Right here don't hock your brains--do your own thinking. Without any option, without any vote of stockholders, without any action by its officers every National Bank in the U.S.A. was compelled to buy stock in the Federal Reserve Bank in its fiscal dependency or loot area in which it was located. Protest was useless--just as useless as if they stood under the guns of a Jesse James' or Younger Brothers' gang. It was just "stand and deliver" and they delivered! At this time, in 1914, the banking business in the U.S.A., and particularly National Banks, was functioning soundly and safely. It was serving--not dominating--industry. It was making reasonable--not Shylock--profits. Suppose the lustful eyes of the Federal Reserve lootage had turned to the drygoods instead of to the banking business. They would have compelled every drygoods merchant in the U.S.A. to contribute six per cent of his capital and surplus--with one-half immediately payable--to set up a drygoods jobbing house in the center of a designated loot area. They would have compelled every drygoods merchant to purchase his merchandise from that jobbing house at their price. Isn't one proposition as sane as the other? Of course it is. But there is this difference. By commandeering capital for the drygoods business licensed looters _could control only the drygoods business_. But by commandeering capital for the banking business licensed looters _could control all business_! That's the difference and that's all the difference. They commandeered capital where it could _control not one industry but all industries_. They didn't commandeer a leg or an arm of industry but they did commandeer _the life blood of all industry_ and at one leap vaulted into a seat of power where their scepter's sway really governed all American industry. That's what they really did. What price did Federal Reserve lootage pay for this commandeered capital? It limited the dividends to be paid to these sandbagged stockholders to six per cent per annum. No matter how fabulous might be--and really have been--the profits of Federal Reserve pillage the people who provided its life blood of capital must be content with a paltry six per cent dividend! Over a long term of years the net profits of the National Banks of the U.S.A. have averaged slightly over 12 per cent per annum. But Federal Reserve lootage says: "We will pay you but one half what your capital has been earning." Some gall? It was the absolute acme of refrigerated nerve! No matter what Federal Reserve Shylockery might make on this commandeered capital the people who provided it--whose money it really was--could get but a paltry six per cent. But one fact or series of facts is worth more than pages of language. So right here and now look at the actual results for the year 1920. Here is a list of Federal Reserve profits and pillage for that year: