|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Bruce,
Please see my reply below.
BruceB wrote:
> 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.
NW: The appoointments ares merely a cosmetic price for gaining an exclusive
monopoly franchise from the US govt. In fact, Fed policy is actually made by the
shadow comitteee who tell the front guys what to do.
>
>
> 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.
>
Bruce, I was willing to pass on this until I found the following
misrepresentation.
> 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?
NW: Wrong! You have it backwards. Paul Warburg was SENT to the US by his
father to lobbyfor a US central bank. The Warburgs sold the US Congress on the
idea. Now, look at what has happened to the purchasing power of the US Dollar
before and after the formation of the Fed.
How's dem apples?
Regards,
Norman
>
>
> 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!
NW: Not if by gathering all the marbles into your shop, you get more control
over the game.
Regards,
Norman
>
>
> 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
> >
|