals are critical of China's system. I don't intend to imply anything else; I'm merely suggesting that you observe the actual impact. I also don't wish to defend this so-called closed system of China because I equally dislike this bureaucratic system, but it actually maintains the nation's foundational employment and crucial economic development.

  

Reference:
Wen Tiejun (2021) - Money, War, Supremacy: The Root Cause of Global Chaos. (video)

See also:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (2023) - US Hegemony and Its Perils. 

Stephen Mitford Goodson (2019) - A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind.
Murray N. Rothbard (1994) - The Case Against the Fed. (the legal monopoly of counterfeiting)

G. Edward Griffin (1994) - The Creature from Jekyll Island. 

Eustace Mullins (1952) - The Secrets of the Federal Reserve.

Ezra Pound (1939) - What is Money for?

The Game of Chess, and the Masters of the Board | The Honorable One

Chess can show you how the world is run, who is really in power, and how to break it. There are six types of people who run the modern world. First you need to understand who is at the bottom.
 

 » Someday, someone will return and flip the board. « 

 

Number one, the pawns—the masses. They follow orders, pay taxes, are predictable, and get sacrificed in each game. Without them, there is no game, no power, no state, no Suki system. They are the majority in every game, the foundation of all power, and yet they are too weak to realize it. 

Number two, the rooks—the 20% who do 80% of the work: long hours, efficient, diligent, straight shooters. They are like machines. But they get stuck when routines change, they are not flexible enough, and they are useless on their own. They need number three:

 

» Everyone is afraid of the queen. «  

The knights. For a long time they just sit. Then they leap over walls, surprising everyone. Their paths and creativity are unpredictable. They connect dots no one else connects. They are ahead of the curve and unplug first. They walk into uncharted terrain. But one wrong step, and they fall. 

 

Knights need number four by their side: A good bishop to protect them. He is a quiet planner, the one who can wait. He is patient and prepared with a plan to strike months or years from now. But bishops are nothing compared to number five:

» It's their game. « 

 

The queen can strike anytime, anywhere, in all directions. Everyone is afraid of the queen. Who are the queens of this world? Central Bankers, those who run the Suki agencies, the military—those who can take out anyone anytime anywhere. The rules and laws of pawns, knights, and bishops do not apply to them. 

 

» Families that cannot be named. « 

So why is number six, the king, in power, and not the queen? The king takes small steps in the back rows, unnoticed. Nobody fears him. He holds power through legacy. Queens wield power for decades; kings and their families hold it for centuries. Who are the kings of today's world? The families that cannot be named. They have trillions but don’t appear on Forbes lists. Money does not matter to them—they print it. Everyone plays chess, but they are the ones who provide the board. They decide how many fields the board has and how long the game will be played. 

 

» We are the oil in your dressing, the flour in your bread, the meat on your dinner table. «  

A largely unknown American family dynasty of 14 billionaires traces its fortune to William Wallace Cargill in 1865. The Cargill-MacMillan family business, Cargill Inc., became one of the world's largest private companies. With revenues of $177 billion, it controls 22% of US beef production, and its low public visibility stems from its dominance in the food supply chain, where it and three other firms handle 70–90% of the global grain trade.

 

It's their game, and it is hard to exit. But there is a way: You only win if you don't play. You stop paying, you stop playing. All the game is run by money—consumption, production, access, bureaucracy, taxes. If you stop the money flow, the game stops. Someday, someone who has stopped playing and walked away from the game will return and flip the board: Game over for all the kings and all their Suki helpers. Honor will come.

 

Reference: 
The Grim (2025) - The Six Types of People who Run this World. (video)

 

 “Suki,” Russian prison slang for traitors and bitches (сука/суки), denotes globalist elites, corporations, and establishment figures—who embody hypocrisy, manipulation, and betrayal. They uphold the “Suki system,” the oppressive order of financial dependency, surveillance, digital control, censorship, and cultural erosion. “The Grim” is the The Honorable One, and the adversary of the Suki. He stands  for growth, reliability, integrity, independence, incorruptibility. He rejects victimhood, consumerism, culture of comfort, indulgence, entitlement, materialism, and resists the Suki system mentally, emotionally, financially and spiritually.

 

See also:

Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola (1972) - The Godfather.

Ludwig Fainberg (2018) - Operation Odessa. (video) 

Michael Franzese (2025) - Stories and Lessons from a former Mobster.  

Gaetano Mosca (1900) - What is the Mafia? (Che cosa è la mafia?)  

Neema Parvini (2025)  - The "Iron Law of Oligarchy" and the Delusion of Democracy. 

Richard A. Werner (2025)  - Money Creation—Banking’s Best-Kept Secret. 

Stephen Mitford Goodson (2019) - A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind.

Muammar al-Gaddafi (1975) - The Green Book. (الكتاب الأخضر) 

Imam Ruhollah Khomeini (1970) - Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist. (ولایت فقیه) 

George Ivanovich Gurdjieff (1949) - The Magician's Sheep. 

 TPR (2025)  - How Opium Trade Fueled the Sassoon Dynasty, the "Rothschilds of the East".

 

了解你的敌人
Know your Enemies. 

Money Creation—Banking’s Best-Kept Secret | Richard A. Werner

In an era when gold was money, people believed it was essential for transactions. But carrying gold was perilous—dangerous even today in cities like London, let alone in the 15th-17th centuries amid bandits on lawless roads. So, people sought safe storage. Professions handling gold, like goldsmiths crafting jewelry for kings, aristocrats, and the wealthy, had secure vaults and private guards. Naturally, individuals deposited their gold with these goldsmiths for safekeeping.
 

» We don't need to lend actual gold. «

"The Moneychanger and His Wife", painted by Quinten Matsijs, 1514.

 

To prove ownership, depositors received receipts—crucial evidence in case the goldsmith died and his son denied the claim. Goldsmiths charged a fee for this service, which seemed fair. Now, imagine we’re neighbors in Hampshire. I’m buying a plot of land from you, and we agree on a price in gold. My gold’s stored with a goldsmith in London. “I’ll go fetch it,” I say. You reply, “What’ll you do with it? You’ll risk your life fetching it, and then I’ll have to risk mine carrying it back.” We pause, then realize, “We might as well leave it there, and I’ll give you my deposit receipt.” Thus, these receipts for deposited gold evolved into Europe's first paper money—gold certificates, transferable and convenient.

 

» Invented for banking to obscure. «
Luca de Pacioli, the "Father of Double-Entry Accounting," painted by Jacopo de' Barbari, 1495. 

Goldsmiths soon noticed that depositors rarely withdrew their gold; it stayed put, which was handy. This led to secrecy-shrouded practices. People knew goldsmiths held gold reserves, so they approached them for loans when in need. But until about 350 years ago, lending at interest was illegal in most European countries, forbidden by Christian doctrine and Biblical prohibitions against usury. A goldsmith might whisper, "Maybe I can lend, but keep it secret because I'll charge interest." The borrower agrees: "I'll pay, and we'll keep it secret." Goldsmiths began lending out portions of the deposited gold—especially standardized bullion—while swearing everyone to secrecy to evade arrest for illegal interest.

 

» Is that the law? «

Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene I, by William Shakespeare, 1596.

 

As guilds do, goldsmiths convened to discuss trade secrets: “How do we handle lending too much gold? We need to work together—if one runs short, the others help, or else the whole scheme unravels, and we all get arrested for interest altogether.” One innovative goldsmith proposed, "I've got an idea—we don't need to lend actual gold. The next guy who comes begging every Monday—I've turned him down before. But now I'll lend to him to show you."

 

» All banks have always created money out of nothing. 
That's the secret of banking. «

Richard A. Werner, 2025.

 

The borrower arrives, pleading. The goldsmith says, “Today I’ll lend. Standard contract: small print, interest, your daughters sold into slavery if not repaid.” “Fine,” the borrower consents. “One more thing: 300 grams of gold. Sign here, I sign, and I lend it—but you must deposit it with me immediately.” The borrower protests, “I need the gold.” “You get the deposit receipt,” replies the goldsmith. “Yes, that’s all I need.” With the loan contract signed, the goldsmith records it as an asset on his balance sheet. He hands over the 300 grams of gold momentarily—now you see it, now you don’t—and it’s redeposited. The borrower leaves with a receipt for a new deposit.

 

» Banking has not been very well understood: legally, a "deposit"

is a loan to the bank, now owned by the bank, not the depositor. «

 Richard A. Werner, 2018.

 

Double-entry accounting, invented for banking to obscure such maneuvers, made it appear legitimate: “All correct; the borrower deposited.” But it is fraudulent—the borrower enters with no gold and leaves with a document claiming a deposit, without increasing the goldsmith’s actual reserves. This is the essence of modern banking: fractional reserve lending and money creation out of thin air, born from these historical practices.

 

Reference:

The Tucker Carlson Show (2025)  - Richard Werner Exposes the Evils of the Fed

& the Link Between Banking, War, and the CIA. (video)

 

» Today, due to the institutionalisation of interest and the advent of digital money, roughly 97 percent of modern money comes into existence as interest-bearing debt—i.e., it “comes into being only when someone promises to pay back even more of it.” «
Yusuf Jha, 2013.

 

See also: 

¡ Richard A. Werner (2025) - You’ve been lied to about the history of money. (video) ! 

Richard A. Werner (2016) - A lost century in economics: Three theories of banking and the conclusive evidence. 

Richard A. Werner (2014) - Can banks individually create money out of nothing? 

Stephen Mitford Goodson (2019) - A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind. 

Stephen Mitford Goodson (2019)  - The Central Bank of Libya under Muammar al-Gaddafi. 

Yusuf Jha (2013)  - From Goldsmiths to Modern Banking. A Frank Look at the Money-Creation Process. 

Jongchul Kim (2011)  - How Modern Banking Originated: The London Goldsmith-Bankers’ Institutionalization of Trust.  

Anthony C. Sutton (1974) - The Banksters' Paradise Conspiracy Theory.

Hjalmar Schacht (1967) - The Magic of Money. 

Carroll Quigley (1966)  - The BIS—The Apex of the System.

 Dorothy M. Nichols (1961) - Modern Money Mechanics.

Ezra Pound (1939) - What is Money for?

 

The Quarterly Journal of Economics (1676)  - The Mystery of the New-Fashioned Goldsmiths or Bankers.

 

了解你的敌人
Know your Enemies. 

Financial Oligarchies vs. State Power | Michael Hudson

My articles about the origins of credit, money, and interest share a common frame of reference. From the inception of economic practices and enterprise in the ancient Near East, through classical antiquity and medieval Europe to today, wealthy classes have sought to transform themselves into an oligarchy that controls government and religion to protect, legitimize, and increase their wealth, especially their rent-extraction privileges as creditors, monopolists, or landlords.

 Marcus Licinius Crassus (115 – 53 BC): 

general, statesman, the richest man in Rome, and a textbook oligarch.

 

We see the same struggle through the ages, with financial elites opposing any government power capable of restricting their self-serving rent-seeking and creditor power at society’s expense. We see it today in the pro-creditor economic policies of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the ‘libertarian’ ideology, all of which seek to centralize power to allocate resources and plan economies within the financial sector instead of democratic governments. Today’s neoliberal idea is to eliminate government authority (except where it is controlled by rentier sectors) and let banks in the privatized financial sector control money and credit, which is the most important public utility.
 

That should be the context in which one examines every epoch’s economic view of the world, above all its perspective concerning how ‘free’ a market should be and just whose freedom is being endorsed. This has been the great question throughout the history of civilization—from the Bronze Age Near East, when rulers regularly proclaimed Clean Slates debt cancellations to restore economic order and check incipient oligarchies, through the five centuries of civil war in the Roman Republic and Jesus’s fight against the emerging Jewish oligarchy, to today’s civilizational struggle between the NATO West, dominated by U.S.-oriented rentier oligarchies, and the global majority now centered on the BRICS.

 Rare Anomaly: Populist Pariah Oligarchs Proclaiming to Serve the Common Good —  September 2, 2024.

China’s government has financed its remarkable industrial takeoff without having to borrow from private creditors. There was little money to borrow from its domestic population, so the Bank of China printed its own money. Unlike typical financial practice, it did not demand personal wealth be pledged as collateral because stock and bond holdings or substantial real estate did not yet exist. The government did not need to turn to bondholders to increase its public spending—and in any case, there were no domestic bondholders to borrow from in the wake of its Revolution. China did what any sovereign national government can do—what Abraham Lincoln did in the Civil War. It simply printed the money.

 

Quoted from:
Michael Hudson (September 1, 2024) - Reshaping Christianity and the Modern State: A Journey from Usury to Fiscal Power.

 

See also:
Stephen Mitford Goodson (2017) - A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind.

Conjure away Debt

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard- 21 Oct 2012: ... A paper by the International Monetary Fund claims that one could eliminate the net public debt of the US at a stroke, and by implication do the same for Britain, Germany, Italy, or Japan. ... The conjuring trick is to replace our system of private bank-created money - roughly 97% of the money supply - with state-created money. ... If lenders are forced to put up 100% reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exorbitant privilege of creating money out of thin air. The nation regains sovereign control over the money supply. ... The IMF study came out in August and has begun to acquire a cult following around the world. Entitled "The Chicago Plan Revisited", it revives the scheme first put forward by professors Henry Simons and Irving Fisher in 1936 during the ferment of creative thinking in the late Depression. Read all HERE and watch THIS