No, it didn’t. What section are you referring to?
Do you have a cite for that?
One man’s fact is another mans fiction.
Do I need to site an opinion?
There have been numerous documentaries on the FRB and its ‘less than honest’ relationship both with the US public and with the Federal Reserve System. PBS did one on NOVA some years back and there are many, many others. Some claim an active conspiracy while others claim some kind of secret Illuminati magic nonsense. Still others stick to historical facts. Netflix is a one of many resources for such documentaries. Here’s a page with several links. Since I can’t watch them for you you’ll have to watch one of them to see for yourself.
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Conspiracy_The_Secret_History_The_Secret_Birth_of_the_Federal_Reserve/70025761?trkid=222336&lnkctr=srchrd-sr&strkid=922302201_0_0
If this is an objection to my opinion or interpretation, why do you care what I think?
If it’s to ‘debunk’ my ‘misinformation’ or prevent others from reading opinions other than moderator approved censorship, does that mean you find my posts influential?
-Tom
Many many people believe the original constitution intended to prevent the formation of a governmental bank or banking system. See the letter of transmittal from George Washington’s cabinet for a reference. I believe the Federal Reserve System is the way our politicians collectively dealt with the issue over the past 100 years. They created a governmental body that was intended to oversee the financial health of the US economy. However, they did not create a bank.
Does anyone have a site on the incorporation of any government owned or operated BANKS?
Where are it’s profit and loss statements?
Banks earn profit. Where are the Federal Reserve Bank financial statements?
The Federal Reserve System is not a bank, it uses the congressional charter granted the FRB via the Federal Reserve Act by and through it’s 12 independent reserve banks but the government itself does not own or profit from them, unfortunately.
There are few financial references to the actual bank or it’s primary stockholders. Why? Since it’s not a US corporation, it’s not required to post it’s financial statements.
-Tom
And you know this to be a fact?
Where are the FRS financial statements?
**Why does the FRB charge interest but not report that interest to the public as a public gain?
**
Where do all those billions in interest go?
-Tom
We all know that every year a budged is reviewed, fought over and passed. But where is the text of the Board’s yearly review, including a profit and loss statement for the FBR and it’s branches?
A P&L contains asetts and liabilities as an equation but no such document exists for the FRS or FRB. Unless I’m blind.
-Tom
Just so there’s no more “misinformation”, this is a link to a real Bank Profit and Loss Summary statement.
http://www.bank.lv/eng/main/all/pubrun/lbgadaparsk/lb1998gp/lb1998finpars/profitloss/
As far as I’ve been able to surmise, no such thing exists for the FED.
Why?
Could it be that it’s not a bank?
Perhaps this is what the Libertarians are upset about?
-Tom
Well, it was easy enough to find volumes of releases by the fed about their assets, holdings, and general status. Google really is your friend.
Please don’t take this as in any way an acceptance/willingness to engage with ron paulian bank conspiracy theories. It just happens that sometimes, it’s easier to answer a question than to resolve the issue any other way.
Or perhaps such a thing exists, not that that’s going to slow down your wild imaginings.
Perhaps Libertarians simply suffer from poor Google-Fu.
And just to be completist, a press release about the fed’s income and expenditures. Federal Reserve Board - Reserve Bank income and expense data and transfers to the Treasury for 2005
You may note that the report describes how
I think that answers the following question.
So, now that we’ve conclusively shown that the fed does issue such things, were you mistaken in your assertions? Or are you going to argue that the Fed isn’t a true scotsman?
(In fact, the fed isn’t a true scotsman in many ways—But going into detail about that would overcomplicate things when it seems clear that the contentions you have made have been rebutted sufficiently, it’s 2AM, and I have better things to do).
From: Federal Reserve Board - Reserve Bank income and expense data and transfers to the Treasury for 2005
You can’t possibly believe the US treasure only earned $386 million dollars in loan proceeds for the entire year of 2005, but earned 28 billion in proceeds from “securities” alone, can you? And that $901 million is less than paltry for banking service fees for the >$13 trillion GNP of the US Government. Hell, there are small companies in the downtown area of the city in which I live that earned more than $328 million in interest income in 2005.
And the income was depreciated by “reevaluation of foreign currency” lowering the overall income even more, not to mention that’s a small statement with a big hole in it. The statement could apply equally to people, money, fixed assets or someone’s idea of their personal worth.
Where is the balance sheet? Without a balance sheet to show collectible government debts and other assets those income numbers are meaningless.
From Wikipedia:Economy of the United States - Wikipedia
The report states the government derived interest from government securities “acquired through open market operations”. The purpose of a balance sheet is so you can easily see how much it cost to earn that interest.
And, you all still ignored the actual question. Neither link is a profit and loss statement. The 2006 report for fiscal 2005 is a report that still fails to account for the vast dollar value of interest earned on monies loaned from the FRS to private banks. Something is missing somewhere especially in a multi-trillion dollar economy.
The FED charges member and private banks a prime interest rate for the use of it’s capitol, or should I say “our” capitol but where does that interest go?
If the government lists 28 billion in interest earned on securities, why is there so little interest earned on loans to member or private banks when in fact it’s lever, the prime interest rate is the single most important number in the entire economy.
Did you all read the report or just find it and post a link.
Is this thread all about debunking misinformation, who’s right or wrong, or are y’all really interested in how the economy operates.
Perhaps it’s just an opportunity to fortify a sagging ego.
-Tom
Do you have any information about this NOVA documentary? Because when I watched the show regularly as a kid, I found that NOVA was a science-oriented series, so I would be surprised to see an episode about the Fed.
I’ve noticed that poor Google-Fu is among the less dire impairments most Libertarians suffer from…
:rolleyes: Even with the qualifier you are making an assertion of fact – i.e., WRT something verifiable. If it is true that all the FRB stockholders are foreigners, that certainly would have been reported in the media, in fact, would be common knowledge in the business community. It’s not unreasonable to ask for a cite.
:rolleyes: The First Bank of the United States was chartered in 1791. By the First Congress. When the Constitutional Convention still was fresh in everyone’s minds and Convention delegates were still active in politics. Hamilton effectively answered all questions raised about its constitutionality, and Washington came down on his side (as against Jefferson’s). The courts have never ruled otherwise. I believe this comes under the general heading of “Idiot Legal Arguments.”
:dubious: Nothing in that letter supports your position.
Of course the FRS (comprised of multiple FRBs) loans money to the U.S. So do you and I every time we buy a U.S. Treasury bond. Bonds are how the U.S. government borrows money.
And, by the way, saying “the Wiki” is less than helpful. There are many thousands of wikis out there. I probably use half a dozen or more on a weekly basis. I presume you mean Wikipedia, but if you do, say it.
Granted, the Web sites and news media that you listed derive the majority of their information from advertising. That said, referring to them as “advertising agencies” is disingenuous at best.
Businesses like MSNBC, CNN, and Fox select what “news” to present to us, and they present it through a filter. They each have their own bias, although I don’t believe they’re sufficiently organized to be part of a massive propaganda engine.
Search engines like Google, on the other hand, are merely tools for finding information presented by other people. Google doesn’t create the information that it helps you find, and it, in and of itself, is a useful citation only for statistics. I don’t see how you can consider it uninformative.
Public wikis are yet another animal entirely. Judge their accuracy and truthfulness exactly as you’d judge a multi-author blog or a Web site. It’s true that certain pages on Wikipedia end up as propaganda simply because people give up on fighting the battle, but it’s a great place to begin your research and often contains links to highly useful information.
No. I don’t want to play semantic or philosophical games with word definitions, but facts are facts. You may recite fiction and claim it to be fact, but that doesn’t make it so.
No, you need to cite an opinion. A site is a location. A cite is a citation. You may use a Web site as your cite, but they aren’t the same thing.
It’s a short letter. I read it three times. I seem to be missing the part where it says the constitution was intended to prevent the formation of a governmental bank or banking system. You may be referring to the paragraph that says
but that seems to imply that the “different organization” to which they refer (our current form of government, based on the Constitution that was delivered with this letter) would get involved in money and commerce in unspecified ways, and doesn’t explicitly or implicitly rule out establishment of a central banking system.
You’re not even reading what you’re quoting to us, are you? The U.S. Treasury issues bonds, upon which it pays interest. The Fed purchased a big pile of those bonds, upon which it earned interest. The $29 billion is FRS income from the U.S. Treasury, not the other way around. And the $328 million is FRS income from sources other than the U.S. Government.
On one hand, you’re trying to convince us that the FRS isn’t part of the U.S. Government, and on the other, you’re trying to convince us that FRS income = U.S. Treasury income.
Really? A small business earning more than $328 million in interest? At today’s interest rates, it takes assets in the tens of billions of dollars to earn that kind of interest. Any business with billions of dollars in cash laying around to invest in bonds and other interest-bearing securities hardly qualifies as a “small” company.
Even a bank, credit union, or loan shark that’s loaning out other people’s money at usurious rates would be far from “small” with those earnings.