[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]Cute. Answer me this, why has the organization that controls the money in the US never been audited to see who owns what and who is making money off of the selling of our money? [/quote]
It HAS been audited. In fact, every single year. The profits are divided, with substantially all of the profits going to the federal government, with a relatively small amount going to pay dividends to the shareholder banks at a statutory rate based on their investment. (I believe it’s 4%) While the specific ownership isn’t public record, the no member banks are getting rich with that dividend. There may be information you want. It won’t be revealed in any kind of audit. It isn’t in the flow of specific dollars, or in any Fed transactions. It’s in the policy.
(And I haven’t read griffen’s book. But if you have accurately portrayed his arguments, he’s a moron. Most of these claims are just too easily debunked.)[/quote]
The main assertion of griffin, Robert kiosk, bill still, ron Paul is that it has not been audited thoroughly. We do not know how much of the interest paid to the fed is forwarded to the treasury. You are a CPA and, I believe, blinded to defending the accounting profession. How can you say it has been audited when so many others say it has not? If the fed is keeping much of the interest paid to it, that is what I think we need to find out. There is no more powerful thing in the world except for the money supply. It should be the most openly discussed entity there is since it is so powerful. There is a long history of central bank mis-behavior going back to the beginnings of this country. (Look up “money matters” by bill still on DVD at Amazon. COM.) Dave from Fallbrook gave a long discussion about what a liability/ asset is in an earlier post based on what griffin said in those 6 pages. Dave missed the entire meaning of griffin’s writings. Griffin said that the whole movement of money between the fed/ treasury/ banks and to us is not meant to make sense. It is designed to confuse. Dave missed that point entirely; in fact supporting it by saying that griffin’s description of movement did not make sense. In my experience, trying to understand a business’s worth/ how it operates is all about following the money. Accountants don’t necessarily understand investing. Two different subjects entirely. You say it is in the fed policy to keep 6% (not 4%) is in their policy. Do they do it? That is the basis for the need to audit the fed, not what has been done up until now. I guess Ron Paul is an idiot and doesn’t understand that the fed has been audited completely as you say. I guess he is just grandstanding. Frankly, I take his word over yours. I am not a CPA so I have to read many books on the subject. Sometimes a new approach, unencumbered by potential biases from degrees may be an advantage, which is what griffin is saying about himself. Not that I don’t appreciate degrees. (I have more that you and Dave from Fallbrook combined, by the way.)
