do you know what the federal reserve is?

[investor]

[quote=jpinpb]Thanks for the article. I know about the Fed Reserve, but I never read the Creature from Jekyll Ksland, though I did watch the Money Masters – Part 1 Money Masters – Part 2 series.[/quote]
You are welcome. Amazing stuff isn’t it?

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]
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. [/quote]

Oy. Where to begin. I’ve been reading fed reports for quite a few years. I have no recollection of any foreign government debt being on their books. Federal government loans to foreign governments must be ratified by congress and loans are issued by the treasury department, not the fed. Although more commonly, rather than actually making loans, they guarantee loans made by others. You have to come up with a citation of the US loaning the EU $100 billion. I don’t recall that every happening.

Moreover, (and please pay attention carefully here) 100% of the feds profits over statutory fixed dividends go back into the US treasury. So even if it was as you described (which it is not) any profit on those loans would still go back to the US treasury, so there would be no net cost running it through the fed over making the loan directly.

I could go on, I won’t. Except to say that your lack of curiousity about the things you’re writing about is astounding. The fed IS audited every year. By public CPA firms. (for 2009, they were audited by Deloitte, published in April.) Just like virtually every publicly traded company is. The scope and nature of disclosures probably differ because they are not subject to SEC regulations. But otherwise according to GAAS. By the GAO. By the inspector general. The scope of the GAO and inspector general audits may be less than optimal, and disclosure of those audit results may be limited, but it IS audited. Every single year.

Clues available for free.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2009.pdf

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]
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. [/quote]

Oy. Where to begin. I’ve been reading fed reports for quite a few years. I have no recollection of any foreign government debt being on their books. Federal government loans to foreign governments must be ratified by congress and loans are issued by the treasury department, not the fed. Although more commonly, rather than actually making loans, they guarantee loans made by others. You have to come up with a citation of the US loaning the EU $100 billion. I don’t recall that every happening.

Moreover, (and please pay attention carefully here) 100% of the feds profits over statutory fixed dividends go back into the US treasury. So even if it was as you described (which it is not) any profit on those loans would still go back to the US treasury, so there would be no net cost running it through the fed over making the loan directly.

I could go on, I won’t. Except to say that your lack of curiousity about the things you’re writing about is astounding. The fed IS audited every year. By public CPA firms. (for 2009, they were audited by Deloitte, published in April.) Just like virtually every publicly traded company is. The scope and nature of disclosures probably differ because they are not subject to SEC regulations. But otherwise according to GAAS. By the GAO. By the inspector general. The scope of the GAO and inspector general audits may be less than optimal, and disclosure of those audit results may be limited, but it IS audited. Every single year.

Clues available for free.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2009.pdf

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]
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. [/quote]

Oy. Where to begin. I’ve been reading fed reports for quite a few years. I have no recollection of any foreign government debt being on their books. Federal government loans to foreign governments must be ratified by congress and loans are issued by the treasury department, not the fed. Although more commonly, rather than actually making loans, they guarantee loans made by others. You have to come up with a citation of the US loaning the EU $100 billion. I don’t recall that every happening.

Moreover, (and please pay attention carefully here) 100% of the feds profits over statutory fixed dividends go back into the US treasury. So even if it was as you described (which it is not) any profit on those loans would still go back to the US treasury, so there would be no net cost running it through the fed over making the loan directly.

I could go on, I won’t. Except to say that your lack of curiousity about the things you’re writing about is astounding. The fed IS audited every year. By public CPA firms. (for 2009, they were audited by Deloitte, published in April.) Just like virtually every publicly traded company is. The scope and nature of disclosures probably differ because they are not subject to SEC regulations. But otherwise according to GAAS. By the GAO. By the inspector general. The scope of the GAO and inspector general audits may be less than optimal, and disclosure of those audit results may be limited, but it IS audited. Every single year.

Clues available for free.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2009.pdf

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]
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. [/quote]

Oy. Where to begin. I’ve been reading fed reports for quite a few years. I have no recollection of any foreign government debt being on their books. Federal government loans to foreign governments must be ratified by congress and loans are issued by the treasury department, not the fed. Although more commonly, rather than actually making loans, they guarantee loans made by others. You have to come up with a citation of the US loaning the EU $100 billion. I don’t recall that every happening.

Moreover, (and please pay attention carefully here) 100% of the feds profits over statutory fixed dividends go back into the US treasury. So even if it was as you described (which it is not) any profit on those loans would still go back to the US treasury, so there would be no net cost running it through the fed over making the loan directly.

I could go on, I won’t. Except to say that your lack of curiousity about the things you’re writing about is astounding. The fed IS audited every year. By public CPA firms. (for 2009, they were audited by Deloitte, published in April.) Just like virtually every publicly traded company is. The scope and nature of disclosures probably differ because they are not subject to SEC regulations. But otherwise according to GAAS. By the GAO. By the inspector general. The scope of the GAO and inspector general audits may be less than optimal, and disclosure of those audit results may be limited, but it IS audited. Every single year.

Clues available for free.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2009.pdf

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]
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. [/quote]

Oy. Where to begin. I’ve been reading fed reports for quite a few years. I have no recollection of any foreign government debt being on their books. Federal government loans to foreign governments must be ratified by congress and loans are issued by the treasury department, not the fed. Although more commonly, rather than actually making loans, they guarantee loans made by others. You have to come up with a citation of the US loaning the EU $100 billion. I don’t recall that every happening.

Moreover, (and please pay attention carefully here) 100% of the feds profits over statutory fixed dividends go back into the US treasury. So even if it was as you described (which it is not) any profit on those loans would still go back to the US treasury, so there would be no net cost running it through the fed over making the loan directly.

I could go on, I won’t. Except to say that your lack of curiousity about the things you’re writing about is astounding. The fed IS audited every year. By public CPA firms. (for 2009, they were audited by Deloitte, published in April.) Just like virtually every publicly traded company is. The scope and nature of disclosures probably differ because they are not subject to SEC regulations. But otherwise according to GAAS. By the GAO. By the inspector general. The scope of the GAO and inspector general audits may be less than optimal, and disclosure of those audit results may be limited, but it IS audited. Every single year.

Clues available for free.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2009.pdf

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]
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.[/quote]

Check the congressional record. The bill passed the house 298-60 with 76 abstentions. It passed the Senate 43-25 with 27 abstentions.

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]
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.[/quote]

Check the congressional record. The bill passed the house 298-60 with 76 abstentions. It passed the Senate 43-25 with 27 abstentions.

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]
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.[/quote]

Check the congressional record. The bill passed the house 298-60 with 76 abstentions. It passed the Senate 43-25 with 27 abstentions.

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]
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.[/quote]

Check the congressional record. The bill passed the house 298-60 with 76 abstentions. It passed the Senate 43-25 with 27 abstentions.

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]
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.[/quote]

Check the congressional record. The bill passed the house 298-60 with 76 abstentions. It passed the Senate 43-25 with 27 abstentions.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=investor] The author of the creature book makes this very plain. how is it that you do not seem to understand even the simplest of ideas from the book?[/quote]

Investor: You seem to treat this single book as the Rosetta Stone of central banking. It isn’t, hence my suggestion to do some more research.

If memory serves, the author, Griffin, had some interesting things to say in that same book about the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission. He strays very close into conspiracy theory country (if not over).

I’d also do a little research on Mr. Griffin, including his views on laetrile for cancer, where Noah’s Ark actually is (in his opinion), as well as his views on the United Nations and his membership in the John Birch Society.

So, Investor, with all due respect, you’ll forgive me if I don’t treat him as a wholly credible source and I don’t view this book as being nearly as magisterial as you seem to think it is.

Just because its on the printed page, don’t make it so.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=investor] The author of the creature book makes this very plain. how is it that you do not seem to understand even the simplest of ideas from the book?[/quote]

Investor: You seem to treat this single book as the Rosetta Stone of central banking. It isn’t, hence my suggestion to do some more research.

If memory serves, the author, Griffin, had some interesting things to say in that same book about the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission. He strays very close into conspiracy theory country (if not over).

I’d also do a little research on Mr. Griffin, including his views on laetrile for cancer, where Noah’s Ark actually is (in his opinion), as well as his views on the United Nations and his membership in the John Birch Society.

So, Investor, with all due respect, you’ll forgive me if I don’t treat him as a wholly credible source and I don’t view this book as being nearly as magisterial as you seem to think it is.

Just because its on the printed page, don’t make it so.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=investor] The author of the creature book makes this very plain. how is it that you do not seem to understand even the simplest of ideas from the book?[/quote]

Investor: You seem to treat this single book as the Rosetta Stone of central banking. It isn’t, hence my suggestion to do some more research.

If memory serves, the author, Griffin, had some interesting things to say in that same book about the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission. He strays very close into conspiracy theory country (if not over).

I’d also do a little research on Mr. Griffin, including his views on laetrile for cancer, where Noah’s Ark actually is (in his opinion), as well as his views on the United Nations and his membership in the John Birch Society.

So, Investor, with all due respect, you’ll forgive me if I don’t treat him as a wholly credible source and I don’t view this book as being nearly as magisterial as you seem to think it is.

Just because its on the printed page, don’t make it so.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=investor] The author of the creature book makes this very plain. how is it that you do not seem to understand even the simplest of ideas from the book?[/quote]

Investor: You seem to treat this single book as the Rosetta Stone of central banking. It isn’t, hence my suggestion to do some more research.

If memory serves, the author, Griffin, had some interesting things to say in that same book about the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission. He strays very close into conspiracy theory country (if not over).

I’d also do a little research on Mr. Griffin, including his views on laetrile for cancer, where Noah’s Ark actually is (in his opinion), as well as his views on the United Nations and his membership in the John Birch Society.

So, Investor, with all due respect, you’ll forgive me if I don’t treat him as a wholly credible source and I don’t view this book as being nearly as magisterial as you seem to think it is.

Just because its on the printed page, don’t make it so.

[Author]

Posts