|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
> If this were not the case, and the public finances were solely
> responsible, there would rightly be uproar that the tax payer was
> unilaterally footing the bill for reckless gambling by private sector
> financial institutions.
Talking about reckless gambling by private sector financial institutions,
here is an interesting read on the failure of Long-Term Capital Management
and the Federal Reserve:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp52.pdf
"The LTCM bailout indicates that the Fed now accepts responsibility for
the safety of U.S. hedge funds, despite the fact that it has no
legislative mandate to do so. Moreover, the Fed accepts that
responsibility even though it has no regulatory authority over hedge funds"
It's a good thing that the US government does not own (and obviously not
control) the Federal Reserve, otherwise we may have witnessed an uproar
from the US tax payer when the Feds rescued LTCM. ;)
jose '-)
http://www.metastocktools.com/#USindex
--- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pastor_barr <no_reply@xxx> wrote:
>
> Lionel,
>
> With respect you are confusing two separate issues:
>
> 1) The independence of Central Banks to set monetary policy free from
> political interference (for example in the UK, past chancellors have
> been rightly suspected of easing interest rates with a view to
> sparking pre-election economic boomlets).
>
> 2) Who pays for the bill as the lender of last resort in the event of
> disasters in the financial system.
>
> The latter is more pertinent in the case of the present discussion.
>
> Fed member banks hold their stake in the form known as shares for a
> reason; this also explains why their shares carry not the right but
> the onerous obligation to buy as many more shares as the politically
> appointed board may unilaterally dictate.
>
> It is that this form embodies the principal of banks' collective
> responsibility for the banking system. In this way the banks' own
> capital represents the first financial line of defense against a
> financial disaster where the lender of last resort role would come
> into play.
>
> If this were not the case, and the public finances were solely
> responsible, there would rightly be uproar that the tax payer was
> unilaterally footing the bill for reckless gambling by private sector
> financial institutions.
>
> This gives banks an clear inbuilt incentive to watch over not only
> their own lending practices but also their competitors, since they
> could end up footing the bill if it all goes wrong.
>
>
> --- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Lionel Issen" <lissen@> wrote:
> >
> > After WW 2, I was astounded to earn that most central banks were
> privately
> > owned. ( I was young and naïve at the time.) There were several
> news items
> > that the Labor party in Britain announced that they were going to do
> away
> > with the archaic practice of the Bank of England being a private
> company
> > responsible to no one. Shortly after this the French government made a
> > similar announcement. I think that several other countries followed
> suit,
> > except of course the US. I'm not sure about Canada except that the
major
> > banks seem to approve the nominee for the Governor of the Bank of
> Canada,
> > but at least some of the directors do not have to be approved by the
> banks.
> >
> >
> >
> > This has been an interesting thread.
> >
> >
> >
> > My personal thanks to all the contributors.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lionel
> >
> >
> >
> > From: equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Jose Silva
> > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 6:37 AM
> > To: equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [EquisMetaStock Group] the Federal Reserve Bank is not owned
or
> > controlled by the US government
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lionel, the Federal Reserve Bank is NOT a US federal agency, anymore
> that
> > FedEx (Federal Express) or the Red Cross may be.
> >
> > There is no question that the Federal Reserve is a privately owned and
> > controlled corporation, even if the greater majority of its
> paper-printing
> > profits (after expenses and dividends) end up in the US treasury. The
> > question is whether it may be owned, either directly or indirectly, by
> > foreigners.
> >
> > If you have any doubt about the ownership and control of the federal
> > Reserve, search for "US+Government+ownership" within the The Federal
> > Reserve Act itself:
> > http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/fract
> >
> > From a seemingly reputable source, the American Monetary Institute
> (which
> > is not a US federal agency either):
> >
> > http://www.monetary.org/federalreserveprivate.htm
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > The Federal Reserve Act
> >
> > Reading the Act with the question of control in mind, what one finds
> are
> > primarily an enumeration and description of vast powers over our
> monetary
> > system being ceded to the non - governmental Federal Reserve. Primary
> > among these are the powers necessary to administer a fractional
reserve
> > banking system in which the creation of money - what we use for
> purchasing
> > media ? is in private hands.
> >
> > One is struck by the general absence of governmental controls over Fed
> > activity, and lack of requirements toward our elected representatives.
> >
> > One is struck by the lack of accountability of the Fed to our
> > governmental officials or bodies.
> >
> > One is struck by the lack of any specified penalties should the
> system be
> > found to not be promoting governmental public policy at all.
> >
> > One is struck by the lack of formal oversight procedures to determine
> > whether that is happening or not.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Further reading:
> >
> > http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html
> > http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml
> >
> > jose '-)
> > http://www.metastocktools.com/#USindex
> >
> > --- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:equismetastock%40yahoogroups.com> , "Lionel Issen" <lissen@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Pastor:
> > >
> > > Thanks for confirming my suspicions that the USD printing press is
not
> > > privately owned. It doesn't really matter much since so much of our
> > > "money" is electronically generated by the more irrational elements
of
> > > the private sector.
> > >
> > > About 10 +/- years ago there were a spate of postings on the internet
> > > claiming that the IRS was a private company incorporated outside
> of the
> > > US, and thus we didn't have to pay any income taxes. These stopped
> after
> > > the IRS publicized several Supreme court rulings enabling the IRS to
> > > forcibly collect income taxes, and I think the Feds went after these
> > > fanatics and discouraged them from further spreading these misleading
> > > falsehoods (aka lies).
> > >
> > > Lionel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:equismetastock%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > On Behalf Of pastor_barr
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 1:01 PM
> > > To: equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:equismetastock%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: [EquisMetaStock Group] Re: Day of Week Function?
> performance for
> > > the specified day of the week.
> > >
> > >
> > > "The USD printing press is privately owned."
> > >
> > >> It's amazing the number of sites that try and point the above
> fact, and
> > >> disappear in the process...
> > >
> > > Hmmm.
> > >
> > > To use an - in this case unrepresentative - corporate analogy the
> > > executive branch appoints the Fed board that takes all strategic
> > > decisions.
> > >
> > > The US treasury owns the net profits of the Fed system and can at its
> > > sole discretion transfer said profits to the treasury or leave them
in
> > > reserves.
> > >
> > > The "dividend" mentioned in the Fed's accounts are at a 5% fixed
rate
> > > on capital committed in cash to the reserve system (like a preferred
> > > dividend), that for the vast majority of history has not come close
to
> > > covering member bank's cost of capital. In accounting this equates to
> > > interest expense, not an economic share of profits generated as
> > > accrues to shareholders in the ordinary sense; this is a distinction
> > > not lost on the Fed's auditors in their statement of departures from
> > > accounting convention, last time I checked.
> > >
> > > Further, member banks can not sell any shares if they wish to retain
a
> > > banking license. On the contrary, member banks are obliged to
> > > unconditionally subscribe for new issues as determined at the sole
> > > discretion of the politically appointed board of governors from time
> > > to time.
> > >
> > > So, while the Fed member banks are for archaic reasons known as
> > > "shareholders" they are not private owners of the Fed in any
> > > meaningful sense.
> > >
> > > Maybe that is why the sites you refer to disappeared; perhaps people
> > > realized they were peddling misrepresentations so egregious that they
> > > can only be accurately described as a pack of lies.
> > >
> > > Nice indicator though ;-)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/equismetastock/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/equismetastock/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:equismetastock-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:equismetastock-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
equismetastock-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|