|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Norman, et al,
This whole thread is really getting out of hand, and part of me is saying I
should just ignore it, but I think there are some things that need to be
said at this point.
You have described the Federal Reserve as a "private, for profit" entity.
This is extremely deceptive at best. The Fed does have significantly more
autonomy than most government departments, but make no mistake about it, it
is "owned" and controlled by the people. How many "private, for profit"
companies have their "CEO" appointed by the US President, and approved by
the US Congress? Zero, but the head of the Fed is. How many private CEOs
are required by law to appear in front of and make a report to Congress
several times a year? Zero, but Greenspan is.
As for the issue of profits, the Fed "earns" money in two ways. First, when
foreign central banks hold US dollars as reserves, they essentially amount
to interest-free loans to the Fed. Second, the banks overseen by the Fed
are required to hold a certain amount of their deposits on reserve at their
regional federal reserve bank. However, they are not paid interest on these
reserves.
It is the interest that the Fed earns on these two money sources that flows
into the operating budget of the Fed. Every penny that flows in, flows out,
and is spent by the Fed is watched very carefully by the US General
Accounting Office and the Treasury Department. This information is not only
available publicly, most of it is online. I'll be more than happy to find
the links for you when I have the time. I can assure you none of the money
that flows out of the Fed is flowing into an account named "Warburg."
As for the conspiracy theories surrounding the origination of the Fed, here
are two things to keep in mind. First, banking by nature is a fairly
secretive business. One of the main reasons the Warburgs and the
Rothchild's (sp?) were so successful is that they were very good at keeping
their mouths shut. The price they pay for this is that authors trying to
sell books can pretty much write anything they want about them and not worry
about retribution, because to deny the accusations would require the bankers
to offer proof that their customers might not appreciate.
The second important thing to remember is that at the time of the creation
of the Fed, the Europeans had a much longer and more successful track
record in banking than any American. Now, if you're getting ready to start
a federal bank, who better to hire and consult than the Warburgs? Would you
have rather had the US government hire some guy standing out in the street
selling apples (which is what my grandfather had to do during the
depression)? I'd say it was a rather intelligent choice, wouldn't you?
As for the growing power of world bankers, let me offer one example as to
why this theory is ridiculous. Anybody who knows anything about banking
knows the single best source of profits for multinational banks has
historically been foreign exchange. Converting one currency into another
(and charging a fee) for a customer is a completely risk-free operation with
low costs and high profit margins. Now, with this being the case, was the
introduction of the Euro good or bad for such banks? IT WAS TERRIBLE.
Literally overnight, ten different currencies they used to make a killing
off of converting one into another disappeared. If anything, these "Master
Bankers" should have been fighting to INCREASE the number of currencies in
the world, not decreasing them!
The Euro will undoubtedly expand business opportunities in Europe, but now
banks are going to have to make more of there money by making loans to
customers. Loans that might go into default... The risk-free money from
currency conversion was much better. If the banks are so powerful, why
weren't they able to stop the introduction of the Euro?
Finally, even if bankers are taking over the world (which they're not), you
know what I say to that? GREAT! You want to know why Clinton didn't go on
a liberal spending binge like every other Democrat before him? Because
Rubin convinced him the bond market (as in, bankers) would punish him with
extremely high interest rates. Want to know why China will NEVER, EVER
invade Taiwan or any other country? Because even in the best of economic
times (which they're NOT in right now...) China is extremely dependent on
the inflow of foreign capital, and will be so for many decades. If they
were to engage in an overtly hostile act, the capital markets (as in,
bankers), would immediately cut off the money flow and China's economy would
collapse in a matter of weeks. The Chinese leadership got a small taste of
this after Tiennamen (sp?) Square and I assure you they don't want it to
happen again.
The simple fact is it is very difficult for bankers to make money when
society as a whole isn't. One of the reasons the Warburgs and Rothchilds
came out on top was that they learned it was more lucrative to finance peace
and prosperity than it was to finance wars (although they were pretty good
at both).
Long live the Master Bankers!
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: nwinski <nwinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: ECB
>
>
>TheGonch wrote:
>
>> Foir those interested in the structure of the European Central Bank, I
>> have conspired to include the following web site:
>>
>> http://www.ecb.int/
>>
>> whicj is the Bank's official website.
>>
>> To answer Norman's original question, the ECB is wholly owned by the
>> central banks of Europe.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Dan Goncharoff
>
> Dan,
> Thanks. Who owns the central banks of Europe?
>
>Equitibly,
>
>Norman
>
|