The Fed Website

[Ognir]

Quote:Are the Federal Reserve Banks private companies? The Federal Reserve Banks, created by an act of Congress in 1913, are operated in the public interest rather than for profit or to benefit any private group.

Commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System hold stock in the Reserve Bank in their region, but they do not exercise control over the Reserve Bank or the Federal Reserve System. Holding stock in a regional Reserve Bank does not carry with it the kind of control and financial interest that holding publicly traded stock affords, and the stock may not be sold or traded. Member banks do, however, receive a fixed 6 percent dividend annually on their stock and elect six of the nine members of the Reserve Bank's board of directors.

Although they are set up like private corporations and member banks hold their stock, the Federal Reserve Banks owe their existence to an act of Congress and have a mandate to serve the public. Therefore, they are not really "private" companies, but rather are "owned" by the citizens of the United States.

Created by an act of congress
- WTF, are ppl insane
Who brought this bill before the Congress to get it pasted? Guess
How come on that day, 23rd of Dec. 1913, this *BILL* somehow surfaced

Fuck sake, these bastards get 6% every year for creating money out of nothing

Look into the 1929 stock market crash and see who'se behind it, the fucking FED was, as they tighten up credit, removed cash from circulation but the big boys sold out beforehand.

Bastards bastards

[Henry]

Is that really from the Fed site? That's hilarious that they actually put "private" and "owned" in quotation marks, lol.

I had to read that part again...

Although they are set up like private corporations and member banks hold their stock, the Federal Reserve Banks owe their existence to an act of Congress and have a mandate to serve the public. Therefore, they are not really "private" companies, but rather are "owned" by the citizens of the United States.

How does a "mandate to serve the public" make this corporation not private? How insulting to tell me I'm part owner of the Fed.

[StingingNettle]

Yeah, I've read that from the fed site before. The Commercial banks however elect for who they want in the fed regional banks, making the fed regional banks in essence private.

[Moriani]

I think the problem is that none of you understand the concept of "federalism."

I can understand that since some of you are not Americans and the whole concept of federalism is foreign to you.

The US is not 50 counties, shires, provinces or administrative districts run by a national government as the overwhelming majority of countries (about 170+ out of 192) are.

The US is 50 soveriegn independent countries.

These 50 soveriegn independent countries have pledged to work in unison.

In order to work in unison effectively, certain functions and powers were assigned to a federal government, and certain powers and functions were reserved for each of the 50 independent sovereign countries.

The federal government has the exclusive right over matters of foreign affairs, including treaties, so that the 50 independent sovereign countries act as one voice, instead of 50 separate treaties that might conflict.

A federal court system was set up to provide a neutral forum to mediate disptues between the various 50 independent sovereign countries.

The federal government was also given the right to coin money, so that there is a single currency to conduct trade rather than 50 separate currencies, each having differing values.

Which brings us to monetary policy.

It is monetary policy that controls the growth of the money supply.

Prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank, there were 45 states with more than 200 central banks setting monetary policy.

It didn't work.

I don't know what part of that no one understands. Boom and bust cycles were rampant in the US, in various regions of the US, and within each state.

That occured in part because there was no uniform monetary policy.

The establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank created a single central bank to control monetary policy.

The Fed regulates the amount of currency in circulation, which is the sum total of all cash and checking/savings account balances. It is the total amount of money in circulation which in part determines the value of the currency.

The Fed also created a uniform set of rules to transfer checks from one bank to another, where there was none before. But maybe that isn't important to you. Maybe you don't care if your pay check is deposited two or three or four weeks late because your employer banks at a bank aligned with a central bank in Florida who is playing games with a central bank in New York.

The Fed also holds the reserves of other banks, so that if one bank, like the Bank of America, crashes, it doesn't drag down half of the US. But maybe that isn't important to you.

An economy expands when new businesses are created, or when existing businesses increase production. The creation of new businesses or the expansion of existing businesses creates jobs. But maybe you don't need a job.

The creation of jobs occurs because new businesses were created and existing businesses expanded, because money was available in the form of credit and at a low price. It is the Fed that 1) makes credit available, and 2) sets the price of credit by setting the interest rate to borrow the money. Now, we could go back to the old system and have 200 central banks each making differing amounts of credit available and each with different interest rates, but somehow I don't think a 25% unemployment rate in some states would sit well with a lot of people any more than a 10% unemployment rate would.

Of course, making credit available is a problem if you're tied to a standard, like gold. The amount of credit you can make available is directly related to the amount of gold you have on hand. That kind of puts a damper on things if you're looking to expand an economy and feed hungry people who are out of work.

There is a down side to making credit available at bargain basement prices. You get too much money in circulation. Adam Smith in his book "The Wealth of Nations" make a rather unique observation. He noted that every single time the workers at a certain factory got a wage increase, the pubs and delis and shoppes around the factory raised their prices. He was curious about that. Why did those pub and deli and shoppe owners increase their prices? Because they knew when the workers got pay raises and they knew that the workers could afford to pay more for their ales and sandwiches and dry goods.

Is that moral or ethical? That isn't the point. The point is it happens and that's called inflation. If inflation rises too rapidly, your purchasing power erodes.

To combat inflation, the Fed can decrease the amount of available credit, or increase its cost or both.

If you have 200 central banks the result is inflation in some states, delflation in other states and nothing happening in other states. That does not make for a smooth running economy.

The Fed acts independently but has on two or three occasions bowed to political pressure. Nixon is a prime example with his wage and price freezes, but those were extraoridnary measures in response to an oil embargo.

Now, the US could go back to the old system, but I don't think some people would be happy paying 11% for a mortgage because their state is an economic morass while others are paying 4%. Likewise, I don't think people would be too keen on 29.9% credit card interest rates either.

[harmonius]

"These 50 soveriegn independent countries have pledged to work in unison."

Sounds like the the USA is the North American Union, albeit states 51 and 52 are just around the corner...

"Prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank, there were 45 states with more than 200 central banks setting monetary policy."

Does it appear any better right now? Honestly? So instead of a bunch of small mafias you have one huge mafia. Cool. And how can you have 45 states and 200 central banks the math doesn't add up.

It seems like your argument is either 1)fed control or 2)chaos There are alternatives however, but most of them are based exclusively on fictional abstract ideas like money. No matter how much you streamline abstract ideas, they ultimately still are complete and utter fictions.

Here is a pretty decent idea IMO.


From: http://www.thevenusproject.com/resource_eco.htm

"A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfillment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.

A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.

As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.

With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.

Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such."



MMM

[Zoomie38]

Quote:

Quote:Are the Federal Reserve Banks private companies? The Federal Reserve Banks, created by an act of Congress in 1913, are operated in the public interest rather than for profit or to benefit any private group.

Commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System hold stock in the Reserve Bank in their region, but they do not exercise control over the Reserve Bank or the Federal Reserve System. Holding stock in a regional Reserve Bank does not carry with it the kind of control and financial interest that holding publicly traded stock affords, and the stock may not be sold or traded. Member banks do, however, receive a fixed 6 percent dividend annually on their stock and elect six of the nine members of the Reserve Bank's board of directors.

Although they are set up like private corporations and member banks hold their stock, the Federal Reserve Banks owe their existence to an act of Congress and have a mandate to serve the public. Therefore, they are not really "private" companies, but rather are "owned" by the citizens of the United States.

Created by an act of congress
- WTF, are ppl insane
Who brought this bill before the Congress to get it pasted? Guess
How come on that day, 23rd of Dec. 1913, this *BILL* somehow surfaced

Fuck sake, these bastards get 6% every year for creating money out of nothing

Look into the 1929 stock market crash and see who'se behind it, the fucking FED was, as they tighten up credit, removed cash from circulation but the big boys sold out beforehand.

Bastards bastards

Just another example of a total brainfart at the hand of congress. It should also be noted that Abe Lincoln and JFK both introduced legislation that would dissolve the Federal Reserve and back US Currency with Gold and Silver. Look what happened to them.