|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
tsty
|
|
response 147 of 536:
| 
Oct 4 09:36 UTC 2003 |
... as well as gold, for a while ...
|
russ
|
|
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.
|
jp2
|
|
response 149 of 536:
|
Oct 4 13:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
asddsa
|
|
response 150 of 536:
|
Oct 4 16:04 UTC 2003 |
Learn to write, jp2.
|
slynne
|
|
response 151 of 536:
|
Oct 4 16:37 UTC 2003 |
Haha. jp2. YOu dont embarrass me. You convince a few people who are
more stupid than you that you are correct. But that doesnt embarrass
*me*. Keep trying.
|
jp2
|
|
response 152 of 536:
|
Oct 4 16:44 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
asddsa
|
|
response 153 of 536:
|
Oct 5 01:33 UTC 2003 |
AAhahaha
|
murph
|
|
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...
|
mdw
|
|
response 155 of 536:
|
Oct 5 03:03 UTC 2003 |
It's true private banks "own" stock in the FRBs. But! The US
government apoints the top officers and determines all policy. And! The
stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as a security for a loan.
Owning the stock is in fact a condition of membership in the system; it
is in essence a required loan to FRB and nothing more. Also, does
anybody here seriously think the feds would let just one FRB default on
its own? I should think they'd move heaven and earth before allowing
such a situation to occur.
|
gelinas
|
|
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.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 157 of 536:
|
Oct 5 17:16 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
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.
|
jp2
|
|
response 159 of 536:
|
Oct 6 02:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mdw
|
|
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.
|
jp2
|
|
response 161 of 536:
|
Oct 6 10:14 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
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.
|
jp2
|
|
response 163 of 536:
|
Oct 6 13:17 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
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).
|
jp2
|
|
response 165 of 536:
|
Oct 7 12:46 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 166 of 536:
|
Oct 7 12:48 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 167 of 536:
|
Oct 7 13:15 UTC 2003 |
Isn't that what running a for-profit business is all about? ;>
|
murph
|
|
response 168 of 536:
|
Oct 8 00:31 UTC 2003 |
Only if your for-profit business derives its revenue from selling vultures...
|
mdw
|
|
response 169 of 536:
|
Oct 8 05:32 UTC 2003 |
I'm quite interested in which private for-profit institutions the
president of the united states appoints directors. I had always thought
it was traditional for the stockholders to appoint the directors, and
nearly as traditional for the stockholders to sign proxies for the
incumbant directors except in case of major malfeasance, usually with an
escape clause in case the stockholder then decides to appear in person.
Most of the private corporations I can think of aren't even incorporated
under federal law but instead under the law of some particular state.
The feds absolutely have the right to "just print more money" if they so
please. The constitution so grants them this right, and in absence of
any amendment altering this, they retain that right to this day. But
just "printing more money" creates more problems than it solves, so as a
matter of policy the feds don't do this; instead they use another
related mechanism, deficit spending, or in plain terms "borrowing".
There's another term related to all this, "seigniorage", which is
basically the increase in value of newly minted money over its raw
materials. For traditional precious metals, this increase in value was
strictly limited, but for modern paper money, the difference can be
dramatic.
|
jp2
|
|
response 170 of 536:
|
Oct 8 12:50 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 171 of 536:
|
Oct 8 13:09 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
