PDA

View Full Version : The Fed isn't private.




Eric21ND
07-29-2011, 12:31 PM
The "Fed is private!" argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the fed and how it operates.

The Federal Reserve BANKS (which are one part of the federal Reserve) are nominally privately owned, but the "ownership" (by member banks) isn't like real stock ownership. The shares can't be sold for a profit, don't carry any actual financial interest in the value of the reserve bank, and don't carry any control over the financial system that the banks help operate. The money owed to the fed, as e.kaye has indicated, is returned to the Treasury once operating expenses are paid.

What the "ownership" does do is grant the member bank a statutory 6% dividend on amounts held in reserve and allow control over day-to-day administrative banking operations (not operations which affect the financial policy of the country)

The other parts of the Fed, the ones with regulatory power, are not, in any way, shape, or form, privately owned.
What say you?

pcosmar
07-29-2011, 12:39 PM
What say you?

Obfuscation.

Attempted Justification.

Who said that? Link?

Travlyr
07-29-2011, 12:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWKlz2Z4Nlo&feature=player_embedded

G. Edward Griffin on the Federal Reserve System (http://apfn.org/APFN/reserve2.htm)

RCA
07-29-2011, 12:50 PM
Of course the Fed isn't private. It doesn't pay taxes.

erowe1
07-29-2011, 01:02 PM
I never understood the point people are trying to make when they say it's private. Who cares? It has it's public aspects and it's private aspects, and it's not like it would be better if it were 100% public.

josh b
07-29-2011, 01:03 PM
It was established by a government act. They are partially responsible for electing its members. It has special monopoly powers granted by the government too.

It's private by namesake only.

Bossobass
07-29-2011, 01:04 PM
Any enterprise that refuses a full audit is private. It doesn't get more private than "None Of Your Business".

Bosso

Eric21ND
07-29-2011, 01:04 PM
A quote from another forum where people are arguing over the matter.

erowe1
07-29-2011, 01:05 PM
Any enterprise that refuses a full audit is private. It doesn't get more private than "None Of Your Business".

Bosso

So the CIA is private?

Travlyr
07-29-2011, 01:07 PM
I never understood the point people are trying to make when they say it's private. Who cares? It has it's public aspects and it's private aspects, and it's not like it would be better if it were 100% public.

That's for sure. It would be much worse.

That's what Ellen Brown argues for in the Web of Debt (http://www.webofdebt.com/). She has a lot of followers, but she is a central planner. She is of the opinion that people are too dumb and stupid to run their own lives - totally toxic to liberty.

Bossobass
07-29-2011, 01:17 PM
So the CIA is private?

Without question. What's your point?

Bosso

TheViper
07-29-2011, 01:19 PM
So the CIA is private?

We know more about what the CIA does than what the Fed does.

dannno
07-29-2011, 01:22 PM
I never understood the point people are trying to make when they say it's private. Who cares? It has it's public aspects and it's private aspects, and it's not like it would be better if it were 100% public.

No, actually they would be better if they were public in our current environment, the way that they operate. I'm all for privatizing banks and money creation, but not while there is no free market.

It is one of the few Constitutional duties of our government to coin money. These semi-private semi-public organizations always do the same thing. They privatize gains so they can scoop out large profits and put the losses on the taxpayer.

echebota
07-29-2011, 01:56 PM
We can dig through ownership legal structure, but the important points are:
- "Owners" do not make money from the FED activities directly
- BUT bankers control the FED policy - money supply, credits, market operations, and benefit immensly
- AND it would not be better if governement controled the FED policy either, since government is controlled by the same bankers

The problem is not who owns the FED in legal terms, the problem is not even who defines the FED policy, the problem is that there is a POLICY that can be controlled instead of relying on market forces and competetion. END THE FED! regardless of the ownership

Romulus
07-29-2011, 02:11 PM
We can dig through ownership legal structure, but the important points are:
- "Owners" do not make money from the FED activities directly
- BUT bankers control the FED policy - money supply, credits, market operations, and benefit immensly
- AND it would not be better if governement controled the FED policy either, since government is controlled by the same bankers

The problem is not who owns the FED in legal terms, the problem is not even who defines the FED policy, the problem is that there is a POLICY that can be controlled instead of relying on market forces and competetion. END THE FED! regardless of the ownership

This.

Danke
07-29-2011, 03:53 PM
Jerry Nelson, corporate communications, the Federal Reserve, expounds upon ownership of the Fed. These are some of the most memorable extracts from the excellent "Meet the Federal Reserve" video by Restore the Republic, full version at:

http://restoretherepublic.com/top-stories/meet-the-federal-reserve.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw9jXppiQEo&feature=player_embedded

Romulus
07-29-2011, 04:06 PM
Jerry Nelson, corporate communications, the Federal Reserve, expounds upon ownership of the Fed. These are some of the most memorable extracts from the excellent "Meet the Federal Reserve" video by Restore the Republic, full version at:

http://www.restoretherepublic.com/top-stories/meet-the-federal-reserve


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw9jXppiQEo&feature=player_embedded

+rep

I want to hear that whole interview... Wow..!

erowe1
07-29-2011, 04:13 PM
Without question. What's your point?

Bosso

As you might have inferred from that curly symbol with a dot under it at the end of my sentence, I wasn't making a point.

Just making sure I understand what you mean when you say "private."

nobody's_hero
07-29-2011, 04:15 PM
The Federal Reserve is whatever it wants to be, whenever it is convenient to be what it wants, all to avoid anyone getting 'too close' to finding out what it really is.

It is a chameleon of convenience.

erowe1
07-29-2011, 04:15 PM
These semi-private semi-public organizations always do the same thing. They privatize gains so they can scoop out large profits and put the losses on the taxpayer.

So do all the 100% public organizations.

(N.b. By "public" here I mean government controlled, without respect to how transparent they are about what they do.)

Theocrat
07-29-2011, 04:19 PM
I never understood the point people are trying to make when they say it's private. Who cares? It has it's public aspects and it's private aspects, and it's not like it would be better if it were 100% public.

The Fed is "private" in the sense that it's independent from the authority of the U.S. Government, when it comes to decision-making in monetary policy that directly affects the economy of the U.S. Government.

flightlesskiwi
07-29-2011, 04:36 PM
Jerry Nelson, corporate communications, the Federal Reserve, expounds upon ownership of the Fed. These are some of the most memorable extracts from the excellent "Meet the Federal Reserve" video by Restore the Republic, full version at:

http://www.restoretherepublic.com/top-stories/meet-the-federal-reserve


bad link... correct link (for full version):http://restoretherepublic.com/top-stories/meet-the-federal-reserve.html

DamianTV
07-29-2011, 04:36 PM
The Federal Reserve Bank is no more Federal than Federal Express.

dannno
07-29-2011, 05:01 PM
So do all the 100% public organizations.

(N.b. By "public" here I mean government controlled, without respect to how transparent they are about what they do.)

When the organizations are public, then asking for transparency becomes a very reasonable request. I'm not FOR a public Federal Reserve, ultimately I'd like to see the market create it's own money. But a public Federal Reserve would be better than what we have now.

emazur
07-29-2011, 05:32 PM
If you've never read Eliot Spitzter's article "Fed Dread", you need to do so:
http://www.slate.com/id/2217811/

Given the power of the N.Y. Fed, it is time to ask some very hard questions about its recent performance. The first question to ask is: Who is the New York Fed? Who exactly has been running the show? Yes, we all know that Tim Geithner was the president and CEO of the N.Y. Fed from 2003 until his ascension as treasury secretary. But who chose him for that position, and to whom did he report? The N.Y. Fed president reports to, and is chosen by, the Fed board of directors.
Advertisement

So who selected Geithner back in 2003? Well, the Fed board created a select committee to pick the CEO. This committee included none other than Hank Greenberg, then the chairman of AIG; John Whitehead, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs; Walter Shipley, a former chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, now JPMorgan Chase; and Pete Peterson, a former chairman of Lehman Bros. It was not a group of typical depositors worried about the security of their savings accounts but rather one whose interest was in preserving a capital structure and way of doing business that cried out for—but did not receive—harsh examination from the N.Y. Fed.

The composition of the New York Fed's board, which supervises the organization and current Chairman Friedman, is equally troubling. The board consists of nine individuals, three chosen by the N.Y. Fed member banks as their own representatives, three chosen by the member banks to represent the public, and three chosen by the national Fed Board of Governors to represent the public. In theory this sounds great: Six board members are "public" representatives.

So whom have the banks chosen to be the public representatives on the board during the past decade, as the crisis developed and unfolded? Dick Fuld, the former chairman of Lehman; Jeff Immelt, the chairman of GE; Gene McGrath, the chairman of Con Edison; Ronay Menschel, the chairwoman of Phipps Houses and also, not insignificantly, the wife of Richard Menschel, a former senior partner at Goldman. Whom did the Board of Governors choose as its public representatives? Steve Friedman, the former chairman of Goldman; Pete Peterson; Jerry Speyer, CEO of real estate giant Tishman Speyer; and Jerry Levin, the former chairman of Time Warner. These were the people who were supposedly representing our interests!

Travlyr
07-29-2011, 05:46 PM
When the organizations are public, then asking for transparency becomes a very reasonable request. I'm not FOR a public Federal Reserve, ultimately I'd like to see the market create it's own money. But a public Federal Reserve would be better than what we have now.

Could you explain in more detail?

It seems to me that money is powerful only if it is mixed with the force of control - money creation & enforcement. Remove the force and money becomes powerless, or simply wealth.

For example, employers are separated from money creation so they are powerless to enslave others. So while an employer has the right to require his/her employees to perform tasks, the employer cannot force the employee to do anything. Employees are free to find another job for better working conditions anytime for any reason.

The State should no more have the power to create money than it has to create water, air, or food. Money needs to be earned through honest efforts ... mining, sewing, or growing.


Daily Bell: We will see a gold backed currency in your lifetime?

Jacob Hornberger: Possibly, but I would prefer a free-market in money what Friedrich Hayek, the libertarian Nobel Prize winning economist, called "the denationalization of money." Government has no more business in currency and money than it does in health care, education, or charity. Separate money and the state by repealing legal tender laws, abolish the fed, and free the market so that people can use any type of money they want.

Carson
07-29-2011, 05:46 PM
The whole government, the war department, and the borders are owned. They certainly are not controlled by, "We the People".

And yes I believe they are a privately owned bank outside of our government that makes a profit. I think the rules say 6% on some of our government business with them. Every year you hear some to-do about them returning some of the profits they've made off of the government to the government. I'm pretty sure it is something they have taken in over their 6%. Until there is an audit, who can say how much they have taken in our printed up on their own?

And I believe the deck is stacked against law, order, and freedom.

When I started looking into where the money was coming from to buy off the politicians and subvert the immigration laws of the world, I came across what may be the root of many of our problems. Fiat Money.

No matter how much real money people can put together to build their countries the way they want there are those that can print up what ever it takes to get their way.

Maybe this will help make the danger of fiat money clear.

Imagine you and me are setting across from each other. We create enough money to represent all of the world's wealth. Each one of us has one SUPER Dollar in front of him.

You own half of everything and so do I.

I'm the government though. I get bribed into creating a Central Bank.

You're not doing what I want you to be doing so I print up myself eight more SUPER Dollars to manipulate you with.

All of a sudden your SUPER Dollar only represents one tenth of the wealth of the world!

That isn't the only thing though. You need to get busy and get to work because YOU'VE BEEN STIFFED with the bill for the money I PRINTED UP to get YOU TO DO what I WANTED.

That to me represents what has been happening to the economy, and us, and why so many of our occupations just can't keep up with the fake money presses.

dannno
07-29-2011, 05:51 PM
Could you explain in more detail?

It seems to me that money is powerful only if it is mixed with the force of control - money creation & enforcement. Remove the force and money becomes powerless, or simply wealth.

For example, employers are separated from money creation so they are powerless to enslave others. So while an employer has the right to require his/her employees to perform tasks, the employer cannot force the employee to do anything. Employees are free to find another job for better working conditions anytime for any reason.

The idea is that the fed has both the power of the state (coercion) as well as the power of being able to make decisions outside of the public framework, so it's more like fascism.




The State should no more have the power to create money than it has to create water, air, or food. Money needs to be earned through honest efforts ... mining, sewing, or growing.

I agree with that, I'm just saying that if you are going to have the state creating money, it should be elected officials, i.e. congress, rather than a private company that has special powers.

Carson
07-29-2011, 05:55 PM
Think of our central bank as just one countries central bank. It is just one pearl on a string of pearls of central banks around the world.

You've heard about the bailouts and funding being siphoned off and given to the United Nations and the global central bank they have set up; the International Monetary Fund? Some say this is leading up to the fake money being created by the IMF (International Monetary Fund). Then what chance will anyone in the world have of controlling the central banks?

Welcome to the new world order.

It is being financed on our backs and has been for years.

When a central bank or the government creates money it doesn't have, it sucks the life out of the money we already have. They are like vampires that can come in, in the dead of night, and find your Aunt Martha's money in her sugar bowl no matter where she has it hid.

When they double the supply it devalues the money and all of the wealth in they system by half.

Perhaps when they spend it to say take something or yours away from you, they get to spend the dollar at full a dollar value. Now it is in the system and you've got it but now it has lost its value. If it doubled the supply your stiffed with money that's now worth half as much. And they have your stuff and financially you are no better off.

It has been the story of my life.

Peace&Freedom
07-29-2011, 06:13 PM
As per Danke's post, The Fed itself has admitted they are a private entity. That should settle the matter. It matters because instead of We the People being in sovereign control of issuing the currency and being prosperous, a cartel of profiteer bankers control it, thus bankrupting all of us.

erowe1
07-29-2011, 08:33 PM
Every year you hear some to-do about them returning some of the profits they've made off of the government to the government.

I'd rather they not do that. Let them keep their profits. The less money in the hands of the government the better.

erowe1
07-29-2011, 08:34 PM
As per Danke's post, The Fed itself has admitted they are a private entity. That should settle the matter. It matters because instead of We the People being in sovereign control of issuing the currency and being prosperous, a cartel of profiteer bankers control it, thus bankrupting all of us.

If it were controlled by the government, do you think that would mean that we the people control it?

Peace&Freedom
07-30-2011, 07:27 PM
I suspect that, based on the history of the country with and without the central bank, that if the currency system was government controlled as per the constitution, the people would be in more control and not be hundreds of trillions in total debt. The elite establishment would still be trying to steer things, but would have a much weaker position.

DamianTV
07-30-2011, 07:38 PM
The Fed isnt Private, My Ass!

Carson
07-30-2011, 07:45 PM
I suspect that, based on the history of the country with and without the central bank, that if the currency system was government controlled as per the constitution, the people would be in more control and not be hundreds of trillions in total debt. The elite establishment would still be trying to steer things, but would have a much weaker position.

I remember when when we seemed more in on things from the beginning. Especially if money was required to get a job done. Now they have the central banks more than willing to loan them our own money on anything and everything.

We're way out of the picture.
We don't seem to be given any consideration what-so-ever.