5 ms·

The FED is definitely privately owned. It's a private company with a share structure. Most banks in America have a share in it - or rather the regional bank. "

The FED is definitely privately owned. It's a private company with a share structure. Most banks in America have a share in it - or rather the regional bank. " Although parts of the Federal Reserve System share some characteristics with private-sector entities, the Federal Reserve was established to serve the public interest." Don't be so naive. A private company tells you 'they are to server the public interest' and you believe them? Listen - I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Generally speaking, the Fed is much like other central banks. But make no mistake - it is not a public entity. Try this: the US government does not have access to the financial records of the Fed. Congress wanted to do an audit of the Fed - and they were blocked from going back past 2004. Think about that. The US currency system is controlled by an entity that will not let the public see what's in their records. That's insane. My bet is that from 1913 to past the Nixon era there is crazy, crazy stuff on the books, and confidence in the US currency would go crazy if that information got out. Also - just because it does not generate a profit does not mean that it's not used for the benefit of the banks. They set interest rates that suit their interest, not necessarily the interest of the general public. The Fed should definitely be nationalized.

smallnamespace 10y ago
> It's a private company with a share structure. Sure, it has private shares, but it was created by an act of Congress, its charter explicitly states its public mission, it doesn't run a profit, its head and a majority of its board is appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress, and its basic functions are interbank clearing and payments. At this point, it looks so little like any other private entity that treating as such seems silly. If it looks like a central bank, quacks like a central bank, ... > They set interest rates that suit their interest, not necessarily the interest of the general public. I call BS. Low rates are almost always punitive to banks' bottom lines, because they make the spread between deposit rates and lending rates; when rates are low, that spread gets compressed to zero. If they only served their bank 'shareholders', how do you explain monetary policy since 2008. Or going further back, the fact that the Fed tried to pop the stock market bubble in '29, even though all the big banks were clearly benefiting from it? https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/may/banks-more-profitable-interest-rates-high-low https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/may/banks-mor... > Listen - I'm not a conspiracy theorist With all due respect, you are if you make these sort of claims without a shred of evidence. The Fed chair + board basically decides the rate policy, and he/she is always a career economist, not from industry. You think really Janet Yellen is secretly taking kickbacks to screw around with rates? And for your reference: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-owners... "Those decisions are made by the Federal Open Market Committee, which has a dozen voting members, only five of whom come from the banks. The remaining seven, a voting majority, are the Fed’s Board of Governors who, as mentioned, are appointed by the president."
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  You are wrong on all points: + " If it looks like a central bank, quacks like a central bank" - except it's not. It's a privately owned and managed entity. + "I call BS. Low rates are almost always punitive to banks' bottom lines" this is completely false. + " The Fed chair + board basically decides the rate policy, and he/she is always a career economist, not from industry.". This is utterly, beyond naive. The Fed Chair is an extremely politically driven position - they don't get to this position and do whatever suits them or the economy. They take into account the positions of the companies shareholders - which are the banks. It's beyond reason that the banks act entirely in the public good. They are 'for profit' entities - and absolutely everything they do is 'for profit. But you missed a key item that throws your argument to the wind: Congress does not have access to the Fed's books. My friend - if you believe for a second that the Fed is acting entirely in the public's interest - then the public should be able to see what's on the Fed's books. You can't. Congress can't. The President of the USA can't. Neither can the CIA, the NSA or the Treasury. There is some legislation to this effect right now: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/H.R.24.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/H.R.2... It's inconceivably naive to believe that a cabal of bankers - who manage the US currency - and who DO NOT LET US ACCESS THEIR RECORDS - is acting in the best interest of the US. There is NO COUNTRY IN THE CIVILIZED WORLD where this is the case. And there's more. Now - this is more public info but it does demonstrate a high degree of cabalism between banks and the Fed - after the 2008 crises, US banks were very 'unhealthy' - this is because they had 'toxic' i.e. worthless mortgages on their balance sheet. So - the Fed - allowed banks to put those mortgages on the banks balance sheet at face value - for a period of time. Ex: ABC banks has a a crap mortgages on a house with a market value of $100K, but the mortgage is for $200K (it's worthless) - they exchange them with the Fed for a full $200K. The intent of this 'program' was to shore up balance sheets of banks to make them healthy - then while interest rates are low, bring the value of the homes up so those mortgages are not 'underwater' at which point the banks will take them back on their balance sheet. But that may never happen. It it has not happened yet. In a nutshell - the Fed handed $1 to banks for something only worth 50 cents. This is fraud. Not only that - this was not a small thing. This was the biggest transfer of assets in world history. Have a look at the Fed's balance sheet recently: http://mengercenter.org/surprise-surprise-the-feds-never-shrinking-balance-sheet/ http://mengercenter.org/surprise-surprise-the-feds-never-shr... You see that big red are that is how 1/2 of the Fed's balance sheet and didn't exist before: those are bullt, worthless mortgages. 2.5 TRILLLION DOLLARS WORTH. You know where you don't find that toxic, worthless sludge: on the balance sheets of nationalized banks. Summary: A) The Feds transactions are private - and nobody in government can access them. B) The Fed states that it makes decisions for the benefit of the economy, but what they say is irrelevant: the system is designed first and formost for the benefit of the banks. C) A 2.5 Trillion dollar 'fraud' (technically, since the banks will 'one day' take those crap mortgages back, it's not fraud - but they haven't and maybe they won't so it's a crime in the making) - or at least a 2.5 Trillion dollar 'gift' to private banks by the central bank is only to the 'benefit' of the people of the US to the extent that the entire banking system doesn't come down and crash - but in a real capitalist system - most of those banks should have had 100% of their shareholder value wiped out. The Fed definitely needs to be nationalized.

smallnamespace 10y ago

> It's a private company with a share structure. Sure, it has private shares, but it was created by an act of Congress, its charter explicitly states its public mission, it doesn't run a profit, its head and a majority of its board is appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress, and its basic functions are interbank clearing and payments. At this point, it looks so little like any other private entity that treating as such seems silly. If it looks like a central bank, quacks like a central bank, ... > They set interest rates that suit their interest, not necessarily the interest of the general public. I call BS. Low rates are almost always punitive to banks' bottom lines, because they make the spread between deposit rates and lending rates; when rates are low, that spread gets compressed to zero. If they only served their bank 'shareholders', how do you explain monetary policy since 2008. Or going further back, the fact that the Fed tried to pop the stock market bubble in '29, even though all the big banks were clearly benefiting from it? https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/may/banks-more-profitable-interest-rates-high-low https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/may/banks-mor... > Listen - I'm not a conspiracy theorist With all due respect, you are if you make these sort of claims without a shred of evidence. The Fed chair + board basically decides the rate policy, and he/she is always a career economist, not from industry. You think really Janet Yellen is secretly taking kickbacks to screw around with rates? And for your reference: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-owners... "Those decisions are made by the Federal Open Market Committee, which has a dozen voting members, only five of whom come from the banks. The remaining seven, a voting majority, are the Fed’s Board of Governors who, as mentioned, are appointed by the president."

jomamaxx 10y ago
You are wrong on all points: + " If it looks like a central bank, quacks like a central bank" - except it's not. It's a privately owned and managed entity. + "I call BS. Low rates are almost always punitive to banks' bottom lines" this is completely false. + " The Fed chair + board basically decides the rate policy, and he/she is always a career economist, not from industry.". This is utterly, beyond naive. The Fed Chair is an extremely politically driven position - they don't get to this position and do whatever suits them or the economy. They take into account the positions of the companies shareholders - which are the banks. It's beyond reason that the banks act entirely in the public good. They are 'for profit' entities - and absolutely everything they do is 'for profit. But you missed a key item that throws your argument to the wind: Congress does not have access to the Fed's books. My friend - if you believe for a second that the Fed is acting entirely in the public's interest - then the public should be able to see what's on the Fed's books. You can't. Congress can't. The President of the USA can't. Neither can the CIA, the NSA or the Treasury. There is some legislation to this effect right now: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/H.R.24.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/H.R.2... It's inconceivably naive to believe that a cabal of bankers - who manage the US currency - and who DO NOT LET US ACCESS THEIR RECORDS - is acting in the best interest of the US. There is NO COUNTRY IN THE CIVILIZED WORLD where this is the case. And there's more. Now - this is more public info but it does demonstrate a high degree of cabalism between banks and the Fed - after the 2008 crises, US banks were very 'unhealthy' - this is because they had 'toxic' i.e. worthless mortgages on their balance sheet. So - the Fed - allowed banks to put those mortgages on the banks balance sheet at face value - for a period of time. Ex: ABC banks has a a crap mortgages on a house with a market value of $100K, but the mortgage is for $200K (it's worthless) - they exchange them with the Fed for a full $200K. The intent of this 'program' was to shore up balance sheets of banks to make them healthy - then while interest rates are low, bring the value of the homes up so those mortgages are not 'underwater' at which point the banks will take them back on their balance sheet. But that may never happen. It it has not happened yet. In a nutshell - the Fed handed $1 to banks for something only worth 50 cents. This is fraud. Not only that - this was not a small thing. This was the biggest transfer of assets in world history. Have a look at the Fed's balance sheet recently: http://mengercenter.org/surprise-surprise-the-feds-never-shrinking-balance-sheet/ http://mengercenter.org/surprise-surprise-the-feds-never-shr... You see that big red are that is how 1/2 of the Fed's balance sheet and didn't exist before: those are bullt, worthless mortgages. 2.5 TRILLLION DOLLARS WORTH. You know where you don't find that toxic, worthless sludge: on the balance sheets of nationalized banks. Summary: A) The Feds transactions are private - and nobody in government can access them. B) The Fed states that it makes decisions for the benefit of the economy, but what they say is irrelevant: the system is designed first and formost for the benefit of the banks. C) A 2.5 Trillion dollar 'fraud' (technically, since the banks will 'one day' take those crap mortgages back, it's not fraud - but they haven't and maybe they won't so it's a crime in the making) - or at least a 2.5 Trillion dollar 'gift' to private banks by the central bank is only to the 'benefit' of the people of the US to the extent that the entire banking system doesn't come down and crash - but in a real capitalist system - most of those banks should have had 100% of their shareholder value wiped out. The Fed definitely needs to be nationalized.