Talk:Federal Reserve/Archive 2

FED is for New World Order

http://www.relfe.com/plus_5_.html (I Want The Earth Plus 5%)

IS-LM

The IS-LM model wasn't developed by Keynes himself - I believe it was developed by Hicks and Hansen (the wikipedia article on IS-LM corroborates this)

federal funds rate

"The Federal Reserve Board affects the federal funds rate by using open market operations, which is the purchase and sale of Treasury securities. If it wants to inject money into the economy, then it buys bonds, which also lowers interest rates. If it wants to lower the money supply, it sells bonds, which raises interest rates."

It seems that this would not make sense to the average reader, and requires either a more thorough explanation of the mechanism, or a link to another wiki article such as basic bond mechanics, or treasury bonds?

Overall, pretty good article. I enjoy that the criticisms and alternate POV's are presented extensively.

Fed Speak

Fed speak - the way that Federal Reserve people speak and at the same time say little or nothing, may be funny but is actually quite a serious matter. Do please look at the links - they are real, none of this is made up. Also google "Fed speak" or "Fedspeak" and you'll see lots and lots of similar references. I know it is quite important for financial markets. It might also be important for people who are proud that they can get through Wikipedias's thick verbiage, but find they can't understand a thing the Fed says!

While many people will probably agree that Fed official statements are a bit dense, I think we can find a better way of saying so than "The jargon-laden fence-sitting opaque style of Fed communication is often called 'Fed speak.'" - Wikipedia is supposed to be on online encyclopedia, and I strongly doubt that Britannica would ever include such a sentence. Can I suggest, "Official Fed communications are written in a distinctive style, sometimes called 'Fedspeak', and is consistently criticized as being excessively vague, opaque, and non-committal."? I think this rephrasing preserves the original intent, while including a bit more formality. (GMCViolin 19 Jan 2oo6)

The original is very direct and says exactly what I meant to say. Why water it down? Consider the following from Mike Moskow President of the Chicago Federal Reserve: "When I joined the Chicago Fed, one of the first things I had to do was learn what is called “Fed Speak.” This is a language in which it is possible to speak, without ever saying anything. As you might expect, Chairman Greenspan is the master of Fed Speak. Here’s how he put it once when testifying to Congress: “Since becoming a central banker, I have learned to mumble with great incoherence. If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said.” this is at the graduation at the Kellogg School of Business

[1]

bank for international settlements

If I am not mistaken, the BIS is a banking institution that pre-dates the Bretton Woods financial system. In fact, the signed official UN monetary and financial conference report includes a resolution recommending the "immediate liquidation of the Bank for International Settlements at the earliest possible date" (National Archives, Record Group 56) If no one can prove otherwise I'm going to remove the nonsense about the BIS being a bretton woods institution.

Links for all and all (links) for Knowledge

Here's a huge list of links for info on many aspects of the FED. Some are consperisist webistes, some are not. Some are about the events that created the FED and some are about events the FED had major roles in.

http://minneapolisfed.org/info/policy/

http://minneapolisfed.org/info/sys/history/index.cfm

http://www.federalreserve.gov/kids/#created

http://www.thisnation.com/question/033.html

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/articles/fedprivatelyowned.htm

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/Speeches/2004/200403262/default.htm

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

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1095269452.php

http://www.ny.frb.org/research/epr/04v10n3/0412garb/0412garb.html

http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/toma.reserve

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h952.html

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/frshistory.html

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdoverview.html

http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdcandc.html

Of course, by the time most people start reading this, many links will have been edited out.

Added, a Implementation of Moneyary Policy section

See subject. Any comments? Mrmanhattanproject

Criticism splip

We need to split the Criticism section to another article because all the links that was here was removed. There is countless articles regarding evil aspects of fed, many of then are substantial ones. And every single link has been removed. This is riciculos, wikipedia now dont have the right of exposing substantials POV, just because is a criticism. So we should split it, because a lot of people believe what is contained there is true. What have been done isnt NPOV.

what is wrong with wikipedia?

This article is rediculous and at the very least the critism section in its current state should be removed. As others pointed out the propositions in this part of the article are totally biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.153.176 (talk • contribs) on 9 January 2007.

Big Brother watching?

It looks like someone recently censored this article brutally, major parts of the criticism text were erased, including the notion that Fed is actually privately owned and works for private profit, thus not federal in any way. Not to mention steeper theories, like Feds role with e.g. Rotschilds and Agnellis in creating a world economy on unlimited, but unbacked money for skyrocket profit for a select few. 195.70.32.136

The video on google video "Money Masters" documents and lays out the history of privatized central banks very well. I think everyone on the planet should see it. It is lengthy but broken> into three one hour parts. It documents the basic idea and rules behind the "Federal" "Reserve," of which it is neither, and many other central banks including the World Bank and the IMF. Also, I suggest reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins which is about how the international monetary system is used to subjugate third world countries' populations. Next, I suggest Alex Jones' movie "Terror Storm." This film is about how governments have traditionally used terror or false- flag opperations to control a multitude of things. Many other works have been made on similar themes and should also be considered. Putting these three works together paints a vivid picture of how the world is run. And it is not a comforting image.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.237.167.16 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 17 January 2007.

Forget Wikipedia. They're even worse than Mainstream Media.

Want to write some truth about....the Federal reserve? 9/11? Bin Laden? Alex Jones? Patriot Act? ANY controversial topic? FORGET IT! Within 2 minutes some STASI officer at Wikipedia will "correct you" right back again. "WE TOLERATE NO OUTRAGEOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIES". Got proof? Got documentation? Sorry, if it's not from CNN or similar "objective" sources it must be a "kooky conspiracy theory site" and therefore not good enough. For Wikipedia. You think Wikipedia belongs to YOU? To THE TRUTH? HA HA HA! Forget it. BJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjornyvan (talk • contribs) (on 3 March 2007).

Large amounts of serious and important Critisism left out or ignored

Federal Reserve Critics:These are just a tiny amount of quotes from important and serious critics of the Federal Reserve act

• "Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States"
  

-- Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AZ)

• "The [Federal Reserve Act] as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the currency... I do not like to think that any law can be passed that will make it possible to submerge the gold standard in a flood of irredeemable paper currency."
  

--Henry Cabot Lodge Sr., 1913

• "The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny..."
  

-- Congressman Wright Patman, Congressional Record, Sept 30, 1941

• "I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs....I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices in doing something terrible and unforgiveable to our wonderful country. Deep down in our heart, we know that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected."
  

-- John Danforth (R-Mo)

• "These 12 corporations together cover the whole country and monopolize and use for private gain every dollar of the public currency..."
  

--Mr. Crozier of Cincinnati, before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee - 1913

• "This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President Wilson signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."
  

-- Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913

• "We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it".
  

--Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa)

(Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency (12 years) June 10, 1932)

• "The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the International bankers
  

-- Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Rep. Pa)

• "The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board asministers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money"
  

-- Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1923

• "From now on, depressions will be scientifically created."
  

-- Congressman Charles A.Lindbergh Sr. , 1913

• "Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government's institutions.They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers"
  

-- Congressional Record 12595-12603. Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency (12 years) June 10, 1932

Critics from the Federal Reserves own ranks:

• "When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in out account to cover the check,but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money."
  

-- Putting it simply, Boston Federal Reserve Bank

• "Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities, intrinsically, a 'dollar' bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries."
  

-- Modern Money Mechanics Workbook,Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1975

• "The Federal Reserve system pays the U.S. Treasury 020.60 per thousand notes --a little over 2 cents each-- without regard to the face value of the note. Federal Reserve Notes, incidently, are the only type of currency now produced for circulation. They are printed exclusively by the Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the $20.60 per thousand price reflects the Bureau's full cost of production. Federal Reserve Notes are printed in 01, 02, 05, 10, 20, 50, and 100 dollar denominations only; notes of 500, 1000, 5000, and 10,000 denominations were last printed in 1945."
  

--Donald J. Winn, Assistant to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system

• "We are completely dependant on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous;if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system.... It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."

--Robert H. Hamphill, Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank

From General Law

• "The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the U.C.C. (Uniform

Commercial Code)"

-- The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966

• "There is a distinction between a 'debt discharged' and a debt 'paid'. When discharged, the debt still exists though divested of it's charter as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge, something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes it subject to it's disability incident to the discharge."
  

--Stanek vs. White,172 Minn.390, 215 N.W. 784

• "The Federal Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities..."
  

-- Lewis vs. United States 9th Circuit 1992

• "The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. ...but are independent,privately owned and locally controlled corporations."
  

-- Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 9th Circuit 1982

Past Presidents, not including the Founding Fathers

• "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and

commerce."

-- James A. Garfield, President of the United States

• "A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and

duress of small groups of dominant men."

--President Woodrow Wilson

Founding Father's Quotes on Central Banking

(Maybe some repeats from "Founding Father's Quotes" / Information tends to converge)

Thomas Jefferson

• "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."

--Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.

Andrew Jackson

• "If Congress has the right [it doesn't] to issue paper money [currency], it was given to them to be

used by...[the government] and not to be delegated to individuals or corporations"

-- President Andrew Jackson, Vetoed Bank Bill of 1836

James Madison

• "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance".
  

-- James Madison

Misc. Sources

• "Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing"
  

-- Ralph M.Hawtrey, Secretary of the British Treasury

• "To expose a 15 Trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000

largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business."

-- Buckminster Fuller

• "Every Congressman, every Senator knows precisely what causes inflation...but can't, [won't] support the drastic reforms to stop it [repeal of the Federal Reserve Act] because it could cost him

his job."

-- Robert A. Heinlein, Expanded Universe

• "It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for

if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

-- Henry Ford

• "[Every circulating FRN] represents a one dollar debt to the Federal Reserve system."
  

-- Money Facts, House Banking and Currency Committee

• "...the increase in the assets of the Federal Reserve banks from 143 million dollars in 1913 to 45 billion dollars in 1949 went directly to the private stockholders of the [federal reserve] banks."
  

-- Eustace Mullins

• "As soon as Mr. Roosevelt took office, the Federal Reserve began to buy government securities at the rate of ten million dollars a week for 10 weeks, and created one hundred million dollars in new [checkbook] currency, which alleviated the critical famine of money and credit, and the factories started hiring people again."
  

-- Eustace Mullins

• "Should government refrain from regulation (taxation), the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent and the fraud can no longer be concealed."
  

-- John Maynard Keynes, "Consequences of Peace."

• "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from

them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits".

-- SIR JOSIAH STAMP,(President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain)

• "The modern Banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banks can in fact inflate,mint and unmint the modern ledger-entry currency".
  

-- MAJOR L .L. B. ANGUS

• "While boasting of our noble deeds were careful to conceal the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery.
  

-- Horace Greeley

• "People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project (Muscle Shoals Dam)nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the People who supply all the material and do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest ...But here is the point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an addi- tional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People. If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold. Interest is the invention of Satan".

-- THOMAS A. EDISON

• "By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft."
  

-- John Maynard Keynes (the father of 'Keynesian Economics' which our nation now endures) in his book "THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE" (1920).

• "Capital must protect itself in every way...Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages

foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd."

--Taken from the Civil Servants' Year Book, "The Organizer" January 1934.

• "The Federal Reserve banks, while not part of the government,..."
  

-- United States budget for 1991 and 1992 part 7, page 10

• "The Money Power! It is the greatest power on earth; and it is arrayed against Labour. No other power that is or ever was can be named with it...it attacks us through the Press - a monster with a thousand lying tongues, a beast surpassing in foulness any conceived by the mythology that invented dragons, were wolves, harpies, ghouls and vampires.It thunders against us from innumerable platforms and pulpits. The mystic machinery of the churches it turns into an engine of wrath for our destruction. Yes, so far as we are concerned, the headquarters of the Money Power is Britain. But the Money Power is not a British institution; it is cosmopolitan. It is of no nationality, but of all nationalities. It dominates the world. The Money Power has corrupted the faculties of the human soul, and tampered with the sanity of the human intellect...
  

Editorial from 1907 edition of The Brisbane Worker (Australia)

• ...I am convinced that the agreement [Bretton Woods] will enthrone a world dictatorship of private

finance more complete and terrible than and Hitlerite dream. It offers no solution of world problems, but quite blatantly sets up controls which will reduce the smaller nations to vassal states and make every government the mouthpiece and tool of International Finance. It will undermine and destroy the democratic institutions of this country - in fact as effectively as ever the Fascist forces could have done - pervert and paganise our Christian ideals; and will undoubtedly present a new menace, endangering world peace.World collaboration of private financial interests can only mean mass unemployment, slavery, misery,degredation and financial destruction. Therefore, as freedom loving Australians we should reject this infamous proposal. John Smith (nom de guerre) 21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

-- Labor Minister of Australia, Eddie Ward, during the inception of the World Bank and Bretton Woods, he gave this warning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Smith (nom de guerre) (talk • contribs) 21:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Dear readers: This material was in large part included in a text dump earlier today by user "John Smith (nom de guerre)" at both the article and talk page for Federal Reserve Act. I reverted the dump in the article. Some of the material above is probably accurate (as quotations). Some of it is outright falsehood -- for example the fake "quotation" from the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966. Some of it is just material taken out of context, as in the quotation from the infamous Lewis case (already covered in the article, if I'm not mistaken).

I don't know that there's a problem with adding a few additional critiques to the "critique" sections of articles, but enormous texts dumps with obviously misspelled words and obvious fake quotes are not appropriate. Yours, Famspear 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, excuse me but most of those quotes are accurate. No need to sweep your brush over the whole lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.40.3 (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Centrist views

I understand why user "Famspear" deleted this one.

Exerpts from an article from FAIR non profit institute for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). www.fair.org

"There is a notion -- widely believed in the mainstream media -- that while there is propaganda of the left and propaganda of the right, there is no such thing as propaganda of the center. In this view, the center doesn't produce propaganda, it produces straight news. Mainstream journalists typically explain: "We don't tilt left, we don't tilt right. We're straight down the middle of the road. We're dead center."

When mainstream journalists tell me during debates that "our news doesn't reflect bias of the left or the right," I ask them if they therefore admit to reflecting bias of the center. Journalists react as if I've uttered an absurdity: "Bias of the center! What's that?"

It is a strange concept to many in the media. They can accept that conservatism or rightism is an ideology that carries with it certain values and opinions, beliefs about the past, goals for the future. They can accept that leftism carries with it values, opinions, beliefs. But being in the center -- being a centrist -- is somehow not having an ideology at all. Somehow centrism is not an "ism" carrying with it values, opinions and beliefs."

( Quoting these three paragraphs from a 30 paragraph article never constituted copyright violation I would assume ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.144.240.250 (talk • contribs) on 1 April 2007

What is your point?

I cannot understand at all the point that User John Smith (nom de guerre) and others try to make. The Federal Reserve system has been in existence since 1913 and has basicly done its job - our monetary system is stable and the nation is prosperous. Who cares how it is structured. "Stealing our money and making us slaves" ?? Where are these people coming from?? We live in the wealthiest nation on earth, have a higher standard of living than most of the world, the median household income is over $60,000 a year, 70% of the population owns their home, most families have multiple vehicles and endless consumer goods and a life of leisure when compared the the non-industrialized world. Yeah, we really need to stay up nights worrying about how the Fed operates. You must lead a miserable life...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.172.212 (talk • contribs) on 20 April 2007

It's because of this system that our Wars are so costly and deadly numbnuts. It is a credit pumping machine for money that doesn't really exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.156.176 (talk • contribs) on 23 April 2007

Hi my friend is corrupting the site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Us1 (talk • contribs) on 24 April 2007

There's a few very important points you're "missing" here, to put it mildly, but it's obviously a complete waste of time and energy informing you of any meaningful facts or issues at this stage ... But hey, Just stick to your consumer goods. You'll be/do just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.149.5.6 (talk • contribs) on 9 May 2007.

More counter-criticisms?

The criticisms section of this article is fairly well covered, but I don't see much information, or links to information, which counters those criticisms. For the sake of balance, that'd be nice to see. Otherwise, it gives the impression that most of the criticisms are correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.75.235.33 (talk • contribs) on 4 May 2007.

The critisism section is "fairly well covered"??? How in the blue blazes do you defend that _peculiar_ asessment in any meaningful way?? It's at best a farce for christ's sake. it's laughable to the point of ridiculuous. The only person here acting as editor in chief is a person who cannot conduct a debate on issues, and I haven't seen any sane comments here in the six months I've been having it on my watchlist. One might ask where are the sane wikipedians? Where are the sane parts of the english speaking internet community? You do realise that this (the "input" you leave here)is documented for all the forseeable future and arguably the rest of human history? It doesn't bother you? Of course it doesn't. You really don't see the flaws and problems here at all. absolutely fantastic. absolutely fascinating. I guess it's just like the deterioration of usenet. oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.149.5.6 (talk • contribs) on 8 May 2007.

Zeitgeist the movie

I added a new section for Zeitgeist the movie, feel free to add more or remove some parts if they're not on topic enough.

...quasi-governmental/quasi-private...

hilarious! what the hell does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.69.161 (talk) 18:45, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

conspiracy theory

What's with the conspiracy theory in the oHistory section? It starts on March 22 with a single ip-address, and then blooms there after with a different ip-address.

Much of what is considered "conspiracy theory" is based in fact... do your homework.

Information about the system is parroted word for word from their official website. Is there really NO OTHER information ANYWHERE about it. Are bankers and economists singularily averse to participate in the Wikipedia? Eva Jlassi 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Eva Jlassi: Actually, there is quite a bit of information in the article that does not come from "their official website" -- see the critique sections. Also, the various citations to the statutes do not come from "their official website" -- in fact, I think I may have added some of those citations myself. A good chunk of my time for several years was taken working as a member of a team of certified public accountants auditing a member bank in the Federal Reserve System, but I didn't consider myself to be a "banker" or an economist. It's a boring topic for me - I edit here mainly for technical legal accuracy and clarity, and to maintain Wikipedia concepts such as verifiability, neutral point of view, etc. By the way, how can you be sure that "bankers and economists" are averse to participating in Wikipedia? Can you be sure that some of them are not actually editing the article on the Federal Reserve System? Yours, Famspear 20:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Much of the lack of citation has to do with the sources being so biased. So instead of quote the biased source used, someone put a citation needed link. It seems like whole article is written by a goldbug right-wing libertarian. 24.107.179.83 15:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=5355374476580235299&q=Freedom+To+Fascism.&total=1219&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.129.55.26 (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Government of the People, by the Banks, for the Banks." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.81.234 (talk) 10:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Jewry

Is it not notable that a population that is 5% of the US population controls 100% of the seats of the BoG in the Fed? I simply want to make this statement: All current members of the Board of Governers are Jewish. This is notable and accurate and should be included. I will wait 24 hrs to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that it's notable. First, as a technical matter, you have not cited your sources. Second it seems like a trivial fact. How does race/ancestry/religion relate to their being on the Board? All current members on the board of governors are male, and they all have dark hair[2]; is this notable as well? -FrankTobia (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't it a preposterous assertion with no citation to any source? Please don't just assume its truth.Tom Cod (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh: Here is the language that you inserted in the article:

“All current members of the Board of Governors are of Jewish decent.” [sic; should be “descent”]

In your edit summary, you argue for inclusion of this material on the grounds that the material is “reevant [sic; should be “relevant”], notable, accurate”.

Now, you are arguing:

“Is it not notable that a population that is 5% of the US population controls 100% of the seats of the BoG in the Fed? I simply want to make this statement: All current members of the Board of Governers are Jewish.”

There are several problems with your material, and with your explanations.

First, assuming for the sake of argument that all the members of the Board are indeed of Jewish descent, you are implying either (A) that these members somehow constitute 5% of the U.S. population –a preposterous argument that I do not believe you are making, or (B) that the Jewish people in the United States constitute 5% of the total population and, that the Jewish people as a group somehow “control” the Federal Reserve Board merely because the members of the Board supposedly are of Jewish descent – also a preposterous argument.

Let’s forget about notability, relevancy, and accuracy for a moment, and concentrate on three very basic concepts in Wikipedia: Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research.

Your material violates all three of these precepts.

First, you offer no sourcing for the comment that all the members are of Jewish descent. This means that even if the statement happens to be true, it violates the Verifiability concept.

Second, your own explanation for your reason for wanting the material in Wikipedia betrays your motivation for inclusion: you are pushing your point of view that the Jewish people as a group control the Federal Reserve Board merely because the members of the Board are of Jewish descent. Wikipedia is not the place for you to be pushing your own personal beliefs about the Federal Reserve Board, about the Jewish people, or indeed about anything else.

Third, your material appears to be your own original research. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to use Wikipedia to publish their own data, even if the the material happens to be "true." Material in Wikipedia articles must be derived from research done by other people -- specifically (and this relates back to Verifiability) reliable, previously published third party sources, not from the personal views of Wikipedia editors.

Regardless of whether your material is “notable,” relevant, or “accurate,” your material fails all three of the basic Wikipedia concepts: Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

@ both of you fine Wikipedians. First, as a technical matter, can you tell me what proportion of purported facts are cited in this article? Do you have any issue with the majority of sentences that cite no reference -- for example, the sentence preceding my proposed edit that all Board of Governors were elected during president Bush's tenure? I will gladly cite sources when my sentence stands in the article, qualified by a "citation needed" hyperlink. I assure you that I have the information. But this point is obviously a red herring and/or some lame and lazy attempt to demonstrate your superior wikipedia skills, so let's move on to your non-technical argument.

That argument completely side-stepped my main point, technically. So listen one more time. I have the same question you do: "How does race/ancestry/religion relate to their being on the Board"? You seem to already know the answer: It obviously doesn't! But you know, technically, that is just an opinion. And a misguided/misleading one considering the fact I pointed out:

5% of the U.S. population is Jewish and 100% of the Board of Governor seats are occupied by Jewish people.

And uh, technically speaking, I overstated the Jewish population; it's estimated at 2% of the US population (I've got the facts, technically: [3]) -- but the point remains valid at 5%. If the executive branch randomly selected the 5 Board of Governor seats on the Fed, do you know the odds that they would all be occupied by Jewish people? Guess what? It's SIGNIFICANTLY lower than all 5 randomly being male or all 5 randomly having dark hair or even all 5 randomly being male AND having dark hair! ( .00000032% vs. 3.125% or 44.37% or 1.38% respectively -- randomly sampled assuming 2% Jewish, 50% male, 85% dark hair, 42.5% male and dark hair in US population -- semi-technically speaking).

Technically, though, (1)sex and (2)hair color and (3)Jewishness are 3 separate questions that should not be so easily conflated. I just wanted to make a point that Jewish identity would still be the most statistically anomalous common denominator (that you mentioned) among the current members of the Fed. I even bet you'd be pretty hard pressed to find any other common denominator (age range, height, weight, underwear preference, etc.) as statistically anomalous -- but this is somewhat beside the point. Any logical, intelligent, pattern-recognizing being should notice how disproportionately represented the Jewish population is in the Fed with its .00000032% chance of randomly occurring. This is precisely why this fact is notable.

But you do bring up a rather good point: other characteristics should be identified as well. However, you cannot genuinely argue that all of our human attributes are equally important, as you seemed to imply. Some attributes are obviously more important than others because of their infrequency (uniqueness) and prominence in our lives. Gender is certainly a very prominent personal attribute, but a far more common attribute than Jewish identity and thus less notable (see odds above). It, however, is still an influencing factor and should most certainly be mentioned. The only caveat is that it might be redundant considering all members have unequivocally masculine names -- Jewish identity is not so easily inferred. Thus the reason for the sentence.

But there are other notable characteristics. So let's look for a guideline on which to choose. Obviously your absurd implication that all human characteristics are equally important is, well, absurd -- so let's figure out some important ones. Let's try to do this technically. I know! let me look for an example on Wikipedia (which you seem to know very well... you know, technically speaking): Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. Yes, here we go. They seem to consider Ethnicity, Gender, Religion, Age, Geographic background, and Economic and educational background as notable catogories. Jewishness fits well in 2 of the places. Jewishness does seem to be notable to Wikipedia after all! Hair color, not so much, technically. So I propose a Demographics of the Federal Reserve of the United States article. Hope you can contribute something notable.--Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh: We are discussing your material on Jewish people and the Federal Reserve System, not the rest of the material in the article. Even if nothing else in the article were sourced at all, that would not change the fact that your material must conform to Wikipedia rules. Although it may seem unfair, we do not have to justify the rest of the article.

Citing the rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View and No Original Research does not constitute raising a "red herring," and does not constitute a "lame" or "lazy" anything. And no one has mentioned anything about "Wikipedia skills" except you yourself.

No one has "side-stepped" your argument. I addressed your argument directly, and I demonstrated that you are pushing your own point of view about Jewish people and the Federal Reserve System. Pushing your own point of view in a Wikipedia article in this way violates the Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View.

And just to clarify a bit, I and other Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to avoid "completely side-stepping your main points" if we choose to do so. We are here to edit Wikipedia, not to answer your points to your satisfaction.

Your statement that you "just wanted to make a point that Jewish identity would still be the most statistically anomalous common denominator (that you mentioned) among the current members of the Fed" is illustrative of my earlier points. Wikipedia is not the proper place for you to try to make your point. Wikipedia is not the proper place to publish your theories or beliefs about Jewish people and the Federal Reserve System. There are plenty of avenues on the internet for that.

Please re-read your own comments, the comments of other editors, and the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yours, Famspear (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

@Famspear: Please reread my comment. You have already admitted to singling me out an being unfair by targeting the NPOV, objective fact that all members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors are Jewish. Mentioning that all members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors are Jewish is not "pushing [my] own point of view about Jewish people and the Federal Reserve System". That statement is absurd and I dare the Wikipedian Gods to encourage another one of you step up and try to make that absurd statement. You see, I have the benefit of referencing countless wikipedia articles in which the race and religion of prominent political figures is noted and is not considered "NPOV" and "pushing my own opinions". I am citing precedent. You interpretations are wrong, and there is a long list of Wikipedia precedent to support me.

Also, please quote me in context. You have dishonestly represented my comments -- so all those reading, please reread my comments. "The statement [I] 'just wanted to make a point that Jewish identity would still be the most statistically anomalous common denominator (that FrankTobia mentioned) among the current members of the Fed' referred not to my main point, but to the probability calculations I performed in the preceding paragraph . My main point is that my edit is NPOV, objective, accurate, easily source-able (published in U.S. press), and the same type of comment noted on literally thousands of other Wikipedia entries about prominent public figures. For example:Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States.

And yes, I know you are free to side step any of the tough arguments to which you cannot competently respond. That just makes you look like a selective arguer with an agenda. I'm glad that you pointed that out -- and also the fact that you are unfairly targeting my edit. You are also incorrectly assessing my edit as non-NPOV, as I have already demonstrated. So I will continue to add the comment every 24 hours until I finish the Demographics of the Federal Reserve of the United States. Thank you. --Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, I am eager to see the source of your information. Specifically, do you have a reputable third-party source that makes the connection that all current members of the Board are Jewish, and that this is somehow relevant? Or have you researched on each member individually and drawn the connection yourself? I ask because of Wikipedia's policy against original research. If you can demonstrate that reputable third-party sources have made note of this information, and they demonstrate its notability, then I will support its inclusion in the article. -FrankTobia (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh: No, no one has "singled you out" by "targeting" what you have labeled as "the NPOV, objective fact that all members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors are Jewish." I and other editors have made many objections to all kinds of material removed from this article. All you have to do is read this talk page to see the comments that I and other editors have made over the years.

Regarding your bald assertion -- that your material "is NPOV, objective, accurate, easily source-able (published in U.S. press), and the same type of comment noted on literally thousands of other Wikipedia entries about prominent public figures" -- your merely making that statement neither makes it so, nor satisfies the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research.

NPOV - neutral point of view - refers to how material is presented in Wikipedia. The fact that a statement is true does not always mean that the information has been presented in a way that maintains a neutral point of view. I infer from your comments that you are trying to push into the Wikipedia article the "fact" that all members of the Board of Governors are of "Jewish descent" because you feel that Jewish people as a group exercise undue control over the Board. I would suggest that you stop arguing about whether the statement is true or not and concentrate on the more important point -- which is that providing the very reason you have given for wanting to include the statement has exposed your motivation. Regardless of whether it is "true" or not, you still need to deal with your motivation for editing the article and with the effect of your proposed language on the neutrality of the article.

Assuming that you eventually provide reliable sources that make your information verifiable and you eventually show that the information is someone else's work and not your own original research (as that term is used in Wikipedia), I believe your task will still not be complete. You will still need to come up with some alternative presentation that does not violate the rule requiring neutral point of view or any other Wikipedia rules. You will also, for example, have to persuade other editors that the "fact" you are pushing is notable.

The reason I am free to side step any of the so-called "tough arguments" to which you contend I cannot "competently respond" is that that you are in no position to demand that Wikipedia editors respond to your arguments. Parenthetically, I would add that you are in no position to make a determination as to whether I or other editors are "competent" to respond to your arguments.

You, as a newcomer to Wikipedia, do not unilaterally set the agenda for other editors here. You do not unilaterally shape the contours of the discourse. If you want to edit in Wikipedia, you must observe the rules, and you must respond to other editors. Wikipedia works on a principle of consensus.

Yes, I am indeed a "selective arguer" as you put it, and I do indeed have an agenda. For example, if you raise an irrelevant or tangential argument in support of your edit, I and other Wikipedia editors may well ignore your irrelevant or tangential argument and attempt to guide you back to the problem at hand. The "agenda" here is already set for you. The agenda consists of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I did not make those policies and guidelines, but I and other Wikipedia editors do try to observe and enforce them. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wanting to cite the demographics of the Fed BoG simply because there is such a discussion regarding the judges of the Supreme Court makes no sense. Demographics of the SC justices are appropriate due to their much broader impact on every aspect of the nation. For the governors, what would make much more sense would be to discuss their banking and business background and experience, knowledge of economics, etc. 71.214.93.114 (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material

For the umpteenth time, the Woodrow Wilson material has been added, along with some weasel worded "Many Scholars claim" material. I have moved the material to here for discussion:

Many Scholars claim that the Federal Reserve system is in direct conflict with the constitution of the United States. Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution says congress shall have the power to control the value of money. The Federal Reserve is a private bank with little to no oversight operating almost completely independently of the government.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Money Masters

I added a link to The Money Masters (conspiracy film) and also added some counterarguments to that article (see The Money Masters / Criticism). The article about the film was a bit lopsided. If any experts of The Fed want to review that section or add corrections or references, your contributions would be most welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekonomics geek (talk • contribs) 08:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: The Criticism section was deleted from The Money Masters. The deleter may have a point in that an encyclopedia should not outright criticize things. I could of course blog the criticism instead and cite it here, as seems to be Wikipedia's fashion, but it's not really my type of activity. From the point of view of someone who actually studied economics, the claims in the film are quite wrong, but the film is not notable enough to have received wide professional review elsewhere. It seems to have a cult-like following among some amateurs and conspiracy theorists though. Ekonomics geek (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Statement / NPOV

I object to the statement contained in the text, which reads: The early national banking system had two main weaknesses, an "inelastic" currency and a lack of liquidity. National bank currency was considered inelastic because it was based on the fluctuating value of U.S. Treasury bonds rather than the growing needs of the U.S. economy. It should be obvious that this is someone's point of view. I think the article should attribute this statement to someone rather than just making the statement as though it were universally accepted, which it isn't.190.41.106.156 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added some citation tags. Famspear (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Dividends

[4] writes: At the end of each year, Reserve Banks return to the U.S. Treasury all earnings in excess of expenses necessary for operations. I think this aspect of dividend payments is very important. I'm not a lawyer and reading legalese just isn't fun for me. But perhaps someone can fix this article if a direct citation of the law can be found? --Ekonomics geek (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also in the FAQ here under "How is the Federal Reserve Funded", to wit "The Federal Reserve's income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it trades through open market operations. Other sources of income are the interest on foreign currency investments held by the System; fees received for services provided to depository institutions, such as check clearing, funds transfers, and automated clearinghouse operations; and interest on loans to depository institutions (the rate on which is the so-called discount rate). After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury." I'm sure a direct legal citation would be better, but the Federal Reserve banks themselves are probably more authoritative than what's there now. Acerimusdux (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving / auto-archiving?

Any objection to archiving some of this discussion? Using auto-archiving?--Gregalton (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Counter at 150 days, totally arbitarily, Auto box too.--Gregalton (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that was a quick discussion. I wholeheartedly support: this page has needed auto-archiving for a long while IMHO. Thanks for being bold. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Private vs Independent

The first paragraph of the article mentions that the Fed is a private banking system, but wouldn't the term "independent" describe the system better? Dotter (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Both terms are good descriptions of The Fed; one doesn't supersede the other. It is private as opposed to public, it's privately owned, and not itself an arm of the US government. Independence refers to the ability of the government to exert control over The Fed (or any central bank). In fact, central bank independence is an interesting topic in its own right, and can probably be discussed as such. I'll try to add something about that in the near future: Frederic Mishkin has a pretty decent text book on money and banking that details the issue. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Privately owned by whom? As far as I know, there is not an individual or an organization that can legally claim ownership of the Federal Reserve. Dotter (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The regional Federal Reserve banks are owned by those private banks in the Federal Reserve System. Each has to own some amount of stock in its regional bank as one of the criteria for being part of the system. The stock also has some restrictions on ownership and transfer and such things. By law it pays no more than 6% dividend. And I'm sure there's more to it than that, I'm just going from my memory here. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in here, but this is the exact wording from the article:

The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. The Federal Reserve System, created in 1913, is a quasi-public, quasi-private banking system composed of (1) the presidentially-appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors; (4) numerous private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks; and (5) various advisory councils.

Please read the bolded language again. There is no statement there that the Fed is a "private" banking system. To say that something is "private" (in the sense of "non-governmental) is to say that it is COMPLETELY non-governmental. That's not what the article says.

The article says the System is a "quasi-public, quasi-private banking system." By definition, something that is quasi-public, quasi-private" cannot be simply "private."

Secondly, we are talking here about the entire System. The entire System has some components which are government entities, and other parts which are "privately owned" (in the sense that any regular corporation is "privately owned" -- that is, not owned by the government).

Saying that the SYSTEM is "governmental" or "private" is essentially saying that the System is "all governmental" or "all private" - and that is not only incorrect, it's meaningless.

"The Fed" is not a BANK.

Chase is a bank. Wells Fargo is a bank. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is a bank.

"The Fed" is the Federal Reserve System -- which has some components which are BANKS (and we can argue over which banks are "privately owned" and which are not) and other components which are NOT BANKS. For example, the Board of Governors is not a "bank." It's a government board. The Federal Open Market Committee is not a "bank" either.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is not "the Fed." It is PART of the Fed, though. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is not "the Fed." It is part of the Fed, though.

"The Fed" is a central banking SYSTEM -- with both governmental and non-governmental components - AND with both "bank" and "non-bank" components. Famspear (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to refer to "The Fed" colloquially to mean a number of different things. I wasn't being rigorous above when I said the Fed is privately owned. I'm almost certain that regional banks are privately owned, as I've described. Now that I look at what I've written, I'm undoubtedly wrong to imply that the Fed isn't at all public. Also, the Fed seems to think that the Federal Reserve System is a bank, namely the central bank of the United States.[5] But I'm starting to split hairs so I'll stop. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone edited the article after I started this topic. It used to say that the Fed is a private banking system. I would also like to add that Federal Reserve Stocks do not represent ownership; they represent membership. Dotter (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the truth is more complicated than I had originally thought. The following is a quote out of Frederic Mishkin's text on "The Economics of Money, Banking, and Financial Markets", page 386:

"Each of the Federal Reserve banks is a quasi-public (part private, part government) institution owned by the private commercial banks in the district that are members of the Federal Reserve System. These member banks have purchased stock in their district Federal Reserve bank (a requirement of membership), and the dividends paid by that stock are limited by law to 6% annually."

So, in response to Dotter above, stock in a regional Fed bank represents both ownership and membership. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread what you wrote earlier; I thought you were referring to the Fed as a system and not the regional Fed banks individually. Back on topic: the article has been improved by the usage of the phrase "quasi-public banking system" rather than "private banking system." Thanks to those who participated in this discussion. Dotter (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be more accurate to say that it is an Independent agency of the United States Government, at least that would be true of the Board of Governors. As for the regional banks, it might be more accurate to say they are privately controlled. The members pay in 6% of their capital and surplus for the "stock," which they get paid a 6% dividend on, but beyond that it gives no claim on assets or profits. What it primarily gives them is voting rights in the election of 2/3 of the directors of the regional banks. Also, though they get a dividend on their "stock", they get no return on their required reserve deposits. Acerimusdux (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem -- and it is a chronic problem that will probably never go away as long as people edit Wikipedia -- is that (as other editors have noted) the term "The Fed" has different meanings to different people. Some people use the term to mean the entire system. Other people use the term to mean ONLY the Board of Governors (a government agency). Some people use the term to mean one or more of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks. Maybe some people may use the term to refer to the member banks (which are different from the Federal Reserve Banks).

One reason that some people argue about whether the Fed is "private" or "government" is a hidden agenda: some people want to say (and this is an oversimplified summary) that "private" means "bad." Therefore, "If Fed is private, then Fed is bad."

For clarity, for precision in thinking, and for precision in the use of the English language, we should not refer to "The Fed" as being either "governmental" or "private."

For clarity, for precision in thinking, and for precision in the use of language, we probably should not even use the term "The Fed" without making clear whether we're using that term to refer to (A) The Board, or (B) the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, or (C) the member banks, or (D) the entire Federal Reserve System.

The article, as currently worded I believe, says "quasi-governmental, quasi-private." I think that is an accurate description, and much better than merely "governmental" or "private." This article is about "the Fed" in the sense of The Federal Reserve System -- the entire system.

In this sense, to argue, for example, that the Fed is "a private bank" is nonsense. It's like arguing that "the universe is a planet."

The universe contains planets. But it also contains stars, and asteroids, and black holes, and random dust, and lots of other stuff. The Federal Reserve System contains banks (including lots of private banks) and lots of other things. The fact that the Federal Reserve System contains private banks does not make the Federal Reserve System a private bank. The Federal Reserve System is not a private bank. In fact, it's not a bank, period.

The Federal Reserve System is a banking system, not "a bank." The Federal Reserve System contains government agencies (e.g., the Board of governors) AND privately owned banks (the member banks) AND privately owned (or at least, arguably privately owned) banks like the 12 Federal Reserve Banks AND the Federal Open Market Committee, and so on.

In summary, the debate about how to describe "The Fed" is in some sense a misguided debate, based in part on the imprecise use of language. Famspear (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "quasi" private. An institution is either private or it is not. "Non Profit" means they get to cover ALL operating expenses- including salaries. That's a pretty good deal for any business. "quasi public"? No such thing. People look to wikipedia for clarity, not "quasi" descriptions.Just-unsigned (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Just-unsigned: No, a system that is partly governmental and partly private is obviously quasi-governmental and quasi-private. It has governmental components and private components, so the statement that it is "either private or it is not" is incorrect.

And "non-profit" does not mean that they get to cover all operating expenses. They may get to cover all operating expenses - but that's not the definition of the term "non-profit." Please re-read the talk page. Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a compromise between government regulation and private enterprise

From what I've gathered about the federal reserve system so far, the system is the result of different ideas people had for solving the problem of bank panics. The system was formed because people thought government regulations were necessary to solve this problem while at the same time many people didn't want a completely government run banking system. I think this particular compromise is the result of the debate between unregulated free markets and government regulations that we americans haven't settled yet. I've heard from different sources that the federal reserve system is just that - a compromise between the 2 philosophies. The sources for this are probably available across the internet and I think it would be helpful to include information on the system as a compromise in the article. I think it's possible that the healthcare issue could end up being dealt with in the same way. We would end up with a part public, part private healthcare system. This healthcare analogy should help people to understand how something could be part public and part private.

This also leads to what the criticims of the system are. Based on knowledge that the system is a compromise, it should be easier to see why the libertarian philosophy always pops up when criticisms of the system are discussed. It's all about not liking government run programs. Bureaucracy, incompetence, etc. are usually cited. The current credit crisis helps out here because many people are saying that the federal reserve set the interest rates too low, which lead to the housing bubble. I think this could make a good case for government incompetence as a criticism of the system. ;)

I already have one source mentioning this, which is why I included it in the 'purpose' section. I copied what they said in the fed in plain english:

"to strike a balance between pivate interests of banks and the centralized responsibility of government"

Hope this info helps.Analoguni (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Independent within government

The "independent" part of the Fed exists so that it could be impartial in decision making. They say that it is "independent within government". This is so that it doesn't do things like print up more dollars every time congressmen ask for it when they don't want to tax their constituency.Analoguni (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

what is going on?

speaking as a layman who wants to understand how the fed influences the economy by reducing "interest rates". this article is totally obtuse.

If someone who understood this could try to dumb it down (put jargon in context so that we understand what it means) that would be awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.94.76 (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I recently read a US Treasury stat that said 60 to 70% of Federal Reserve notes go overseas. I came to this article to find out how the Federal Reserve decides how much money to print for use overseas and found nothing. Did I miss it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Question?

How many times has the fed lowered rates between meetings and when was the first time? I have researched this question and come up with nothing. Is anyone able to lead me to a web site with this information? Thanks. 71.39.251.153 (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a website that listed all the interest rate changes throughout history, but the site I cannot remember at this time. 97.100.138.223 (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to the effective and target federal funds rates and history thereof from the New York Fed in the Federal funds rate article's external links; although, this only goes back to 1971. The article also shows a graph of data taken from the Fed.--EGeek (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Documentary

Why is there no listing for the documentary of the FED : The Money Masters, Or at least any talk of it on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.77.60.237 (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That article was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Money Masters. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Old messages

I don't know where to put this, so here it goes: Under "some interesting facts" at the Federal Reserve page, it reads:

"The Fed has over 11 billion in gold which is a holdover from the days the government used to back US Notes and Federal Reserve Notes with gold."

In correspondence to N.M.Sheedy from a member of the Federal Reserve Board's staff, December 4, 2007, "JPD" wrote: "The Federal Reserve owns no gold. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the only Reserve Bank that has gold in its vault, but this gold belongs to foreign countries."

The idea that the federal Reserve would hold gold in its reserves seems very strange to me becasue, as I understand it, there would have been no need for the Federal Reserve to hold gold to cover Federal Reserve Notes. If the Federal Reserve ever held gold, or holds gold now, it would be the property of the stockholders of the Federal Reserve banks where the gold is kept. The Federal Reserve never backed its federal reserve notes with gold, did it? If such gold was intended to back paper notes, it would have been the fiduciary responsibility of the U.S. Treasury. As such, the Federal Reserve could not own or hold gold to back U.S. Currency, as the gold that backed U.S. Curreny could not be owned by the Federal Reserve Banks, but rather it is held by the U.S. Treasury. Many U.S. Treasure notes were backed by gold (and others by silver), but the gold to cover them was--and still is (well, what is left of that gold)--held by the U.S. Treasury at Fort Knox and other U.S. Treasury depositories and mints.

So the questions are: Did the Federal Reserve ever hold gold to cover notes that were redeamable for gold? Is any gold held by the Federal Reserve now, or by one or more of the the regional Federal Reserve Banks? (Correspondence from the Federal Reserve Board Staff indicates that the answer is NO.)

Excellent question!!! Does any one have an answer?

See the fed's annual financial statements: page 21. The Fed owns gold certificates issued by the treasury at a fixed price of gold. So, In interpret this as the Fed essentially borrowing the gold. Note that the amounts are trivial (by the Fed's standards). I believe this is how it was done in the past: Treasury owned the gold, Fed borrowed it for currency backing purposes.--Gregalton (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Split off history section

Due to the size of this article, a reduction in the amount of material is needed. Therefore, I propose a split-off of the history section to its own article. A summary and link to the article will replace this section after the split. See this discussion in the talk page for more information about this decision. --EGeek (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Very nice, I agree with the splitting-of-sections analysis above. I support splitting the History section off into its own new article, and leaving two or three summary paragraphs behind. Of course the overlap between History of the Federal Reserve System and History of central banking in the United States should be noted: the former is contained entirely within the latter, and is a specific case of it, albeit an important one deserving of its own article. -FrankTobia (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed, as a reader of the entirety of Wikipedia, this history section in the article would promote me to skip the whole thing. Also agreed with FrankTobia, the article on History of central banking in the United States and its similarity to the history spin off is of importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TauntingElf (talk • contribs) 06:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since nobody has disagreed yet, I have split the history section to History of the Federal Reserve System. I have left a five paragraph summary created by removing most of the details and all of the quotes from the original material. This summary still needs work. I also split the history content in the new article into sections for an easier read. --EGeek (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul?

Just checking but is it nescessary to have his name linked everytime it appears in the Criticisms section. I mean Friedman is mentioned several times throughout but is only linked twice, once in Monetary Policy and once in Criticism. Also, does it have to be "Ron Paul" each time? It just feels poorly writen to see his full name every two or three paragraphs, so I have changed the first link to "Rep. Ron Paul" and replaced the others with "Rep. Paul". Correction, I used "Ron Paul" and "Paul" respectively, noting that Congressman was in front of each. Birdman1011395 (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

ownership secret

If the Federal Reserve member banks sell their shares to other banks then should the ownership of the federal reserve be regarded as secret if this sale or other legally effective transfer is not a matter of public record ? Note I am not talking about control which is effected through the board under normal statute.

Also note this quote -->

"because a Federal Reserve Bank is not a publicly traded corporation and is therefore not required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to publish a list of its major shareholders"

from this article http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html which is an academic attempt to debunk the questioning of ownership.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.191.120 (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the question about secretly selling shares to another bank: Good question. I believe the article states that shares of stock in Federal Reserve banks are not transferable. If that is correct as a matter of law, then even if a member bank (say, "Joe's National Bank of Austin") tried to secretly "sell" its stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas to "Bill's National Bank of Houston," the "sale" would have no legal effect -- except perhaps to get Joe's National Bank of Austin into legal trouble (maybe Bill's Bank, too). Famspear (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Federal law (12 U.S.C. 287) prohibits Federal Reserve stockholders to transfer or hypothecate their Federal Reserve stock. Dotter (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

so, how does this work actually?

FED wants to decrease the money supply, so it offers "cheap" money for the banks (e.g. 10% annually) - the banks "buy money" from the FED, because they can get only 5% on the market

when the options are redeemed, the banks have earned 5%

dont they increase the money supply by this 5%? (because they earned some "free money")

and what happens actually when the FED increases the money supply? money is sold to the banks cheaply (e.g. for 5%), when the banks can earn 10% on the market consequently the banks earn 5% and when they operation is redeemed, the FED earns 5% too

where does this FED 5% income go??? Agameofchess (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

When the Federal Reserve wants to decrease the money supply they sell securities - member banks receive securities in exchange for money. When the Federal Reserve wants to increase the money supply, they buy securities - member banks receive money in exchange for securities. Any income by the Federal Reserve is given to the Treasury. --EGeek (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Todays lesson is about the Federal Reserve. What is it? well, it's kind of a quasi sorta government institution but still sorta like a quasi private kinda thing. The folks that run it get real rich but don't really make a profit becuase they give some of the money they don't need back to the real government every year. Oh yeah- they also print money and send most of it it all over the world. We pay them interest for that. They took charge back in 1913 (a few years before the great depression) They generally are made up of banks- some are even US banks. The oversight is by, well, no one really. But a lot of people think they do a great job because Americans still have a lot of stuff. Glad we could clear that up.Just-unsigned (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Amusing synopsis. Almost completely wrong, but still amusing to read. Bagheera (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, do you think gold is pretty? I do. but the Federal Reserve doesn't think so, since gold doesn't change in value... they can't put an interest rate on gold. that's why they charge us for the printing. it all makes sense if you think about it. they make money, we pay for that money, they raise the dollar value, and then we have lot of stuff! it's a happy, never-ending system of bliss and happiness. let's keep it that way, because we can trust them for years to come.

)

It must be tough screaming about how bad the Fed is when no one listens. Or perhaps I should say be no rational person listens. 71.214.64.177 (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What does gold have to do with the Federal Reserve? The Fed isn't the one who took the United States off a gold standard. And the actual physical gold held by the fed isn't their gold. It's all in the vault in FRB New York, almost entirely owned by foreign powers who keep it there because it's considered safe.

Someday, I will understand the rants about the Fed. This is not that day. Bagheera (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

More hair-splitting

I made some edits to clarify that each member bank holds stock in one of the twelve regional Federal Reserve banks, not in "the Federal Reserve".

In a strict sense, there is no such thing as "owning stock" in "the Federal Reserve" (in the sense of the Federal Reserve System).

As noted before, the terms "the Fed" and "the Federal Reserve" are sometimes used to refer to the entire system, other times only to the Board of Governors, and still other times only to one or more of the 12 regional FR banks. I think that even the publications of Federal Reserve System use these terms ambiguously or inconsistently.

For example, I think I remember seeing somewhere that "the Federal Reserve System is the central bank." I think that statement would be misleading. The Federal Reserve system is not "a central bank". It's a central banking system. It consists of a government agency called the Board of Governors -- which is not "a bank" at all -- plus twelve regional FR banks (which of course are banks), plus numerous member banks, plus the FOMC, etc. Something that consists of more than one bank - not to mention other thing that aren't banks at all -- cannot be "a bank" or "a central bank" in any meaningful sense.

Because there has been so much confusion that has been engendered by the usage of terminology, I argue that Wikipedia should continue to strive to be very precise in its use of language in this article. Yours, Famspear (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your point about owning stock in the Federal Reserve, I don't agree that the terminology for central bank should be changed. The Federal Reserve system acts as a single "group" composed of different legal entities, and reports consolidated balance sheets on a regular basis: [6]. In this sense, the situation is analagous to any banking "group" that is composed of numerous legal entities. It's not incorrect to refer to Citi as a bank, as a banking group, as a financial group, as a bank holding company, depending on the context. In this context, it is the central bank.

In the case of the Fed, even auditors and accountants refer to it as "the nation's Central Bank." See [7]: "Accounting principles for entities with the unique powers and responsibilities of the nation's central bank have not been formulated by various accounting standard-setting bodies."

In other words, it may not be a single legal entity, but it is still a Central Bank (composed of several entities). In this case, I think saying "central banking system" confuses the issue.--Gregalton (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Both calling the Federal Reserve System a "central bank" or a "central banking system" are correct in the right context. Famspear is right about the owning stock issue, but I think he and Gregalton are both right about terminology. It depends on the context, and people can and do refer to the System as a "central bank" or a "central banking system" without being incorrect on either count.

This issue of usage should be addressed within the article, probably in a single paragraph relating to terminology and usage. If it's near the beginning, this will help the reader make sense of the usage/terminology issue. -FrankTobia (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A very reasonable suggestion, thanks.--Gregalton (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To editors FrankTobia and Gregalton - thanks. Famspear (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you bring up a good point here. You also make a good point when you note that the official publications also use these terms interchangeably. So, what to do about it? I think putting a second paragraph in the intro explaining the terminology could work, maybe even have the first section be "terminology" or something like that. There may be good sources available with discussions about the terminology. Analoguni (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Repetition of Information

Holy Shit, I swear every paragraph repeated something that was already explained in a previous paragraph. I don't know if this is a topic already being discussed, but I read the whole thing and it was terrible. I don't know how many different times I was told the Fed is independent in the gov, yet privately and publicly controlled or whatever the hell it was trying to say. This article needs serious revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.186.134 (talk • contribs) on 19 February 2008.

You have to remember that this article, as are almost all articles in Wikipedia, was not written by just one person. If it were written by one person (written well, that is) it would never contain repetition after repetion of the same point. The repetitions are almost certainly the result of a different contributor, who writes without realizing or caring that the same point has previously been made (or will be made again further along in the article). Mamarazzi (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the problem with the "Fed is independent" and the "privately and publicly" stuff is that it's virtually "non-fixable" on a long term basis, because of the chronic attacks on the article by people who believe the Fed is "bad" and who believe they can "say it's bad" by "saying it's private." For them, "private" equals "bad" and "public" equals "good" -- at least in the context of the Federal Reserve System.

We have the same problem in other areas of Wikipedia, where people come in and add nonsensical stuff that has been discussed and debunked, in the article talk page, over and over and over for years, and deleted over and over and over for years, and yet it just keeps coming back. It keeps coming back because there is always a new user who "didn't get the memo," or didn't read the memo, or who doesn't care about the memo, so to speak. People will always try to push an agenda, and people will always copy and paste some garbage from somewhere else on the internet.

I don't know how many times I have had to try to explain to new users that the term "the Fed", as shorthand, is used by some people to refer to the entire System, and by others to refer just to The Board of Governors, and by still others to refer just to the twelve regional Banks. That's part of the problem, and of course no one can "fix" it.

I also don't know how many times I have had to explain to people that saying that the Federal Reserve SYSTEM -- the entire system -- is "private" makes about as much sense as saying that "the universe is a planet" merely because the universe contains planets. The fact that the Federal Reserve System contains "private" entities does not make the Federal Reserve System "private," any more than containing "planets" makes the universe "a planet."

Few Wikipedia articles are written precisely the way any one of us would write such an article alone. I have had many of my articles on tax law published (under my real name), and it's so gratifying to be able to publish something on a technical subject and have it be "yours" or "your words" without it being "edited" by someone with virtually no knowledge of the subject. Wikipedia is not the place to be if you want to do that kind of publishing, though. Famspear (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Article should be renamed "Milton Friedman's Views On the Fed"

Just sayin', just about the only views mentioned in the article are those of Milton Friedman, Ron Paul and views on their side of the spectrum. The people who wrote the bulk of the article seem to have a soft spot for libertarian economic policy. Brentt (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean in the criticism section? Most of the rest of the article comes from the Federal Reserve Banks' websites, or business magazine articles. --EGeek (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, so called Austrian economics appears five times as often in the article as Keynesianism. If that isn't bias I don't know what is. At least Friedman isn't a full on crank. Also, the article implies it is surprising that Galbraith would agree with Friedman regarding the Fed and the great depression when in fact Friedman's analysis echos the orthodox Keynesian position on the subject. 24.63.48.198 (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Kind of like letting Krupp industries or any other Businesses like IBM be the sources for what they did during the second world war, or asking Blackwater and Halliburton to tell us what they are doing and how they are organizing their operations in Iraq. So much for credible insights on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.144.50 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense edit on "enough states"

I removed the following nonsense edit:

"The Federal Reserve Act was not passed by enough states therefore making it an illegal organization.

The "Federal Reserve Act" is of course a U.S. federal statute. Federal statutes are not "passed by states." Federal statutes are passed by the U.S. Congress, which is composed of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and (usually) signed into law by the President, etc. The "states" are not even involved in the passage of federal statutes. Therefore, to say that the Act was "not passed by enough states" is nonsensical. The statement that the Federal Reserve Act is an "illegal organization" is even more nonsensical. Famspear (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Scarily Biased

"Member banks receive a fixed, 6 percent dividend annually on their stock, and they do not control the Fed as a result of owning this stock. They do, however, elect six of the nine members of Reserve Banks’ boards of directors"

The members DONT control the board yet they ELECT the M A J O R I T Y of the members???????? WAKE UP!!!! This article reads like it was written by David Rockefeller WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!! These people are enslaving you!!

"I have to agree that the published main article is very biased and leaves out many pertinent details regarding the current banking system of the US. To call the system a quasi private/government entity is misleading to the general public. To say that the Fed returns any "excess" after expenses to the US Treasury is of little value considering the fact that the FED is not audited, and because it is a privately held corporation that is not required to disclose financial results. In addition the Fed operates under a tax exempt status and thus pays no taxes on the profits it takes from the American People. In layman terms a private company the "FED" controls the financial system of the United States, and the US government appoints some of the Board of Directors and limits the salary caps of the Directors, however the pay for the Board of directors comes from the private entities not from the US government. A more accurate description of the system would be that the Central Bank of the United States is owned by a private entity that is not open to the public. You as an American Citizen can not invest nor participate in the profits of the United States Monetary System. The federal reserves own educational website shows the entities structure with a pyramid that places the American people at the bottom. The United States Postal Service is an example of a government agency, NASA is another the Federal Reserve System is the complete opposite of those two entities and to say quasi-government is a falsehood. The paychecks for every member of the system are paid for by the private sector not the government. There is nothing Quasi governmental about that."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.90.2 (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether the article is biased or not remains to be seen; the comments above are for the most part demonstrably false:

Fed is audited: Reserve System Audits

Excess after expenses: financial statements of the reserve banks. Net income: $34,195; dividends to member banks, $871; transferred to surplus, 4,272; Payments to U.S. Treasury as interest on Federal Reserve notes $29,052. So the government got about 85% (in 2005 the figures was over 92%), and the Surplus is not the property of the bank-members - Congress decides what to do with that money. (the member banks got only 2.5%).

The rest of the "details" you add are just gibberish and lies, which seems far worse than "bias."--Gregalton (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton; Did you realize that the figures you quoted from the Federal Reserve "Net Income" page are million dollar figures? (For example: "Net Income: $34,195" refers to $34,195 MILLION dollars. (aka: 34.194 billion)?)   I think this is important simply because it goes to the point of just how complicated this whole subject is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.33.63 (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I realised that, seems obvious (if you read the actual source); I don't find that part complicated at all. Probably should have put the millions in, though.--Gregalton (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP66.235.90.2: I'm sorry, but your comments are almost completely incorrect. This has been hashed out over and over for years now. To call the Federal Reserve System a quasi private/government entity is not only not misleading, it is the very best, most accurate way of describing it. Sorry, but the Fed is not "the opposite" of NASA, etc. The "opposite" would be something that is completely non-governmental.

The Fed is different from NASA or the Postal Service, though. NASA is purely a government agency. The Fed is an amalgamation of both government agencies and private corporations. The Federal Reserve System is not "a private corporation." It's not "a corporation" at all. The statement that the Fed is a "corporation" or "a private corporation" is blatantly false. Please re-read the article.

Again, the Fed is a central banking system that consists of some things that are corporations and other things that are not corporations. For example, the Board of Governors is not a "corporation." The Federal Open Market Committee is not a "corporation."

The chronic ranting on this talk page about the "privateness" of the Federal Reserve System is based on a train of pseudo-logic that often goes something like this:

"Money should not be controlled by evil private bankers. Money should be controlled by government. Federal Reserve System is not government. Federal Reserve System is private. Federal Reserve System is controlled by evil private bankers. Therefore, Federal Reserve System bad."

The problem with the ranting is that it is factually incorrect. More to the point, Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia talk pages are not the proper place to debate the goodness or badness of the Federal Reserve System. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article.

I suggest that you look for a specific statement in the article that is factually incorrect, or improperly sourced, or improperly biased, or that is based on impermissible synthesis of sources. And avoid factually incorrect rhetoric. Famspear (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and statements like this:

"WAKE UP!!!! This article reads like it was written by David Rockefeller WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!! These people are enslaving you!!"

--are probably not going to get you very far in Wikipedia. Forget about the goodness or badness of the Federal Reserve System, and concentrate on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Famspear (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

why is it 'quasi public'

Why is it a quasi-public (part private, part government) central state.

It is a private bank (it has owners like the Citibank) with some minor 'state influence'. Even if you would say its part private, part and government owned you can´t follow for that statement that it is 'quasi public'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.35.33 (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The "quasi-public" distinction, which is explicitly cited, derives from a money and banking textbook written by Frederic Mishkin (a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System). See the citation for more details. The Federal Reserve System is not public per se, but it is sort of public. Hence the distinction. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any information that can be added which approximately describes the proportion of private and public ownership of the Federal Reserve? --Zven (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zven: Please review the article. Since the term "Federal Reserve System" does not really describe something that can be "owned" in the sense I think you mean it, there is no "ownership" (public, private or otherwise) of the Federal Reserve System. There is "ownership" of the Federal Reserve Banks, and there is ownership of the member banks.

First, on the member banks (like Wells Fargo, or Citibank, or the local bank down the street), the ownership records of banks are basically private, so it would be difficult to determine whether "governments" own any shares in any of the banks.

Second, regarding the twelve Federal Reserve Banks -- that would be a bit easier to determine. Each of the 12 banks is essentially owned by the member banks in its region. A list of the member banks that own each of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks might be available on the internet; I don't know.

The key point is that there is no such thing as ownership of the Federal Reserve System; you cannot have ownership of something that is not subject to being owned. You can only talk about ownership of the parts of the system that actually happen to be banks, which of course can be owned, and are owned. Famspear (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, you can't own a system. This question was raised by someone else, what I am inquiring about is what proportion of public and private influence or decision making controls the Federal Reserve? --Zven (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zven: OK, I see what you're asking. I have one or two college textbooks at home; maybe I can find something on that. Yours, Famspear (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Zven, long story short, the System was designed to be completely decentralized so as to be more palatable to the American public. That said, the board of governors is in charge, with the Chairman pretty much running the show. You're absolutely right that this discussion needs to be in the article. I have a money and banking textbook I've been using to source things; if I find the time within the next week I'll try and add something. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Usury

Maybe include in criticism that the interest rate qualifies as usury? In America, there is a limit on the amount of interest a lender can put on a loan. Does this not apply to the money that is loaned to the government itself? I'd like this to be talked about. 69.154.11.73 (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Currently, T-Bill interest rates are around 3% - 4%; does that qualify as usury? 71.214.64.177 (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is or is not usury is not the point. If there are reliable sources (and I'm sure you can find them) documenting criticism of the Federal Reserve based on the interest rate it charges to the government, then it should absolutely be added in there. However, our job as editors is not to level the criticisms ourselves, but merely to document the criticisms of others. See Wikipedia's No Original Reseach policy.--Aervanath (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Usury, by current usage, is "excessive interest" or "interest in excess of law" when there's laws limiting interest rates in place. While I would certainly consider the 30% interest rates many credit card companies charge their customers "excessive", I'm not sure the Fed rate (currently 2.0%) could count as "excessive" even by the most aggressive standard. Even at the 8.0% we saw in 1990 (the highest rate in nearly 20 years) I'd have a hard time considering it "Usury." You'd have to somehow find documented criticisms (not just our opinions) that justify 2.0% as being Usury - which I doubt you could do. Bagheera (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Excessive citation flags

I've removed several of the citation flags in the balance sheet section. Most of these points are covered elsewhere in this article and in annual audited financial statements. If there is a real question, then please re-flag, but I don't see why every single one of the points there should be flagged when addressed elsewhere - it's a scattershot approach.--Gregalton (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Split off criticism section to its own article

Due to the amount of criticism the Federal Reserve receives from both "mainstream" and "fringe" sources, an article specifically on these criticisms appears notable. Also, due to the size of this article, a reduction in the amount of material is needed. Therefore, I propose a split-off of the criticism section to its own article. --EGeek (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the criticism section should be separated. Dotter (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely keep it here. When someone looks up Federal Reserve they can see everything. If you move it they may miss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilyn (talk • contribs) 03:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There would still be a section with a link to the other article. The main purpose here is to shrink this article down to a more manageable size. The Monetary Policy section was my first choice; however, the article it would merge to has some major issues right now, and due to current debates on that page, it is not a good time to add anything else to that article. The second largest section is the criticism section.--EGeek (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been wanting to split off most of the "History" section and merge it into History of central banking in the United States for a while now. The section is way too big and foreboding for someone reading about the Fed for the first time, not to mention it makes the article too long and better belongs in the aforementioned article. The section left behind would be a summary and could be two or three concise paragraphs, which I think would improve Federal Reserve System greatly. It looks like a big job, but I think it's doable and a good idea assuming consensus emerges. What does everyone think? -FrankTobia (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In addressing an issue like the Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy, it makes sense to address the "what" AND the "why" questions...it hardly seems appropriate then to separate the "why not" from the "why." Consequently, I support leaving the "Criticisms" section intact within the page. I do however support merging the "History" section into History of central banking in the United States.--llaplue (talk) 01:08, March 21 2008 (Bryan College) —Preceding comment was added at 05:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Splitting of sections

I think the criticisms of any topic should be left within that topic. Splitting criticisms from a topic almost seems as though you are hiding them.97.100.138.223 (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree; however, this article has grown so long that it hinders its readability and makes adding additional material difficult. Also, splitting the section does not mean its entirely detected from the parent article. A summary and link to the separate article is left in its place. I have already studied each section (see table below) and found that the "history" and "criticisms" sections are the largest. --EGeek (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can support the splitting of sections based on the wikipedia guidline of splitting articles that are too long which lead to readability and technical issues. I think separate articles should remain within context of the federal reserve system and the main purpose of splitting them is due to size constraints. The criticism section could maintain this since the title of the separate article is "criticisms of the federal reserve system" but splitting the history and monetary policy sections don't remain within the context of the federal reserve system if they are merged with the currently proposed sections.

For example, I think the "monetary policy of the United States" article should contain information about monetary policies since the beginning of the united states whereas an article titled something like "monetary policy of the federal reserve system" would remain within the context of the federal reserve system specifically and would stay focused on just that aspect. It would then serve as an extension of the "federal reseve system" article that was split due to technical reasons.

Similar reasoning can be used for the splitting of the "history" section. Merging the history of the federal reserve to the "history of central banking in the united states" will stray from focusing on just the federal reserve aspect. An article titled something like "history of the federal reserve system" could be appropriate if it focuses on the years leading up to the federal reserve system like the banking panics of the late 1800s and the panic of 1907 but it would also need the historical changes that the federal reserve system went through since its founding in 1913. A number of laws and acts have been created since its founding and it has evolved since 1913 and I think there is enough information about this to warrant an article separate from "history of central banking in the united states".

So, in summary, as long as they serve the purpose of extending the article to deal with readability/technical issues and the separate articles remain within the context of the federal reserve system specifically, I can support the splitting of sections. Analoguni (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on your comments and a review of readability guidelines, I have performed a litmus test to examine the amount of material in each section. I performed this test per described in the readability guide with a few differences. I selected all text from History (after the lead and TOC) to the end of the conspiracy section (right before a list of prominent banking institutions). To prevent mistakes, I included lists and tables and copied the text into a word processor. I then counted the number of pages it would print taking note of pages with lists or tables. No images or formatting were selected. These are the results:

Section	No. Pages	Contains
History	6	pure text
Purpose	3	list on half of a page
Monetary Policy	5	half lists
The Federal Reserve Banks and the member banks	3	mostly all lists
Legal status and position in government	1	pure text
Federal Reserve balance sheet	2	half tables
Regulation of fractional reserve	2	half tables
Criticisms	6	pure text
Total*	18	62 kB (pure text)

The total uses the exact method as described in the readability guide to provide the most conservative estimate possible. The readability guide suggest to split the article after 10 pages. As showed from the table above, the largest sections are history and critisms. Since one section alone will not reduce the page count below 10, I suggest splitting both of these pages to separate articles leaving a summary and a link to the main article. For now, I will add a split-from box to the history section that will split the section to a new page called History of the Federal Reserve System--EGeek (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice job. Based on this it does make sense to split off the history of criticism sections. Analoguni (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Split: Splitting off the criticism section to maintain readability certainly seems warranted. This does NOT mean that there won't still be a Criticism section in the main artice, but rather that the Criticism section should be a summary of the Criticism article.--Aervanath (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I would oppose a split in regard to criticism. In fact, I oppose having a criticism section (See e.g., WP:NPOV#Article structure, Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode, Wikipedia:Pro_&_con_lists, Wikipedia_talk:Pro_&_con_lists, Template:Criticism-section). What I would like to see is the criticism integrated into the other topic areas of the article where appropriate for weight. Once a particular topic area becomes large enough to split, then do so. Morphh ^(talk) 16:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the contents of the current criticism section can be integrated into the rest of the article. This would present a more neutral approach to material such as the Federal Reserve's handling of monetary policy prior to the Great Depression, since these critics include both mainstream economist (e.g. Milton Friedman) and current Fed members (e.g. Ben Bernanke). --EGeek (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FED assets consist of ca. 45% mortgage backed securities!

The section Balance Sheet shows a balance as of June 21, 2007 , which states that out of total assets $ 870,868 Mio , $ 790,439 Mio consist of U.S. Treasury-Bills, -Notes and -Bonds. However since then, the FED exchanged ca. $ 400 Billion US-Treasuries against mortgage backed securities (the toxic stuff no bank (other than the FED) wants to lend against ! ).

So, Wikipedia pretents a FED balance sheet (and by implication a backing of the US-Dollar ) which is no more!

I wonder if americans understand that their US-Dollar is now backed to ca. 45 % by mortgage backed securities ?!! 79.210.97.38 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to the figures you're claiming?--Gregalton (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly :

Under : hxxp://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/2008monetary.htm you will find e.g. :

(May 2, 2008) hxxp://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20080502a.htm that the Term Auction Facility (TAF) will be increased to $150 billion outstanding amounts. (there are earlier press releases regarding the TAF with smaller amounts)

(March 7, 2008) hxxp://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20080307a.htm that repurchase (RP) agreements with primary dealers expected to cumulate to $100 billion will be initiated.

(March 11, 2008) hxxp://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20080311a.htm that a Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF) will be established which will lend up to $200 billion.

and (March 16, 2008) hxxp://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20080316a.htm that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was authorized to create a lending facility (of unknown billion $) to primary dealers (to provide financing to participants in securitization markets).

So, here you have FED references for more than $450 billion .

Under : hxxp://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/ , e.g. - Factors Affecting Reserve Balances - H.4.1 hxxp://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/Current/ you will find under 2. Consolidated Statement of Condition of All Federal Reserve Banks that the FEDs total assets were $889 billion , as of April 30, 2008.

A last thought : When you go through these press releases and read the description of the colateral the FED demands, keep in mind that CDOs consisting of ca. 80% of no-doc-loans (so called lier-loans) were AAA-rated by SAP !! (I will provide a link for that statement in the future, but give me a few weeks to dig it out of some material; for now it`s just my recollection.).

And also from the May 2, 2008 release, that the FED now lowers the quality of some of the colateral it demands.79.210.79.93 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that it would be better to look at the Fed balance sheet directly - what may actually transpire could be quite different. Thanks for the links though.--Gregalton (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don`t understand your answer !!

The link I gave above (hxxp://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/Current/ you will find under 2. Consolidated Statement of Condition of All Federal Reserve Banks) is exactly the link Wikipedia uses itself for the FED balance sheet !!!!!!! (see Wikipedia, Federal Reserve System section Balance sheet : "Consolidated Statement of Condition of All Federal Reserve Banks" and reference [75] )

Please explain your comment ! 79.210.82.133 (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that you've added up numbers from press releases and come to the conclusion that "the Fed exchanged $400 bln treasuries for other assets" and that this means half the balance sheet is made up of other assets. If you look at the actual balance sheet, that does not appear to be the case. I get approximately $140 bln on the balance sheet of currency collateralized by non-treasury, non-agency, so the amount is considerably less (as of April 30).--Gregalton (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gregalton, thanks for your answer, and oh, I see your point now. It`s not reflected in the FEDs Balance sheet. Exactly, and that would worry me some (have I just heaed someone just saiy "Enron" ? Nahh... Can not be.)

However, the simple fact is (I may be wrong, and please correct me) : a) as of e.g. Dec 26, 2007 the FED had ca. $754 billion Treasuries. b) as of now (May 2008) the FED has loaned out more than $450 billion Treasuries. Where do these loaned Treasuries come from ? If the FED does not have a hidden stash of Treasuries, not shown on it`s balance sheet, then they neccessarily must come out of the Treasuries shown on the FED balance sheet (i.e. the ca. $754 billion) .

That`s what brings me to the understanding, that the US-Dollar is now backed to ca. 50% by "private and illiquid obligations of Wall Street" .

But you are right, it`s not explicitly shown on the FED balance sheet. But still, they must come from somewhere! (My suspicion is that they don`t put it on the balance sheet because of it`s supposed "temporary nature", i.e. 28 days, rolled over for "as long as necessary", not because the explicit figures would look ugly. They also discontinued M3, because it does not contain additional information, not because the current M3 figures would look ugly, right?).

May I offer two links substantiating that : a) hxxttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=a8JhRTZjidh8 , "...The Fed has committed as much as 60 percent of the $709 billion in Treasury securities on its balance sheet to providing liquidity...". b) from a blog, but still info-taining : hxxp://bp2.blogger.com/_H2DePAZe2gA/R-Ms3GD1FAI/AAAAAAAABGs/03kuCqh5NN4/s1600-h/Ben%27s+Wallet.PNG or hxxp://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2008/03/hey-ben-whats-in-your-wallet.html respectively. Cheers from Germany, Werner. 79.210.109.64 (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be your point b) that is simply incorrect: if I read the docs correctly, the Fed announced (in separate programs) that it would accept/loan out UP TO certain amounts. This does not mean they DID loan out/accept up to those maximums. Since Bagehot's central banking dictum holds (paraphrased) that the central bank should lend unlimited amounts, but at punitive rates, making use of those limits for banks may be expensive. This could easily explain the difference. That said, I'm not an expert at reading the Fed's balance sheets, so I may be missing something (but I've read a lot of balance sheets). My point is that you can't go from press release "a" to "b" automatically; an individual might have a credit line that they don't use, and that doesn't mean the bank that granted the credit line has actually lent the full amount of the credit line.--Gregalton (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gregalton, that was a fast answer.

As you can see under hxxp://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/2008monetary.htm , there are always two press releases per auction : a) one that announces the auction including terms and amount offered, and b) on the day after the auction announcing the results including total propositions submitted and total propositions accepted.

I did (one time only) carefully go through all the releases from January 2, 2008 through May 2, 2008 May, just because I wanted to find out what was really going on in terms of amounts newly lent vs. rolled over at these auctions. (I was confused by the lots of individual reportings (on news and blogs) and thus went once through all these FED-press-releases to get the overall picture. I also plotted these figures in a spread-sheet to check that e.g. the TAF always stayed within its announced (for that timeframe) limits, etc.). It turns out that these FED-press-releases provide a logical and concise picture; and yes, they lead to the figures I mentioned. I may be wrong, but this is my honest conviction. And given the severity of that message (assuming it really is correct), I think there is an obligation of Wikipedia to put it into the public space; That`s why I brought this up. Werner.79.210.71.100 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, it seems that you have done considerably more research than I first realized. If you can find reliable sources making the point that you are making, then of course do so. I would be cautious about making points based on press release to balance sheet deductions, however - it would probably be considered a form of original research like synthesis.

And if you are new to WP, welcome, and I think you would find having a user name (just login) useful and productive.--Gregalton (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gregalton, thanks for your kind answer. Since scrutiny is a vital part of discovering the truth, there is no need to apologize, and your questions are quite wellcome!

Yes, I agree that finding appropriate "reliable sources" is the next step. I will try so, but suspecting that the MSM may largly have shunned this aspect, please do not count on me to be successful. (and, maybe I am not so sure that the portrayal of the US-Dollar and the FEDs reserves should rest on the shoulders of a german, (nice way to weasel out ??)). No, seriously, I will give it a try and report back here (in a week at latest). (and I remember to owe another reference; about SAPs AAA-rating of "liar loans")

As for the user name, I will think about it, maybe later. Cheers from Germany, Werner.79.210.71.110 (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the sources above should suffice. I've highlighted some of the important parts and added some other info that I think will be useful. Analoguni (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with the most official source, which is the Fed itself:

In the press release on March 11, 2008 announcing the creation of the term securities lending facility, this taking on of mortgage debt is explicitly stated:

Under this new Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF), the Federal Reserve will lend up to $200 billion of Treasury securities to primary dealers secured for a term of 28 days (rather than overnight, as in the existing program) by a pledge of other securities, including federal agency debt, federal agency residential-mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and non-agency AAA/Aaa-rated private-label residential MBS. The TSLF is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally.

source: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20080311a.htm (this source is also listed above)

It is also explicitly stated in a press release on May 2, 2008 announcing an increase in the funds available in the newly created facilities:

the Federal Open Market Committee authorized an expansion of the collateral that can be pledged in the Federal Reserve's Schedule 2 Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF) auctions. Primary dealers may now pledge AAA/Aaa-rated asset-backed securities, in addition to already eligible residential- and commercial-mortgage-backed securities and agency collateralized mortgage obligations, beginning with the Schedule 2 TSLF auction to be announced on May 7, 2008, and to settle on May 9, 2008. The wider pool of collateral should promote improved financing conditions in a broader range of financial markets. Treasury securities, agency securities, and agency mortgage-backed securities continue to be eligible as collateral in Schedule 1 TSLF auctions.

source: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20080502a.htm (this source is also listed above)

The bloomberg article linked above also explicitly states what the policy is:

The Fed has committed as much as 60 percent of the $709 billion in Treasury securities on its balance sheet to providing liquidity and opened the door to more with yesterday's decision to become a lender of last resort for the biggest Wall Street dealers..."They're using up their ammunition on the liquidity and overnight interest-rate fronts," said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Jersey City, New Jersey-based Wrightson ICAP LLC, a unit of ICAP Plc, the world's largest broker for banks and other financial institutions..."There's a limit to how much the Fed can do," said Brian Sack, a former Fed research manager, and now senior economist at Macroeconomic Advisers LLC in Washington. They've been incredibly aggressive with their balance-sheet policies over the past several weeks, and that has very quickly put this capacity issue in play....The Fed may also decide as early as tomorrow to start outright purchases of mortgage-backed securities, said Vincent Reinhart, former director of the Fed's monetary-affairs decision. Some investors have been clamoring for the Fed to make such a move, and the recent measures fell short of that step...The Fed's other programs include as much as $200 billion in lending of Treasuries to primary dealers in exchange for debt that includes mortgage-backed securities, announced March 11 and provisionally set to begin March 27

source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=a8JhRTZjidh8

Another bloomberg article also states this:

The U.S. currency plunged yesterday against the euro, yen and Swiss franc, erasing a rally from March 11 when the Fed said it would lend Treasuries to financial institutions and take mortgage debt as collateral.

source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aWK9fKuKM0_A&refer=home

A CNN article also describes this:

The program will lend up to $200 billion of Treasurys to primary dealers, a group of 20 big investment firms, for a 28-day term. The firms can put up as collateral mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which generally are seen as safe because of an implicit government guarantee. But in an unusual move, AAA-rated mortgage securities issued by banks will also be accepted. Many investors have shied away from these mortgage-backed securities because they fear defaults in the underlying assets will erode the value.

source: http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/11/news/economy/fedauction/index.htm?postversion=2008031115

The Fed's discount window website has a page that descibes discount window collateral:

The Federal Reserve System Guide to Discount Window Collateral: http://www.frbdiscountwindow.org/frscollateralguide.cfm?hdrID=21&dtlID=81

It's interesting to see what is in the unacceptable types of assets section:

It will not accept assets that: (1) are subject to adverse regulatory classification; (2) are 30 days or more past due (60 days for mortgage notes and other consumer debt, including student loans); (3) are illegal investments for the pledging institution; or that (4) exhibit collateral and credit documentation deficiencies.

And then there is the "Legal Tender FAQ" from the US Treasury which explains where the US dollar gets its value:

Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them. Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.

source: http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml Analoguni (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Analoguni; thanks for your work, excellent!

So, I guess I see two points here :

a) It is true that FEDs balance sheet as of June 21, 2007 shown in the Wiki-article is outdated insofar that ca.50% of the $790 billion U.S. Treasuries have been lent against "private and illiquid obligations of Wall Street" as colateral. So, this simply may need some updating. (and thanks for pointing out, that the calateral now (partially) includes consumer debt, including student loans. Btw. for what it`s worth, the other day someone on a blog inquired about "boat loans".)

b) It is not true that the US-Dollar is now backed to ca. 50% by these "private and illiquid obligations of Wall Street" ; it`s even worse : "Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything." (from your "Legal Tender FAQ" from the US Treasury reference). No backing by anything, not even "private and illiquid obligations of Wall Street".

I did not realize that. I assumed that after the termination of the gold-standard, the assets of the FED (and thereby mainly these treasuries now lent out) would constitute the backing of the US-Dollar. (appearently, the FED-reserves serve only a backing available to the government; though I have to confess I am still somewhat confused about that point.)

So, in order to prevent other people from that fallacy, maybe this info should be clearly/conspicuously posted with the updated FED balance sheet (these assets/reserves do not back-up the dollar) as well as in the "US-Dollar" article (the US-Dollar receives no backing by anything)

What`s your opinion ? Werner.79.210.97.46 (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a pretty impeccable [source] you can use in this area. I don't think you can assume that what's remaining is 45% mortgage backed securities, and it would be necessary to distinguish agency vs regular MBS, but some of what we've been referring to is covered here. Best.--Gregalton (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've created a chart showing the asset side of the Fed balance sheet. You can see how much of the treasuries the Fed lent out over the past few months plus some other new lending trends. It is clear that an unusual amount of treasuries has been lent out, but I don't know how much of them are collateralized with mortgage backed securities. What is certain, however, is the amount of treasuries lent out, which is (in millions of dollars):

790,820-536,714 = 254,106

This number is calculated using the highest value for "Securities held outright" and the current value. To get the percentage of total Fed assets, just use the latest balance sheet:

254,106/889,621 = 0.2856 = 28.56%.

So from just this, AT MOST, 28.56% of Fed assets consist of mortgage backed securities. The reason I say AT MOST is because I think it's possible that some of the treasuries have been lent out with other assets being used as collateral other than mortgages. However, there are also other things going on in the balance sheet. Just look at the term auction credt, repurchase agreements, and other loans. I don't know for sure what these funds have been invested in. Anyway, here is the chart for the asset side of the Fed balance sheet. It's pretty interesting:

Click on the image to see the source data. I've also added this image to the main article. Analoguni (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - good stuff. I agree very interesting, and although I haven't checked your numbers, I agree the "at most" distinction is important. Two other points that I don't know the answers to:

i) Much of the MBS may be "Agency", meaning Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie Mac, and other (mostly fannie and freddie) - while these may be MBS, they are different beasts with different risks (that most feel are implicitly guaranteed by the Federal govt - like Treasuries);

ii) I believe there are rules on "haircuts" for most of these "other" assets. So the mechanics might be that an MBS has a par value of $100, market value of $90, and a haircut imposed of 10% - meaning that approximately $81 in Treasuries could be borrowed against security with a face value of $100. There are probably also arrangements for the borrower to have margin calls (obligation to put up additional security) if, for example, market value dropped below some figure (like $85). So the Fed might have loaned out $250 mln of Treasuries against, say, $300 mln of other securities - just like other banks might lend to a company based on the value of their assets after a haircut.

Of course, if the borrower goes bankrupt, full recovery may be impossible, but this is not the same thing as saying that if the value of the securities (collateral) drops to $200 mln that the Fed loses $50 mln. The Fed's losses should be zero if none of the borrowers goes under - unlike no-recourse mortgage lending in some jurisdictions, I believe the Fed's counterparties cannot "walk away" (to use mortgage terminology).

So while more risky than the usual Fed procedures, it does not necessarily support the more hysterical conclusions about the Fed's balance sheet being composed of "subprime assets", etc.--Gregalton (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: I saw one note in a blog that claimed the amount "repo-able" may be more than market price in some cases, which raises questions, but no confirmation. This does not, however, obviate the point that the repo remains an obligation of the borrower.--Gregalton (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, I am still reeling from the shock to learn that the US Dollae is "receives no backing by anything." (from the "Legal Tender FAQ" from Analoguni`s US Treasury reference).

So, the FED press releases are wrong ? No Analoguni, no mystery here : You are looking in the rearview mirror (done and booked), I was forward looking (announcements in the press releases). So, just be a little patient.

a) the Term Auction Facility was increased from amount outstanding $100 billion to $150 billion (press release May, 2). So your column "Term auction credit" as of May, 8 is $125 billion and will go May, 22 to $150 billion.

b) beginning March 7, the Federal Reserve initiated a series of term repurchase transactions that are expected to cumulate to $100 billion. These transactions are conducted as 28-day term repurchase (RP) agreements (press release March, 7). I looks like this is reflected in the column "Repurchase agreements". This would mean an increase from $52,250 billiom (pre March 7) to $152 billion (don`t know how fast) and the $130 billion as of May 8 is part of that.

c) Big question here: Where is the Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF), (announced press release March 11) where the Federal Reserve will lend up to $200 billion of Treasury securities through weekly auctions beginning March 27 ? Was that an empty FED-announcement ? So, we are missing here a cool $200 billion.

Btw, this is the equivalent chart in the blogosphere : hxxp://bp3.blogger.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SCnn8FVo_9I/AAAAAAAAB-Y/zDqlmohzm2U/s1600-h/FedsBalanceSheet.jpg from hxxp://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/05/non-borrowed-reserves-and-feds-balance.html . And there you have as of April 30 : a) Term auction (credit) facility $100 billion. (will go May, 8 to $125 billion and May, 22 to $150 billion.) b) Repurchase Agreements $107 billion. (will go ??? to $152 billion.) and here you see c) Term Securities Lending Facility $145 billion. (will eventually reach $200 billion)

So, the blogs show the Term Securities Lending Facility ($145 billion), as announced by the has FED it March 11 (eventually $200 billion), and you do not show it at all !! Why?? (Don`t ask me, I can not read a balance sheet but I can read an press announcement.)

Gregalton, face it : the stuff the FED takes as colateral is the stuff no one other than the FED is willing to lend against !! Werner 79.210.65.245 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and the links. The latest release of the Fed balance sheet just came out today and it does confirm what you said about the term auction credit going up to 125 billion: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/Current/ I think I can see why the chart I made and the one you linked are different. I used section 2 of the statistical release because it has titles like "assets" and "liabilities" (which I figured made sense since this is a discussion about the balance sheet). However, it looks like section 1 was used (at least in part) by the person who made that other chart. In the other chart, the bottom value is "securities held outright" (just as mine) but "securities to dealers" is subtracted from that in order to get the final amount, which is what has it drop below $400 billion. The "securities lent to dealers" amount is in the part of section 1 titled, "Memo (off-balance-sheet items)". This is interesting stuff. Analoguni (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

TAF has pretty much stayed at its limit since it started; however, the other two new facilities have gradually fallen from their peaks. The TSLF account has been declining from a peak of $155 billion on the April 24 statement to a current value of $138 billion on the May 15 statement (see off "term facility" in "off balance sheet items" under the balance sheet. The "primary dealer credit facility" has been declining from a peak of $38 billion on the April 3 statement to a current value of $16 billion on the may 15 statement. The April 3 statement also includes an introduction regarding the effects of TSLF. --EGeek (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks EGeek for your exlpanation and links : your numbers look right! Add to them the $107 billion from the term repurchase (RP) agreements (you didn`t mention)and you have hxxp://bp3.blogger.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SCnn8FVo_9I/AAAAAAAAB-Y/zDqlmohzm2U/s1600-h/FedsBalanceSheet.jpg

So, the bloggers had it right all along and Wikipedia needs to get up to speed ! Werner 79.210.121.67 (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, Wikipedia is not suppose to be up-to-date with the latest information. It actually should be the last place with new information. Second, the asset breakdowns may actually violate original material since it is a synthesis of the balance sheet source. Finally, the purpose of my explanations and links were to illustrate that the new facilities affects on the Federal Reserve's assets are still in flux; thus, it is too soon to know what kind of affect these facilities have on those assets. --EGeek (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the image to contain the data released yesterday (5/15/08). I'm still using the same sources for now (it's easier to add the new values than to go through all the data again to get values for the TSLF and other stats). This chart is improved a little bit so that the amount of gold is easier to see and the y-axis values are easier to see. Analoguni (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I updated the data in the balance sheet. I also added the "off-balance-sheet items" data. Analoguni (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That last edit you made moved the text to the right of the table instead of below on wide screen moniters. --EGeek (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now. I "cheated" by moving the chart directly under the balance sheet tables. Analoguni (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is afraid of the oligopoly?

This article appears to be hugely censored, it makes no obvious mention of private ownership of the FED. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The article accurately describes it as a quasi-public system. Dotter (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This thread is associated with the previous topic above why is it 'quasi public' --Zven (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This point has been discussed here over and over and over and over and over again. There is virtually nothing new that can be said about this. Please read this talk page in detail.

There is no such thing as "private ownership of the FED." It's a meaningless phrase. As stated over and over and over again, "the Fed" is not something that can be "owned." The Fed consists of both governmental entities and "private" entities. Some of the private entities are indeed "owned" -- and that point is already clearly covered in the article.

Saying that the Fed is a private institution merely because it contains some parts that are private is like saying that "the universe is a planet merely because the universe contains some things that are planets."

The article accurate describes "the Fed" as quasi-public, etc. Famspear (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If this specific topic has been discussed "over and over" in the past, it may represent some confusion about this topic in the article itself. "Quasi-public" is not a word that most people understand, nor does the article appropriately define it. In addition the phrase: "part-public, part-private" is too vague. To most readers this could be misunderstood as partly owned by the public sector, and partly owned by the private sector; however, the direct quote in the structure section explains the system as "an independent entity... having both public purposes and private aspects". Later I will take a stab at paraphrasing this direct quote and provide an inter-article link from the lead in an effort to resolve this ongoing issue.--EGeek (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with EGeek that "part-public, part-private" should be qualified in the article. I included that term in the lead section, appropriately cited, because I think it makes explicit the vagueness of the ownership of the Fed. That said, it should definitely be discussed at greater length within the article. Thanks for your continued help getting to the bottom of this. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Charts: arithmatic v. logarythmic

It seemed to me that some of the charts in this article (e.g. CPI and money supply) should probably use a logarythmic y-axis rather than arithmatic. Is there a reason for the way these are? Cmadler (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Base Deposit Rate

Where does the 3.5% "Base Deposit Rate" come from? The Federal Reserve gives 0 percent return on required reserves. 67.80.122.91 (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor problem, unclear language

Quoting from the 'Balance Sheet' section, first bullet point in the unordered list after the graph:

The Fed has over $11 billion in gold which is a holdover from the days the government used to back US Notes and Federal Reserve Notes with gold.

I almost edited, as I was initially confused about the 'used to' part. I was expecting 'used gold to'. This is clearly what it's intended to mean, but, from the end of the sentence, inserting the word 'gold' would not work. ('used to' is used in the sense 'had done in the past')

Should this be changed? Perhaps 'used to back' --> 'backed'? Could just be me though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.251.216 (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The chart below the bullets clearly shows that the $11 billion in gold is used as collateral against Federal Reserve Notes. So, that bullet is misleding. -- EGeek (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Length

I've added a very long tag. This article has grown beyond the maximum length recommended for an article. We should consider splitting the article and using summary style. I'll also add that the lead is insufficient for the length of the article, which should be 3-4 paragraphs summarizing the article. Morphh ^(talk) 13:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

courts rules that the Federal Reserve System is privately owned

The Federal Reserve System owes much of its existence to the publics wide but incorrect perception that it is an entity of the federal government.

Here is a link to a U.S. court case Lewis vs. US, case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982 clearly showing that the Federal Reserve is in fact a privately owned corporation.

http://www.geocities.com/chrisforliberty/lewis.html

I encourage you to read it for yourself, but if you don't have the time, here are a few of the highlights:

A few excerpts from the opinion by Judge Poole:

"Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities.... but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."

"Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region."

"The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341 [**5] 361.

Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activities without day to day direction from the federal government."

"It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks"

And on a final note, the Fed website itself claims that it is not a for profit corporation (http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5)

Which raises one important question in my mind:

Then why (according to its own FAQ page) does it pay dividends? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.18.159 (talk • contribs) on 14 July 2008.

Sorry, but this issue, including the Lewis case, has already been covered over and over and over and over and over and over again. Please read this talk page in full, including archived sections.

The Court in Lewis did not rule that "the Federal Reserve" is a privately owned corporation. Please re-read the case.

For the umpteen gazillionth time, the statement that the "Federal Reserve" is a "corporation" is not only incorrect, it's nonsensical. It makes no sense from a legal standpoint. The Federal Reserve, as the term is used here, means The FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM -- NOT an individual Federal Reserve BANK. You are confusing your terminology. Specific BANKS can be and are "corporations." The Federal Reserve SYSTEM is not a "corporation." Please read the article CAREFULLY. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

SO let me get this straight...

You acknowledge that individual Federal Reserve banks such as the Federal Reserve bank of San Francisco or the Federal Reserve bank of Atlanta are owned by the privately owned 'member banks' of that region...

And that that is the case for all twelve of the banks of the entire Federal Reserve System.

You're saying that the largest components of the Federal Reserve System, (each Federal Reserve Bank) are owned by stock holding private member banks....

You're saying that and yet you are still trying to claim that the Federal Reserve System is not in large part owned not by our own government but by private for profit banks who are members of the system??

I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around this contradiction...

Before the Federal Reserve came into being our paper currency bore the title United States Note.

Now paper bills bear the title 'Federal Reserve Note'

Tell me...Why the change if our central bank really is owned by the United States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.18.159 (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The most important institution of any country is the one that controls the credit and currency of that nation. And because of that importance I believe it is an obvious shortcoming of the Federal Reserve System that there is any ambiguity at all about who owns/is in control of it.

If it was a good system there would be no such difficulty in describing its design or function.

If the fed was really controlled by our government then there wouldn't ever be any argument by people that it isn't. No one ever goes around saying that NASA or the US Postal Service is in fact privately owned.

But all kinds of people have made that accusation about the Fed. Even you defenders of the Fed acknowledge that the Fed isn't completely public.

The cute little term you like to use is 'quasi-public'.

I seem to think that the Federal Reserve System could be better described as pseudo-public —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.18.159 (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't merely "acknowledge" that individual Federal Reserve banks such as the Federal Reserve bank of San Francisco or the Federal Reserve bank of Atlanta are owned by the privately owned 'member banks' of that region. That is what I and other editors have been trying to explain on this talk page over and over and over and over and over again. That pretty much goes past merely "acknowledging" something.

Sorry, but I am not a "defender" of "the Fed", whatever that is supposed to mean. And "pseudo-public" means, literally, "false public." Obviously, a entity that is part public (part government) and part private is more accurately described as being "quasi-public," not "pseudo-public." Look up the meanings of the prefixes "quasi" and "pseudo" in a good dictionary.

You say that I am "still trying to claim that the Federal Reserve System is not in large part owned not by our own government but by private for profit banks who are members of the system." That is incorrect. I am not "trying" to make that "claim."

I am saying the following:

1. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a government entity.

2. The member banks are privately owned.

3. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks are nominally "owned" by the member banks (although that "ownership" is not private ownership in the sense with which I think you and most readers are familiar).

4. All these components (and certain others) are part of a larger "thing" called the Federal Reserve System.

5. Since the System consists of both public and private parts (see items 1 through 4 above), the SYSTEM as a whole cannot be said to be either COMPLETELY PUBLIC or COMPLETELY PRIVATE.

Period.

This Wikipedia talk page is not the proper place to debate the supposed "shortcomings" of the Fed. And by the way, even if the Federal Reserve System were "all public" that would not make it good or bad. Even if the Federal Reserve System were "all private" that would not make it good or bad. Famspear (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

response for famspear

Obviously just because the universe contains planets, that does not make the universe a planet. We are not retarded, thank you.

Nor do we require a lesson in prefixes, our vocabulary is just fine, thanks.

‘The twelve Federal Reserve Banks are nominally "owned" by the member banks (although that "ownership" is not private ownership in the sense with which I think you and most readers are familiar).’

Please elaborate on this if you have the time, we are genuinely curious.

It seems to me that the actual Federal Reserve banks themselves would be the most significant component of the entire system, as they regulate their districts, which are very large and encompass virtually all of the private banking sector. If this is not the case, It would be splendid if someone could present the reasons why not.

The real topic of debate here is not whether the Federal Reserve System is technically a public or private entity, for as any reader of this talk page can observe that that is a matter of contention.

People really just want to know:

1. Who wields the Fed's enormous power?

2. In whose best interest is that power emplyoed?

After further researching the matter we personally must concede to Famspear that the Fed (the whole system) is indeed technically a semi- private and semi-public system (I will not deign to use the term ‘quasi-public’ because of the inherent bias of that phrase selection: could the Fed not just as easily and accurately be described as quasi-private?)

But just because the Federal Reserve System is technically a little bit of both, that doesn’t mean that the proportion of one component’s power could not be skewed in such a way that one interest, either the public or the private, effectively nullifies the other’s influence in the entire system.

England technically has a constitutional monarchy…That would imply that the system is semi-democratic, semi-authoritarian would it not?

But as I’m sure you are aware, in such systems in the modern era, the monarch has no real say in the legislative process, no effective power. He/she serves merely as a figurehead. There is nothing monarchical about a Constitutional Monarchy. The monarchical element is purely titular.

The Federal Reserve System might technically be semi-private and semi-public but I am yet to see in this discussion page any proof that it (the Fed) is operated under the scrutiny of any sufficient governmental oversight. I mean, has the congress ever on record reprimanded the Fed for something? (Not being a smart ass here, legitimately wondering if there are any cases..) The Fed’s track record isn’t exactly immaculate. Benjamin Bernanke himself blamed the Fed for deepening the Great Depression.

And so long as there are doubts concerning this, it seems a certainty that there will be continued claims that the Federal Reserve System is a private corporation.

Though this may be literally inaccurate, the underlying point (that the fed works in the best interest of a private group not the public) does not appear to have been conclusively disproved and is one that still seems quite sensible to me. This would certainly explain many of the ills America currently suffers from at any rate.

And two questions that still linger in my mind:

Why was the Federal Reserve Act conceived exclusively by elites and why was such care taken to keep the Jekyll Island meeting secret?

And

Why does the Fed, (According to its own FAQ page) pay dividends?

No one responded to this last question and I really would like an answer if anybody knows.

The first question is probably more a subject for historians than a discussion here. The second is actually answered in a number of places, including the FED's own FAQ's. Ultimately, as I understand it, the dividend was there to partially compensate the banks for having to keep some of their assets in reserve with the FRS.

This excerpt is from the FAQ system homed at the Atlanta Fed (though linked from Dallas). http://www.frbatlanta.org/fedfaq/search/dsp_faqsearchformUFAQDallas.cfm

"The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."

So there you have it. The federal reserve act established how the ownership is set up and the requirements for stock ownership (and how that works) and the requirements to pay dividends.

Cheers. Bagheera (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We are of course aware that something under public control by no means guarantees its beneficence nor that an entity subject to private control is by necessity corrupt.

But to quote a sarcastic editor of this page,

“When has money and power ever persuaded anyone to do anything inconsistent with public motives?”

The answer of course is too often.

If anyone wants an example of what can go wrong when the government delegates a responsibility that it would be better off doing itself to private firms, I recommend you look into the American penal system and the fact that 1% of the American population is currently in prison. (This is a figure well beyond any other industrialized nation’s) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.18.159 (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe WP:TLDR is relevant here. In the future, please direct your responses to a particular user to that user's talk page. Remember that article talk pages are for discussion about the article and how to improve it, not the subject of the artice. And also remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And here's my response: See the comments by editor FrankTobia. Yours, Famspear (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I read it, and wished I hadn't. You've been advised several times that this talk page is not for debate on the topic. There is no exception for rambling screeds that don't stick to any discernible topic at all. This page exists solely to improve the article. Cool Hand Luke 03:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that this page is not intended to be a place for discussion about a topic but merely a place to make suggestions for improving the article. And I would assume that the best way to improve any article is to make sure that it represents the unbiased truth and that there is no omission of significant, pertinent facts. But if many people disagree on 'the truth' about that topic I would imagine that it is inevitable that the discussion page descend into something of a forum with various editors making claims and positing evidence and subsequently being refuted by the contributions of other editors..Im pretty sure that would be defined as debate..and if you care to read all of this talk page, you will see that thats what most of this page has been. So i think your post reprimanding me is in itself pointless and for the record, not helping to improve the article. ; )

Yes i admit I got carried away and put in non-relevant material simply because I am passionate about this issue. Feel free to remove any or all of that, and this post too if you feel like it, I wont mind. I see that entries like this are merely pollution of the talk page and I wont be making any more of them, but I think all editors should consider the prior paragraph.

And I think I asked two questions whose answers could be used to improve the article: 1. Why was the F.R. act conceived in secret and 2. whether or not the congress has ever officially reprimanded the fed for anything. I think answers to these could be worthwhile additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.18.159 (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No answers? So this is the clear pice of question that nobody can answer, well I guess it isn't so hard to understand, it's just as impossible to answer as it was in the manny court cases against the Federal Reserve's Tax law, as there was never found a law that stated that you was bounded to pay your taxes. --Nabo0o (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Banking expertise was needed to form a reliable system. The Jekyll island meeting was not public because this would put trade secrets in danger. This was not the only "secret" meeting in U.S. history between the government and private individuals.
2. The Federal Reserve has consistently been reprimanded throughout its history by Congress and others. See the conflict between the Treasury and the FED during WWII until 1951, the 1970s, and the Great Depression.

This is all things that could go into the History of the Federal Reserve System article, but frankly I don't have much time to do it by myself. Also, the Federal Reserve does not collect a tax. Did you mean the Revenue Act of 1861? -- EGeek (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Purpose

I'm curious as to why the "purpose" of the fed is cited in this article as:

"The primary motivation for creating the Federal Reserve System was to address banking panics ... Before the founding of the Federal Reserve, the United States tended to undergo a financial crisis every decade or so. A particularly severe crisis in 1907 led Congress to enact the Federal Reserve Act in 1913." (emphasis added)

yet on the corresponding Panic of 1907 page (at the end of the causes section) it states:

"Complete ruin of the national economy was averted when J.P. Morgan stepped in to meet the crisis. Morgan organized a team of bank and trust executives. The team redirected money between banks, secured further international lines of credit, and bought plummeting stocks of healthy corporations. Within a few weeks the panic passed, with only minimal effects on the country." (emphasis added)

FusionKnight (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Major Bailouts

With the recent bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the news, I'd like to see a section on historically significant major bailouts, such as these and perhaps the crises of the early 1980's. Reading the article, I'm not even sure what section this should be a subsection of. Of course, some of these subjects may deserve articles of their own. Comments or suggestions? SkyDot (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Should this article be semi-protected?

There seem to have been regular attacks on this article, seemingly due to the film "Zeitgeist", which preaches theories related to the assumption that the Fed is privately owned. Some people are simply clipping away parts of sentences that refer to the goverment-controlled aspects of the Fed, while others are shoving in clear bias, some inserting quotes directly from the movie itself or even replacing sections with "WATCH ZEITGEIST". Should this article be semi-protected to prevent this? There have already been at least three of these incidents over the last couple of days. BlastYoBoots (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's been a lot of nonsense today. Thanks for your help.

As an admin, I think this is right on the threshold of being being briefly semiprotected or declined if it was posted on WP:RFPP. That said, I favor keeping it open at this time. I think that these edits are the product of a single person, but if it turns out to be a prolonged campaign of any sort, we should flip on semiprotection. Cool Hand Luke 23:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

the Fed's use of the word "address" and not "prevent"

in the "Purpose" section, someone changed the first listed purpose to "to prevent banking panics" when I initially put it in as "to address banking panics". This is because the Federal Reserve uses the word "address" and not "prevent". This is an important distinction. I think the main reason the Fed uses the word "address" is because it cannot prevent bad decision making unless the United States had a completely controlled economy. Also, the Fed may fail to adaquately supervise banks so if a bank does fail and the Fed claims to "prevent" banking panics, this would be an obvious failure by the Federal Reserve System. This is why they "address" these issues and not "prevent" them. If you were to go through various Federal Reserve documentation and transcripts of hearings, you will notice frequent use of the word "address". Analoguni (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to also add that in some discussions of the Federal Reserve, some people claim that the Federal Reserve is a REactive organization and not PROactive. This means that the Fed doesn't try to plan and control things, but to react to economic situations. If this REactive interpretation is correct, then using the word "address" is a more adaquate description instead of something that "prevents", which implies that it is PROactive. Analoguni (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It says "create banking panics" now. That's not right. 76.124.109.242 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC).

I don't think the article is too long.

I don't think the article is too long, The Federal Reserve System is very complex. The responsibility it has is vast and therefore more information in the article is helpful explaining it's history, role, and responsibility. With the recent issues involving the sub-par loan crisis, we see the fed's role growing. comment added by GustavM GustavM (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think GustavM is right. The more complex a topic is, the longer its article must be. As long as the information is relevant to the subject, there is no reason to shorten the article. Diego Alonso Cortez (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it can still be too long regardless of complexity. Parcel some information out into sub-articles. Massysett (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Chairman?

The chairman is listed as "Bill Clinton" -Shouldn't it be: Ben Bernanke (Feb 1, 2006- ) (posted on 9/18/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyenobite (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Who Funds It?

This is a topic, like much of economics, that seems overly mystified. Where does the funding for (this organization come from? The taxpayers, private financial institutions or both? The implication seems to be the latter, but this should be explained in a more obvious way. Moreover, it should be explained to what extent this central bank differs from the personal bank account of the U.S. government which I assume it isn't or is more than. Also, clearly not all capital in the U.S. emanates from this institution, just the largest portion? What is its relationship with the U.S. Treasury? Is our currency the currency of this bank? Is the federal reserve really the "Third Bank of the United States," controversies over the previous two being something I found rather obscure. It's precisely this aura of mystery, as with the Masons, that plays into the affinity the ignorant have for conspriacy theories regarding it. Finally to what extent or degree is it interconnected with the broader economy and economic trends that it can only mitigate and control in the manner of a sytem of levees and dikes?Tom Cod 07:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this wikipedia page IS a conspiracy theory, since NOBODY apparently has salient facts about what is the most important institution in a supposedly free society. So, we are all--including Congress and wikipedia--left with conspiracy theories. But, I'm sure you meant that term 'conspiracy theory" as a term of derision since you descibe is an an "affinity of the ignorant", implying that there is something YOU know they don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.164.27 (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve is completely self-sufficient for funding. It is run with funds it generates from interest earned in holding the federal debt. Be advised, however, that this constitutes a very small percentage of this interest, and the rest of the interest is returned to the Treasury.Stanleywinthrop 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Fed generates income by charging banks for various services - i.e., check processing. 71.214.77.236 (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It is actually quite clear how the Fed is funded; they buy government securities in the open market by crediting the primary dealers' accounts and receives interest on those securities. Any amount that exceeds the cost of their operation goes back to the Treasury. Dotter (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The ignorant... lol. Conspiracy theorists! The fed is just confusing and oblique... nothing more! When has money and power ever persuaded anyone to do anything inconsistant with public motives. A conspiracy indeed, ignorant people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.177.23.62 (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure it is pretty confusing to the uneducated such as yourself. Good luck with life..... 71.214.93.114 (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm still somewhat confused. Surely the assets that the Fed lends out to member banks originate from somewhere besides its interest and charges. Do other member banks help to capitalize as a "central bank"? Moreover, given that paper currency is denominated as "Federal Reserve Notes" does this imply that our currency is that of this institution? Having grown up around Washington., D.C. I know that paper money is issued by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, a US government agency.

Again I think the lack of information about this institution helps create the aura of mystery around it that contributes to the mentality of conspiracy theorists. The Constitution as I recall authorizes the government-gives it a monopoly- on of the issuance of hard currency. Prior to the evolution of central banks, much of paper currency-more of a novelty then than credit cards today-was issued by individual banks (states being prohibited as I recall), contributing to instablity. Concern, even hysteria, about paper money v. metal specie seems largely based in mysticism as metal has little more instrinsic value than paper, the material difference being that it is less rarified and can be issued much more quickly creating a situation where irresponsible authorities can exacerbate inflation by increasing the supply of the same radically out of proportion with the supply of goods and services, the barter or exchange of which money evolved to mediate (leaving aside money itself as a commodity). For example Imperial Spain had inflation in gold when their society became gorged with that metal without a corresponding increase in production. Thus in a Road Warrior type situation of extreme crisis, don't rely on possession of money or precious metals so much as canned goods, tools, fuel etc. Tom Cod (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the Federal Reserve Act? When the Fed executes outright purchases, they are creating money. In other words, they buy government securities with the money that they "print" (I mean that figuratively). Since it doesn't cost them anything to buy government securities, the money doesn't have to originate anywhere; the Fed just collects the interest and uses it for operation and returns the rest to the Treasury. Dotter (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So, in simple words, the FED funds itself simply by "printing" money, right ? 79.210.97.38 (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the Fed does not fund itself simply by printing money. The Fed doesn't print money at all. That's the Bureau of Engraving and Printing that prints money for the US Treasury. In simple words, the Fed funds itself by charging member banks for the services it provides. Everything they make beyond operating expenses goes back to the Treasury. Bagheera (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the funding for the Federal Reserve comes from the interest of U.S. Treasury securities[8] along with interest from foreign securities, loans, and central banking services. As mentioned earlier, net Income is return to the Treasury. In addition, to issue new or redistribute existing notes, the Federal Reserve must hold assets against those notes that are issued.[9] I thought this information was already in the article, is it not? --EGeek (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right in that most of the 'mystery' about how the Fed's funded is explained in the article. My comment above was overly simplified in response to the previous "they print their own money" comment. The Fed maintains some pretty good websites of their own (you linked to a couple examples) and aren't really as mysterious as people seem to think. Of course, economics and politics can be hard to understand in any case. Cheers. Bagheera (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Fed bank gives the government dollar and wants a 1.10 back. How you make something from nothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.123.125 (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Money as Debt by Paul Grignon

A new, anonymous user has been adding a link to the video Money as Debt by Paul Grignon, which has been removed by other editors. I added an admonishment on the user's talk page about referring to Wikipedia editors as "sheeple." I express no opinion (yet) on whether the link should be in the article.

I watched only the first few minutes of the video, which discusses the basic concept that banks literally create money out of thin air by making loans in the form of creation of (or increases in existing) deposit accounts. This is not a secret; its teaching is not somehow banned in schools (at least as far as I know). The concept is (or should be) taught in a college economics course on Money and Banking.

Without commenting directly on our new, anonymous user, I will say that Wikipedia does tend to attract many people who find things here and there on the internet and mistakenly believe they have "discovered" something new or nefarious or astonishing, when what they have discovered is mundane and well-known -- at least to people who have seriously studied the topic at hand.

A good policy in editing a Wikipedia article is to assume that several other editors who watch the article on a regular basis know at least as much as you do about the subject of the article. You may save yourself some embarrassment at some point. Famspear (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I removed a 47-minute google video here. I actually watched it. It's mostly not about the U.S. Federal Reserve System. In fact, it talks largely in generalities. It's central thesis is that the world's monetary systems require ever-expanding money supply, which they suggest is disastrous for the environment. It actually rejects the gold standard as unpractical, and proposes instead that government should create money spent on capital projects, such that money supply would be managed by altering the amount of money spent into existence by government. At about 39 minutes, it argues that the world's political systems have been captured by the bankers; in particular, is suggests that the Federal Reserve Act marked the United State's failure to repel European bankers. At about 43 minutes, it argues for a bankers conspiracy, with quotes about world government, et al.

I think we can agree such a video (even if it were a reliable source, which is unlikely), has no place in this article. Cool Hand Luke 15:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The video was made by a Canadian artist, Paul Grignon. For a chuckle, check this out: [10]. Grignon says: "Money created as interest-bearing bank credit is a magic trick, a fraud - now 3 centuries old; one that very few people have seen through despite, or rather because of, its utter simplicity. It is my intention to make this mysterious debt-money system comprehensible to everyone".

Again, I express no opinion as to whether the video should be linked in the article as an example of someone who is simply critical of the Federal Reserve System. I also express no opinion (yet) on the quite separate issue of whether Grignon is a reliable source. Famspear (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's barely about the Federal Reserve System. Might make an example of someone more generally critical of private banking. I was actually surprised when he rejected metal standards: it started out as a typical "there's no money in the vault!" spiel. Cool Hand Luke 15:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The following verbiage by Paul Grignon from his web site illuminates his motivation:

In 2002 I was commissioned to produce a video for United Financial Consumers [ . . . ], a small organization dedicated to defending credit customers from the predatory practices of banks. I taped a 5-hour seminar explaining an innovative strategy for reclaiming the equity banks defraud us out of [sic] when we sign for a so-called “loan”. I prefaced this rather abstruse lecture material by telling “The Goldsmith’s Tale” in animation form. Entitled “Money as Debt”, it was my first full animation project.

Other monetary reformers saw this original “Money as Debt” cartoon and approached me about using my animation as part of an information package being sent to municipal politicians, urging municipalities to demand interest-free loans from our publicly owned Canadian central bank, the Bank of Canada.

from: http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/ProducersComments.html

Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• That makes sense: in the documentary he mentioned that as an alternate regime. I give him credit for originality. Most conspiracy theorists seem to dislike the Federal Reserve for establishing a currency by fiat. This video sort of argued that central banking is not enough by fiat: he would prefer if the state was the sole loan-maker. Weirdly socialist take on the conspiracy theory. Cool Hand Luke 02:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's my opinion that the above video, as well as any similar video (like The Money Masters that often shows up), has no place in this article, except perhaps in a single sentence reading "The Federal Reserve is often the target of conspiracy theories; none of these has stood up to expert scrutiny." -FrankTobia (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing those supposedly conspiracy theories to be examined somewhere. Sadly, it's being dismissed before simple questions get answered.Mik1984 (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but per my comments above, I don't think this video is even a good example of that. Cool Hand Luke 02:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have seen both the money masters and money as debt videos. I agree that any link to the money as debt video is not appropriate for the criticisms page because that video is not even specifically about the Fed, rather it focuses more on the fractional reserve banking and criticism of it as a whole. However I do believe that a link to the money masters video could be legitimate in the criticisms section because that video, is specifically about the Fed and its history. Whether one is sympathetic to the agenda of the filmmaker or not, it is undeniable that Bill Still goes through the history of American central banking in a very painstaking manner.

More importantly however, I think it is unfair that editors on this talk page have repeatedly assigned the term 'conspiracy theorist' to many who have illustrated contrary opinions on the nature of the modern banking system. Some editors of this page seem to interchange the term 'conspiracy theorist' with critic, and interchange the phrase 'conspiracy theory' with alternate point of view. perhaps forgetting that 'conspiracy theorist' is for the most part a pejorative term and is usually used to bring a source's credibility into question, often with the goal of dismissing the source for being 'crazy' without first allowing for a fair hearing. It is unfair to simply apply the term conspiracy theorist to any who have made criticisms or suggested altering the existing system. This to me does not hold up to the standard of WP NPOV. I think some of the editors could be more conscientious of this.

--Mossh (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mossh: By contrast, some editors who apparently support conspiracy theories ironically object to the use of the term "conspiracy theory" to describe those very theories. I agree that it would be faulty to simply apply the term to anyone who simply has a critique of the Federal Reserve System. In any case, you are referring to the talk pages, where the proper use of the term has been debated for a long time, over and over. (I note in passing that I believe the article itself currently contains the word "conspiracy" only once - and that is in a title to a cited source, so the use of the term "conspiracy" is not currently an issue with respect to the article itself.)

If I recall correctly, I once saw a Wikipedia user object to the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" to describe a particular writer when the very writer himself was indeed a conspiracy theorist and had even included the word "conspiracy" in the title of the book in question. Although the term "conspiracy theory" does indeed have negative connotations, a writer and his supporters are pretty much stuck with that -- when the writer actually does promote a conspiracy theory.

Some of the critique of the Federal Reserve System that shows up here from time to time on the talk page (and in the article) does involve conspiracy theory -- especially the critique about the establishment of the System.

Anyway, I agree in general with the over all thrust of your comments. Famspear (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mossh: As you may know, to conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 243 (G. & C. Merriam Company, 8th ed. 1976). Thus, in its bare, denotative sense, a conspiracy theory is a theory that two or more persons have agreed among themselves -- in secret -- to accomplish something (whether it's lawful or unlawful). The problem for some conspiracy theorists -- especially on the internet -- is that some conspiracy theorists posit elaborate and outlandish theories based on weak evidence and faulty logic. This is in part why "conspiracy theory" has come to have a separate, negative connotational meaning: many conspiracy theorists have brought this on themselves. Famspear (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: I apologize for my digression; the purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article. Famspear (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the definition, as I have understood it. And I must agree, there are certainly those, especially on the internet that do suggest ridiculous claims and explanations for ‘the real truth’ or the ‘hidden reality’ that has somehow eluded the other 6 billion of us. But sticking with your provided definition of ‘conspiracy’ (which I agree with) I can’t help but note that the circumstances by which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted fit the term ‘conspiracy’ so well, that it would be Ideally used as an example for the ‘conspiracy’ entry in any dictionary. Perhaps that could be an edit made to the history section? Maybe it could be said ‘the Federal Reserve System was birthed from a conspiracy of private bankers’?

Perhaps you can see why it is good to avoid using pejorative terms when speaking of fact, no matter how well they fit the truth…

--Mossh (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, for purposes of Wikipedia articles, in some cases the pejorative term is an official term and fits the truth so well that Wikipedia simply cannot avoid the use of the term. For example, the term "Nazi" has very strong pejorative connotations for many or most people. Yet, the term is accurate, and is appropriate in context -- for example, in an article describing Adolf Hitler or Reinhard Heydrich or Heinrich Himmler. The term "tax protester" is considered to be a strong pejorative, yet that is a legal term used by U.S. courts in federal tax cases to describe a certain criminal element, etc., in the population, and is therefore appropriate in related articles, such as Tax protester arguments. So, an encyclopedia like Wikipedia cannot avoid the use of pejorative terms altogether. Famspear (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes this is of course true, there are many loaded terms whose use will be simply unavoidable because they are the most accurate way to describe someone/something. I would say that a term like Nazi and the term 'conspiracy theorist' however, are a little different here because the term Nazi refers to a specific political party, one which sadly enough was proud of its extreme racist views and even though their views are considered by the mainstream to be evil, members of the Nazi party were probably not ashamed of them, nor would a neo-Nazi be likely to deny being one. However, someone being labeled as a conspiracy theorist might very well object to being called that and refute his status as such.

To Famspear's point above (I believe it was Famspear's) there are people who openly admit to being conspiracy theorists and certainly would have no objection to being described as such but I think that in cases where the labeling is something the author has not openly agreed with, then editors should be cautious when using loaded terminology. This may be impossible, but I think that that is at least worth considering. With my point about the Fed, I was trying to illustrate, that though the drafting of the Federal Reserve Act was by definition, precisely a conspiracy, I am fairly confident were I to edit the history section and use those terms, someone would probably remove that addition, even though it is a well known fact that the Jekyll Island meeting was precisely that. Thoughts?

--Mossh (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that stating that "it is a well known fact" that the Jekyll Island meeting involved a "conspiracy" would be acceptable, for purposes of Wikipedia, as a basis or valid reason for a Wikipedia editor to decide that the meeting fits the definition, and to then insert "conspiracy" language into the article simply on that basis. Instead, you might need to find a reliable, previously published third party source that stated the meeting involved a "conspiracy." Otherwise, would you be getting into the area of prohibited Original Research? Famspear (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There are tons of criticisms about the Fed. The current financial situation has been blamed on years overly cheap debt. Economists often disagree with how the Fed should manage money, whether what they try to do is even sensible. This is all criticism, and I agree there could be more in the article. That's why we have a whole section of criticism.

But when one starts talking about the supposedly unprecedented secrecy of the Fed's creations, shadowy meetings with the Rothchilds, the enslavement of America, and all the rest...you're in conspiracy theory country, my friend. Frankly, I would not label this "criticism" because it marginalizes all of the serious criticism that's been leveled against the Fed. Cool Hand Luke 01:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what is Grignon has to say. The film only hints at less politically correct topics. Grignon only goes so far as to discuss alternatives to the monster AKA "the Fed". If criticisms are to be made it is proper to list not only the criticisms but also the solutions Grignon describes. On the point of the Jackal Island Group, it is best to list the facts and let the reader draw from it their own conclusion. Lastly, arguing against the use of "conspiracy" is a clear case of cognitive dissidence; some people cannot assimilate information that conflicts with long held dogma, heck some still insist that the Earth is flat. The Fed was conceived of by several rich guys meeting in secret away from reporters and inconvenient questions; those are the FACTS of conspiracy. Except it. N0 D1C4 (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not that the Federal Reserve System "was conceived of by several rich guys meeting in secret away from reporters and inconvenient questions" (assuming that this is what actually happened). And the problem is not that Wikipedia editors and the public at large are somehow having trouble accepting that fact (again, assuming arguendo that it is a fact). Rather, the problem is that some people seem to think such a boring, unremarkable genesis rates the label of "conspiracy."

So, why are certain people so urgent in wanting the label "conspiracy" attached to the description of the history of the Federal Reserve System? Answer: Because these people want the reader to look past the neutral, denotative meaning of the term "conspiracy" and instead apply the negative connotative meaning of the word "conspiracy" to the creation of the Federal Reserve System -- as a way of trying to persuade the reader that the Federal Reserve System is bad.

The Federal Reserve System was created by statute -- by an Act of Congress. The public at large has no trouble accepting the unremarkable and, let's face it, boring idea that the Federal Reserve System "was conceived of by several rich guys meeting in secret away from reporters and inconvenient questions". Indeed, many or perhaps most federal statutes are conceived this way. In the end, however, the Federal Reserve Act, like all Acts of Congress, is NOT a secret. The statute was enacted through the legislative process prescribed by our Constitution -- regardless of whether it was conceived in some nefarious, secret meeting or, alternatively, on the 50 yard line at half time at the Rose Bowl.

The fact that those who oppose the Federal Reserve System are the ones straining to apply the negative connotation of the term "conspiracy" to the creation of the System is evidence that it is those very opponents -- and not the public at large -- who are the ones having trouble accepting the truth about their own critique -- the truth identified by editor Cool Hand Luke.

I agree with Editor Cool Hand Luke. The argument that the Federal Reserve System is "bad" because the idea for the System began with the Jekyll Island "conspiracy" (several rich guys meeting in secret away from reporters, etc.) is not much of a critique. And it's not much of a "conspiracy." If that "conspiracy" is how the idea for the Federal Reserve System began, then accept it. Citing the Jekyll Island meeting as a "conspiracy" in an attempt to ascribe a nefarious connotation is rather like my grandmother's attempts, when I was about six years old, to scare me with the idea that the "boogie man" would come get me if I didn't take my afternoon nap. The "boogie man" story does not scare the average six year old, and the idea of a Jekyll Island "conspiracy" for the genesis of the Federal Reserve System does not impress a psychologically normal adult. Forget about the boogie man, and concentrate on the serious critiques. Famspear (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This argument began as such: I commented on editor's use of the terms 'conspiracy theorist', and 'conspiracy theory' to ridicule virtually anyone making a critique about the existing Federal Reserve System. Famspear commented back saying that it is not necessarily wrong to use this loaded term because many people in fact openly admit to being conspiracy theorists. In my response to Famspear I agreed to the accuracy of Famspear's Response, but I stressed that is still best to try and avoid using such loaded terms as much as possible because they can give a misleading impression. I then gave the example that were someone to edit the Fed page to say that the Federal Reserve Act was founded as a conspiracy, I am certain many editors would have something to say about it. I was not suggesting that that this actually be done, because of course my whole argument in the first place was that editors should NOT use these terms, or at least avoid using them as much as possible. I was merely making a counterargument to illustrate that point. It is in my opinion in the best interest of upholding the standard of WP NPOV that editors avoid using loaded terms whenever possible, unless of course the person/group/entity in question has admitted to being such loaded term (conspiracy theorist, nazi, socialist etc.)

And for the record,

If you want to say that the conception of the Federal Reserve Act was not in fact by definition a 'conspiracy' (Forget connotations here, look at the term literally), if you are not able to agree that the Jekyll Island meeting was a secret agreement among persons to achieve a legal end, (Famspear's provided definition of conspiracy) if you can't see the literal truth in that it would appear to me that you either haven't heard the Jekyll Island story, or that you are simply picking and choosing when willing to accept the term 'conspiracy', based on your personal opinion and what you are personally comfortable with. That to me is not a Neutral Point of View(I'm not pointing my finger at any one person specifically) I'm sure someone will try to debate me on that and I can't wait because I think this is the one point on the Fed where the loonies probably have enough evidence, especially from the actual participants in the meeting themselves to prove conclusively that this meeting was by definition a conspiracy.

In summary:

Just because something was a 'conspiracy' doesn't prove it was a bad thing. But because most average muggles will assume that something being a conspiracy makes it a bad thing, editors should avoid using that and similar loaded terms as much as possible.

--Mossh (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

> if you are not able to agree that the Jekyll Island meeting was a secret agreement among persons to achieve a legal end,

But an objective which was not achieved; the Alrich Plan was rejected. As for the creation of the Federal Reserve System (which was not the Aldrich Plan), it had been public knowledge for several years that some type of reform of the banking system was being moved towards. There was no secret plot there. The Aldrich Plan is best understood not as a hidden conspiracy but as a failed attempt by banks to respond to what were public calls for monetary reform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.15 (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Congressional oversight of Federal Open Market Committee

For future reference, the following unsourced verbiage regarding the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), a component of the Federal Reserve System, was added to the article by an anonymous user on 14 October 2008:

The committee is not subject to oversight by congress, nor are its discussions ever made available to the public under US freedom of information law, making it substantially less transparent than the CIA.

See [11].

I removed the material the same day. Aside from being unsourced and tendentious, the material is blatantly false with respect to the statement about oversight of the FOMC by Congress.

The FOMC was of course created by a statute enacted by Congress (the Federal Reserve Act, at 12 USC 263), and Congress could abolish the FOMC by passing another statute if the Congress were so inclined.

Not only that, the Federal Reserve Act specifically provides that the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System must appear before Congressional hearings at least twice per year regarding “the efforts, activities, objectives and plans of the Board and the Federal Open Market Committee with respect to the conduct of monetary policy”. See 12 USC 225b(a)(1)(A). The statute also specifically states that the appearances shall be:

(A) before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the House of Representatives on or about February 20 of even numbered calendar years and on or about July 20 of odd numbered calendar years;

(B) before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate on or about July 20 of even numbered calendar years and on or about February 20 of odd numbered calendar years; and

(C) before either Committee referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B), upon request, following the scheduled appearance of the Chairman before the other Committee under subparagraph (A) or (B).

--See 12 USC 225b(a)(2).

Regarding discussions of the FOMC, it is probably correct to say that the discussions are not subject to public disclosure under the freedom of information laws. Indeed, probably the vast majority of “discussions” by personnel of various U.S. federal government agencies are not available to the public under the freedom of information law.

The idea that the FOMC is “substantially less transparent than the CIA” (i.e., the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency), aside from being an unsourced opinion, is facially preposterous. Famspear (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Kennedy's attempt to disempower the Federal Reserve System"

The following verbiage has been moved from the article to here:

John F. Kennedy was one of the opponents of the Federal Reserve Bank.

On June 4th 1963 Kennedy signed the Executive Order 11110 which returned the issuing of Dollars into the hands of the American President resp. the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury which would have ended the money-issuing monopoly of the Federal Reserve Bank.

However Kennedy's project came to a sudden end, when few months after having signed Executive Order 11110 he was assissinated under circumstances which remain controversial until today.

Even though Executive Order 11110 was never abrogated and is still valid, since Kennedy's sudden death no American president had tried to end the money-issuing monopoly of the Federal Reserve Bank.

First, there is no evidence that Kennedy was an opponent of the "Federal Reserve Bank." And there are 12 Federal Reserve Banks, not just one.

Second, according to the linked article on Executive Order 11110, that Order would not have "returned the issuing of dollars into the hands of the American President," etc. in the sense of "end[ing] the money-issuing monopoly of the "Federal Reserve Bank."

Third, the Federal Reserve System does not have a "monopoly" on the issuance of "money" in the United States. For example, coins are also used as money. And the largest portion of the money supply is neither Federal Reserve notes nor coins. The largest portion of the money supply is the total of demand deposits outstanding -- the deposit liabilities of banks.

Fourth, the verbiage seems to imply some connection between the Federal Reserve System and the death of President Kennedy. No sourcing has been provided for that theory.

In short, the material is in large measure unsourced -- and the Wikipedia article on Executive Order 11110 belies the assertions in the material. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Fifth, EO 11110 was not revoked until 1987, which makes no sense if we are to assume that somehow a hidden conspiratorial power had been so frightened by it as to order the assassination of a President.

Nowhere to Begin

This article is so full of lies and falsehoods, it's almost impossible to begin editing. Can I call on any honest person reading this, who is adept with Wikipedia, to fact-check any one major statement in this article, and change it accordingly? There are many words here, but the article would be far more honest if it were replaced with only "The Federal Reserve is a private bank." Let's start with one true fact, and build on it, rather than a thousand falsehoods from which a reader must, but cannot possibly, deduce any truth.Legalfiction (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There's always a place to start. First and foremost, Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not truth. I've read the article a number of times, and I agree it needs a lot of work. However, I disagree that it is "full of lies and falsehoods" and request that reasonable editors refrain from such rhetoric. For example, the assertion that the Federal Reserve System is "quasi-public" is appropriately cited, and conforms with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Looking forward to improve this article in the future. -FrankTobia (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Legalfiction: No, the article is not full of "lies and falsehoods." And many, many Wikipedia editors have been editing this article for years. The article has been fact checked many, many times. And the "Federal Reserve" is not a "private bank." The Federal Reserve not only is not a "private bank," it's technically not "a bank" at all. The Federal Reserve -- meaning the Federal Reserve System -- is a banking system -- not just one "bank." The System contains thousands of privately owned banks and it also contains government entities -- so the Federal Reserve SYSTEM as a WHOLE is neither "a bank" nor "a private bank." The argument that the Federal Reserve System as a whole is a "private bank" is a frivolous urban myth -- one created by people who oppose the Federal Reserve System, under the theory that if the Federal Reserve System were "private," it would therefore be "bad." Please read the article more carefully. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced commentary removed

Numerous examples of unsourced commentary have been added by an anonymous user. I deleted the more egregious examples. For example:

Also by law the 7 Governors must be selected equally from all segments of society (ie. farming, retail, industry, banking, etc.) They are not.

First of all, the law does not require that the seven governors "be selected equally from all segments of society". This is what the law actually says:

In selecting the members of the Board, not more than one of whom shall be selected from any one Federal Reserve district, the President shall have due regard to a fair representation of the financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests, and geographical divisions of the country.

--12 USC 241 (italic added).

Had the Congress wanted to require that the governors "be selected equally" from all these segments, the Congress could have written the law that way. Congress did not do so.

Second, the last statement (i.e., "They are not") is argumentative, tendentious, unsourced, and probably completely unverifiable anyway.

Some of the material that was added is actually correct, more or less, but is written tendentiously. However, maybe some other editors can get to it before I can..... Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced commentary removed from article

The following unsoured commentary was removed by another editor:

But one thing many do not know is that the Federal Reserve act was not ratified by all of the states back in 1913. There was a false congressional meeting on Christmas eve in 1913 and Aldrich, Rockefeller, Warburg, and Morgan all signed the bill and passed it without first getting the approval of all of the states; passing a bill not ratified by the states is a federal crime and goes against what the constitution states. Looking at the currency issue, the Federal Reserve by law cannot print money because it is stated that only the United States Treasury can do so. The US Code of Law clearly states that only the treasury can print and issue money and has to be backed by gold and silver (hint another section in the US Code of Law).

This is meaningless gibberish.

The Federal Reserve Act is a statute. It is an Act of Congress. In the United States, statutes are not "ratified by states." There is no requirement that statutes be "ratified by states" and, indeed, no legal procedure for doing that. The statement that "passing a bill not ratified by the states is a federal crime" is also meaningless nonsense.

There is no law or constitutional provision that says that only the United States Treasury can print money. There is no law, in the United States Code or anywhere else, that says that all money in the United States must be backed by gold and silver. Yours, Famspear (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way: Federal Reserve notes are in fact printed by the U.S. Treasury, anyway. Famspear (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good call. The passage apparently conflates laws and constitutional amendments, while mangling the typical fringe theory that the Federal Reserve System somehow violates constitutional stipulations. Cool Hand Luke 17:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, credit goes to editor Unschool for removing the material. Famspear (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: On printing of money by the states, here is the wording of the Constitution, from Article I, section 10:

SECTION. 10. No State shall [ . . . ] coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; [or] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts [ . . . ]

This provision is indeed a restriction on the power of the states, but this is not precisely a statement that only the United States Treasury can print money. In practical effect, it may be that only the U.S. Treasury can print money -- but that is not what Section 10 of Article I says. A little hair-splitting here. Famspear (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-fringe kookiness
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fringe kookiness I would ask that all the wackos, kooks and nutjobs out there stop insisting that the Federal Reserve is in any way a private bank. Badmouthing the Fed in such a way is libellous, and considering it is a government agency, could possibly be construed as treasonous as well. Put your tinfoil hats back on, and kindly return to ranting about the Council on Foreign Relations on your street-corner soapboxes and stay away from this site. --AN AMERICAN PATRIOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.91.129.6 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC) This smacks pretty hard of Wikipedia:No legal threats violation. Should avoid such language. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Maybe. It's not productive in any case (as much as I sympathize with the position). Putting under hat. Cool Hand Luke 22:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

It has been suggested that some of the information in this article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) be merged into other sections to achieve a more neutral presentation.

Does above refer to neutral presentation of that section or other sections in the article? NPOV-V-NOR 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess this comment above answers the question: And as a minor point of order, criticism sections are frowned upon per WP:NPOV. Consensus is that the criticism should be included throughout the article, wherever it is most relevant. Of course, this article could use a lot of work on that front. -FrankTobia NPOV-V-NOR 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Having a criticism section enables the criticism to not be washed away by pompous language no one can understand, through an unending stream of edits by biased parties that are on payroll to edit Wikipedia. Having a criticism section focuses the efforts of the people. This is my opinion. Wikipedia is for the people by the people. --Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson quote unsourced.

There is a quote by Thomas Jefferson that a lot of people have used.. There is apparently no source in existence for this one:

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

I have found a website which organizes various Jefferson quotes and their sources and according to this website, there is no original source for this. See: http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Private_Banks_(Quotation)

I was able to dig up an attribution to this quote as early as 1938, which took place in the U.S. House of Representatives. See Hearings Before the Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, Seventy-fifth Congress, Third Session, on H.R. 7230, a Bill Providing for Government Ownership of the Twelve Federal Reserve Bands and for Other Purposes

This quote was place at the top of the article in the History section, with a sentence added to it that I was able to find a source for. This sentence added is:

The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating.

This sentence can actually be found in some of his original writings. He was talking about national debt and how people presently controlling government should not place a debt onto a future generation. See this sentence (in full) at: Page 229, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia By Thomas Jefferson, John P. Foley Analoguni (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

what Jefferson said about central banking or national banks

Some of the things Jefferson has said about this subject are on Page 68 of The Jefferson Cyclopedia linked above. Here are some quotes:

660 The idea of creating a national bank, I do not concur in, because it seems now decided that Congress has not that power (although I sincerely wish they had it exclusively), and because I think there is already a vast redundancy, rather than a scarcity of paper medium. The rapid rise in the nominal price of land and labor (while war and blockade should produce a fall) proves the progressive state of the depreciation of our medium. --To THOMAS LAW FORD ED ix 433 M 1813

On the constitutionality of a central bank:

664. BANK (U.S. Constitutionality) -- The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things 1. To form the subscribers into a corporation 2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land and so far is against the laws of Mortmain 3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands and so far is against the laws of Alienage 4. To transmit these lands on the death of a proprietor to a certain line of successors and so far changes the course of Descents 5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat and so far is against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat 6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line and so far is against the laws of Distribution 7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority and so far is against the laws of Monopoly 8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States for so they must be construed to protect the institution from the control of the State Legislatures and so probably they will be construed.

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States or to the people." (Xllth amendment.) To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. The incorporators of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution. I. They are not among the powers specially enumerated: for these are: 1st. A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, its origination in the Senate would condemn it by the Constitution. 2nd "To borrow money." But this bill neither borrows money nor ensures the borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any other money holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the public. The operation proposed in the bill, first, to lend them two millions, and then to borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be in a payment, and not a loan, call it by what name you please. 3rd To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines: yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen), which remains exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trade, but as, "productive of considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations

And there are other quotes available on the subject as well. Quotes with available sources can be very useful.Analoguni (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Material remove - Thomas Jefferson quote, apparently fake

The quote has been on the page for some time, but someone recently added material from Ron Paul's blog. I think all of this is tangent anyway, and if the quote is fake, it shouldn't be a "historical criticism." Here is the matter I removed:

Thomas Jefferson stated "The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."

"This book points out that the quote is "spurious:" (The term "deflation" cannot even be traced back further than 1920, and the term "inflation" 1864 - long after Jefferson died).

Also, this quote disagrees with Ron Paul who says that the best thing would be to allow the private market to create money (which is the standard position among Austrian economists). Dr. Paul would not be opposed to private banks creating money. He is for privately produced money rather than government money (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=914) What he is opposed to is a single bank (the Fed) being granted a monopoly by the government to print legal tender, and the legal tender law which enforces the use of that money. Private banks, with no government granted monopoly, printing money, including commodity-backed money, is not a problem. That's what a free market in money would be. So not only the quote fraudulent but it doesn't align with the free market philosophy. It's more like something a socialist would say to justify nationalization (in fact I've seen that advocated here, and using this bogus quote to back it up http://www.dailypaul.com/node/80103). Jefferson was not a socialist.

Finally, note that though the Constitution allows the government to coin money, it doesn't forbid the people and the banks they own from coining and printing money. The Constitution restricts the government, not the people and their private businesses." (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/80247)

Cool Hand Luke 19:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the FAC

Why doesn't the article mention anything about the FAC? (Federal Advisory Council) Smallman12q (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Smallman12q, the article references the FAC in a few places, but doesn't provide any detail (image in Outline section and referenced in Advisory Committees). There isn't a Wikipedia article on the FAC, so the link in this article to the FAC doesn't help much. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is. I created it=P. See Federal_advisory_council.Smallman12q (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah - got it. This article links to Federal Advisory Council, while you created Federal advisory council. Is there a preference for the capitalization? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it should be capitalized. I moved it. Cool Hand Luke 14:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be capitalized, my mistake.Smallman12q (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Can protection be removed? There's no doubt that the IP is the same fringe-pushing user who was edit warring before. In the case of single-user edit war, the user should be blocked, but page left unprotected. Everyone else agreed on the direction of this article (see section above). Thoughts? Cool Hand Luke 23:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing it, I was kind of hoping to see the other fellow at least attempt to communicate. If he hasn't by the time I get home from work tonight, I'll lift the protection and we can head down that other path. --Versageek 23:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it ironic that there is dispute protection on this page now. There has always been a dispute regarding the Federal Reserve System since it was founded and the other central banks of the US.Nonetheless, it appears that the edit war seems to have ended=D. Back to debating on the talk page.Smallman12q (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A Few Questions

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I have some questions. These are not from the fringe, in fact most of the events I refer to in these questions come from my public high school A.P. Economics class. These are just a few facts that to me seem to have been overlooked in the article, or not given enough attention..

Why was the 1911 Jekyll Island meeting where the Federal Reserve Act drafted kept secret from the American public?

Why were the previous two central banking systems of the United States ultimately eliminated? (the Federal Reserve System is a central banking system)

Why did President Andrew Jackson fight so hard to rid the United States of the previous central banking system, the Second Bank of the United States?

Is President Jackson's successive paying off of the national debt a result of the elimination of the U.S. central bank of his time? (I am told that Jackson is the only President to have ever achieved this)

Why is it impossible for the Federal Reserve System to prevent the depreciation of the buying power of our earned wages? (inflation)

Why has the National Debt increased by 50 percent in the past 15 years? (now over 9 trillion dollars)

Why can't that debt ever be repaid?

Can anybody who really knows the mechanics/history of the Fed/central banking in the U.S. shed some light on some of these questions for me?

--Mossh (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I can try, but no promises. The first two Banks of the United States were "eliminated" because their charters lapsed. The first time the Congress didn't renew the charter. The second time President Jackson vetoed the bill rechartering the Bank. Andrew Jackson was distrustful of bankers, believing they were antithetical to farmers' interests. Indeed, throughout American history, large swaths of the population have been very skeptical of banks and bankers.

But President Jackson's fierce opposition to the bank had as much to do with his disagreements with the power-hungry Nicholas Biddle, the Bank's president, and with Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun in the Senate. There's a lot of history there that you should look into if you're interested. Also keep in mind that the Second Bank of the United States wasn't an independent central bank like the Fed is. It was more like a government-chartered private bank (imagine Bank of America having an exclusive deal with the Federal Government), where the U.S. Treasury deposited all its money in the Bank. Kind of crazy by today's standards.

As for the national debt being retired for the first and only time during Jackson's presidency, that was almost entirely due to the sale of the lands from the Louisiana Purchase, which brought in millions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury. And not to mention the Federal Government's expenditures were comparatively minuscule at that time. On a related note, the national debt has grown in nominal terms because of increased government spending, which is in the purview of the Legislature and not the Federal Reserve. That debt could be repaid, but it's likely not in the country's best interest, a subject which many notable economists have written on.

Inflation is definitely covered by the Fed. Inflation, by the nature of monetary policy, is virtually impossible to stop entirely (not to mention a low level of inflation may improve efficiency in the labor market). So the Fed has as its mandate the dual goals of promoting "price stability and economic growth". "Price stability" is defined as low and stable inflation. While inflation isn't pretty, low inflation doesn't much hurt markets, and deflation (negative inflation) is terribly damaging. If you're still interested in these topics, I recommend reading a money and banking textbook. This one is pretty good.

I hope that helps. In the future feel free to leave a message on my talk page about these topics. This page isn't really the place for such a discussion. Thanks! -FrankTobia (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks FrankTobia, yeah i sort of figured that this was maybe not the right place for this sort of thing but I was curious nonetheless--Mossh (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Should the Jekyll Island meeting be included in the Federal Act summary under the History section? It is already in the History of the Federal Reserve System article. This article also includes information on the Lewis v. United States case. --EGeek (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is what happened: a while back we moved a whole bunch of content from the "History" subheading (which was positively ginormous) into History of the Federal Reserve System (which might have been created solely with this content). An attempt was made to summarize the main points of the history section, per WP:SUMMARIZE. That particular bit probably got missed. It's probably true that the History section can be improved (WP:SUMMARIZE is king here). That, I think, will be a worthwhile effort. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

> Why was the 1911 Jekyll Island meeting where the Federal Reserve Act drafted kept secret from the American public?

That was 1910. The Jekyll Island meeting resulted in the Aldrich Plan which called for a system of fifteen regional central banks, called National Reserve Associations, whose actions would be coordinated by a national board of commercial bankers. Under the Aldrich Plan the regional banks would be controlled individually and nationally by bankers. This was nrejected by the Wilson administration, so it's called of pointless to wonder if there was a conspiracy behind the Aldrich Plan anyway. A failed conspiracy, perhaps. The creation of the Federal Reserve Board, appointed by the President and reviewed by Congress, defeated the Aldrich Plan.

One mistake to be avoided on this subject is that since Reagan took office there's been a steady trend towards deregulation of all forms, and this most likely has affected governmental responsibility in matters such as the coordination of the Federal Reserve, as well as much else besides. That, however, should not be wrongly projected backwards in history onto the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. These are issues which originate in a later era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.15 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please give a reliable source for the assertion, or it's original research which isn't useful to Wikipedia.--Gloriamarie (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

FrankTobia, I am sorry to say, but when you say the debt can be paid off you are, in fact wrong, because of one and only one thing, the application of interest by the federal reserve that is applied to the only money printed and in circulation. So that fact being true in all terms, The debt will never be able to be repaid to that which is the Federal Reserve Bank. If the debt were repaid, the money would cease to exist leaving no value in the monetary system. Frank, im sorry to say that the only banking book that is a valued resource is the book Modern Money Mechanics written in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Bank. Also, if you look at the shareholders of each Fed Bank they will all lead back to the same people, mostly located in Europe. By saying that the federal reserve bank/system does not work for profit, yet they apply interest to all loans derived from them as a source is really denying that you are credible in any way, and im not saying this as an insult, but the only reason of interest to be applied IS to make a PROFIT. Feel free to reply to this at any time or email me at [email protected], I will be copying this and reposting it daily to prevent editing. 71.55.122.30 (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Sam Gelman

This wasn't published in 1913. It was first published in the 1960s. And, yeah, everyone who understands banking knows about fractional-reserve banking. Cool Hand Luke 22:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was published in 1913, because it was published BEFORE the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law as an explanation of a fractional reserve banking system. As I did not say that it was published publicly in 1913 I said it was written, as you seem to be an obsessive type about citing things, PLEASE cite your sources as to it was written or published in the 1960s. Also as you ask a few things of me in my posting I would like to kindly ask you to remove your arrogance and assumptions that you always are right. Also you didnt even comment on the subject at hand under the summary of this topic defying what you said in the other post. Feel free to reply to this at any time or email me at [email protected], I will be copying this and reposting it daily to prevent editing. 71.55.122.30 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Sam Gelman

How about a complete copy of this pamphlet? As seen on Zeitgeist and everything. This pamphlet was not written in 1913, I'm sorry.

As for the subject at hand, Wikipedia is not a forum. The only subject at hand is the article. If you would like to cite a source, we should at least get the source right. If you would like to claim that the Fed is owned by Europeans, you should provide a reliable source. That's all—nothing personal, and I'm sorry it comes off as arrogance. Cool Hand Luke 23:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

ZEITGEIST

I urge everyone to google and watch ZEITGEIST.--PUNk Limited (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I did revert this post as spam, but I've restored it so that I can explain that we're aware of this movie, and that it's not a reliable source. Cool Hand Luke 14:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the explanation you were going to give? 67.161.4.234 (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that editor Cool Hand Luke already gave the explanation. He explained that we're aware of the movie, and that it's not a reliable source. He's right; we are aware of the movie, and it's definitely not a reliable source for an encyclopedia article. He didn't say he was working on a full-blown essay on the subject. Famspear (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Apart from judging whether ZEITGEIST is a reliable source or not (which you must prove or state that it is just your opinion), what must be considered is the prevalence of Zeitgeist. If it has become notable due to its popularity, then it is encyclopedic. --Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is notable, that's why there's an article about it. See Zeitgeist, the Movie‎. However, it is not a reliable sources according to our policies. See WP:RS. Cool Hand Luke 03:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Then, given that Zeitgeist is notable and has much to do with the Federal Reserve, it should have some mention in the article about the Federal Reserve, as in the criticism section or the "See Also" section (whether it is reliable or not). To be accurate, you can even say that it is not reliable, but that will need a reference as well.

Have you tracked down the references within the movie to see if they are bogus or real? The movie has many references. If you are so certain that the movie is not reliable, I would like to see your report negating the findings of Zeitgeist, and would be willing to investigate your report's references. --Campoftheamericas (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Zeitgeist is acknowledged by mainstream sources to be a fringe source. Therefore it's not a reliable source under our policies.

I would not be strongly opposed to a "see also," but other editors here might disagree. Please read our guidelines on see also links. WP:ALSO. Cool Hand Luke 17:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. I figured that if I just removed the comment (like I did originally), someone might imagine that I was part of the conspiracy—editing for years about other topics until I have enough "power" to protect my dastardly overlords, the Federal Reserve. So I explained: it's simply not a reliable source, so has no place in this article. Cool Hand Luke 15:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Zeitgeist does need to be mentioned under criticisms. It addresses a lot of issues about the federal reserve system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.228.134 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Luke, I dont think you are part of the conspiracy, but i do believe that you are brainwashed BEYOND BELIEF by what you have been told by other people and not researched yourself. All of the facts in Zeitgeist can be cited with the book Modern Money Mechanics written in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Bank, and deserves a spot under criticisms. Zeitgeist the movie being a "fringe source" as you say has no definition in itself, so therefore it is an opinion and deserves no spot in decided weather an article is encyclopedia worthy or not. Feel free to reply to this at any time or email me at [email protected], I will be copying this and reposting it daily to prevent editing. 71.55.122.30 (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Sam Gelman

Comment on the content, not the contributor (WP:CIVIL). Take a look at WP:FRINGE also. Cool Hand Luke 20:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Luke - is it not a scary thought to accept that information is only deemed suitable as a source by 'mainstream sources'? Who defines 'mainstream'? Disney? If one can cross-reference and confirm facts, then why would it be looked over? Seems dangerous to me. I thought democracy was all about open thought and information exchange amoung the people for the betterment of everyone, junk included. Not saying this is junk, but I will watch it now and I will check out facts. :)

No, it's not a scary thought at all—Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that publishes reliably sourced information. The whole rest of the internet can publish whatever people might imagine, but our mission is encyclopedic—this is not a forum for free speech or original research, it is a forum for reliable information.

As it happens, I've watched this movie. I don't know or care about the Jesus stuff, but the part on the Fed is mostly crap. The movie cites sources, and some of those are acceptable, but the movie's interpretations often do not withstand scrutiny, as commentators have informed us. See for example, my discussion of this Daly case featured in Zeitgeist. This kind of distorted material is why we don't use fringe sources in an encyclopedia. If you have suggestions, go ahead and try them, but I would not put much faith in that movie, and our policies do not allow us to use it as a direct source. Cool Hand Luke 20:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand the encyclopedic aspect and can appreciate that, alot of people do great things here. I haven't watched this yet, however from what info I have gleaned it would seem to me that it would at least deserve a mention. I mean it's not like you couldn't be sure the correct information about the Federal Reserve System was posted in THAT criticism section, looking at what's there currently...well..I see alot of name calling, yet no one uses the section to really direct people to the truth on any particular subject covered in the movie. If in fact we are building an online encyclopedia, then maybe things should blend somewhat in different ways - the criticism section seems to be exactly for this, leading the viewer to continue down a path of learning all sides, or as many sides of a subject as they would like. Thanks and all the best.

Unfortunately, we are constrained by our policy on original research. If a reliable source had published a point-by-point rebuttal, we could use that, but no reliable source has. I could write a list of apparent misrepresentations in the movie, but Wikipedia is not a forum for my (or anyone else's) original research. Cool Hand Luke 03:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of quotes in Historical criticisms

I think there's an excessive number of quotes in this section. By my count, the current version has 22 seperate quotes, before the New York sub section begins! At least one of those quotes is repeated, so figure 21 seperate quotes. The section starts off with a nice header, talking about "one end of the spectrum", but then it totally loses focus. Several of the quotes seem to directed more towards the concept of a central bank, or related to the founding of the current Federal Reserve System.

There's been some edit-warring over the quotes of late, hence bringing this up here. This section really needs to get cleaned up and focused. Rather than a large number of quotes that say the same thing, provide the criticism and use a few quotes as highlights. As it's currently written, the section is difficult to read, sloppy and doesn't provide the type of meaningful information it could. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with editor Ravensfire2002, especially on the point that many of the quotes are not critiques of the Federal Reserve System, but are critiques of central banks or banks generally. Some of the quotes pre-date the FRS by many years. Those quotes probably should be removed. Famspear (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

They are quotes about fighting off institutions with the same purpose as the Federal Reserve, if not the Federal Reserve itself, so it does have relevance, and it could be stated as such in paragraphs, along with sources that support this. It is a work in progress that should continue to stay for the next contributor that wishes to improve it, not an irrelevant addition. --Campoftheamericas (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you guys. I think excluding them is demanded due to WP:SYN for the pre-Fed quotes unless we have a secondary quote to put them in context. Also, I'm wary of the bogus quotes that have enjoyed long tenures in this article—a solid secondary source connecting them to the Fed would (hopefully) add another layer of reliability. Cool Hand Luke 03:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You really like all those Wikipedia rules. Here's another quote for you: "The government covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing but a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd." Alexis de Tocqueville

There is an overabundance of editors and not enough contributors. Enough bureaucracy already. --Campoftheamericas (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Modern Money Mechanics

How come this isnt a citable source and doesnt have a wikipedia page? This was written by the creators of the Federal eserve Bank(which is not the system, the system is a Fractal Reserve Banking System as defined in this book.) Feel free to reply to this at any time or email me at [email protected], I will be copying this and reposting it daily to prevent editing. 71.55.122.30 (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Sam Gelman

An article, you mean? Probably because no one has written an article for it. It's not being suppressed, if that's what you believe. See wikisource:Modern Money Mechanics. I'm pretty sure you mean "fractional" also. Cool Hand Luke 20:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Inflation and the economy

I just noticed the word "might" in the Inflation and the economy section. Could we please remove that word since it gives the necessary qualifications for the result to be achieved. Thx. Wikiiscool123 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean this section?

The effects of monetary and price inflation include:

• Price inflation might make workers worse off if their incomes don’t rise as rapidly as prices.
• Pensioners living on a fixed income might be worse off if their savings do not increase more rapidly than prices.
• Lenders might lose because they will be repaid with dollars that aren't worth as much.
• Savers might lose because the dollar they save today will not buy as much when they are ready to spend it.

I'm not sure that the word "might" is doing anything bad here. Cool Hand Luke 00:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes thank you for copying the section. It sounds as if inflation only possibly has detrimental effects when the detrimental effects of inflation are obvious and well documented. I think that it is a mitigating term that doesn't really help and makes Wikipedia seem less reliable and more conjecture.

Wikiiscool123 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. The effects of monetary price inflation are not being questioned, here. Let the facts stand. -- Tyler D Mace (talk · contr) 11:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)