The FED Inspector General Has No Idea Where The 9 Trillion Dollars Went

[Terral]

Greetings to All:

Nobody at the Federal Reserve or the Treasury Department or in Congress has one clue about where the 9 Trillion Dollars went . . .

MyProps.org Story

Is Anyone Minding the Store at the Federal Reserve?

Florida Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson asks the Federal Reserve Inspector General about the trillions of dollars lent or spent by the Federal Reserve and where it went, and the trillions of off balance sheet obligations. Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman responds that the IG does not know and is not tracking where this money is.

Inspector General Coleman comes across as completely clueless and asleep at the wheel. At several points, Grayson pins her with seemingly simple questions that cause her to become nervous and evasive. Does she have something to hide, or does she really not know what's going on at the Fed? Either prospect is truly horrifying.

We're talking about trillions of dollars in taxpayer money that a group of elite bankers are playing around with, and the public has no way of knowing what they are doing with it. ([FONT=&quot]Continued[/FONT][FONT=&quot])
[/FONT]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXlxBeAvsB8"]Grand Theft Of TRILLIONS!!![/ame]

GL,

Terral

 

[Toro]

See, here's the problem Terral. $9 trillion has not gone missing. The Fed and the government has not lent out $9 trillion. That $9 trillion is a reference to the total backstop of liabilities the government has undertaken over the past year. Much of that is simply the increase of FDIC insurance on bank deposits. Others include programs that have not yet been taken up, such as the PPIP. Others include the implicit guarantee of swap insurance underwritten by AIG.

The Congressman has every right to ask the questions that he did, but it is not a surprise that programs which have been drawn in haste to deal with a crisis most of us have never seen in our lifetimes have not yet been reviewed or audited. Audits take time, even for well established programs. However, this does not mean that $9 trillion has been stolen.

 

[sealybobo]

See, here's the problem Terral. $9 trillion has not gone missing. The Fed and the government has not lent out $9 trillion. That $9 trillion is a reference to the total backstop of liabilities the government has undertaken over the past year. Much of that is simply the increase of FDIC insurance on bank deposits. Others include programs that have not yet been taken up, such as the PPIP. Others include the implicit guarantee of swap insurance underwritten by AIG.

The Congressman has every right to ask the questions that he did, but it is not a surprise that programs which have been drawn in haste to deal with a crisis most of us have never seen in our lifetimes have not yet been reviewed or audited. Audits take time, even for well established programs. However, this does not mean that $9 trillion has been stolen.

Why doesn't China turn their finances over to private bankers like we did in 1913 when we passed the Federal Reserve Act?

Does China's government have a problem managing their own treasury?

Why do we have private bankers managing ours?

 

[Iriemon]

See, here's the problem Terral. $9 trillion has not gone missing. The Fed and the government has not lent out $9 trillion. That $9 trillion is a reference to the total backstop of liabilities the government has undertaken over the past year. Much of that is simply the increase of FDIC insurance on bank deposits. Others include programs that have not yet been taken up, such as the PPIP. Others include the implicit guarantee of swap insurance underwritten by AIG.

The Congressman has every right to ask the questions that he did, but it is not a surprise that programs which have been drawn in haste to deal with a crisis most of us have never seen in our lifetimes have not yet been reviewed or audited. Audits take time, even for well established programs. However, this does not mean that $9 trillion has been stolen.

Why doesn't China turn their finances over to private bankers like we did in 1913 when we passed the Federal Reserve Act?

We didn't.

Does China's government have a problem managing their own treasury?

You mean currency? It has had yes.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/05/02/china-currency-trade-biz-wash-cx_bw_0503china.html

Why do we have private bankers managing ours?

We don't. Why do you keep asking questions based upon false premises?

 

[Terral]

Hi Toro:

I just love the way you guys 'talk' on these topics without supporting A SINGLE WORD from any sources whatsoever.

See, here's the problem Terral. $9 trillion has not gone missing.

Great news! Now El Toro knows more about the expanding FED balance sheet 'losses' than the FED Inspector General . . .

The Fed and the government has not lent out $9 trillion. That $9 trillion is a reference to the total backstop of liabilities the government has undertaken over the past year.

Since our 'real' National Debt is more than 100 Trillion Dollars (story), then the Govt has nothing to be lending anyone.

Much of that is simply the increase of FDIC insurance on bank deposits. Others include programs that have not yet been taken up, such as the PPIP. Others include the implicit guarantee of swap insurance underwritten by AIG.

Now you are really sounding ridiculous. The 'derivatives bubble' is measured in the 'quadrillion' to 'two quadrillion' dollar range (story)!! That number escalated up to 190,000 dollars for every man, woman and child on this planet as of last October 16, 2008 (story). But hey, El Toro says the illegal FED can guarantee swap insurance, so everything is going to be fine. :0)

The Congressman has every right to ask the questions that he did, but it is not a surprise that programs which have been drawn in haste to deal with a crisis most of us have never seen in our lifetimes have not yet been reviewed or audited.

If the FED, Congress or anybody else was actually dealing with the crisis, then somebody would have some idea of where the 2 Trillion dollars went from before November 10th of last year!

BloggingStocks.com

The Fed's dirty little $2 trillion secret

Posted Nov 10th 2008 12:42PM by Peter Cohan

Filed under: JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Federal Reserve, Financial Crisis

The Federal Reserve has lent out $2 trillion worth of your money -- but it refuses to say who got it or on what terms. We already know that $29 billion worth went to JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) -- to shift the worst junk on Bear Stearns' balance sheet to the Fed's back in March. And it's safe to assume that the $2 trillion the Fed lent out is being exchanged for similarly junky assets.

Why is the Fed keeping this information secret? I can only guess at three reasons. Is such secrecy appropriate for the U.S., which is supposedly a democracy? I don't think so. My guess is that the Fed is keeping all this secret because it believes that such secrecy will keep the world from losing whatever shred of confidence it still has in the global financial system. That's because the loan recipients probably include every major financial institution.

The second reason may be that the Fed does not want us to know just how much risk it has taken on. But it should be pretty obvious that the Fed's balance sheet, which used to have $800 billion in relatively safe Treasury securities, is now weighted down with all the toxic waste that banks took on to boost executives bonuses during the last several years. And the key question is how big a loss that the Fed will end up taking on these assets (Continued).

All of those answers for 'where' the money went are dead wrong. The FED is LYING and hiding 'the truth' that most of this money was shipped overseas to foreign banks, who represent 'shareholders' (like Rothschild and Warburg) of the illegal Federal Reserve itself! America is being ROBBED and LOOTED and LIED TO by the same people who murdered JFK and the same people who planned the 9/11 attacks and the same people who are orchestrating the current U.S./Global Economic Implosion.

Audits take time, even for well established programs. However, this does not mean that $9 trillion has been stolen.

Do not sit there and LIE to me about audits taking all of this time, when we are talking about money that started disappearing last year 'and' nobody has one clue where it all went. The Govt LIES about the more than a 100 Trillion-dollar National Debt, by keeping two sets of books, and we are supposed to believe these LIARS; when trillions and trillions of dollars are going up in smoke . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[sealybobo]

See, here's the problem Terral. $9 trillion has not gone missing. The Fed and the government has not lent out $9 trillion. That $9 trillion is a reference to the total backstop of liabilities the government has undertaken over the past year. Much of that is simply the increase of FDIC insurance on bank deposits. Others include programs that have not yet been taken up, such as the PPIP. Others include the implicit guarantee of swap insurance underwritten by AIG.

The Congressman has every right to ask the questions that he did, but it is not a surprise that programs which have been drawn in haste to deal with a crisis most of us have never seen in our lifetimes have not yet been reviewed or audited. Audits take time, even for well established programs. However, this does not mean that $9 trillion has been stolen.

Why doesn't China turn their finances over to private bankers like we did in 1913 when we passed the Federal Reserve Act?

We didn't.

Does China's government have a problem managing their own treasury?

You mean currency? It has had yes.

China's Currency Problems - Forbes.com

Why do we have private bankers managing ours?

We don't. Why do you keep asking questions based upon false premises?

I think you are bashing me based on symantics.

You seem to be a fan of allowing private bankers to run our country. What is it you don't get?

What did we do when we passed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act?

What did we give the bankers in 1913 when we let them manage the Federal Reserve?

 

[sealybobo]

See, here's the problem Terral. $9 trillion has not gone missing. The Fed and the government has not lent out $9 trillion. That $9 trillion is a reference to the total backstop of liabilities the government has undertaken over the past year. Much of that is simply the increase of FDIC insurance on bank deposits. Others include programs that have not yet been taken up, such as the PPIP. Others include the implicit guarantee of swap insurance underwritten by AIG.

The Congressman has every right to ask the questions that he did, but it is not a surprise that programs which have been drawn in haste to deal with a crisis most of us have never seen in our lifetimes have not yet been reviewed or audited. Audits take time, even for well established programs. However, this does not mean that $9 trillion has been stolen.

Why doesn't China turn their finances over to private bankers like we did in 1913 when we passed the Federal Reserve Act?

Does China's government have a problem managing their own treasury?

You mean currency? It has had yes.

China's Currency Problems - Forbes.com

How would China turning over this role to private bankers help them with that problem?

 

[sealybobo]

Those seem to be more OUR problem with China's currency. Not really China's problem.

China's exchange rate has been a sore subject for many U.S. policymakers who have argued that the cheap yuan has caused a flood of imports into the U.S. and E.U., and displaced millions of jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector.

And of course we can demonize the Chinese like we do Venesuela, only we won't do that to China because we are bullies.

We can't DEMAND that our bankers get to take over their treasury, like we are trying to do in the middle east and south America.

 

[sealybobo]

See, here's the problem Terral. $9 trillion has not gone missing. The Fed and the government has not lent out $9 trillion. That $9 trillion is a reference to the total backstop of liabilities the government has undertaken over the past year. Much of that is simply the increase of FDIC insurance on bank deposits. Others include programs that have not yet been taken up, such as the PPIP. Others include the implicit guarantee of swap insurance underwritten by AIG.

The Congressman has every right to ask the questions that he did, but it is not a surprise that programs which have been drawn in haste to deal with a crisis most of us have never seen in our lifetimes have not yet been reviewed or audited. Audits take time, even for well established programs. However, this does not mean that $9 trillion has been stolen.

Why doesn't China turn their finances over to private bankers like we did in 1913 when we passed the Federal Reserve Act?

We didn't.

Does China's government have a problem managing their own treasury?

You mean currency? It has had yes.

China's Currency Problems - Forbes.com

Why do we have private bankers managing ours?

We don't. Why do you keep asking questions based upon false premises?

That article was from 2007 and it said, ""The U.S. economy is operating at full employment, and China's exchange rate policies are clearly not a key driver of aggregate employment in the U.S., although they may impact particular groups."

My how a year can make a difference.

Anyways, that article didn't answer my question. Why doesn't China do what we did and let Chinese rich powerful bankers/oil men take over their federal reserve?

What possible benefit do we get from having these bankers own us thru the treasury?

 

[jillian]

Hi Toro:

I just love the way you guys 'talk' on these topics without supporting A SINGLE WORD from any sources whatsoever.

You mean as opposed to using misleading sources which mischaracterize the information you BELIEVE you're presenting?



You'd do well to listen to the people who actually know what they're talking about instead of other conspiracy types.

you all feed on each other's obsessions.

 

[Iriemon]

Why doesn't China turn their finances over to private bankers like we did in 1913 when we passed the Federal Reserve Act?

We didn't.

You mean currency? It has had yes.

China's Currency Problems - Forbes.com

Why do we have private bankers managing ours?

We don't. Why do you keep asking questions based upon false premises?

I think you are bashing me based on symantics.

You seem to be a fan of allowing private bankers to run our country. What is it you don't get?

What did we do when we passed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act?

What did we give the bankers in 1913 when we let them manage the Federal Reserve?

Sealy, you seem intellegent enough to look at facts and appreciate their significance.

Private bankers do not run out country. The Govt does. Private bankers do not run the money supply. The Fed does. Private bankers do not own the Fed in any normal meaning of the word.

The shareholders of the Fed are member banks in the district (federally chartered banks and state intitutions that want to apply) which pay in a percentage of their capital, required by law. All federal banks *must* be shareholders. By law. State banks can if they apply.

They are not "shareholders" in the sense of the ownership of a private corporations. Their shares provide no governing power. They shares cannot be sold and they cannot be transferred. They are not entitled to any profit. They are paid a fixed return 6% on the money they have deposited with the Fed. The don't get any more because the Fed makes more. They do not have any say in choosing the Federal Reserve Board which makes money policy. The FRB members are selected by the President and appointed by the Senate, ie the Govt.

You asked what we gave them when we created the Fed. Here is the statute on it, you can read it yourself. Title 12 US Code Section 287:

Amount of Shares; Increase and Decrease of Capital; Surrender and Cancellation of Stock. The capital stock of each Federal reserve bank shall be divided into shares of $100 each. The outstanding capital stock shall be increased from time to time as member banks increase their capital stock and surplus or as additional banks become members, and may be decreased as member banks reduce their capital stock or surplus or cease to be members. Shares of the capital stock of Federal reserve banks owned by member banks shall not be transferred or hypothecated. When a member bank increases its capital stock or surplus, it shall thereupon subscribe for an additional amount of capital stock of the Federal reserve bank of its district equal to 6 per centum of the said increase, one-half of said subscription to be paid in the manner hereinbefore provided for original subscription, and one-half subject to call of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. A bank applying for stock in a Federal reserve bank at any time after the organization thereof must subscribe for an amount of the capital stock of the Federal reserve bank equal to 6 per centum of the paid-up capital stock and surplus of said applicant bank, paying therefor its par value plus one-half of 1 per centum a month from the period of the last dividend. When a member bank reduces its capital stock or surplus it shall surrender a proportionate amount of its holdings in the capital stock of said Federal Reserve bank. Any member bank which holds capital stock of a Federal Reserve bank in excess of the amount required on the basis of 6 per centum of its paid-up capital stock and surplus shall surrender such excess stock. When a member bank voluntarily liquidates it shall surrender all of its holdings of the capital stock of said Federal Reserve bank and be released from its stock subscription not previously called. In any such case the shares surrendered shall be canceled and the member bank shall receive in payment therefor, under regulations to be prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, a sum equal to its cash-paid subscriptions on the shares surrendered and one-half of 1 per centum a month from the period of the last dividend, not to exceed the book value thereof, less any liability of such member bank to the Federal Reserve bank.

There is no private corporation in the world where the "owners" are required by law to give a portion of their net worth for stock which they cannot sell or transfer, which gives them no control over the management, and which gives them no right to the profit of the corporation.

If you contest any of this, identify which part you contest, let's look at it and find sources to verify it.

Otherwise, what exactly is the basis for your contention that private banks run the country or manage the federal reserve?

 

[Iriemon]

Hi Toro:

I just love the way you guys 'talk' on these topics without supporting A SINGLE WORD from any sources whatsoever.

See, here's the problem Terral. $9 trillion has not gone missing.

Great news! Now El Toro knows more about the expanding FED balance sheet 'losses' than the FED Inspector General . . .

The Fed and the government has not lent out $9 trillion. That $9 trillion is a reference to the total backstop of liabilities the government has undertaken over the past year.

Since our 'real' National Debt is more than 100 Trillion Dollars (story), then the Govt has nothing to be lending anyone.



Now you are really sounding ridiculous. The 'derivatives bubble' is measured in the 'quadrillion' to 'two quadrillion' dollar range (story)!! That number escalated up to 190,000 dollars for every man, woman and child on this planet as of last October 16, 2008 (story). But hey, El Toro says the illegal FED can guarantee swap insurance, so everything is going to be fine. :0)



If the FED, Congress or anybody else was actually dealing with the crisis, then somebody would have some idea of where the 2 Trillion dollars went from before November 10th of last year!

BloggingStocks.com

The Fed's dirty little $2 trillion secret

Posted Nov 10th 2008 12:42PM by Peter Cohan

Filed under: JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Federal Reserve, Financial Crisis

The Federal Reserve has lent out $2 trillion worth of your money -- but it refuses to say who got it or on what terms. We already know that $29 billion worth went to JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) -- to shift the worst junk on Bear Stearns' balance sheet to the Fed's back in March. And it's safe to assume that the $2 trillion the Fed lent out is being exchanged for similarly junky assets.

Why is the Fed keeping this information secret? I can only guess at three reasons. Is such secrecy appropriate for the U.S., which is supposedly a democracy? I don't think so. My guess is that the Fed is keeping all this secret because it believes that such secrecy will keep the world from losing whatever shred of confidence it still has in the global financial system. That's because the loan recipients probably include every major financial institution.

The second reason may be that the Fed does not want us to know just how much risk it has taken on. But it should be pretty obvious that the Fed's balance sheet, which used to have $800 billion in relatively safe Treasury securities, is now weighted down with all the toxic waste that banks took on to boost executives bonuses during the last several years. And the key question is how big a loss that the Fed will end up taking on these assets (Continued).

All of those answers for 'where' the money went are dead wrong. The FED is LYING and hiding 'the truth' that most of this money was shipped overseas to foreign banks, who represent 'shareholders' (like Rothschild and Warburg) of the illegal Federal Reserve itself! America is being ROBBED and LOOTED and LIED TO by the same people who murdered JFK and the same people who planned the 9/11 attacks and the same people who are orchestrating the current U.S./Global Economic Implosion.

Audits take time, even for well established programs. However, this does not mean that $9 trillion has been stolen.

Do not sit there and LIE to me about audits taking all of this time, when we are talking about money that started disappearing last year 'and' nobody has one clue where it all went. The Govt LIES about the more than a 100 Trillion-dollar National Debt, by keeping two sets of books, and we are supposed to believe these LIARS; when trillions and trillions of dollars are going up in smoke . . .

GL,

Terral

Terral, do you even read the sources you post from?

If you did, then you'd know that the supposed $100 trillion debt you talk about is not debt at all and you wouldn't call it that.

 

[Iriemon]

Why doesn't China turn their finances over to private bankers like we did in 1913 when we passed the Federal Reserve Act?

Does China's government have a problem managing their own treasury?

You mean currency? It has had yes.

China's Currency Problems - Forbes.com

How would China turning over this role to private bankers help them with that problem?

I give up. How would it?

 

[Toro]

Terral

In all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about, and this demonstrates your lack of common sense and proclivity to believe pretty much any conspiracy that anyone writes on the Internet.

Here is the Fed's balance sheet.

FRB: H.4.1 Release--Factors Affecting Reserve Balances--May 7, 2009

The current Fed balance sheet has $2 trillion in assets. This is down from $2.4 trillion a few months ago. Two years ago, it was $800 billion. $2 trillion has not been stolen. If one marks to market the assets the Fed has, it is likely that the Fed is carrying substantial losses. But that is a whole lot different than the money being "stolen." At some point, the Fed must be audited, but we must do so once this crisis has passed, not now.

Now, here is the Bloomberg article that the Congressman references. Actually, it is an updated version since the amount of guarantees by the US government has expanded.

Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year, to stem the longest recession since the 1930s.

New pledges from the Fed, the Treasury Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. include $1 trillion for the Public-Private Investment Program, designed to help investors buy distressed loans and other assets from U.S. banks. The money works out to $42,105 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. and 14 times the $899.8 billion of currency in circulation.

Here are a few more articles which give details on where the money is going.

Bloomberg: Financial Rescue Pledges Now $12.8 Trillion -- MrSwing
U.S. Pledges Top $7.7 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit (Update2) - Bloomberg.com
Fund My Mutual Fund: Bloomberg: U.S. Government Now on Hook for $8 Trillion+

Now, you can question whether or not this is prudent, whether or not the government should be bailing out the banks in this manner. However, to suggest that $9 trillion has been siphoned off somewhere offshore is laughable but not unexpected from this crowd.

 

[Iriemon]

Those seem to be more OUR problem with China's currency. Not really China's problem.

China's exchange rate has been a sore subject for many U.S. policymakers who have argued that the cheap yuan has caused a flood of imports into the U.S. and E.U., and displaced millions of jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector.

And of course we can demonize the Chinese like we do Venesuela, only we won't do that to China because we are bullies.

We can't DEMAND that our bankers get to take over their treasury, like we are trying to do in the middle east and south America.

Well, in exchange for given us all the stuff we've bought from them over the past 10 years, they hold a trillion of US Govt debt. Which is subject to being devalued by inflation. So yeah if I was the Chinese I'd be worried a lot about that.

The Chinese Govt has one advantage over us -- they don't have to pander to the pass the buck generation to stay in power.

 

[Iriemon]

Why doesn't China turn their finances over to private bankers like we did in 1913 when we passed the Federal Reserve Act?

We didn't.



You mean currency? It has had yes.

China's Currency Problems - Forbes.com

Why do we have private bankers managing ours?

We don't. Why do you keep asking questions based upon false premises?

That article was from 2007 and it said, ""The U.S. economy is operating at full employment, and China's exchange rate policies are clearly not a key driver of aggregate employment in the U.S., although they may impact particular groups."

My how a year can make a difference.

Anyways, that article didn't answer my question. Why doesn't China do what we did and let Chinese rich powerful bankers/oil men take over their federal reserve?

What possible benefit do we get from having these bankers own us thru the treasury?

Question answered. We didn't do that.

 

[sealybobo]

We didn't.

You mean currency? It has had yes.

China's Currency Problems - Forbes.com



We don't. Why do you keep asking questions based upon false premises?

I think you are bashing me based on symantics.

You seem to be a fan of allowing private bankers to run our country. What is it you don't get?

What did we do when we passed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act?

What did we give the bankers in 1913 when we let them manage the Federal Reserve?

Sealy, you seem intellegent enough to look at facts and appreciate their significance.

Private bankers do not run out country. The Govt does. Private bankers do not run the money supply. The Fed does. Private bankers do not own the Fed in any normal meaning of the word.

The shareholders of the Fed are member banks in the district (federally chartered banks and state intitutions that want to apply) which pay in a percentage of their capital, required by law. All federal banks *must* be shareholders. By law. State banks can if they apply.

They are not "shareholders" in the sense of the ownership of a private corporations. Their shares provide no governing power. They shares cannot be sold and they cannot be transferred. They are not entitled to any profit. They are paid a fixed return 6% on the money they have deposited with the Fed. The don't get any more because the Fed makes more. They do not have any say in choosing the Federal Reserve Board which makes money policy. The FRB members are selected by the President and appointed by the Senate, ie the Govt.

You asked what we gave them when we created the Fed. Here is the statute on it, you can read it yourself. Title 12 US Code Section 287:

Amount of Shares; Increase and Decrease of Capital; Surrender and Cancellation of Stock. The capital stock of each Federal reserve bank shall be divided into shares of $100 each. The outstanding capital stock shall be increased from time to time as member banks increase their capital stock and surplus or as additional banks become members, and may be decreased as member banks reduce their capital stock or surplus or cease to be members. Shares of the capital stock of Federal reserve banks owned by member banks shall not be transferred or hypothecated. When a member bank increases its capital stock or surplus, it shall thereupon subscribe for an additional amount of capital stock of the Federal reserve bank of its district equal to 6 per centum of the said increase, one-half of said subscription to be paid in the manner hereinbefore provided for original subscription, and one-half subject to call of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. A bank applying for stock in a Federal reserve bank at any time after the organization thereof must subscribe for an amount of the capital stock of the Federal reserve bank equal to 6 per centum of the paid-up capital stock and surplus of said applicant bank, paying therefor its par value plus one-half of 1 per centum a month from the period of the last dividend. When a member bank reduces its capital stock or surplus it shall surrender a proportionate amount of its holdings in the capital stock of said Federal Reserve bank. Any member bank which holds capital stock of a Federal Reserve bank in excess of the amount required on the basis of 6 per centum of its paid-up capital stock and surplus shall surrender such excess stock. When a member bank voluntarily liquidates it shall surrender all of its holdings of the capital stock of said Federal Reserve bank and be released from its stock subscription not previously called. In any such case the shares surrendered shall be canceled and the member bank shall receive in payment therefor, under regulations to be prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, a sum equal to its cash-paid subscriptions on the shares surrendered and one-half of 1 per centum a month from the period of the last dividend, not to exceed the book value thereof, less any liability of such member bank to the Federal Reserve bank.

There is no private corporation in the world where the "owners" are required by law to give have their net worth for stock which they cannot sell or transfer, which gives them no control over the management, and which gives them no right to the profit of the corporation.

If you contest any of this, identify which part you contest, lets look at it and find sources to verify it.

Otherwise, what exactly is the basis for your contention that private banks run the country or manage the federal reserve?

You have been duped. The Federal Reserve was started by Rockafellor & JP Morgan. The same Rockafellor that started Standard Oil. The same Rockafellor who became the richest man in the world when we made him break up his oil monopoly.

The Federal Reserve System is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act (signed by Woodrow Wilson), it is a quasi-public and quasi-private (government entity with private components) banking system.

Can you explain the private component? You probably can, but your understanding makes you seem naive.

 

[sealybobo]

Those seem to be more OUR problem with China's currency. Not really China's problem.

China's exchange rate has been a sore subject for many U.S. policymakers who have argued that the cheap yuan has caused a flood of imports into the U.S. and E.U., and displaced millions of jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector.

And of course we can demonize the Chinese like we do Venesuela, only we won't do that to China because we are bullies.

We can't DEMAND that our bankers get to take over their treasury, like we are trying to do in the middle east and south America.

Well, in exchange for given us all the stuff we've bought from them over the past 10 years, they hold a trillion of US Govt debt. Which is subject to being devalued by inflation. So yeah if I was the Chinese I'd be worried a lot about that.

The Chinese Govt has one advantage over us -- they don't have to pander to the pass the buck generation to stay in power.

But none of those worries will ever get the Chinese to turn over their finances to the bankes. The only way that would happen is if the bankers bribed the chinese leaders to let them take over. I doubt that will happen.

The only way to do it would be to trash their economy, like we did our own in the Great Depression or this decade. Disaster Capitalism.

In other words, there is no reason for the Chinese to start their own version of our federal reserve bank where they turn over their countries finances to the bankers, which is exactly what we did, whether you get it or not.

Look deeper. If you just look for the official answer, you'll never get the truth.


And I get the feeling there was no good reason why we did it either.

 

[Iriemon]

I think you are bashing me based on symantics.

You seem to be a fan of allowing private bankers to run our country. What is it you don't get?

What did we do when we passed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act?

What did we give the bankers in 1913 when we let them manage the Federal Reserve?

Sealy, you seem intellegent enough to look at facts and appreciate their significance.

Private bankers do not run out country. The Govt does. Private bankers do not run the money supply. The Fed does. Private bankers do not own the Fed in any normal meaning of the word.

The shareholders of the Fed are member banks in the district (federally chartered banks and state intitutions that want to apply) which pay in a percentage of their capital, required by law. All federal banks *must* be shareholders. By law. State banks can if they apply.

They are not "shareholders" in the sense of the ownership of a private corporations. Their shares provide no governing power. They shares cannot be sold and they cannot be transferred. They are not entitled to any profit. They are paid a fixed return 6% on the money they have deposited with the Fed. The don't get any more because the Fed makes more. They do not have any say in choosing the Federal Reserve Board which makes money policy. The FRB members are selected by the President and appointed by the Senate, ie the Govt.

You asked what we gave them when we created the Fed. Here is the statute on it, you can read it yourself. Title 12 US Code Section 287:

Amount of Shares; Increase and Decrease of Capital; Surrender and Cancellation of Stock. The capital stock of each Federal reserve bank shall be divided into shares of $100 each. The outstanding capital stock shall be increased from time to time as member banks increase their capital stock and surplus or as additional banks become members, and may be decreased as member banks reduce their capital stock or surplus or cease to be members. Shares of the capital stock of Federal reserve banks owned by member banks shall not be transferred or hypothecated. When a member bank increases its capital stock or surplus, it shall thereupon subscribe for an additional amount of capital stock of the Federal reserve bank of its district equal to 6 per centum of the said increase, one-half of said subscription to be paid in the manner hereinbefore provided for original subscription, and one-half subject to call of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. A bank applying for stock in a Federal reserve bank at any time after the organization thereof must subscribe for an amount of the capital stock of the Federal reserve bank equal to 6 per centum of the paid-up capital stock and surplus of said applicant bank, paying therefor its par value plus one-half of 1 per centum a month from the period of the last dividend. When a member bank reduces its capital stock or surplus it shall surrender a proportionate amount of its holdings in the capital stock of said Federal Reserve bank. Any member bank which holds capital stock of a Federal Reserve bank in excess of the amount required on the basis of 6 per centum of its paid-up capital stock and surplus shall surrender such excess stock. When a member bank voluntarily liquidates it shall surrender all of its holdings of the capital stock of said Federal Reserve bank and be released from its stock subscription not previously called. In any such case the shares surrendered shall be canceled and the member bank shall receive in payment therefor, under regulations to be prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, a sum equal to its cash-paid subscriptions on the shares surrendered and one-half of 1 per centum a month from the period of the last dividend, not to exceed the book value thereof, less any liability of such member bank to the Federal Reserve bank.

There is no private corporation in the world where the "owners" are required by law to give have their net worth for stock which they cannot sell or transfer, which gives them no control over the management, and which gives them no right to the profit of the corporation.

If you contest any of this, identify which part you contest, lets look at it and find sources to verify it.

Otherwise, what exactly is the basis for your contention that private banks run the country or manage the federal reserve?

You have been duped.

Why you think the statute is fake?

The Federal Reserve was started by Rockafellor & JP Morgan. The same Rockafellor that started Standard Oil. The same Rockafellor who became the richest man in the world when we made him break up his oil monopoly.

The Fed was created by an act of Congress. Regardless of how it was set up, the key question is how it runs.

The Federal Reserve System is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act (signed by Woodrow Wilson), it is a quasi-public and quasi-private (government entity with private components) banking system.

Well, that's an improvement over saying that private banks own and manage the Fed. I can go with that.

Can you explain the private component? You probably can, but your understanding makes you seem naive.

The money system is tied into the banking system, because that is where money is kept. By requiring federal banks to be members of the Fed by law, they are made subject to the Fed's rules and regulations. That gives the Fed power over the banks, not the other way around. The Fed can require banks to pay in more capital, and can restrict the amount that banks can lend. Lots of state banks do not belong to the Fed because they do not want to be bound by the Fed's rules and regulations.

 

[Iriemon]

Those seem to be more OUR problem with China's currency. Not really China's problem.

China's exchange rate has been a sore subject for many U.S. policymakers who have argued that the cheap yuan has caused a flood of imports into the U.S. and E.U., and displaced millions of jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector.

And of course we can demonize the Chinese like we do Venesuela, only we won't do that to China because we are bullies.

We can't DEMAND that our bankers get to take over their treasury, like we are trying to do in the middle east and south America.

Well, in exchange for given us all the stuff we've bought from them over the past 10 years, they hold a trillion of US Govt debt. Which is subject to being devalued by inflation. So yeah if I was the Chinese I'd be worried a lot about that.

The Chinese Govt has one advantage over us -- they don't have to pander to the pass the buck generation to stay in power.

But none of those worries will ever get the Chinese to turn over their finances to the bankes. The only way that would happen is if the bankers bribed the chinese leaders to let them take over. I doubt that will happen.

The only way to do it would be to trash their economy, like we did our own in the Great Depression or this decade. Disaster Capitalism.

In other words, there is no reason for the Chinese to start their own version of our federal reserve bank where they turn over their countries finances to the bankers, which is exactly what we did, whether you get it or not.

Look deeper. If you just look for the official answer, you'll never get the truth.

And I get the feeling there was no good reason why we did it either.

We didn't do it either.

Look deeper than what? The Federal Statutes? What deeper source is their to figure out how the Fed works?