You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Federal Reserve is Criminal Syndicate, a private Criminal Syndicate
- Thread starter AlsoHuman
- Start date
Quote from trefoil:
Try reading something besides mises.org.
You could look through ALL of Pirenne (who?) or Braudel, and not see a single mention of private banks doing the functions that were taken up by, say, the Bank of Amsterdam.
Adam Smith, Mackay, and Bagehot all do mention this, but of course they were talking about the UK.
Galbraith's Money, Whence it Came, Where it Went, is highly entertaining and an accurate read on how the Fed started.
If you prefer it from the right, there's James Grant, who's just as entertaining, and lays this out pretty much the same way, facts being, you know, facts.
If you prefer myths and just-so stories, you can read the crap on the Internet.
I separate facts from opinion....
this was on the FEDs own website until they took it down.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/gener.../faq/faqfrs.htm
Who owns the Federal Reserve?
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.
As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."
The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.
That is a private bank.
They pretend they are within the govt because the govt can pull their charter... and they throw a red herring about 97 percent of the profits... but if you read carefully you see the regional banks are owned by someone and its not congress.
http://monetaryfreedom-billwoolsey.blogspot.com/2011/09/negative-interest-on-resreves.htmlQuote from morganist:
they cannot decrease the interest much more,
Quote from jem:
I separate facts from opinion....
this was on the FEDs own website until they took it down.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/gener.../faq/faqfrs.htm
Who owns the Federal Reserve?
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.
As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."
The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.
That is a private bank.
They pretend they are within the govt because the govt can pull their charter... and they throw a red herring about 97 percent of the profits... but if you read carefully you see the regional banks are owned by someone and its not congress.
I agree with most of that, but what about the principal amount of the bonds? The Fed sells those in the open market for $100k each. The Treasury is responsible for repayment. The Fed kicks back the paltry interest, but what about the principal windfall?
Quote from FireWalker:
I agree with most of that, but what about the principal amount of the bonds? The Fed sells those in the open market for $100k each. The Treasury is responsible for repayment. The Fed kicks back the paltry interest, but what about the principal windfall?
Of course, since they are on both sides of the manufactured bond market, you could argue they breakeven on their buys and sells. However, trading profits would be substantial. This might partly explain why bonds are 140+. If I were Bernanke, I'd sell it all at 140, drop the market and buy back at 100 or wherever. Of course there is risk to that because a swipe of legal pen could leave you on the short side of worthless paper. I'd have to think more about that, but that's off the top of my head. I'm going to get a beer and sit bored by myself as I do and have done nearly every day of my life.
Well, firstly, how did we get into a discussion of the Bank of England? I thought this thread was about the Fed? As to the rest, I fail to see your point. The fact that the Bank of England has made some mistakes and isn't capable of performing perfectly, as defined by your exacting standards, is neither here nor there. It's like saying that, because refs in football don't always make the 100% right calls, they should have games without refs or linesmen.Quote from morganist:
I don't believe you. You have a habit in my opinion of saying someone is wrong then repeating what they said in a different way to make them sound wrong. The central bank was originally private wholesale banks. Fact. It failed to provided the lender of last resort facility with Northern Rock. Fact. The ability of the Bank of England to control interest rates is now limited. Fact. The only function that the Bank of England is capable of doing is printing money, in what ever form you say it is done. Fact. Before you say it do qualitative easing it is rubbish and won't work.
Regardless even if the central bank can flood the market with liquidity the demand aspect of lending is flawed due to the high risk. The banks will not lend money out at the levels they used to no matter how much money the central banks will give them.
But yes, I do agree with you generally that the roots of the central banks are in the private sector.
I was not "getting cute" and "being smart". I think one should define the terminology well before engaging in arguments. So why don't you tell me how you define "private", instead of getting cute?Quote from jem:
Wow, could you be more wrong.
Notice Marty is smart enough to evade this issue. He gets cute and says define private.
And more this gets twisted into some tortured avenue of logic - the British Navy also had its roots in the private sector - where merchantmen were called up in times of war.
Quote from Martinghoul:
But yes, I do agree with you generally that the roots of the central banks are in the private sector.
Yeah, and, more generally, haven't all bits of government evolved from private citizens banding together to provide a public service at a lower cost (due to economies of scale and scope, among other reasons)?Quote from DontMissTheBus:
And more this gets twisted into some tortured avenue of logic - the British Navy also had its roots in the private sector - where merchantmen were called up in times of war.
sometimes the government goes askew,the citizens usually right it before it's too late,sometimes they don't....cuba.china,iraq.iran,darfur,serbia,mexico...etcQuote from Martinghoul:
Yeah, and, more generally, haven't all bits of government evolved from private citizens banding together to provide a public service at a lower cost (due to economies of scale and scope, among other reasons)?