Rothschild is your master!

REVOLTING.

Profits from the Fed are remitted to the Treasury. Member banks pay to be members, and get a statutory "dividend," but that amounts to 0.18% of their assets.

Printing money causes inflation, but there is no conspiracy behind ownership of the Fed.

The conspiracies are in how we paid to bail out the banks and nobody ended up in prison.

So the member banks have nothing to loose when we end the Fed. and member banks don't appose ending the Fed.

Is that what you are saying?

Excuse me sir, but what he fuck are you talking about? All you are trying to say there is nonsensical jibber.

All money is lent from central bank like FED, and that is wrong. Why should we allow that. well, we should'nt.

It doesn't matter if the Fed creates money or if the Treasury does it directly. If the Fed profits, the profits go to the Treasury.

[Citation]?

Since you've made this assertion several places and I'm tired of hearing it, I would like to know what the hell you're babbling about. You know... because that's not the way it's ever been and stuff.

If the Fed profits, the profits go to the Treasury.

Not true, is it? show me please.

It's Wa Po, it's simplistic, but it's the first thing I found: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/11/AR2010011103892.html

They gush about how good this is, which is crap. But the fact is, the Rothschilds don't get the check.

The Fed conducts unaudited business with foreign banks. The Fed refuses audits and rendered the last audit legislation completely toothless. This disturbs many people.

This is the last known breakdown of the Fed ownership

I have the same problem with this as Andrew Jackson had with the previous central bank which he killed.

"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?"

But it is better to read his entire veto of the bank bill.

I don't mean to be impolite, but that chart is crap. You have been had by black propaganda. Have you got a cap table? Some statement about ownership someone can understand?

One thing we do know about the Fed is that ownership is an artificial statutory construct, and that Treasury gets the profits.

The Fed is a privately owned bank. Period. To state otherwise is propaganda. The statutory constructs are in its dealings with the US government - but it is privately owned nonetheless.

The fact is, barring that chart constructed from the "Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence. Staff Report,Committee on Banking,Currency and Housing" - House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, August 1976, no one knows who actually owns the Fed because they won't release detailed information in that area.

To state otherwise is propaganda.

Look up "beneficial ownership." I was involved in suing someone who claimed they did not own a house. BUT they collected almost all the rent. So, in law, they are the beneficial owner.

This is why the "ownership" of the Fed does not matter. Treasury gets almost all the profit. Show me any evidence of the Fed disbursing profit to banks other than the statutory dividend, which is linked solely to the amount of money the banks paid-in to the Fed.

That would be fine if you could audit the Fed's dealings with foreign banks which they refuse to disclose - the nature of the transactions and the money flows resulting from them. The point being those operations are, for now, outside the review of the government. Obviously, that doesn't bother you being the Fed champion here.

Personally, I think trying to get rid of the Fed could be disastrous given the result of the last US/private central bank battle. Bernanke already gave us a glimpse of that when threatened with a real audit bill;

“My concern about the legislation is that if the GAO is auditing not only the operational aspects of the programs and the details of the programs but making judgments about our policy decisions would effectively be a takeover of policy by the Congress and a repudiation of the Federal Reserve would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the Dollar and our national economic situation.”

Biddle took the same course and nearly wrecked the US economy but lost in the end as Jackson rerouted US receipts to non-member banks that eventually filtered back into the economy, pulling it out of the nose dive engineered by Biddle.

It's easy to take a position that there is no undue influence on a private bank that controls the US economy seeing how they go out of their way to make sure that the information that would reveal it never sees the light of day. It's harder to face the fact that this thing has had the country by the short & curlies since 1913.

There are some people who object to an "NGO" running monetary policy. It is a semi-independent institution. The POTUS can't order them to do stuff. That is the only substantive difference between the Fed having control over monetary policy versus Treasury.

There is potential for corruption by people appointed to run it. There are activities by the Fed that seem to be outside it's charter. For example, the Fed "holds" gold for a lot of countries.

BUT ownership is not a conspiracy. Ownership and remittance of profits to Treasury are one of the things we can trust about the Fed.

Benanke's statement is a lot less dynamite than you think: "...but making judgments about our policy decisions would effectively be a takeover of policy by the Congress" That is the basis of the Fed vs. Treasury debate. Should we have central banking or not? He is arguing against a stealth takeover. That's all. As you point out, veering in the direction of Treasury control over money supply often does not end well.

Now the operations of the Fed could turn out to be corrupt as hell, but if they were, there would be some external evidence of this.

We simply don't know who owns it and the nature of their influence over it. All we see is their total dominion over the US monetary system and collusion with Wall Street without complete oversight. That is simply not a desirable situation for the country - period. You're ok with it - I see it as a threat to our sovereignty. We agree to disagree.

There is potential for corruption by people appointed to run it.

Anyone, anyone involved with the operation can potentially be corrupt. All the more reason to know exactly who they are.

As you point out, veering in the direction of Treasury control over money supply often does not end well.

That's such a lame turnaround and not at all what I pointed out. I pointed out that when a private central bank is threatened with being dissolved, it purposefully, with malice and forethought, wrecks the economy to try to turn opinion against the attacker. That's enough reason to rid the country of that sort of infection forever. Jackson found this action particularly evil and hardened his resolve to rid the country of it and succeeded. Read up on the Biddle/Jackson battle and the history of the formation of the Fed. After the Second Bank of the US, a private central bank like the Fed, was unchartered by Jackson, the US did just fine until the Wall Street engineered panics after the turn of the century designed to drive the country, by fear, into embracing another private central bank put together by the New York and European bank representatives.

Wikipedia:

Federal Reserve Notes are authorized by Section 411 of Title 12 of the United States Code and are issued to the Federal Reserve Banks at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Further:

Once the notes are put into circulation, they become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks and obligations of the United States.

The Federal Reserve gets these notes from the US Treasury at the cost of printing, typically estimated to be approximately 10 cents per note. Only when the notes are put into circulation do any profits or losses begin to accumulate. Who gets that other 90 cents? Is it actually even shown on the books?

Edit: Or, in the case of $100 notes, who gets the other $99.90?

Like all the other central banks, FED makes the money, wich is just paper. That money (still just paper) is lent to the goverment. How is this paper something of a value? It isn't. Yet somehow all that comes from central banks is somehow a loan. We have been led to believe that lending air is something to be accepted. But not for long. People are starting to wake up.

We all know what your job is. Now i dont know what your motives are for what you do, but i'll assure you. It wont be all that beneficial in the long run

Money is a stored value system.

It's a bit of a scam that national governments, and especially the U.S., dominate the creation and operation of stored value systems. But they all have risks, vide the GLD inventory shenanigans.

If you don't like the dollar, get a bank account denominated in some other currency.

But its no longer a stored value. It used to be, as the currency represented a commodity that HAD value. After the gold standard was thrown away, that changed.

Its just paper now and has no value besides the "faith" that it has.

Stored value can be anything. Banks could, in theory, run their own stored value systems. Stored value could be number. All it does is let you move value from one place, like shares, to another, like a house.

Any stored value system can be debased, and government operated ones have unique risks, but they all have the risk of debasement, including gold.

Stored value requires scarcity, does it not?

No. There are cryptographic stored value systems. Just a number.

Stored value requires scarcity, does it not?

Where does money come from?

A combination of Fed loans to banks, and printing presses at Treasury.

Perhaps when the US is in bad shape, and they are protecting their investment. But, this is not normal.

Lot's of people forget this part. I think the FED gave the Treasury 80 billion dollars last year.

Don't get too too excited about that. They printed money to fill gaping wounds in the banks that caused M1 http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MULT to crash. They are still walking a tightrope between deflation and depression on one side and hyperstagflation on the other.

We should have nationalized the banks and literally lined up and shot the bankers. Instead we let them continue with their bonuses.

M1 multiplier, I meant.

So you have no objection to a full audit of the Fed then?

None at all. I'm curious as hell about the gold in their vault and other functions of the Fed.

Good, then get on with it.

Sadly, I don't work there. Being a Fed economist doesn't sound like it's too demanding. If I wanted to live like an academic but without the grad students, I would have considered it.

Exactly. Profits from the fed are really a negligible part of the conspiracy. A more insidious power comes from its ability to enable these banks to form a cartel and its ability to distort the economy through central economic planning. For the benefit of the privileged few at the expense of the rest of the whole world, of course.

Well in America, it's partly because we are a representative republic. That makes the pool of people you have to bribe & control much smaller than in a real democracy. Therefor it's much easier if you have deep pockets, to get legislation that you want. Hence the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Private Central Banks pay off all the major parties and buy their loyalty, it does not matter who is president

you can too, if you can pony up millions for their campaigns then they would listen to you too

Because we don't fight it. Because of our apathy. Because we believe that posting our thoughts on an anonymous forum is less unsettling than looking someone in the eye and challenging their system of thought. Because we don't really give a shit. Because we like hamburgers and turkeys and gambling and sports and tits and dicks and heros and coffee and leather seats and kisses and beer and hot jeans and video games and awesome movies and bikes and cars and jets and boats and books and bras and thongs and linen and stainless steel and drugs and music and guitars and internets and paintings and orgasms and so on and so forth. We're all a bunch of crybabies really. I don't know, fuck you i guess.

they won

Think of money as just a reflection of the amount of oil has been pumped out of the ground. It's a debt that needs to be repaid back to earth.

Think of money as just a reflection of the amount of oil has been pumped out of the ground

That and human labor.

It's a debt that needs to be repaid back to earth.

Not sure why we have to repay it?

karma

People sign on the dotted line for all sorts of reasons, but all those different reasons stem from the fact that people think they are a name. If people think they're a name they will think they're required to pay what the name allegedly owes (bills, taxes, etc.); and since they think they're required to pay they take out "loans" to try paying all the name's bills.

http://www.youtube.com/user/s1k3st937

http://www.peaceful-inhabitants.tk

Here's why:

http://i.imgur.com/D5SYI.jpg

Sadly, I don't work there. Being a Fed economist doesn't sound like it's too demanding. If I wanted to live like an academic but without the grad students, I would have considered it.