Jump to content
DC Message Boards
Guest whoopee

Federal Reserve Transparency - Audit the Fed

Recommended Posts

Guest Fedup   
Guest Fedup

Global Elitists who have been robbing America by design. This undisciplined display of money and credit expansion by most all central banks has been done deliberately. These people are not dumb; they know exactly what they are doing.

 

We are in a depression in the inflationary stage and as long as money and credit and Fed monetization continues inflation will rise. The Fed is well aware of all this, because they deliberately created this situation. This video is old, but Alan Greenspan says it all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dominick Odorizzi   
Guest Dominick Odorizzi

The Federal Reserve decides how much money the Treasury needs to print. The fiat money stimulus packages will cause large-scale inflation that always follows fiat money. Our government will probably tell us that we can avoid inflation by joining the International Monetary Fund, or some other international group, thus destroying our dollar.

 

The Federal Reserve is not accountable to anyone. It has never been fully audited. If we want to preserve our dollar, we need to get Congress to stop the printing of fiat money. We citizens need to contact Congress to vote for the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 (H.R. 1207 and S. 604) to get the audit we need. Otherwise, our dollar may soon become as worthless as the German Mark after World War I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mises   
Guest Mises

Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson understood "The Monster". But to most Americans today, Federal Reserve is just a name on the dollar bill. They have no idea of what the central bank does to the economy, or to their own economic lives; of how and why it was founded and operates; or of the sound money and banking that could end the statism, inflation, and business cycles that the Fed generates. Dedicated to Murray N. Rothbard, steeped in American history and Austrian economics, and featuring Ron Paul, Joseph Salerno, Hans Hoppe, and Lew Rockwell, this extraordinary new film is the clearest, most compelling explanation ever offered of the Fed, and why curbing it must be our first priority. Alan Greenspan is not, we're told, happy about this 42-minute blockbuster. Watch it, and you'll understand why. This is economics and history as they are meant to be: fascinating, informative, and motivating. This movie could change America.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest I Have Been Mugged   
Guest I Have Been Mugged

I think it can truly be said that the Bank of Amsterdam from 1609-1780 was the last honest bank. And the results were phenomenal: moderate, steady, and predictable growth for 170 years. It is the perfect rejoinder to any one who claims that 100% reserve banking will harm the economy, cause economic chaos, and is unsustainable.

 

The Federal Reserve's "deposit insurance" is a swindle; how does one insure an institution (fractional reserve banking) that is inherently insolvent, and which will fall apart whenever the public finally understands the swindle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jason   
Guest Jason

The Federal Reserve is not the most democratic institution, but under Bernanke et al, it seems to have done a good enough job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Indiana   
Guest Indiana

If you are not a bit paranoid about the situation,

then you are not paying attention!!

 

 

WASHINGTON, July 10, 1832

 

The White House

President Andrew Jackson

 

To the Senate:

 

The bill "to modify and continue" the act entitled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States" was presented to me on the 4th July instant. Having considered it with that solemn regard to the principles of the Constitution which the day was calculated to inspire, and come to the conclusion that it ought not to become a law, I herewith return it to the Senate, in which it originated, with my objections.

 

A bank of the United States is in many respects convenient for the Government and useful to the people. Entertaining this opinion, and deeply impressed with the belief that some of the powers and privileges possessed by the existing bank are unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive of the rights of the States, and dangerous to the liberties of the people, I felt it my duty at an early period of my Administration to call the attention of Congress to the practicability of organizing an institution combining all its advantages and obviating these objections. I sincerely regret that in the act before me I can perceive none of those modifications of the bank charter which are necessary, in my opinion, to make it compatible with justice, with sound policy, or with the Constitution of our country.

 

The present corporate body, denominated the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, will have existed at the time this act is intended to take effect twenty years. It enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking under the authority of the General Government, a monopoly of its favor and support, and, as a necessary consequence, almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange. The powers, privileges, and favors bestowed upon it in the original charter, by increasing the value of the stock far above its par value, operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders.

 

An apology may be found for the failure to guard against this result in the consideration that the effect of the original act of incorporation could not be certainly foreseen at the time of its passage. The act before me proposes another gratuity to the holders of the same stock, and in many cases to the same men, of at least seven millions more. This donation finds no apology in any uncertainty as to the effect of the act. On all hands it is conceded that its passage will increase at least 20 or 30 per cent more the market price of the stock, subject to the payment of the annuity of $200,000 per year secured by the act, thus adding in a moment one-fourth of its par value. It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners. By this act the American Republic proposes virtually to make them a present of some millions of dollars. For these gratuities to foreigners and to some of our own opulent citizens the act secures no equivalent whatever. They are the certain gains of the present stockholders under the operation of this act, after making full allowance for the payment of the bonus.

 

Every monopoly and all exclusive privileges are granted at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to bestow on the stockholders of the existing bank must come directly or indirectly out of the earnings of the American people. It is due to them, therefore, if their Government sells monopolies and exclusive privileges, that they should at least exact for them as much as they are worth in open market. The value of the monopoly in this case may be correctly ascertained. The twenty-eight millions of stock would probably be at an advance of 50 per cent, and command in market at least $42,000,000, subject to the payment of the present bonus. The present value of the monopoly, therefore, is $17,000,000 and this the act proposes to sell for three millions, payable in fifteen annual installments of $200,000 each.

 

It is not conceivable how the present stockholders can have any claim to the special favor of the Government. The present corporation has enjoyed its monopoly during the period stipulated in the original contract. If we must have such a corporation, why should not the Government sell out the whole stock and thus secure to the people the full market value of the privileges granted? Why should not Congress create and sell twenty-eight millions of stock, incorporating the purchasers with all the powers and privileges secured in this act and putting the premium upon sales into the Treasury?

 

But this act does not permit competition in the purchase of this monopoly. It seems to be predicated on the erroneous idea that the present stockholders have a prescriptive right not only to the favor but to the bounty of Government. It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class. For their benefit does this act exclude the whole American people from competition in the purchase of this monopoly and dispose of it for many millions less than it is worth. This seems the less excusable because some of our citizens not now stockholders petitioned that the door of competition might be opened, and offered to take a charter on terms much more favorable to the Government and country.

 

But this proposition, although made by men whose aggregate wealth is believed to be equal to all the private stock in the existing bank, has been set aside, and the bounty of our Government is proposed to be again bestowed on the few who have been fortunate enough to secure the stock and at this moment wield the power of the existing institution. I can not perceive the justice or policy of this course. If our Government must sell monopolies, it would seem to be its duty to take nothing less than their full value, and if gratuities must be made once in fifteen or twenty years let them not be bestowed on the subjects of a foreign government nor upon a designated and favored class of men in our own country. It is but justice and good policy, as far as the nature of the case will admit, to confine our favors to our own fellow-citizens, and let each in his turn enjoy an opportunity to profit by our bounty. In the bearings of the act before me upon these points I find ample reasons why it should not become a law.

 

It has been urged as an argument in favor of rechartering the present bank that the calling in of its loans will produce great embarrassment and distress. The time allowed to close its concerns is ample, and if it has been well managed its pressure will be light, and heavy only in case its management has been bad. If, therefore, it shall produce distress, the fault will be its own, and it would furnish a reason against renewing a power which has been so obviously abused. But will there ever be a time when this reason will be less powerful? To acknowledge its force is to admit that the bank ought to be perpetual, and as a consequence the present stockholders and those inheriting their rights as successors be established a privileged order, clothed both with great political power and enjoying immense pecuniary advantages from their connection with the Government.

 

The modifications of the existing charter proposed by this act are not such, in my view, as make it consistent with the rights of the States or the liberties of the people. The qualification of the right of the bank to hold real estate, the limitation of its power to establish branches, and the power reserved to Congress to forbid the circulation of small notes are restrictions comparatively of little value or importance. All the objectionable principles of the existing corporation, and most of its odious features, are retained without alleviation.

 

The fourth section provides "that the notes or bills of the said corporation, although the same be, on the faces thereof, respectively made payable at one place only, shall nevertheless be received by the said corporation at the bank or at any of the offices of discount and deposit thereof if tendered in liquidation or payment of any balance or balances due to said corporation or to such office of discount and deposit from any other incorporated bank." This provision secures to the State banks a legal privilege in the Bank of the United States which is withheld from all private citizens. If a State bank in Philadelphia owe the Bank of the United States and have notes issued by the St. Louis branch, it can pay the debt with those notes, but if a merchant, mechanic, or other private citizen be in like circumstances he can not by law pay his debt with those notes, but must sell them at a discount or send them to St. Louis to be cashed. This boon conceded to the State banks, though not injust in itself, is most odious because it does not measure out equal justice to the high and the low, the rich and the poor. To the extent of its practical effect it is a bond of union among the banking establishments of the nation, erecting them into an interest separate from that of the people, and its necessary tendency is to unite the Bank of the United States and the State banks in any measure which may be thought conducive to their common interest.

 

The ninth section of the act recognizes principles of worse tendency than any provision of the present charter.

 

It enacts that "the cashier of the bank shall annually report to the Secretary of the Treasury the names of all stockholders who are not resident citizens of the United States, and on the application of the treasurer of any State shall make out and transmit to such treasurer a list of stockholders residing in or citizens of such State, with the amount of stock owned by each." Although this provision, taken in connection with a decision of the Supreme Court, surrenders, by its silence, the right of the States to tax the banking institutions created by this corporation under the name of branches throughout the Union, it is evidently intended to be construed as a concession of their right to tax that portion of the stock which may be held by their own citizens and residents. In this light, if the act becomes a law, it will be understood by the States, who will probably proceed to levy a tax equal to that paid upon the stock of banks incorporated by themselves. In some States that tax is now 1 percent, either on the capital or on the shares, and that may be assumed as the amount which all citizen or resident stockholders would be taxed under the operation of this act. As it is only the stock held in the States and not that employed within them which would be subject to taxation, and as the names of foreign stockholders are not to be reported to the treasurers of the States, it is obvious that the stock held by them will be exempt from this burden. Their annual profits will therefore be 1 per cent more than the citizen stockholders, and as the annual dividends of the bank may be safely estimated at 7 per cent, the stock will be worth 10 or 15 percent more to foreigners than to citizens of the United States. To appreciate the effects which this state of things will produce, we must take a brief review of the operations and present condition of the Bank of the United States.

 

By documents submitted to Congress at the present session it appears that on the 1st of January, 1832, of the twenty-eight millions of private stock in the corporation, $8,405,500 were held by foreigners, mostly of Great Britain. The amount of stock held in the nine Western and South-western States is $140,200, and in the four Southern States is $5,623,100, and in the Middle and Eastern States is about $13,522,000. The profits of the bank in 1831, as shown in a statement to Congress, were about $3,455,598; of this there accrued in the nine Western States about $1,640,048; in the four Southern States about $352,507, and in the Middle and Eastern States about $1,463,041. As little stock is held in the West, it is obvious that the debt of the people in that section to the bank is principally a debt to the Eastern and foreign stockholders; that the interest they pay upon it is carried into the Eastern States and into Europe, and that it is a burden upon their industry and a drain of their currency, which no country can bear without inconvenience and occasional distress. To meet this burden and equalize the exchange operations of the bank, the amount of specie drawn from those States through its branches within the last two years, as shown by its official reports, was about $6,000,000. More than half a million of this amount does not stop in the Eastern States, but passes on to Europe to pay the dividends of the foreign stockholders. In the principle of taxation recognized by this act the Western States find no adequate compensation for this perpetual burden on their industry and drain of their currency. The branch bank at Mobile made last year $95,140, yet under the provisions of this act the State of Alabama can raise no revenue from these profitable operations, because not a share of the stock is held by any of her citizens. Mississippi and Missouri are in the same condition in relation to the branches at Natchez and St. Louis, and such, in a greater or less degree, is the condition of every Western State. The tendency of the plan of taxation which this act proposes will be to place the whole United States in the same relation to foreign countries which the Western States now bear to the Eastern. When by a tax on resident stockholders the stock of this bank is made worth 10 or 15 per cent more to foreigners than to residents, most of it will inevitably leave the country.

 

Thus will this provision in its practical effect deprive the Eastern as well as the Southern and Western States of the means of raising a revenue from the extension of business and great profits of this institution. It will make the American people debtors to aliens in nearly the whole amount due to this bank, and send across the Atlantic from two to five millions of specie every year to pay the bank dividends.

 

In another of its bearings this provision is fraught with danger. Of the twenty-five directors of this bank five are chosen by the Government and twenty by the citizen stockholders. From all voice in these elections the foreign stockholders are excluded by the charter. In proportion, therefore, as the stock is transferred to foreign holders the extent of suffrage in the choice of directors is curtailed. Already almost a third of the stock in foreign hands and not represented in elections. It is constantly passing out of the country, and this act will accelerate its departure. The entire control of the institution would necessarily fall into the hands of a few citizen stockholders, and the ease with which the object would be accomplished would be a temptation to designing men to secure that control in their own hands by monopolizing the remaining stock. There is danger that a president and directors would then be able to elect themselves from year to year, and without responsibility or control manage the whole concerns of the bank during the existence of its charter. It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institutions might flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people.

 

Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? The president of the bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it can not be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence.

 

Should the stock of the bank principally pass into the hands of the subjects of a foreign country, and we should unfortunately become involved in a war with that country, what would be our condition? Of the course which would be pursued by a bank almost wholly owned by the subjects of a foreign power, and managed by those whose interests, if not affections, would run in the same direction there can be no doubt. All its operations within would be in aid of the hostile fleets and armies without. Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy.

 

If we must have a bank with private stockholders, every consideration of sound policy and every impulse of American feeling admonishes that it should be purely American. Its stockholders should be composed exclusively of our own citizens, who at least ought to be friendly to our Government and willing to support it in times of difficulty and danger. So abundant is domestic capital that competition in subscribing for the stock of local banks has recently led almost to riots. To a bank exclusively of American stockholders, possessing the powers and privileges granted by this act, subscriptions for $200,000,000 could be readily obtained. Instead of sending abroad the stock of the bank in which the Government must deposit its funds and on which it must rely to sustain its credit in times of emergency, it would rather seem to be expedient to prohibit its sale to aliens under penalty of absolute forfeiture.

 

It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I can not assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress, in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another, in 1811, decided against it. One Congress, in 1815, decided against a bank; another, in 1816, decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of legislative, judicial, and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as 4 to 1. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.

 

If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government, The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.

 

But in the case relied upon the Supreme Court have not decided that all the features of this corporation are compatible with the Constitution. It is true that the court have said that the law incorporating the bank is a constitutional exercise of power by Congress; but taking into view the whole opinion of the court and the reasoning by which they have come to that conclusion, I understand them to have decided that inasmuch as a bank is an appropriate means for carrying into effect the enumerated powers of the General Government, therefore the law incorporating it is in accordance with that provision of the Constitution which declares that Congress shall have power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying those powers into execution." Having satisfied themselves that the word "necessary" in the Constitution means "needful," "requisite," "essential," "conducive to," and that "a bank" is a convenient, a useful, and essential instrument in the prosecution of the Government's "fiscal operations," they conclude that to "use one must be within the discretion of Congress" and that the "act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution;" "but," say they, "where the law is not prohibited and is really calculated to effect any of the objects intrusted to the Government, to undertake here to inquire into the degree of its necessity would be to pass the line which circumscribes the judicial department and to tread on legislative ground."

 

The principle here affirmed is that the "degree of its necessity," involving all the details of a banking institution, is a question exclusively for legislative consideration. A bank is constitutional, but it is the province of the Legislature to determine whether this or that particular power, privilege, or exemption is "necessary and proper" to enable the bank to discharge its duties to the Government, and from their decision there is no appeal to the courts of justice. Under the decision of the Supreme Court, therefore, it is the exclusive province of Congress and the President to decide whether the particular features of this act are necessary and proper in order to enable the bank to perform conveniently and efficiently the public duties assigned to it as a fiscal agent, and therefore constitutional, or unnecessary and improper, and therefore unconstitutional.

 

Without commenting on the general principle affirmed by the Supreme Court, let us examine the details of this act in accordance with the rule of legislative action which they have laid down. It will be found that many of the powers and privileges conferred on it can not be supposed necessary for the purpose for which it is proposed to be created, and are not, therefore, means necessary to attain the end in view, and consequently not justified by the Constitution.

 

The original act of incorporation, section 21, enacts "that no other bank shall be established by any future law of the United States during the continuance of the corporation hereby created, for which the faith of the United States is hereby pledged: Provided, Congress may renew existing charters for banks within the District of Columbia not increasing the capital thereof, and may also establish any other bank or banks in said District with capitals not exceeding in the whole $6,000,000 if they shall deem it expedient." This provision is continued in force by the act before me fifteen years from the 3d of March, 1836.

 

If Congress possessed the power to establish one bank, they had power to establish more than one if in their opinion two or more banks had been "necessary" to facilitate the execution of the powers delegated to them in the Constitution. If they possessed the power to establish a second bank, it was a power derived from the Constitution to be exercised from time to time, and at any time when the interests of the country or the emergencies of the Government might make it expedient. It was possessed by one Congress as well as another, and by all Congresses alike, and alike at every session. But the Congress of 1816 have taken it away from their successors for twenty years, and the Congress of 1832 proposes to abolish it for fifteen years more. It can not be "necessary" or "proper" for Congress to barter away or divest themselves of any of the powers vested in them by the Constitution to be exercised for the public good. It is not "necessary" to the efficiency of the bank, nor is it "proper" in relation to themselves and their successors. They may properly use the discretion vested in them, but they may not limit the discretion of their successors. This restriction on themselves and grant of a monopoly to the bank is therefore unconstitutional.

 

In another point of view this provision is a palpable attempt to amend the Constitution by an act of legislation. The Constitution declares that "the Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District of Columbia. Its constitutional power, therefore, to establish banks in the District of Columbia and increase their capital at will is unlimited and uncontrollable by any other power than that which gave authority to the Constitution. Yet this act declares that Congress shall not increase the capital of existing banks, nor create other banks with capitals exceeding in the whole $6,000,000. The Constitution declares that Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation over this District "in all cases whatsoever" and this act declares they shall not. Which is the supreme law of the land? This provision can not be "necessary" or "proper" or constitutional unless the absurdity be admitted that whenever it be "necessary and proper" in the opinion of Congress they have a right to barter away one portion of the powers vested in them by the Constitution as a means of executing the rest.

 

On two subjects only does the Constitution recognize in Congress the power to grant exclusive privileges or monopolies. It declares that "Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Out of this express delegation of power have grown our laws of patents and copyrights. As the Constitution expressly delegates to Congress the power to grant exclusive privileges in these cases as the means of executing the substantive power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," it is consistent with the fair rules of construction to conclude that such a power was not intended to be granted as a means of accomplishing any other end. On every other subject which comes within the scope of Congressional power there is an ever-living discretion in the use of proper means, which can not be restricted or abolished without an amendment of the Constitution. Every act of Congress, therefore, which attempts by grants of monopolies or sale of exclusive privileges for a limited time, or a time without limit, to restrict or extinguish its own discretion in the choice of means to execute its delegated powers is equivalent to a legislative amendment of the Constitution, and palpably unconstitutional.

 

This act authorizes and encourages transfers of its stock to foreigners and grants them an exemption from all State and national taxation. So far from being "necessary and proper" that the bank should possess this power to make it a safe and efficient agent of the Government in its fiscal operations, it is calculated to convert the Bank of the United States into a foreign bank, to impoverish our people in time of peace, to disseminate a foreign influence through every section of the Republic, and in war to endanger our independence.

 

The several States reserved the power at the formation of the Constitution to regulate and control titles and transfers of real property, and most, if not all, of them have laws disqualifying aliens from acquiring or holding lands within their limits. But this act, in disregard of the undoubted right of the States to prescribe such disqualifications, gives to aliens stockholders in this bank an interest and title, as members of the corporation, to all the real property it may acquire within any of the States of this Union. This privilege granted to aliens is not "necessary" to enable the bank to perform its public duties, nor in any sense "proper," because it is vitally subversive of the rights of the States.

 

The Government of the United States have no constitutional power to purchase lands within the States except "for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings," and even for these objects only "by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be." By making themselves stockholders in the bank and granting to the corporation the power to purchase lands for other purposes they assume a power not granted in the Constitution and grant it to others what they do not themselves possess. It is not necessary to the receiving, safe-keeping, or transmission of the funds of the Government that the bank should possess this power, and it is not proper that Congress should thus enlarge the powers delegated to them in the Constitution.

 

The old Bank of the United States possessed a capital of only $11,000,000, which was found fully sufficient to enable it with dispatch and safety to perform all the functions required of it by the Government. The capital of the present bank is $35,000,000 -- at least twenty-four more than experience has proved to be necessary to enable a bank to perform its public functions. The public debt which existed during the period of the old bank and on the establishment of the new has been nearly paid off, and our revenue will soon be reduced. This increase of capital is therefore not for public but for private purposes.

 

The Government is the only "proper" judge where its agents should reside and keep their offices, because it best knows where their presence will be "necessary." It can not, therefore, be "necessary" or "proper" to authorize the bank to locate branches where it pleases to perform the public service, without consulting the Government, and contrary to its will. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court concedes that Congress can not establish a bank for purposes of private speculation and gain, but only as a means of executing the delegated powers of the General Government. By the same principle a branch bank can not constitutionally be established for other than public purposes. The power which this act gives to establish two branches in any State, without the injunction or request of the Government and for other than public purposes, is not "necessary" for the due execution of the powers delegated to Congress.

 

The bonus which is exacted from the bank is a confession upon the face of the act that the powers granted by it are greater than are "necessary" to its character of a fiscal agent. The Government does not tax its officers and agents for the privilege of serving it. The bonus of a million and a half required by the original charter and that of three millions proposed by this act are not exacted for the privilege of giving "the necessary facilities for transferring the public funds from place to place within the United States or the Territories thereof, and for distributing the same in payment of the public creditors without charging commission or claiming allowance on account of the difference of exchange," as required by the act of incorporation, but for something more beneficial to the stockholders. The original act declares that it (the bonus) is granted "in consideration of the exclusive privileges and benefits conferred by this act upon the said bank," and the act before me declares it to be "in consideration of the exclusive benefits and privileges continued by this act to the said corporation for fifteen years, as aforesaid." It is therefore for "exclusive privileges and benefits" conferred for their own use and emolument, and not for the advantage of the Government, that a bonus is exacted. These surplus powers for which the bank is required to pay can not surely be "necessary" to make it the fiscal agent of the Treasury. If they were, the exaction of a bonus for them would not be "proper."

 

It is maintained by some that the bank is a means of executing the constitutional power "to coin money and regulate the value thereof." Congress have established a mint to coin money and passed laws to regulate the value thereof. The money so coined, with its value so regulated, and such foreign coins as Congress may adopt are the only currency known to the Constitution. But if they have other power to regulate the currency, it was conferred to be exercised by themselves, and not to be transferred to a corporation. If the bank be established for that purpose, with a charter unalterable without its consent, Congress have parted with their power for a term of years, during which the Constitution itself is a dead letter. It is neither necessary nor proper to transfer its legislative power to such a bank, and therefore unconstitutional.

 

By its silence, considered in connection with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of McCulloch against the State of Maryland, this act takes from the States the power to tax a portion of the banking business carried on within their limits, in subversion of one of the strongest barriers which secured them against Federal encroachments. Banking, like farming, manufacturing, or any other occupation or profession, is a business, the right to follow which is not originally derived from the laws. Every citizen and every company of citizens in all of our States possessed the right until the State legislatures deemed it good policy to prohibit private banking by law. If the prohibitory State laws were now repealed, every citizen would again possess the right. The State banks are a qualified restoration of the right which has been taken away by the laws against banking, guarded by such provisions and limitations as in the opinion of the State legislatures the public interest requires. These corporations, unless there be an exemption in their charter, are, like private bankers and banking companies, subject to State taxation. The manner in which these taxes shall be laid depends wholly on legislative discretion. It may be upon the bank, upon the stock, upon the profits, or in any other mode which the sovereign power shall will.

 

Upon the formation of the Constitution the States guarded their taxing power with peculiar jealousy. They surrendered it only as it regards imports and exports. In relation to every other object within their jurisdiction, whether persons, property, business, or professions, it was secured in as ample a manner as it was before possessed. All persons, though United States officers, are liable to a poll tax by the States within which they reside. The lands of the United States are liable to the usual land tax, except in the new States, from whom agreements that they will not tax unsold lands are exacted when they are admitted into the Union. Horses, wagons, any beasts or vehicles, tools, or property belonging to private citizens, though employed in the service of the United States, are subject to State taxation. Every private business, whether carried on by an officer of the General Government or not, whether it be mixed with public concerns or not, even if it be carried on by the Government of the United States itself, separately or in partnership, falls within the scope of the taxing power of the State. Nothing comes more fully within it than banks and the business of banking, by whomsoever instituted and carried on. Over this whole subject-matter it is just as absolute, unlimited, and uncontrollable as if the Constitution had never been adopted, because in the formation of that instrument it was reserved without qualification.

 

The principle is conceded that the States can not rightfully tax the operations of the General Government. They can not tax the money of the Government deposited in the State banks, nor the agency of those banks in remitting it; but will any man maintain that their mere selection to perform this public service for the General Government would exempt the State banks and their ordinary business from State taxation? Had the United States, instead of establishing a bank at Philadelphia, employed a private banker to keep and transmit their funds, would it have deprived Pennsylvania of the right to tax his bank and his usual banking operations? It will not be pretended. Upon what principle, then, are the banking establishments of the Bank of the United States and their usual banking operations to be exempted from taxation? It is not their public agency or the deposits of the Government which the States claim a right to tax, but their banks and their banking powers, instituted and exercised within State jurisdiction for their private emolument -- those powers and privileges for which they pay a bonus, and which the States tax in their own banks. The exercise of these powers within a State, no matter by whom or under what authority, whether by private citizens in their original right, by corporate bodies created by the States, by foreigners or the agents of foreign governments located within their limits, forms a legitimate object of State taxation. From this and like sources, from the persons, property, and business that are found residing, located, or carried on under their jurisdiction, must the States, since the surrender of their right to raise a revenue from imports and exports, draw all the money necessary for the support of their governments and the maintenance of their independence. There is no more appropriate subject of taxation than banks, banking, and bank stocks, and none to which the States ought more pertinaciously to cling.

 

It can not be necessary to the character of the bank as a fiscal agent of the Government that its private business should be exempted from that taxation to which all the State banks are liable, nor can I conceive it "proper" that the substantive and most essential powers reserved by the States shall be thus attacked and annihilated as a means of executing the powers delegated to the General Government. It may be safely assumed that none of those sages who had an agency in forming or adopting our Constitution ever imagined that any portion of the taxing power of the States not prohibited to them nor delegated to Congress was to be swept away and annihilated as a means of executing certain powers delegated to Congress.

 

If our power over means is so absolute that the Supreme Court will not call in question the constitutionality of an act of Congress the subject of which "is not prohibited, and is really calculated to effect any of the objects intrusted to the Government, " although, as in the case before me, it takes away powers expressly granted to Congress and rights scrupulously reserved to the States, it becomes us to proceed in our legislation with the utmost caution. Though not directly, our own powers and the rights of the States may be indirectly legislated away in the use of means to execute substantive powers. We may not enact that Congress shall not have the power of exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia, but we may pledge the faith of the United States that as a means of executing other powers it shall not be exercised for twenty years or forever. We may not pass an act prohibiting the States to tax the banking business carried on within their limits, but we may, as a means of executing our powers over other subjects, place that business in the hands of our agents and then declare it exempt from State taxation in their hands. Thus may our own powers and the rights of the States, which we can not directly curtail or invade, be frittered away and extinguished in the use of means employed by us to execute other powers. That a bank of the United States, competent to all the duties which may be required by the Government, might be so organized as not to infringe on our own delegated powers or the reserved rights of the States I do not entertain a doubt. Had the Executive been called upon to furnish the project of such an institution, the duty would have been cheerfully performed. In the absence of such a call it was obviously proper that he should confine himself to pointing out those prominent features in the act presented which in his opinion make it incompatible with the Constitution and sound policy. A general discussion will now take place, eliciting new light and settling important principles; and a new Congress, elected in the midst of such discussion, and furnishing an equal representation of the people according to the last census, will bear to the Capitol the verdict of public opinion, and, I doubt not, bring this important question to a satisfactory result.

 

Under such circumstances the bank comes forward and asks a renewal of its charter for a term of fifteen years upon conditions which not only operate as a gratuity to the stockholders of many millions of dollars, but will sanction any abuses and legalize any encroachments.

 

Suspicions are entertained and charges are made of gross abuse and violation of its charter. An investigation unwillingly conceded and so restricted in time as necessarily to make it incomplete and unsatisfactory discloses enough to excite suspicion and alarm. In the practices of the principal bank partially unveiled, in the absence of important witnesses, and in numerous charges confidently made and as yet wholly uninvestigated there was enough to induce a majority of the committee of investigation -- a committee which was selected from the most able and honorable members of the House of Representatives -- to recommend a suspension of further action upon the bill and a prosecution of the inquiry. As the charter had yet four years to run, and as a renewal now was not necessary to the successful prosecution of its business, it was to have been expected that the bank itself, conscious of its purity and proud of its character, would have withdrawn its application for the present, and demanded the severest scrutiny into all its transactions. In their declining to do so there seems to be an additional reason why the functionaries of the Government should proceed with less haste and more caution in the renewal of their monopoly.

 

The bank is professedly established as an agent of the executive branch of the Government, and its constitutionality is maintained on that ground. Neither upon the propriety of present action nor upon the provisions of this act was the Executive consulted. It has had no opportunity to say that it neither needs nor wants an agent clothed with such powers and favored by such exemptions. There is nothing in its legitimate functions which makes it necessary or proper. Whatever interest or influence, whether public or private, has given birth to this act, it can not be found either in the wishes or necessities of the executive department, by which present action is deemed premature, and the powers conferred upon its agent not only unnecessary, but dangerous to the Government and country.

 

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society -- the farmers, mechanics, and laborers -- who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

 

Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves -- in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.

 

Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy.

 

I have now done my duty to my country. If sustained by my fellow-citizens, I shall be grateful and happy; if not, I shall find in the motives which impel me ample grounds for contentment and peace. In the difficulties which surround us and the dangers which threaten our institutions there is cause for neither dismay nor alarm. For relief and deliverance let us firmly rely on that kind Providence which I am sure watches with peculiar care over the destinies of our Republic, and on the intelligence and wisdom of our countrymen. Through His abundant goodness and their patriotic devotion our liberty and Union will be preserved.

 

ANDREW JACKSON

 

Transcribed and reverse-order proofread by T. Lloyd Benson, from Andrew Jackson, "Veto Message, Washington, July 10, 1832," in Richardson, ed., Messages and Papers of the Presidents, II, 576-591.

 

If President Woodrow Wilson in 1913 had had the courage and the wisdom that President Andrew Jackson had in 1832, the Federal Reserve Banking monopoly system, owned in large part by foreign interests (See "Who Is Running America"), would have never existed and We The People would not be saddled with more than $6 Trillion of Perpetual Debt!!

 

The Federal Reserve Act was passed during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. Just before he died Wilson is reported to have said, relative to the Federal Reserve Act, that he had been deceived and "I have betrayed my country."

 

He also said:

"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit has been concentrated. The growth of the nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world - no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Indiana   
Guest Indiana

The original stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks have been traced back to the London

Connection.

 

JEFFERSON’S OPINION ON THE

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BANK

February 15, 1791

 

(The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. by H. E. Bergh, Vol. III, p. 145 ff.)

The bill for establishing a national bank, in 1791, undertakes, among other

things,--

 

1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.

2. To enable them, in their corporate capacities, to receive grants of lands;

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 (12th

amend.). 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 incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not,

in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luke_Wilbur    5

We should declare all class "A" stockholders of the private "Fed" to be enemy combatants and throw them in a military brig.

 

I found an old Stockholder Certificate from the Bank of Boston.

 

Federal-Reserve-Board-Bank-Stock.jpg

 

Washington, D.C. Federal Reserve Board Stock Holder Certificate. January 28, 1932. The Somerville Trust Company, Sommerville, Massachusetts stock holder membership certificate. Text states "has become a stockholder in the FR Bank of Boston in accordance with the provisions of the Act of Congress approved December 23, 1913, known as the Federal Reserve Act as amended and that subject to the provisions of that Act, as amended, it is a duly qualified member of the Federal Reserve System, entitled to all the rights and privileges of a member Bank..."Signed by the Governor of the FR Board". Eagle holding lightening bolts on top. Appears to be a BEP printing. XF condition. The certificate was glued to a thin card and had been previously framed. Rare Federal Reserve related certificate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAW   
Guest LAW

The Federal Reserve System was created by the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 and began operating in 1914. The Fed is an unusual mixture of public and private elements.

Board of Governors

 

The Board of Governors, located in Washington, D.C., provides the leadership for the System.

 

The Board of Governors, also known as the Federal Reserve Board, is the national component of the Federal Reserve System. The board consists of the seven governors, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Governors serve 14-year, staggered terms to ensure stability and continuity over time.

 

The chairman and vice chairman are appointed to four-year terms and may be reappointed subject to term limitations.

 

Among the responsibilities of the Board of Governors are to guide monetary policy action, to analyze domestic and international economic and financial conditions, and to lead committees that study current issues, such as consumer banking laws and electronic commerce.

 

The Board also exercises broad supervisory control over the financial services industry, administers certain consumer protection regulations, and oversees the nation's payments system. The Board oversees the activities of Reserve Banks, approving the appointments of their presidents and some members of their boards of directors.

 

The Board sets reserve requirements for depository institutions and approves changes in discount rates recommended by Reserve Banks.

 

The Board's most important responsibility is participating in the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) which conducts our nation's monetary policy; the seven governors comprise the voting majority of the FOMC, with the other five votes coming from Reserve Bank presidents.

 

Board members are called to testify before Congress, and they maintain regular contact with other government organizations as well. The chairman reports twice a year to Congress on the Fed's monetary policy objectives, testifies on numerous other issues, and meets periodically with the Secretary of the Treasury.

 

The Board funds its operations by assessing the Federal Reserve Banks rather than through Congressional appropriation. Its financial accounts are audited annually by a public accounting firm, and these accounts are also subject to audit by the General Accounting Office.

Federal Reserve Banks

A network of 12 Federal Reserve Banks and 25 branches make up the Federal Reserve System under the general oversight of the Board of Governors. Reserve Banks are the operating arms of the central bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAW   
Guest LAW

Each of the 12 Reserve Banks serves its region of the country, and all but one have other offices within their Districts to help provide services to depository institutions and the public. The Banks are named after the locations of their headquarters - Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, and San Francisco.

 

The Reserve Banks serve banks, the U.S. Treasury, and, indirectly, the public. A Reserve Bank is often called a "banker's bank," storing currency and coin, and processing checks and electronic payments. Reserve Banks also supervise commercial banks in their regions. As the bank for the U.S. government, Reserve Banks handle the Treasury's payments, sell government securities and assist with the Treasury's cash management and investment activities.

 

Reserve Banks conduct research on regional, national, and international economic issues. Research plays a critical role in bringing broad economic perspectives to the national policymaking arena, and supports Reserve Bank presidents who all attend meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). Each Reserve Bank's board of directors oversees the management and activities of the District bank. Reflecting the diverse interests of each District, these directors contribute local business experience, community involvement, and leadership. The board imparts a private-sector perspective to the Reserve Bank. Each board appoints the president and first vice president of the Reserve Bank, subject to the approval of the Board of Governors.

 

All member banks hold stock in Reserve Banks and receive dividends. Unlike

stockholders in a public company, banks cannot sell or trade their Fed stock. Reserve Banks interact directly with banks in their Districts through examinations and financial services and bring important regional perspectives that help the entire Federal Reserve System do its job more effectively.

 

Member Banks

 

Approximately 38 percent of the 8,039 commercial banks in the United States are members of the Federal Reserve System. National banks must be members; state chartered banks may join if they meet certain requirements.

 

The member banks are stockholders of the Reserve Bank in their District and as such, are required to hold 3 percent of their capital as stock in their Reserve Banks.

 

Other Depository Institutions / American People

In addition to the approximately 3,000 member banks, about 17,000 other depository institutions provide the American people checkable deposits and other banking services. These depository institutions include nonmember commercial banks, savings banks, savings and loan associations, and credit unions. Although not formally part of the Federal Reserve System, these institutions are subject to System regulations, including reserve requirements, and have access to System payments services.

Federal Open Market Committee

 

The Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC, is the Fed's monetary policymaking body. It is responsible for formulation of a policy designed to promote stable prices and economic growth. Simply put, the FOMC manages the nation's money supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LPAC   
Guest LPAC

In 1914, when National City Bank purchased almost ten per cent of the shares of the newly organized Federal Reserve Bank of New York; two of Moses Taylor’s grandsons, Moses Taylor Pyne and Percy Pyne, owned 15,000 shares of National City stock. Moses Taylor’s son, H.A.C. Taylor, owned 7699 shares of National City Bank. The bank’s attorney, John W. Sterling, of the firm of Shearman and Sterling, also owned 6000 shares of National City Bank. However, James Stillman owned 47,498 shares, or almost twenty percent of the bank’s total shares of 250,000.

 

he second largest purchaser of Federal Reserve Bank of New York shares in 1914, First National Bank, was generally known as “the Morgan Bank”, because of the Morgan representation on the board, although the bank’s founder George F. Baker held 20,000 shares, and his son G.F. Baker, Jr., had 5,000 shares for twenty-five percent of the bank’s total stock of 100,000 shares. George F. Baker Sr.’s daughter married George F. St. George of London. The St. Georges later settled in the United States, where their daughter, Katherine St. George, became a prominent Congresswoman for a number of years. Dr. E.M. Josephson wrote of her, “Mrs. St. George, a first cousin of FDR and New Dealer, said, ‘Democracy is a failure’.” George Baker, Jr.’s daughter, Edith Brevoort Baker, married Jacob Schiff’s grandson, John M. Schiff, in 1934. John M. Schiff was [1980] honorary chairman of Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb Company.

 

he third large purchase of Federal Reserve Bank of New York stock in 1914 was the National Bank of Commerce which issued 250,000 shares. J.P. Morgan, through his controlling interest in Equitable Life, which held 24,700 shares and Mutual Life, which held 17,294 shares of National Bank of Commerce, also held another 10,000 shares of National Bank of Commerce through J.P. Morgan and Company (7800 shares), J.P. Morgan, Jr. (1100 shares), and Morgan partner H.P. Davison (1100 shares). Paul Warburg, a Governor of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, also held 3000 shares of National Bank of Commerce. His partner, Jacob Schiff had 1,000 shares of National Bank of Commerce. This bank was clearly controlled by Morgan, who was really a subsidiary of Junius S. Morgan Company in London and the N.M. Rothschild Company of London, and Kuhn, Loeb Company, which was also known as a principal agent of the Rothschilds.

 

The financier Thomas Fortune Ryan also held 5100 shares of National Bank of Commerce stock in 1914. His son, John Barry Ryan, married Otto Kahn’s daughter, Kahn was a partner of Warburg and Schiff in Kuhn, Loeb Company. Ryan’s granddaughter, Virginia Fortune Ryan, married Lord Airlie, the present head of J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation in London and New York.

 

Another director of National Bank of Commerce in 1914, A.D. Juillard, was president of A.D. Juillard Company, a trustee of New York Life, and Guaranty Trust, all of which were controlled by J.P. Morgan. Juillard also had a British connection, being a director of the North British and Mercantile Insurance Company. Juillard owned 2000 shares of National Bank of Commerce stock, and was also a director of Chemical Bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LPAC   
Guest LPAC

The London Connection

 

The astounding idea that the Federal Reserve System of the United States is actually operated from London will probably be rejected at first hearing by most Americans. However, Minsky has become famous for his theory of the “dominant frame”. He states that in any particular situation, there is a “dominant frame” to which everything in that situation is related and through which it can be interpreted. The “dominant frame” in the monetary policy decisions of the Federal Reserve System is that these decisions are made by those who stand to benefit most from them. At first glance, this would seem to be the principal stockholders of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. However, we have seen that these stockholders all have a “London Connection”.

 

The “London Connection” becomes more obvious as the dominant power when we find in “The Capital City” that only seventeen firms are allowed to operate as merchant bankers in the City of London, England’s financial district. All of them must be approved by the Bank of England. In fact, most of the Governors of the Bank of England come from the partners of these seventeen firms.

 

Let's rank the seventeen in order of their capitalization. Number 2 is the Schroder Bank. Number 6 is Morgan Grenfell, the London branch of the House of Morgan and actually its dominant branch. Lazard Brothers is Number 8. N.M. Rothschild is Number 9. Brown Shipley Company, the London branch of Brown Brother Harriman, is Number 14. These five merchant banking firms of London actually control the New York banks which own the controlling interest in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DC Government Worker   
Guest DC Government Worker

What is up with stating that the Fed has Class A Shareholders???

 

The Federal Reserve stock is not classified by Class A, B, or C Shareholders. It can be either “member stock” or “public stock.” However, the directors of a Federal Reserve Bank are separated into Classes A, B, and C depending on how they are appointed.

 

As of June 30, 1997 the top eight shareholders were:

 

Chase Manhattan Bank

Citibank

Morgan Guaranty Trust Company

Fleet Bank

Bankers Trust

Bank of New York

Marine Midland Bank

Summit Bank

 

All of the major shareholders seen here and all of the banks on the complete list are either nationally- or state-chartered banks owned in the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAW   
Guest LAW

The law stipulates a small portion of Federal Reserve stock may be available for sale to the public. No person or organization, however, may own more than $25,000 of such public stock and none of it carries voting rights (12 USCA 283). However, under the terms of the Federal Reserve Act, public stock was only to be sold in the event the sale of stock to member banks did not raise the minimum of $4 million of initial capital for each Federal Reserve Bank when they were organized in 1913 (12 USCA 281). Each Bank was able to raise the necessary amount through member stock sales, and no public stock was ever sold to the non-bank public. In other words, no Federal Reserve stock has ever been sold to foreigners; it has only been sold to banks which are members of the Federal Reserve System (Woodward, 1996).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Edward   
Guest Edward

Each commercial bank receives one vote regardless of its size, unlike most corporate voting structures in which the number of votes is tied to the number of shares a person holds (Ibid). The New York Federal Reserve district contains over 1,000 member banks, so it is highly unlikely that even the largest and most powerful banks would be able to coerce so many smaller ones to vote in a particular manner. To control the vote of a majority of member banks would mean acquiring a controlling interest in about 500 member banks of the New York district.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luke_Wilbur    5

I wrote a letter to the President to hopefully end this debate.

 

Mr. President,

I know you are a busy man. So I will make this brief.

 

Can you please debunk who actually owns the Federal Reserve. People constantly contact me that the Fed is controlled by secret group of foreign class A stockholders. From what I see U.S banks own all the stock. Not foreign banks. And I see there is no one dominant bank.

 

I think a short note by you on this subject would really clear things up and put this issue to rest. Otherwise Hollywood and conspiracy theorist are going to define it to the public.

 

I received a confirmation message:

 

Thank you for contacting the White House.

 

President Obama is committed to creating the most open andaccessible administration in American history. That begins with takingcomments and questions from you, the public, through our website.

 

Our office receives tens of thousands of messages from Americanseach day. We do our best to reply to as many as we can, but please beaware that you may find more information and answers to your questionsonline.

 

We encourage you to visit WhiteHouse.gov regularly to follow newsand updates, and to learn more about President Obama’s agenda forchange.

 

For an easy-to-navigate source of information on Federal government services, please visit: www.USA.gov

 

Thank you again for your message.

 

The Office of Presidential Correspondence

 

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ContactUs-ThankYouPage/

 

 

 

 

 

Hopefully someone in his staff will read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fedup   
Guest Fedup

The Obama administration gave a vote of confidence for Ben Bernanke to be nominated for second term as Federal Reserve chairman.

 

Congressman Alan Grayson questioned Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on the central bank’s loans to foreign entities. It has sparked numerous blog posts and thousands of public comments about the Federal Reserve’s authority to lend hundreds of billions to foreigners without consulting a single elected official.

 

Among the highlights:

 

•At 1:30, Chairman Bernanke can’t say which foreign entities got the money.

•At 3:19, Bernanke says that the 20% rise in the dollar which took place at the same time as the Federal Reserve lent out $500B to foreign central banks was just a “coincidence.”

•At 3:45, Bernanke and Grayson discuss whether there is a Constitutional basis for the Federal Reserve lending a half a trillion dollars to foreigners.

Congressman Grayson said, “According to the Federal Reserve’s own figures, Federal Reserve loans to foreign banks jumped from nothing in September to $550,000,000,000 at the end of 2008. These loans were authorized only by the members of the Federal Open Market Committee, a group of twelve bankers at the Federal Reserve whose deliberations are shielded from public view for five years.

 

“This amount is ten times the size of the entire State Department budget. Publicly elected lawmakers proposed and debated over 100 amendments to the State department budget. That’s how democracy is supposed to work -- not through secret deliberations in which 12 unelected bankers trample on Congress’s Constitutional authority to appropriate funds, approve treaties, and coin money.

 

“I find it hard to believe that the power to hand over the half-a-trillion dollars to foreigners was part of Congressional intent in 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was written. If the Federal Reserve can lend a half a trillion without consulting a single elected official, it is time for a review of the central bank’s ‘swap line’ authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fedup   
Guest Fedup

Read Bloomberg LP vs. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

 

http://www.cjr.org/docs/Complaint_-_Fed_FOIA.PDF

 

As of August 2007, the Fed lent money to private institutions primarily through its discount window. The discount window allowed the Fed to lend money, on an overnight basis, to so-called "depository institutions," which are financial institutions that obtain their funds mainly through deposits from the public. Depository institutions include commercial banks, savings and loan associations, saving banks, and credit unions.

 

Starting in or around August 2007, to improve market functioning, the Fed expanded the lending from the discount window, by extending the loans from overnight to as long as 90 days. In addition, the Fed added three new lending facilities: the Primary Dealer, Credit Facility, the Term Securities Lending Facility, and the Term Auction Facility.

 

The changes to the discount window lending, and three new facilities, were designed to enhance the Fed's ability to lend to depository institutions, and also created the ability to lend to so-called "primary dealers," which are banks and securities broker-dealers that trade in U.S. Government securities with Federal Reserve Bank of New York. During 2008, the Fed has included on its list of primary dealers Bear, Stearns & Co., Lehman Brothers Inc., Bank of America Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Government Securites Inc., and Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.

 

According the Fed, the discount window for depository institutions and the Primary Dealer Credit Facility for primary dealers are effectively 'standing' facilities that provide daily access to funding eligible institutions. Access to funds through these facilities occurs at the initiative of the borrowing institution, in an amount determined by the borrowing institution's needs and collateral. The Fed charges a fixed interest rate set at a premium to market rates on this kind of facility to discourage institutions from unnecessary use of Fed lending.

 

Also according to the Fed, the Term Auction Facility for depository institutions and Term Securities Lending Facility for primary dealers constitute a second kind of facility in which a pre-determined amount of longer-term funding is made available at auction on pre-announced dates for settlement on a later date. These facilities are designed to improve overall liquidity conditions in term and secured funding markets, rather than satisfy the needs of a particular institution on a particular day. The interest rate and the distribution of the awards accross institutions in this second kind of facility are determined by an auction.

 

Before these changes to the Fed's lending programs, during the week ending August 8, 2007, the Fed had average outstanding lending through the discount window of around $1 million. After these changes to the Fed's lending programs, during the week ending October 8, 2008, the Fed had average outstanding lending of $400 billion.

 

Private institutions that seek to avail themselves of these lending facilities must post collateral to the Fed in exchange for the loans of government money. The amount of the loan corresponds with the value assigned to the collateral.

 

The public has a significant and legitimate interest in the Fed's conduct with the respect to these four leading facilities because the Fed's assets are public assets. Taxpayers are entitled to understand and assess the decisions by the Fed on the valuation of the collateral it accepts as security for public money being lent to private institutions. The public's interest is particularly pronounced in light of the new expansive powers of the Fed, the new risks that the Fed is taking with public money, and the ongoing financial crisis and its effects on the American economy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fedup   
Guest Fedup

I love Bloomberg. They have real reporting

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=av_bCYnKeIUk

 

Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve must make records about emergency lending to financial institutions public within five days because it failed to convince a judge the documents should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska rejected the central bank’s argument that the records aren’t covered by the law because their disclosure would harm borrowers’ competitive positions. The collateral lists “are central to understanding and assessing the government’s response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression,” according to the lawsuit that led to yesterday’s ruling.

 

The Fed has refused to name the borrowers, the amounts of loans or the assets put up as collateral under 11 programs, saying that doing so might set off a run by depositors and unsettle shareholders. Bloomberg LP, the New York-based company majority-owned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued Nov. 7 on behalf of its Bloomberg News unit.

 

“When an unprecedented amount of taxpayer dollars were lent to financial institutions in unprecedented ways and the Federal Reserve refused to make public any of the details of its extraordinary lending, Bloomberg News asked the court why U.S. citizens don’t have the right to know,” said Matthew Winkler, the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News. “We’re gratified the court is defending the public’s right to know what is being done in the public interest.”

 

‘Involuntary Investor’

 

Bloomberg said in the suit U.S. taxpayers need to know the risks behind the central bank’s $2 trillion in lending because the public is an “involuntary investor” in the nation’s banks.

 

The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet about doubled beginning in September to more than $2 trillion because of a historic attempt to rescue financial institutions. For the week ended Aug. 19, Fed assets rose 2.3 percent to $2.06 trillion as the central bank bought more mortgage-backed securities. Non- government securities were allowed to be purchased by the Fed for the first time.

 

The Freedom of Information Act obliges federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and public. The Bloomberg suit, filed in New York, doesn’t seek money damages.

 

David Skidmore, a Fed spokesman, said the board’s staff was reviewing the ruling and declined to comment on it at this time.

 

The case is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest rascal   
Guest rascal

I just learned that when President Kennedy passed Executive Order 11110 on June 4th, 1963 that was designed to put new currency, backed by silver, into circulation. Soon after his assassination this money was removed from circulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kharkov   
Guest Kharkov

City of London + City of Vatican + City of Columbia are the 3 independent states within states wich composes the empire of the city. The first is financial control over earth economy, the second is religion control over the earth and the third one is military control over the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Luke   
Guest Luke

This is getting really scary...

 

New information today on the death of a census worker found in eastern Kentucky. 51-year-old Bill Sparkman was found hanging from a tree with a noose around his neck near a cemetery in the Daniel Boone National Forest. Today it was released that the word ‘FED’ was scrawled across his chest in felt-tip pen.

 

Authorities say he died by asphyxiation, but they are not sure if it was accidental, homicide, or suicide.

 

Sparkman was a substitute teacher in the Laurel County school district and volunteered at an elementary school. Sparkman was a cancer survivor and had been in remission at the time of his death.

 

State police will not confirm if Sparkman was targeted because of his government job, or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×