Federal Reserve

Jonny_trigonometry said:
"The income gathered from these activities is used to finance day to day operations, including information gathering and economic research."

So the day to day operations include these things. they also include many other things. This is what made you think that the Fed is not privately owned? When you get down to how they decide to spend thier money, things become very complicated very quickly.
Maybe you should quote that more fully and adress the point that I actually made here....
The income gathered from these activities is used to finance day to day operations, including information gathering and economic research. Any excess income is funneled back into the U.S. Treasury.
Me said:
The "profit" made by the fed goes to fund the operations of the fed and any excess "profit" goes directly into the U.S. Treasury. Doesn't exactly sound like a privately owned operation to me.
You may also want to note this part of the source I cited...
The Fed is an independent entity, but is subject to oversight from Congress. Basically, this means that decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the government, but Congress periodically reviews the Fed's activities.
_______________________

The Fed is headed by a government agency in Washington known as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The Board of Governors consists of 7 presidential appointees, who each serve 14 year terms. All members must be confirmed by the Senate, and they can be reappointed. The board is led by a chairman and a vice chairman, each appointed by the President and approved by the Senate for 4 year terms.
There are several government bodies that are viewed as "independant entities" and are responsible for their own funding but this does not mean they are "privately owned". Please show and quote a source that says this and backs up the assertion with credible evidence. Unfortunately I don't have the time to comb through several pages of pdf looking for this evidence.

J Trig said:
http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/economic_research/economic_review/pdfs/er690201.pdf [Broken]

notice on page 9, after "expenses" and payment of dividends, 1/2 of the rest of the money goes to a surplus fund, and the other goes to the treasury.
Actually in full it states that half goes into an account to gain interest as compensation for the services of the bank and after a certain mark has been reached that money held in the "surplus fund" does still find it's way into the US Treasury coffers. This is the way all banks make money for their services. In effect the fed is getting paid for being the bank of the US government in the same fashion that our personal banks get paid for the services they render private citizens except that in the case of the Fed this is determined by the customer(the US government) as opposed to the bank(the fed). So I still don't see how this makes the fed a private venture.

J Trig said:
there are many ways the Fed can make purchases look legitimate. I bet most of the money they spend will look like it is a valid thing to do. I haven't been able to find much about wether or not the fed spends money that goes into the economy as a whole, or just thier buddies. Many things can be written off as a business expense.
Yep, and the same goes for the FBI and the NSA and just about any government body you can name.

J Trig said:
"A major responsibility of the Federal Reserve System is to provide the total amount of reserves consistent with the needs of the economy at reasonably stable prices. Changes in the volume of reserves influence the money supply, the availability of credit, interest rates, and as a result, the volume of spending. Depository institutions feel the impact of changes initially, but the effects quickly spread to the entire domestic economy, and often to the international economy as well." - http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/educator_resources/federal_reserve_today/policy.cfm [Broken]

This shows an idea of how many options a person has if they have inside information. If you know what desicisions will be initiated, you know better ways to invest in the economy and pull money out of it. It's not just all in the profits the Fed makes, but also the abilities the people in the know about the fed's dealings have in investing correctly. When you are as powerful as people in the board of directors of the fed, you have ways of getting around being accused of insider info. Of course I can't back up this claim with evidence, but you can't discount it either. The flow of money can be masked too, if it takes many twists and turns through complicated language and policies. There is no doubt an international influence of the fed also, those in the know don't have to just make money in the us.
Yeah like you said that called insider information and is illegal. This is one of the reasons why the Fed was made an "Independant Entity" so as to make some sort of seperation between the politicians and the decisions made in regards to monetary policy to try to assuage the issues that can and do arrise with regard to conflict of interest. Considering that this is the very purpose of the fed and that the fed in the entity that influences monetary policy I am quite sure that there are measures in place to prevent those who work for the fed taking advantage of their knowledge. How effect these are I don't know and just how much this sort of thing is taken advantage of I don't know but this sort of thing can and will be a problem no matter what as long as we are using a capitalist system. The only thing we can do is make it as hard as possible for these people to do such things and keep those that we would suspect of doing such things out of those positions of power.

I have not argued at all your stance on fractional savings yet I just want to clear up one of your other major arguments, that being the idea that the fed is a private organization. So far as I can find it is not. Please show me some proof that it is if you can find any and I will be more than happy to acknowledge that and stop raising this issue.

Last edited by a moderator:
TheStatutoryApe said:
Maybe you should quote that more fully and adress the point that I actually made here....
You may also want to note this part of the source I cited...
There are several government bodies that are viewed as "independant entities" and are responsible for their own funding but this does not mean they are "privately owned". Please show and quote a source that says this and backs up the assertion with credible evidence. Unfortunately I don't have the time to comb through several pages of pdf looking for this evidence.
You could also say that all private companies are "independant entities" of the government. This is just tricky wording. Besides, you quoted some unofficial website anyway, why should i take what they have to say seriously anyway? If you want to use that info, then you must agree that the fed is privately owned because you will find all kinds of unofficial websites that claim it is.

TheStatutoryApe said:
Actually in full it states that half goes into an account to gain interest as compensation for the services of the bank and after a certain mark has been reached that money held in the "surplus fund" does still find it's way into the US Treasury coffers. This is the way all banks make money for their services.
Okay, so half goes here, half goes there... da da da... and all the sudden... zap, obviously it's not privately owned!

What do you mean this is how banks make money!? How sure of your understanding of our economy are you? If you don't know how banks make money, you have no business posting in this thread.

this might help: http://money.howstuffworks.com/bank4.htm

TheStatutoryApe said:
In effect the fed is getting paid for being the bank of the US government in the same fashion that our personal banks get paid for the services they render private citizens except that in the case of the Fed this is determined by the customer(the US government) as opposed to the bank(the fed).
This is correct. The fed gets paid from the interest from the money it issues to the american people (US government), in the same fashion that private banks get paid for loaning out money to citizens (interest rates). The last part you have switched though, the fed sets the interest rates that the government (the people) must pay to use thier money.

TheStatutoryApe said:
So I still don't see how this makes the fed a private venture...Yep, and the same goes for the FBI and the NSA and just about any government body you can name. Yeah like you said that called insider information and is illegal. This is one of the reasons why the Fed was made an "Independant Entity" so as to make some sort of seperation between the politicians and the decisions made in regards to monetary policy to try to assuage the issues that can and do arrise with regard to conflict of interest.
And the politicians and fed board members would expect this to be an obvious defense against people like me, but when you regard the politicians and the rich as walking hand and hand, you can see that if they look out for each other, they will both prosper. Making them "independant" doesn't make them any more vulnerable to being prosecuted than if they were fully integrated. A senator can still be prosecuted, but they have enough connections to get away with more than a petty criminal. Likewise, a person in a position to control all the banks in the US will have similar connections. Personal connections trancend titles.

TheStatutoryApe said:
Considering that this is the very purpose of the fed and that the fed in the entity that influences monetary policy I am quite sure that there are measures in place to prevent those who work for the fed taking advantage of their knowledge. How effect these are I don't know and just how much this sort of thing is taken advantage of I don't know
Use your imagination. There are ways around almost anything. Remember that quote "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", do you agree with it?

TheStatutoryApe said:
but this sort of thing can and will be a problem no matter what as long as we are using a capitalist system. The only thing we can do is make it as hard as possible for these people to do such things and keep those that we would suspect of doing such things out of those positions of power.
I have not argued at all your stance on fractional savings yet I just want to clear up one of your other major arguments, that being the idea that the fed is a private organization. So far as I can find it is not. Please show me some proof that it is if you can find any and I will be more than happy to acknowledge that and stop raising this issue.
If you agree that the warren commission report was an incorrect account for the assassination of JFK, then you can understand that many powerful people can put on a mask and fool us into thinking they are harmless. Speaking of JFK, as Art mentioned earlier, JFK was assissanatied just 5 months after he signed executive order 11110, which would've in the long run put the Fed reserve of NY out of business. Do you think JFK had any idea about how the economy works? Why did he make this order in the first place? Why would he want to put the Fed out of business? If the Fed were a government institution, then would it have (assuming this is the case) defended itself against its destruction? Many programs and departments in the government have been cut, there is no reason for them to fight back if the government doesn't need them.

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm

Even the last one to trust about the truth of wether the Fed is privately owned, the Fed itself (whom would lie if they were privately owned to protect their ability to influence) admits that the 12 Fed banks are owned by investors (private commercial banks) who recieve dividends, and have the ability to elect board members... They also claim that they are not privately owned, but rather owned by the people of the US. What they really mean is that some people in the US own commercial banks, which in turn hold Fed stock, recieve dividends, and elect board members. But I'm sure that the commercial banks aren't restricted to the US.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrbanks.htm [Broken]

If you want to get info from unofficial sources, here you go:
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/articles/fedprivatelyowned.htm [Broken]
http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij2.html
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Secrets_of_the_Federal_Reserve/secrets_of_the_federal_reserve_TC.htm [Broken]
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Fed_reserve.htm
http://www.federal-reserve.net/ [Broken]
http://theunjustmedia.com/Banking & Federal Reserve/The Federal Reserve is Privately owned.htm
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/138390.php
http://www.conservativeusa.org/fed.htm [Broken]
http://members.fortunecity.com/brianshouse/federalreserve.html [Broken]

here's a more official source, leaning towards the Fed being privately owned, as it takes into account the court case against the fed.

Here's some more quotes
http://www.freedomdomain.com/bankquot.html

Last edited by a moderator:
Art
The Fed Reserve IS privately owned, to quote from EV's attachment
As 29 year veteran of the CIA, Captain Gunther Russbacher put it, “In our circles it became widely known that the Fed’s principle owners, or stockholders, as they prefer to be called, were the Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris; Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy, Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam; Lehman Brothers Bank of New York; and Goldman, Sachs Banks of New York; Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York; Chase Manhattan Bank of New York. These interests own and operate the Federal Reserve System through approximately three hundred stockholders, all of whom are very well known to each other, and frequently are related.”
To argue it is not a private organisation because they make payments to the gov't is as ridiculous as claiming all companies are departments of the gov't because they pay taxes.
Argue by all means the Fed Reserve is a good thing but please don't try to justify your opinions on this strawman.

This thread is pointless. Who cares if the FED is or isn't privately owned? The money and banking system of the US actually works, which is the only thing that matters. For every website that claims that the FED is privately owned you can find a website that will claims that this is a myth such as this site:http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/FRS-myth.htm (which is a report submitted to Congress). One thing is certain- who actually controls the decisions of the FED? The board of governors does, and the members of that board are publicly appointed.

gravenewworld said:
This thread is pointless. Who cares if the FED is or isn't privately owned? The money and banking system of the US actually works, which is the only thing that matters. For every website that claims that the FED is privately owned you can find a website that will claims that this is a myth such as this site:http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/FRS-myth.htm (which is a report submitted to Congress). One thing is certain- who actually controls the decisions of the FED? The board of governors does, and the members of that board are publicly appointed.
Yes, slave labor worked very well too..
You can see the elusive of this FAQ:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrbanks.htm#6 [Broken]
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.
Are Federal Reserve Bank employees considered government employees?
No. Employees of the Federal Reserve Banks are not government employees. They are paid as part of the expenses of their employing Reserve Bank.
Board of Directors
Terms expire December 31 of the year indicated.
Class A elected by member banks to represent member banks
Jill M. Considine (bio) 2007
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
The Depository Trust Company
Charles V. Wait (bio) 2005
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
Sanford I. Weill (bio) 2006
Chairman
Citigroup Inc.
Class B elected by member banks to represent the public
Richard S. Fuld, Jr. (bio) 2007
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Denis M. Hughes (bio) 2006
President
New York State AFL-CIO
Marta Tienda (bio) 2005
Maurice P. During '22 Professor in Demographics Studies
Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs
Princeton University
Class C appointed by Board of Governors to represent the public
Loretta Lynch (bio) 2005
Partner
Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.
John Edward Sexton (bio) Chairman, 2007
President
New York University
Jerry I. Speyer (bio) Deputy Chairman, 2006
President and Chief Executive Officer
Tishman Speyer Properties

Last edited by a moderator:
If all the new money tha FED puts in circulation has to be repaid plus interests, when is the money to pay the interest put in circulation???

80% of americans has mortage, credit cards, loans with private banks, and has to pay interest for that, if the banks "creates" the money it lent, where does the money to pay the interest came from??

Farmers produce food, industry manufacturers goods, and so on, but bankers only produce money.

Suppose there are only two businessmen in the whole country and they employ everyone else. they borrow $100 each, they pay$90 out in wages and expenses and allow $10 profit . That means the total purchasing power is$90 + $10 twice, i.e.$200. Yet to pay the banks they must sell all theyr produce for $210. If one of them succeeds and sells all his produce for$105, the other man can only hope to get $95. Also, part of his goods cannot be sold, as there is no money left to buy them. He will still owe the bank$10 and can only repay this by borrowing more.

Yes, slave labor worked very well too..
Now we are comparing the FED and the Money and banking system of the US to slavery? That is quite a stretch.

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.

Thats right....but don't confuse the Board of Governors with the Board of directors of each regional bank. The board of governors are employees of the government.

You conviently forgot to quote this from the website you used as a source

What is the relationship of the Board of Governors to the Federal Reserve Banks?
In public debate prior to passage of the Federal Reserve Act, some private-sector bankers expressed concern that a central bank governed by a Board of Governors appointed by the government would not be sufficiently responsive to the needs of the financial community. Certain agrarian interests, on the other hand, felt that an independent central bank would yield too much control over monetary affairs to the private banks. As a result, the Federal Reserve System was structured with two levels of authority--the Board of Governors, located in Washington, D.C., has a centralized and supervisory public influence over the Reserve Banks, while the individual Reserve Banks maintain narrower control over their own day-to-day operations.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a government agency. Its employees are employees of the federal government, paid in accordance with federal government pay scales, and part of the federal employee retirement system. The premises are federal government property. The seven Board members are appointed by the President with advice and consent of the Senate in the same fashion as other government appointees.
(from the link i posted earlier.)

This link that you posted-http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/org_nydirectors.html only lists the Board of directors for the NY Regional Bank only. These people are not the same as the board of governors of the entire federal reserve system.

Here is how the fed is set up Board of Gov.-----> They control the 12 regional banks------> The 12 banks have 9 directors, 6 of which are elected by the bank that owns it.

Last edited:
In the 1982 case, Lewis v. United States, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals stated that the "Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Torts Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.". The opinion also went on to state that "The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes."

gravenewworld said:
Now we are comparing the FED and the Money and banking system of the US to slavery? That is quite a stretch.
Well, consider being born on land you can't escape that someone else (or a group of people) owns, and consider that that person(s) is not warm-hearted and hence demands that you pay them in order to live on thier land (which you can't escape since you don't have the money to travel). You then work out some deal such that you can pay them by doing work for them, like cleaning up their land, or building a building, or raising cattle, or whatever you agree to do that you think you can do best. Then since that person or persons don't care about your humanity, they see you as inferior, and desire to make your circumstances such that you can never earn enough money to travel outside thier land, so that they can use your labor to do things for them. Is this not slavery? Sure you get to choose what job you want, but you never get to own anything yourself, you're always stuck in their pocket, needing to use thier resources. This is called feudalism, and it is the case of the american government to the owners of the money it uses. Since it can't get out of debt, it is a slave to the demands of its debtors. America must pay the interest the Fed demands or else the Fed can restrict the money circulation, cause bank runs and thus cause a depression.

The Fed can cause upswings and downswings in the economy at thier will, they control the prices of nearly everything in America. They are in essence more powerful than America. Combine the efforts of the Fed with political efforts, and they can plunge the nation into wars by manipulating the emotions of the poeple so that they gain favor in thier goals. They can cause a stagnant economy, thus making people uneasy and restless, ready to listen to authority to try and understand what is going on, and the politicans can propose reasons that work towards thier Unknown Secret Agendas (USA) as to what is going on, and the people will accept them more than if things were running correctly. It's like feeling as though you are comming down with a cold, so you go to the doctor, and the doctor tells you that you're just under stress, so you buy that as being the reason and forget about the whole comming down with a cold idea. As long as the causes are ambiguous to the laymann (general public), they will accept ambiguous solutions, and more often than not, the (corrupt) politicians will offer ideas that seem kinda out there at first, but as they begin executing that plan, the Fed loosens it's restriction, and the economy starts running correctly again, so the public accept the solution as being the correct one. Keep in mind I'm only speaking of the corrupt people in the Fed and in politics, there are many good people in politics, probably moreso than in the Fed, mainly because the Fed has less people.

Like Cypher said in the Matrix when he was eating the steak that wasn't real "ignorence is bliss. Throw me in the ole' powerplant, and make me rich, I don't care." So to ignore the possibilities is to stick your head in the sand like an ostrich. All i ask is that you consider these things, and if there is ever a movement towards changing our money system to one where the people create thier own money (like greenbacks), support it. Or if there is a movement to back currency with silver like what JFK tried to do, get in the line of fire for that president!! I know I will. But silver is only a step towards greenbacks I believe, since silver can still be hoarded, although its much more diffacult to hoard than gold. ie, if you have all the gold or silver, you can set the price, and everyone else is your slave. Thats no good, so fiat is a better choice, and public issuance is perfect.

Last edited:
The Fed can cause upswings and downswings in the economy at thier will, they control the prices of nearly everything in America. They are in essence more powerful than America. Combine the efforts of the Fed with political efforts, and they can plunge the nation into wars by manipulating the emotions of the poeple so that they gain favor in thier goals. They can cause a stagnant economy, thus making people uneasy and restless, ready to listen to authority to try and understand what is going on, and the politicans can propose reasons that work towards thier Unknown Secret Agendas (USA) as to what is going on, and the people will accept them more than if things were running correctly. It's like feeling as though you are comming down with a cold, so you go to the doctor, and the doctor tells you that you're just under stress, so you buy that as being the reason and forget about the whole comming down with a cold idea. As long as the causes are ambiguous to the laymann (general public), they will accept ambiguous solutions, and more often than not, the (corrupt) politicians will offer ideas that seem kinda out there at first, but as they begin executing that plan, the Fed loosens it's restriction, and the economy starts running correctly again, so the public accept the solution as being the correct one. Keep in mind I'm only speaking of the corrupt people in the Fed and in politics, there are many good people in politics, probably moreso than in the Fed, mainly because the Fed has less people.

Believe what you will...but politics and economics do not mix. I am here only to discuss economics, not politics.

The Fed can cause upswings and downswings in the economy at thier will, they control the prices of nearly everything in America.
Really? Since when are prices not controlled by the basic laws of supply and demand? I have had extensive training as an undergraduate in economics, but your posts simply do not contain economic facts, only political arguments which I am not here to discuss. I guess now would be a great time to explain the neutrality of money in the dynamic competitive equilibrium model of the economy . Any respectable economist will tell you this-- GDP influences the supply of money, the supply of money does not move to stimulate the growth of GDP. This is what the majority of the public confuses...

Oh yeah, and Fed employees are not considered government employees.

"Are Federal Reserve Bank employees considered government employees?

No. Employees of the Federal Reserve Banks are not government employees. They are paid as part of the expenses of their employing Reserve Bank."

That is taken from the Fed's webiste:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrbanks.htm [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
gravenewworld said:
Really? Since when are prices not controlled by the basic laws of supply and demand? I have had extensive training as an undergraduate in economics, but your posts simply do not contain economic facts, only political arguments which I am not here to discuss. I guess now would be a great time to explain the neutrality of money in the dynamic competitive equilibrium model of the economy . Any respectable economist will tell you this-- GDP influences the supply of money, the supply of money does not move to stimulate the growth of GDP. This is what the majority of the public confuses...
Prices are controlled by the basic laws of supply and demand, thats what the Fed counts on. If the Fed restricts loans it causes inflation. It can cause deflation conversely. If the Fed restrics and loosens unequally between all different banks, then it can influence price changes in more specific ways.

Last edited:
Skyhunter
One point that is being missed in this discussion is that modern income tax laws and the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank were nearly simultaneous.

Are the two connected?

http://www.mises.org/etexts/rootofevil.asp

Last edited by a moderator:
Art
gravenewworld said:
Believe what you will...but politics and economics do not mix. I am here only to discuss economics, not politics.
I suggest you check out the name of this forum you are posting in.
gravenewworld said:
Really? Since when are prices not controlled by the basic laws of supply and demand? I have had extensive training as an undergraduate in economics, but your posts simply do not contain economic facts, only political arguments which I am not here to discuss. I guess now would be a great time to explain the neutrality of money in the dynamic competitive equilibrium model of the economy . Any respectable economist will tell you this-- GDP influences the supply of money, the supply of money does not move to stimulate the growth of GDP. This is what the majority of the public confuses...
I guess supply side economics isn't covered in whatever extensive training you received?

yes, the 16th amendment established congress's right to impose a federal income tax. It was passed by congress in 1909, and ratified in 1913. This started as part of a high tariff bill, but a clincher to its ratification was the need to pay the Fed's interest. I've heard that there is controversy as to wether or not the 16th amendment was properly ratified. Some say, and I tend to agree, that there would be no need for an income tax if the Gov didn't have to pay for the use of it's money... I would think that tax would be much less if the Gov issued its own money, but I don't think it would disappear.

Jonny_trigonometry said:
Prices are controlled by the basic laws of supply and demand, thats what the Fed counts on. If the Fed restricts loans it causes inflation. It can cause deflation conversely. If the Fed restrics and loosens unequally between all different banks, then it can influence price changes in more specific ways.
well, I looked more into that last statement I made, and I'm not so sure of how that can be done other than buying and selling treasury securities in a timly fashion that influences the banks to make transactions between themselves so as to restirict loans in banks that can't get money from another bank before the end of the day. So the FOMC would have to act fast, and know much about the operations, clients, trends, reserves, and etc. of the other banks in order to make restrictions and loosenings of loans unequal throughout the nation.

I am very confident on the first statement I made though, that the Fed can restrict or loosen the money base in the nation, thus causing inflation or deflation. To better understand how this works, think of how the banks set the interest rates of thier loans, they must do so in a way that is profitable, and if they must pay a larger than normal prime rate, or federal funds rate, they will charge a higher interest rate for their loans. If they then charge higher interest rates for thier loans, then some business will not be able to get started, and some will lose profit, causing higher prices of their products while thier employees make the same wage, and some get layed off, and so on and so forth. The opposite occurs when rates are loosened, loans are cheaper to get, so new businesses get started, providing more jobs, and more people spend money, causing more demand, thus more competitive prices and so on and so forth.

Oh yeah, and Fed employees are not considered government employees.

"Are Federal Reserve Bank employees considered government employees?

No. Employees of the Federal Reserve Banks are not government employees. They are paid as part of the expenses of their employing Reserve Bank."

That is taken from the Fed's webiste:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/genera...faqfrbanks.htm [Broken]
True, but I clearly stated that the board of Governors is succinctly different. The board of governors are elected by the President an the Senate. They are employees of the government. The employees of the individual banks are another story.

Prices are controlled by the basic laws of supply and demand, thats what the Fed counts on. If the Fed restricts loans it causes inflation. It can cause deflation conversely. If the Fed restrics and loosens unequally between all different banks, then it can influence price changes in more specific ways.
Yes, however one of the major components of inflation is expected inflation. The majority of the time most people know what the fed is going to do and how their actions will affect future prices etc. and can take this into account. The only problem with inflation is unexpected inflation.

Originally Posted by art
I suggest you check out the name of this forum you are posting in.
Wow you really got me there.

Originally Posted by art
I guess supply side economics isn't covered in whatever extensive training you received?
What in the bloody hell are you talking about? Supply side economics has no relevance to this discussion at all. We are discussing the structure of the money and banking system of the US. The important point i was trying to make was that the FED adjusts supplies of money in response to changes in the economy, not the other way around.

Last edited by a moderator:
gravenewworld said:
The important point I was trying to make was that the FED adjusts supplies of money in response to changes in the economy, not the other way around.
So you're saying the fed doesn't do anything? You mean to say that the adjustments it makes don't affect the economy? Then why is there a fed? Surely you can't be serious, if the Fed makes adjustments to the economy, it must in fact perturb the economy in some way. You can't say that the fed doesn't cause a change in the economy. If "the FED adjusts supplies of money in response to changes in the economy, not the other way around." then it fundamentally must influence the economy, and it is supposed to react to the economy. A worker at Denny's is also supposed to never spit in your food, but if they want to, they can get away with it and you will never know. Title does not dictate behavior.

Last edited:
gravenewworld said:
Yes, however one of the major components of inflation is expected inflation. The majority of the time most people know what the fed is going to do and how their actions will affect future prices etc. and can take this into account. The only problem with inflation is unexpected inflation.
There is also another factor of inflation. Wages don't go up at the same time prices do, they always follow by an ammount of time, even with "regular" inflation.

So you're saying the fed doesn't do anything?

As Keynes put it himself, "money doesn't matter." I urge you to look up the concept of the neutrality of money and the superneutrality of money-i.e. money has NO effect on real variables in the economy. Also reverse causality. Now no economist will entirely believe that money has no impact on the economy depending on what time frame you are talking about, but the neutrality of money does play role to an extent. THEORETICALLY if the fed increases or decreases the supply of money, prices and wages should just adjust so no real terms change. long run Neutrality is at the heart of macroeconomics, and is constantly being tested.

Art
gravenewworld said:
Wow you really got me there.
What in the bloody hell are you talking about? Supply side economics has no relevance to this discussion at all. We are discussing the structure of the money and banking system of the US. The important point i was trying to make was that the FED adjusts supplies of money in response to changes in the economy, not the other way around.
I know what you are saying and I'm saying you're wrong. Supply side economic theory is based on the principle that GDP growth can be stimulated by putting more money into the economy; and who controls the money supply? - The fed. Even if you look only at demand for money as you seem to wish to; who controls demand for money by adjusting interest rates? - The fed.

Last edited by a moderator:
Slavery?... Yes!

Thus far, it seems that Art is the only one here who has read my attachment so I thought I would cite a section of my paper that illustrated the intentions of international banking institutions and their advocates to establish a modern-day invisible feudalistic society among the civilized world. As quoted in Dr. Carroll Quigley’s (Professor at Georgetown University) book Tragedy and Hope, he stated, “…the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”

It would seem like such a statement could easily be dismissed as the ravings of a paranoid opponent to a world economy, but strangely, Dr. Quigley is actually a supporter of the New World Order movement being advocated by international banking interests. Carroll Quigley is basically a supporter of elitists views and has had close contact with many members of the banking community and the Council on Foreign Relations for years.

Debt through inflation and unpayable interest is a new type of slavery that is invisible to most of society because it doesn’t immediately threaten individuals physically, mentally, or emotionally, but works on much more subtle levels over a longer period of time that can span several generations. As already mentioned, we may be able to choose our professions and choose where we live, but if our property is constantly depreciating and the ability to repay our debt is nonexistent forcing us to continue the vicious cycle of borrowing with interest from those who actually own and manage the economy and credit system then we are subject to a financial slavery. True, this is not slavery as society would classically consider it, but it is still a system that oppresses almost all of society.

If anyone is still interested in reading my summary covering the history of fractional reserve banking and the Federal Reserve it can be found on page four in this thread under one of my posts.

well put EV.

Ev, that is a great paper, it has no waste...

a quote from it:

Regarding the issue of a secure currency Lincoln stated, “No duty is more imperative on the Government than the duty it owes the people to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of regulating the circulation of the medium of exchanges so that labor will be protected from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges.” Lincoln also addressed the issue with the statement, “The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity.” Lincoln realized that if the government ever allowed the issuance of a private currency and control of the credit system that the nation would be manipulated by self-interests profiteering groups. For Abraham Lincoln, the issue of a fair and just currency was even more important than the war. In a letter to William Elkin after the passage of the National Banking Act He distressed, “I see in the near future a crisis approaching. It unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country…the Money Power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.”