Originally posted by telerionEven that website says the fed does not rebate all of it to the treasury. How about a percentage?
In addition to the Fed101 (which has great information about how the Federal Reserve System works and a user-friendly format) site, I wondered to add this link to a College of Charleston professor's rebuttal to some of these conspiracy myths.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/FedReserveFacts.html
It even addresses Metal Brains questi ...[text shortened]... with the interest it earns from government bonds (ans: it rebates it to the US Treasury Dept).
It does not tell you who the shareholders are at all. It just says they are from other banks. This tells us very little. You have shed light on nothing.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf the information on this wikipedia link is false it would explain how I was mislead. If it is true the information you have provided is false. Both cannot be true.
What part of this don't you understand?
[b]The law, signed by Kennedy himself, also permits the Federal Reserve to issue small denomination bills to replace the outgoing silver certificates (prior to the act, the Fed could only issue Federal Reserve Notes in larger denominations). The Treasury's shrinking silver stock could the ...[text shortened]... and another that it proves its promulgator is a mere pawn of the banking community. 🙄[/b]
Which is it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainDo your own dang research. The private banks who use a particular regional bank are its shareholders. Look up banks in a particular region and ask if they use the regional fed. It's not hard.
Even that website says the fed does not rebate all of it to the treasury. How about a percentage?
It does not tell you who the shareholders are at all. It just says they are from other banks. This tells us very little. You have shed light on nothing.
By the way a simple bit of research on your part would show that about 85% was rebated in 2008. In other words, the Fed rebates the profits (i.e., revenue - cost).
1 edit
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/other/20060110a.htm
Another link summarizing the total income 2005-2006 for the Fed. Contains a brief summary of where the income came from and what portion was kept to cover costs. The rest was rebated to the US Treasury.
BTW for that year the rebated fraction was about 71% of revenue. Doesn't really sound like a secret society of greedy elite "money changers" to me. I mean what evil, greedy banker gives back 71% of its income?
Of course, they did keep 29% to pay for costs of operation and cover losses on foreign currencies held. You don't expect the Fed to operate at a massive loss every year do you?
Still think that the Fed "runs purely for [Federal Reserve's] private profit", like MM claims at (2:18)?
Originally posted by telerionThat's the same site I've been posting above.
In addition to the Fed101 (which has great information about how the Federal Reserve System works and a user-friendly format) site, I wondered to add this link to a College of Charleston professor's rebuttal to some of these conspiracy myths.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/FedReserveFacts.html
It even addresses Metal Brains questi ...[text shortened]... with the interest it earns from government bonds (ans: it rebates it to the US Treasury Dept).
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainNeither are false. You just have a serious reading comprehension problem. The wiki article states in pertinent part:
If the information on this wikipedia link is false it would explain how I was mislead. If it is true the information you have provided is false. Both cannot be true.
Which is it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110
The Order was for the Treasury to issue silver certificates against all silver held by the government which did not already have certificates against it. The Order was needed due to the passage of Public Law 88-36 which repealed the Silver Purchase Act and other related monetary measures. One result was that after the repeals, only the President could issue new silver certificates.
The Federal Reserve System could replace the certificates, but only in larger denominations. The thrust of the Order returned the authority to issue new silver certificates (and specify denominations) back to the U.S. Treasury.
This executive order allowed for the Federal Reserve System to distribute and exchange currency at lower denominations that met the growing economic need.
All that is perfectly compatible with the site I provided. It also explains why the Fed started in 1963 to issue $1 Federal Reserve Notes.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo. It says larger denominations, not smaller as your link said. It is a direct contradiction.
Neither are false. You just have a serious reading comprehension problem. The wiki article states in pertinent part:
The Order was for the Treasury to issue silver certificates against all silver held by the government which did not already have certificates against it. The Order was needed due to the passage of Public Law 88-36 which repe ...[text shortened]... site I provided. It also explains why the Fed started in 1963 to issue $1 Federal Reserve Notes.
Originally posted by telerionIn other words, you don't know who the shareholders are. All you had to do is say so.
Do your own dang research. The private banks who use a particular regional bank are its shareholders. Look up banks in a particular region and ask if they use the regional fed. It's not hard.
By the way a simple bit of research on your part would show that about 85% was rebated in 2008. In other words, the Fed rebates the profits (i.e., revenue - cost).
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainBEFORE the changes in the law in 1963, they could only use larger denominations. AFTER the changes in the law, they could and did for the first time start using smaller denominations i.e. $1 bills.
No. It says larger denominations, not smaller as your link said. It is a direct contradiction.
That's what it says. That's what happened historically. Please read it SLOWLY this time.
EDIT: From the wiki article:
This executive order allowed for the Federal Reserve System to distribute and exchange currency at lower denominations that met the growing economic need.
From the publiceye article:
The law, signed by Kennedy himself, also permits the Federal Reserve to issue small denomination bills to replace the outgoing silver certificates (prior to the act, the Fed could only issue Federal Reserve Notes in larger denominations).
Same thing.
Originally posted by telerionSo now you are saying it does not matter they do not rebate all of the money. Before you lied and said they gave it all back, now you change your story and say that 29% they keep is justified. I suppose I have no right to question if that amount is justified because you know what you are talking about and I should just accept it. How about an audit that is a real audit?
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/other/20060110a.htm
Another link summarizing the total income 2005-2006 for the Fed. Contains a brief summary of where the income came from and what portion was kept to cover costs. The rest was rebated to the US Treasury.
BTW for that year the rebated fraction was about 71% of revenue. Doesn't really ...[text shortened]... t the Fed "runs purely for [Federal Reserve's] private profit", like MM claims at (2:18)?
If I made a false statement the way you did, you, Paly and a couple other people would gang up on me and insult me using the word liar repeatedly.
The double standards never end.
Originally posted by no1marauderDid you read the first part?
BEFORE the changes in the law in 1963, they could only use larger denominations. AFTER the changes in the law, they could and did for the first time start using smaller denominations i.e. $1 bills.
That's what it says. That's what happened historically. Please read it SLOWLY this time.
EDIT: From the wiki article:
This execut ...[text shortened]... could only issue Federal Reserve Notes in larger denominations).
Same thing.
This executive order allows the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to issue $4.29 billion in silver certificates ($2 and $5 Notes) against silver bullion based on authority delegated by the President to the Secretary under the Thomas Amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
Originally posted by no1marauderHere is something I clipped from this site.
BEFORE the changes in the law in 1963, they could only use larger denominations. AFTER the changes in the law, they could and did for the first time start using smaller denominations i.e. $1 bills.
That's what it says. That's what happened historically. Please read it SLOWLY this time.
EDIT: From the wiki article:
This execut ...[text shortened]... could only issue Federal Reserve Notes in larger denominations).
Same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_standard
__________________________________________________________
By acts of Congress in 1933[3]:
(1) the domestic economy was conspicuously taken off the gold standard; &
(2) less famously, the Treasury Department was empowered to issue paper currency redeemable in silver dollars & bullion, thereby quietly placing the economy on the silver standard.
This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vaults (mints), the U.S. government (not the Federal Reserve) could issue money against it. These silver certicates bore the name of the U. S. Treasury, not the Federal Reserve; were released into circulation in 1934 & 1935; & were shredded upon redemption since the redeemed silver was no longer in the Treasury. On June 4, 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 that ordered the Treasury Department to again "issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This resulted in the introduction of an additional $4.29 billion worth of United States Notes into circulation, consisting of $2.00 and $5.00 bills; and although they were never issued, $10.00 and $20.00 notes were in the process of being printed when Kennedy was murdered. Pres. Kennedy & presumably his Treasury Sec., C. Douglas Dillon, a Republican, had reservations about the merits of the Federal Reserve System; &, for certain reasons, wanted Treasury's silver certificates to circulate in competition with the Fed's currency. Five months after the assassination, in March 1964, issuance of the Series 1958 Silver Certificate was stopped & redemption in silver dollars was suspended; 24 June 1968 was the last day for redemption in silver bullion. Kennedy's strategy may have been meant to strengthen the U$, but obviously must have served to rapidly empty the Treasury of silver, as the world market price had already relentlessly risen to $1.29 per troy ounce in 1960, as Federal Reserve notes had already flooded the world in the Marshall Plan, in the Cold War, & in importation of foreign goods.
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo what? Guess how many $2 and $5 silver certificates were actually issued in 1963.
Did you read the first part?
This executive order allows the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to issue $4.29 billion in silver certificates ($2 and $5 Notes) against silver bullion based on authority delegated by the President to the Secretary under the Thomas Amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act.