• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE bank

SocialD said:
who would you put in charge? I agree there needs to be more scrutiny, discussion and explanation as you said but other than that ..?
Click to expand...
Probably good to have something like ombudsmen looking out for the interests of all of us, not just the bankers. They do not have to have any more than total access, to be aware, no power necessarily but that of a free press to alert us of potential miscues.

I am not/would not be the one determining the rules, though. That would be the reason for the scrutiny, discussion and explanation. After all that then decisions can be properly made. I think that is both prudent and reasonable.
 
Buck naked said:
The Federal Reserve is more accurately described as quasi-government agency.

The regional Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the Board of Governors which is a federal agency whose members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Board sets monetary policy and the Federal Reserve Banks execute it.

But don't let a better understanding get in the way of your smart-arse comments.
Click to expand...
Define what you mean by a " quasi-government agency" in this specific instance.

The Fed itself is a private corporation with the ONLY true control asserted by the federal government being the appointment and confirmation of the board of governors. Their terms are 14 years. That is not what I would consider a governmental, or as you put it, a "federal agency". In my view their independence, 14 years of free reign without government influence/interference, is nearly complete.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Probably good to have something like ombudsmen looking out for the interests of all of us, not just the bankers. They do not have to have any more than total access, to be aware, no power necessarily but that of a free press to alert us of potential miscues.

I am not/would not be the one determining the rules, though. That would be the reason for the scrutiny, discussion and explanation. After all that then decisions can be properly made. I think that is both prudent and reasonable.
Click to expand...

And who would appoint the ombudsman?
 
Pin dÁr said:
ok, fair enough.But I really think the best thing to do is read about it.
Click to expand...

Read it.

Pin dÁr said:
The 'government' does what the bankers and the corporations want.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, I don't know, but the politicians benefit from this ‘arrangement’ too. They need each other.

Pin dÁr said:
Didn't the quote tell you enough?
Click to expand...

No.

Pin dÁr said:
The bankers loan non existent money to the government, then the government is in debt. And well, if the governent is in debt to the banks, where do you think the power lies?

It is really that simple.
Click to expand...

That’s not how it works, with all due respect. The Treasury creates bonds(iou’s, national debt), then the Treasury sells the bonds to the banks which the banks sell to the Federal Reserve for profit. The Federal Reserve buys the bonds from the banks with fraudalent checks and fiat currency is magical created out of nothing.

US GOV creates Debt,
US GOV sells debt to Banks
Banks sell Debt to Federal Reserve
Federal Reserve pays Banks with Fraudulant Checks
And Fiat Currency magically appears.

Pin dÁr said:
So, nothing 'quasi government' about it at all.
Click to expand...

They are all in it together. The banks, the Treasury, US Government(Politicians) and the Federal Reserve are all part of the scam. Remove one of them and the scheme doesn’t work. Quasi - government.


Pin dÁr said:
And btw 'jesus' never existed, 'he' was a myth. ;)
Click to expand...

Yea, that was kind of my point.
 
SocialD said:
And who would appoint the ombudsman?
Click to expand...
Good question. Maybe each state might have a representative chosen by whatever method each state decides? Maybe each region serviced by each of the 12 regional Fed banks would have a body made up of these ombudsmen? Perhaps each region electing one of its members to look into the overall running of the Fed?

Again, I am not in charge. This is where the scrutiny, discussion and explanation that might provide better answers than just me popping off the top of my head might come into play. And as problems when attacked often are/or become a moving target, maybe these ongoing discussions and explanations after careful scrutiny might change in the future. But this much I can assure, I haven't all the answers currently. For one thing, I would need that scrutiny thing, first.

Many heads debating with choices afterwards is the better way I am guessing.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Define what you mean by a " quasi-government agency" in this specific instance.

The Fed itself is a private corporation with the ONLY true control asserted by the federal government being the appointment and confirmation of the board of governors. Their terms are 14 years. That is not what I would consider a governmental, or as you put it, a "federal agency". In my view their independence, 14 years of free reign without government influence/interference, is nearly complete.
Click to expand...

I'm using it in the sense of a better description. Quasi government agencies are created by the government but enjoy operational independence as Congress enacted through the Federal Reserve Act. They are both dependent upon each other. I hope that helps.

The Fed has characteristics of a private corporation, but it's not a "private corporation" by definition, as private corporations share most of the benefits and drawbacks of their public counterparts, whereas, the Federal Reserve does not. The Reserve Banks don't take profits and are required to give net earnings to the Treasury, which is much different than a private corporation.

The entire system is a scam acting as a purchasing power cookie monster, munching the purchasing power out of the fiat currency many people trade their freedom and time in order to possess. :(
 
Buck naked said:
Read it.



Perhaps, I don't know, but the politicians benefit from this ‘arrangement’ too. They need each other.



No.



That’s not how it works, with all due respect. The Treasury creates bonds(iou’s, national debt), then the Treasury sells the bonds to the banks which the banks sell to the Federal Reserve for profit. The Federal Reserve buys the bonds from the banks with fraudalent checks and fiat currency is magical created out of nothing.

US GOV creates Debt,
US GOV sells debt to Banks
Banks sell Debt to Federal Reserve
Federal Reserve pays Banks with Fraudulant Checks
And Fiat Currency magically appears.



They are all in it together. The banks, the Treasury, US Government(Politicians) and the Federal Reserve are all part of the scam. Remove one of them and the scheme doesn’t work. Quasi - government.




Yea, that was kind of my point.
Click to expand...


I see all this as all wrong. e.g. US Govt doesn't create debt at al.Only banks do this.

The Govt is in control by the banks. That's it, really,
And, it's the same all over the world.

Have yopu read the book I mentioned or only 'classical' textbooks on this?

Most you write is "smoke ad mirrors'
 
Last edited:
Buck naked said:
I'm using it in the sense of a better description. Quasi government agencies are created by the government but enjoy operational independence as Congress enacted through the Federal Reserve Act. They are both dependent upon each other. I hope that helps.

The Fed has characteristics of a private corporation, but it's not a "private corporation" by definition, as private corporations share most of the benefits and drawbacks of their public counterparts, whereas, the Federal Reserve does not. The Reserve Banks don't take profits and are required to give net earnings to the Treasury, which is much different than a private corporation.

The entire system is a scam acting as a purchasing power cookie monster, munching the purchasing power out of the fiat currency many people trade their freedom and time in order to possess. :(
Click to expand...
The Fed itself may not take profits, but from my understanding they do pay dividends to member banks.

I perceive the system as one that allows almost unlimited power by our government to borrow money beyond what our legislated taxes will cover. That allows the Federal government to put the American people into far more debt, for questionable programs, than they know. Debt is a form of slavery in my mind.
 
Buck naked said:
The Federal Reserve is more accurately described as quasi-government agency.

The regional Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the Board of Governors which is a federal agency whose members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Board sets monetary policy and the Federal Reserve Banks execute it.

But don't let a better understanding get in the way of your smart-arse comments.
Click to expand...

I already knew all of that, but thanks for your concern. I prefer smart-arse comments when dealing with ridiculous threads.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Good question. Maybe each state might have a representative chosen by whatever method each state decides? Maybe each region serviced by each of the 12 regional Fed banks would have a body made up of these ombudsmen? Perhaps each region electing one of its members to look into the overall running of the Fed?

Again, I am not in charge. This is where the scrutiny, discussion and explanation that might provide better answers than just me popping off the top of my head might come into play. And as problems when attacked often are/or become a moving target, maybe these ongoing discussions and explanations after careful scrutiny might change in the future. But this much I can assure, I haven't all the answers currently. For one thing, I would need that scrutiny thing, first.

Many heads debating with choices afterwards is the better way I am guessing.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not saying you have to have a resolution. its not wrong to not like how something works but not necessarily know how to fix it. its just a discussion.
If we are talking the fed banks though... well that's the same thing we already have essentially. The federal reserve board governors, who are appointed by the us president, creates a committee of directors, who then comes up with candidates for fed bank president. they submit them for approval to to the fed board govs and if approved appoint them.
 
Pin dÁr said:
I see all this as all wrong. e.g. US Govt doesn't create debt at al.Only banks do this.

The Govt is in control by the banks. That's it, really,
And, it's the same all over the world.

Have yopu read the book I mentioned or only 'classical' textbooks on this?

Most you write is "smoke ad mirrors'
Click to expand...

It's obvious you have not read the book or don't understand it. If you do indeed have the book, please read pages 190 - 205 which confirm what I have stated about debt and the magical creation of fiat currency (which the author mistakenly labels as "fiat money").
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
The Fed itself may not take profits, but from my understanding they do pay dividends to member banks.
Click to expand...

Yes, member banks receive a six percent dividend annually on their stock.


Gaugingcatenate said:
I perceive the system as one that allows almost unlimited power by our government to borrow money beyond what our legislated taxes will cover. That allows the Federal government to put the American people into far more debt, for questionable programs, than they know. Debt is a form of slavery in my mind.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree, but what is frightening is that if we discontinue raising the debt ceiling, the entire fiat currency system comes crashing down.
 
Deuce said:
I already knew all of that, but thanks for your concern. I prefer smart-arse comments when dealing with ridiculous threads.
Click to expand...

If you already knew, why did make that contradictory comment in post 10,
 
SocialD said:
Well I'm not saying you have to have a resolution. its not wrong to not like how something works but not necessarily know how to fix it. its just a discussion.
If we are talking the fed banks though... well that's the same thing we already have essentially. The federal reserve board governors, who are appointed by the us president, creates a committee of directors, who then comes up with candidates for fed bank president. they submit them for approval to to the fed board govs and if approved appoint them.
Click to expand...
No, it is different, at least how I think it should operate is...

Which is someone, a group of individual someones, continuously watching over the shoulder of the Fed. This is subtle pressure to do the right thing. Will be a non event if the Fed is run properly, as there will be information generated for the ombudsmen to review and, if all is normal, nothing needs be said. If it is out of line in the opinion of the ombudsmen groupings, then the ombudsmen inform/alert us, the Joe Publics/US citizenry and then action can be taken in whatever form we then deem necessary.

Transparency shown and given to trusted individuals, these ombudsmen, protecting the people in each of the states. One thing that needs to stop, IMO, is this incestuous borrowing of too much money by the government from itself through this step child of the government, the Fed. Revenue collected from our legislated taxes, except in extreme cases/emergencies, should cover our spending.

We, IMO, should not be indebting future generations with much of the silliness we frivolously spend on currently.
 
Buck naked said:
Yes, member banks receive a six percent dividend annually on their stock.




I certainly agree, but what is frightening is that if we discontinue raising the debt ceiling, the entire fiat currency system comes crashing down.
Click to expand...
Yes... and member banks get to make additional profit making money, essentially cyber money, credit, out of nothing other than a money multiplier formula based on a reserve percentage established by the Fed.

Its a license to make money, who would not love that? And if that license is given, bank greed being a proven given, we need some folks protecting us out here. I don't trust the elected politicians to very often do the right thing, they are all in bed together...big banks...big business... big government... big academia... an orgy of too much intimacy and conflicts of interests.

I am not sure I agree with you on continually raising the debt ceiling, can you explain why you think this problem will occur?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
No, it is different, at least how I think it should operate is...

Which is someone, a group of individual someones, continuously watching over the shoulder of the Fed. This is subtle pressure to do the right thing. Will be a non event if the Fed is run properly, as there will be information generated for the ombudsmen to review and, if all is normal, nothing needs be said. If it is out of line in the opinion of the ombudsmen groupings, then the ombudsmen inform/alert us, the Joe Publics/US citizenry and then action can be taken in whatever form we then deem necessary.

Transparency shown and given to trusted individuals, these ombudsmen, protecting the people in each of the states. One thing that needs to stop, IMO, is this incestuous borrowing of too much money by the government from itself through this step child of the government, the Fed. Revenue collected from our legislated taxes, except in extreme cases/emergencies, should cover our spending.

We, IMO, should not be indebting future generations with much of the silliness we frivolously spend on currently.
Click to expand...

I am in agreement with you on the goal certainly. My point is just that if they aren't being run properly now then making ombudsmen from the fed bank govs wouldn't change anything.
 
SocialD said:
I am in agreement with you on the goal certainly. My point is just that if they aren't being run properly now then making ombudsmen from the fed bank govs wouldn't change anything.
Click to expand...
Not quite understanding you on "ombudsmen from the fed bank govs" and how that jives with what I was saying. The ombudsmen would not be taken from the fed bank governors, they would be independent and selected, at least in my asserted plan, by however each state wanted to choose them.

So i do not seem to follow where it is you are going.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I am not sure I agree with you on continually raising the debt ceiling, can you explain why you think this problem will occur?
Click to expand...


This is a complex subject, so please take into account I’m attempting to simplify(probably not) my responses in order to keep from having to write a book’s worth of posts.


Anyway, if the US Govt stopped raising the debt ceiling/stop borrowing, then no new currency would be created to replace the currency that the US Govt used to make those debt payments.


If the US Govt would just payoff the principle only on all the loans and bonds that exists, the entire currency supply would just vanish(as there is more debt than currency). And if the US Govt doesn’t go deeper into debt each year, the whole thing goes into a deflationary collapse under the weight of those debt payments.


I hope you don’t misinterpret me, I don’t approve of this system or raising of the debt ceiling, as it’s just a matter of time before the US dollar fiat currency system comes crashing down anyway, as no fiat currency has ever survived. And there have been 1000’s of fiat currencies, all of which have collapsed to zero.
 
Buck naked said:
This is a complex subject, so please take into account I’m attempting to simplify(probably not) my responses in order to keep from having to write a book’s worth of posts.


Anyway, if the US Govt stopped raising the debt ceiling/stop borrowing, then no new currency would be created to replace the currency that the US Govt used to make those debt payments.


If the US Govt would just payoff the principle only on all the loans and bonds that exists, the entire currency supply would just vanish(as there is more debt than currency). And if the US Govt doesn’t go deeper into debt each year, the whole thing goes into a deflationary collapse under the weight of those debt payments.


I hope you don’t misinterpret me, I don’t approve of this system or raising of the debt ceiling, as it’s just a matter of time before the US dollar fiat currency system comes crashing down anyway, as no fiat currency has ever survived. And there have been 1000’s of fiat currencies, all of which have collapsed to zero.
Click to expand...
Good response Buck...I totally agree with how complex the concept of money is and can be. To be sure, nothing in this realm has ever truly lasted, fiat nor gold standard nor anything else has ever "survived".

I have spent considerable time, tried to figure it out, having taught economics, having degrees in history and political science... but I have to say that while there is no known absolutely sustainable system of money, the one where we spend needlessly on things we cannot afford and that are not the real necessities [true and prudent infrastructure investment ] and yet keep going further into debt with these frivolities... well, better spent "created money" has more value than just continually creating money to match the spending.

Our trading partners are wise to the fact, so its just a matter of time before the worth less and less money becomes worthless money.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Good response Buck...I totally agree with how complex the concept of money is and can be. To be sure, nothing in this realm has ever truly lasted, fiat nor gold standard nor anything else has ever "survived".

I have spent considerable time, tried to figure it out, having taught economics, having degrees in history and political science... but I have to say that while there is no known absolutely sustainable system of money, the one where we spend needlessly on things we cannot afford and that are not the real necessities [true and prudent infrastructure investment ] and yet keep going further into debt with these frivolities... well, better spent "created money" has more value than just continually creating money to match the spending.

Our trading partners are wise to the fact, so its just a matter of time before the worth less and less money becomes worthless money.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree.

Are you familiar with the protocol intricacies of the grand experiment now being carried out, known as 'Bitcoin'?
 
Buck naked said:
I certainly agree.

Are you familiar with the protocol intricacies of the grand experiment now being carried out, known as 'Bitcoin'?
Click to expand...
I would have to say I am only peripherally acquainted with bitcoin and its intricacies. Seems too iffy, acceptance minimal so as a medium of exchange I would hazzard it needs a lot more credibility...I have not even taken the time to ascertain its units of account.

So, sorry, no... more into the older, more accepted forms as a subject of study.
 
Pin dÁr said:
I really wonder what there is to study if it is all an illusion?!
Click to expand...
I think magicians study illusion and illusion creation all the time.

Money was a wonderful invention, but the concept of money itself is elusive/allusive as well as illusory, can be hard to grasp beyond simple acceptance. Especially our fiat money, not a commodity money wherein the money can have a true value being used as a functional item itself besides being accepted as a unit of account, potentially a store of value and a medium of exchange.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom