The Dying Middle Class (Largest Theft in History)

First, they effectively “own” the mortgage bond market.

They don't. They hold $1.75 trillion in MBS. Haven't bought any, net, in 2 years. Households have about $9.5 trillion in mortgages outstanding.

On the other hand, they allow banks to borrow at a lower rate, leave funds on deposit at the Fed and pay them a higher rate.

Banks pay 0.75% to borrow from the Fed, only earn 0.5%

This allows banks to appear solvent, when most are nothing of the kind.

Which banks do you feel are insolvent? Or is it all of them?

"I reference you to Section 7 of the Act where stockholders are clearly referenced. "

Well that would be real important if "stockholders" had but one definition.

Of course like many, if not most, words it doesn't, and the Fed helpfully provides this explanation at their website to illuminate the stubbornly benighted:

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone. Although parts of the Federal Reserve System share some characteristics with private-sector entities, the Federal Reserve was established to serve the public interest.

The Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress, which created the System in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act. This central banking "system" has three important features: (1) a central governing board--the Federal Reserve Board of Governors; (2) a decentralized operating structure of 12 Federal Reserve Banks; and (3) a blend of public and private characteristics.

The Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., is an agency of the federal government. The Board--appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate--provides general guidance for the Federal Reserve System and oversees the 12 Reserve Banks. The Board reports to and is directly accountable to the Congress but, unlike many other public agencies, it is not funded by congressional appropriations. In addition, though the Congress sets the goals for monetary policy, decisions of the Board--and the Fed's monetary policy-setting body, the Federal Open Market Committe--about how to reach those goals do not require approval by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government.

Some observers mistakenly consider the Federal Reserve to be a private entity because the Reserve Banks are organized similarly to private corporations. For instance, each of the 12 Reserve Banks operates within its own particular geographic area, or District, of the United States, and each is separately incorporated and has its own board of directors.

Commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System hold stock in their District's Reserve Bank. 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. In fact, the Reserve Banks are required by law to transfer net earnings to the U.S. Treasury, after providing for all necessary expenses of the Reserve Banks, legally required dividend payments, and maintaining a limited balance in a surplus fund."

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

You said: Well that would be real important if "stockholders" had but one definition. and you quoted a Federal Reserve document saying, "unlike many other public agencies, it is not funded by congressional appropriations."

Yes, of course, though I notice you didn't give me another definition of the word. "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." <= This is not a differing definition of the word. Many private corporation are not operated for profit, and saying that ownership of the stock is required by law does not change the definition of the word stockholder. The only thing that quote says is that the stock ownership in the Federal Reserve is "different" than other stock ownership. Unless you can show me a different definition of the word I'm going to have to go with the common definition where the owners of the stock are the owners of the corporation. And in the case of the Federal Reserve, the owners of the stock are unknown.

In support of my contention that the Federal Reserve is not a federal entity I have:

All you are showing me a document that the FEDERAL RESERVE publishes as proof that it is a federal entity. Sorry, not buying it.

Until we see a complete audit of the Fed I don't think WE know anything about their ownership. If the Federal Reserve opens their books for a complete audit, wall to wall, by a reputable agency then I'll give the document you are showing me some credence. Until then, I'll put my trust in the words of Congressman Ron Paul, the author of a bill directing the Federal government to audit the Federal Reserve (HR1207 in the 111th Congress.) He said, concerning changes made to his bill in the Senate, [it] "guts the spirit of a truly meaningful audit of the most crucial transactions of the Fed." I believe him. You can believe the words of bankers hiding behind a set of closed books if you choose.

ps. Your use of "stubbornly benighted" is much better than the snarkiness in your last post, in fact I think I might be borrowing that one. Thanks.

In support of my contention that the Federal Reserve is not a federal entity I have:
1.) Congress doesn't fund the Federal Reserve.

It helps them retain their independence. And they make their own money, as shown by their delivery of $100 billion in profits last year to the US Treasury.

2.) The Federal Reserve employees don't receive pay checks drawn on the US Treasury.

Since they don't need Treasury Funds (and act as the bank for the Treasury), why would they write checks drawn from the Treasury?

3.) The Federal Reserve has never, since it's inception, been completely audited. (all other federal agency are publicly audited)

What's missing from theses audit reports?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/combinedfinstmt2015.pdf

All you are showing me a document that the FEDERAL RESERVE publishes as proof that it is a federal entity. Sorry, not buying it.

Yeah, when discussing the Fed, why would you believe what the Fed says? LOL!

Until we see a complete audit of the Fed I don't think WE know anything about their ownership.

The fact that the US Treasury received $100 billion of the Fed's profits last year while "stockholder" dividends were $1.7 billion is a decent clue as to who the actual owners are....follow the money.

And in the case of the Federal Reserve, the owners of the stock are unknown.

Baloney. Every bank that is a member bank is a shareholder. Each bank gets one vote on issues on which they are allowed to vote. If you opened "Garth Tater Bank" and managed to become a member of the Federal Reserve, your vote would be equal to the vote of Citibank or JPMorgan.

1.) It helps them retain their independence.

Yes, exactly my point. They are so independent they are not even a part of the federal government.

2.) why would they write checks drawn from the Treasury?

Do you mean, why would their employees be paid by the federal government? They would if they were federal employees.

3. What's missing from theses audit reports?

Plenty. I refer you to the quote from Congressman Paul in my previous post, [it] "guts the spirit of a truly meaningful audit of the most crucial transactions of the Fed." But I'm sure you know better.

4. Yeah, when discussing the Fed, why would you believe what the Fed says? LOL!

I don't believe them because I can find no proof that the Federal Reserve is a federal entity and I can find many indications that it isn't. And you think it is funny that someone doesn't just take their word for it. Foolishness like yours is why the Federal Reserve has been able to devalue the US dollar by over 98% in the last 100 years.

5. The fact that the US Treasury received $100 billion of the Fed's profits last year while "stockholder" dividends were $1.7 billion is a decent clue as to who the actual owners are....follow the money.

I would love to be able to "follow the money" but with out a "truly meaningful audit" that is not possible. So, instead of following the money we have to wonder why the Federal Reserve fights so hard to prevent a meaningful audit.

6. Baloney. Every bank that is a member bank is a shareholder.

They may well be. Are there any other shareholders? And we would know this how with the Federal Reserve NEVER having been subjected to a "truly meaningful audit"?

Keep on believing what you're told Todd. I'm sure no one would ever lie to you.

I don't believe them because I can find no proof that the Federal Reserve is a federal entity

How many private entities were created by an act of Congress, have officers appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, who by law have to testify in front of Congress every year and that last year gave the US Treasury 98% of their earnings while only giving their "shareholders" 2% of their earnings?

And you think it is funny that someone doesn't just take their word for it.

I think it's funny you take the word of Ron Paul, but not the word of the Fed.

I would love to be able to "follow the money" but with out a "truly meaningful audit" that is not possible.

You can follow the earnings and who received them.

So, instead of following the money we have to wonder why the Federal Reserve fights so hard to prevent a meaningful audit.

Why are the audits I linked not meaningful audits?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.