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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ahhaha who wrote (43)8/10/2002 2:53:31 AM
From: UnBelievable  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1379
 
Some of The Issues You Raise Involve Nomenclature and Definitions

The resolution of others will involve a little bit more discussion, but one of them left me wondering if you might perhaps be a betting man:

"There is no capital stock or other means of ownership by which member banks could exercise some form of control over FED."

But as you point out, with regard to everything I post you should consider the source.



To: ahhaha who wrote (43)8/10/2002 4:05:19 AM
From: UnBelievable  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1379
 
Who Actually Owns The Stock of the Federal Reserve Banks

"For many years, there has been considerable mystery about who actually owns the stock of the Federal Reserve Banks. Congressman Wright Patman, leading critic of the System, tried to find out who the stockholders were. The stock in the original twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks was purchased by national banks in those twelve regions. Because the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was to set the interest rates and direct open market operations, thus controlling the daily supply and price of money throughout the United States, it is the stockholders of that bank who are the real directors of the entire system. For the first time, it can be revealed who those stockholders are. This writer has the original organization certificates of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, giving the ownership of shares by the national banks in each district. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York issued 203,053 shares, and, as filed with the Comptroller of the Currency May 19, 1914, the large New York City banks took more than half of the outstanding shares. The Rockefeller Kuhn, Loeb-controlled National City Bank took the largest number of shares of any bank, 30,000 shares. J.P. Morgan’s First National Bank took 15,000 shares. When these two banks merged in 1955, they owned in one block almost one fourth of the shares in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which controlled the entire system, and thus they could name Paul Volcker or anyone else they chose to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Chase National Bank took 6,000 shares. The Marine Nation Bank of Buffalo, later known as Marine Midland, took 6,000 shares. This bank was owned by the Schoellkopf family, which controlled Niagara Power Company and other large interests. National Bank of Commerce of New York City took 21,000 shares. The shareholders of these banks which own the stock of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are the people who have controlled our political and economic destinies since 1914. They are the Rothschilds, of Europe, Lazard Freres (Eugene Meyer), Kuhn Loeb Company, Warburg Company, Lehman Brothers,
Goldman Sachs, the Rockefeller family, and the J.P. Morgan interests. These interests have merged and consolidated in recent years, so that the control is much more concentrated. National Bank of Commerce is now Morgan Guaranty Trust Company. Lehman Brothers has merged with Kuhn, Loeb Company, First National Bank has merged with the National City Bank, and in the other eleven Federal Reserve Districts, these same shareholders indirectly own or control shares in those banks, with the other shares owned by the leading families in those areas who own or control the principal industries in these regions.* The "local" families set up regional councils, on orders from New York, of such groups as the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, and other instruments of control devised by their masters. They finance and control political developments in their area, name candidates, and are seldom successfully opposed in their plans."

The above is from SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE by
Eustace Mullins. The official Fed sites put a different spin on the fact that the stock of the Reserve Banks are owned by banks, but do not deny it.

Of course as long as you believe that what is good for JPM and C is good for America the issue is moot. And it was, of course, because of Brazil's greater progress with regard to monetary and fiscal policy, as compared to Argentina's, that was the reason for the significant difference in the US financial support for Brazil and lack thereof for Argentina. Or am I confusing things, that was the IMF of course. <gg>



To: ahhaha who wrote (43)8/11/2002 12:37:01 PM
From: glenn_a  Read Replies (3) | Respond to 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