16 Mar 09
A friend of mine was telling me about the US federal reserve.
Seemingly it's not quite as "federal" as the name suggests.
Anyways, he was saying that "the fed" is owned by private banks which are owned by various individuals (or families). Names like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Rothschild slipped from his tongue, much like a chicken vindaloo in Mumbai slips out one's rear.
I googled and Wiki'd the fed, to see if I can verify the claim. But the workings of this federal reserve are as hard to pin point as a clit in German bush.
Let me quote:
...a quasi-public (government entity with private components) banking system that comprises the presidentially appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; the Federal Open Market Committee; twelve regional privately-owned Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors; numerous other private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks; and various advisory councils...
What the hell does that all mean?
As far as I can tell, "the fed" runs the US monetairy policy. Considering it is run by private enterprises (as far as I can make heads or tales of it), I presume the board of gouverners is there to apply governmental pressure to the decision making.
However, it seems completely unclear as to where the actual decision making takes place, who's accountable for it and to what extent government can actually force their hand.
Can anyone explain the workings to me?
Cheers!
16 Mar 09
Originally posted by shavixmirCheck out "The Creature from Jekyll Island"
A friend of mine was telling me about the US federal reserve.
Seemingly it's not quite as "federal" as the name suggests.
Anyways, he was saying that "the fed" is owned by private banks which are owned by various individuals (or families). Names like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Rothschild slipped from his tongue, much like a chicken vindaloo in Mumbai ...[text shortened]... nt can actually force their hand.
Can anyone explain the workings to me?
Cheers!
GRANNY.
16 Mar 09
Have you seen the FAQ on the money masters website? If not, it will answer most of your questions.
http://www.themoneymasters.com/faqs.htm
Have you seen the film "Money as Debt"? It covers fractional reserve banking and is a sort of primer for the money masters.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279
The Money Masters is the best film I have seen on the subject. It is over 3 1/2 hours of information. It was made in 1996 and it predicted much of what has happened and is happening.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 186367
16 Mar 09
Originally posted by shavixmirSounds like "Governmentese" for: TRUST US WE ARE EXPERTS nudge, nudge.😉😉
...a quasi-public (government entity with private components) banking system that comprises the presidentially appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; the Federal Open Market Committee; twelve regional privately-owned Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents fo ...[text shortened]... s; and various advisory councils...
Can anyone explain the workings to me?
Cheers![/b]
16 Mar 09
Originally posted by shavixmirIt is definitely a quasi-governmental organization. The monetary policy decisions are made by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The idea behind the Fed is keep monetary policy and fiscal authorities separate. The private Federal Reserve Banks (and their smaller branches) do a whole range of work from research on economic theory and policy to data collection/analysis of regional trends to clearing checks for all the small banks in the region to supplying cash, currency, and even overnight loans to them.
A friend of mine was telling me about the US federal reserve.
Seemingly it's not quite as "federal" as the name suggests.
Anyways, he was saying that "the fed" is owned by private banks which are owned by various individuals (or families). Names like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Rothschild slipped from his tongue, much like a chicken vindaloo in Mumbai ...[text shortened]... nt can actually force their hand.
Can anyone explain the workings to me?
Cheers!
Any one of the main Fed Banks may or may not have a president on the FOMC (fewer than half of the presidents sit on it). If one does have a president on it, then a team of economists within the bank will study specific topics and write up reports to prepare that president for the FOMC meetings.
18 Mar 09
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhy?
The Fed is also 100% privately owned.
I say nationalize the Federal Reserve System.
It's already overseen to some extent by Congress. For instance they have to approve Presidential appointments, and the Chairman of the Fed has to report to Congress on a regular basis.
All nationalizing it would do is give the Congress not only the power to enact fiscal policy but perhaps the even greater (and possibly more devastating) power to enact monetary policy.
Within 4 years of nationalizing the Fed, you'd see an election-cycle monetary stimulus or contraction. You don't want to politicize monetary policy.
18 Mar 09
Originally posted by telerionWhy should private shareholders profit from our financial system?
Why?
It's already overseen to some extent by Congress. For instance they have to approve Presidential appointments, and the Chairman of the Fed has to report to Congress on a regular basis.
All nationalizing it would do is give the Congress not only the power to enact fiscal policy but perhaps the even greater (and possibly more devastating) power ...[text shortened]... ection-cycle monetary stimulus or contraction. You don't want to politicize monetary policy.
How much faith do you put into something with so little federal influence? The private aspects outnumber the government influence by 2 to 1. Are you comfortable with that?
Here is an excerpt to the FAQ part of the Money Masters link
http://www.themoneymasters.com/faqs.htm#q1
___________________________________________________________
Question: Doesn’t the fact that the President appoints the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System make it a quasi-governmental sort of entity?
Answer: Yes, but how “quasi” is quasi-enough? The Board of Governors of the System consists of 7 members, one appointed every two years (one term begins every two years, on February 1 of even-numbered years, a full year after inauguration day) by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 14 year terms. Wow…those are really long terms. Why? Let’s see: if a new President comes into office pledged to reform the Fed, end its independence from effective government oversight, throw the rascals out and replace them with his own appointees, he had better be very patient, as he can only replace one member every two years. So in his four year term (10 years less than Fed Governors’ terms) he can replace only two of the 7 members. Of course, he had better be able to sustain the ire of the remaining Governors (almost all connected to financial institutions indirectly in various academic and think-tank institutions financed by banks and bank grants or loans, or which they hope to join in revolving door relationships after their single terms are up), who can run the economy up, down or sideways, in the interim.
But assuming the President can sustain the fight with the Fed, its bank-PAC financed cheerleaders in the Senate, voters upset over a suddenly sinking economy, the banks who control the Fed and the media giants they also own, then all this brave but foolhardy President has to do is get elected to a second term, and hang on long enough to appoint two more Board members. Thus, assuming all of this goes well, in the span of seven years (a glacial pace in American politics), near the end of his second term, he can finally begin some reform – if he manages to get his four appointees confirmed, is still in office and has any allies left – even in his own party. We think the prefixed word quasi-governmental is a good one, if you understand quasi- to mean pseudo.
Keep in mind also the distinction between the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, and the Federal Reserve System as a whole. The private ownership of the 12 Federal Reserve banks we addressed above. "Federal Reserve System" usually refers to the entire framework established by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, including those 12, privately owned Federal Reserve Banks, and the Board of Governors of the system, which meets in Washington D.C. The Fed Board of Governors was also established by the Act of 1913. These are the 7 members with 14-year terms, also mentioned above. Two of them are appointed by the President to 4-year terms as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board (largely nominal positions - no extra votes). They, of course, are not owned like corporation stock is owned. So when someone is trying to mislead folks by denying any private ownership of the Fed, they will inevitably refer to the Federal Reserve System (rather than to the Federal Reserve Banks) and declare it is not privately owned (which is partly true [the Fed Board of Governors is not "owned"], and partly false [the 12 Federal Reserve banks are]). We have addressed these two elements in detail, above.
18 Mar 09
Originally posted by Metal BrainFirst, private individuals profit from our financial system all the time. Anyone who has owned an interest-bearing bank account has done so. Even if you only look at the monetary system, every banker and shareholder in a bank has made money of the system.
Why should private shareholders profit from our financial system?
How much faith do you put into something with so little federal influence? The private aspects outnumber the government influence by 2 to 1. Are you comfortable with that?
Here is an excerpt to the FAQ part of the Money Masters link
http://www.themoneymasters.com/faqs.htm#q1
___ ...[text shortened]... [the 12 Federal Reserve banks are]). We have addressed these two elements in detail, above.
As for faith in the system. How many times have FOMC members or Reserve bank branches been indicted for fraud? There is a very stringent security process that screens employees at Fed banks. There are also a lot of rules about what can and can't be owned (for instance, a Fed employee may not own direct shares in any bank or bankholding company). This whole assertion that the FOMC members rule over the President with economic threats is outlandish. And ties to banks through future grants in academia? Preposterous!
On the other hand, how many times have members of Congress been indicted for fraud? I really don't understand why these MoneyMasters fellows are so trusting of the federal government.
19 Mar 09
Originally posted by shavixmirWhat does it all mean?? It means we're going to be invaded by really big Orange frogs at any second!! And the world....as we know it....IS OVER!!!! BOO HA HA HA HA HA😏
A friend of mine was telling me about the US federal reserve.
Seemingly it's not quite as "federal" as the name suggests.
Anyways, he was saying that "the fed" is owned by private banks which are owned by various individuals (or families). Names like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Rothschild slipped from his tongue, much like a chicken vindaloo in Mumbai ...[text shortened]... nt can actually force their hand.
Can anyone explain the workings to me?
Cheers!
19 Mar 09
Originally posted by telerionThey never said they were trusting of the federal government. You have a weird way of twisting things.
First, private individuals profit from our financial system all the time. Anyone who has owned an interest-bearing bank account has done so. Even if you only look at the monetary system, every banker and shareholder in a bank has made money of the system.
As for faith in the system. How many times have FOMC members or Reserve bank branches been indict ...[text shortened]... lly don't understand why these MoneyMasters fellows are so trusting of the federal government.
You are trying to mix all the banks up with the central bank. Of course private banks earn money for their shareholders, but a central bank should be federal as the name implies. Otherwise it should be called the "Private Reserve System" since that is what it is. Why mislead people with the name if private is a good thing as you suggest?
Andrew Jackson killed the 2nd Bank of the US and was proud of it. Why do you think that is? Could it be because it was a privately owned bank that was exploiting people? If not, why did he have so much support from the common people to kill the bank?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States
If the Federal Reserve System is harmless you can surely tell me the names of the shareholders of this privately owned institution. I think we would all like to know.
By the way, the Fed created over 1 trillion dollars out of nothing the other day to purchase treasury bills and mortgage securities. Did they have to ask anybody to do it?
The constitution gives congress the power to coin money, not a privately owned bank. Maybe the people that made the Money Masters just believe in following the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland
21 Mar 09
Originally posted by Metal BrainImplicitly though, it suggests that direct Congressional control of the money supply would be better than the current arrangement. I'm saying that it is wise to keep the monetary authority and the fiscal authority separate (or, if not totally separate, then at least distant.
They never said they were trusting of the federal government. You have a weird way of twisting things.
You are trying to mix all the banks up with the central bank. Of course private banks earn money for their shareholders, but a central bank should be federal as the name implies. Otherwise it should be called the "Private Reserve System" since that i ...[text shortened]... t believe in following the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland
I'm not mixing up banks with the central bank at all. I think that you don't understand how banks work. Traditionally, banks make money off of the money supply by taking in people's savings at interest rate and loaning it out at a high interest rate. More importantly (or scandalously, depending on your viewpoint) because of fractional reserve banking, banks can issue many times more dollars in loans than they have in their vaults. The majority of the money supply is actually not the monetary base (currency and coins), but rather the stock of bank accounts created from people depositing the loans that they receive. For more information on how this works, check out "fractional reserve banking" and "money multiplier."
You're making far too big a deal over the word federal. Private banks all over the country have the word "federal" or "national" in their names, but this does not mean that they are owned by the federal government or by the US in general.
Andrew Jackson killed the 2nd Bank of the US and was proud of it. Why do you think that is?
Because Jackson, while a good general, was completely clueless about financial systems. History looks back on Jackson as a fool in regards to banking. His refusal to renew the charter for the national bank led to the Panic of 1837 where many banks failed and the country fell into a long depression. Just because a US President said something doesn't make it correct.
If the Federal Reserve System is harmless you can surely tell me the names of the shareholders of this privately owned institution.
That is asinine. I don't know the names of particular shareholders, just like I don't know the names of shareholders of Toyota, Apple, Fannie Mae, or any other private or governmental firm. I suppose that if you did some genuine research instead of wasting your time with conspiracy theories, you'd could dig up some names. That said, I'm not sure how much a private firm is required to divulge about it shareholders.
Finally, Congress has the power to coin money. You are right. Do you know who orders the coinage in the country. Guess what. It's not the Federal Reserve! Inform yourself, and while you're at it, inform moneymasters too. http://www.ustreas.gov/topics/currency/
All of this underscores that your fear of the Federal Reserve System is largely based on your ignorance of modern banking and on the nature of the money supply in general. I think that you would benefit greatly from a college class in Money and Banking. I'm sure that there are plenty of online courses that don't cost too much. Given your obvious interest in the subject, you would probably like the class. Though you would have to check your conspiracies at the door. You can always pick them back up once you've learned about how things actually work.