Every company that owns the Fed can be owned. They get nearly no economic benefit from it, but you still own it.
OK sparky, every time you see a post of mine I expect a reply. Otherwise, shut your pie hole. I am owning you guys through and through, as I said I would. I haven't heard a peep from you except for a stupid misquoted line that misrepresents the facts.
Will look at it tonight and I owe you a reply on that post.
BTW, where are your, PC, and John's replies for all of my posts, every single question? I love how you guys avoid shit and just post half-assed quotes that ignore reality and videos that do nothing but parrot somebody else's ideas, not your own.
Hell, you don't even know evidence from history why either one works or doesn't, yet you consider yourself an expert. No wonder why you're only getting 10% of the vote.
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2007
- 9,262
- 3
- 76
Owned? You claimed the fed was public, it isn't, and he posted a court case that ruled as such. Your claim that the fed is a public company isn't even a good charade. Tell you what, find a court case that rules they are a public company, and I'll agree. Has the fed ever undergone a complete independent audit?
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Except that if you had done 30 seconds worth of research into the quote, you'd find that the FTCA is the Federal Tort Claims Act and that the quote says that for the purposes of the FTCA, the Federal Reserve is a private company. That has to do with the Fed getting sued, not its status as a private or public entity.
My question is, like usual, why do you care if the Federal Reserve is public or private? Why should we invest the billions and billions of dollars it would require to replace such a system?
I have a question for you then, what happens to "private" companies when they are marginally owned by several other "public" companies? It's a commonplace occurance in business. Are the shares owned by the "public" company shown as assets on the company's balance sheet? Furthermore, aren't revenues gained from the shares recognized as revenues?
Are the dividends from the shares of the Fed Reserve recognized as revenues of the company?
I also find it humorous that many people say that the Member banks make a lot of money. Wow, 6% on funds that are reserved. OMFG, 6%! They could be lending those funds out at 12%.
I am surprised that somebody who is supposedly older and wizened would not know that the Fed results are independently audited and Congress does verify reports when they are made. Congress can call any of the Fed governors or the Chairman to testify at any time.
http://www.geocities.com/Capit...te/3616/flaherty6.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Has_...been_audited&src=ansTT
You can find the reports in various places.
Hell, if you got off your fatass, you'd realize you could even buy it!
http://www.amazon.com/Federal-...l-Report/dp/B00006KE29
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2007
- 9,262
- 3
- 76
Angelfire? I saw a guy post a page on Angelfire saying a space alien ate his dog, I guess that solves that. And was it you that gave Mav grief for using a Wiki source? and Amazon.com?
In other news, from source #1
Exemptions to the Scope of GAO Audits
The Government Accounting Office does not have complete access to all aspects of the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Banking Agency Audit Act stipulates the following areas are to be excluded from GAO inspections:
(1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;
(2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, open market operations;
(3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or
(4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items.
So they can't audit transactions with foreign banks, deliberations, decisions or actions on monetary policy, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, transactions from the FOMC or discussion or communication between members og the BoG, officers or employees of the FRC items? Awesome audits. Did you find any court decisions saying the were a public company?
Did you find one that they aren't part of the government and that it is owned by private bankers?
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC, you're watching Power of Nightmares! Loved it! Course LK will rack it all up as conspiracy nonsense, by the BBC and the AP.
Yep I am watching it
Well it is a conspiracy, just not nonsense. Funny, I was talking to someone about word play today. Whenever the word "conspiracy" is used in a political sense it carries a negative connotation as if it were not true, but say if someone was charged with "conspiracy to distribute meth" it gives off the consensus is that its true. Keep that in mind when listening to people rant
Yes it's quite hysterical to watch people in this forum dispute what famed Economists have said for years. People like CitizenKain, who clearly lacks education regarding economics, is claiming Murray N. Rothbard, the author of 25 books and thousands of articles, was a historian, philosopher, and dean of the Austrian School of economics, S.J. Hall Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, he was also Academic Vice President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, is incorrect and he's the one who knows.
If you follow his posts, he does that all the time.
Yes, you economic background is well founded in posting youtube videos about things you barely understand. Good thing you have people like Mavtek3100 to provide a nice echo chamber devoid of critical thought.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
LAWL!! :QOriginally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC, you're watching Power of Nightmares! Loved it! Course LK will rack it all up as conspiracy nonsense, by the BBC and the AP.
Yep I am watching it
Well it is a conspiracy, just not nonsense. Funny, I was talking to someone about word play today. Whenever the word "conspiracy" is used in a political sense it carries a negative connotation as if it were not true, but say if someone was charged with "conspiracy to distribute meth" it gives off the consensus is that its true. Keep that in mind when listening to people rant
Yes it's quite hysterical to watch people in this forum dispute what famed Economists have said for years. People like CitizenKain, who clearly lacks education regarding economics, is claiming Murray N. Rothbard, the author of 25 books and thousands of articles, was a historian, philosopher, and dean of the Austrian School of economics, S.J. Hall Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, he was also Academic Vice President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, is incorrect and he's the one who knows.
If you follow his posts, he does that all the time.
Yes, your economic background is well founded in posting youtube videos about things you barely understand. Good thing you have people like Mavtek3100 to provide a nice echo chamber devoid of critical thought.
well done!
:Q
I think that was intended to debunk my opinions on the FED. I personally don't care if you think "youtube videos" or books from Mises about the FED and the gold standard are true or not. You have yet to challenge any of the opinions stated by them. The only one around here with any economic background willing to fight tooth and nail is LegendKiller, whats your excuse?
You and palehorse are nothing more than school children on the bus trumping up everyones statements to see a fight. As long as you both act that way, you will be nothing more than fans watching from the sidelines while others are in the game.
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Nice video. Gold standard keeps looking better and better
Yeah, it's a fantastic system that's never failed.... :roll:
I would guess you didn't watch it? Did you happen to notice when the crashes of the economy happened? It was when we moved off of the gold standard. Check it out, you might learn something.
[/quote]Wiki- Federal Tort Claims Act
From what I get from this, in order to find the U.S. liable for damages, the the person/entity must be acting on behalf of the government.
If I understand these two parts correctly, the FED could not be sued because it did not represent the U.S. government. As the last line being so telling:
"but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.?
I think this makes it very clear that the FED is privately owned, and not apart of the U.S. government.
From what I get from this, in order to find the U.S. liable for damages, the the person/entity must be acting on behalf of the government.
If I understand these two parts correctly, the FED could not be sued because it did not represent the U.S. government. As the last line being so telling:
"but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.?
I think this makes it very clear that the FED is privately owned, and not apart of the U.S. government.
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 28,695
- 13,848
- 136
I think you people are just incredibly dense. It says FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE FTCA. That is it. It doesn't say "for the purposes of anything relating to government" or something like that. It is quite specific in how the Federal Reserve Banks are treated under (and ONLY under) the FTCA.
Putting "you people" aside. Lets discuss this so that I may gain a better understanding of which you seem to have.
Yes under the FTCA the FED is not liable for damages, as it states very clearly. But the reason they aren't is because:
The FED "are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.?
What sense would it make to say the FED was privately owned and locally controlled corporations if it wasn't true? Maybe I am misinterpreting it. Enlighten me.
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Nice video. Gold standard keeps looking better and better
Yeah, it's a fantastic system that's never failed.... :roll:
I would guess you didn't watch it? Did you happen to notice when the crashes of the economy happened? It was when we moved off of the gold standard. Check it out, you might learn something.
Are you serious? Crashes in the economy happened all of the time before we went off of the gold standard.
What you're doing is called the "availability bias" in psychology. If I wanted to waste my time I could link dozens of economic crashed that happened from when this country was founded until it went off of the gold standard. But I know it would never work.
Quasi-government entities are very strange birds. Legally they exist in a no-mans land, since they aren't really considered "private corporations" for some purposes, but are for others.
For example, the USPS is essentially a "private company", yet the employees are government in many cases but aren't for others. The USPS cannot strike, since they are federal employees, but they do not enjoy many common federal employee benefits.
The FDIC is very similar, as is the Fed. Both cannot be sued in the same manner as the actual government, since they aren't a part of the government for that specific aspect, but they are considered the government for many others. This includes the ability of the government to hire and fire Fed employees. Additionally, Congress can, and has many times, changed the aspects in which the Fed operates, which it could never do if the Fed were completely private.
Another aspect is that entering into executory contracts with the government can introduce you to several problems. Foremost among those is that if that contract requires a payment for a service, that payment can be offset by taxes owed by the person owed money.
For example, I know of securitization facilities that finance leases made to the government. Lets say the company who originally made the lease sells it to my bank, we finance it and give the company money. What happens if the company goes bankrupt and cannot pay taxes owed to the government? The government has the right to ultimate offset those taxes, even if my bank, for legal and accounting purposes, owns that lease.
As such, the bank can seize all cashflows and money related to a lease I own for the purposes of paying taxes.
However, the USPS, FDIC, and Fed aren't covered under these laws, they have *NO* right to offset anything. THat's why many banks will not take set-off risk for government loans/leases, because they want to make sure they will get paid. FDIC, USPS, and the Fed do not have this risk.
You see, these entities are very odd in many respects. Further consider the GSEs (Fannie, Freddie, and Ginnie Mae). All of them are government sponsored entities, they are technically private/public companies that do not have a government guaranty. However, it is widely thought that if one of these companies gets into capital troubles, the government will bail them out. As such, the financing costs of all three are *MUCH* lower than your traditional mortgage company.
You cannot just say that it is, or isn't, part of the government. You have to carefully consider in which light you are speaking. The Fed, for the purposes of control and oversight, is part of the government. For the purposes of ownership, it is part of the government, but is "owned" by the banks in which reserves are maintained, those are all public companies like Bank of America and others.
However, to say it's owned by "private bankers", is completely ridiculous. It's technically owned by every bank in the country that's a Member bank. It's not controlled by the Member banks, but is controlled by Government appointees.
The reason why the Member Banks "own" the fed is because every bank which has an interest in the banking institution has an interest in maintaining the institution. It provides immense stability, as can be seen in many cases, such as the S&L crisis, Credit union problems, and several other situations. Overall, runs on the banks are drastically reduced because the system of interlocking banks is much stronger than one which has no connections.
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Nice video. Gold standard keeps looking better and better
Yeah, it's a fantastic system that's never failed.... :roll:
I would guess you didn't watch it? Did you happen to notice when the crashes of the economy happened? It was when we moved off of the gold standard. Check it out, you might learn something.
I happened to know the background of Bretton Woods from my Graduate courses in macro policy... but yeah, youtube videos, each to their own.
Bretton Woods failed because the goverment deficits undermined the peg to the point where investors lost the faith in the value fiat currency.
BTW LK your last post was your best yet! IMO of course. I'll go along with the Fed being an amalgamation of private banks that somehow isn't private but is independent quasi nutty setup.
Now watch the short video I posted and tell us why Paul is wrong.
Now watch the short video I posted and tell us why Paul is wrong.
maybe that guy in the court case i posted should have tried to sue the "Quasi-government entity" of the fed!!!
And maybe you should understand the law and not be such a fool. It might actually let you make a case for change instead of seeming like an idiot.
from what i make of it, the guy tried to sue the federal gov. since u say it is a quasi-gov entity, he couldnt. the tort law is posted above:The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), August 2, 1946, ch. 753, title IV, 60 Stat. 842, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2671?2680), is a statute enacted by the United States Congress in 1946 permitting private parties to sue the United States in a federal court for most torts committed by persons acting on behalf of the United States. Liability under the FTCA is limited to "circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The FTCA exempts, among other things, claims based upon the performance, or failure to perform, a "discretionary function or duty." 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). The FTCA also exempts a number of intentional torts, although the United States is liable for specific intentional torts such as assault, battery, and false imprisonment, if committed by federal law enforcement officers. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h).
thats why he couldnt sue because they came to the conculsion that The FED "are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.?
now im reading some articles right now that are going into a need for a central bank but not the member banks that print 90% of the money created. so i might have to come to the conclusion of a need but not of the member banks.......The Fed was simply a smoke-screen designed to hide the stark reality that behind the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, signed by an unwitting President Wilson (who later deeply regretted that act) was a monumental power grab by the largest bankers who designed the Act at their secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia
some of us might have come to the conclusion that the fed is "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.?
so we need to go to jeckyll island to see who was behind the design of the law.
from wiki-
On the evening of November 22, 1910, Sen. Aldrich and A.P. Andrews (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department), Paul Warburg (a naturalized German representing Kuhn, Loeb & Co.), Frank A. Vanderlip (president of the National City Bank of New York), Henry P. Davison (senior partner of J. P. Morgan Company), Charles D. Norton (president of the Morgan-dominated First National Bank of New York), and Benjamin Strong (representing J. P. Morgan), left Hoboken, New Jersey on a train in view of a group of confused reporters, who were wondering why these bankers, representing about one-sixth of the world's wealth, were gathering at this particular place and time and leaving together.
from money masters-
Question: If private banks create over 90% of the US money supply, then are they not a greater threat to our democracy than the Fed itself?
Answer: Of course. The Fed was simply a smoke-screen designed to hide the stark reality that behind the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, signed by an unwitting President Wilson (who later deeply regretted that act) was a monumental power grab by the largest bankers who designed the Act at their secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia (detailed in the video/DVD). The Federal Reserve Act allowed the Fed to establish a reserve requirement of between only 8% and 14% (presently set at 10% for most types of loans). That made it lawful for banks to loan far more than they had in deposits ? to practice fractional reserve banking. The Fed centralized, nationalized and standardized this fraud on the people, and restricted its practice to banks only. In fact, the roughly 2% of the US money supply the Fed creates actually is owned by the government (as it should be), but this tiny fraction obscures the fact that it is the base for the creation of the other 98% created by private banks as loans. Thus, simply having a Federal Reserve or similar national Central Bank, in itself, is not a bad thing (it can be a good thing) ? but allowing private banks to practice fractional reserve banking (pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 or any other such law) is the real problem, which is impoverishing all Americans and now all peoples worldwide, except the bankers. For clarity, it should be renamed the Fractional Reserve Banking Act. The exponential concentration of wealth, in the US and abroad, is due almost exclusively to fractional reserve banking by privately owned banks such as Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, etc. The Fed is simply part of the mechanism screening this grave injustice from public knowledge and scrutiny.
now we need to look into the agenda's of the people involved in the jeckyl island conference.
so we need to go to jeckyll island to see who was behind the design of the law.
from wiki-
On the evening of November 22, 1910, Sen. Aldrich and A.P. Andrews (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department), Paul Warburg (a naturalized German representing Kuhn, Loeb & Co.), Frank A. Vanderlip (president of the National City Bank of New York), Henry P. Davison (senior partner of J. P. Morgan Company), Charles D. Norton (president of the Morgan-dominated First National Bank of New York), and Benjamin Strong (representing J. P. Morgan), left Hoboken, New Jersey on a train in view of a group of confused reporters, who were wondering why these bankers, representing about one-sixth of the world's wealth, were gathering at this particular place and time and leaving together.
from money masters-
Question: If private banks create over 90% of the US money supply, then are they not a greater threat to our democracy than the Fed itself?
Answer: Of course. The Fed was simply a smoke-screen designed to hide the stark reality that behind the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, signed by an unwitting President Wilson (who later deeply regretted that act) was a monumental power grab by the largest bankers who designed the Act at their secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia (detailed in the video/DVD). The Federal Reserve Act allowed the Fed to establish a reserve requirement of between only 8% and 14% (presently set at 10% for most types of loans). That made it lawful for banks to loan far more than they had in deposits ? to practice fractional reserve banking. The Fed centralized, nationalized and standardized this fraud on the people, and restricted its practice to banks only. In fact, the roughly 2% of the US money supply the Fed creates actually is owned by the government (as it should be), but this tiny fraction obscures the fact that it is the base for the creation of the other 98% created by private banks as loans. Thus, simply having a Federal Reserve or similar national Central Bank, in itself, is not a bad thing (it can be a good thing) ? but allowing private banks to practice fractional reserve banking (pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 or any other such law) is the real problem, which is impoverishing all Americans and now all peoples worldwide, except the bankers. For clarity, it should be renamed the Fractional Reserve Banking Act. The exponential concentration of wealth, in the US and abroad, is due almost exclusively to fractional reserve banking by privately owned banks such as Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, etc. The Fed is simply part of the mechanism screening this grave injustice from public knowledge and scrutiny.
now we need to look into the agenda's of the people involved in the jeckyl island conference.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter