response 146 of 536:

Oct 4 03:27 UTC 2003

There is no functional difference between a federal reserve note drawn
upon San Francisco or Kansas City.  They are worth exactly the same
amount, circulate in exactly the same way, and probably roll off the
same printing presses after being printed on the same paper with the
same ink.  At best all that it is is an inventory/production tag;
important to the people who bail the stuff up and send it out to the
first bank, but completely irrelevant to how money functions in the
economy.  This is, of course, even supposing that actual paper cash is
really all that important to the economy in the first place - which is
surely getting less and less true.  When you pay for something using a
credit card funded via an electronic fund transfer from an account that
gets filled up with "money" you earned and arranged to have direct
deposited; does it matter what's printed on the green stuff some people
still use for incidental expenses?

Besides "federal reserve notes" and "silver certificates", I ran across
mention of "united states notes".  These seem to have been in
circulation from 1862 through 1923, and may have been briefly issued
during the Kennedy administration too.  There were also "Gold
certificates", which came in a large size and a small size.  Some of the
issues of gold certificates reached general circulation, others were
only circulated between banks.  For while, it was actually illegal to
own a gold certificate.

response 148 of 536:

Oct 4 13:26 UTC 2003

Re #143:  You're wrong, Rane.  The non-locality principle cannot
be used to transmit information.

response 150 of 536:

Oct 4 16:04 UTC 2003

Learn to write, jp2.

response 154 of 536:

Oct 5 01:39 UTC 2003

152: you act as though hanging out with other could possibly be a bad thing...

response 156 of 536:

Oct 5 15:23 UTC 2003

(Seems to me that the Federal Reserve Banks are private in the same sense that
United States Postal Service is private.)

response 158 of 536:

Oct 5 20:28 UTC 2003

This is from the NY Fed's web site. I am sure that jp2 will continue to 
spout his bs but I imagine that most folks will trust The Fed itself 
over jp2. Jamie, I hope you will consider reading the entire FAQ before 
you make more of a fool of yourself...

http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/faq.html#link24

Are the Federal Reserve Banks private companies? 
Federal Reserve Banks, created by an act of Congress in 1913, are 
operated in the public interest rather than for profit or to benefit 
any private group. Member banks hold stock in their regional Reserve 
Banks, but do not exercise control over the Reserve Bank or the Federal 
Reserve System. Holding this stock does not carry with it the kind of 
control and financial interest that holding publicly traded stock 
allows. Fed stock cannot be sold or traded. The member banks receive a 
fixed 6 percent dividend annually on their stock and elect six of the 
nine members of the Reserve Bank's board of directors. 

So, who owns the Fed? Although it is set up like a private corporation 
and member banks hold its stock, the Fed owes its existence to an act 
of Congress and has a mandate to serve the public. Therefore, the most 
accurate answer may be that the Fed is "owned" by the citizens of the 
United States. 

response 160 of 536:

Oct 6 06:05 UTC 2003

The feds also appoint 100% of the members of the federal reserve board,
which appoints 1/3 of the directors of the district banks and has final
say over the discount rate set in each district.  Additionally, the
profits from the federal reserve system, past whatever is necessary to
pay expenses, are paid to the US treasury system.  Presumably congress
could, at any time, choose to alter how the FRB is structured, or even
abolish it altogether, if they should so choose.  I don't know what you
think "private" means, but FRB clearly derives its authority and acts in
a manner that is unique in the US; it is a public institution, and at
every level of its organization is so structured to serve the public
interest, at least as its designers saw the public interest.

response 162 of 536:

Oct 6 13:04 UTC 2003

It seems to me that if the federal government appoints the Fed's
officers, then the government at very least *controls* the Fed (at least
indirectly) since anyone who doesn't act the way the government would
like can be replaced.  You can argue that this doesn't make the Fed
*part* of the government, but that's a pretty finicky distinction if the
government has effective control of their policies.

response 164 of 536:

Oct 7 07:45 UTC 2003

no one has brought up the considerable competition and differences
betaeen *fedearlly* charetered and *state* chartered banks - 
nor teh  bank holding companies which control some of each.
  
  
as for the ny.fed to try to state that  they are
  
   "operated in the public interest rather than for profit"
  
is mroe than just a tad twisted.
 
i';ll grant that they are not the piranha, vulture profiteers
that the member banks are (both fed ans tate chartered).
  
  

response 168 of 536:

Oct 8 00:31 UTC 2003

Only if your for-profit business derives its revenue from selling vultures...