SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Money Supply & The Federal Reserve
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: ahhaha who wrote (43)8/11/2002 12:37:01 PM
From: glenn_a  Read Replies (3) of 1379
 
Hi ahahaha.

In response to unBelievable's comment:

"BTW - many people do not know that the Fed is owned by the major banks - among the largest shareholders are JPM and C."

You stated:

"The FED is not owned by commercial banks. The FED was chartered by the US government and is manager of the US Treasury's account. The above banks like most in the US and abroad are members in the federal reserve system. This only means they have the ability to borrow from their local federal reserve banks. Membership also means they must comply with reserve requirements. There is no capital stock or other means of ownership by which member banks could exercise some form of control over FED. "

I am still learning here, but your statement above does not resonate as "truth". Carol Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, for instance, demonstrates with meticulous clarity the role that Merchant Bank interests play in the Global Banking and Credit System in the 1920's and 1930's, and how the mechanics of Central Banks are explicitly designed to serve such interests. Just wondering, is it your contention that Central Banks have "never" been essentially controlled by Merchant Banking interests, or that it is simply no longer the case?

BTW, the statement "The FED is not owned by commercial banks", can be read many ways. I view being "owned" as "being under the pervasive and systemic influence of". In other words, it's the "spirit" more than the "letter" of the ownership that is more important.

I mean, Enron didn't actually "own" members of the House and Congress, but the fact that it gave political contributions to something like 210 of 280 members of the House or Representatives indicates a degree of "ownership" that is far more to the point than whether the House of Representatives was "officially incorporated" as an Enron subsidiary. Is my point well-taken?

Best wishes,
Glenn
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News