Unless things have changed dramatically since my schooling in economics, member banks are required to be the Fed's stockholders. Their stock pays a modest dividend and has some rather severe limitations: it cannot be traded or pledged as security.
The Federal Reserve was established by, is overseen by, and may be further regulated by the United States Congress.
If any of this has changed since my school days, please fill me in on the details from a reputable source.
The power and independent operation of the Federal Reserve Bank have yielded many conspiracy theories (not all of which, of course, are consistent). Your link seems to be a rather aggressive one.
Perhaps we don't need the Fed per se, but we need something that accomplishes its primary functions. And we have surely needed Alan Greenspan, who has turned monetary policy into an art form.
Speaking of which, monetary policy seems to escape the wild imagination of the author of your conspiracy theory. The Fed buys government bonds in order to increase the money supply (the sellers have money placed into their bank accounts). This is a whole lot more efficient than "printing more money" though some people continue to believe we just crank up the printing presses.
Posts: 8104 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
The Congress illegally gave the Federal Reserve the right to have money printed through the Treasury at no interest to the Federal Reserve. Each piece of currency costs only a few cents to print, no matter what the denomination of a note. Then, the Federal Reserve loans it back to us at face value through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The Federal Reserve also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers interest.
Can anyone explain the sense or logic behind this type of FRAUD??
Well, things could be worse. For example, money could have been kept in the hands of the President, or the Congress, or the Courts. Yet, I will feel better when banks again pay higher interest rates, which scenario should be coming.
Paul; you do. Other major countries have something like the Federal Reserve, in function if not in precise form. There is a reason for that
The Bank of England was, literally, a private bank once. Now it is once again independent of the government. Mr Blair may hope that this, that or the other will happen but the Governor of the Bank of England decides the interest rates, not the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Brown
The critique in your link is just a wild piece of thinking, if you can call it that, which is rather divorced from the reality.
