do you know what the federal reserve is?

[davelj]

[quote=BillS78][quote=davelj]”You really need to educate yourself.” OK, Professor. Will do! Before I get to that however…

Right, the 12 regional Fed Banks don’t comprise the entire system – and thus don’t “own” the system. You have to add in the Board of Governors which, via the FOMC, sets monetary policy. The ownership of the 12 regional Fed Banks is explained below.[/quote]

[quote=BillS78]
Dave, seriously, stop posting and go educate yourself because you still don’t get it and your ignorance is frightening.[/quote]

There you go again… more ad hominem. If my ignorance is frightening… how does the ignorance of someone who bought a house near the peak of the bubble compare? That’s a rhetorical question.

[quote=BillS78]
Anyone with a brain knows the NY fed runs the show. The idea that the 11 other regional fed banks have any real impact is just stupid. I understand why the FRB’s website would stress all 12 regional banks(propaganda) but why do you continue to bring them up?[/quote]

You’ve made a classic straw man argument here. I never stated nor implied that the NY Fed didn’t have a disproportionate amount of control within the Fed System. Anyone familiar with money and banking knows that the NY Fed is at the hub of decision-making (and power) within the system. But the OP was referencing “ownership,” and that is what I have been addressing. It should come as no surprise that the largest banks in the US comprise the largest shareholders of the NY Fed and that, by extension, the CEOs of these banks (representing their own shareholders) wield a lot of influence over the NY Fed and, by extension, the entire Fed System. And in a previous post, I alluded to the fact that “a small group of folks (the wealthy, politicians, etc.) have undue INFLUENCE” over the Fed. So, your straw man argument that I am unwilling to acknowledge a concentration of power and influence by the NY Fed within the Fed System is patently ridiculous. You’re reading something into my posts that simply isn’t there.

[quote=BillS78]
Do you know which organization ran the $1.25 trillion MBS purchase program, or who took on the $30 billion worth of toxic assets in the Bear Sterns – JP Morgan deal? I’ll give you a hint: It wasn’t the regional fed banks of Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, or San Francisco.[/quote]

Again… no one is arguing that the NY Fed isn’t the Big Daddy within the Fed System, so this is a Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious.
[quote=BillS78]
The federal reserve system was formed 100 years ago by JP Morgan, the Goldman & Sachs family, and others. These family banks have morphed into massive corporations but they’re are still the few entities who own the Fed. Look at who’s controlled all the action, the history of who’s on the NY feds board of directors, or the background of almost all of our treasury secretaries. The silly thing is that this isn’t some great hidden conspiracy, it’s basic business that’s out in the open for all to see but too many like you are too ignorant to bother educating yourselves.[/quote]

More of the straw man argument.

[quote=BillS78]
Only an ignorant fool like yourself thinks that the fed is controlled by some widespread group made up from the 12 regional banks.[/quote]

Apparently you’re having a problem understanding the difference between “ownership” (which is a legal term) and “control” (which is a political issue). Go back and re-read my posts if you doubt that I’ve been discussing ownership. (Again, I’ve already acknowledged – before you bothered to post – that a relatively small group largely influences the machinations in our financial system.)

Anyhow, Bill, it appears that you’ve been at this site for about 2 months. And you’ve only made a handful of posts. And you’ve already divulged the embarrassing truth about being dumb enough to buy a house near the peak. (Which casts a very dark cloud over your purported understanding of anything vaguely financial, frankly.) Your specialty appears to be a pedantic rebuttal of straw man arguments coupled with ad hominem attacks. And for some unknown reason, you clearly think very highly of yourself. Even the folks here who vehemently disagree on issues do a far better job of conducting themselves than I’ve seen from you thus far. Thus, I doubt you’ll last very long. But, we’ll see.

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
The loss of interest paid to the US govenment on loans to other governments is a large loss to the american tax payer as well as instead of making interest on loaning our money, we wind up paying the federal reserve to loan out our own money! As riduculous as this sounds, that is the reality of what is happening.
[/quote]

I have no idea what you mean by this. If interest is paid to the US government, then the US government gets it. Are you aware of loans the fed has made to foreign governments directly? (I’m not, they may exist. I’ve just never seen them disclosed. The feds annual financial disclosures do not identify any.) Additionally, the fed is self funding and any net profit that the fed has, over and above it’s statutory dividends (previously noted above), are paid directly to the US government, so there is no “profit” being lost to a private company.[/quote]

Sorry I wasn’t clearer. Lets say that the US wants to loan 100 billion to the EU countries. The US could loan it directly and have the EU pay us the interest on it. Instead what happens is that the cash goes to the fed, at no interest, which then loans the money to the EU and charges the EU interest on it. So, the US taxpayer lost the ability to make interest on the dollars loaned to the EU. The next step is that the EU can use some of the extra dollars to buy up tresury bills at auction. When this happens, the US gets its dollars back but now owes interest on the dollars that the EU gave to us, which is of course our own money. Instead, the US could have loaned the dollars to the EU directly and have been paid interest instead of paying the EU interest on our own money that filtered through the fed. The fed gets paid interest on the loans to the EU by the way. Everyone makes interest on our own money but the US. The US which winds up paying the EU interest. The EU winds up paying the fed interest, all on our own money. That is what john lott is saying in his opinion piece on fox business. Yes, the fed does return some of the interest it receives from the EU but the point is, the fed has never been audited so how do we know how much it is keeping and how much it is returning to the US? The federal reserve was not started to bring stability to the markets. It was founded to give large stockholders of the fed, who owned large banks, an advantage over small banks in that it could use its power to get bailed out should it make risky loans (sound familiar?) and make money/interest on the money supply of the US. Do you honestly think that they would do all of this and then give 100% of the interest back to the US taxpayer? THE FED HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED and will fight an audit tooth and nail because it knows that when a significant number of americans know what is going on, the game is up.
The fed, by the way, is a private company that has some its directors/ chairman OK’ed by the president and congress but all of the selected people come from the fed anyway. (who controls a company? the CEO or the board of directors?) The fed has no money reserves of its own. The name “federal reserve” was used to throw people off its true make up. I know that this stuff sounds crazy but this is the reality of it. The book “creature from jekyll island” spends 800 pages explaining this in detail. Much better than I can in a blog. The vast majority of people do not know the basics of how the money flows in our government as witnessed by some of the responces on this thread.

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
The loss of interest paid to the US govenment on loans to other governments is a large loss to the american tax payer as well as instead of making interest on loaning our money, we wind up paying the federal reserve to loan out our own money! As riduculous as this sounds, that is the reality of what is happening.
[/quote]

I have no idea what you mean by this. If interest is paid to the US government, then the US government gets it. Are you aware of loans the fed has made to foreign governments directly? (I’m not, they may exist. I’ve just never seen them disclosed. The feds annual financial disclosures do not identify any.) Additionally, the fed is self funding and any net profit that the fed has, over and above it’s statutory dividends (previously noted above), are paid directly to the US government, so there is no “profit” being lost to a private company.[/quote]

Sorry I wasn’t clearer. Lets say that the US wants to loan 100 billion to the EU countries. The US could loan it directly and have the EU pay us the interest on it. Instead what happens is that the cash goes to the fed, at no interest, which then loans the money to the EU and charges the EU interest on it. So, the US taxpayer lost the ability to make interest on the dollars loaned to the EU. The next step is that the EU can use some of the extra dollars to buy up tresury bills at auction. When this happens, the US gets its dollars back but now owes interest on the dollars that the EU gave to us, which is of course our own money. Instead, the US could have loaned the dollars to the EU directly and have been paid interest instead of paying the EU interest on our own money that filtered through the fed. The fed gets paid interest on the loans to the EU by the way. Everyone makes interest on our own money but the US. The US which winds up paying the EU interest. The EU winds up paying the fed interest, all on our own money. That is what john lott is saying in his opinion piece on fox business. Yes, the fed does return some of the interest it receives from the EU but the point is, the fed has never been audited so how do we know how much it is keeping and how much it is returning to the US? The federal reserve was not started to bring stability to the markets. It was founded to give large stockholders of the fed, who owned large banks, an advantage over small banks in that it could use its power to get bailed out should it make risky loans (sound familiar?) and make money/interest on the money supply of the US. Do you honestly think that they would do all of this and then give 100% of the interest back to the US taxpayer? THE FED HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED and will fight an audit tooth and nail because it knows that when a significant number of americans know what is going on, the game is up.
The fed, by the way, is a private company that has some its directors/ chairman OK’ed by the president and congress but all of the selected people come from the fed anyway. (who controls a company? the CEO or the board of directors?) The fed has no money reserves of its own. The name “federal reserve” was used to throw people off its true make up. I know that this stuff sounds crazy but this is the reality of it. The book “creature from jekyll island” spends 800 pages explaining this in detail. Much better than I can in a blog. The vast majority of people do not know the basics of how the money flows in our government as witnessed by some of the responces on this thread.

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
The loss of interest paid to the US govenment on loans to other governments is a large loss to the american tax payer as well as instead of making interest on loaning our money, we wind up paying the federal reserve to loan out our own money! As riduculous as this sounds, that is the reality of what is happening.
[/quote]

I have no idea what you mean by this. If interest is paid to the US government, then the US government gets it. Are you aware of loans the fed has made to foreign governments directly? (I’m not, they may exist. I’ve just never seen them disclosed. The feds annual financial disclosures do not identify any.) Additionally, the fed is self funding and any net profit that the fed has, over and above it’s statutory dividends (previously noted above), are paid directly to the US government, so there is no “profit” being lost to a private company.[/quote]

Sorry I wasn’t clearer. Lets say that the US wants to loan 100 billion to the EU countries. The US could loan it directly and have the EU pay us the interest on it. Instead what happens is that the cash goes to the fed, at no interest, which then loans the money to the EU and charges the EU interest on it. So, the US taxpayer lost the ability to make interest on the dollars loaned to the EU. The next step is that the EU can use some of the extra dollars to buy up tresury bills at auction. When this happens, the US gets its dollars back but now owes interest on the dollars that the EU gave to us, which is of course our own money. Instead, the US could have loaned the dollars to the EU directly and have been paid interest instead of paying the EU interest on our own money that filtered through the fed. The fed gets paid interest on the loans to the EU by the way. Everyone makes interest on our own money but the US. The US which winds up paying the EU interest. The EU winds up paying the fed interest, all on our own money. That is what john lott is saying in his opinion piece on fox business. Yes, the fed does return some of the interest it receives from the EU but the point is, the fed has never been audited so how do we know how much it is keeping and how much it is returning to the US? The federal reserve was not started to bring stability to the markets. It was founded to give large stockholders of the fed, who owned large banks, an advantage over small banks in that it could use its power to get bailed out should it make risky loans (sound familiar?) and make money/interest on the money supply of the US. Do you honestly think that they would do all of this and then give 100% of the interest back to the US taxpayer? THE FED HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED and will fight an audit tooth and nail because it knows that when a significant number of americans know what is going on, the game is up.
The fed, by the way, is a private company that has some its directors/ chairman OK’ed by the president and congress but all of the selected people come from the fed anyway. (who controls a company? the CEO or the board of directors?) The fed has no money reserves of its own. The name “federal reserve” was used to throw people off its true make up. I know that this stuff sounds crazy but this is the reality of it. The book “creature from jekyll island” spends 800 pages explaining this in detail. Much better than I can in a blog. The vast majority of people do not know the basics of how the money flows in our government as witnessed by some of the responces on this thread.

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
The loss of interest paid to the US govenment on loans to other governments is a large loss to the american tax payer as well as instead of making interest on loaning our money, we wind up paying the federal reserve to loan out our own money! As riduculous as this sounds, that is the reality of what is happening.
[/quote]

I have no idea what you mean by this. If interest is paid to the US government, then the US government gets it. Are you aware of loans the fed has made to foreign governments directly? (I’m not, they may exist. I’ve just never seen them disclosed. The feds annual financial disclosures do not identify any.) Additionally, the fed is self funding and any net profit that the fed has, over and above it’s statutory dividends (previously noted above), are paid directly to the US government, so there is no “profit” being lost to a private company.[/quote]

Sorry I wasn’t clearer. Lets say that the US wants to loan 100 billion to the EU countries. The US could loan it directly and have the EU pay us the interest on it. Instead what happens is that the cash goes to the fed, at no interest, which then loans the money to the EU and charges the EU interest on it. So, the US taxpayer lost the ability to make interest on the dollars loaned to the EU. The next step is that the EU can use some of the extra dollars to buy up tresury bills at auction. When this happens, the US gets its dollars back but now owes interest on the dollars that the EU gave to us, which is of course our own money. Instead, the US could have loaned the dollars to the EU directly and have been paid interest instead of paying the EU interest on our own money that filtered through the fed. The fed gets paid interest on the loans to the EU by the way. Everyone makes interest on our own money but the US. The US which winds up paying the EU interest. The EU winds up paying the fed interest, all on our own money. That is what john lott is saying in his opinion piece on fox business. Yes, the fed does return some of the interest it receives from the EU but the point is, the fed has never been audited so how do we know how much it is keeping and how much it is returning to the US? The federal reserve was not started to bring stability to the markets. It was founded to give large stockholders of the fed, who owned large banks, an advantage over small banks in that it could use its power to get bailed out should it make risky loans (sound familiar?) and make money/interest on the money supply of the US. Do you honestly think that they would do all of this and then give 100% of the interest back to the US taxpayer? THE FED HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED and will fight an audit tooth and nail because it knows that when a significant number of americans know what is going on, the game is up.
The fed, by the way, is a private company that has some its directors/ chairman OK’ed by the president and congress but all of the selected people come from the fed anyway. (who controls a company? the CEO or the board of directors?) The fed has no money reserves of its own. The name “federal reserve” was used to throw people off its true make up. I know that this stuff sounds crazy but this is the reality of it. The book “creature from jekyll island” spends 800 pages explaining this in detail. Much better than I can in a blog. The vast majority of people do not know the basics of how the money flows in our government as witnessed by some of the responces on this thread.

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
The loss of interest paid to the US govenment on loans to other governments is a large loss to the american tax payer as well as instead of making interest on loaning our money, we wind up paying the federal reserve to loan out our own money! As riduculous as this sounds, that is the reality of what is happening.
[/quote]

I have no idea what you mean by this. If interest is paid to the US government, then the US government gets it. Are you aware of loans the fed has made to foreign governments directly? (I’m not, they may exist. I’ve just never seen them disclosed. The feds annual financial disclosures do not identify any.) Additionally, the fed is self funding and any net profit that the fed has, over and above it’s statutory dividends (previously noted above), are paid directly to the US government, so there is no “profit” being lost to a private company.[/quote]

Sorry I wasn’t clearer. Lets say that the US wants to loan 100 billion to the EU countries. The US could loan it directly and have the EU pay us the interest on it. Instead what happens is that the cash goes to the fed, at no interest, which then loans the money to the EU and charges the EU interest on it. So, the US taxpayer lost the ability to make interest on the dollars loaned to the EU. The next step is that the EU can use some of the extra dollars to buy up tresury bills at auction. When this happens, the US gets its dollars back but now owes interest on the dollars that the EU gave to us, which is of course our own money. Instead, the US could have loaned the dollars to the EU directly and have been paid interest instead of paying the EU interest on our own money that filtered through the fed. The fed gets paid interest on the loans to the EU by the way. Everyone makes interest on our own money but the US. The US which winds up paying the EU interest. The EU winds up paying the fed interest, all on our own money. That is what john lott is saying in his opinion piece on fox business. Yes, the fed does return some of the interest it receives from the EU but the point is, the fed has never been audited so how do we know how much it is keeping and how much it is returning to the US? The federal reserve was not started to bring stability to the markets. It was founded to give large stockholders of the fed, who owned large banks, an advantage over small banks in that it could use its power to get bailed out should it make risky loans (sound familiar?) and make money/interest on the money supply of the US. Do you honestly think that they would do all of this and then give 100% of the interest back to the US taxpayer? THE FED HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED and will fight an audit tooth and nail because it knows that when a significant number of americans know what is going on, the game is up.
The fed, by the way, is a private company that has some its directors/ chairman OK’ed by the president and congress but all of the selected people come from the fed anyway. (who controls a company? the CEO or the board of directors?) The fed has no money reserves of its own. The name “federal reserve” was used to throw people off its true make up. I know that this stuff sounds crazy but this is the reality of it. The book “creature from jekyll island” spends 800 pages explaining this in detail. Much better than I can in a blog. The vast majority of people do not know the basics of how the money flows in our government as witnessed by some of the responces on this thread.

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV]Thanks for posting that davelj.

Conspiracy theories about the fed have been circulating for almost 100 years. The freemasons, the illuminati, the Rockefellers, JP Morgan and dozens more have been accused of running it, and manipulating the flow of funds that control the US (and to a great extent, the world) economy.

It’s primary specific charges are to avoid panic, and manage the money supply to provide both elasticity and stability in the market. Are those functions being manipulated by those who own it? You betcha. Is it transparent? Nope. Same way Ford and BP and Alcoa attempt to manipulate their markets without complete transparency.

No excuses being made here, that’s just the way it was set up by congress, under powers of delegation specified in the constitution. Part of the financial reform now under consideration in congress are audit and review powers over the Fed. The fed is fighting those reforms, and as is typical, support has fallen mostly along partisan lines, with republicans also rejecting those powers, democrats supporting those reforms. Strangely, the white house has been less supportive than democrats in either house. Fodder for more conspiracy theories.[/quote]
The fed was passed on a voice vote of 3 people at midnight 12/23/1913. Does this sound like an honest discussion or more like a sneaky, corrupt bill? Place this in the context of the bill not passing in the years immediatly before and the 3 other central banks that ex-presidents called the worst entity placed on the american people and you can try and dismiss this as another conspiracy nutty idea if you want, but this one is well documented and is paralleled by the bank of england.

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV]Thanks for posting that davelj.

Conspiracy theories about the fed have been circulating for almost 100 years. The freemasons, the illuminati, the Rockefellers, JP Morgan and dozens more have been accused of running it, and manipulating the flow of funds that control the US (and to a great extent, the world) economy.

It’s primary specific charges are to avoid panic, and manage the money supply to provide both elasticity and stability in the market. Are those functions being manipulated by those who own it? You betcha. Is it transparent? Nope. Same way Ford and BP and Alcoa attempt to manipulate their markets without complete transparency.

No excuses being made here, that’s just the way it was set up by congress, under powers of delegation specified in the constitution. Part of the financial reform now under consideration in congress are audit and review powers over the Fed. The fed is fighting those reforms, and as is typical, support has fallen mostly along partisan lines, with republicans also rejecting those powers, democrats supporting those reforms. Strangely, the white house has been less supportive than democrats in either house. Fodder for more conspiracy theories.[/quote]
The fed was passed on a voice vote of 3 people at midnight 12/23/1913. Does this sound like an honest discussion or more like a sneaky, corrupt bill? Place this in the context of the bill not passing in the years immediatly before and the 3 other central banks that ex-presidents called the worst entity placed on the american people and you can try and dismiss this as another conspiracy nutty idea if you want, but this one is well documented and is paralleled by the bank of england.

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV]Thanks for posting that davelj.

Conspiracy theories about the fed have been circulating for almost 100 years. The freemasons, the illuminati, the Rockefellers, JP Morgan and dozens more have been accused of running it, and manipulating the flow of funds that control the US (and to a great extent, the world) economy.

It’s primary specific charges are to avoid panic, and manage the money supply to provide both elasticity and stability in the market. Are those functions being manipulated by those who own it? You betcha. Is it transparent? Nope. Same way Ford and BP and Alcoa attempt to manipulate their markets without complete transparency.

No excuses being made here, that’s just the way it was set up by congress, under powers of delegation specified in the constitution. Part of the financial reform now under consideration in congress are audit and review powers over the Fed. The fed is fighting those reforms, and as is typical, support has fallen mostly along partisan lines, with republicans also rejecting those powers, democrats supporting those reforms. Strangely, the white house has been less supportive than democrats in either house. Fodder for more conspiracy theories.[/quote]
The fed was passed on a voice vote of 3 people at midnight 12/23/1913. Does this sound like an honest discussion or more like a sneaky, corrupt bill? Place this in the context of the bill not passing in the years immediatly before and the 3 other central banks that ex-presidents called the worst entity placed on the american people and you can try and dismiss this as another conspiracy nutty idea if you want, but this one is well documented and is paralleled by the bank of england.

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV]Thanks for posting that davelj.

Conspiracy theories about the fed have been circulating for almost 100 years. The freemasons, the illuminati, the Rockefellers, JP Morgan and dozens more have been accused of running it, and manipulating the flow of funds that control the US (and to a great extent, the world) economy.

It’s primary specific charges are to avoid panic, and manage the money supply to provide both elasticity and stability in the market. Are those functions being manipulated by those who own it? You betcha. Is it transparent? Nope. Same way Ford and BP and Alcoa attempt to manipulate their markets without complete transparency.

No excuses being made here, that’s just the way it was set up by congress, under powers of delegation specified in the constitution. Part of the financial reform now under consideration in congress are audit and review powers over the Fed. The fed is fighting those reforms, and as is typical, support has fallen mostly along partisan lines, with republicans also rejecting those powers, democrats supporting those reforms. Strangely, the white house has been less supportive than democrats in either house. Fodder for more conspiracy theories.[/quote]
The fed was passed on a voice vote of 3 people at midnight 12/23/1913. Does this sound like an honest discussion or more like a sneaky, corrupt bill? Place this in the context of the bill not passing in the years immediatly before and the 3 other central banks that ex-presidents called the worst entity placed on the american people and you can try and dismiss this as another conspiracy nutty idea if you want, but this one is well documented and is paralleled by the bank of england.

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV]Thanks for posting that davelj.

Conspiracy theories about the fed have been circulating for almost 100 years. The freemasons, the illuminati, the Rockefellers, JP Morgan and dozens more have been accused of running it, and manipulating the flow of funds that control the US (and to a great extent, the world) economy.

It’s primary specific charges are to avoid panic, and manage the money supply to provide both elasticity and stability in the market. Are those functions being manipulated by those who own it? You betcha. Is it transparent? Nope. Same way Ford and BP and Alcoa attempt to manipulate their markets without complete transparency.

No excuses being made here, that’s just the way it was set up by congress, under powers of delegation specified in the constitution. Part of the financial reform now under consideration in congress are audit and review powers over the Fed. The fed is fighting those reforms, and as is typical, support has fallen mostly along partisan lines, with republicans also rejecting those powers, democrats supporting those reforms. Strangely, the white house has been less supportive than democrats in either house. Fodder for more conspiracy theories.[/quote]
The fed was passed on a voice vote of 3 people at midnight 12/23/1913. Does this sound like an honest discussion or more like a sneaky, corrupt bill? Place this in the context of the bill not passing in the years immediatly before and the 3 other central banks that ex-presidents called the worst entity placed on the american people and you can try and dismiss this as another conspiracy nutty idea if you want, but this one is well documented and is paralleled by the bank of england.

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor]The federal reserve is a private company, whose ownership is mostly unknown but I suspect are the wealthiest 2 people on earth[/quote]

Really? I direct you to the the question titled: “Who Owns the Federal Reserve?” in the link below. It’s not that mysterious. The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks that comprise the Federal Reserve System are “owned” by their respective member banks – that is, a bank has to own stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank to be a “member bank.” And the System is an independent, non-profit entity operating within the government.
So you want to quote the federal reserve as your unbiased source? Hmmmm. The question is, who owns the bulk of the stock? The fed has never been audited so we don’t know, do we? Ownership, by itself does not necessarily mean corruption. Influencing world affairs with your power and making bilions off of managing our money is corruption. By the way, the failure of the continental is why the founding fathers put into the constitution that only congress could produce money and that it had to be made of precious metals, not paper. (reference, the creature book)

I’m not saying this is the best system. I’m also not saying that shenanigans don’t go on. But… it’s not like some tiny group of ultra-wealthy folks OWN the System and manipulate it for their benefit. Although you could argue that a small group of folks (the wealthy, politicians, etc.) have undue INFLUENCE over the Federal Reserve’s policies – that’s true almost by definition. But your suspicions regarding actual “ownership” are incorrect.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm%5B/quote%5D
The fed is not working within the US government and never has. For proof, read the creature book which documents it well for 800 pages.These beliefs are very common amoungst the population and are horribly untrue. When the dollar bubble and the US debt bubble pops, maybe then the fed will be audited, but I doubt it. By audit, I mean all of its owners and cash flow exposed to the public.

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor]The federal reserve is a private company, whose ownership is mostly unknown but I suspect are the wealthiest 2 people on earth[/quote]

Really? I direct you to the the question titled: “Who Owns the Federal Reserve?” in the link below. It’s not that mysterious. The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks that comprise the Federal Reserve System are “owned” by their respective member banks – that is, a bank has to own stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank to be a “member bank.” And the System is an independent, non-profit entity operating within the government.
So you want to quote the federal reserve as your unbiased source? Hmmmm. The question is, who owns the bulk of the stock? The fed has never been audited so we don’t know, do we? Ownership, by itself does not necessarily mean corruption. Influencing world affairs with your power and making bilions off of managing our money is corruption. By the way, the failure of the continental is why the founding fathers put into the constitution that only congress could produce money and that it had to be made of precious metals, not paper. (reference, the creature book)

I’m not saying this is the best system. I’m also not saying that shenanigans don’t go on. But… it’s not like some tiny group of ultra-wealthy folks OWN the System and manipulate it for their benefit. Although you could argue that a small group of folks (the wealthy, politicians, etc.) have undue INFLUENCE over the Federal Reserve’s policies – that’s true almost by definition. But your suspicions regarding actual “ownership” are incorrect.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm%5B/quote%5D
The fed is not working within the US government and never has. For proof, read the creature book which documents it well for 800 pages.These beliefs are very common amoungst the population and are horribly untrue. When the dollar bubble and the US debt bubble pops, maybe then the fed will be audited, but I doubt it. By audit, I mean all of its owners and cash flow exposed to the public.

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor]The federal reserve is a private company, whose ownership is mostly unknown but I suspect are the wealthiest 2 people on earth[/quote]

Really? I direct you to the the question titled: “Who Owns the Federal Reserve?” in the link below. It’s not that mysterious. The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks that comprise the Federal Reserve System are “owned” by their respective member banks – that is, a bank has to own stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank to be a “member bank.” And the System is an independent, non-profit entity operating within the government.
So you want to quote the federal reserve as your unbiased source? Hmmmm. The question is, who owns the bulk of the stock? The fed has never been audited so we don’t know, do we? Ownership, by itself does not necessarily mean corruption. Influencing world affairs with your power and making bilions off of managing our money is corruption. By the way, the failure of the continental is why the founding fathers put into the constitution that only congress could produce money and that it had to be made of precious metals, not paper. (reference, the creature book)

I’m not saying this is the best system. I’m also not saying that shenanigans don’t go on. But… it’s not like some tiny group of ultra-wealthy folks OWN the System and manipulate it for their benefit. Although you could argue that a small group of folks (the wealthy, politicians, etc.) have undue INFLUENCE over the Federal Reserve’s policies – that’s true almost by definition. But your suspicions regarding actual “ownership” are incorrect.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm%5B/quote%5D
The fed is not working within the US government and never has. For proof, read the creature book which documents it well for 800 pages.These beliefs are very common amoungst the population and are horribly untrue. When the dollar bubble and the US debt bubble pops, maybe then the fed will be audited, but I doubt it. By audit, I mean all of its owners and cash flow exposed to the public.

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor]The federal reserve is a private company, whose ownership is mostly unknown but I suspect are the wealthiest 2 people on earth[/quote]

Really? I direct you to the the question titled: “Who Owns the Federal Reserve?” in the link below. It’s not that mysterious. The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks that comprise the Federal Reserve System are “owned” by their respective member banks – that is, a bank has to own stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank to be a “member bank.” And the System is an independent, non-profit entity operating within the government.
So you want to quote the federal reserve as your unbiased source? Hmmmm. The question is, who owns the bulk of the stock? The fed has never been audited so we don’t know, do we? Ownership, by itself does not necessarily mean corruption. Influencing world affairs with your power and making bilions off of managing our money is corruption. By the way, the failure of the continental is why the founding fathers put into the constitution that only congress could produce money and that it had to be made of precious metals, not paper. (reference, the creature book)

I’m not saying this is the best system. I’m also not saying that shenanigans don’t go on. But… it’s not like some tiny group of ultra-wealthy folks OWN the System and manipulate it for their benefit. Although you could argue that a small group of folks (the wealthy, politicians, etc.) have undue INFLUENCE over the Federal Reserve’s policies – that’s true almost by definition. But your suspicions regarding actual “ownership” are incorrect.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm%5B/quote%5D
The fed is not working within the US government and never has. For proof, read the creature book which documents it well for 800 pages.These beliefs are very common amoungst the population and are horribly untrue. When the dollar bubble and the US debt bubble pops, maybe then the fed will be audited, but I doubt it. By audit, I mean all of its owners and cash flow exposed to the public.

[Author]

Posts