A big Fed misconception

And DD5 you have shown why calling it private is a problem. Thanks for the find.

I’ve heard this being circulated even among the “End the Fed” protesters. Some want the Federal Reserve to not be “private” but to be a central bank operated by the Federal Government. They say it will be better that why. This topic will come up more and more. And you watch the Federal Reserve. They will act like they are the innocent bankers being coerced by the government. The fed is not a free market spontaneous institution.

You ask the question: “Is the Federal Reserve privately owned or a government agency?” You must identify what part of the Fed you are talking about.

If you are talking about the twelve regional FR Banks, they are normally construed to be, and have been adjudicated to be, privately owned. They each have a Board of (nine) Directors some of which are elected by the local commercial banks and some are appointed by the FR Board of Governors. Local banks pay for services of the FR Banks and are required to purchase non-transferable “stock” in the FR Bank.

But the FR Banks are assessed “expenses” of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (Ref. Title 12, Section 243—which they cannot verify or audit) and are subject to “supervision and regulation” by the BOG. Ref. Title 12, Section 248j. The FR Banks are mere franchises of the FR System. Control of the system is by the BOG. It is the BOG that claims to be a federal agency in court proceedings and in their ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOG TO CONGRESS but fails to fall within many parameters of an agency. They have the same pension and health plan as the privately owned FR Banks. Employees are in large part not civil service employees. The BOG nor the Banks are audited by the GAO. The Fed does not depend upon the U.S. Treasury for any funding. By statute, no other government agency can control them. Ref. Title 12, Section 250. Control of the Fed by the President is limited to jaw-boning. Ref. LBJ.

I believe all government agencies are subject to complete audit of their accounting books. The Annual Report contains considerable information on the Banks but contains a three page gloss on the BOG finances. Ref.

This mathematically progression is the hallmark of any Ponzi scheme. All Ponzi schemes are doomed to eventually self-destruction.

To hide the increase in interest payment from the public, the national debt must be increased. But the increase in the national debt increases the cost of interest that must be paid. The exponential increase cannot be outrun. The inescapable conclusion is runaway inflation. It has occurred many times in history. It is mathematically inescapable. And Bernacke knows it.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/default.htm

The FED cannot exist without the monopoly cartel license the state has given it. It is public in that it is given monopoly privilege by the people and only the people can withdraw that privilege.

The following paragraphs should have been in the above posting:

I believe Ed Griffin’s CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND (available online) and Eustace Mullins’ SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE (ebook available) contain allegations of private ownership of the BOG that can only be dispersed by a detailed review of the BOG accounting books. And the Fed will not allow that.

But as to the damage the Fed does to society, let us review the nature of the Fed’s operation.

If Congress wishes to spend more money than they have, they grant securities (bills, bonds, or notes) to the Fed and the Fed establishes a line of credit in the amount of the involved principal. Presto!! Fiat money has been created—by an act of Congress. Every “dollar” in circulation is created in this manner.

The subtle mathematically progression will escape the casual reader. The understood agreement is that the security will be paid off and the debt canceled. The principal has been created but the promise is to repay the principal plus the interest. The interest does not exist. It is impossible to culminate the agreement.

The only way to pay the interest on the initial issue is to issue additional securities for more principal and pay the initial interest from the secondary issue of principal. But since the interest deduction in the secondary issue effectively reduces the amount of fiat money available for government programs, the effective interest rate on the secondary issue is higher than the taunted percentage. And each time the debt is rolled over, the percentage increases. It is an exponential increase. (Note: this progression does not apply to a loan from Main Street Bank.)

This mathematically progression is the hallmark of any Ponzi scheme. All Ponzi schemes are doomed to eventually self-destruction.

I believe the issue is to the ownership and control of the Fed. It has clearly been granted a monopoly status by Title 12 and the BOG has isolated itself from any identified source of control, including Congress, the President (except to appoint a Governor from a preapproved list), and the GAO.

And the People have no control of the monolopy privilege that has been given by Congress. Only Congress can withdraw that privilege, and Congress now has an open-ended credit card that never has to be paid. That credit card is used to buy votes with pork or favors, such as removing Glass-Stengall act for Wall Street. Congress is not going to turn off the printing press that gives them money that steals purchasing power from the Citizens.

The operation of the Fed is based upon a Ponzi fraud. A contract based upon fraud is void from its inception.

Yes, we settled that earlier in the thread. The FED is not private.

If the state exists it IS a factor on the market; arguably the biggest factor.

Price-fixing is when an entity controls so much of a market that it is free to set its own prices regardless of supply and demand.

And my arguement goes like this; if JP owns a company that is doing well and sees another company doing well, he will be inclined to buy it. If he continues to do well he will continue buying more of the industry. People for the most part are not going to stop this because, in the short run, consumers will benefit by the lower prices and increased supply.

But then JP buys more and more of different markets. It gets to the point where he not only holds majority stake in the nations railroads, he also owns a large part of the food industry which ships on his rails, and the coal industry wich powers his trains, and worst of all the media, which investigates the various industries he is in control of.

Once again, people unaware of this hegemony and of any corrupt practices he may be employing will see only a benefit by the decrease in prices. It is only when they realize they dont own anything that they may try to stop this. But with him in control of the nations media, there is a good chance they will never realize anything.

But first let me inform you that, although i fundamentally disagree with your explanations and policiies, we both fight the same enemies; monopolies, bankers, the raging irrational mob, corruption, and all the various forms of (virtual) slavery (the rental economy, as opposed to the ownership economy).

All are products of government power.

Do you know what the law of supply and demand is? Any price that does not confer to supply and demand is inefficient, doesn’t satisfy consumers, and has no place in a free market economy. Your entity that is so big is a fiction of your imagination.

Impossible situation! Consumers will not benefit from anything. See above supply & demand comment.

Without the power to keep competitors out by use of force, or coerce consumers into buying its products, such a scenario cannot occur. In a free market, even the unlikely scenario of a monopoly must continue to satisfy consumers in order to exist. You are mistakenly associating coerced monopolies with free markets, not realizing that they can only exist with government licenses.

Also a single corporation cannot just expand forever to the point that there is no more market economy. This is due to the economic calculation problem of socialism. But this is way over your head. Learn what supply & demand is and how it works? Browse through some of the many free books here.

In distorting it.

I.e. never, or only with government sanction. Supply and demand continue to function regardless, and consumers will only consume until the product fails to satisfy them, i.e. becomes too costly to be worth the expenditure. The firm is still limited by how much output it can produce. Whether it chooses to produce more or less is something any and every firm does. If it is wary of competitors it will produce more or be undercut.

No problem then.

And here we enter the realm of fantasy, if only because of diseconomies of scale and the firm’s increasing lapse into calculational chaos.

Sounds like a failure to stay vigilant to me…

What a great topic. It’s usually people like Alex Jones who I hear repeating uneducated nonsense about exposing the “private federal reserve”. I agree that they are misunderstanding the issue and probably doing harm.

It’s funny too, because I literally was just explaining via email to someone about this very same topic. The following is the body of the email:

Lots of people who don’t know much about the subject assume that the Fed is part of the government, which is wrong. There are also many people who claim that it’s a totally private separate banking institution, and this is also wrong. They both have some truth but neither is totally correct.

The Fed is basically a government bureaucracy that was originally intended to be independent politically but yet it is held in place by government power that grants it monopoly powers to counterfeit money and protects it from competition. It’s like it’s trying to be two things at once. It is an artificial creature of government yet it’s supposed to stay out of government affairs. A sort of mutant bastard child. lol

I think it’s a pipe dream to ever think that the Fed could ever truly stay totally independently minded and not become abused by presidents and politicians who want to avoid recessions with stimulus in order to get re-elected. It’s like a cookie jar in the kitchen with lots of kids who are home alone - they are going to eat those cookies. The possibility and the power is their and it’s too tempting. And it’s not too hard for presidents and politicians with a lot of pull to get their big business and big banking buddies into positions of power within the Fed because they are hand picked. The free market doesn’t choose the leaders of the Fed. I think that Bush delayed the pain from the tech-bubble in the early 2000s with stimulus because he probably wouldn’t have been re-elected if the country went through the badly needed recession that we were due for. So today we are in more pain because we didn’t take the recession then.

Sure, you can try to say that the Fed is independent and that as an institution it’s acceptable even to those that don’t want the government involved in the economy because it’s not actually the government that is involved in the economy, it’s just the private Fed. But I think that’s shortsighted because you and I couldn’t just start our own central bank and compete with the Fed. If we did what the Fed did we would be thrown in jail for counterfeiting! The idea that it’s private is like playing make believe and ignoring all of the government strings that are attached to it.

If the Fed had stuck true to it’s original aims it might not be so bad, but it would still nevertheless be unnecessary interference in the free market in my opinion. We’ve just gotta get rid of it. All we’d miss out on is inflation and bailouts for big business.

Amen

Don’t forget - they also think the FED “owns” the US government.

I find these people also think the best way around the FED’s monopoly would be to resort to barter or to create local fiat currencies. They also regard debt as bad, without any mention of whether it is created through savings or a printing press, whether it is serviceable or a giant unsustainable bubble.

So they would eliminate credit markets and money altogether. They are not socialists. They are primitivists.

BTW, this is what I email people when they tell me the FED is a private corporation, etc…:

I want people to know the real answer to this because it often comes up. Is the FED really a private corporation owned by the banksters?

No. The heart and sole of the Federal Reserve is the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which controls the monetary base - the total size of outstanding federal reserve notes plus commercial bank reserves held on account at a Federal Reserve Bank. This is the institution that can monetize or demonetize debt, changing the size and structure of the Federal Reserve Banks’ balance sheets.

The FOMC consists of 12 voting members. 7 are the Board of Governors of the FED, all selected by the president and approved by the senate, serving 14 year terms. 1 is the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The other 4 are 4/11 remaining Federal Reserve Bank Presidents, rotating yearly. So, 7/12 most important members of the FED are chosen directly by the President and approved by Congress. Already, we see it is publicly, not privately, controlled.

The Reserve Bank Presidents are chosen by the Board of Directors of that Federal Reserve Bank. These boards consist of 9 members, 6 chosen by the member banks, and 3 chosen directly by the federal, presidentially-appointed Board of Governors.

Member banks are each divided into 3 classes depending upon their size. Each class selects 2/6 bank-selected directors.

If we were to assume that any one class of private banks, such as the largest, shares the policy direction of the government, every Reserve Bank President would likely be pro-government. The entire FOMC would be controlled in government interest.

Member banks have no legal option to avoid the system. All nationally chartered banks must be a member of the FED by law. The FED’s currency is legal tender, making banking in a alternate currency impractical.

Many are confused by the fact that member banks must purchase shares of their regional Federal Reserve Bank to become members. This is more akin to a fee. The “stock” is not publicly traded and has no market price. Banks pay 6% of their capital base to purchase this stock, so it costs relatively the same for any bank, regardless of size. The dividends paid on the stock are miniscule. Most of the Federal Reserve Banks’ profit (most of which comes from holding government bonds) is actually paid to the government. And as we just demonstrated, owning shares does not give anyone much control over the whole system. Most member banks are corporate entities with thousands of owners…and there are thousands of member banks, all with relatively the same voting power.

There is no inner sanctum of Class C international super banks that run things from behind the scenes, handing themselves trillions of dollars. If so, they’d have to have secret influence over the President and Senate, not simply “ownership” of the FED. Maybe they do, but that is a completely different argument. I just wanted to point out the FED is not a private corporation, as we know them. Its stock cannot be freely traded and is valueless to the market, pays a miniscule dividend which is usually much smaller than the cut the government takes, and offers its owners little control of the overall system. Futhermore, its “owners” are thousands of commercial banks, many of which are each owned by thousands of corporate stockholders. Finally, banks tend to have equal voting power, independent of size, in this system, with free access to join.

Wait, you fight yourself?

What do you define as not very long?

I see nothing wrong with agreeing that to the extent the market acts on imperfect information or coercion by any group including private groups in a free society that we will see adverse results for some parties. The leftist conclusion is what fails in that they suggest they can create a superior regulatory framework than the market. There is no harm in acknowledging the market is imperfect but it is still the superior mechanism for maximizing human potential.

I would say a monopoly would only last as long as either (1) other business efforts can’t tolerate being coerced by another private firm anymore and they rise up against it or (2) instantly cause for any private company to make it, it would need to play by the rules with others or else others turn their back on that company and the consumer makes it go bankrupt. or (3) No rising up against it when the tolerant level disappears, no need for violence, therefore same as #2 consumers make it go bankrupt.

#1: In a free market, #1 happens cause the private company is being violent against others to get it’s way so self-defense is enacted.

Can I reprint that?

My point being that these things may take longer than you think to get turned around. They turn around the fastest in the free market but that could in many cases be a matter of years. Given the human life span you might find yourself spending 20-30% of your adult life under such duress. I think we make a mstake when we don’t acknowledge the real human costs of the free market. Again, to acknowledge the imperfection of the market is no more than to acknowledge the imperfection of our own humanity but to minimize it only feeds the enemies of freedom. We can acknowledge imperfection without diminishing our advocacy of free markets.

This assertion makes no sense! Why? You give the answer yourself in the following statement:

Exactly, so the costs of the market are no more then the costs of being human and alive. Life is not free! So what is so important to acknowledge here?

How does a private firm coerces another private firm? Or for that matter, how does a free individual coerce another free individual into an exchange without resorting to violence? The use of violence is banned in a free market. Those who use them are criminals, and the free market has mechanisms to deal with criminals. So coercion is not a trait of free markets. Once coercion takes place, the market is violated and in NOT free.

We are not utopians, criminals will always exist, but they will be outlawed and not inherently part of the system.