wall street welfare

Watermark said:
Hah, it's odd that your conservative would want to put it under control government control.

But imagine if, one day, the president called up the reserve officers and said "Hey, I'm a bit down in the polls, print some money". That's how the reserve system of nations without independent reserves work. There's actually quite a correlation between economic stability/growth and the independence of the central bank in a nation.
Click to expand...

That's why it should be even more independent.
 
RStringfield said:
It's not privately owned in any real sense of the idea privately owned. You can not sale shares in the Fed. All participating banks must buy them. Dividends paid are set and small. And virtually all of it's "profits" are returned to the general fund.

Water is right, that it is likely better to have some autonomy from political influence. The problem is the Fed is not truly autonomous and what autonomy they do enjoy does not prevent short term policies. We could just as easily abolish the fed and have a set 5% expansion of money every year.

We'd better off with completely private competing moneys with full prosecution of the fraud that is fractional reserves, but that aint going to happen either.
Click to expand...

IT is privately owned. It is owned by the shareholders of the regional fed banks.

This system will crumble.
 
Learn sheeple, learn.

http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html
Chart 1


Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence
Published 1976
Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York. The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914. These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914. In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control.
Click to expand...
 
Kinda explains the BS/JP MOrgan bailout doesn't it....

better watch out for black Vans and such coming around.
 
Last edited:
Oh how Horrible I feel to be so UNTRUSTING. What a sad little man am I. I so wish I could be a brainwashed fascist idiot like everyone else.
 
RStringfield said:
This nonsense was addressed already. Look at the link I posted.

You don't get more votes for more shares. Each bank has one vote regardless of size or shares owned.

http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html

You are a FUCKING idiot who does nothing but shields the federal reserve from real criticism.
Click to expand...

We never discussed shares and votes. These people own the controlling shares of the fed banks. They control the one vote of each bank. Get a grip, nut job. you have nothing on me, mini-brain.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Yes. I'm shielding the federal reserve from criticism. Stringy smoked his whole stash at lunch.
Click to expand...

You are not smart enough to do it purposefully. You are an idiot that shields them from criticism by spreading false conspiracy nonsense.

We never discussed shares and votes. These people own the controlling shares of the fed banks. They control the one vote of each bank. Get a grip, nut job. you have nothing on me, mini-brain.
Click to expand...

Not possible. That would require that "these people" own a controlling interest in over 500 member banks. They don't.
 
RStringfield said:
You are not smart enough to do it purposefully. You are an idiot that shields them from criticism by spreading false conspiracy nonsense.



Not possible. That would require that "these people" own a controlling interest in over 500 member banks. They don't.
Click to expand...

Fuck you, simpleton. You have no valid criticism of anything I've put out.

Fed banks are owned privately, they vote to control fed policy. I'm sorry you hate the truth, but stop being such a pussy ass moron.
 
And that would only give them control of the NY regional bank, which does not control the Fed, regardless of your conspiracy nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top