Is The Federal Reserve A Private Bank?
 

The FED (ie Federal Reserve Bank Of United States) which creates and maintains the US dollar is a private bank or a government institution?

Does anyone know the answer to this? For the longest time I always thought the FED was 100% a government institution until about a year ago when it came out in the media that it is a private institution.

However now, I'm reading the website which claims that the FED is neither. It doesn't really answer the question but it says it derives its authority from congress which we knew already:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

I am not American so please forgive me and im a bit of a dumbo, but I find an awful lot of competing data on the subject:

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...merican-people

privately owned and operated. was done on purpose to not be influenced by the government

There you have it. It is governmental institution that is linked to private sector with some "kinda" ownership.

"The Federal Reserve System has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers. The result is a structure that is considered unique among central banks."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

Hmmm... this never been a secret actually.

You are messing independent with privately owned and operated. Most banking systems after the lessons from Germany led to separating central banks and governments. Well, of course governments can always change it if they want and as they want.

Wrong. It's aprivate bank and in fact the FED is the reason why America is in this terrible economic state. In fact... it is America's parasite and it will become America's end.

Guess who owns the government....

Oh, my favourite director: Mr Zeitgeist, well.. after the one who wrote about the tooth fairy. :)

Mr Zeitgeist?

Actually up until the banking crisis the Fed always claimed it was a government agency publicly. Only since then have they came out publicly acknowledging otherwise. The main reason for doing so is to fend off all of the additional oversight bills that were being introduced, the inquiries into their practices etc. They openly state on their site that the Fed is owned is the by private shareholders. They claim that the shares can't be bought or sold so it makes no difference. But what they don't say is the companies that own those shares can be bought and sold.

Good night, sleep well...

Yeah, I don't care that much anyways, as I am not American. Let them be fucking lizards, see if I care.

Stay safe with those mushrooms.

All central banks around the World were setup the same way around the same time period as the fed. So in all honesty you are in the same boat very likely.

Might it be the case that Federal Reserve Bank Of United States owns and regulates US Govt but not vice versa? Then it really would have both privatre and public components.

They were not setup the same way. Because of the same idea (separation), but US has unique central banking system. My central bank is ECB, so as you know that it is not Central Somalia Pirate Bank aka CSPB, you will know what it's like or you can check what's it like.

If you borrow money from the bank to buy a car then yes the bank owns the car until you pay it off. The US government indirectly borrows it's money from the Fed so techincally yes the corporation AKA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of which Obama is President is owned by the Fed.

They run off the same concept as the Fed and basicly owned by the same group. Yours has just changed names a number of times over the years. You are still attached to the World Bank and IMF which are all the same group pretty much. Once you accept IMF loans you are owned which in reality is why pretty much every country we are at war with isn't a part of the IMF/World Bank/Fed conglomerate. The ECB debtors are actually in worse shape than the Fed debtors.

So why I knew this all the time? Perhaps because we have a bit different sources of information (different countries - different sources, that's normal IMHO).

US government sells bonds to finance the debt.Many nation and private investors own these bonds. The US government does not borrow from the Fed.

Don't you remember not so long ago even here on this board people such as myself being called "conspiracy theorists" for claiming the Fed was private?

The US government issues bonds which is more or less just a promissary note.. The Fed funds and sells them..

You have some nice tin foil shit in there.

link to the Treasury bond auctions
http://www.treasury.gov/services/Pag...securites.aspx

You are confusing quantitative easing with the sale of Treasury Bonds

It's been some years now and most have given in but just to give you a few hold outs, China, North Korea, Cuba are not part of the IMF/World Banking system. Only in recent years (past decade or two) have others been forced into the system.. IE Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya

Here is the schedule of bond sales
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/insti...nnceresult.htm

Yes US government issues bonds through the treasury. I did say bonds, when they actually get treasury "securities" it's still a promissary note either way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j69Ap4lndl0

A good docu on the subject

Those are not the kind of systems that they would have any meaningful role in day to day banking. Primarily they give technical help and loans when asked. And the loans are not that popular as there have been some shit regarding them.

You can't to force someone to be part of a some system, that is not really a system.

They have the same role as the Fed only on a World scale. And of course there has been shit regarding them because the loans come with strings attached and they exercise those strings to cause financial chaos if need be. Just like if you don't make your car note it gets repo'ed. That's the whole point in getting everyone under it, control. Now that some have figured it out they are trying to break away. IE the BRIC nations.

Where does the Fed get the money from? :error

No, they have no same role as FED. And I have no idea what's car note or "repo'ed". Although it might be because of my baad eengliissh.

Bonds, cash and securites just like every other bank and then they multiply that figure by 10+times, lend that out and that bank multiplies that loan by 10+times, etc, etc. A bank including the Fed has what's called reserve and this is the total amount of cash and "securities" on hand. They can then lend out 10+times that amount. Part of what caused the crisis is A LOT of these banks were leveraged out into the hundreds of times reserves on hand. The actual printing of money itself is just a small fraction of the entire scheme. What causes a banks collapse is the "bank run" when everyone goes in to withdraw their cash at the same time descimating it's reserves.

well.. there is the whole austerity witchery that is cutting peoples pensions by 50%.. which seems less like control and way more diabolical

I am out of words, you have got everything so fucking wrong. If this were some school answer, you would have to erase it, overwrite it, burn it and shoot into space, it's that bad.

If a bank can lend out 10x the cash they've actually got, where does the money go as the loans are paid back?

Is the cash pulled out of thin air to lend and then when it's paid back it evaporates again?

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Pretty much. One bank borrows from another bank. The Fed being the ultimate bank. Eventually the treasury gets it's bonds covered but it's more or less as you describe. Out of thin air and back in.

Thin air.

Actually it's correct sir. It's called Fractional Reserve Banking. Look it up. And it's been going on since at least the days of the bible's writing.

That is really good question, I haven't never thinked it that way. I have always thinked it just double accounting wise (from bank to customer).

No, fractional reserve doesn't mean that. The fraction refers to the money the bank has left from the money it has got from (deposits, loans, what ever).

The 1/10 means that if bank gets 100 $ as a deposit, it can lend 90 $ from it, and it has to leave 10 $ for reserve.

Then what does it mean considering it says it right there in it's name "fractional reserve"

Fractional-reserve banking is the practice whereby a bank holds reserves (to satisfy demands for withdrawals) that are less than the amount of its customers' deposits. Reserves are held at the bank as currency, or as deposits in the bank's accounts at the central bank. Because bank deposits are usually considered money in their own right, fractional-reserve banking permits the money supply to grow beyond the amount of the underlying reserves of base money originally created by the central bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking

If you take all of the cash you have and put it into the bank that bank gets to multiply that amount by a minumum of 10% and not only lend it to others but it actually lends your money back to you. When you sign a check or use a debit card in reality you are borrowing your money back. Your cash went into their reserves. It use to be set at 10x but since the crisis no one really knows what it is now considering so many were so overleveraged. How in the hell do you think they get to buy the largest building in town?

You fucking quote it yourself and don't even get it.

should probably read that again..

You my friend are the one who is not getting it. What do you not understand about this "ractional-reserve banking permits the money supply to grow beyond the amount of the underlying reserves of base money originally created by the central bank"

How exactly are they going to grow the money supply if they aren't leveraging their reserves? Do you really think your local banks is backing up your house or car note with cash on hand?

Okay, here is my very drunken explanation about the subject.

As stated in that wiki, the money amount grows as the deposits too are considered as money.

You deposit 100, bank lends 90 of it, keeps 10. So, your deposit + the loan is 190. There you have it, the amount of money has grown (x1,9 times) as both are considered as money.

I hope that's good enough for you as I can barely write anymore, seriously.