Isn't The Federal Reserve Bank Simply A Criminal Enterprise?

This debate is a discussion of the implications of this article. . and this (as it happens, Libertarian) missive

You may, with cites, contest the factuality of any portion of the above but, otherwise, we will attempt to dispel (I prefer the word ‘dispelling’ to ‘fighting’, Cecil) ignorance about why and how the world we live in is what it is thru RATIONAL discussion of what the Fed really is.

Let me start with a few cites (wiki).

BTW, Aldrich was Republican.

Nixon unilaterally formalizes the Fed as Banker To The World.

My analysis.

The Fed is the creation of taxpayer funded bi-partisan cooperation. And the result?

The Fed is organized corruption.

Ask me to reconcile my thoughts with your thinking. Remember, I’m going for the GD No Responses Title. Convince me I’m honest by recusing yourself.

OK. I’m an attention whore. Lay it on. If you agree in general, make it short.

I’m confused as to what the crime is supposed to have been. Misreporting of information? The list if criminal enterprises is going to be long.

Precisely. It’s list of member banks is exponential, ultimately into wallets and change purses. Quite so.

ETA the crime is editing (cooking) the books.

I was thinking to start the list with churches, but whichever…

This is one of those Creature from Jekyll Island type things, right?

I’m honestly unsure of what the OP is even getting at, here, though considering the OP that is, perhaps, not so unusual. Is the ‘debate’ about the Fed misrepresenting the M1 figures, and if so, how does that make or not make the Federal Reserve bank ‘simply a criminal enterprise’?? Or is the debate that the Fed is or isn’t a criminal enterprise, and what does that even mean wrt a government agency? Or, is the debate that Republicans are evil since they lead a Democratic Congress into creating the original Federal Reserve Banking system?

Or is this just another rant about the evils of government, blah blah blah?


The need for a Federal Reserve has escaped me on some fundamental level. It seems absurd to give the People’s money from the U.S Treasury to the Fed who then loans that money to the banks who in turn loans money back to the People. The whole exercise smells of a ponzi scheme specifically designed to generate wealth from interest.

It is also unclear why the Fed will not let the People open an account with them. I’m a citizen, I have a social security number, I have reasonable credit, I want an 0 - 0.25% interest rate on a loan, too. I don’t ask this in a populist rage but reallty: What makes JPMorgan Chase so special?
My biggest problem with the Fed is that they have no power to force banks to lend. All they do is turn down the interest rate meter (which is at the lowest it can go). I want a public option; There needs to be a real “lender of last resort” that will loan money to responsible businesses and individuals when private banks can’t, or in this case, won’t do so.

  • Honesty

Abbot and Costello (Hyde and Hyde), ignoring the definition of this particular OP. Funny?

Possibly relevant article from The Master on the Federal Reserve:

As for the claims in the OP from the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, I haven’t been able to find anything more, um, mainstream to corroborate them yet. I’m still looking as I have no idea if they are true or not. Here is a Wiki article on the money supply and how it works, as more background, if anyone is interested.


Concise and on spot.

What is it you’re trying to say? …hell what are you even “analyzing”?

While you’re at it, analyze Uzi’s post above. You guys speak the same language.

Take it anywhere but here.

Ignoring? I asked for what your definition of “criminal” was, and your answer was less than helpful, by which I mean it was completely meaningless and incomprehensible. Unless you actually meant that there mere ownership of a wallet or change purse was sufficient to render an individual a criminal. Did you?

Um, Uzi hasn’t posted in this thread.

Oh my.

Well, this does put the ‘relative clarity’ of his posts in context, doesn’t it. :eek:

I’m not quite sure what there is to dispute here. You posted a quote taken from a posting by Howard Katz on If you look at the original posting, you’ll see that Katz provides absolutely no sources for any of his facts, figures, graphs, etc… It is not our responsibility to contest what Katz is saying. It is his responsibility to give us a reason to believe what he says.

True. They are easy to confuse, imo. begbert is lost in their crowd.

I’ve never noticed any particular similarity between them.

You are not familiar enough with me to get to leave off the “2”.

ETA: everyone else on the message board is.

I’m the OP. I want contrary cites or leave the room, please.

Being the OP doesn’t shift the burden of proof, you know. (Or maybe you don’t.)