![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
http://www.relfe.com/plus_5_.html (I Want The Earth Plus 5%)
The IS-LM model wasn't developed by Keynes himself - I believe it was developed by Hicks and Hansen (the wikipedia article on IS-LM corroborates this)
"The Federal Reserve Board affects the federal funds rate by using open market operations, which is the purchase and sale of Treasury securities. If it wants to inject money into the economy, then it buys bonds, which also lowers interest rates. If it wants to lower the money supply, it sells bonds, which raises interest rates."
It seems that this would not make sense to the average reader, and requires either a more thorough explanation of the mechanism, or a link to another wiki article such as basic bond mechanics, or treasury bonds?
Overall, pretty good article. I enjoy that the criticisms and alternate POV's are presented extensively.
Fed speak - the way that Federal Reserve people speak and at the same time say little or nothing, may be funny but is actually quite a serious matter. Do please look at the links - they are real, none of this is made up. Also google "Fed speak" or "Fedspeak" and you'll see lots and lots of similar references. I know it is quite important for financial markets. It might also be important for people who are proud that they can get through Wikipedias's thick verbiage, but find they can't understand a thing the Fed says!
If I am not mistaken, the BIS is a banking institution that pre-dates the Bretton Woods financial system. In fact, the signed official UN monetary and financial conference report includes a resolution recommending the "immediate liquidation of the Bank for International Settlements at the earliest possible date" (National Archives, Record Group 56) If no one can prove otherwise I'm going to remove the nonsense about the BIS being a bretton woods institution.
Here's a huge list of links for info on many aspects of the FED. Some are consperisist webistes, some are not. Some are about the events that created the FED and some are about events the FED had major roles in.
http://minneapolisfed.org/info/policy/
http://minneapolisfed.org/info/sys/history/index.cfm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/kids/#created
http://www.thisnation.com/question/033.html
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/articles/fedprivatelyowned.htm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/Speeches/2004/200403262/default.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson
http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1095269452.php
http://www.ny.frb.org/research/epr/04v10n3/0412garb/0412garb.html
http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/toma.reserve
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h952.html
http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/frshistory.html
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm
http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdoverview.html
http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdcandc.html
Of course, by the time most people start reading this, many links will have been edited out.
See subject. Any comments? Mrmanhattanproject
We need to split the Criticism section to another article because all the links that was here was removed. There is countless articles regarding evil aspects of fed, many of then are substantial ones. And every single link has been removed. This is riciculos, wikipedia now dont have the right of exposing substantials POV, just because is a criticism. So we should split it, because a lot of people believe what is contained there is true. What have been done isnt NPOV.
This article is rediculous and at the very least the critism section in its current state should be removed. As others pointed out the propositions in this part of the article are totally biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.153.176 ( talk • contribs) on 9 January 2007.
It looks like someone recently censored this article brutally, major parts of the criticism text were erased, including the notion that Fed is actually privately owned and works for private profit, thus not federal in any way. Not to mention steeper theories, like Feds role with e.g. Rotschilds and Agnellis in creating a world economy on unlimited, but unbacked money for skyrocket profit for a select few. 195.70.32.136
Want to write some truth about....the Federal reserve? 9/11? Bin Laden? Alex Jones? Patriot Act? ANY controversial topic? FORGET IT! Within 2 minutes some STASI officer at Wikipedia will "correct you" right back again. "WE TOLERATE NO OUTRAGEOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIES". Got proof? Got documentation? Sorry, if it's not from CNN or similar "objective" sources it must be a "kooky conspiracy theory site" and therefore not good enough. For Wikipedia. You think Wikipedia belongs to YOU? To THE TRUTH? HA HA HA! Forget it. BJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjornyvan ( talk • contribs) (on 3 March 2007).
Federal Reserve Critics:These are just a tiny amount of quotes from important and serious critics of the Federal Reserve act
Critics from the Federal Reserves own ranks:
From General Law
Commercial Code)"
Past Presidents, not including the Founding Fathers
commerce."
duress of small groups of dominant men."
Founding Father's Quotes on Central Banking
(Maybe some repeats from "Founding Father's Quotes" / Information tends to converge)
Thomas Jefferson
Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
Andrew Jackson
used by...[the government] and not to be delegated to individuals or corporations"
James Madison
Misc. Sources
largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business."
his job."
if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
-- Money Facts, House Banking and Currency Committee
them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits".
foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their
homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied
by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.
This is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to
govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over
questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd."
Editorial from 1907 edition of The Brisbane Worker (Australia)
finance more complete and terrible than and Hitlerite dream. It offers no solution of world problems, but quite blatantly sets up controls which will reduce the smaller nations to vassal states and make every government the mouthpiece and tool of International Finance. It will undermine and destroy the democratic institutions of this country - in fact as effectively as ever the Fascist forces could have done - pervert and paganise our Christian ideals; and will undoubtedly present a new menace, endangering world peace.World collaboration of private financial interests can only mean mass unemployment, slavery, misery,degredation and financial destruction. Therefore, as freedom loving Australians we should reject this infamous proposal.
John Smith (nom de guerre)
21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand why user "Famspear" deleted this one.
Exerpts from an article from FAIR non profit institute for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). www.fair.org
"There is a notion -- widely believed in the mainstream media -- that while there is propaganda of the left and propaganda of the right, there is no such thing as propaganda of the center. In this view, the center doesn't produce propaganda, it produces straight news. Mainstream journalists typically explain: "We don't tilt left, we don't tilt right. We're straight down the middle of the road. We're dead center."
When mainstream journalists tell me during debates that "our news doesn't reflect bias of the left or the right," I ask them if they therefore admit to reflecting bias of the center. Journalists react as if I've uttered an absurdity: "Bias of the center! What's that?"
It is a strange concept to many in the media. They can accept that conservatism or rightism is an ideology that carries with it certain values and opinions, beliefs about the past, goals for the future. They can accept that leftism carries with it values, opinions, beliefs. But being in the center -- being a centrist -- is somehow not having an ideology at all. Somehow centrism is not an "ism" carrying with it values, opinions and beliefs."
( Quoting these three paragraphs from a 30 paragraph article never constituted copyright violation I would assume ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.144.240.250 ( talk • contribs) on 1 April 2007
I cannot understand at all the point that User John Smith (nom de guerre) and others try to make. The Federal Reserve system has been in existence since 1913 and has basicly done its job - our monetary system is stable and the nation is prosperous. Who cares how it is structured. "Stealing our money and making us slaves" ?? Where are these people coming from?? We live in the wealthiest nation on earth, have a higher standard of living than most of the world, the median household income is over $60,000 a year, 70% of the population owns their home, most families have multiple vehicles and endless consumer goods and a life of leisure when compared the the non-industrialized world. Yeah, we really need to stay up nights worrying about how the Fed operates. You must lead a miserable life...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.172.212 ( talk • contribs) on 20 April 2007
Hi my friend is corrupting the site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Us1 ( talk • contribs) on 24 April 2007
The criticisms section of this article is fairly well covered, but I don't see much information, or links to information, which counters those criticisms. For the sake of balance, that'd be nice to see. Otherwise, it gives the impression that most of the criticisms are correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.75.235.33 ( talk • contribs) on 4 May 2007.
I added a new section for Zeitgeist the movie, feel free to add more or remove some parts if they're not on topic enough.
hilarious! what the hell does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.69.161 ( talk) 18:45, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
What's with the conspiracy theory in the oHistory section? It starts on March 22 with a single ip-address, and then blooms there after with a different ip-address.
Much of what is considered "conspiracy theory" is based in fact... do your homework.
Information about the system is parroted word for word from their official website. Is there really NO OTHER information ANYWHERE about it. Are bankers and economists singularily averse to participate in the Wikipedia? Eva Jlassi 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Much of the lack of citation has to do with the sources being so biased. So instead of quote the biased source used, someone put a citation needed link. It seems like whole article is written by a goldbug right-wing libertarian. 24.107.179.83 15:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=5355374476580235299&q=Freedom+To+Fascism.&total=1219&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.129.55.26 (
talk)
11:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"Government of the People, by the Banks, for the Banks." —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.224.81.234 (
talk)
10:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it not notable that a population that is 5% of the US population controls 100% of the seats of the BoG in the Fed? I simply want to make this statement: All current members of the Board of Governers are Jewish. This is notable and accurate and should be included. I will wait 24 hrs to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but isn't it a preposterous assertion with no citation to any source? Please don't just assume its truth. Tom Cod ( talk) 00:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh: We are discussing your material on Jewish people and the Federal Reserve System, not the rest of the material in the article. Even if nothing else in the article were sourced at all, that would not change the fact that your material must conform to Wikipedia rules. Although it may seem unfair, we do not have to justify the rest of the article.
Citing the rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View and No Original Research does not constitute raising a "red herring," and does not constitute a "lame" or "lazy" anything. And no one has mentioned anything about "Wikipedia skills" except you yourself.
No one has "side-stepped" your argument. I addressed your argument directly, and I demonstrated that you are pushing your own point of view about Jewish people and the Federal Reserve System. Pushing your own point of view in a Wikipedia article in this way violates the Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View.
And just to clarify a bit, I and other Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to avoid "completely side-stepping your main points" if we choose to do so. We are here to edit Wikipedia, not to answer your points to your satisfaction.
Your statement that you "just wanted to make a point that Jewish identity would still be the most statistically anomalous common denominator (that you mentioned) among the current members of the Fed" is illustrative of my earlier points. Wikipedia is not the proper place for you to try to make your point. Wikipedia is not the proper place to publish your theories or beliefs about Jewish people and the Federal Reserve System. There are plenty of avenues on the internet for that.
Please re-read your own comments, the comments of other editors, and the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 05:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, the Woodrow Wilson material has been added, along with some weasel worded "Many Scholars claim" material. I have moved the material to here for discussion:
Yours, Famspear ( talk) 19:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a link to The Money Masters (conspiracy film) and also added some counterarguments to that article (see The Money Masters / Criticism). The article about the film was a bit lopsided. If any experts of The Fed want to review that section or add corrections or references, your contributions would be most welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekonomics geek ( talk • contribs) 08:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Update: The Criticism section was deleted from The Money Masters. The deleter may have a point in that an encyclopedia should not outright criticize things. I could of course blog the criticism instead and cite it here, as seems to be Wikipedia's fashion, but it's not really my type of activity. From the point of view of someone who actually studied economics, the claims in the film are quite wrong, but the film is not notable enough to have received wide professional review elsewhere. It seems to have a cult-like following among some amateurs and conspiracy theorists though. Ekonomics geek ( talk) 01:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I object to the statement contained in the text, which reads: The early national banking system had two main weaknesses, an "inelastic" currency and a lack of liquidity. National bank currency was considered inelastic because it was based on the fluctuating value of U.S. Treasury bonds rather than the growing needs of the U.S. economy. It should be obvious that this is someone's point of view. I think the article should attribute this statement to someone rather than just making the statement as though it were universally accepted, which it isn't. 190.41.106.156 ( talk) 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[4] writes: At the end of each year, Reserve Banks return to the U.S. Treasury all earnings in excess of expenses necessary for operations. I think this aspect of dividend payments is very important. I'm not a lawyer and reading legalese just isn't fun for me. But perhaps someone can fix this article if a direct citation of the law can be found? -- Ekonomics geek ( talk) 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Any objection to archiving some of this discussion? Using auto-archiving?-- Gregalton ( talk) 17:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the article mentions that the Fed is a private banking system, but wouldn't the term "independent" describe the system better? Dotter ( talk) 02:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me for butting in here, but this is the exact wording from the article:
Please read the bolded language again. There is no statement there that the Fed is a "private" banking system. To say that something is "private" (in the sense of "non-governmental) is to say that it is COMPLETELY non-governmental. That's not what the article says.
The article says the System is a "quasi-public, quasi-private banking system." By definition, something that is quasi-public, quasi-private" cannot be simply "private."
Secondly, we are talking here about the entire System. The entire System has some components which are government entities, and other parts which are "privately owned" (in the sense that any regular corporation is "privately owned" -- that is, not owned by the government).
Saying that the SYSTEM is "governmental" or "private" is essentially saying that the System is "all governmental" or "all private" - and that is not only incorrect, it's meaningless.
"The Fed" is not a BANK.
Chase is a bank. Wells Fargo is a bank. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is a bank.
"The Fed" is the Federal Reserve System -- which has some components which are BANKS (and we can argue over which banks are "privately owned" and which are not) and other components which are NOT BANKS. For example, the Board of Governors is not a "bank." It's a government board. The Federal Open Market Committee is not a "bank" either.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is not "the Fed." It is PART of the Fed, though. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is not "the Fed." It is part of the Fed, though.
"The Fed" is a central banking SYSTEM -- with both governmental and non-governmental components - AND with both "bank" and "non-bank" components. Famspear ( talk) 19:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone edited the article after I started this topic. It used to say that the Fed is a private banking system. I would also like to add that Federal Reserve Stocks do not represent ownership; they represent membership. Dotter ( talk) 09:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
"Each of the Federal Reserve banks is a quasi-public (part private, part government) institution owned by the private commercial banks in the district that are members of the Federal Reserve System. These member banks have purchased stock in their district Federal Reserve bank (a requirement of membership), and the dividends paid by that stock are limited by law to 6% annually."
Part of the problem -- and it is a chronic problem that will probably never go away as long as people edit Wikipedia -- is that (as other editors have noted) the term "The Fed" has different meanings to different people. Some people use the term to mean the entire system. Other people use the term to mean ONLY the Board of Governors (a government agency). Some people use the term to mean one or more of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks. Maybe some people may use the term to refer to the member banks (which are different from the Federal Reserve Banks).
One reason that some people argue about whether the Fed is "private" or "government" is a hidden agenda: some people want to say (and this is an oversimplified summary) that "private" means "bad." Therefore, "If Fed is private, then Fed is bad."
For clarity, for precision in thinking, and for precision in the use of the English language, we should not refer to "The Fed" as being either "governmental" or "private."
For clarity, for precision in thinking, and for precision in the use of language, we probably should not even use the term "The Fed" without making clear whether we're using that term to refer to (A) The Board, or (B) the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, or (C) the member banks, or (D) the entire Federal Reserve System.
The article, as currently worded I believe, says "quasi-governmental, quasi-private." I think that is an accurate description, and much better than merely "governmental" or "private." This article is about "the Fed" in the sense of The Federal Reserve System -- the entire system.
In this sense, to argue, for example, that the Fed is "a private bank" is nonsense. It's like arguing that "the universe is a planet."
The universe contains planets. But it also contains stars, and asteroids, and black holes, and random dust, and lots of other stuff. The Federal Reserve System contains banks (including lots of private banks) and lots of other things. The fact that the Federal Reserve System contains private banks does not make the Federal Reserve System a private bank. The Federal Reserve System is not a private bank. In fact, it's not a bank, period.
The Federal Reserve System is a banking system, not "a bank." The Federal Reserve System contains government agencies (e.g., the Board of governors) AND privately owned banks (the member banks) AND privately owned (or at least, arguably privately owned) banks like the 12 Federal Reserve Banks AND the Federal Open Market Committee, and so on.
In summary, the debate about how to describe "The Fed" is in some sense a misguided debate, based in part on the imprecise use of language. Famspear ( talk) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "quasi" private. An institution is either private or it is not. "Non Profit" means they get to cover ALL operating expenses- including salaries. That's a pretty good deal for any business. "quasi public"? No such thing. People look to wikipedia for clarity, not "quasi" descriptions. Just-unsigned ( talk) 16:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
From what I've gathered about the federal reserve system so far, the system is the result of different ideas people had for solving the problem of bank panics. The system was formed because people thought government regulations were necessary to solve this problem while at the same time many people didn't want a completely government run banking system. I think this particular compromise is the result of the debate between unregulated free markets and government regulations that we americans haven't settled yet. I've heard from different sources that the federal reserve system is just that - a compromise between the 2 philosophies. The sources for this are probably available across the internet and I think it would be helpful to include information on the system as a compromise in the article. I think it's possible that the healthcare issue could end up being dealt with in the same way. We would end up with a part public, part private healthcare system. This healthcare analogy should help people to understand how something could be part public and part private.
This also leads to what the criticims of the system are. Based on knowledge that the system is a compromise, it should be easier to see why the libertarian philosophy always pops up when criticisms of the system are discussed. It's all about not liking government run programs. Bureaucracy, incompetence, etc. are usually cited. The current credit crisis helps out here because many people are saying that the federal reserve set the interest rates too low, which lead to the housing bubble. I think this could make a good case for government incompetence as a criticism of the system. ;)
I already have one source mentioning this, which is why I included it in the 'purpose' section. I copied what they said in the fed in plain english:
Hope this info helps. Analoguni ( talk) 00:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The "independent" part of the Fed exists so that it could be impartial in decision making. They say that it is "independent within government". This is so that it doesn't do things like print up more dollars every time congressmen ask for it when they don't want to tax their constituency. Analoguni ( talk) 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
speaking as a layman who wants to understand how the fed influences the economy by reducing "interest rates". this article is totally obtuse.
If someone who understood this could try to dumb it down (put jargon in context so that we understand what it means) that would be awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.94.76 ( talk) 02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I recently read a US Treasury stat that said 60 to 70% of Federal Reserve notes go overseas. I came to this article to find out how the Federal Reserve decides how much money to print for use overseas and found nothing. Did I miss it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 ( talk) 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
How many times has the fed lowered rates between meetings and when was the first time? I have researched this question and come up with nothing. Is anyone able to lead me to a web site with this information? Thanks. 71.39.251.153 ( talk) 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have seen a website that listed all the interest rate changes throughout history, but the site I cannot remember at this time. 97.100.138.223 ( talk) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no listing for the documentary of the FED : The Money Masters, Or at least any talk of it on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.77.60.237 ( talk) 12:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where to put this, so here it goes: Under "some interesting facts" at the Federal Reserve page, it reads:
"The Fed has over 11 billion in gold which is a holdover from the days the government used to back US Notes and Federal Reserve Notes with gold."
In correspondence to N.M.Sheedy from a member of the Federal Reserve Board's staff, December 4, 2007, "JPD" wrote: "The Federal Reserve owns no gold. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the only Reserve Bank that has gold in its vault, but this gold belongs to foreign countries."
The idea that the federal Reserve would hold gold in its reserves seems very strange to me becasue, as I understand it, there would have been no need for the Federal Reserve to hold gold to cover Federal Reserve Notes. If the Federal Reserve ever held gold, or holds gold now, it would be the property of the stockholders of the Federal Reserve banks where the gold is kept. The Federal Reserve never backed its federal reserve notes with gold, did it? If such gold was intended to back paper notes, it would have been the fiduciary responsibility of the U.S. Treasury. As such, the Federal Reserve could not own or hold gold to back U.S. Currency, as the gold that backed U.S. Curreny could not be owned by the Federal Reserve Banks, but rather it is held by the U.S. Treasury. Many U.S. Treasure notes were backed by gold (and others by silver), but the gold to cover them was--and still is (well, what is left of that gold)--held by the U.S. Treasury at Fort Knox and other U.S. Treasury depositories and mints.
So the questions are: Did the Federal Reserve ever hold gold to cover notes that were redeamable for gold? Is any gold held by the Federal Reserve now, or by one or more of the the regional Federal Reserve Banks? (Correspondence from the Federal Reserve Board Staff indicates that the answer is NO.)
Excellent question!!! Does any one have an answer?
Due to the size of this article, a reduction in the amount of material is needed. Therefore, I propose a split-off of the history section to its own article. A summary and link to the article will replace this section after the split. See this discussion in the talk page for more information about this decision. -- EGeek ( talk) 03:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just checking but is it nescessary to have his name linked everytime it appears in the Criticisms section. I mean Friedman is mentioned several times throughout but is only linked twice, once in Monetary Policy and once in Criticism. Also, does it have to be "Ron Paul" each time? It just feels poorly writen to see his full name every two or three paragraphs, so I have changed the first link to "Rep. Ron Paul" and replaced the others with "Rep. Paul". Correction, I used "Ron Paul" and "Paul" respectively, noting that Congressman was in front of each.
Birdman1011395 (
talk)
07:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If the Federal Reserve member banks sell their shares to other banks then should the ownership of the federal reserve be regarded as secret if this sale or other legally effective transfer is not a matter of public record ? Note I am not talking about control which is effected through the board under normal statute.
Also note this quote -->
"because a Federal Reserve Bank is not a publicly traded corporation and is therefore not required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to publish a list of its major shareholders"
from this article http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html which is an academic attempt to debunk the questioning of ownership.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.191.120 ( talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
FED wants to decrease the money supply, so it offers "cheap" money for the banks (e.g. 10% annually) - the banks "buy money" from the FED, because they can get only 5% on the market
when the options are redeemed, the banks have earned 5%
dont they increase the money supply by this 5%? (because they earned some "free money")
and what happens actually when the FED increases the money supply? money is sold to the banks cheaply (e.g. for 5%), when the banks can earn 10% on the market consequently the banks earn 5% and when they operation is redeemed, the FED earns 5% too
where does this FED 5% income go??? Agameofchess ( talk) 21:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Todays lesson is about the Federal Reserve. What is it? well, it's kind of a quasi sorta government institution but still sorta like a quasi private kinda thing. The folks that run it get real rich but don't really make a profit becuase they give some of the money they don't need back to the real government every year. Oh yeah- they also print money and send most of it it all over the world. We pay them interest for that. They took charge back in 1913 (a few years before the great depression) They generally are made up of banks- some are even US banks. The oversight is by, well, no one really. But a lot of people think they do a great job because Americans still have a lot of stuff. Glad we could clear that up. Just-unsigned ( talk) 21:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, do you think gold is pretty? I do. but the Federal Reserve doesn't think so, since gold doesn't change in value... they can't put an interest rate on gold. that's why they charge us for the printing. it all makes sense if you think about it. they make money, we pay for that money, they raise the dollar value, and then we have lot of stuff! it's a happy, never-ending system of bliss and happiness. let's keep it that way, because we can trust them for years to come.
I made some edits to clarify that each member bank holds stock in one of the twelve regional Federal Reserve banks, not in "the Federal Reserve".
In a strict sense, there is no such thing as "owning stock" in "the Federal Reserve" (in the sense of the Federal Reserve System).
As noted before, the terms "the Fed" and "the Federal Reserve" are sometimes used to refer to the entire system, other times only to the Board of Governors, and still other times only to one or more of the 12 regional FR banks. I think that even the publications of Federal Reserve System use these terms ambiguously or inconsistently.
For example, I think I remember seeing somewhere that "the Federal Reserve System is the central bank." I think that statement would be misleading. The Federal Reserve system is not "a central bank". It's a central banking system. It consists of a government agency called the Board of Governors -- which is not "a bank" at all -- plus twelve regional FR banks (which of course are banks), plus numerous member banks, plus the FOMC, etc. Something that consists of more than one bank - not to mention other thing that aren't banks at all -- cannot be "a bank" or "a central bank" in any meaningful sense.
Because there has been so much confusion that has been engendered by the usage of terminology, I argue that Wikipedia should continue to strive to be very precise in its use of language in this article. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 22:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you bring up a good point here. You also make a good point when you note that the official publications also use these terms interchangeably. So, what to do about it? I think putting a second paragraph in the intro explaining the terminology could work, maybe even have the first section be "terminology" or something like that. There may be good sources available with discussions about the terminology. Analoguni ( talk) 03:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Holy Shit, I swear every paragraph repeated something that was already explained in a previous paragraph. I don't know if this is a topic already being discussed, but I read the whole thing and it was terrible. I don't know how many different times I was told the Fed is independent in the gov, yet privately and publicly controlled or whatever the hell it was trying to say. This article needs serious revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.186.134 ( talk • contribs) on 19 February 2008.
Just sayin', just about the only views mentioned in the article are those of Milton Friedman, Ron Paul and views on their side of the spectrum. The people who wrote the bulk of the article seem to have a soft spot for libertarian economic policy. Brentt ( talk) 12:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Kind of like letting Krupp industries or any other Businesses like IBM be the sources for what they did during the second world war, or asking Blackwater and Halliburton to tell us what they are doing and how they are organizing their operations in Iraq. So much for credible insights on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.144.50 ( talk) 14:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following nonsense edit:
The "Federal Reserve Act" is of course a U.S. federal statute. Federal statutes are not "passed by states." Federal statutes are passed by the U.S. Congress, which is composed of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and (usually) signed into law by the President, etc. The "states" are not even involved in the passage of federal statutes. Therefore, to say that the Act was "not passed by enough states" is nonsensical. The statement that the Federal Reserve Act is an "illegal organization" is even more nonsensical. Famspear ( talk) 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"Member banks receive a fixed, 6 percent dividend annually on their stock, and they do not control the Fed as a result of owning this stock. They do, however, elect six of the nine members of Reserve Banks’ boards of directors"
The members DONT control the board yet they ELECT the M A J O R I T Y of the members???????? WAKE UP!!!! This article reads like it was written by David Rockefeller WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!! These people are enslaving you!!
"I have to agree that the published main article is very biased and leaves out many pertinent details regarding the current banking system of the US. To call the system a quasi private/government entity is misleading to the general public. To say that the Fed returns any "excess" after expenses to the US Treasury is of little value considering the fact that the FED is not audited, and because it is a privately held corporation that is not required to disclose financial results. In addition the Fed operates under a tax exempt status and thus pays no taxes on the profits it takes from the American People. In layman terms a private company the "FED" controls the financial system of the United States, and the US government appoints some of the Board of Directors and limits the salary caps of the Directors, however the pay for the Board of directors comes from the private entities not from the US government. A more accurate description of the system would be that the Central Bank of the United States is owned by a private entity that is not open to the public. You as an American Citizen can not invest nor participate in the profits of the United States Monetary System. The federal reserves own educational website shows the entities structure with a pyramid that places the American people at the bottom. The United States Postal Service is an example of a government agency, NASA is another the Federal Reserve System is the complete opposite of those two entities and to say quasi-government is a falsehood. The paychecks for every member of the system are paid for by the private sector not the government. There is nothing Quasi governmental about that."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.90.2 ( talk) 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is it a quasi-public (part private, part government) central state.
It is a private bank (it has owners like the Citibank) with some minor 'state influence'. Even if you would say its part private, part and government owned you can´t follow for that statement that it is 'quasi public'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.35.33 ( talk) 17:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Zven: Please review the article. Since the term "Federal Reserve System" does not really describe something that can be "owned" in the sense I think you mean it, there is no "ownership" (public, private or otherwise) of the Federal Reserve System. There is "ownership" of the Federal Reserve Banks, and there is ownership of the member banks.
First, on the member banks (like Wells Fargo, or Citibank, or the local bank down the street), the ownership records of banks are basically private, so it would be difficult to determine whether "governments" own any shares in any of the banks.
Second, regarding the twelve Federal Reserve Banks -- that would be a bit easier to determine. Each of the 12 banks is essentially owned by the member banks in its region. A list of the member banks that own each of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks might be available on the internet; I don't know.
The key point is that there is no such thing as ownership of the Federal Reserve System; you cannot have ownership of something that is not subject to being owned. You can only talk about ownership of the parts of the system that actually happen to be banks, which of course can be owned, and are owned. Famspear ( talk) 02:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Zven: OK, I see what you're asking. I have one or two college textbooks at home; maybe I can find something on that. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 14:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe include in criticism that the interest rate qualifies as usury? In America, there is a limit on the amount of interest a lender can put on a loan. Does this not apply to the money that is loaned to the government itself? I'd like this to be talked about. 69.154.11.73 ( talk) 06:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed several of the citation flags in the balance sheet section. Most of these points are covered elsewhere in this article and in annual audited financial statements. If there is a real question, then please re-flag, but I don't see why every single one of the points there should be flagged when addressed elsewhere - it's a scattershot approach.-- Gregalton ( talk) 15:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Due to the amount of criticism the Federal Reserve receives from both "mainstream" and "fringe" sources, an article specifically on these criticisms appears notable. Also, due to the size of this article, a reduction in the amount of material is needed. Therefore, I propose a split-off of the criticism section to its own article. -- EGeek ( talk) 06:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Definitely keep it here. When someone looks up Federal Reserve they can see everything. If you move it they may miss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilyn ( talk • contribs) 03:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
In addressing an issue like the Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy, it makes sense to address the "what" AND the "why" questions...it hardly seems appropriate then to separate the "why not" from the "why." Consequently, I support leaving the "Criticisms" section intact within the page. I do however support merging the "History" section into History of central banking in the United States.-- llaplue ( talk) 01:08, March 21 2008 (Bryan College) —Preceding comment was added at 05:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the criticisms of any topic should be left within that topic. Splitting criticisms from a topic almost seems as though you are hiding them. 97.100.138.223 ( talk) 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I can support the splitting of sections based on the wikipedia guidline of splitting articles that are too long which lead to readability and technical issues. I think separate articles should remain within context of the federal reserve system and the main purpose of splitting them is due to size constraints. The criticism section could maintain this since the title of the separate article is "criticisms of the federal reserve system" but splitting the history and monetary policy sections don't remain within the context of the federal reserve system if they are merged with the currently proposed sections.
For example, I think the "monetary policy of the United States" article should contain information about monetary policies since the beginning of the united states whereas an article titled something like "monetary policy of the federal reserve system" would remain within the context of the federal reserve system specifically and would stay focused on just that aspect. It would then serve as an extension of the "federal reseve system" article that was split due to technical reasons.
Similar reasoning can be used for the splitting of the "history" section. Merging the history of the federal reserve to the "history of central banking in the united states" will stray from focusing on just the federal reserve aspect. An article titled something like "history of the federal reserve system" could be appropriate if it focuses on the years leading up to the federal reserve system like the banking panics of the late 1800s and the panic of 1907 but it would also need the historical changes that the federal reserve system went through since its founding in 1913. A number of laws and acts have been created since its founding and it has evolved since 1913 and I think there is enough information about this to warrant an article separate from "history of central banking in the united states".
So, in summary, as long as they serve the purpose of extending the article to deal with readability/technical issues and the separate articles remain within the context of the federal reserve system specifically, I can support the splitting of sections. Analoguni ( talk) 00:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Section | No. Pages | Contains |
---|---|---|
History | 6 | pure text |
Purpose | 3 | list on half of a page |
Monetary Policy | 5 | half lists |
The Federal Reserve Banks and the member banks | 3 | mostly all lists |
Legal status and position in government | 1 | pure text |
Federal Reserve balance sheet | 2 | half tables |
Regulation of fractional reserve | 2 | half tables |
Criticisms | 6 | pure text |
Total* | 18 | 62 kB (pure text) |
Split: Splitting off the criticism section to maintain readability certainly seems warranted. This does NOT mean that there won't still be a Criticism section in the main artice, but rather that the Criticism section should be a summary of the Criticism article.-- Aervanath ( talk) 08:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I would oppose a split in regard to criticism. In fact, I oppose having a criticism section (See e.g., WP:NPOV#Article structure, Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode, Wikipedia:Pro_&_con_lists, Wikipedia_talk:Pro_&_con_lists, Template:Criticism-section). What I would like to see is the criticism integrated into the other topic areas of the article where appropriate for weight. Once a particular topic area becomes large enough to split, then do so. Morphh (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The section Balance Sheet shows a balance as of June 21, 2007 , which states that out of total assets $ 870,868 Mio , $ 790,439 Mio consist of U.S. Treasury-Bills, -Notes and -Bonds. However since then, the FED exchanged ca. $ 400 Billion US-Treasuries against mortgage backed securities (the toxic stuff no bank (other than the FED) wants to lend against ! ).
So, Wikipedia pretents a FED balance sheet (and by implication a backing of the US-Dollar ) which is no more!
I wonder if americans understand that their US-Dollar is now backed to ca. 45 % by mortgage backed securities ?!! 79.210.97.38 ( talk) 18:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gregalton, thanks for your answer, and oh, I see your point now. It`s not reflected in the FEDs Balance sheet. Exactly, and that would worry me some (have I just heaed someone just saiy "Enron" ? Nahh... Can not be.)
However, the simple fact is (I may be wrong, and please correct me) : a) as of e.g. Dec 26, 2007 the FED had ca. $754 billion Treasuries. b) as of now (May 2008) the FED has loaned out more than $450 billion Treasuries. Where do these loaned Treasuries come from ? If the FED does not have a hidden stash of Treasuries, not shown on it`s balance sheet, then they neccessarily must come out of the Treasuries shown on the FED balance sheet (i.e. the ca. $754 billion) .
That`s what brings me to the understanding, that the US-Dollar is now backed to ca. 50% by "private and illiquid obligations of Wall Street" .
But you are right, it`s not explicitly shown on the FED balance sheet. But still, they must come from somewhere! (My suspicion is that they don`t put it on the balance sheet because of it`s supposed "temporary nature", i.e. 28 days, rolled over for "as long as necessary", not because the explicit figures would look ugly. They also discontinued M3, because it does not contain additional information, not because the current M3 figures would look ugly, right?).
May I offer two links substantiating that : a) hxxttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=a8JhRTZjidh8 , "...The Fed has committed as much as 60 percent of the $709 billion in Treasury securities on its balance sheet to providing liquidity...". b) from a blog, but still info-taining : hxxp://bp2.blogger.com/_H2DePAZe2gA/R-Ms3GD1FAI/AAAAAAAABGs/03kuCqh5NN4/s1600-h/Ben%27s+Wallet.PNG or hxxp://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2008/03/hey-ben-whats-in-your-wallet.html respectively. Cheers from Germany, Werner. 79.210.109.64 ( talk) 16:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the sources above should suffice. I've highlighted some of the important parts and added some other info that I think will be useful. Analoguni ( talk) 05:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Under this new Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF), the Federal Reserve will lend up to $200 billion of Treasury securities to primary dealers secured for a term of 28 days (rather than overnight, as in the existing program) by a pledge of other securities, including federal agency debt, federal agency residential-mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and non-agency AAA/Aaa-rated private-label residential MBS. The TSLF is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally.
the Federal Open Market Committee authorized an expansion of the collateral that can be pledged in the Federal Reserve's Schedule 2 Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF) auctions. Primary dealers may now pledge AAA/Aaa-rated asset-backed securities, in addition to already eligible residential- and commercial-mortgage-backed securities and agency collateralized mortgage obligations, beginning with the Schedule 2 TSLF auction to be announced on May 7, 2008, and to settle on May 9, 2008. The wider pool of collateral should promote improved financing conditions in a broader range of financial markets. Treasury securities, agency securities, and agency mortgage-backed securities continue to be eligible as collateral in Schedule 1 TSLF auctions.
The Fed has committed as much as 60 percent of the $709 billion in Treasury securities on its balance sheet to providing liquidity and opened the door to more with yesterday's decision to become a lender of last resort for the biggest Wall Street dealers..."They're using up their ammunition on the liquidity and overnight interest-rate fronts," said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Jersey City, New Jersey-based Wrightson ICAP LLC, a unit of ICAP Plc, the world's largest broker for banks and other financial institutions..."There's a limit to how much the Fed can do," said Brian Sack, a former Fed research manager, and now senior economist at Macroeconomic Advisers LLC in Washington. They've been incredibly aggressive with their balance-sheet policies over the past several weeks, and that has very quickly put this capacity issue in play....The Fed may also decide as early as tomorrow to start outright purchases of mortgage-backed securities, said Vincent Reinhart, former director of the Fed's monetary-affairs decision. Some investors have been clamoring for the Fed to make such a move, and the recent measures fell short of that step...The Fed's other programs include as much as $200 billion in lending of Treasuries to primary dealers in exchange for debt that includes mortgage-backed securities, announced March 11 and provisionally set to begin March 27
The U.S. currency plunged yesterday against the euro, yen and Swiss franc, erasing a rally from March 11 when the Fed said it would lend Treasuries to financial institutions and take mortgage debt as collateral.
The program will lend up to $200 billion of Treasurys to primary dealers, a group of 20 big investment firms, for a 28-day term. The firms can put up as collateral mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which generally are seen as safe because of an implicit government guarantee. But in an unusual move, AAA-rated mortgage securities issued by banks will also be accepted. Many investors have shied away from these mortgage-backed securities because they fear defaults in the underlying assets will erode the value.
It will not accept assets that: (1) are subject to adverse regulatory classification; (2) are 30 days or more past due (60 days for mortgage notes and other consumer debt, including student loans); (3) are illegal investments for the pledging institution; or that (4) exhibit collateral and credit documentation deficiencies.
Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them. Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.
Hi, Analoguni; thanks for your work, excellent!
I've created a chart showing the asset side of the Fed balance sheet. You can see how much of the treasuries the Fed lent out over the past few months plus some other new lending trends. It is clear that an unusual amount of treasuries has been lent out, but I don't know how much of them are collateralized with mortgage backed securities. What is certain, however, is the amount of treasuries lent out, which is (in millions of dollars):
This number is calculated using the highest value for "Securities held outright" and the current value. To get the percentage of total Fed assets, just use the latest balance sheet:
So from just this, AT MOST, 28.56% of Fed assets consist of mortgage backed securities. The reason I say AT MOST is because I think it's possible that some of the treasuries have been lent out with other assets being used as collateral other than mortgages. However, there are also other things going on in the balance sheet. Just look at the term auction credt, repurchase agreements, and other loans. I don't know for sure what these funds have been invested in. Anyway, here is the chart for the asset side of the Fed balance sheet. It's pretty interesting:
Click on the image to see the source data. I've also added this image to the main article. Analoguni ( talk) 09:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, I am still reeling from the shock to learn that the US Dollae is "receives no backing by anything." (from the "Legal Tender FAQ" from Analoguni`s US Treasury reference).
So, the FED press releases are wrong ? No Analoguni, no mystery here : You are looking in the rearview mirror (done and booked), I was forward looking (announcements in the press releases). So, just be a little patient.
a) the Term Auction Facility was increased from amount outstanding $100 billion to $150 billion (press release May, 2). So your column "Term auction credit" as of May, 8 is $125 billion and will go May, 22 to $150 billion.
b) beginning March 7, the Federal Reserve initiated a series of term repurchase transactions that are expected to cumulate to $100 billion. These transactions are conducted as 28-day term repurchase (RP) agreements (press release March, 7). I looks like this is reflected in the column "Repurchase agreements". This would mean an increase from $52,250 billiom (pre March 7) to $152 billion (don`t know how fast) and the $130 billion as of May 8 is part of that.
c) Big question here: Where is the Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF), (announced press release March 11) where the Federal Reserve will lend up to $200 billion of Treasury securities through weekly auctions beginning March 27 ? Was that an empty FED-announcement ? So, we are missing here a cool $200 billion.
Btw, this is the equivalent chart in the blogosphere : hxxp://bp3.blogger.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SCnn8FVo_9I/AAAAAAAAB-Y/zDqlmohzm2U/s1600-h/FedsBalanceSheet.jpg from hxxp://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/05/non-borrowed-reserves-and-feds-balance.html . And there you have as of April 30 : a) Term auction (credit) facility $100 billion. (will go May, 8 to $125 billion and May, 22 to $150 billion.) b) Repurchase Agreements $107 billion. (will go ??? to $152 billion.) and here you see c) Term Securities Lending Facility $145 billion. (will eventually reach $200 billion)
So, the blogs show the Term Securities Lending Facility ($145 billion), as announced by the has FED it March 11 (eventually $200 billion), and you do not show it at all !! Why?? (Don`t ask me, I can not read a balance sheet but I can read an press announcement.)
Gregalton, face it : the stuff the FED takes as colateral is the stuff no one other than the FED is willing to lend against !! Werner 79.210.65.245 ( talk) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I updated the data in the balance sheet. I also added the "off-balance-sheet items" data. Analoguni ( talk) 03:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This article appears to be hugely censored, it makes no obvious mention of private ownership of the FED. 82.131.210.162 ( talk) 16:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This point has been discussed here over and over and over and over and over again. There is virtually nothing new that can be said about this. Please read this talk page in detail.
There is no such thing as "private ownership of the FED." It's a meaningless phrase. As stated over and over and over again, "the Fed" is not something that can be "owned." The Fed consists of both governmental entities and "private" entities. Some of the private entities are indeed "owned" -- and that point is already clearly covered in the article.
Saying that the Fed is a private institution merely because it contains some parts that are private is like saying that "the universe is a planet merely because the universe contains some things that are planets."
The article accurate describes "the Fed" as quasi-public, etc. Famspear ( talk) 11:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It seemed to me that some of the charts in this article (e.g. CPI and money supply) should probably use a logarythmic y-axis rather than arithmatic. Is there a reason for the way these are? Cmadler ( talk) 20:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Where does the 3.5% "Base Deposit Rate" come from? The Federal Reserve gives 0 percent return on required reserves. 67.80.122.91 ( talk) 00:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Quoting from the 'Balance Sheet' section, first bullet point in the unordered list after the graph:
The Fed has over $11 billion in gold which is a holdover from the days the government used to back US Notes and Federal Reserve Notes with gold.
I almost edited, as I was initially confused about the 'used to' part. I was expecting 'used gold to'. This is clearly what it's intended to mean, but, from the end of the sentence, inserting the word 'gold' would not work. ('used to' is used in the sense 'had done in the past')
Should this be changed? Perhaps 'used to back' --> 'backed'? Could just be me though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.251.216 ( talk) 02:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've added a very long tag. This article has grown beyond the maximum length recommended for an article. We should consider splitting the article and using summary style. I'll also add that the lead is insufficient for the length of the article, which should be 3-4 paragraphs summarizing the article. Morphh (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The Federal Reserve System owes much of its existence to the publics wide but incorrect perception that it is an entity of the federal government.
Here is a link to a U.S. court case Lewis vs. US, case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982 clearly showing that the Federal Reserve is in fact a privately owned corporation.
http://www.geocities.com/chrisforliberty/lewis.html
I encourage you to read it for yourself, but if you don't have the time, here are a few of the highlights:
A few excerpts from the opinion by Judge Poole:
"Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities.... but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."
"Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region."
"The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341 [**5] 361.
Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activities without day to day direction from the federal government."
"It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks"
And on a final note, the Fed website itself claims that it is not a for profit corporation (
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5)
Which raises one important question in my mind:
Then why (according to its own FAQ page) does it pay dividends? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.18.159 ( talk • contribs) on 14 July 2008.
You acknowledge that individual Federal Reserve banks such as the Federal Reserve bank of San Francisco or the Federal Reserve bank of Atlanta are owned by the privately owned 'member banks' of that region...
And that that is the case for all twelve of the banks of the entire Federal Reserve System.
You're saying that the largest components of the Federal Reserve System, (each Federal Reserve Bank) are owned by stock holding private member banks....
You're saying that and yet you are still trying to claim that the Federal Reserve System is not in large part owned not by our own government but by private for profit banks who are members of the system??
I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around this contradiction...
Before the Federal Reserve came into being our paper currency bore the title United States Note.
Now paper bills bear the title 'Federal Reserve Note'
Tell me...Why the change if our central bank really is owned by the United States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.18.159 ( talk) 23:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The most important institution of any country is the one that controls the credit and currency of that nation. And because of that importance I believe it is an obvious shortcoming of the Federal Reserve System that there is any ambiguity at all about who owns/is in control of it.
If it was a good system there would be no such difficulty in describing its design or function.
If the fed was really controlled by our government then there wouldn't ever be any argument by people that it isn't. No one ever goes around saying that NASA or the US Postal Service is in fact privately owned.
But all kinds of people have made that accusation about the Fed. Even you defenders of the Fed acknowledge that the Fed isn't completely public.
The cute little term you like to use is 'quasi-public'.
I seem to think that the Federal Reserve System could be better described as pseudo-public —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.114.18.159 (
talk)
00:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously just because the universe contains planets, that does not make the universe a planet. We are not retarded, thank you.
Nor do we require a lesson in prefixes, our vocabulary is just fine, thanks.
‘The twelve Federal Reserve Banks are nominally "owned" by the member banks (although that "ownership" is not private ownership in the sense with which I think you and most readers are familiar).’
Please elaborate on this if you have the time, we are genuinely curious.
It seems to me that the actual Federal Reserve banks themselves would be the most significant component of the entire system, as they regulate their districts, which are very large and encompass virtually all of the private banking sector. If this is not the case, It would be splendid if someone could present the reasons why not.
The real topic of debate here is not whether the Federal Reserve System is technically a public or private entity, for as any reader of this talk page can observe that that is a matter of contention.
People really just want to know:
1. Who wields the Fed's enormous power?
2. In whose best interest is that power emplyoed?
After further researching the matter we personally must concede to Famspear that the Fed (the whole system) is indeed technically a semi- private and semi-public system (I will not deign to use the term ‘quasi-public’ because of the inherent bias of that phrase selection: could the Fed not just as easily and accurately be described as quasi-private?)
But just because the Federal Reserve System is technically a little bit of both, that doesn’t mean that the proportion of one component’s power could not be skewed in such a way that one interest, either the public or the private, effectively nullifies the other’s influence in the entire system.
England technically has a constitutional monarchy…That would imply that the system is semi-democratic, semi-authoritarian would it not?
But as I’m sure you are aware, in such systems in the modern era, the monarch has no real say in the legislative process, no effective power. He/she serves merely as a figurehead. There is nothing monarchical about a Constitutional Monarchy. The monarchical element is purely titular.
The Federal Reserve System might technically be semi-private and semi-public but I am yet to see in this discussion page any proof that it (the Fed) is operated under the scrutiny of any sufficient governmental oversight. I mean, has the congress ever on record reprimanded the Fed for something? (Not being a smart ass here, legitimately wondering if there are any cases..) The Fed’s track record isn’t exactly immaculate. Benjamin Bernanke himself blamed the Fed for deepening the Great Depression.
And so long as there are doubts concerning this, it seems a certainty that there will be continued claims that the Federal Reserve System is a private corporation.
Though this may be literally inaccurate, the underlying point (that the fed works in the best interest of a private group not the public) does not appear to have been conclusively disproved and is one that still seems quite sensible to me. This would certainly explain many of the ills America currently suffers from at any rate.
And two questions that still linger in my mind:
Why was the Federal Reserve Act conceived exclusively by elites and why was such care taken to keep the Jekyll Island meeting secret?
And
Why does the Fed, (According to its own FAQ page) pay dividends?
No one responded to this last question and I really would like an answer if anybody knows.
We are of course aware that something under public control by no means guarantees its beneficence nor that an entity subject to private control is by necessity corrupt.
But to quote a sarcastic editor of this page,
“When has money and power ever persuaded anyone to do anything inconsistent with public motives?”
The answer of course is too often.
If anyone wants an example of what can go wrong when the government delegates a responsibility that it would be better off doing itself to private firms, I recommend you look into the American penal system and the fact that 1% of the American population is currently in prison. (This is a figure well beyond any other industrialized nation’s) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.18.159 ( talk) 23:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand that this page is not intended to be a place for discussion about a topic but merely a place to make suggestions for improving the article. And I would assume that the best way to improve any article is to make sure that it represents the unbiased truth and that there is no omission of significant, pertinent facts. But if many people disagree on 'the truth' about that topic I would imagine that it is inevitable that the discussion page descend into something of a forum with various editors making claims and positing evidence and subsequently being refuted by the contributions of other editors..Im pretty sure that would be defined as debate..and if you care to read all of this talk page, you will see that thats what most of this page has been. So i think your post reprimanding me is in itself pointless and for the record, not helping to improve the article. ; )
Yes i admit I got carried away and put in non-relevant material simply because I am passionate about this issue. Feel free to remove any or all of that, and this post too if you feel like it, I wont mind. I see that entries like this are merely pollution of the talk page and I wont be making any more of them, but I think all editors should consider the prior paragraph.
And I think I asked two questions whose answers could be used to improve the article: 1. Why was the F.R. act conceived in secret and 2. whether or not the congress has ever officially reprimanded the fed for anything. I think answers to these could be worthwhile additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.18.159 ( talk) 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No answers? So this is the clear pice of question that nobody can answer, well I guess it isn't so hard to understand, it's just as impossible to answer as it was in the manny court cases against the Federal Reserve's Tax law, as there was never found a law that stated that you was bounded to pay your taxes. -- Nabo0o ( talk) 21:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why the "purpose" of the fed is cited in this article as:
"The primary motivation for creating the Federal Reserve System was to address banking panics ... Before the founding of the Federal Reserve, the United States tended to undergo a financial crisis every decade or so. A particularly severe crisis in 1907 led Congress to enact the Federal Reserve Act in 1913." (emphasis added)
yet on the corresponding Panic of 1907 page (at the end of the causes section) it states:
"Complete ruin of the national economy was averted when J.P. Morgan stepped in to meet the crisis. Morgan organized a team of bank and trust executives. The team redirected money between banks, secured further international lines of credit, and bought plummeting stocks of healthy corporations. Within a few weeks the panic passed, with only minimal effects on the country." (emphasis added)
FusionKnight ( talk) 21:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
With the recent bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the news, I'd like to see a section on historically significant major bailouts, such as these and perhaps the crises of the early 1980's. Reading the article, I'm not even sure what section this should be a subsection of. Of course, some of these subjects may deserve articles of their own. Comments or suggestions? SkyDot ( talk) 01:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
There seem to have been regular attacks on this article, seemingly due to the film "Zeitgeist", which preaches theories related to the assumption that the Fed is privately owned. Some people are simply clipping away parts of sentences that refer to the goverment-controlled aspects of the Fed, while others are shoving in clear bias, some inserting quotes directly from the movie itself or even replacing sections with "WATCH ZEITGEIST". Should this article be semi-protected to prevent this? There have already been at least three of these incidents over the last couple of days. BlastYoBoots ( talk) 21:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
in the "Purpose" section, someone changed the first listed purpose to "to prevent banking panics" when I initially put it in as "to address banking panics". This is because the Federal Reserve uses the word "address" and not "prevent". This is an important distinction. I think the main reason the Fed uses the word "address" is because it cannot prevent bad decision making unless the United States had a completely controlled economy. Also, the Fed may fail to adaquately supervise banks so if a bank does fail and the Fed claims to "prevent" banking panics, this would be an obvious failure by the Federal Reserve System. This is why they "address" these issues and not "prevent" them. If you were to go through various Federal Reserve documentation and transcripts of hearings, you will notice frequent use of the word "address". Analoguni ( talk) 02:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to also add that in some discussions of the Federal Reserve, some people claim that the Federal Reserve is a REactive organization and not PROactive. This means that the Fed doesn't try to plan and control things, but to react to economic situations. If this REactive interpretation is correct, then using the word "address" is a more adaquate description instead of something that "prevents", which implies that it is PROactive. Analoguni ( talk) 03:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It says "create banking panics" now. That's not right. 76.124.109.242 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
I don't think the article is too long, The Federal Reserve System is very complex. The responsibility it has is vast and therefore more information in the article is helpful explaining it's history, role, and responsibility. With the recent issues involving the sub-par loan crisis, we see the fed's role growing. comment added by GustavM GustavM ( talk) 17:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I think GustavM is right. The more complex a topic is, the longer its article must be. As long as the information is relevant to the subject, there is no reason to shorten the article. Diego Alonso Cortez ( talk) 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it can still be too long regardless of complexity. Parcel some information out into sub-articles. Massysett ( talk) 15:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The chairman is listed as "Bill Clinton" -Shouldn't it be: Ben Bernanke (Feb 1, 2006- ) (posted on 9/18/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyenobite ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a topic, like much of economics, that seems overly mystified. Where does the funding for (this organization come from? The taxpayers, private financial institutions or both? The implication seems to be the latter, but this should be explained in a more obvious way. Moreover, it should be explained to what extent this central bank differs from the personal bank account of the U.S. government which I assume it isn't or is more than. Also, clearly not all capital in the U.S. emanates from this institution, just the largest portion? What is its relationship with the U.S. Treasury? Is our currency the currency of this bank? Is the federal reserve really the "Third Bank of the United States," controversies over the previous two being something I found rather obscure. It's precisely this aura of mystery, as with the Masons, that plays into the affinity the ignorant have for conspriacy theories regarding it. Finally to what extent or degree is it interconnected with the broader economy and economic trends that it can only mitigate and control in the manner of a sytem of levees and dikes? Tom Cod 07:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this wikipedia page IS a conspiracy theory, since NOBODY apparently has salient facts about what is the most important institution in a supposedly free society. So, we are all--including Congress and wikipedia--left with conspiracy theories. But, I'm sure you meant that term 'conspiracy theory" as a term of derision since you descibe is an an "affinity of the ignorant", implying that there is something YOU know they don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.164.27 ( talk) 09:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The Federal Reserve is completely self-sufficient for funding. It is run with funds it generates from interest earned in holding the federal debt. Be advised, however, that this constitutes a very small percentage of this interest, and the rest of the interest is returned to the Treasury. Stanleywinthrop 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The Fed generates income by charging banks for various services - i.e., check processing. 71.214.77.236 ( talk) 22:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The ignorant... lol. Conspiracy theorists! The fed is just confusing and oblique... nothing more! When has money and power ever persuaded anyone to do anything inconsistant with public motives. A conspiracy indeed, ignorant people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.177.23.62 ( talk) 21:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure it is pretty confusing to the uneducated such as yourself. Good luck with life..... 71.214.93.114 ( talk) 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
A new, anonymous user has been adding a link to the video Money as Debt by Paul Grignon, which has been removed by other editors. I added an admonishment on the user's talk page about referring to Wikipedia editors as "sheeple." I express no opinion (yet) on whether the link should be in the article.
I watched only the first few minutes of the video, which discusses the basic concept that banks literally create money out of thin air by making loans in the form of creation of (or increases in existing) deposit accounts. This is not a secret; its teaching is not somehow banned in schools (at least as far as I know). The concept is (or should be) taught in a college economics course on Money and Banking.
Without commenting directly on our new, anonymous user, I will say that Wikipedia does tend to attract many people who find things here and there on the internet and mistakenly believe they have "discovered" something new or nefarious or astonishing, when what they have discovered is mundane and well-known -- at least to people who have seriously studied the topic at hand.
A good policy in editing a Wikipedia article is to assume that several other editors who watch the article on a regular basis know at least as much as you do about the subject of the article. You may save yourself some embarrassment at some point. Famspear ( talk) 15:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The following verbiage by Paul Grignon from his web site illuminates his motivation:
from: http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/ProducersComments.html
Yours, Famspear ( talk) 16:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I have seen both the money masters and money as debt videos. I agree that any link to the money as debt video is not appropriate for the criticisms page because that video is not even specifically about the Fed, rather it focuses more on the fractional reserve banking and criticism of it as a whole. However I do believe that a link to the money masters video could be legitimate in the criticisms section because that video, is specifically about the Fed and its history. Whether one is sympathetic to the agenda of the filmmaker or not, it is undeniable that Bill Still goes through the history of American central banking in a very painstaking manner.
More importantly however, I think it is unfair that editors on this talk page have repeatedly assigned the term 'conspiracy theorist' to many who have illustrated contrary opinions on the nature of the modern banking system. Some editors of this page seem to interchange the term 'conspiracy theorist' with critic, and interchange the phrase 'conspiracy theory' with alternate point of view. perhaps forgetting that 'conspiracy theorist' is for the most part a pejorative term and is usually used to bring a source's credibility into question, often with the goal of dismissing the source for being 'crazy' without first allowing for a fair hearing. It is unfair to simply apply the term conspiracy theorist to any who have made criticisms or suggested altering the existing system. This to me does not hold up to the standard of WP NPOV. I think some of the editors could be more conscientious of this.
-- Mossh ( talk) 04:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is the definition, as I have understood it. And I must agree, there are certainly those, especially on the internet that do suggest ridiculous claims and explanations for ‘the real truth’ or the ‘hidden reality’ that has somehow eluded the other 6 billion of us. But sticking with your provided definition of ‘conspiracy’ (which I agree with) I can’t help but note that the circumstances by which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted fit the term ‘conspiracy’ so well, that it would be Ideally used as an example for the ‘conspiracy’ entry in any dictionary. Perhaps that could be an edit made to the history section? Maybe it could be said ‘the Federal Reserve System was birthed from a conspiracy of private bankers’?
Perhaps you can see why it is good to avoid using pejorative terms when speaking of fact, no matter how well they fit the truth…
-- Mossh ( talk) 02:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yes this is of course true, there are many loaded terms whose use will be simply unavoidable because they are the most accurate way to describe someone/something. I would say that a term like Nazi and the term 'conspiracy theorist' however, are a little different here because the term Nazi refers to a specific political party, one which sadly enough was proud of its extreme racist views and even though their views are considered by the mainstream to be evil, members of the Nazi party were probably not ashamed of them, nor would a neo-Nazi be likely to deny being one. However, someone being labeled as a conspiracy theorist might very well object to being called that and refute his status as such.
To Famspear's point above (I believe it was Famspear's) there are people who openly admit to being conspiracy theorists and certainly would have no objection to being described as such but I think that in cases where the labeling is something the author has not openly agreed with, then editors should be cautious when using loaded terminology. This may be impossible, but I think that that is at least worth considering. With my point about the Fed, I was trying to illustrate, that though the drafting of the Federal Reserve Act was by definition, precisely a conspiracy, I am fairly confident were I to edit the history section and use those terms, someone would probably remove that addition, even though it is a well known fact that the Jekyll Island meeting was precisely that. Thoughts?
-- Mossh ( talk) 07:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not that the Federal Reserve System "was conceived of by several rich guys meeting in secret away from reporters and inconvenient questions" (assuming that this is what actually happened). And the problem is not that Wikipedia editors and the public at large are somehow having trouble accepting that fact (again, assuming arguendo that it is a fact). Rather, the problem is that some people seem to think such a boring, unremarkable genesis rates the label of "conspiracy."
So, why are certain people so urgent in wanting the label "conspiracy" attached to the description of the history of the Federal Reserve System? Answer: Because these people want the reader to look past the neutral, denotative meaning of the term "conspiracy" and instead apply the negative connotative meaning of the word "conspiracy" to the creation of the Federal Reserve System -- as a way of trying to persuade the reader that the Federal Reserve System is bad.
The Federal Reserve System was created by statute -- by an Act of Congress. The public at large has no trouble accepting the unremarkable and, let's face it, boring idea that the Federal Reserve System "was conceived of by several rich guys meeting in secret away from reporters and inconvenient questions". Indeed, many or perhaps most federal statutes are conceived this way. In the end, however, the Federal Reserve Act, like all Acts of Congress, is NOT a secret. The statute was enacted through the legislative process prescribed by our Constitution -- regardless of whether it was conceived in some nefarious, secret meeting or, alternatively, on the 50 yard line at half time at the Rose Bowl.
The fact that those who oppose the Federal Reserve System are the ones straining to apply the negative connotation of the term "conspiracy" to the creation of the System is evidence that it is those very opponents -- and not the public at large -- who are the ones having trouble accepting the truth about their own critique -- the truth identified by editor Cool Hand Luke.
I agree with Editor Cool Hand Luke. The argument that the Federal Reserve System is "bad" because the idea for the System began with the Jekyll Island "conspiracy" (several rich guys meeting in secret away from reporters, etc.) is not much of a critique. And it's not much of a "conspiracy." If that "conspiracy" is how the idea for the Federal Reserve System began, then accept it. Citing the Jekyll Island meeting as a "conspiracy" in an attempt to ascribe a nefarious connotation is rather like my grandmother's attempts, when I was about six years old, to scare me with the idea that the "boogie man" would come get me if I didn't take my afternoon nap. The "boogie man" story does not scare the average six year old, and the idea of a Jekyll Island "conspiracy" for the genesis of the Federal Reserve System does not impress a psychologically normal adult. Forget about the boogie man, and concentrate on the serious critiques. Famspear ( talk) 05:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This argument began as such: I commented on editor's use of the terms 'conspiracy theorist', and 'conspiracy theory' to ridicule virtually anyone making a critique about the existing Federal Reserve System. Famspear commented back saying that it is not necessarily wrong to use this loaded term because many people in fact openly admit to being conspiracy theorists. In my response to Famspear I agreed to the accuracy of Famspear's Response, but I stressed that is still best to try and avoid using such loaded terms as much as possible because they can give a misleading impression. I then gave the example that were someone to edit the Fed page to say that the Federal Reserve Act was founded as a conspiracy, I am certain many editors would have something to say about it. I was not suggesting that that this actually be done, because of course my whole argument in the first place was that editors should NOT use these terms, or at least avoid using them as much as possible. I was merely making a counterargument to illustrate that point. It is in my opinion in the best interest of upholding the standard of WP NPOV that editors avoid using loaded terms whenever possible, unless of course the person/group/entity in question has admitted to being such loaded term (conspiracy theorist, nazi, socialist etc.)
And for the record,
If you want to say that the conception of the Federal Reserve Act was not in fact by definition a 'conspiracy' (Forget connotations here, look at the term literally), if you are not able to agree that the Jekyll Island meeting was a secret agreement among persons to achieve a legal end, (Famspear's provided definition of conspiracy) if you can't see the literal truth in that it would appear to me that you either haven't heard the Jekyll Island story, or that you are simply picking and choosing when willing to accept the term 'conspiracy', based on your personal opinion and what you are personally comfortable with. That to me is not a Neutral Point of View(I'm not pointing my finger at any one person specifically) I'm sure someone will try to debate me on that and I can't wait because I think this is the one point on the Fed where the loonies probably have enough evidence, especially from the actual participants in the meeting themselves to prove conclusively that this meeting was by definition a conspiracy.
In summary:
Just because something was a 'conspiracy' doesn't prove it was a bad thing. But because most average muggles will assume that something being a conspiracy makes it a bad thing, editors should avoid using that and similar loaded terms as much as possible.
-- Mossh ( talk) 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
> if you are not able to agree that the Jekyll Island meeting was a secret agreement among persons to achieve a legal end,
But an objective which was not achieved; the Alrich Plan was rejected. As for the creation of the Federal Reserve System (which was not the Aldrich Plan), it had been public knowledge for several years that some type of reform of the banking system was being moved towards. There was no secret plot there. The Aldrich Plan is best understood not as a hidden conspiracy but as a failed attempt by banks to respond to what were public calls for monetary reform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.15 ( talk) 22:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, the following unsourced verbiage regarding the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), a component of the Federal Reserve System, was added to the article by an anonymous user on 14 October 2008:
See [11].
I removed the material the same day. Aside from being unsourced and tendentious, the material is blatantly false with respect to the statement about oversight of the FOMC by Congress.
The FOMC was of course created by a statute enacted by Congress (the Federal Reserve Act, at 12 USC 263), and Congress could abolish the FOMC by passing another statute if the Congress were so inclined.
Not only that, the Federal Reserve Act specifically provides that the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System must appear before Congressional hearings at least twice per year regarding “the efforts, activities, objectives and plans of the Board and the Federal Open Market Committee with respect to the conduct of monetary policy”. See 12 USC 225b(a)(1)(A). The statute also specifically states that the appearances shall be:
--See 12 USC 225b(a)(2).
Regarding discussions of the FOMC, it is probably correct to say that the discussions are not subject to public disclosure under the freedom of information laws. Indeed, probably the vast majority of “discussions” by personnel of various U.S. federal government agencies are not available to the public under the freedom of information law.
The idea that the FOMC is “substantially less transparent than the CIA” (i.e., the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency), aside from being an unsourced opinion, is facially preposterous. Famspear ( talk) 17:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The following verbiage has been moved from the article to here:
First, there is no evidence that Kennedy was an opponent of the "Federal Reserve Bank." And there are 12 Federal Reserve Banks, not just one.
Second, according to the linked article on Executive Order 11110, that Order would not have "returned the issuing of dollars into the hands of the American President," etc. in the sense of "end[ing] the money-issuing monopoly of the "Federal Reserve Bank."
Third, the Federal Reserve System does not have a "monopoly" on the issuance of "money" in the United States. For example, coins are also used as money. And the largest portion of the money supply is neither Federal Reserve notes nor coins. The largest portion of the money supply is the total of demand deposits outstanding -- the deposit liabilities of banks.
Fourth, the verbiage seems to imply some connection between the Federal Reserve System and the death of President Kennedy. No sourcing has been provided for that theory.
In short, the material is in large measure unsourced -- and the Wikipedia article on Executive Order 11110 belies the assertions in the material. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 19:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Fifth, EO 11110 was not revoked until 1987, which makes no sense if we are to assume that somehow a hidden conspiratorial power had been so frightened by it as to order the assassination of a President.
This article is so full of lies and falsehoods, it's almost impossible to begin editing. Can I call on any honest person reading this, who is adept with Wikipedia, to fact-check any one major statement in this article, and change it accordingly? There are many words here, but the article would be far more honest if it were replaced with only "The Federal Reserve is a private bank." Let's start with one true fact, and build on it, rather than a thousand falsehoods from which a reader must, but cannot possibly, deduce any truth. Legalfiction ( talk) 05:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Numerous examples of unsourced commentary have been added by an anonymous user. I deleted the more egregious examples. For example:
First of all, the law does not require that the seven governors "be selected equally from all segments of society". This is what the law actually says:
--12 USC 241 (italic added).
Had the Congress wanted to require that the governors "be selected equally" from all these segments, the Congress could have written the law that way. Congress did not do so.
Second, the last statement (i.e., "They are not") is argumentative, tendentious, unsourced, and probably completely unverifiable anyway.
Some of the material that was added is actually correct, more or less, but is written tendentiously. However, maybe some other editors can get to it before I can..... Yours, Famspear ( talk) 16:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The following unsoured commentary was removed by another editor:
This is meaningless gibberish.
The Federal Reserve Act is a statute. It is an Act of Congress. In the United States, statutes are not "ratified by states." There is no requirement that statutes be "ratified by states" and, indeed, no legal procedure for doing that. The statement that "passing a bill not ratified by the states is a federal crime" is also meaningless nonsense.
There is no law or constitutional provision that says that only the United States Treasury can print money. There is no law, in the United States Code or anywhere else, that says that all money in the United States must be backed by gold and silver. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 15:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way: Federal Reserve notes are in fact printed by the U.S. Treasury, anyway. Famspear ( talk) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up: On printing of money by the states, here is the wording of the Constitution, from Article I, section 10:
This provision is indeed a restriction on the power of the states, but this is not precisely a statement that only the United States Treasury can print money. In practical effect, it may be that only the U.S. Treasury can print money -- but that is not what Section 10 of Article I says. A little hair-splitting here. Famspear ( talk) 16:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Anti-fringe kookiness |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Fringe kookinessI would ask that all the wackos, kooks and nutjobs out there stop insisting that the Federal Reserve is in any way a private bank. Badmouthing the Fed in such a way is libellous, and considering it is a government agency, could possibly be construed as treasonous as well. Put your tinfoil hats back on, and kindly return to ranting about the Council on Foreign Relations on your street-corner soapboxes and stay away from this site. --AN AMERICAN PATRIOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.91.129.6 ( talk) 22:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
|
It has been suggested that some of the information in this article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) be merged into other sections to achieve a more neutral presentation.
Does above refer to neutral presentation of that section or other sections in the article? NPOV-V-NOR 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess this comment above answers the question: And as a minor point of order, criticism sections are frowned upon per WP:NPOV. Consensus is that the criticism should be included throughout the article, wherever it is most relevant. Of course, this article could use a lot of work on that front. -FrankTobia NPOV-V-NOR 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Having a criticism section enables the criticism to not be washed away by pompous language no one can understand, through an unending stream of edits by biased parties that are on payroll to edit Wikipedia. Having a criticism section focuses the efforts of the people. This is my opinion. Wikipedia is for the people by the people. -- Campoftheamericas ( talk) 02:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a quote by Thomas Jefferson that a lot of people have used.. There is apparently no source in existence for this one:
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
I have found a website which organizes various Jefferson quotes and their sources and according to this website, there is no original source for this. See: http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Private_Banks_(Quotation)
I was able to dig up an attribution to this quote as early as 1938, which took place in the U.S. House of Representatives. See Hearings Before the Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, Seventy-fifth Congress, Third Session, on H.R. 7230, a Bill Providing for Government Ownership of the Twelve Federal Reserve Bands and for Other Purposes
This quote was place at the top of the article in the History section, with a sentence added to it that I was able to find a source for. This sentence added is:
The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating.
This sentence can actually be found in some of his original writings. He was talking about national debt and how people presently controlling government should not place a debt onto a future generation. See this sentence (in full) at: Page 229, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia By Thomas Jefferson, John P. Foley Analoguni ( talk) 02:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Some of the things Jefferson has said about this subject are on Page 68 of The Jefferson Cyclopedia linked above. Here are some quotes:
660 The idea of creating a national bank, I do not concur in, because it seems now decided that Congress has not that power (although I sincerely wish they had it exclusively), and because I think there is already a vast redundancy, rather than a scarcity of paper medium. The rapid rise in the nominal price of land and labor (while war and blockade should produce a fall) proves the progressive state of the depreciation of our medium. --To THOMAS LAW FORD ED ix 433 M 1813
On the constitutionality of a central bank:
664. BANK (U.S. Constitutionality) -- The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things 1. To form the subscribers into a corporation 2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land and so far is against the laws of Mortmain 3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands and so far is against the laws of Alienage 4. To transmit these lands on the death of a proprietor to a certain line of successors and so far changes the course of Descents 5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat and so far is against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat 6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line and so far is against the laws of Distribution 7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority and so far is against the laws of Monopoly 8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States for so they must be construed to protect the institution from the control of the State Legislatures and so probably they will be construed.
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States or to the people." (Xllth amendment.) To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. The incorporators of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution. I. They are not among the powers specially enumerated: for these are: 1st. A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, its origination in the Senate would condemn it by the Constitution. 2nd "To borrow money." But this bill neither borrows money nor ensures the borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any other money holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the public. The operation proposed in the bill, first, to lend them two millions, and then to borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be in a payment, and not a loan, call it by what name you please. 3rd To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines: yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen), which remains exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trade, but as, "productive of considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations
And there are other quotes available on the subject as well. Quotes with available sources can be very useful. Analoguni ( talk) 03:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The quote has been on the page for some time, but someone recently added material from Ron Paul's blog. I think all of this is tangent anyway, and if the quote is fake, it shouldn't be a "historical criticism." Here is the matter I removed:
Cool Hand Luke 19:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Why doesn't the article mention anything about the FAC? (Federal Advisory Council) [2] Smallman12q ( talk) 03:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Can protection be removed? There's no doubt that the IP is the same fringe-pushing user who was edit warring before. In the case of single-user edit war, the user should be blocked, but page left unprotected. Everyone else agreed on the direction of this article (see section above). Thoughts? Cool Hand Luke 23:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I have some questions. These are not from the fringe, in fact most of the events I refer to in these questions come from my public high school A.P. Economics class. These are just a few facts that to me seem to have been overlooked in the article, or not given enough attention..
Why was the 1911 Jekyll Island meeting where the Federal Reserve Act drafted kept secret from the American public?
Why were the previous two central banking systems of the United States ultimately eliminated?
(the Federal Reserve System is a central banking system)
Why did President Andrew Jackson fight so hard to rid the United States of the previous central banking system, the Second Bank of the United States?
Is President Jackson's successive paying off of the national debt a result of the elimination of the U.S. central bank of his time? (I am told that Jackson is the only President to have ever achieved this)
Why is it impossible for the Federal Reserve System to prevent the depreciation of the buying power of our earned wages? (inflation)
Why has the National Debt increased by 50 percent in the past 15 years? (now over 9 trillion dollars)
Why can't that debt ever be repaid?
Can anybody who really knows the mechanics/history of the Fed/central banking in the U.S. shed some light on some of these questions for me?
-- Mossh ( talk) 04:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks FrankTobia, yeah i sort of figured that this was maybe not the right place for this sort of thing but I was curious nonetheless--
Mossh (
talk)
23:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Should the Jekyll Island meeting be included in the Federal Act summary under the History section? It is already in the History of the Federal Reserve System article. This article also includes information on the Lewis v. United States case. -- EGeek ( talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
> Why was the 1911 Jekyll Island meeting where the Federal Reserve Act drafted kept secret from the American public?
That was 1910. The Jekyll Island meeting resulted in the Aldrich Plan which called for a system of fifteen regional central banks, called National Reserve Associations, whose actions would be coordinated by a national board of commercial bankers. Under the Aldrich Plan the regional banks would be controlled individually and nationally by bankers. This was nrejected by the Wilson administration, so it's called of pointless to wonder if there was a conspiracy behind the Aldrich Plan anyway. A failed conspiracy, perhaps. The creation of the Federal Reserve Board, appointed by the President and reviewed by Congress, defeated the Aldrich Plan.
One mistake to be avoided on this subject is that since Reagan took office there's been a steady trend towards deregulation of all forms, and this most likely has affected governmental responsibility in matters such as the coordination of the Federal Reserve, as well as much else besides. That, however, should not be wrongly projected backwards in history onto the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. These are issues which originate in a later era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.15 ( talk) 22:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
FrankTobia, I am sorry to say, but when you say the debt can be paid off you are, in fact wrong, because of one and only one thing, the application of interest by the federal reserve that is applied to the only money printed and in circulation. So that fact being true in all terms, The debt will never be able to be repaid to that which is the Federal Reserve Bank. If the debt were repaid, the money would cease to exist leaving no value in the monetary system. Frank, im sorry to say that the only banking book that is a valued resource is the book Modern Money Mechanics written in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Bank. Also, if you look at the shareholders of each Fed Bank they will all lead back to the same people, mostly located in Europe. By saying that the federal reserve bank/system does not work for profit, yet they apply interest to all loans derived from them as a source is really denying that you are credible in any way, and im not saying this as an insult, but the only reason of interest to be applied IS to make a PROFIT. Feel free to reply to this at any time or email me at randomrd@gmail.com, I will be copying this and reposting it daily to prevent editing. 71.55.122.30 ( talk) 22:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Sam Gelman
Yes it was published in 1913, because it was published BEFORE the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law as an explanation of a fractional reserve banking system. As I did not say that it was published publicly in 1913 I said it was written, as you seem to be an obsessive type about citing things, PLEASE cite your sources as to it was written or published in the 1960s. Also as you ask a few things of me in my posting I would like to kindly ask you to remove your arrogance and assumptions that you always are right. Also you didnt even comment on the subject at hand under the summary of this topic defying what you said in the other post. Feel free to reply to this at any time or email me at randomrd@gmail.com, I will be copying this and reposting it daily to prevent editing. 71.55.122.30 ( talk) 22:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Sam Gelman
I urge everyone to google and watch ZEITGEIST.-- PUNk Limited ( talk) 01:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I think Zeitgeist does need to be mentioned under criticisms. It addresses a lot of issues about the federal reserve system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.228.134 ( talk) 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Luke, I dont think you are part of the conspiracy, but i do believe that you are brainwashed BEYOND BELIEF by what you have been told by other people and not researched yourself. All of the facts in Zeitgeist can be cited with the book Modern Money Mechanics written in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Bank, and deserves a spot under criticisms. Zeitgeist the movie being a "fringe source" as you say has no definition in itself, so therefore it is an opinion and deserves no spot in decided weather an article is encyclopedia worthy or not. Feel free to reply to this at any time or email me at randomrd@gmail.com, I will be copying this and reposting it daily to prevent editing. 71.55.122.30 ( talk) 04:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Sam Gelman
Luke - is it not a scary thought to accept that information is only deemed suitable as a source by 'mainstream sources'? Who defines 'mainstream'? Disney? If one can cross-reference and confirm facts, then why would it be looked over? Seems dangerous to me. I thought democracy was all about open thought and information exchange amoung the people for the betterment of everyone, junk included. Not saying this is junk, but I will watch it now and I will check out facts. :)
I understand the encyclopedic aspect and can appreciate that, alot of people do great things here. I haven't watched this yet, however from what info I have gleaned it would seem to me that it would at least deserve a mention. I mean it's not like you couldn't be sure the correct information about the Federal Reserve System was posted in THAT criticism section, looking at what's there currently...well..I see alot of name calling, yet no one uses the section to really direct people to the truth on any particular subject covered in the movie. If in fact we are building an online encyclopedia, then maybe things should blend somewhat in different ways - the criticism section seems to be exactly for this, leading the viewer to continue down a path of learning all sides, or as many sides of a subject as they would like. Thanks and all the best.
I think there's an excessive number of quotes in this section. By my count, the current version has 22 seperate quotes, before the New York sub section begins! At least one of those quotes is repeated, so figure 21 seperate quotes. The section starts off with a nice header, talking about "one end of the spectrum", but then it totally loses focus. Several of the quotes seem to directed more towards the concept of a central bank, or related to the founding of the current Federal Reserve System.
There's been some edit-warring over the quotes of late, hence bringing this up here. This section really needs to get cleaned up and focused. Rather than a large number of quotes that say the same thing, provide the criticism and use a few quotes as highlights. As it's currently written, the section is difficult to read, sloppy and doesn't provide the type of meaningful information it could. Ravensfire2002 ( talk) 23:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
How come this isnt a citable source and doesnt have a wikipedia page? This was written by the creators of the Federal eserve Bank(which is not the system, the system is a Fractal Reserve Banking System as defined in this book.) Feel free to reply to this at any time or email me at randomrd@gmail.com, I will be copying this and reposting it daily to prevent editing. 71.55.122.30 ( talk) 05:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Sam Gelman
I just noticed the word "might" in the Inflation and the economy section. Could we please remove that word since it gives the necessary qualifications for the result to be achieved. Thx. Wikiiscool123 ( talk) 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes thank you for copying the section. It sounds as if inflation only possibly has detrimental effects when the detrimental effects of inflation are obvious and well documented. I think that it is a mitigating term that doesn't really help and makes Wikipedia seem less reliable and more conjecture.
Wikiiscool123 ( talk) 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
mpb
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
http://www.relfe.com/plus_5_.html (I Want The Earth Plus 5%)
The IS-LM model wasn't developed by Keynes himself - I believe it was developed by Hicks and Hansen (the wikipedia article on IS-LM corroborates this)
"The Federal Reserve Board affects the federal funds rate by using open market operations, which is the purchase and sale of Treasury securities. If it wants to inject money into the economy, then it buys bonds, which also lowers interest rates. If it wants to lower the money supply, it sells bonds, which raises interest rates."
It seems that this would not make sense to the average reader, and requires either a more thorough explanation of the mechanism, or a link to another wiki article such as basic bond mechanics, or treasury bonds?
Overall, pretty good article. I enjoy that the criticisms and alternate POV's are presented extensively.
Fed speak - the way that Federal Reserve people speak and at the same time say little or nothing, may be funny but is actually quite a serious matter. Do please look at the links - they are real, none of this is made up. Also google "Fed speak" or "Fedspeak" and you'll see lots and lots of similar references. I know it is quite important for financial markets. It might also be important for people who are proud that they can get through Wikipedias's thick verbiage, but find they can't understand a thing the Fed says!
If I am not mistaken, the BIS is a banking institution that pre-dates the Bretton Woods financial system. In fact, the signed official UN monetary and financial conference report includes a resolution recommending the "immediate liquidation of the Bank for International Settlements at the earliest possible date" (National Archives, Record Group 56) If no one can prove otherwise I'm going to remove the nonsense about the BIS being a bretton woods institution.
Here's a huge list of links for info on many aspects of the FED. Some are consperisist webistes, some are not. Some are about the events that created the FED and some are about events the FED had major roles in.
http://minneapolisfed.org/info/policy/
http://minneapolisfed.org/info/sys/history/index.cfm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/kids/#created
http://www.thisnation.com/question/033.html
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/articles/fedprivatelyowned.htm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/Speeches/2004/200403262/default.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson
http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1095269452.php
http://www.ny.frb.org/research/epr/04v10n3/0412garb/0412garb.html
http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/toma.reserve
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h952.html
http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/frshistory.html
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm
http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdoverview.html
http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdcandc.html
Of course, by the time most people start reading this, many links will have been edited out.
See subject. Any comments? Mrmanhattanproject
We need to split the Criticism section to another article because all the links that was here was removed. There is countless articles regarding evil aspects of fed, many of then are substantial ones. And every single link has been removed. This is riciculos, wikipedia now dont have the right of exposing substantials POV, just because is a criticism. So we should split it, because a lot of people believe what is contained there is true. What have been done isnt NPOV.
This article is rediculous and at the very least the critism section in its current state should be removed. As others pointed out the propositions in this part of the article are totally biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.153.176 ( talk • contribs) on 9 January 2007.
It looks like someone recently censored this article brutally, major parts of the criticism text were erased, including the notion that Fed is actually privately owned and works for private profit, thus not federal in any way. Not to mention steeper theories, like Feds role with e.g. Rotschilds and Agnellis in creating a world economy on unlimited, but unbacked money for skyrocket profit for a select few. 195.70.32.136
Want to write some truth about....the Federal reserve? 9/11? Bin Laden? Alex Jones? Patriot Act? ANY controversial topic? FORGET IT! Within 2 minutes some STASI officer at Wikipedia will "correct you" right back again. "WE TOLERATE NO OUTRAGEOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIES". Got proof? Got documentation? Sorry, if it's not from CNN or similar "objective" sources it must be a "kooky conspiracy theory site" and therefore not good enough. For Wikipedia. You think Wikipedia belongs to YOU? To THE TRUTH? HA HA HA! Forget it. BJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjornyvan ( talk • contribs) (on 3 March 2007).
Federal Reserve Critics:These are just a tiny amount of quotes from important and serious critics of the Federal Reserve act
Critics from the Federal Reserves own ranks:
From General Law
Commercial Code)"
Past Presidents, not including the Founding Fathers
commerce."
duress of small groups of dominant men."
Founding Father's Quotes on Central Banking
(Maybe some repeats from "Founding Father's Quotes" / Information tends to converge)
Thomas Jefferson
Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
Andrew Jackson
used by...[the government] and not to be delegated to individuals or corporations"
James Madison
Misc. Sources
largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business."
his job."
if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
-- Money Facts, House Banking and Currency Committee
them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits".
foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their
homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied
by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.
This is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to
govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over
questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd."
Editorial from 1907 edition of The Brisbane Worker (Australia)
finance more complete and terrible than and Hitlerite dream. It offers no solution of world problems, but quite blatantly sets up controls which will reduce the smaller nations to vassal states and make every government the mouthpiece and tool of International Finance. It will undermine and destroy the democratic institutions of this country - in fact as effectively as ever the Fascist forces could have done - pervert and paganise our Christian ideals; and will undoubtedly present a new menace, endangering world peace.World collaboration of private financial interests can only mean mass unemployment, slavery, misery,degredation and financial destruction. Therefore, as freedom loving Australians we should reject this infamous proposal.
John Smith (nom de guerre)
21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand why user "Famspear" deleted this one.
Exerpts from an article from FAIR non profit institute for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). www.fair.org
"There is a notion -- widely believed in the mainstream media -- that while there is propaganda of the left and propaganda of the right, there is no such thing as propaganda of the center. In this view, the center doesn't produce propaganda, it produces straight news. Mainstream journalists typically explain: "We don't tilt left, we don't tilt right. We're straight down the middle of the road. We're dead center."
When mainstream journalists tell me during debates that "our news doesn't reflect bias of the left or the right," I ask them if they therefore admit to reflecting bias of the center. Journalists react as if I've uttered an absurdity: "Bias of the center! What's that?"
It is a strange concept to many in the media. They can accept that conservatism or rightism is an ideology that carries with it certain values and opinions, beliefs about the past, goals for the future. They can accept that leftism carries with it values, opinions, beliefs. But being in the center -- being a centrist -- is somehow not having an ideology at all. Somehow centrism is not an "ism" carrying with it values, opinions and beliefs."
( Quoting these three paragraphs from a 30 paragraph article never constituted copyright violation I would assume ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.144.240.250 ( talk • contribs) on 1 April 2007
I cannot understand at all the point that User John Smith (nom de guerre) and others try to make. The Federal Reserve system has been in existence since 1913 and has basicly done its job - our monetary system is stable and the nation is prosperous. Who cares how it is structured. "Stealing our money and making us slaves" ?? Where are these people coming from?? We live in the wealthiest nation on earth, have a higher standard of living than most of the world, the median household income is over $60,000 a year, 70% of the population owns their home, most families have multiple vehicles and endless consumer goods and a life of leisure when compared the the non-industrialized world. Yeah, we really need to stay up nights worrying about how the Fed operates. You must lead a miserable life...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.172.212 ( talk • contribs) on 20 April 2007
Hi my friend is corrupting the site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Us1 ( talk • contribs) on 24 April 2007
The criticisms section of this article is fairly well covered, but I don't see much information, or links to information, which counters those criticisms. For the sake of balance, that'd be nice to see. Otherwise, it gives the impression that most of the criticisms are correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.75.235.33 ( talk • contribs) on 4 May 2007.
I added a new section for Zeitgeist the movie, feel free to add more or remove some parts if they're not on topic enough.
hilarious! what the hell does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.69.161 ( talk) 18:45, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
What's with the conspiracy theory in the oHistory section? It starts on March 22 with a single ip-address, and then blooms there after with a different ip-address.
Much of what is considered "conspiracy theory" is based in fact... do your homework.
Information about the system is parroted word for word from their official website. Is there really NO OTHER information ANYWHERE about it. Are bankers and economists singularily averse to participate in the Wikipedia? Eva Jlassi 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Much of the lack of citation has to do with the sources being so biased. So instead of quote the biased source used, someone put a citation needed link. It seems like whole article is written by a goldbug right-wing libertarian. 24.107.179.83 15:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=5355374476580235299&q=Freedom+To+Fascism.&total=1219&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.129.55.26 (
talk)
11:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"Government of the People, by the Banks, for the Banks." —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.224.81.234 (
talk)
10:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it not notable that a population that is 5% of the US population controls 100% of the seats of the BoG in the Fed? I simply want to make this statement: All current members of the Board of Governers are Jewish. This is notable and accurate and should be included. I will wait 24 hrs to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but isn't it a preposterous assertion with no citation to any source? Please don't just assume its truth. Tom Cod ( talk) 00:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh: We are discussing your material on Jewish people and the Federal Reserve System, not the rest of the material in the article. Even if nothing else in the article were sourced at all, that would not change the fact that your material must conform to Wikipedia rules. Although it may seem unfair, we do not have to justify the rest of the article.
Citing the rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View and No Original Research does not constitute raising a "red herring," and does not constitute a "lame" or "lazy" anything. And no one has mentioned anything about "Wikipedia skills" except you yourself.
No one has "side-stepped" your argument. I addressed your argument directly, and I demonstrated that you are pushing your own point of view about Jewish people and the Federal Reserve System. Pushing your own point of view in a Wikipedia article in this way violates the Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View.
And just to clarify a bit, I and other Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to avoid "completely side-stepping your main points" if we choose to do so. We are here to edit Wikipedia, not to answer your points to your satisfaction.
Your statement that you "just wanted to make a point that Jewish identity would still be the most statistically anomalous common denominator (that you mentioned) among the current members of the Fed" is illustrative of my earlier points. Wikipedia is not the proper place for you to try to make your point. Wikipedia is not the proper place to publish your theories or beliefs about Jewish people and the Federal Reserve System. There are plenty of avenues on the internet for that.
Please re-read your own comments, the comments of other editors, and the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 05:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, the Woodrow Wilson material has been added, along with some weasel worded "Many Scholars claim" material. I have moved the material to here for discussion:
Yours, Famspear ( talk) 19:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a link to The Money Masters (conspiracy film) and also added some counterarguments to that article (see The Money Masters / Criticism). The article about the film was a bit lopsided. If any experts of The Fed want to review that section or add corrections or references, your contributions would be most welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekonomics geek ( talk • contribs) 08:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Update: The Criticism section was deleted from The Money Masters. The deleter may have a point in that an encyclopedia should not outright criticize things. I could of course blog the criticism instead and cite it here, as seems to be Wikipedia's fashion, but it's not really my type of activity. From the point of view of someone who actually studied economics, the claims in the film are quite wrong, but the film is not notable enough to have received wide professional review elsewhere. It seems to have a cult-like following among some amateurs and conspiracy theorists though. Ekonomics geek ( talk) 01:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I object to the statement contained in the text, which reads: The early national banking system had two main weaknesses, an "inelastic" currency and a lack of liquidity. National bank currency was considered inelastic because it was based on the fluctuating value of U.S. Treasury bonds rather than the growing needs of the U.S. economy. It should be obvious that this is someone's point of view. I think the article should attribute this statement to someone rather than just making the statement as though it were universally accepted, which it isn't. 190.41.106.156 ( talk) 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[4] writes: At the end of each year, Reserve Banks return to the U.S. Treasury all earnings in excess of expenses necessary for operations. I think this aspect of dividend payments is very important. I'm not a lawyer and reading legalese just isn't fun for me. But perhaps someone can fix this article if a direct citation of the law can be found? -- Ekonomics geek ( talk) 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Any objection to archiving some of this discussion? Using auto-archiving?-- Gregalton ( talk) 17:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the article mentions that the Fed is a private banking system, but wouldn't the term "independent" describe the system better? Dotter ( talk) 02:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me for butting in here, but this is the exact wording from the article:
Please read the bolded language again. There is no statement there that the Fed is a "private" banking system. To say that something is "private" (in the sense of "non-governmental) is to say that it is COMPLETELY non-governmental. That's not what the article says.
The article says the System is a "quasi-public, quasi-private banking system." By definition, something that is quasi-public, quasi-private" cannot be simply "private."
Secondly, we are talking here about the entire System. The entire System has some components which are government entities, and other parts which are "privately owned" (in the sense that any regular corporation is "privately owned" -- that is, not owned by the government).
Saying that the SYSTEM is "governmental" or "private" is essentially saying that the System is "all governmental" or "all private" - and that is not only incorrect, it's meaningless.
"The Fed" is not a BANK.
Chase is a bank. Wells Fargo is a bank. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is a bank.
"The Fed" is the Federal Reserve System -- which has some components which are BANKS (and we can argue over which banks are "privately owned" and which are not) and other components which are NOT BANKS. For example, the Board of Governors is not a "bank." It's a government board. The Federal Open Market Committee is not a "bank" either.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is not "the Fed." It is PART of the Fed, though. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is not "the Fed." It is part of the Fed, though.
"The Fed" is a central banking SYSTEM -- with both governmental and non-governmental components - AND with both "bank" and "non-bank" components. Famspear ( talk) 19:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone edited the article after I started this topic. It used to say that the Fed is a private banking system. I would also like to add that Federal Reserve Stocks do not represent ownership; they represent membership. Dotter ( talk) 09:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
"Each of the Federal Reserve banks is a quasi-public (part private, part government) institution owned by the private commercial banks in the district that are members of the Federal Reserve System. These member banks have purchased stock in their district Federal Reserve bank (a requirement of membership), and the dividends paid by that stock are limited by law to 6% annually."
Part of the problem -- and it is a chronic problem that will probably never go away as long as people edit Wikipedia -- is that (as other editors have noted) the term "The Fed" has different meanings to different people. Some people use the term to mean the entire system. Other people use the term to mean ONLY the Board of Governors (a government agency). Some people use the term to mean one or more of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks. Maybe some people may use the term to refer to the member banks (which are different from the Federal Reserve Banks).
One reason that some people argue about whether the Fed is "private" or "government" is a hidden agenda: some people want to say (and this is an oversimplified summary) that "private" means "bad." Therefore, "If Fed is private, then Fed is bad."
For clarity, for precision in thinking, and for precision in the use of the English language, we should not refer to "The Fed" as being either "governmental" or "private."
For clarity, for precision in thinking, and for precision in the use of language, we probably should not even use the term "The Fed" without making clear whether we're using that term to refer to (A) The Board, or (B) the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, or (C) the member banks, or (D) the entire Federal Reserve System.
The article, as currently worded I believe, says "quasi-governmental, quasi-private." I think that is an accurate description, and much better than merely "governmental" or "private." This article is about "the Fed" in the sense of The Federal Reserve System -- the entire system.
In this sense, to argue, for example, that the Fed is "a private bank" is nonsense. It's like arguing that "the universe is a planet."
The universe contains planets. But it also contains stars, and asteroids, and black holes, and random dust, and lots of other stuff. The Federal Reserve System contains banks (including lots of private banks) and lots of other things. The fact that the Federal Reserve System contains private banks does not make the Federal Reserve System a private bank. The Federal Reserve System is not a private bank. In fact, it's not a bank, period.
The Federal Reserve System is a banking system, not "a bank." The Federal Reserve System contains government agencies (e.g., the Board of governors) AND privately owned banks (the member banks) AND privately owned (or at least, arguably privately owned) banks like the 12 Federal Reserve Banks AND the Federal Open Market Committee, and so on.
In summary, the debate about how to describe "The Fed" is in some sense a misguided debate, based in part on the imprecise use of language. Famspear ( talk) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "quasi" private. An institution is either private or it is not. "Non Profit" means they get to cover ALL operating expenses- including salaries. That's a pretty good deal for any business. "quasi public"? No such thing. People look to wikipedia for clarity, not "quasi" descriptions. Just-unsigned ( talk) 16:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
From what I've gathered about the federal reserve system so far, the system is the result of different ideas people had for solving the problem of bank panics. The system was formed because people thought government regulations were necessary to solve this problem while at the same time many people didn't want a completely government run banking system. I think this particular compromise is the result of the debate between unregulated free markets and government regulations that we americans haven't settled yet. I've heard from different sources that the federal reserve system is just that - a compromise between the 2 philosophies. The sources for this are probably available across the internet and I think it would be helpful to include information on the system as a compromise in the article. I think it's possible that the healthcare issue could end up being dealt with in the same way. We would end up with a part public, part private healthcare system. This healthcare analogy should help people to understand how something could be part public and part private.
This also leads to what the criticims of the system are. Based on knowledge that the system is a compromise, it should be easier to see why the libertarian philosophy always pops up when criticisms of the system are discussed. It's all about not liking government run programs. Bureaucracy, incompetence, etc. are usually cited. The current credit crisis helps out here because many people are saying that the federal reserve set the interest rates too low, which lead to the housing bubble. I think this could make a good case for government incompetence as a criticism of the system. ;)
I already have one source mentioning this, which is why I included it in the 'purpose' section. I copied what they said in the fed in plain english:
Hope this info helps. Analoguni ( talk) 00:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The "independent" part of the Fed exists so that it could be impartial in decision making. They say that it is "independent within government". This is so that it doesn't do things like print up more dollars every time congressmen ask for it when they don't want to tax their constituency. Analoguni ( talk) 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
speaking as a layman who wants to understand how the fed influences the economy by reducing "interest rates". this article is totally obtuse.
If someone who understood this could try to dumb it down (put jargon in context so that we understand what it means) that would be awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.94.76 ( talk) 02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I recently read a US Treasury stat that said 60 to 70% of Federal Reserve notes go overseas. I came to this article to find out how the Federal Reserve decides how much money to print for use overseas and found nothing. Did I miss it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 ( talk) 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
How many times has the fed lowered rates between meetings and when was the first time? I have researched this question and come up with nothing. Is anyone able to lead me to a web site with this information? Thanks. 71.39.251.153 ( talk) 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have seen a website that listed all the interest rate changes throughout history, but the site I cannot remember at this time. 97.100.138.223 ( talk) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no listing for the documentary of the FED : The Money Masters, Or at least any talk of it on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.77.60.237 ( talk) 12:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where to put this, so here it goes: Under "some interesting facts" at the Federal Reserve page, it reads:
"The Fed has over 11 billion in gold which is a holdover from the days the government used to back US Notes and Federal Reserve Notes with gold."
In correspondence to N.M.Sheedy from a member of the Federal Reserve Board's staff, December 4, 2007, "JPD" wrote: "The Federal Reserve owns no gold. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the only Reserve Bank that has gold in its vault, but this gold belongs to foreign countries."
The idea that the federal Reserve would hold gold in its reserves seems very strange to me becasue, as I understand it, there would have been no need for the Federal Reserve to hold gold to cover Federal Reserve Notes. If the Federal Reserve ever held gold, or holds gold now, it would be the property of the stockholders of the Federal Reserve banks where the gold is kept. The Federal Reserve never backed its federal reserve notes with gold, did it? If such gold was intended to back paper notes, it would have been the fiduciary responsibility of the U.S. Treasury. As such, the Federal Reserve could not own or hold gold to back U.S. Currency, as the gold that backed U.S. Curreny could not be owned by the Federal Reserve Banks, but rather it is held by the U.S. Treasury. Many U.S. Treasure notes were backed by gold (and others by silver), but the gold to cover them was--and still is (well, what is left of that gold)--held by the U.S. Treasury at Fort Knox and other U.S. Treasury depositories and mints.
So the questions are: Did the Federal Reserve ever hold gold to cover notes that were redeamable for gold? Is any gold held by the Federal Reserve now, or by one or more of the the regional Federal Reserve Banks? (Correspondence from the Federal Reserve Board Staff indicates that the answer is NO.)
Excellent question!!! Does any one have an answer?
Due to the size of this article, a reduction in the amount of material is needed. Therefore, I propose a split-off of the history section to its own article. A summary and link to the article will replace this section after the split. See this discussion in the talk page for more information about this decision. -- EGeek ( talk) 03:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just checking but is it nescessary to have his name linked everytime it appears in the Criticisms section. I mean Friedman is mentioned several times throughout but is only linked twice, once in Monetary Policy and once in Criticism. Also, does it have to be "Ron Paul" each time? It just feels poorly writen to see his full name every two or three paragraphs, so I have changed the first link to "Rep. Ron Paul" and replaced the others with "Rep. Paul". Correction, I used "Ron Paul" and "Paul" respectively, noting that Congressman was in front of each.
Birdman1011395 (
talk)
07:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If the Federal Reserve member banks sell their shares to other banks then should the ownership of the federal reserve be regarded as secret if this sale or other legally effective transfer is not a matter of public record ? Note I am not talking about control which is effected through the board under normal statute.
Also note this quote -->
"because a Federal Reserve Bank is not a publicly traded corporation and is therefore not required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to publish a list of its major shareholders"
from this article http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html which is an academic attempt to debunk the questioning of ownership.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.191.120 ( talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
FED wants to decrease the money supply, so it offers "cheap" money for the banks (e.g. 10% annually) - the banks "buy money" from the FED, because they can get only 5% on the market
when the options are redeemed, the banks have earned 5%
dont they increase the money supply by this 5%? (because they earned some "free money")
and what happens actually when the FED increases the money supply? money is sold to the banks cheaply (e.g. for 5%), when the banks can earn 10% on the market consequently the banks earn 5% and when they operation is redeemed, the FED earns 5% too
where does this FED 5% income go??? Agameofchess ( talk) 21:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Todays lesson is about the Federal Reserve. What is it? well, it's kind of a quasi sorta government institution but still sorta like a quasi private kinda thing. The folks that run it get real rich but don't really make a profit becuase they give some of the money they don't need back to the real government every year. Oh yeah- they also print money and send most of it it all over the world. We pay them interest for that. They took charge back in 1913 (a few years before the great depression) They generally are made up of banks- some are even US banks. The oversight is by, well, no one really. But a lot of people think they do a great job because Americans still have a lot of stuff. Glad we could clear that up. Just-unsigned ( talk) 21:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, do you think gold is pretty? I do. but the Federal Reserve doesn't think so, since gold doesn't change in value... they can't put an interest rate on gold. that's why they charge us for the printing. it all makes sense if you think about it. they make money, we pay for that money, they raise the dollar value, and then we have lot of stuff! it's a happy, never-ending system of bliss and happiness. let's keep it that way, because we can trust them for years to come.
I made some edits to clarify that each member bank holds stock in one of the twelve regional Federal Reserve banks, not in "the Federal Reserve".
In a strict sense, there is no such thing as "owning stock" in "the Federal Reserve" (in the sense of the Federal Reserve System).
As noted before, the terms "the Fed" and "the Federal Reserve" are sometimes used to refer to the entire system, other times only to the Board of Governors, and still other times only to one or more of the 12 regional FR banks. I think that even the publications of Federal Reserve System use these terms ambiguously or inconsistently.
For example, I think I remember seeing somewhere that "the Federal Reserve System is the central bank." I think that statement would be misleading. The Federal Reserve system is not "a central bank". It's a central banking system. It consists of a government agency called the Board of Governors -- which is not "a bank" at all -- plus twelve regional FR banks (which of course are banks), plus numerous member banks, plus the FOMC, etc. Something that consists of more than one bank - not to mention other thing that aren't banks at all -- cannot be "a bank" or "a central bank" in any meaningful sense.
Because there has been so much confusion that has been engendered by the usage of terminology, I argue that Wikipedia should continue to strive to be very precise in its use of language in this article. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 22:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you bring up a good point here. You also make a good point when you note that the official publications also use these terms interchangeably. So, what to do about it? I think putting a second paragraph in the intro explaining the terminology could work, maybe even have the first section be "terminology" or something like that. There may be good sources available with discussions about the terminology. Analoguni ( talk) 03:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Holy Shit, I swear every paragraph repeated something that was already explained in a previous paragraph. I don't know if this is a topic already being discussed, but I read the whole thing and it was terrible. I don't know how many different times I was told the Fed is independent in the gov, yet privately and publicly controlled or whatever the hell it was trying to say. This article needs serious revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.186.134 ( talk • contribs) on 19 February 2008.
Just sayin', just about the only views mentioned in the article are those of Milton Friedman, Ron Paul and views on their side of the spectrum. The people who wrote the bulk of the article seem to have a soft spot for libertarian economic policy. Brentt ( talk) 12:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Kind of like letting Krupp industries or any other Businesses like IBM be the sources for what they did during the second world war, or asking Blackwater and Halliburton to tell us what they are doing and how they are organizing their operations in Iraq. So much for credible insights on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.144.50 ( talk) 14:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following nonsense edit:
The "Federal Reserve Act" is of course a U.S. federal statute. Federal statutes are not "passed by states." Federal statutes are passed by the U.S. Congress, which is composed of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and (usually) signed into law by the President, etc. The "states" are not even involved in the passage of federal statutes. Therefore, to say that the Act was "not passed by enough states" is nonsensical. The statement that the Federal Reserve Act is an "illegal organization" is even more nonsensical. Famspear ( talk) 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"Member banks receive a fixed, 6 percent dividend annually on their stock, and they do not control the Fed as a result of owning this stock. They do, however, elect six of the nine members of Reserve Banks’ boards of directors"
The members DONT control the board yet they ELECT the M A J O R I T Y of the members???????? WAKE UP!!!! This article reads like it was written by David Rockefeller WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!! These people are enslaving you!!
"I have to agree that the published main article is very biased and leaves out many pertinent details regarding the current banking system of the US. To call the system a quasi private/government entity is misleading to the general public. To say that the Fed returns any "excess" after expenses to the US Treasury is of little value considering the fact that the FED is not audited, and because it is a privately held corporation that is not required to disclose financial results. In addition the Fed operates under a tax exempt status and thus pays no taxes on the profits it takes from the American People. In layman terms a private company the "FED" controls the financial system of the United States, and the US government appoints some of the Board of Directors and limits the salary caps of the Directors, however the pay for the Board of directors comes from the private entities not from the US government. A more accurate description of the system would be that the Central Bank of the United States is owned by a private entity that is not open to the public. You as an American Citizen can not invest nor participate in the profits of the United States Monetary System. The federal reserves own educational website shows the entities structure with a pyramid that places the American people at the bottom. The United States Postal Service is an example of a government agency, NASA is another the Federal Reserve System is the complete opposite of those two entities and to say quasi-government is a falsehood. The paychecks for every member of the system are paid for by the private sector not the government. There is nothing Quasi governmental about that."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.90.2 ( talk) 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is it a quasi-public (part private, part government) central state.
It is a private bank (it has owners like the Citibank) with some minor 'state influence'. Even if you would say its part private, part and government owned you can´t follow for that statement that it is 'quasi public'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.35.33 ( talk) 17:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Zven: Please review the article. Since the term "Federal Reserve System" does not really describe something that can be "owned" in the sense I think you mean it, there is no "ownership" (public, private or otherwise) of the Federal Reserve System. There is "ownership" of the Federal Reserve Banks, and there is ownership of the member banks.
First, on the member banks (like Wells Fargo, or Citibank, or the local bank down the street), the ownership records of banks are basically private, so it would be difficult to determine whether "governments" own any shares in any of the banks.
Second, regarding the twelve Federal Reserve Banks -- that would be a bit easier to determine. Each of the 12 banks is essentially owned by the member banks in its region. A list of the member banks that own each of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks might be available on the internet; I don't know.
The key point is that there is no such thing as ownership of the Federal Reserve System; you cannot have ownership of something that is not subject to being owned. You can only talk about ownership of the parts of the system that actually happen to be banks, which of course can be owned, and are owned. Famspear ( talk) 02:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Zven: OK, I see what you're asking. I have one or two college textbooks at home; maybe I can find something on that. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 14:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe include in criticism that the interest rate qualifies as usury? In America, there is a limit on the amount of interest a lender can put on a loan. Does this not apply to the money that is loaned to the government itself? I'd like this to be talked about. 69.154.11.73 ( talk) 06:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed several of the citation flags in the balance sheet section. Most of these points are covered elsewhere in this article and in annual audited financial statements. If there is a real question, then please re-flag, but I don't see why every single one of the points there should be flagged when addressed elsewhere - it's a scattershot approach.-- Gregalton ( talk) 15:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Due to the amount of criticism the Federal Reserve receives from both "mainstream" and "fringe" sources, an article specifically on these criticisms appears notable. Also, due to the size of this article, a reduction in the amount of material is needed. Therefore, I propose a split-off of the criticism section to its own article. -- EGeek ( talk) 06:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Definitely keep it here. When someone looks up Federal Reserve they can see everything. If you move it they may miss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilyn ( talk • contribs) 03:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
In addressing an issue like the Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy, it makes sense to address the "what" AND the "why" questions...it hardly seems appropriate then to separate the "why not" from the "why." Consequently, I support leaving the "Criticisms" section intact within the page. I do however support merging the "History" section into History of central banking in the United States.-- llaplue ( talk) 01:08, March 21 2008 (Bryan College) —Preceding comment was added at 05:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the criticisms of any topic should be left within that topic. Splitting criticisms from a topic almost seems as though you are hiding them. 97.100.138.223 ( talk) 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I can support the splitting of sections based on the wikipedia guidline of splitting articles that are too long which lead to readability and technical issues. I think separate articles should remain within context of the federal reserve system and the main purpose of splitting them is due to size constraints. The criticism section could maintain this since the title of the separate article is "criticisms of the federal reserve system" but splitting the history and monetary policy sections don't remain within the context of the federal reserve system if they are merged with the currently proposed sections.
For example, I think the "monetary policy of the United States" article should contain information about monetary policies since the beginning of the united states whereas an article titled something like "monetary policy of the federal reserve system" would remain within the context of the federal reserve system specifically and would stay focused on just that aspect. It would then serve as an extension of the "federal reseve system" article that was split due to technical reasons.
Similar reasoning can be used for the splitting of the "history" section. Merging the history of the federal reserve to the "history of central banking in the united states" will stray from focusing on just the federal reserve aspect. An article titled something like "history of the federal reserve system" could be appropriate if it focuses on the years leading up to the federal reserve system like the banking panics of the late 1800s and the panic of 1907 but it would also need the historical changes that the federal reserve system went through since its founding in 1913. A number of laws and acts have been created since its founding and it has evolved since 1913 and I think there is enough information about this to warrant an article separate from "history of central banking in the united states".
So, in summary, as long as they serve the purpose of extending the article to deal with readability/technical issues and the separate articles remain within the context of the federal reserve system specifically, I can support the splitting of sections. Analoguni ( talk) 00:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Section | No. Pages | Contains |
---|---|---|
History | 6 | pure text |
Purpose | 3 | list on half of a page |
Monetary Policy | 5 | half lists |
The Federal Reserve Banks and the member banks | 3 | mostly all lists |
Legal status and position in government | 1 | pure text |
Federal Reserve balance sheet | 2 | half tables |
Regulation of fractional reserve | 2 | half tables |
Criticisms | 6 | pure text |
Total* | 18 | 62 kB (pure text) |
Split: Splitting off the criticism section to maintain readability certainly seems warranted. This does NOT mean that there won't still be a Criticism section in the main artice, but rather that the Criticism section should be a summary of the Criticism article.-- Aervanath ( talk) 08:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I would oppose a split in regard to criticism. In fact, I oppose having a criticism section (See e.g., WP:NPOV#Article structure, Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode, Wikipedia:Pro_&_con_lists, Wikipedia_talk:Pro_&_con_lists, Template:Criticism-section). What I would like to see is the criticism integrated into the other topic areas of the article where appropriate for weight. Once a particular topic area becomes large enough to split, then do so. Morphh (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The section Balance Sheet shows a balance as of June 21, 2007 , which states that out of total assets $ 870,868 Mio , $ 790,439 Mio consist of U.S. Treasury-Bills, -Notes and -Bonds. However since then, the FED exchanged ca. $ 400 Billion US-Treasuries against mortgage backed securities (the toxic stuff no bank (other than the FED) wants to lend against ! ).
So, Wikipedia pretents a FED balance sheet (and by implication a backing of the US-Dollar ) which is no more!
I wonder if americans understand that their US-Dollar is now backed to ca. 45 % by mortgage backed securities ?!! 79.210.97.38 ( talk) 18:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gregalton, thanks for your answer, and oh, I see your point now. It`s not reflected in the FEDs Balance sheet. Exactly, and that would worry me some (have I just heaed someone just saiy "Enron" ? Nahh... Can not be.)
However, the simple fact is (I may be wrong, and please correct me) : a) as of e.g. Dec 26, 2007 the FED had ca. $754 billion Treasuries. b) as of now (May 2008) the FED has loaned out more than $450 billion Treasuries. Where do these loaned Treasuries come from ? If the FED does not have a hidden stash of Treasuries, not shown on it`s balance sheet, then they neccessarily must come out of the Treasuries shown on the FED balance sheet (i.e. the ca. $754 billion) .
That`s what brings me to the understanding, that the US-Dollar is now backed to ca. 50% by "private and illiquid obligations of Wall Street" .
But you are right, it`s not explicitly shown on the FED balance sheet. But still, they must come from somewhere! (My suspicion is that they don`t put it on the balance sheet because of it`s supposed "temporary nature", i.e. 28 days, rolled over for "as long as necessary", not because the explicit figures would look ugly. They also discontinued M3, because it does not contain additional information, not because the current M3 figures would look ugly, right?).
May I offer two links substantiating that : a) hxxttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=a8JhRTZjidh8 , "...The Fed has committed as much as 60 percent of the $709 billion in Treasury securities on its balance sheet to providing liquidity...". b) from a blog, but still info-taining : hxxp://bp2.blogger.com/_H2DePAZe2gA/R-Ms3GD1FAI/AAAAAAAABGs/03kuCqh5NN4/s1600-h/Ben%27s+Wallet.PNG or hxxp://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2008/03/hey-ben-whats-in-your-wallet.html respectively. Cheers from Germany, Werner. 79.210.109.64 ( talk) 16:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the sources above should suffice. I've highlighted some of the important parts and added some other info that I think will be useful. Analoguni ( talk) 05:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Under this new Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF), the Federal Reserve will lend up to $200 billion of Treasury securities to primary dealers secured for a term of 28 days (rather than overnight, as in the existing program) by a pledge of other securities, including federal agency debt, federal agency residential-mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and non-agency AAA/Aaa-rated private-label residential MBS. The TSLF is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally.
the Federal Open Market Committee authorized an expansion of the collateral that can be pledged in the Federal Reserve's Schedule 2 Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF) auctions. Primary dealers may now pledge AAA/Aaa-rated asset-backed securities, in addition to already eligible residential- and commercial-mortgage-backed securities and agency collateralized mortgage obligations, beginning with the Schedule 2 TSLF auction to be announced on May 7, 2008, and to settle on May 9, 2008. The wider pool of collateral should promote improved financing conditions in a broader range of financial markets. Treasury securities, agency securities, and agency mortgage-backed securities continue to be eligible as collateral in Schedule 1 TSLF auctions.
The Fed has committed as much as 60 percent of the $709 billion in Treasury securities on its balance sheet to providing liquidity and opened the door to more with yesterday's decision to become a lender of last resort for the biggest Wall Street dealers..."They're using up their ammunition on the liquidity and overnight interest-rate fronts," said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Jersey City, New Jersey-based Wrightson ICAP LLC, a unit of ICAP Plc, the world's largest broker for banks and other financial institutions..."There's a limit to how much the Fed can do," said Brian Sack, a former Fed research manager, and now senior economist at Macroeconomic Advisers LLC in Washington. They've been incredibly aggressive with their balance-sheet policies over the past several weeks, and that has very quickly put this capacity issue in play....The Fed may also decide as early as tomorrow to start outright purchases of mortgage-backed securities, said Vincent Reinhart, former director of the Fed's monetary-affairs decision. Some investors have been clamoring for the Fed to make such a move, and the recent measures fell short of that step...The Fed's other programs include as much as $200 billion in lending of Treasuries to primary dealers in exchange for debt that includes mortgage-backed securities, announced March 11 and provisionally set to begin March 27
The U.S. currency plunged yesterday against the euro, yen and Swiss franc, erasing a rally from March 11 when the Fed said it would lend Treasuries to financial institutions and take mortgage debt as collateral.
The program will lend up to $200 billion of Treasurys to primary dealers, a group of 20 big investment firms, for a 28-day term. The firms can put up as collateral mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which generally are seen as safe because of an implicit government guarantee. But in an unusual move, AAA-rated mortgage securities issued by banks will also be accepted. Many investors have shied away from these mortgage-backed securities because they fear defaults in the underlying assets will erode the value.
It will not accept assets that: (1) are subject to adverse regulatory classification; (2) are 30 days or more past due (60 days for mortgage notes and other consumer debt, including student loans); (3) are illegal investments for the pledging institution; or that (4) exhibit collateral and credit documentation deficiencies.
Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them. Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.
Hi, Analoguni; thanks for your work, excellent!
I've created a chart showing the asset side of the Fed balance sheet. You can see how much of the treasuries the Fed lent out over the past few months plus some other new lending trends. It is clear that an unusual amount of treasuries has been lent out, but I don't know how much of them are collateralized with mortgage backed securities. What is certain, however, is the amount of treasuries lent out, which is (in millions of dollars):
This number is calculated using the highest value for "Securities held outright" and the current value. To get the percentage of total Fed assets, just use the latest balance sheet:
So from just this, AT MOST, 28.56% of Fed assets consist of mortgage backed securities. The reason I say AT MOST is because I think it's possible that some of the treasuries have been lent out with other assets being used as collateral other than mortgages. However, there are also other things going on in the balance sheet. Just look at the term auction credt, repurchase agreements, and other loans. I don't know for sure what these funds have been invested in. Anyway, here is the chart for the asset side of the Fed balance sheet. It's pretty interesting:
Click on the image to see the source data. I've also added this image to the main article. Analoguni ( talk) 09:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, I am still reeling from the shock to learn that the US Dollae is "receives no backing by anything." (from the "Legal Tender FAQ" from Analoguni`s US Treasury reference).
So, the FED press releases are wrong ? No Analoguni, no mystery here : You are looking in the rearview mirror (done and booked), I was forward looking (announcements in the press releases). So, just be a little patient.
a) the Term Auction Facility was increased from amount outstanding $100 billion to $150 billion (press release May, 2). So your column "Term auction credit" as of May, 8 is $125 billion and will go May, 22 to $150 billion.
b) beginning March 7, the Federal Reserve initiated a series of term repurchase transactions that are expected to cumulate to $100 billion. These transactions are conducted as 28-day term repurchase (RP) agreements (press release March, 7). I looks like this is reflected in the column "Repurchase agreements". This would mean an increase from $52,250 billiom (pre March 7) to $152 billion (don`t know how fast) and the $130 billion as of May 8 is part of that.
c) Big question here: Where is the Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF), (announced press release March 11) where the Federal Reserve will lend up to $200 billion of Treasury securities through weekly auctions beginning March 27 ? Was that an empty FED-announcement ? So, we are missing here a cool $200 billion.
Btw, this is the equivalent chart in the blogosphere : hxxp://bp3.blogger.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SCnn8FVo_9I/AAAAAAAAB-Y/zDqlmohzm2U/s1600-h/FedsBalanceSheet.jpg from hxxp://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/05/non-borrowed-reserves-and-feds-balance.html . And there you have as of April 30 : a) Term auction (credit) facility $100 billion. (will go May, 8 to $125 billion and May, 22 to $150 billion.) b) Repurchase Agreements $107 billion. (will go ??? to $152 billion.) and here you see c) Term Securities Lending Facility $145 billion. (will eventually reach $200 billion)
So, the blogs show the Term Securities Lending Facility ($145 billion), as announced by the has FED it March 11 (eventually $200 billion), and you do not show it at all !! Why?? (Don`t ask me, I can not read a balance sheet but I can read an press announcement.)
Gregalton, face it : the stuff the FED takes as colateral is the stuff no one other than the FED is willing to lend against !! Werner 79.210.65.245 ( talk) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I updated the data in the balance sheet. I also added the "off-balance-sheet items" data. Analoguni ( talk) 03:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This article appears to be hugely censored, it makes no obvious mention of private ownership of the FED. 82.131.210.162 ( talk) 16:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This point has been discussed here over and over and over and over and over again. There is virtually nothing new that can be said about this. Please read this talk page in detail.
There is no such thing as "private ownership of the FED." It's a meaningless phrase. As stated over and over and over again, "the Fed" is not something that can be "owned." The Fed consists of both governmental entities and "private" entities. Some of the private entities are indeed "owned" -- and that point is already clearly covered in the article.
Saying that the Fed is a private institution merely because it contains some parts that are private is like saying that "the universe is a planet merely because the universe contains some things that are planets."
The article accurate describes "the Fed" as quasi-public, etc. Famspear ( talk) 11:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It seemed to me that some of the charts in this article (e.g. CPI and money supply) should probably use a logarythmic y-axis rather than arithmatic. Is there a reason for the way these are? Cmadler ( talk) 20:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Where does the 3.5% "Base Deposit Rate" come from? The Federal Reserve gives 0 percent return on required reserves. 67.80.122.91 ( talk) 00:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Quoting from the 'Balance Sheet' section, first bullet point in the unordered list after the graph:
The Fed has over $11 billion in gold which is a holdover from the days the government used to back US Notes and Federal Reserve Notes with gold.
I almost edited, as I was initially confused about the 'used to' part. I was expecting 'used gold to'. This is clearly what it's intended to mean, but, from the end of the sentence, inserting the word 'gold' would not work. ('used to' is used in the sense 'had done in the past')
Should this be changed? Perhaps 'used to back' --> 'backed'? Could just be me though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.251.216 ( talk) 02:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've added a very long tag. This article has grown beyond the maximum length recommended for an article. We should consider splitting the article and using summary style. I'll also add that the lead is insufficient for the length of the article, which should be 3-4 paragraphs summarizing the article. Morphh (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The Federal Reserve System owes much of its existence to the publics wide but incorrect perception that it is an entity of the federal government.
Here is a link to a U.S. court case Lewis vs. US, case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982 clearly showing that the Federal Reserve is in fact a privately owned corporation.
http://www.geocities.com/chrisforliberty/lewis.html
I encourage you to read it for yourself, but if you don't have the time, here are a few of the highlights:
A few excerpts from the opinion by Judge Poole:
"Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities.... but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."
"Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region."
"The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341 [**5] 361.
Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activities without day to day direction from the federal government."
"It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks"
And on a final note, the Fed website itself claims that it is not a for profit corporation (
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5)
Which raises one important question in my mind:
Then why (according to its own FAQ page) does it pay dividends? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.18.159 ( talk • contribs) on 14 July 2008.
You acknowledge that individual Federal Reserve banks such as the Federal Reserve bank of San Francisco or the Federal Reserve bank of Atlanta are owned by the privately owned 'member banks' of that region...
And that that is the case for all twelve of the banks of the entire Federal Reserve System.
You're saying that the largest components of the Federal Reserve System, (each Federal Reserve Bank) are owned by stock holding private member banks....
You're saying that and yet you are still trying to claim that the Federal Reserve System is not in large part owned not by our own government but by private for profit banks who are members of the system??
I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around this contradiction...
Before the Federal Reserve came into being our paper currency bore the title United States Note.
Now paper bills bear the title 'Federal Reserve Note'
Tell me...Why the change if our central bank really is owned by the United States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.18.159 ( talk) 23:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The most important institution of any country is the one that controls the credit and currency of that nation. And because of that importance I believe it is an obvious shortcoming of the Federal Reserve System that there is any ambiguity at all about who owns/is in control of it.
If it was a good system there would be no such difficulty in describing its design or function.
If the fed was really controlled by our government then there wouldn't ever be any argument by people that it isn't. No one ever goes around saying that NASA or the US Postal Service is in fact privately owned.
But all kinds of people have made that accusation about the Fed. Even you defenders of the Fed acknowledge that the Fed isn't completely public.
The cute little term you like to use is 'quasi-public'.
I seem to think that the Federal Reserve System could be better described as pseudo-public —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.114.18.159 (
talk)
00:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously just because the universe contains planets, that does not make the universe a planet. We are not retarded, thank you.
Nor do we require a lesson in prefixes, our vocabulary is just fine, thanks.
‘The twelve Federal Reserve Banks are nominally "owned" by the member banks (although that "ownership" is not private ownership in the sense with which I think you and most readers are familiar).’
Please elaborate on this if you have the time, we are genuinely curious.
It seems to me that the actual Federal Reserve banks themselves would be the most significant component of the entire system, as they regulate their districts, which are very large and encompass virtually all of the private banking sector. If this is not the case, It would be splendid if someone could present the reasons why not.
The real topic of debate here is not whether the Federal Reserve System is technically a public or private entity, for as any reader of this talk page can observe that that is a matter of contention.
People really just want to know:
1. Who wields the Fed's enormous power?
2. In whose best interest is that power emplyoed?
After further researching the matter we personally must concede to Famspear that the Fed (the whole system) is indeed technically a semi- private and semi-public system (I will not deign to use the term ‘quasi-public’ because of the inherent bias of that phrase selection: could the Fed not just as easily and accurately be described as quasi-private?)
But just because the Federal Reserve System is technically a little bit of both, that doesn’t mean that the proportion of one component’s power could not be skewed in such a way that one interest, either the public or the private, effectively nullifies the other’s influence in the entire system.
England technically has a constitutional monarchy…That would imply that the system is semi-democratic, semi-authoritarian would it not?
But as I’m sure you are aware, in such systems in the modern era, the monarch has no real say in the legislative process, no effective power. He/she serves merely as a figurehead. There is nothing monarchical about a Constitutional Monarchy. The monarchical element is purely titular.
The Federal Reserve System might technically be semi-private and semi-public but I am yet to see in this discussion page any proof that it (the Fed) is operated under the scrutiny of any sufficient governmental oversight. I mean, has the congress ever on record reprimanded the Fed for something? (Not being a smart ass here, legitimately wondering if there are any cases..) The Fed’s track record isn’t exactly immaculate. Benjamin Bernanke himself blamed the Fed for deepening the Great Depression.
And so long as there are doubts concerning this, it seems a certainty that there will be continued claims that the Federal Reserve System is a private corporation.
Though this may be literally inaccurate, the underlying point (that the fed works in the best interest of a private group not the public) does not appear to have been conclusively disproved and is one that still seems quite sensible to me. This would certainly explain many of the ills America currently suffers from at any rate.
And two questions that still linger in my mind:
Why was the Federal Reserve Act conceived exclusively by elites and why was such care taken to keep the Jekyll Island meeting secret?
And
Why does the Fed, (According to its own FAQ page) pay dividends?
No one responded to this last question and I really would like an answer if anybody knows.
We are of course aware that something under public control by no means guarantees its beneficence nor that an entity subject to private control is by necessity corrupt.
But to quote a sarcastic editor of this page,
“When has money and power ever persuaded anyone to do anything inconsistent with public motives?”
The answer of course is too often.
If anyone wants an example of what can go wrong when the government delegates a responsibility that it would be better off doing itself to private firms, I recommend you look into the American penal system and the fact that 1% of the American population is currently in prison. (This is a figure well beyond any other industrialized nation’s) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.18.159 ( talk) 23:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand that this page is not intended to be a place for discussion about a topic but merely a place to make suggestions for improving the article. And I would assume that the best way to improve any article is to make sure that it represents the unbiased truth and that there is no omission of significant, pertinent facts. But if many people disagree on 'the truth' about that topic I would imagine that it is inevitable that the discussion page descend into something of a forum with various editors making claims and positing evidence and subsequently being refuted by the contributions of other editors..Im pretty sure that would be defined as debate..and if you care to read all of this talk page, you will see that thats what most of this page has been. So i think your post reprimanding me is in itself pointless and for the record, not helping to improve the article. ; )
Yes i admit I got carried away and put in non-relevant material simply because I am passionate about this issue. Feel free to remove any or all of that, and this post too if you feel like it, I wont mind. I see that entries like this are merely pollution of the talk page and I wont be making any more of them, but I think all editors should consider the prior paragraph.
And I think I asked two questions whose answers could be used to improve the article: 1. Why was the F.R. act conceived in secret and 2. whether or not the congress has ever officially reprimanded the fed for anything. I think answers to these could be worthwhile additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.18.159 ( talk) 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No answers? So this is the clear pice of question that nobody can answer, well I guess it isn't so hard to understand, it's just as impossible to answer as it was in the manny court cases against the Federal Reserve's Tax law, as there was never found a law that stated that you was bounded to pay your taxes. -- Nabo0o ( talk) 21:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why the "purpose" of the fed is cited in this article as:
"The primary motivation for creating the Federal Reserve System was to address banking panics ... Before the founding of the Federal Reserve, the United States tended to undergo a financial crisis every decade or so. A particularly severe crisis in 1907 led Congress to enact the Federal Reserve Act in 1913." (emphasis added)
yet on the corresponding Panic of 1907 page (at the end of the causes section) it states:
"Complete ruin of the national economy was averted when J.P. Morgan stepped in to meet the crisis. Morgan organized a team of bank and trust executives. The team redirected money between banks, secured further international lines of credit, and bought plummeting stocks of healthy corporations. Within a few weeks the panic passed, with only minimal effects on the country." (emphasis added)
FusionKnight ( talk) 21:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
With the recent bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the news, I'd like to see a section on historically significant major bailouts, such as these and perhaps the crises of the early 1980's. Reading the article, I'm not even sure what section this should be a subsection of. Of course, some of these subjects may deserve articles of their own. Comments or suggestions? SkyDot ( talk) 01:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
There seem to have been regular attacks on this article, seemingly due to the film "Zeitgeist", which preaches theories related to the assumption that the Fed is privately owned. Some people are simply clipping away parts of sentences that refer to the goverment-controlled aspects of the Fed, while others are shoving in clear bias, some inserting quotes directly from the movie itself or even replacing sections with "WATCH ZEITGEIST". Should this article be semi-protected to prevent this? There have already been at least three of these incidents over the last couple of days. BlastYoBoots ( talk) 21:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
in the "Purpose" section, someone changed the first listed purpose to "to prevent banking panics" when I initially put it in as "to address banking panics". This is because the Federal Reserve uses the word "address" and not "prevent". This is an important distinction. I think the main reason the Fed uses the word "address" is because it cannot prevent bad decision making unless the United States had a completely controlled economy. Also, the Fed may fail to adaquately supervise banks so if a bank does fail and the Fed claims to "prevent" banking panics, this would be an obvious failure by the Federal Reserve System. This is why they "address" these issues and not "prevent" them. If you were to go through various Federal Reserve documentation and transcripts of hearings, you will notice frequent use of the word "address". Analoguni ( talk) 02:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to also add that in some discussions of the Federal Reserve, some people claim that the Federal Reserve is a REactive organization and not PROactive. This means that the Fed doesn't try to plan and control things, but to react to economic situations. If this REactive interpretation is correct, then using the word "address" is a more adaquate description instead of something that "prevents", which implies that it is PROactive. Analoguni ( talk) 03:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It says "create banking panics" now. That's not right. 76.124.109.242 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
I don't think the article is too long, The Federal Reserve System is very complex. The responsibility it has is vast and therefore more information in the article is helpful explaining it's history, role, and responsibility. With the recent issues involving the sub-par loan crisis, we see the fed's role growing. comment added by GustavM GustavM ( talk) 17:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I think GustavM is right. The more complex a topic is, the longer its article must be. As long as the information is relevant to the subject, there is no reason to shorten the article. Diego Alonso Cortez ( talk) 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it can still be too long regardless of complexity. Parcel some information out into sub-articles. Massysett ( talk) 15:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The chairman is listed as "Bill Clinton" -Shouldn't it be: Ben Bernanke (Feb 1, 2006- ) (posted on 9/18/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyenobite ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a topic, like much of economics, that seems overly mystified. Where does the funding for (this organization come from? The taxpayers, private financial institutions or both? The implication seems to be the latter, but this should be explained in a more obvious way. Moreover, it should be explained to what extent this central bank differs from the personal bank account of the U.S. government which I assume it isn't or is more than. Also, clearly not all capital in the U.S. emanates from this institution, just the largest portion? What is its relationship with the U.S. Treasury? Is our currency the currency of this bank? Is the federal reserve really the "Third Bank of the United States," controversies over the previous two being something I found rather obscure. It's precisely this aura of mystery, as with the Masons, that plays into the affinity the ignorant have for conspriacy theories regarding it. Finally to what extent or degree is it interconnected with the broader economy and economic trends that it can only mitigate and control in the manner of a sytem of levees and dikes? Tom Cod 07:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this wikipedia page IS a conspiracy theory, since NOBODY apparently has salient facts about what is the most important institution in a supposedly free society. So, we are all--including Congress and wikipedia--left with conspiracy theories. But, I'm sure you meant that term 'conspiracy theory" as a term of derision since you descibe is an an "affinity of the ignorant", implying that there is something YOU know they don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.164.27 ( talk) 09:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The Federal Reserve is completely self-sufficient for funding. It is run with funds it generates from interest earned in holding the federal debt. Be advised, however, that this constitutes a very small percentage of this interest, and the rest of the interest is returned to the Treasury. Stanleywinthrop 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The Fed generates income by charging banks for various services - i.e., check processing. 71.214.77.236 ( talk) 22:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The ignorant... lol. Conspiracy theorists! The fed is just confusing and oblique... nothing more! When has money and power ever persuaded anyone to do anything inconsistant with public motives. A conspiracy indeed, ignorant people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.177.23.62 ( talk) 21:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure it is pretty confusing to the uneducated such as yourself. Good luck with life..... 71.214.93.114 ( talk) 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
A new, anonymous user has been adding a link to the video Money as Debt by Paul Grignon, which has been removed by other editors. I added an admonishment on the user's talk page about referring to Wikipedia editors as "sheeple." I express no opinion (yet) on whether the link should be in the article.
I watched only the first few minutes of the video, which discusses the basic concept that banks literally create money out of thin air by making loans in the form of creation of (or increases in existing) deposit accounts. This is not a secret; its teaching is not somehow banned in schools (at least as far as I know). The concept is (or should be) taught in a college economics course on Money and Banking.
Without commenting directly on our new, anonymous user, I will say that Wikipedia does tend to attract many people who find things here and there on the internet and mistakenly believe they have "discovered" something new or nefarious or astonishing, when what they have discovered is mundane and well-known -- at least to people who have seriously studied the topic at hand.
A good policy in editing a Wikipedia article is to assume that several other editors who watch the article on a regular basis know at least as much as you do about the subject of the article. You may save yourself some embarrassment at some point. Famspear ( talk) 15:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The following verbiage by Paul Grignon from his web site illuminates his motivation:
from: http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/ProducersComments.html
Yours, Famspear ( talk) 16:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I have seen both the money masters and money as debt videos. I agree that any link to the money as debt video is not appropriate for the criticisms page because that video is not even specifically about the Fed, rather it focuses more on the fractional reserve banking and criticism of it as a whole. However I do believe that a link to the money masters video could be legitimate in the criticisms section because that video, is specifically about the Fed and its history. Whether one is sympathetic to the agenda of the filmmaker or not, it is undeniable that Bill Still goes through the history of American central banking in a very painstaking manner.
More importantly however, I think it is unfair that editors on this talk page have repeatedly assigned the term 'conspiracy theorist' to many who have illustrated contrary opinions on the nature of the modern banking system. Some editors of this page seem to interchange the term 'conspiracy theorist' with critic, and interchange the phrase 'conspiracy theory' with alternate point of view. perhaps forgetting that 'conspiracy theorist' is for the most part a pejorative term and is usually used to bring a source's credibility into question, often with the goal of dismissing the source for being 'crazy' without first allowing for a fair hearing. It is unfair to simply apply the term conspiracy theorist to any who have made criticisms or suggested altering the existing system. This to me does not hold up to the standard of WP NPOV. I think some of the editors could be more conscientious of this.
-- Mossh ( talk) 04:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is the definition, as I have understood it. And I must agree, there are certainly those, especially on the internet that do suggest ridiculous claims and explanations for ‘the real truth’ or the ‘hidden reality’ that has somehow eluded the other 6 billion of us. But sticking with your provided definition of ‘conspiracy’ (which I agree with) I can’t help but note that the circumstances by which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted fit the term ‘conspiracy’ so well, that it would be Ideally used as an example for the ‘conspiracy’ entry in any dictionary. Perhaps that could be an edit made to the history section? Maybe it could be said ‘the Federal Reserve System was birthed from a conspiracy of private bankers’?
Perhaps you can see why it is good to avoid using pejorative terms when speaking of fact, no matter how well they fit the truth…
-- Mossh ( talk) 02:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yes this is of course true, there are many loaded terms whose use will be simply unavoidable because they are the most accurate way to describe someone/something. I would say that a term like Nazi and the term 'conspiracy theorist' however, are a little different here because the term Nazi refers to a specific political party, one which sadly enough was proud of its extreme racist views and even though their views are considered by the mainstream to be evil, members of the Nazi party were probably not ashamed of them, nor would a neo-Nazi be likely to deny being one. However, someone being labeled as a conspiracy theorist might very well object to being called that and refute his status as such.
To Famspear's point above (I believe it was Famspear's) there are people who openly admit to being conspiracy theorists and certainly would have no objection to being described as such but I think that in cases where the labeling is something the author has not openly agreed with, then editors should be cautious when using loaded terminology. This may be impossible, but I think that that is at least worth considering. With my point about the Fed, I was trying to illustrate, that though the drafting of the Federal Reserve Act was by definition, precisely a conspiracy, I am fairly confident were I to edit the history section and use those terms, someone would probably remove that addition, even though it is a well known fact that the Jekyll Island meeting was precisely that. Thoughts?
-- Mossh ( talk) 07:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not that the Federal Reserve System "was conceived of by several rich guys meeting in secret away from reporters and inconvenient questions" (assuming that this is what actually happened). And the problem is not that Wikipedia editors and the public at large are somehow having trouble accepting that fact (again, assuming arguendo that it is a fact). Rather, the problem is that some people seem to think such a boring, unremarkable genesis rates the label of "conspiracy."
So, why are certain people so urgent in wanting the label "conspiracy" attached to the description of the history of the Federal Reserve System? Answer: Because these people want the reader to look past the neutral, denotative meaning of the term "conspiracy" and instead apply the negative connotative meaning of the word "conspiracy" to the creation of the Federal Reserve System -- as a way of trying to persuade the reader that the Federal Reserve System is bad.
The Federal Reserve System was created by statute -- by an Act of Congress. The public at large has no trouble accepting the unremarkable and, let's face it, boring idea that the Federal Reserve System "was conceived of by several rich guys meeting in secret away from reporters and inconvenient questions". Indeed, many or perhaps most federal statutes are conceived this way. In the end, however, the Federal Reserve Act, like all Acts of Congress, is NOT a secret. The statute was enacted through the legislative process prescribed by our Constitution -- regardless of whether it was conceived in some nefarious, secret meeting or, alternatively, on the 50 yard line at half time at the Rose Bowl.
The fact that those who oppose the Federal Reserve System are the ones straining to apply the negative connotation of the term "conspiracy" to the creation of the System is evidence that it is those very opponents -- and not the public at large -- who are the ones having trouble accepting the truth about their own critique -- the truth identified by editor Cool Hand Luke.
I agree with Editor Cool Hand Luke. The argument that the Federal Reserve System is "bad" because the idea for the System began with the Jekyll Island "conspiracy" (several rich guys meeting in secret away from reporters, etc.) is not much of a critique. And it's not much of a "conspiracy." If that "conspiracy" is how the idea for the Federal Reserve System began, then accept it. Citing the Jekyll Island meeting as a "conspiracy" in an attempt to ascribe a nefarious connotation is rather like my grandmother's attempts, when I was about six years old, to scare me with the idea that the "boogie man" would come get me if I didn't take my afternoon nap. The "boogie man" story does not scare the average six year old, and the idea of a Jekyll Island "conspiracy" for the genesis of the Federal Reserve System does not impress a psychologically normal adult. Forget about the boogie man, and concentrate on the serious critiques. Famspear ( talk) 05:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This argument began as such: I commented on editor's use of the terms 'conspiracy theorist', and 'conspiracy theory' to ridicule virtually anyone making a critique about the existing Federal Reserve System. Famspear commented back saying that it is not necessarily wrong to use this loaded term because many people in fact openly admit to being conspiracy theorists. In my response to Famspear I agreed to the accuracy of Famspear's Response, but I stressed that is still best to try and avoid using such loaded terms as much as possible because they can give a misleading impression. I then gave the example that were someone to edit the Fed page to say that the Federal Reserve Act was founded as a conspiracy, I am certain many editors would have something to say about it. I was not suggesting that that this actually be done, because of course my whole argument in the first place was that editors should NOT use these terms, or at least avoid using them as much as possible. I was merely making a counterargument to illustrate that point. It is in my opinion in the best interest of upholding the standard of WP NPOV that editors avoid using loaded terms whenever possible, unless of course the person/group/entity in question has admitted to being such loaded term (conspiracy theorist, nazi, socialist etc.)
And for the record,
If you want to say that the conception of the Federal Reserve Act was not in fact by definition a 'conspiracy' (Forget connotations here, look at the term literally), if you are not able to agree that the Jekyll Island meeting was a secret agreement among persons to achieve a legal end, (Famspear's provided definition of conspiracy) if you can't see the literal truth in that it would appear to me that you either haven't heard the Jekyll Island story, or that you are simply picking and choosing when willing to accept the term 'conspiracy', based on your personal opinion and what you are personally comfortable with. That to me is not a Neutral Point of View(I'm not pointing my finger at any one person specifically) I'm sure someone will try to debate me on that and I can't wait because I think this is the one point on the Fed where the loonies probably have enough evidence, especially from the actual participants in the meeting themselves to prove conclusively that this meeting was by definition a conspiracy.
In summary:
Just because something was a 'conspiracy' doesn't prove it was a bad thing. But because most average muggles will assume that something being a conspiracy makes it a bad thing, editors should avoid using that and similar loaded terms as much as possible.
-- Mossh ( talk) 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
> if you are not able to agree that the Jekyll Island meeting was a secret agreement among persons to achieve a legal end,
But an objective which was not achieved; the Alrich Plan was rejected. As for the creation of the Federal Reserve System (which was not the Aldrich Plan), it had been public knowledge for several years that some type of reform of the banking system was being moved towards. There was no secret plot there. The Aldrich Plan is best understood not as a hidden conspiracy but as a failed attempt by banks to respond to what were public calls for monetary reform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.15 ( talk) 22:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, the following unsourced verbiage regarding the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), a component of the Federal Reserve System, was added to the article by an anonymous user on 14 October 2008:
See [11].
I removed the material the same day. Aside from being unsourced and tendentious, the material is blatantly false with respect to the statement about oversight of the FOMC by Congress.
The FOMC was of course created by a statute enacted by Congress (the Federal Reserve Act, at 12 USC 263), and Congress could abolish the FOMC by passing another statute if the Congress were so inclined.
Not only that, the Federal Reserve Act specifically provides that the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System must appear before Congressional hearings at least twice per year regarding “the efforts, activities, objectives and plans of the Board and the Federal Open Market Committee with respect to the conduct of monetary policy”. See 12 USC 225b(a)(1)(A). The statute also specifically states that the appearances shall be:
--See 12 USC 225b(a)(2).
Regarding discussions of the FOMC, it is probably correct to say that the discussions are not subject to public disclosure under the freedom of information laws. Indeed, probably the vast majority of “discussions” by personnel of various U.S. federal government agencies are not available to the public under the freedom of information law.
The idea that the FOMC is “substantially less transparent than the CIA” (i.e., the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency), aside from being an unsourced opinion, is facially preposterous. Famspear ( talk) 17:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The following verbiage has been moved from the article to here:
First, there is no evidence that Kennedy was an opponent of the "Federal Reserve Bank." And there are 12 Federal Reserve Banks, not just one.
Second, according to the linked article on Executive Order 11110, that Order would not have "returned the issuing of dollars into the hands of the American President," etc. in the sense of "end[ing] the money-issuing monopoly of the "Federal Reserve Bank."
Third, the Federal Reserve System does not have a "monopoly" on the issuance of "money" in the United States. For example, coins are also used as money. And the largest portion of the money supply is neither Federal Reserve notes nor coins. The largest portion of the money supply is the total of demand deposits outstanding -- the deposit liabilities of banks.
Fourth, the verbiage seems to imply some connection between the Federal Reserve System and the death of President Kennedy. No sourcing has been provided for that theory.
In short, the material is in large measure unsourced -- and the Wikipedia article on Executive Order 11110 belies the assertions in the material. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 19:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Fifth, EO 11110 was not revoked until 1987, which makes no sense if we are to assume that somehow a hidden conspiratorial power had been so frightened by it as to order the assassination of a President.
This article is so full of lies and falsehoods, it's almost impossible to begin editing. Can I call on any honest person reading this, who is adept with Wikipedia, to fact-check any one major statement in this article, and change it accordingly? There are many words here, but the article would be far more honest if it were replaced with only "The Federal Reserve is a private bank." Let's start with one true fact, and build on it, rather than a thousand falsehoods from which a reader must, but cannot possibly, deduce any truth. Legalfiction ( talk) 05:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Numerous examples of unsourced commentary have been added by an anonymous user. I deleted the more egregious examples. For example:
First of all, the law does not require that the seven governors "be selected equally from all segments of society". This is what the law actually says:
--12 USC 241 (italic added).
Had the Congress wanted to require that the governors "be selected equally" from all these segments, the Congress could have written the law that way. Congress did not do so.
Second, the last statement (i.e., "They are not") is argumentative, tendentious, unsourced, and probably completely unverifiable anyway.
Some of the material that was added is actually correct, more or less, but is written tendentiously. However, maybe some other editors can get to it before I can..... Yours, Famspear ( talk) 16:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The following unsoured commentary was removed by another editor:
This is meaningless gibberish.
The Federal Reserve Act is a statute. It is an Act of Congress. In the United States, statutes are not "ratified by states." There is no requirement that statutes be "ratified by states" and, indeed, no legal procedure for doing that. The statement that "passing a bill not ratified by the states is a federal crime" is also meaningless nonsense.
There is no law or constitutional provision that says that only the United States Treasury can print money. There is no law, in the United States Code or anywhere else, that says that all money in the United States must be backed by gold and silver. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 15:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way: Federal Reserve notes are in fact printed by the U.S. Treasury, anyway. Famspear ( talk) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up: On printing of money by the states, here is the wording of the Constitution, from Article I, section 10:
This provision is indeed a restriction on the power of the states, but this is not precisely a statement that only the United States Treasury can print money. In practical effect, it may be that only the U.S. Treasury can print money -- but that is not what Section 10 of Article I says. A little hair-splitting here. Famspear ( talk) 16:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Anti-fringe kookiness |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Fringe kookinessI would ask that all the wackos, kooks and nutjobs out there stop insisting that the Federal Reserve is in any way a private bank. Badmouthing the Fed in such a way is libellous, and considering it is a government agency, could possibly be construed as treasonous as well. Put your tinfoil hats back on, and kindly return to ranting about the Council on Foreign Relations on your street-corner soapboxes and stay away from this site. --AN AMERICAN PATRIOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.91.129.6 ( talk) 22:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
|
It has been suggested that some of the information in this article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) be merged into other sections to achieve a more neutral presentation.
Does above refer to neutral presentation of that section or other sections in the article? NPOV-V-NOR 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess this comment above answers the question: And as a minor point of order, criticism sections are frowned upon per WP:NPOV. Consensus is that the criticism should be included throughout the article, wherever it is most relevant. Of course, this article could use a lot of work on that front. -FrankTobia NPOV-V-NOR 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Having a criticism section enables the criticism to not be washed away by pompous language no one can understand, through an unending stream of edits by biased parties that are on payroll to edit Wikipedia. Having a criticism section focuses the efforts of the people. This is my opinion. Wikipedia is for the people by the people. -- Campoftheamericas ( talk) 02:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a quote by Thomas Jefferson that a lot of people have used.. There is apparently no source in existence for this one:
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
I have found a website which organizes various Jefferson quotes and their sources and according to this website, there is no original source for this. See: http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Private_Banks_(Quotation)
I was able to dig up an attribution to this quote as early as 1938, which took place in the U.S. House of Representatives. See Hearings Before the Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, Seventy-fifth Congress, Third Session, on H.R. 7230, a Bill Providing for Government Ownership of the Twelve Federal Reserve Bands and for Other Purposes
This quote was place at the top of the article in the History section, with a sentence added to it that I was able to find a source for. This sentence added is:
The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating.
This sentence can actually be found in some of his original writings. He was talking about national debt and how people presently controlling government should not place a debt onto a future generation. See this sentence (in full) at: Page 229, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia By Thomas Jefferson, John P. Foley Analoguni ( talk) 02:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Some of the things Jefferson has said about this subject are on Page 68 of The Jefferson Cyclopedia linked above. Here are some quotes:
660 The idea of creating a national bank, I do not concur in, because it seems now decided that Congress has not that power (although I sincerely wish they had it exclusively), and because I think there is already a vast redundancy, rather than a scarcity of paper medium. The rapid rise in the nominal price of land and labor (while war and blockade should produce a fall) proves the progressive state of the depreciation of our medium. --To THOMAS LAW FORD ED ix 433 M 1813
On the constitutionality of a central bank:
664. BANK (U.S. Constitutionality) -- The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things 1. To form the subscribers into a corporation 2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land and so far is against the laws of Mortmain 3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands and so far is against the laws of Alienage 4. To transmit these lands on the death of a proprietor to a certain line of successors and so far changes the course of Descents 5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat and so far is against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat 6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line and so far is against the laws of Distribution 7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority and so far is against the laws of Monopoly 8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States for so they must be construed to protect the institution from the control of the State Legislatures and so probably they will be construed.
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States or to the people." (Xllth amendment.) To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. The incorporators of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution. I. They are not among the powers specially enumerated: for these are: 1st. A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, its origination in the Senate would condemn it by the Constitution. 2nd "To borrow money." But this bill neither borrows money nor ensures the borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any other money holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the public. The operation proposed in the bill, first, to lend them two millions, and then to borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be in a payment, and not a loan, call it by what name you please. 3rd To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines: yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen), which remains exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trade, but as, "productive of considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations
And there are other quotes available on the subject as well. Quotes with available sources can be very useful. Analoguni ( talk) 03:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The quote has been on the page for some time, but someone recently added material from Ron Paul's blog. I think all of this is tangent anyway, and if the quote is fake, it shouldn't be a "historical criticism." Here is the matter I removed:
Cool Hand Luke 19:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Why doesn't the article mention anything about the FAC? (Federal Advisory Council) [2] Smallman12q ( talk) 03:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Can protection be removed? There's no doubt that the IP is the same fringe-pushing user who was edit warring before. In the case of single-user edit war, the user should be blocked, but page left unprotected. Everyone else agreed on the direction of this article (see section above). Thoughts? Cool Hand Luke 23:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I have some questions. These are not from the fringe, in fact most of the events I refer to in these questions come from my public high school A.P. Economics class. These are just a few facts that to me seem to have been overlooked in the article, or not given enough attention..
Why was the 1911 Jekyll Island meeting where the Federal Reserve Act drafted kept secret from the American public?
Why were the previous two central banking systems of the United States ultimately eliminated?
(the Federal Reserve System is a central banking system)
Why did President Andrew Jackson fight so hard to rid the United States of the previous central banking system, the Second Bank of the United States?
Is President Jackson's successive paying off of the national debt a result of the elimination of the U.S. central bank of his time? (I am told that Jackson is the only President to have ever achieved this)
Why is it impossible for the Federal Reserve System to prevent the depreciation of the buying power of our earned wages? (inflation)
Why has the National Debt increased by 50 percent in the past 15 years? (now over 9 trillion dollars)
Why can't that debt ever be repaid?
Can anybody who really knows the mechanics/history of the Fed/central banking in the U.S. shed some light on some of these questions for me?
-- Mossh ( talk) 04:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks FrankTobia, yeah i sort of figured that this was maybe not the right place for this sort of thing but I was curious nonetheless--
Mossh (
talk)
23:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Should the Jekyll Island meeting be included in the Federal Act summary under the History section? It is already in the History of the Federal Reserve System article. This article also includes information on the Lewis v. United States case. -- EGeek ( talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
> Why was the 1911 Jekyll Island meeting where the Federal Reserve Act drafted kept secret from the American public?
That was 1910. The Jekyll Island meeting resulted in the Aldrich Plan which called for a system of fifteen regional central banks, called National Reserve Associations, whose actions would be coordinated by a national board of commercial bankers. Under the Aldrich Plan the regional banks would be controlled individually and nationally by bankers. This was nrejected by the Wilson administration, so it's called of pointless to wonder if there was a conspiracy behind the Aldrich Plan anyway. A failed conspiracy, perhaps. The creation of the Federal Reserve Board, appointed by the President and reviewed by Congress, defeated the Aldrich Plan.
One mistake to be avoided on this subject is that since Reagan took office there's been a steady trend towards deregulation of all forms, and this most likely has affected governmental responsibility in matters such as the coordination of the Federal Reserve, as well as much else besides. That, however, should not be wrongly projected backwards in history onto the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. These are issues which originate in a later era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.15 ( talk) 22:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
FrankTobia, I am sorry to say, but when you say the debt can be paid off you are, in fact wrong, because of one and only one thing, the application of interest by the federal reserve that is applied to the only money printed and in circulation. So that fact being true in all terms, The debt will never be able to be repaid to that which is the Federal Reserve Bank. If the debt were repaid, the money would cease to exist leaving no value in the monetary system. Frank, im sorry to say that the only banking book that is a valued resource is the book Modern Money Mechanics written in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Bank. Also, if you look at the shareholders of each Fed Bank they will all lead back to the same people, mostly located in Europe. By saying that the federal reserve bank/system does not work for profit, yet they apply interest to all loans derived from them as a source is really denying that you are credible in any way, and im not saying this as an insult, but the only reason of interest to be applied IS to make a PROFIT. Feel free to reply to this at any time or email me at randomrd@gmail.com, I will be copying this and reposting it daily to prevent editing. 71.55.122.30 ( talk) 22:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Sam Gelman
Yes it was published in 1913, because it was published BEFORE the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law as an explanation of a fractional reserve banking system. As I did not say that it was published publicly in 1913 I said it was written, as you seem to be an obsessive type about citing things, PLEASE cite your sources as to it was written or published in the 1960s. Also as you ask a few things of me in my posting I would like to kindly ask you to remove your arrogance and assumptions that you always are right. Also you didnt even comment on the subject at hand under the summary of this topic defying what you said in the other post. Feel free to reply to this at any time or email me at randomrd@gmail.com, I will be copying this and reposting it daily to prevent editing. 71.55.122.30 ( talk) 22:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Sam Gelman
I urge everyone to google and watch ZEITGEIST.-- PUNk Limited ( talk) 01:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I think Zeitgeist does need to be mentioned under criticisms. It addresses a lot of issues about the federal reserve system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.228.134 ( talk) 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Luke, I dont think you are part of the conspiracy, but i do believe that you are brainwashed BEYOND BELIEF by what you have been told by other people and not researched yourself. All of the facts in Zeitgeist can be cited with the book Modern Money Mechanics written in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Bank, and deserves a spot under criticisms. Zeitgeist the movie being a "fringe source" as you say has no definition in itself, so therefore it is an opinion and deserves no spot in decided weather an article is encyclopedia worthy or not. Feel free to reply to this at any time or email me at randomrd@gmail.com, I will be copying this and reposting it daily to prevent editing. 71.55.122.30 ( talk) 04:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Sam Gelman
Luke - is it not a scary thought to accept that information is only deemed suitable as a source by 'mainstream sources'? Who defines 'mainstream'? Disney? If one can cross-reference and confirm facts, then why would it be looked over? Seems dangerous to me. I thought democracy was all about open thought and information exchange amoung the people for the betterment of everyone, junk included. Not saying this is junk, but I will watch it now and I will check out facts. :)
I understand the encyclopedic aspect and can appreciate that, alot of people do great things here. I haven't watched this yet, however from what info I have gleaned it would seem to me that it would at least deserve a mention. I mean it's not like you couldn't be sure the correct information about the Federal Reserve System was posted in THAT criticism section, looking at what's there currently...well..I see alot of name calling, yet no one uses the section to really direct people to the truth on any particular subject covered in the movie. If in fact we are building an online encyclopedia, then maybe things should blend somewhat in different ways - the criticism section seems to be exactly for this, leading the viewer to continue down a path of learning all sides, or as many sides of a subject as they would like. Thanks and all the best.
I think there's an excessive number of quotes in this section. By my count, the current version has 22 seperate quotes, before the New York sub section begins! At least one of those quotes is repeated, so figure 21 seperate quotes. The section starts off with a nice header, talking about "one end of the spectrum", but then it totally loses focus. Several of the quotes seem to directed more towards the concept of a central bank, or related to the founding of the current Federal Reserve System.
There's been some edit-warring over the quotes of late, hence bringing this up here. This section really needs to get cleaned up and focused. Rather than a large number of quotes that say the same thing, provide the criticism and use a few quotes as highlights. As it's currently written, the section is difficult to read, sloppy and doesn't provide the type of meaningful information it could. Ravensfire2002 ( talk) 23:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
How come this isnt a citable source and doesnt have a wikipedia page? This was written by the creators of the Federal eserve Bank(which is not the system, the system is a Fractal Reserve Banking System as defined in this book.) Feel free to reply to this at any time or email me at randomrd@gmail.com, I will be copying this and reposting it daily to prevent editing. 71.55.122.30 ( talk) 05:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Sam Gelman
I just noticed the word "might" in the Inflation and the economy section. Could we please remove that word since it gives the necessary qualifications for the result to be achieved. Thx. Wikiiscool123 ( talk) 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes thank you for copying the section. It sounds as if inflation only possibly has detrimental effects when the detrimental effects of inflation are obvious and well documented. I think that it is a mitigating term that doesn't really help and makes Wikipedia seem less reliable and more conjecture.
Wikiiscool123 ( talk) 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
mpb
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).