do you know what the federal reserve is?

[investor]

Investor: I have read the book. I’ve also read enough history, especially related to the various bank panics and runs, to realize that your rambling screed is fairly divorced from both reality and fact.

Do a little research on the Fed, with a concentration on Carter Glass and Nelson Aldrich. Read up on the Panic of 1907, and the desire to avoid similar panics through the institution of a central bank, similar to those being used by the British, French and Germans prior to WWI.

And for the record, there were central banks in the US prior to the Fed. See First Bank of the United States (ca. 1791) and Second Bank of the United States (ca. 1816). I’d also recommend doing a little bit more research into Jefferson and Jackson and their feelings on central banks before turning this into some sort of sinister cabal.

As the more serious posters on this board are fond of pointing out: BRING FACTS. Not some breathless tirade utterly devoid of them.

Excellent. Now we are discussing the book rather than dismissing it outright. The facts you present I did mention some of. (I gave a web site by john lott that details the money flow. I mentioned the second central bank that Jefferson fought against. I outlined the money flow for the european bail out by the US. I get it that people will not be open to these ideas because they are not taught them in schools, but lets be accurate in our postings and less emotional.) They are directly out of the book “creature from jekyll island” so I know that you have read the book. If you still refuse to put weight on the 800 pages that are in the book, that is your right. The fact that so few people are aware of how the money flows in our system, as outlined in detail in the creature book, is my main motive for posting this thread. I feel obligated to point out to others how our money system works since it is not taught at all in schools, college or public. Once you understand how the money flows, then you might feel as I and many others (ron paul, …) do that our system unnecessarily obligates us to debt on our own money. Lets try to be less negative in our posts though. Getting personal and negative does not enhance communication.

[SK in CV]

Investor, is it your assertion that those same families, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds still have significant ownership and control of the Fed? What about the ownership interests of the roughly 3,000 other federally chartered banks and state banks which also have interests? What about the current 5 member board of governors, 4 of which were appointed by President Bush and approved by congress? What about the Open Market Committee, made up of those same members along with reps from the 12 regional banks? Do they not exercise autority independently of those claimed founding members?

Unless you believe that current control and ownership of those entities is significantly different from their public pronouncements, who promoted the formation of the fed is incidental.

As an aside, I don’t see where you pointed out how our money system works, only that the fed has a nefarious history.

[SK in CV]

Investor, is it your assertion that those same families, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds still have significant ownership and control of the Fed? What about the ownership interests of the roughly 3,000 other federally chartered banks and state banks which also have interests? What about the current 5 member board of governors, 4 of which were appointed by President Bush and approved by congress? What about the Open Market Committee, made up of those same members along with reps from the 12 regional banks? Do they not exercise autority independently of those claimed founding members?

Unless you believe that current control and ownership of those entities is significantly different from their public pronouncements, who promoted the formation of the fed is incidental.

As an aside, I don’t see where you pointed out how our money system works, only that the fed has a nefarious history.

[SK in CV]

Investor, is it your assertion that those same families, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds still have significant ownership and control of the Fed? What about the ownership interests of the roughly 3,000 other federally chartered banks and state banks which also have interests? What about the current 5 member board of governors, 4 of which were appointed by President Bush and approved by congress? What about the Open Market Committee, made up of those same members along with reps from the 12 regional banks? Do they not exercise autority independently of those claimed founding members?

Unless you believe that current control and ownership of those entities is significantly different from their public pronouncements, who promoted the formation of the fed is incidental.

As an aside, I don’t see where you pointed out how our money system works, only that the fed has a nefarious history.

[SK in CV]

Investor, is it your assertion that those same families, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds still have significant ownership and control of the Fed? What about the ownership interests of the roughly 3,000 other federally chartered banks and state banks which also have interests? What about the current 5 member board of governors, 4 of which were appointed by President Bush and approved by congress? What about the Open Market Committee, made up of those same members along with reps from the 12 regional banks? Do they not exercise autority independently of those claimed founding members?

Unless you believe that current control and ownership of those entities is significantly different from their public pronouncements, who promoted the formation of the fed is incidental.

As an aside, I don’t see where you pointed out how our money system works, only that the fed has a nefarious history.

[SK in CV]

Investor, is it your assertion that those same families, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds still have significant ownership and control of the Fed? What about the ownership interests of the roughly 3,000 other federally chartered banks and state banks which also have interests? What about the current 5 member board of governors, 4 of which were appointed by President Bush and approved by congress? What about the Open Market Committee, made up of those same members along with reps from the 12 regional banks? Do they not exercise autority independently of those claimed founding members?

Unless you believe that current control and ownership of those entities is significantly different from their public pronouncements, who promoted the formation of the fed is incidental.

As an aside, I don’t see where you pointed out how our money system works, only that the fed has a nefarious history.

[investor]

Good questions. The fed has never been audited. We don’t know who owns the shares. We do know that the motive for forming this forth central US bank was to give a few large banks a competitive edge from failing by promoting the too big to fail idea. Why else are some banks bailed out and not others? I do believe that the fed’s ownership is vastly different from the public pronouncements but the only way to tell is to open up the books, which have never been done. Past history (the first 3 US central banks, the bank of england, …) show that what I and many others suspect about the fed has been true in other central banks since the first one was formed in the 1690’s as the bank of england. Congress, which approved the formation of the fed in 1913, gets to defecit spend under the confusing fed system, which is their motive as was the english governments in the 1690’s. Sounds too wierd to be true doesn’t it?
The best way to understand the fed is to follow the money from the treasury, through the fed and onto others, as I pointed out in the first blog and as john lott does in his opinion page on fox news. Please see his article and read the creature book. The fed is simple and complex at the same time but if you want to understand why the national debt will never be paid off and why bernanke can say to the congress that it’s none of their business where the fed spends our money, read the creature book.

[investor]

Good questions. The fed has never been audited. We don’t know who owns the shares. We do know that the motive for forming this forth central US bank was to give a few large banks a competitive edge from failing by promoting the too big to fail idea. Why else are some banks bailed out and not others? I do believe that the fed’s ownership is vastly different from the public pronouncements but the only way to tell is to open up the books, which have never been done. Past history (the first 3 US central banks, the bank of england, …) show that what I and many others suspect about the fed has been true in other central banks since the first one was formed in the 1690’s as the bank of england. Congress, which approved the formation of the fed in 1913, gets to defecit spend under the confusing fed system, which is their motive as was the english governments in the 1690’s. Sounds too wierd to be true doesn’t it?
The best way to understand the fed is to follow the money from the treasury, through the fed and onto others, as I pointed out in the first blog and as john lott does in his opinion page on fox news. Please see his article and read the creature book. The fed is simple and complex at the same time but if you want to understand why the national debt will never be paid off and why bernanke can say to the congress that it’s none of their business where the fed spends our money, read the creature book.

[investor]

Good questions. The fed has never been audited. We don’t know who owns the shares. We do know that the motive for forming this forth central US bank was to give a few large banks a competitive edge from failing by promoting the too big to fail idea. Why else are some banks bailed out and not others? I do believe that the fed’s ownership is vastly different from the public pronouncements but the only way to tell is to open up the books, which have never been done. Past history (the first 3 US central banks, the bank of england, …) show that what I and many others suspect about the fed has been true in other central banks since the first one was formed in the 1690’s as the bank of england. Congress, which approved the formation of the fed in 1913, gets to defecit spend under the confusing fed system, which is their motive as was the english governments in the 1690’s. Sounds too wierd to be true doesn’t it?
The best way to understand the fed is to follow the money from the treasury, through the fed and onto others, as I pointed out in the first blog and as john lott does in his opinion page on fox news. Please see his article and read the creature book. The fed is simple and complex at the same time but if you want to understand why the national debt will never be paid off and why bernanke can say to the congress that it’s none of their business where the fed spends our money, read the creature book.

[investor]

Good questions. The fed has never been audited. We don’t know who owns the shares. We do know that the motive for forming this forth central US bank was to give a few large banks a competitive edge from failing by promoting the too big to fail idea. Why else are some banks bailed out and not others? I do believe that the fed’s ownership is vastly different from the public pronouncements but the only way to tell is to open up the books, which have never been done. Past history (the first 3 US central banks, the bank of england, …) show that what I and many others suspect about the fed has been true in other central banks since the first one was formed in the 1690’s as the bank of england. Congress, which approved the formation of the fed in 1913, gets to defecit spend under the confusing fed system, which is their motive as was the english governments in the 1690’s. Sounds too wierd to be true doesn’t it?
The best way to understand the fed is to follow the money from the treasury, through the fed and onto others, as I pointed out in the first blog and as john lott does in his opinion page on fox news. Please see his article and read the creature book. The fed is simple and complex at the same time but if you want to understand why the national debt will never be paid off and why bernanke can say to the congress that it’s none of their business where the fed spends our money, read the creature book.

[investor]

Good questions. The fed has never been audited. We don’t know who owns the shares. We do know that the motive for forming this forth central US bank was to give a few large banks a competitive edge from failing by promoting the too big to fail idea. Why else are some banks bailed out and not others? I do believe that the fed’s ownership is vastly different from the public pronouncements but the only way to tell is to open up the books, which have never been done. Past history (the first 3 US central banks, the bank of england, …) show that what I and many others suspect about the fed has been true in other central banks since the first one was formed in the 1690’s as the bank of england. Congress, which approved the formation of the fed in 1913, gets to defecit spend under the confusing fed system, which is their motive as was the english governments in the 1690’s. Sounds too wierd to be true doesn’t it?
The best way to understand the fed is to follow the money from the treasury, through the fed and onto others, as I pointed out in the first blog and as john lott does in his opinion page on fox news. Please see his article and read the creature book. The fed is simple and complex at the same time but if you want to understand why the national debt will never be paid off and why bernanke can say to the congress that it’s none of their business where the fed spends our money, read the creature book.

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]Good questions. The fed has never been audited. We don’t know who owns the shares. [/quote]

I’m not sure why you think an audit would necessarily reveal ownership. For publicly traded companies, the only required disclosure is for 5% or more ownership. From my previous life as a CPA, my recollection is that disclosure of ownership is not necessarily required unless it is material to the ongoing business of the entity.

What we do know from other disclosures, is that all federally chartered banks have investments in the fed, and through the fed’s website (and in some cases from individual stockholder banks financial disclosures) that ownership (and investment) is based on the capital of those individual banks and pays a fixed rate of return.

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]Good questions. The fed has never been audited. We don’t know who owns the shares. [/quote]

I’m not sure why you think an audit would necessarily reveal ownership. For publicly traded companies, the only required disclosure is for 5% or more ownership. From my previous life as a CPA, my recollection is that disclosure of ownership is not necessarily required unless it is material to the ongoing business of the entity.

What we do know from other disclosures, is that all federally chartered banks have investments in the fed, and through the fed’s website (and in some cases from individual stockholder banks financial disclosures) that ownership (and investment) is based on the capital of those individual banks and pays a fixed rate of return.

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]Good questions. The fed has never been audited. We don’t know who owns the shares. [/quote]

I’m not sure why you think an audit would necessarily reveal ownership. For publicly traded companies, the only required disclosure is for 5% or more ownership. From my previous life as a CPA, my recollection is that disclosure of ownership is not necessarily required unless it is material to the ongoing business of the entity.

What we do know from other disclosures, is that all federally chartered banks have investments in the fed, and through the fed’s website (and in some cases from individual stockholder banks financial disclosures) that ownership (and investment) is based on the capital of those individual banks and pays a fixed rate of return.

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]Good questions. The fed has never been audited. We don’t know who owns the shares. [/quote]

I’m not sure why you think an audit would necessarily reveal ownership. For publicly traded companies, the only required disclosure is for 5% or more ownership. From my previous life as a CPA, my recollection is that disclosure of ownership is not necessarily required unless it is material to the ongoing business of the entity.

What we do know from other disclosures, is that all federally chartered banks have investments in the fed, and through the fed’s website (and in some cases from individual stockholder banks financial disclosures) that ownership (and investment) is based on the capital of those individual banks and pays a fixed rate of return.

[Author]

Posts