Congressman Ron Paul

PolyNewbie · February 20, 2007

Riverwind:Unfortnately, there are people like you who cannot understand this concept of non-ownership and blindly assume that if something is not owned by the government then it must be owned by private interests.

I don't think its unfortunate, but I do agree - everything is owned by government or private interests or charitable/public interest organization. The Federal Reserve is a business that earns profit and its therefore owned by someone. Who owns the Federal Reserve ?

Riverwind · February 20, 2007

Riverwind:If someone wants to know about how the Fed works and who owns the Fed then the Fed website is the place to look.

So where does it explain who owns the Fed ? Who does own the Fed ?

Right here:

http://federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

Who do they pay for the money they create ?

They pay the people who receive the money after it is loaned.

Why is it then that the Fed doesn't have to report M3 to anyone?. Is the Federal Reserve like a secret government organization that doesn't answer to anyone so that it can act in the interest of the American taxpayer ?

The Fed, for reasons that only the Fed seems to know, stopped publishing those numbers, however, all of the information required to calculate those numbers is still available. See http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/chapmand112205.html

For those that wish to take the time they can pore through the Flow of Funds accounts (released quarterly as Z.1 release and the H.8 bulletin released weekly for commercial banks) and piece together the former M3. Painstaking, but that is not the way it is supposed to be

In other words, the fed is not hiding anything. Furthermore, the US government has the power to tell the Fed to reverse its decision.

If the Federal Reserve is owned by the government then its owned by the taxpayers. Your argument boils down to the tax payers actually owning the Federal Reserve.

Yes they do. But I can't say the US government owns the Fed because the Americans have gone out of their way to create the illusion that the Fed is not subject to the control of the US taxpayer via its elected representatives.

PolyNewbie · February 20, 2007

having both public purposes and private aspects

What are the private aspects ?

The Fed, for reasons that only the Fed seems to know, stopped publishing those numbers

Interesting. I wonder why they don't tell anyone ? Perhaps they just choose not to. Maybe they are hiding something - do you think thats possible ? If they are owned by the tax payers how can they just decide to stop telling us things ?

Me: Your argument boils down to the tax payers actually owning the Federal Reserve.

Yes they do.

Why can't they just say "the tax payers own the Federal Reserve" then on the site ? Why is the Federal Reserve listed in the business section and not the government section ?

So you think people like Ron Paul are crazy then for saying that the Federal Reserve is private ?

Riverwind · February 20, 2007

Interesting. I wonder why they don't tell anyone ? Perhaps they just choose not to. Maybe they are hiding something - do you think thats possible ? If they are owned by the tax payers how can they just decide to stop telling us things ?

They have offered an explaination here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/H6/20060309/h6.txt

M3 does not appear to convey any additional information about economic activity that is not
already embodied in M2 and has not played a role in the monetary policy process for many years.

Consequently, the Board judged that the costs of collecting the underlying data and publishing

M3 outweigh the benefits.

Obviously, different economists will have different opinions about the usefulness of the M3 numbers. However, the most important fact is that congress does have the power to override this decision if they so choose. For that reason, I do not consider it a big issue.

Why can't they just say "the tax payers own the Federal Reserve" then on the site ?

Because legally speaking it is not owned by anyone so claiming it is owned by the taxpayers would not be technically correct even though the Fed is ultimately accountable to the government.

Why is the Federal Reserve listed in the business section and not the government section ?

Why is it allowed to use a *.gov website if it is a private entity?

PolyNewbie · February 20, 2007

Riverwind:Why is it allowed to use a *.gov website if it is a private entity?

Same reason they were allowed to start a war based on WMD's - because George Bush is president.

Anyone who reads (not you) about economics from even the most pro establishment economists knows the Federal Reserve is privately owned. Its in any book about economics that talks about banks and its mainstream history. Go to the library and pick and book at random that talks about the banks and the era - or look it up in any encyclopedia.

The fact that the Federal Reserve is able to use a .gov website is just proof of the level and depth of the corruption that is ruining both Canada and the United States.

PolyNewbie · February 20, 2007

Before 1913 there were four branches of government: Legislative, executive, judicial & monetary. Some one convinced enough of the public that politics should not be involved with banking and sneaked the Federal Reserve act in through congress just before christmas in 1913 when many representative had gone home.

Before 1913 there was even a department of monetary education.

Of course even the most basic piece of logic tells you that if something is to operate in the public interest it must be answerable to the public. Somehow people bent logic and greased the wheels to push the Federal Reserve act into place.

This is interesting too: From Federal Reserve site

"Exemption from Taxation

12 USC 531. Part of original Federal Reserve Act; but in effect amended by 31 USC 3124(a), which reads as follows:

“(a) Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax, except—

(1) a nondiscriminatory franchise tax or another nonproperty tax instead of a franchise tax, imposed on a corporation; and

(2) an estate or inheritance tax.”

Designated subsection © by act of Aug. 10, 1993 (107 Stat. 338).]

"

I wonder why they are talking about taxing a government branch ?

Riverwind · February 20, 2007

I wonder why they are talking about taxing a government branch ?

Because it is not a government branch - it is an independent entity that is not owned by anyone. That point is clearly explained on the Federal Reserve website.

The fact that the Federal Reserve is able to use a .gov website is just proof of the level and depth of the corruption that is ruining both Canada and the United States.

ROTLF, you tried to claim that a "YellowPages" listing for the Federal Reserve was evidence that it is really a privately held company but you seek to dismiss the counter evidence of a *.gov domain? Gawd your are so deluded it is frightening.

PolyNewbie · February 20, 2007

Riverwind:ROTLF, you tried to claim that a "YellowPages" listing for the Federal Reserve was evidence that it is really a privately held company but you seek to dismiss the counter evidence of a *.gov domain? Gawd your are so deluded it is frightening.

Learn to read.

PolyNewbie · February 20, 2007

Riverwind:Because it is not a government branch - it is an independent entity that is not owned by anyone.

Thats not even possible. Who pays the employees ?

Riverwind · February 20, 2007

Riverwind:Because it is not a government branch - it is an independent entity that is not owned by anyone.
Thats not even possible. Who pays the employees ?

Sure it is. Corporations are legal entities that can exist without any ownership. We don't have ownerless companies in Canada because Canadians don't have a philosophical problem with government. The Americans do - so their government creates ownerless companies to create the illusion that they are not government owned.

Question: So who appoints the board of directors in a private corporation?

Answer: The shareholders/owners

Question: Who appoints the board of directors of the Federal Reserve.

Answer: The President and the Senate.

PolyNewbie · February 20, 2007

Riverwind:Question: Who appoints the board of directors of the Federal Reserve.
Answer: The President and the Senate.

Where did you get this tidbit ? The directors of the Federal reserve Board decide who will be president. These people are not listed or even mentioned on the inmformation released by the Federal Reserve. They list their board of governers.

You can look up Federal Reserev in many reference sources at a library. You can see its privately owned.

Riverwind · February 20, 2007

Where did you get this tidbit ? The directors of the Federal reserve Board decide who will be president.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/fract/sect10.htm

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) shall be composed of seven members, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate

So why does a 'private' company have all of its directors appointed by elected officials?

You can look up Federal Reserve in many reference sources at a library. You can see its privately owned.

All the sources I look at say it is an independent entity set up by the US government. It is not owned by anyone.

PolyNewbie · February 20, 2007

The board of govereners is not the board of directors for this corporation. The board of directors are also the sole owners of the Federal Reserve central bank. The central bank rums the IMF & World Bank.

Riverwind:All the sources I look at say it is an independent entity set up by the US government. It is not owned by anyone.

Thats because the only sources you have ever seen are banker web sites. Anything in the library is going to tell you the Federal Reserve is privately owned. Congressmen Ron Paul says so on his web site. Robert Bowman has said it. Galbraith has written it, so has Friedman, Quigley, etc. The encyclopedias say it. Many economists say it many books say it. There are many Phd economists that say it. Many bankers and ex presidents have said it.

The Federal Reserve has both public and private aspects. It uses public money to benefit private interests. The money is public because the public earn it. The banks just print it off but the public agrees to work for it thus giving it value.

Riverwind · February 21, 2007

Thats because the only sources you have ever seen are banker web sites.

No one buys your BS. Material provided by the Federal Reserve is more credible than any other source.

The Federal Reserve has both public and private aspects. It uses public money to benefit private interests. The money is public because the public earn it. The banks just print it off but the public agrees to work for it thus giving it value.

The federal reserve is a non-profit organization. The members of the reserve pay a membership fee by purchasing 'psuedo-shares' that entitles them to a 6% 'psuedo-dividend' each year. I can see why uninformed people might think that the shares imply ownership and the dividend implies profit, however, when you looks at the financial statements you will see that these 'dividends' are peanuts compared to the billions that the federal reserve pays to US government each year in return for the privilege of issuing US currency.

PolyNewbie · February 21, 2007

ROTFLMAO,

Remember Riverwind, you pass the litimus test for being the fool - you have written here more than you have read on the topic.

Riverwind · February 21, 2007

Remember Riverwind, you pass the litimus test for being the fool - you have written here more than you have read on the topic.

Once again you resort to insults when your arguments have been shredded. I find it amusing that you think making up facts is an argument. For example, how do you know how many books on banking that I have read? Is that the same way you 'know' that the federal reserve is 'owned' by private bankers despite credible sources that say exactly the opposite?

PolyNewbie · February 21, 2007

Riverwind:how do you know how many books on banking that I have read?

You have told me in earlier posts.

Riverwind:Is that the same way you 'know' that the federal reserve is 'owned' by private bankers despite credible sources that say exactly the opposite?

Which credible source (s) ? You have one source. You say the Federal Reserve is a non profit organization that is owned by taxpayers. Talk about a succer born every minute. Look into it, check and see what the economists say. Read what ex presidents and ex bankers say. They all say the same thing about banks and all using strong words that describe them as capable of every imaginable form of deceit. So you go to the banker web sites and mis interpret most of their info exactly the way you are supposed to and claim them to be the most credible source. If you had read a single book that even mentioned the banks in more than just passing you would know they are privately owned.

Riverwind · February 21, 2007

Riverwind:how do you know how many books on banking that I have read?
You have told me in earlier posts.

That is not what I said. But no matter. Deliberately misrepresenting things people say is something you you do regularly. I can't figure out whether it is intentional or if you just have a comprehension problem. I suspect it is a comprehension problem.

Look into it, check and see what the economists say. Read what ex presidents and ex bankers say. They all say the same thing about banks and all using strong words that describe them as capable of every imaginable form of deceit.

Right. Your out of context 'bankers are evil' quotes. They add nothing to the discussion and I don't really believe that you are representing their views correctly.

PolyNewbie · February 21, 2007

Riverwind:Right. Your out of context 'bankers are evil' quotes. They add nothing to the discussion and I don't really believe that you are representing their views correctly.

I don't see how any of the ex president quotes or ex banker quotes can be mis represented. Particularly because of the number of quotes from different notables of history as well as reference sources that all very clearly say the same thing.

Riverwind · February 21, 2007

I don't see how any of the ex president quotes or ex banker quotes can be misrepresented. Particularly because of the number of quotes from different notables of history as well as reference sources that all very clearly say the same thing.

None of the quotes explain why they dislike bankers (other than saying they cannot be trusted). Banking was a dominate industry in the past that attracted a lot of criticism much like oil companies attract criticism today. Today banks have a lot of financial power but no where near the power they had in the past with a smaller economy. Today companies like Microsoft, WalMart and Exxon are the economic juggernauts that attract the hatred that you see in your quotes.

You cannot make a case against the banking system today by repeating over and over that 'bankers are evil'. You have to start by getting your facts rights - 'evil banker' quotes are not facts - they are opinions.

PolyNewbie · February 22, 2007

Riverwind:Today companies like Microsoft, WalMart and Exxon are the economic juggernauts that attract the hatred that you see in your quotes.

No. The banks are much bigger than these companies. They do not publish their earnings and have far more control today than they did when the quotes were given.

There really isn't a way the quotes could be misunderstood. They all say the same thing: Bankers are in control. Bankers are incredibly secretive. Bankers are incredibly evil.

Riverwind · February 22, 2007

No. The banks are much bigger than these companies. They do not publish their earnings and have far more control today than they did when the quotes were given.

You have no proof of that. You are just making things up again to support your bizzare theories.

PolyNewbie · February 23, 2007

Riverwind:You have no proof of that. You are just making things up again to support your bizzare theories.

Robert Gaylon Ross, an ex high level agent for the US investigates the banks. He says the Rothschilds are worth $300 trillion and Rockefeller is worth $12 trillion. A Russian economist estimated the Rothschilds net worth at $700 trillion.

Banking is very secretive - at least if you believe ex presidents, ex bankers, etc in what they say about the banks. You have yet to show how the quotes I have given could be mis interpreted or taken out of context.

Explain how this quote could be taken out of context:

""You (International Bankers) are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out. If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning." - Andrew Jackson

"

or this one:

"These International Bankers and Rockefeller Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of public office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government." -Theodore Roosevelt

Black Dog · February 23, 2007

A Russian economist estimated the Rothschilds net worth at $700 trillion.

60 times the GDP of the entire U.S.A.? Buuuuuuuullshiiiiiiiiiiit.

PolyNewbie · February 23, 2007

The Rothschilds own the European economy and the Russian economy although the Russians are throwing them out thats why no one like Putin. Putin is a nationalist.

The private banks are owed much more than we could ever pay. Thats the name of the game. That is why large sects of land in the USA are being signed over to the UN.