Talk:Criticism of the Federal Reserve/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Criticisms not in article

That the Fed has totally failed in its mandate to protect the value of the US dollar. The dollars value has dropped something like 96-97% since the Federal Reserve was given the job of protecting its value. In the previous 120 years the dollar did just fine all by itself, retaining it purchasing power with only minor changes in any giver given year (excepting the war years in the 1810'2 and 1860's). Previous to the Fed NOTHING protected the value of the US dollar so the Fed is "worse then NOTHING".

The Fed causes inflation by expanding the money supply faster then the economy expands the supply of goods and services. This acts to cause prices to rise, to reflect the greater relative supply of money. Basic economics states that when the supply of a good increases its value drops.

The Fed by expanding the money has caused booms and then contracting it has caused busts. The internet bubble was at least in part caused by Greenspan's easy money policies in the 1990's. The peak coincided with additional easing to minimize any effects of the Y2K computer bug. The internet bust was at least in part caused by the tightening of monetary policy in early 2000 when the fear of the Y2K bug proved to be wildly exaggerated. The Housing bubble was at least in part caused by easy money policies designed to minimize the effects of the internet bubble bust.

The easy money policies of the Fed has destroyed the incentives to save, resulting in low capital formation and low investment in business, retarding economic growth. Real interest rates (interest rate received less the inflation rate) is negative for savers, so savers are being punished for saving instead of being rewarded. No savings = no money to invest in a new business = equals no new companies. Business startups have in fact dropped recently to the lowest level in decades.

The easy money policies of the Fed has acted to expand the growth of debt, resulting in an economy more subject to financial panics through the "domino effect" as excessive debt at one failed institution causes creditor institutions to also go bust due to their losses from the failure of the first institution.

The Fed has enable the government to greatly expand its level of debt in order to increase its size beyond what is possible with just tax revenue. Big government acts to reduce economic growth, and government debt levels over 90% have been identifies as a tipping where the debt is usually no longer repayable, and will almost certainly lead to either high inflation or a hyperinflation as the government attempts to pay off its debt with debased money.

The easy money policies of the Fed has destroyed the retirement dreams of many by forcing them to use the principal of their retirement savings instead of being able to live comfortably on the interest from that principal.

Mortgage paper purchases are a bailout of the big banks, many of which were (and still are) facing disaster due to the low market prices of those bonds. Notice QE3 is all about purchasing mortgage paper to prop up the price of that paper. The Mark to Market accounting rule has been nullified for big banks so that they do not have to report the actual value of their mortgage paper.

The money printing of the Fed acts to transfer wealth to the rich, especially the Wall Street rich. As new money gets printed, it immediately transfers purchasing power to the Fed, then it slowly works its way into the economy resulting in higher prices. The wealth transfer effects benefit the Federal Reserve (and its bank owners) first, then companies who deal directly with the Fed, companies dealing at second hand with these banks, and then it goes into general circulation. By the time it ends up in general circulation, prices have risen and the general population loses as they pay higher prices with a cheapened currency.

By intervening in the markets to prop up stock and bond prices the Fed acts to benefit the stock and bond owning rich at the expense of those not owning the assets classes that are being propped up. Newly created money is used for this process which ends up hurting the poor and middle class who get shafted through higher prices caused by inflation.

BTW: Anyone notice that the rich are getting richer as the middle class shrinks and the numbers of the poor grow. You can thank the Fed (at least in part) for that as they help the rich at everyone else expense.71.174.141.4 (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You actually expect people to read that wall of text? -Rrius (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the constitutional situation is clear: The national government has the right to borrow and pay its debts (U.S. Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8.). Federal Reserve notes are instruments of debt. The Federal Reserve is an instrumentality of the national government. Even if one accepted your crackpot notion that the regional Fed banks are private, those banks don't make decisions about whether to issue Reserve notes. Rather, it is the Open Market Committee, whose members are appointed by the President on the advice and consent of the Senate. Thus, Federal Reserve notes are an acceptable use of Congress's power under the Constitution. -Rrius (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Re your comment "even if one accepted your crackpot notion that the regional Fed banks are private," You are either a ignorant fool, a brainwashed idiot or a shill from the Federal reserve practicing "content control" The regional banks have themselves admitted to being "private institutions.

And yes I do expect other editors to read that wall of text. This article is for some reason missing a hell of a lot of criticism.71.174.141.4 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear user at IP71.174.141.4: Well, you're going to continue to be disappointed. Neither this article talk page nor the article itself are the proper places for you to vent your personal feelings about the Federal Reserve System. Your proper role here is not to convince other people that a given Federal Reserve bank is "private", or that the Federal Reserve System is bad.

And you should refrain from personal attacks, such as referring to another editor as an "ignorant fool," or a "brainwashed idiot" or a "shill of the Federal reserve." You are simply going to have to abide by the rules here.

Regarding criticisms of the Federal Reserve System, please continue to look for previously-published, reliable third party sources who make these (or other) critiques. I'm sure you can find something. We're not interested in YOUR criticisms or MY criticisms. We're interested in the critiques of reliable, previously published third party sources. Wikipedia articles and article talk pages are not put here as soapboxes for you to publish your own views. Famspear (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering is this is a personal attack "even if one accepted your crackpot notion that the regional Fed banks are private," and have you warned Rrius about his behavior? 71.174.141.4 (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

In using the word "crackpot," I think the reference is to the notion that regional Fed banks are private, not to you personally. The rule in Wikipedia is: Comment on the material, but do not engage in name-calling against fellow editors. If you or I write something in an article or talk page, it's OK for other editors to critique what we have written.

Of course, sometimes it's hard not to take it personally when someone denigrates what you have written, and I understand that. Famspear (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The reference was to "YOUR" crackpot notion - the implication being that I am a crackpot. As you might have noticed from my recent addition the US Courts share my so-called crackpot notion. 71.174.141.4 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the problem is that your definition of "private" and the Court's definition of "private" are not the same. You're implying that each Federal Reserve bank is "private" in the sense that it's controlled by the member banks who own stock in it, by virtue of that stock ownership, and that by virtue of that supposed "control" the member banks also control the Federal Reserve SYSTEM, which includes governmental entities like the Board of Governors and the FOMC. But that is incorrect, and that is not what the Court ruled in Lewis. Famspear (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the "member banks" control the majority of seats on the board, it is not out of line to say that those holding the majority of seats have control.71.174.141.4 (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I added more quotes from the Court in the Lewis case. The Lewis case is an example of how people who rant and rave about the Federal Reserve System take snippets from court opinions out of context and try to give the false impression that the court was saying something that the court was not saying. In the case of Lewis, what the ranters are trying to falsely imply is that through the ownership of stock in Federal Reserve banks, the member banks (and, by extension, the shareholders of the member banks or the evil international bankster managers of the member banks) control the Federal Reserve SYSTEM. But the Lewis case involved only the question of whether a given Federal Reserve BANK (not the Federal Reserve SYSTEM) was "private" (in the sense of not an agency or instrument of government) for purpose of the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Court even went on to point out that for purposes of various OTHER federal laws, a Federal Reserve Bank was indeed a federal government instrumentality. And the Lewis court made absolutely no ruling that the Federal Reserve SYSTEM was somehow "owned" by anyone, much less somehow controlled by evil "private" international bankster interests. Famspear (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You were the one who misunderstood Lewis. The Courts language was about the Regional Banks and only about the Regional Banks. You are the one who expanded it (in error) to include the Federal Reserve System.71.174.141.4 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to me: No, I did not "expand it [the description of the Court's holding in Lewis] to include the Federal Reserve System." For the umpteenth time: The Court's holding in Lewis was about the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, and the holding was limited to the impact of the Federal Tort Claims Act. Read the material again. The whole point is that certain people have been falsely claiming that the Lewis court ruled that the Federal Reserve SYSTEM is "private" or "privately owned." That is FALSE, and that's not what the Court ruled in Lewis. The Court in Lewis also went on to point out that for purposes of SOME laws, the FR BANKS (not the "System", but the BANKS) are considered governmental instrumentalities, and for purposes of OTHER laws, they're NOT. READ THE MATERIAL. Famspear (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The original material was about the Federal Reserve "Banks". You were the one who expanded it to purport it was about the Federal Reserve "System". The following is YOUR edit and the phrase "Federal Reserve System" makes its first appearance. Previous to your post there was nothing in the material about the Federal Reserve System. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve&diff=519512311&oldid=51949600071.174.141.4 (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition, as someone else pointed out, your edit failed to state "who" those "certain people" are. "The whole point is that certain people have been falsely claiming that the Lewis court ruled that the Federal Reserve SYSTEM is "private" or "privately owned." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.141.4 (talk • contribs)

Dear user at IP 71.174.141.4: That is absolutely false. YOU YOURSELF introduced the Lewis case material, right here:

[1]

This article is about Criticisms of the "Federal Reserve," which means the Federal Reserve SYSTEM. You YOURSELF introduced the Lewis material into the article, so YOU ARE the person trying to use Lewis as a critique of the SYSTEM, not merely a critique of "the banks."

The Court of Appeals in Lewis was not trying to critique the Federal Reserve Banks or the System. YOU INTRODUCED the material as a critique of the Federal Reserve SYSTEM. AFTER you did that, I added material to clarify the fact that you added the material as a criticism. I also added the additional material from Lewis to clarify what the Court was actually saying in Lewis, here: [2]. I later added the citation tag (the "who" tag): [3] You did not add the material merely as a critique of the "banks". You added the material as a critique of the entire SYSTEM, and I corrected you.

I keep telling you that ALL YOUR EDITS ARE PRESERVED in chronological order. Other editors can see the edits you have made. Yet, you are continuing this behavior of adding material to push a certain point of view using sources that do not support your point of view and, after being corrected, trying to make it appear as though the other editor is the one who "did it." Famspear (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: It is not MY edit that "failed" to state "who" the critics of the System are when they use the Lewis case as you did. You yourself introduced this material, and it was YOUR JOB as a Wikipedia editor to provide the sourcing at the time you added the material. Famspear (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You were the one who changed the material to refer to the "Federal Reserve System" and it was your addition that received a "who" flag. Why don't you actually check the history instead of going into denial all the time?71.174.141.4 (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP 71.174.141.4: I think we've already been through this. You added the Lewis material. The Lewis material has been added to this or related articles in the past. I added the reference to "Federal Reserve System" to YOUR material -- to make clear what I assumed that you intended your material to be: a critique of the Federal Reserve SYSTEM, not merely a critique of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (which is what the Lewis case was about). If it was not your intent to add the Lewis material as a critique of the entire Federal Reserve SYSTEM, then you probably should not have added it to this article in that way. I also added the "who" tag -- to highlight the point that WE NEED SOURCING FOR YOUR MATERIAL. I don't know how many ways there are to say this. The purpose of Wikipedia is not for you to add your own personal beliefs -- in this case, your own personal critiques of the Federal Reserve System.

The statement that the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is "private" is not, strictly speaking, a "criticism." The statement that this bank is private following by something along the lines of "and that's bad because......" could be a critique. But it has to be SOMEONE ELSE'S critique, not YOURS. And just as importantly, YOU need to provide the proper sourcing. Merely dumping an essay into a Wikipedia article and then demanding that other editors leave it there and look for the sourcing you failed to provide -- which is in effect what you appear to me to be doing to some extent -- is not appropriate, in my view.

It seems to me from reading your comments here and on your own talk page that you view the edits of other Wikipedia contributors as being efforts to stifle criticism of the Federal Reserve System. However, the very purpose of this article is to show critiques of the Federal Reserve System. The NAME of the article is "Criticism of the Federal Reserve." As other editors have done, I would again encourage you to read or re-read Wikipedia rules and guidelines regarding "No Original Research." Famspear (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I did indeed add the Lewis material. That was in response to some ignoranimus going by Rrius who thinks it was a "crazy notion" to believe that the REGIONAL BANKS were privately owned corporations. YOU changed the material to make it refer to the Federal Reserve SYSTEM (which it plainly does not). Recognition of an error is the first step to not making it again, and from my experience you have a whole lot of denial to work trough.71.174.141.4 (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Cute, now you are twisting people's words. Well done. And calling names. Really, well done. The regional banks have private ownership, but are not truly private institutions. This has been explained to you, and you have been pointed to where you could learn more about it. Just as you have refused to learn about citing sources and other aspects of how editing here is supposed to work. You have gone well past the point deserving any sort of good faith. Your edits and talk page contributions are disruptive. It is not our fault you refuse to inform yourself, so very soon one of the editors who has been putting up with your bullshit for weeks now will take it to dispute resolution. As such, if you do not very quickly cease trying to use Wikipedia as a forum for your mindless drivel and fringe theories, you may well find yourself blocked. Again, you need to read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:Fringe. -Rrius (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"Even if one accepted your crackpot notion that the regional Fed banks are private" is a direct quote from one of your posts above. What am I twisting? If I call a rock a rock, it is because it is a rock. If I call you an ignoranimous, an idjit, or something else, it is for the same reason. If you don't want to advertise your stupidity, crawl back under your rock and stay silent.71.174.141.4 (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP 71.174.141.4: Again, this is an article on criticisms of the Federal Reserve System as a whole, not merely the 12 regional banks, and not the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco in particular. You're missing the point: I did not change the Lewis material to make it appear that the COURT was referring to the SYSTEM as a whole. Just the opposite. I modified the material to correct the misleading presentation that YOU YOURSELF posted. I clarified in the article that the Court was NOT referring to the System as a whole.

The Court in Lewis was making a ruling about the ability of someone to sue the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco under the Federal Tort Claims Act. That's it. Nothing more.

The Lewis material has been added to one or more Wikipedia articles on the Federal Reserve System on more than one occasion, and we have found that in the past the purpose has always been the same: to leave a false impression about CONTROL of the Federal Reserve System as a whole. By leaving the Lewis material in the article as I originally did, I was (if anything) giving you the benefit of some doubt. In Wikipedia, the rule is: Assume Good Faith.

I have since moved the material to this talk page, as you know. I have clearly stated my rationale for that. Famspear (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Madison on Paper money

Madison took part and recorded the vote to remove the power to print paper money from the Federal government during the Constitutional Convention. That vote passed 9 to 2. Later while campaigning to get that revised Constitution ratified by the states he had the following to say (Federalist 44)

"The prime function of government is the protection of the different and unequal faculties of men for acquiring property." "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 its issuance." "The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of the coin."71.174.141.4 (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Content Control

I have made several referenced to "content control". For the record "contend control" is intentional distortion or removal of material that reflects negatively on those practicing "contend control".

A link to just one of the many efforts to engage in that activity http://electronicintifada.net/content/ei-exclusive-pro-israel-groups-plan-rewrite-history-wikipedia/747271.174.141.4 (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Crash of 87

Since more then likely nobody here is aware of what caused the Cash of 87, here is the short version. Volker, who tamed the inflation of the 70's by the simple method of NOT PRINTING MONEY, had retired and Greenspan had been appointed his successor.

The markets, were nervous about the new face and to prove that he could be tough on inflation like Volker, Greenspan tightened the money supply after he took over, resulting in higher interest rates. Stock Markets and the economy go BOOM! when interest rates go up. Greenspan took over in August of 2007, interest rates go up, and 2 months later the market crashes. There you go! The short version.71.174.141.4 (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Stagflation of the 70's

Should anyone ever get serious about actually including some "criticism" (instead of pablum) in this article here is a citation that can be used for the Fed causing the stagflation of the 70's. Hint: "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" Milton Friedman.

"By the end of the 1970's few economists seriously doubted that inept Fed policy was a least partly to blame for the stagflation that plagued the economy" Macroeconomics: An Introduction, Chapter 9 Monetary Policy Page 3, Internet Edition 2010, by Charles R. Nelson. http://www.econ.washington.edu/user/cnelson/Chap09.pdf71.174.141.4 (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to craft an NPOV discussion of the Fed's contribution to the stagflation problem of the 1970s verified by reliable sources, go ahead. But the sentence involved is just not enough: "By the end of the 1970s few economists seriously doubted that inept Fed policy was at least partly to blame for the stagflation that plagued the economy, or that a cure for inflation had to involve fundamental change in Fed policy." What ineptitude? What policies? More is needed. As for your hint, what are you trying to suggest? Even Milton Friedman wouldn't suggest that we should aim for zero inflation or deflation, as one person here has suggest should happen. The Chicago School believe the Fed should control the money supply to keep inflation low without dipping into deflation, which any credible economist will tell you would be disaster (and point you to Japan's Lost Decade as an example). -Rrius (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not at all surprisingly, you need a repeat of the HINT: Hint: "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" Milton Friedman.71.174.141.4 (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Not at all surprisingly, you aren't making sense. That quote does not say inflation, let alone modest inflation, is always and everywhere a monetary catastrophe. -Rrius (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Any economist who believes that fostering ever increasing debt levels in the economy is a nincompoop (accent on the poop) and any economist who believes that the economy did better under the stewardship of the inflationary Fed then it did prior to the Fed's existence (in the largely deflationary 1800's) can't be trusted to add 1 and 1 and get 2. Friedman in the end believed that a purely mechanical system of increasing the money supply would result in higher economic growth then the boom and bust cycles caused by human action and inaction at the head of the Fed. 71.174.141.4 (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Increasing the money supply is inflationary, so a "purely mechanical system of increasing the money supply" would be a method of maintaining inflation to avoid hyperinflation and deflation. His problem, according to your summary, is not with the inflation, not with the goal, but with the consequences of the Fed's methods.

Instead of actually doing what Wikipedia guidelines require, and what I yet again mentioned in my first response to you, you have chosen to attack me and spew information that you either don't understand or intend to deceive us with. Which ever it is, it is pointless. Despite countless attempts to get you to focus on finding reliable sources to verify claims made from a neutral point of view, you have persisted in regurgitating your opinions on talk pages. Your failure to abide by policy cannot last forever. It has already lasted for months, and unless you begin to accept the community's rules, the community will sanction you. -Rrius (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You were the one to attack first retard. As for reliable sources it doesn't get more reliable then Nobel Prize winning economists who CREATED schools of economic thought. Let me put it to you in REALLY simple terms. Inflation is BAD (been there! done that! especially in the 70's!), Hyperinflation is EVEN WORSE and based on current levels of money printing by the Fed it may be barking at your door in a few years. Go back to the village that spawned you! It misses it's idjit.71.174.141.4 (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. First, I didn't attack you, and I certainly didn't call you names. As for light inflation be bad, you are wrong and you don't have the sources. Saying that something is a "monetary phenomenon" is not saying it is bad. Deflation is catastrophically horrible, so erring on the side of low inflation is by far the best policy. So let me put it in "REALLY simple terms": You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, your seem to be here just to make trouble, and I for one will from now on simply ignore you on talk pages and revert whatever nonsense you add to the main pages. You have been nothing but disruptive since you started editing, and it is time to be done with you. -Rrius (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is your comment found above ". Even if one accepted your crackpot notion that the regional Fed banks are private,". Go back to your village retard, because the regional banks are in fact private. It misses you. HMMMMMM! On second thought NO it doesn't! Nobody would ever miss you!71.174.141.4 (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If the phenomenon is bad, then what caused the phenomenon is also bad. I.e if murder is bad, so is the murderer. Nobody I've ever heard from said that the stagflation of the 70's was good and the stagflation of the 70's was mostlly caused be Federal Reserve policies.

Deflation is much maligned by Federal Reserve through its control of the economic profession. The US did much better economically in the 1800's under deflation then after 1913 and the Feds inflation. The reason that the Fed pushes inflation is that it provides a shelter from criticism of its theft of property through the wealth transfer effect of inflation. The one doing the money printing (inflating) will always defend the process because it makes him rich.71.174.141.4 (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

At what point do we take this person to RfC? His arguments are based in made up silliness rather fact. Only a troll or a truly ignorant fool would say deflation is better than modest inflation and try to base the argument on pre-industrial, gold-based money. That this person is one or the other is basically proven by his addition of Friedman's assertion that the money supply should just be increased at three to five percent (which is inflation). -Rrius (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I find it far from silly to say that the US did better economically under the gold and silver standard of the 1800's then under the "so called" guiding hand of the Federal Reserve. It is in fact plain old truth which can be confirmed by just about anyone (Redacted).71.174.141.4 (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

This edit summary [4] is incorrect. The purpose of the NPOV tag is not to indicate that there is an "ongoing dispute" but simply to indicate what the tag says - that the article has POV problems. Which it does - with sections like "Stifling of economic thought" and a whole bunch of WP:UNDUE - so the tag stays until these are fixed. If a toilet is out of order you don't remove the "out of order" sign just because there's no plumber around to fix it.Volunteer Marek 02:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that is incorrect, unless the Wikipedia rules have changed. The purpose of the tag is not to denote that a particular editor feels there is a neutrality problem. Here is the rule:

Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

Merely putting the tag on the article because you feel the article has a neutrality problem is akin to putting an "out of order" sign on a toilet because you feel the toilet is out of order. That's precisely what the neutrality tag is NOT supposed to be used for.

Traditionally, in Wikipedia the tag has been used to inform readers that a discussion is currently-ongoing on the talk page about neutrality. Famspear (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and what the tag actually says is that the neutrality of the article is "disputed." In order to have a dispute, you have to have two or more people engaging in a dispute -- a disagreement. One person feeling that an article is not neutral does not constitute a "dispute" -- until at least two people are discussing the issue. Famspear (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright. The section "Stifling of economic thought" is not neutral. The title itself is very POV. Lots of the info in it is pretty much undue. Volunteer Marek 02:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't disagree with you, at least not yet -- so there's no dispute between you and me on neutrality -- at least not yet. What do you mean when you say that much of the information is "undue"? Famspear (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Wealth Transfer

There seems to be some objection to adding criticism of the Federal Reserve as a wealth tranfer machine designed to benefit the bankers.

Heres another reference whose language may be out of the comfort range of wiki editors

Zero Hedge - The Fed is a Parasitic Wealth Transfer Machine http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-rot-runs-deep-1-federal-reserve-parasitic-wealth-transfer-machine "The Federal Reserve is a wealth transfer machine, skimming wealth from the productive many and transferring it to the parasitic few"

I am sure I can find more references in the same vein.71.184.176.112 (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's start with please read this page on [WP:RS|reliable sources]] and explain how a blog post meets that criteria. Also, Wikipedia also isn't a WP:QUOTEFARM, you can try to use wikiquote for that. Ravensfire (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Zerohedge just copied the authors original post on his own web site.as did a number of other websites. Are you saying that an authors post on his own web site cannot be used for cited material? and what is your objection with the other quoted cites? Last I checked the Fed is a central bank, and "fed" is a widely used abbreviation for the Federal Reserve.71.184.176.112 (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI: There is absolutely no reason to avoid inclusion of criticism of the fed as a wealth transfer machine. That criticism is all over the place except possibly for the Jewish controlled main stream press, which covers the ass of the Jewish controlled Federal Reserve.71.184.176.112 (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

and that aim certainly seems to be aided and abetted by the Jewish owned and controlled wikipedia, which seems to have locked down every article dealing with Jews ans Israel. Your thoughts on that lockdown?71.184.176.112 (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The "audit the fed" rhetoric

This article could probably be improved by a section that actually explains which components of the Federal Reserve System are audited and which are not, and what is meant by the term "audit." This is an area of confusion, in part because of honest misunderstanding. I can't get to this now, but I think such a section would include something along these lines:

1. Board of Governors - is it audited or not, and what kind of audit or audits?

2. Federal Open Market Committee - is it audited or not, and what kind of audit or audits?

3. The twelve regional Federal Reserve banks - are they audited or not, and what kind of audit or audits?

4. The hundreds of member banks - are they audited or not, and what kind of audit or audits?

Of course, the financial statements of the entities described in items 1 and 3 are indeed audited annually by the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche LLP, and those financial statements and auditors' reports can be easily downloaded in PDF file format. And of course, the financial statements of virtually all the member banks (banks like Wells Fargo and Bank of America) are also audited by accounting firms.

When the politicians yap and pontificate about "auditing the Fed," they're really not talking about an "audit" in the ordinary sense of an audit of financial statements by a firm of certified public accountants, and they're not really talking about "the Fed." They may not make it clear, but they're typically talking about a particular component of the Fed, such as the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC).

If we can expand the article to explain what such and such a critic means by "audit" and exactly which specific component (such as the FOMC) he or she wants to be "audited," it may make the criticisms more understandable. Hopefully, this can be done by referring to the detailed descriptions in the source documents used to support the article. For example, I saw one or two places where the article formerly referred to "audit the Fed" when in reality the critic may have really been saying, "audit the FOMC."

Imprecise use of terminology is a constant source of problems when reading about the components of the Federal Reserve System.

More later..... Famspear (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

One subject for an audit is an audit on physical gold held at the Federal Reserve, who owns that gold, and is it pledged against something, is it swapped gold due to be returned. This is a subset of the audit the governments gold at Fort Knox, and other repositories including Federal Reserve Bank repositories. Complaints are that such an audit has not taken place since the 1950's. Complaints that have only increased with reclassification of reported gold from "US Gold" to "stored gold". Stored gold tells you nothing about who owns that gold, only that it is stored.

Another audit would be about what the Regional Banks actually OWN. For instance I have run across reports that all checks are processed by a corporation owned by the Regional Federal Reserve Banks. These banks do not release any sort of financial statements to the general public. Since these banks are private they do not have to report ANYTHING to the general public, icluding wholy or partially owned subsidiaries. According to one recent study by a World Bank economist, the Federal Reserve system has a controlling interest in over 40% of the US economy. Nice to have a monopoly on printing money isn't it? 71.174.141.198 (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The twelve Federal Reserve banks -- the twelve regional banks -- are audited every year. The audit includes the examination of not only what the regional banks own (the assets), but also what the banks owe (the liabilities). The audit of the assets may or may not include a physical inspection of the actual gold bars held in the vaults. Copies of the audited financial statements and auditor's report are available to the public. I have copies of recent audit reports myself. The statement that these banks do not have to report anything to the general public is completely false. The Federal Reserve System does not have a "monopoly on printing money." In fact, the Federal Reserve System does not print money at all -- not even the Federal Reserve notes that you and I have in our wallets. Federal Reserve notes are printed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. (And just as a side note: Outstanding Federal Reserve notes -- the dollar bills in your wallet, in my wallet, etc., are not assets of the Federal Reserve banks. These notes represent liabilities of the Federal Reserve banks.)

The "Audit the Fed! Audit the Fed!" rhetoric is based in part on mis-information and ignorance, and this rhetoric actually creates mis-conceptions. The 12 regional banks are audited in essentially the same way that ExxonMobil or Wells Fargo or Microsoft is audited each year. What is actually secret (or "unaudited" so to speak) about the Federal Reserve System is not what the regional banks own, but instead the details of the decision making process of the Board of Governors (a governmental entity) and the Federal Open Market Committee (another governmental entity) which are parts of "the Fed." The details of those meetings are not transparent enough for many critics of the Federal Reserve System. That said, the details of the meetings of many other government agencies also are not very transparent, either. Famspear (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That there audit the Fed rhetoric resulted in a very limited audit which revealed that the Fed has issued something like 15 trillion in loans which it had never previously reported anywhere. Right back at ya!

As for your "the Fed doesn't print money spiel". The Treasury acts as the printer - the Federal Reserve notes, as every single one states on its face, belong to the Fed. The treasury is the equivalent of the copy shop and does not OWN what it prints, but only prints it on order from the the true owner, whose name can be found on the face of every singe Federal Reserve note.

Regarding your "dollars are liabilities" Yesireee every singe one can be returned to the Fed and you can get a brand spanking new one. Printed by the US Treasury no less. Snicker! This is a dead issue since the Fed almost went broke in the 1930's from not having enough gold to meet its gold redemption obligations, almost went broke when in the 1960's from not having enough silver to meet its silver redemption obligation and again almost broke when US gold was running out of gold and could not meet its gold obligations to foreign trade partners (thank you Nixon). All its redemption obligations have been rendered null and void except the one where you get have the right to turn in one old piece of paper for a newly printed one. Actually if you turn is a paper dollar to the Fed, and it is in good shape, they can give you back that exact same piece of paper in order to meet their so called liability. Such a deal!

Are you done with these bogus garbage objections now?71.174.141.198 (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Constitutionality

Famspear seesm to think that the Constitutionality question is "unsourced"

Well here is the full quote of some of the things that the main article expects to be in this subsidiary article. Notice that the constitutionality question heads the list. Tra La!

The Federal Reserve System has faced various criticisms since its inception in 1913. These criticisms include the assertions that the Federal Reserve System violates the United States Constitution and that it impedes economic prosperity. Critic Miranda Fleschert contends that the twelve regional Federal Reserve banks (as opposed to the entire Federal Reserve System) consider themselves to be private corporations with private funding.[177] The movement to audit the Federal Reserve System has gained national traction; a bill related to the movement was passed through the House of Representatives in 2012.[178] Many critics see auditing the Federal Reserve System as a means of gaining insight into an institution they contend has historically had little to no transparency, that has acted without congressional approval or oversight, and that has the power to create and loan U.S. dollars based on a monetary policy determined by its own interests.[179]71.174.141.129 (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I said that your ranting was unsourced. My exact words were: "The rest of your post is the usual unsourced anti-Federal Reserve System ranting." You just stated that you copied this material from the main article. Tra la! Famspear (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, by the way: Since January 13, 2006, I have made a total of 353 edits to the main article, Federal Reserve System. Did you really think that someone who edits the article "Criticism of the Federal Reserve" would not also have edited the main article on the same subject? Did you really think that by copying and pasting the criticism material from the main article, you were showing the rest of us something we hadn't seen before?

Ain't as easy as it first looked, is it? :) Famspear (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This article should be deleted as a POV fork. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it qualifies as a POV fork. Also, I think maybe this article was set up because the "Criticism" section of the main article, "Federal Reserve System," was just getting to be difficult to manage, considering that the main article is so long even without a Criticism section.

Also, an advantage of having this article devoted to Criticism is that when newbies come here and start inserting the usual tendentious, wild-eyed conspiracy-oriented edits based on the usual "nobody knows that the Federal Reserve System is a private bank controlled by Dark, Evil International Banksters and I know all about this and of course I'm an expert on this 'cause I read about it on the internet and golly The Truth is Being Suppressed by The Bad Guys and Heavens To Mer-gah-troyd I just gotta tell everybody and gee willikers Wikipedia is where I wanna get the word out" mentality, we can move the proposed "criticism" to this article (or to this talk page) and, determine whether the material is indeed a critique from a reliable source and deal with it appropriately -- without cluttering up the main article and the main article's talk page. To me, a "POV fork" is really a separate article that tries to circumvent the main article -- and Wikipedia's rules -- by pushing a particular point of view, often a fringe or wacko point of view. This article, however, is simply showing criticism from thoughtful, reliable sources (or, at least, that's what this article should be doing). This article is not, and should not be, a dumping ground for every wild-eyed conspiracy theory.

Thoughts? Famspear (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Your points are noted, however the flipside is that, whereas extensive recitation of fringe views would clearly be undue in the main article, they may be fill the criticism article in great abundance and detail which is nonetheless undue in the larger context of the subject. It's like for example the articles on astrology or various political conspiracies. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Riddle me this Batman

How can a wiki article that is SUPPPOSED to contain negative material, look neutral.

Why, by failing to include the negative material it is supposed to contain.

This article is so lacking it may as well be title "Whitewash of the Federal Reserve"

The is nothing in the article about complaints that the Fed itself is an unconstitutional organization, that it caused the lost decade of the 70's by causing the inflation of the 70's through to much money printing, nothing about the seemingly endless number of bubbles it keeps blowing that end blowing up in everybodies face (the crash of 87, the stock bubble of 2000, the housing bubble, the current bond and stock bubbles to name just the more recent ones), no criticism that it keeps on bailing out the bid banks (its owners - yes Dorothy the Federal Reserve system is privately owned and the big banks have most of the shares), no mention of the economic harm it is doing by fostering debt and killing saving, no mention of the millions (if not tens or hundreds of millions) who had thought they had enough money to retire with the help of interest from their savings and now get jack in interest from those savings. Everybody reading this should know of one or more older relatives in that boat.

To put it bluntly the Federal Reserve as an institution is nothing more then a wealth transfer machine to itself and its owners at the expense of everybody else. To put it even more bluntly, the Soviets had an descriptive term for clueless supporters of the Fed. That term translates to "useful idiot"

People running Fed programs themselves say that the Fed is nothing more then a wealth transfer machine.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303763804579183680751473884?mod=mktw

I can only say: I'm sorry, America. As a former Federal Reserve official, I was responsible for executin

g the centerpiece program of the Fed's first plunge into the bond-buying experiment known as quantitative easing. The central bank continues to spin QE as a tool for helping Main Street. But I've come to recognize the program for what it really is: the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time.71.174.141.198 (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

71.174.141.198 (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear IP 71.174.141.198: You may want to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines -- especially the rules on Neutral Point of View, or NPOV. "Neutrality" does not necessarily mean what you appear to believe it means.

No, the Fed is not "privately owned," for the one gazillionth time. Certain parts of the Fed are privately owned, and other parts are governmental entities. In Wikipedia, we've been through this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Read the main article on the Fed. The Fed is the Federal Reserve SYSTEM. Saying that the Fed is "privately owned" is like saying that "because the Milky Way Galaxy contains planets, the Milky Way Galaxy is a planet." Famspear (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am quite aware what "neutrality" means and I am also aware that it has no place in an article SORELY dedicated to criticism. As to you point about public versus private, the only thing public about the Federal Reserve SYSTEM is the Federal Reserve BOARD and that is a minute part of the system.

Now why don't you stop wasting everyones time get cracking to add some of the missing criticism into this article.71.174.141.198 (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear IP 71.174.141.198: No, you're not quite aware of what neutrality means, and no, you are incorrect about how the concept should be applied to this article. And no, the Federal Reserve Board -- the Board of Governors -- is not the only "public" (governmental) part of the Federal Reserve System. No, the Board is certainly not only a "minute" part of the System. Your assertions are quite wrong.

And, no, I am not, "wasting" anyone's time. Furthermore, I and the rest of the editors here at Wikipedia are not here to to satisfy you about what you feel is missing criticism in the article. The rest of the world is not here to make you happy.

If you want to contribute something meaningful in a Wikipedia article, then DO IT. But first, learn the Wikipedia rules. Famspear (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(NPA content redacted)

List of the "public portions"of the Federal Reserve system and compare them in size (i.e. people employed, assets owned, etc etc etc) to the regional Federal Reserve banks which are PRIVATE institutions which is a fact that the Federal Reserve Bank on New York has stated in court. If you can show that those portions are not a "minute" fraction of the total then I will admit that you are a economic genius. 71.174.141.198 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Do NOT engage in personal attacks. Continued such attacks can result in a block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear IP 71.174.141.198: No, this is already covered in the relevant article: The Board of Governors is a governmental entity, as is the Federal Open Market Committee. These are components of the Federal Reserve System. The member banks are non-governmental entities (in other words, "private"). The twelve Federal Reserve banks are somewhere in between (sort of). This has ALREADY BEEN COVERED over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and OVER AGAIN -- in the various talk pages in articles about the Federal Reserve System. Neither I nor any other editor here needs to argue about what parts of the System are "minute" fractions of the total System, or to convince you, or satisfy you, or persuade you. Whether the governmental parts are "minute" in relation to the rest of the System is not something you need to be worrying about.

I am not here to prove to you that I am an "economic genius." And, as a Wikipedia editor, I am not here to satisfy you or persuade you about the nature of the Federal Reserve System. But, since you attacked me personally, let me tell you about "me personally." I am a former bank auditor, and my experience includes auditing components of .... you might have guessed it: the Federal Reserve System. I am an attorney and certified public accountant. I studied banking. I audited banks for years. I wrote reports to bank management on internal controls in banks. I have audit experience in almost every aspect of the operations of commercial banks, and I have supervised other bank auditors. I am here not to convince you or make you happy, but rather to teach you about banking and the Federal Reserve System, to teach you about how Wikipedia works, and to edit Wikipedia myself. If you don't want to accept my teaching -- sorry, but that's too bad. The old "Federal Reserve System is private" rhetoric-ranting-raving-crapola is just that -- it's crap. It's posted in talk pages all the time. The hidden, unstated crapola message that is usually intended is something like this: "The Federal Reserve System is bad...wahhhhhhhhh.... it's not faaaiirrrr....". Well, that's too bad. This talk page is not the proper place for that.

Please notice that in none of this post have I engaged in a personal attack against you. My comments are about what was posted -- what you wrote -- not about you personally. (Also, your personal attack against me was deleted by another editor.) Please review the rules of Wikipedia, and conform yourself thereto. And, if you don't want other Wikipedia editors to bring up their credentials and throw them in your face, don't engage in personal attacks. Famspear (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve Bank of New Yorks position, STATED IN COURT, is that it is a private corporation. I would think that that Reserve Bank of New York knows what it is talking about, especially if the person making that statement is under oath and is facing perjury charges. And what is your point about the Board of Governors and the Open Market Committee. One is a part of the other. Exactly like high corporate officials (CEO, CFO, etc) can be members of a corporations Board of Directors alongside outside directors. 71.174.141.198 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear IP 71.174.141.198: We've already been though this: The twelve regional banks (umm..... that includes the New York bank!) are NOT considered part of the United States government for some legal purposes. As I have already explained, the regional banks are categorized as being somewhere in between (see below). So, you're agreeing with me. This point -- which seems soooooo important to people who just hate the Federal Reserve System -- has been covered in the talk pages of various Wikipedia articles related to the Federal Reserve SYSTEM over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Wikipedia regulars (myself and others) have been explaining this to newcomers over and over and over and over for years. You are not telling anyone anything new. We're not here on this talk page to express our own critiques and feelings about the Federal Reserve System. We're here to improve an article that includes OTHER PEOPLE'S critiques of the Federal Reserve System.

Here's some more information, copied from my own user page:

Some critics of the Federal Reserve System cite the 1982 case of Lewis v. United States for the proposition that the Federal Reserve System is "private" -- as a critique of the System. They usually don't bother to explain why "private" is somehow bad, but the underlying theory is that the Federal Reserve System is secretly owned by evil, international banksters who control the System behind the scenes to their own benefit, and to the detriment of the American people. The use of the Lewis case involves the false contention that because the member banks (e.g., Wells Fargo, Bank of America, etc.) "own" stock in an applicable Federal Reserve bank, the owners or managers of the member banks must somehow control the Federal Reserve SYSTEM as a whole.

However, the Lewis case involved the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, not the Federal Reserve System as a whole. Further, the ruling of the Court in Lewis involved interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). In that case, the Court stated that for purposes of the FTCA (allowing certain lawsuits against government entities), "the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations..." The Court stated: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region." The Court further stated: "The Banks are listed neither as 'wholly owned' government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as 'mixed ownership' corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856...." However, the Court also contrasted the status of the Reserve Banks under the FTCA with its status under various other Federal laws, and went on to say: "The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a 'public official' under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting 'for or on behalf of the Government.'" Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982), at [5]. The Court also noted that under the decision in Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), "a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351...." Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court also noted: "The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation." Id.

Now, please move on to some concrete suggestions on how to improve the article. Famspear (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I am referring to the Bloomberg news service Freedom of Information case in which the Federal Reserve Bank of New York stated in court that they were a private corporation and not a part of the US government and thus were not subject to Freedom of Information requests. If I remember correctly the court ruled that this was so, but when the information request was for work directly authorized and requested by the US government, the Freedom of Information Act was applicable. The Bank itself said it a private corporation and so did the court. 71.174.141.198 (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

And, just to be clear: A statement that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private corporation is not a criticism of the Federal Reserve System. By contrast, if you could find a reliable, previously published third party source that says: "The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private corporation and that means that the Federal Reserve System as a whole is bad because [insert explanation of the reason here]", THAT might a criticism of the Federal Reserve, and THAT might be something that could be included in the article. Famspear (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

PS: At the expense of appearing to beat a dead horse, I'll go a step further: A statement that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private corporation is not a critique of the Federal Reserve System or of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Such a statement is not a "critique" of anything. It's just a statement that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private corporation. It happens to be a correct statement in some contexts, and it happens to be misleading in other contexts, but it is not a CRITICISM of anything. Famspear (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What is a criticism is that the Regional Banks are misleading people into thinking that they are government institutions in order to amass great wealth and power. The Federal Reserve BANKS own at least $4 billion is US debt (which may or may not include all that mortgage debt as well) alongside an unknown amount of other asssets. THAT is a fortune in anyones book.

BTW: if it is not a criticism, why are you guys wasting space in the article for it, while deleting material which actually is a criticism, such as its unconstitutionality, causing the inflation and recession of 1920, the stagflation of the 70's, the crash of 87, the stock market bubble of 2000, and not least AT ALL, debasing the US dollar so that it has lost over 95% of its purchasing power since the Fed came into existence. If you don't think that the last is a criticism, you haven't been paying much attention to the Chinese who are actively engaging in activities to replace the US dollar from their international trade after repeatedly complaining that bad monetary policy is putting the dollars remaining value at risk.71.174.141.198 (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 71.174.141.198: Yeah, at least $4 billion. I don't know where your figures come from, but as of September 30, 2013, the 12 regional banks owned about $2.2 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities and about $1.38 trillion in Federal agency and government sponsored enterprise mortgage backed securities. That's quite a lot more than $4 billion. And the total assets are not "unknown" except, apparently, to you. If you had bothered to actually look at the financial statements, you would know that as of September 30, 2013, the total assets of the 12 regional banks were about $3,742,129,000,000 -- that's about $3.7 trillion. It's not some sort of deep, dark secret. It's "unknown" to you only if you don't bother to look it up.

You don't need to worry about whether the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional. That's the job of the courts, whenever someone litigates that issue. (By the way, I believe that issue may have already been litigated and decided.) If a reliable, previously published third party source asserts that the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional, that could be a criticism. It's not your place as a Wikipedia editor to make that critique. Same for all your other comments about inflation, recession, stagflation, the Chinese, the monetary policy, etc., etc., etc

Wikipedia is not a weblog. It's not a place for you to bring what you desperately feel is The Truth to the rest of us, the supposedly ignorant, uninformed masses. Try to focus on the rules of Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your numbers are dated. Whatever you seem to think, the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks have gone up to over 4 trillion since your dated numbers. The Federal Reserve sez so itself http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/ Now don't you feel a bit foolish?

And again these are assets that they are required to report. The Federal reserve banks are not required to report on everything they own. That everything can and does include property and wholly or partially owned subsidiaries.

As for its constitutionality, it is plainly unconstitutional on 2 grounds, the first is that the Founding Fathers stripped the power to "issue" paper money from the new Constitution on the grounds that merely forbidding the making of paper money a legal tender was 'insufficient" protection from the evils of paper money. The second is that the money is now issued by private organizations knows as the Federal Reserve Regional Banks.and the courts have ruled that the Federal government has no authority to offload its powers to a private corporation or corporations. Assuming the Federal government had the power to issue money in the first place, which it does not since that power was specifically removed from a listing of its powers, then it cannot offload those powers to a private corporation. Saying that it can is like saying a judge can offload his powers to the police. Powers have been granted to government officials sorely for their exercise.and the courts have so ruled. In short the power to issue money was removed from the Federal government, and even assuming it was not, then the power cannot be moved from those authorized to exercise it to another entity.

As for the rest of my complaints they are criticism of the Fed made repeatedly by many people. The Chinese for instance number well over 1 trillion people, and THEIR government is working to replace the US dollar in international trade. Their complaint being that monetary mismanagement in the US puts the value of the US dollar at risk. That monetary mismanagement consists of Federal Reserve money printing.71.174.141.129 (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

btw: I have in fact provided links to reliable third party sources to all of those criticisms, references such a Milton Friedman above, but for some strange reason the opinion of the top US economist on what the Fed has done and whether it should be abolished just can't seem to make it into wikipedia. I wonder if some Federal Reserve linked individual(s) are working "content control" on the article. Yup! I wonder! But not much!71.174.141.129 (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear IP 71.174.141.129L: They're not "my numbers". They're the figures from the Federal Reserve System as of September 30, 2013. And yes, they're dated -- as of September 30, 2013, as I clearly stated in my post. The total asset figure goes up and down every day. Today is December 30, 2013 -- almost three months after September 30, 2013. Who told you that the figures wouldn't change from day to day?

Now, don't you "feel foolish"?

The rest of your post is the usual unsourced anti-Federal Reserve System ranting.

Oh, yes, there are "Federal Reserve linked individuals" working "content control" on the article! And they're invisible, and they're watching you every minute, and they're hiding under your bed at night! Famspear (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Poor baby back to damage control mode. I said the Fed had over 4 trillion in assets that it reported, you came back with dated numbers and bashed me to hell and gone for being wrong. Then I posted a link to recent numbers showing that you were blowing smoke out of your ass, and now you deny that they are your numbers. Face it bucko, you posted those numbers and for purposed of this discussion they are in fact YOUR numbers. Not only because you posted them but also because you made such a big stink using them.

As for constitutionality, the main article refers to this article for information on the constitutional questions regarding the Federal reserve. The main article recognizes that this is an issue, why don't you and where have you been to miss such an obvious fact? the main article refers to this article for more information and expects it to be here, if it is not here then someone is practicing content control.

Now back to my question is Ron Paul and his writings and speeches a reliable source? You know that there long serving US Representative, spokesman for the conservative end of the Republican spectrum, candidate for president, and arguably founder of a political dynasty. The question here is simple is he a reliable source or is he not a reliable source?71.174.141.129 (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear IP 71.174.141.129: No. Your IP address changes slightly from time to time, but from the address "IP71.174.141.198" on December 25th, you wrote: "The Federal Reserve BANKS own at least $4 billion is [sic] US debt", right here: [6]. That is an exact quote. I responded with this: "Yeah, at least $4 billion. I don't know where your figures come from, but as of September 30, 2013, the 12 regional banks owned about $2.2 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities and about $1.38 trillion in Federal agency and government sponsored enterprise mortgage backed securities." See [7]. I'm the one who did the correcting, not you. It wasn't until much later that you found a web page on the Fed's web site with figures from December 25 or 26. Then, you tried to make a big deal about the fact that you were using more recent figures than the officially published figures from September 30th. Whoopee! Look, everything you post here is a matter of record, and it's preserved in chronological order. I corrected you, and that upset you. Now you're trying to do "damage control." And YOU'RE the one making a "big stink." Well, boo-hoo! Do your homework next time!

To answer your question about Ron Paul, I think Ron Paul might be a source for critiques of the Federal Reserve System. However, his understanding of how the System works may be weak. Ron Paul is a medical doctor and probably a good one, but I know for a fact that his understanding of things like tax law is not (or, in the past, has not been) very good. I'm not sure about his understanding of banking. These are technical subjects that take years to master. Other editors may have a different view about Ron Paul. I would definitely not consider Ron Paul a reliable source for information on how the Federal Reserve System works, or how banking works. Famspear (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and as for constitutionality, as noted elsewhere, my comments were not about the discussion in the main article. My comments were about your unsourced ranting on this talk page.

I never said that people have not been questioning the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve System. Here are my exact words in my post on this very page, on December 25th: "You don't need to worry about whether the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional. That's the job of the courts, whenever someone litigates that issue. (By the way, I believe that issue may have already been litigated and decided.)" So, when you imply that I don't recognize that as an issue, you are wrong again. How is it that "missed such an obvious fact"?

Uh, and yes, I and other Wikipedia editors are practicing content control. Duhhh.... That's our job. But "content control" does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean suppressing what you believe is The Truth. You are obviously here on a mission to "educate" everyone about the evil, mean ol', bad ol' Federal Reserve System. I and other Wikipedia editors are here to edit Wikipedia according to the established rules. Famspear (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

collapse soapbox
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lending printed money I have 2 objections to Fed which i dont see anywhere: 1. Fed represents the banks not the citizens. World wide governments have a central bank that regulates financial policies - in the interest of the citizens - this banks have as purpose to protect the citizens, how to help the government to implement its policies for the benefit of its citizens. World wide - governments have a central bank that protects citizens against bank abuses while in US then banks are making their own policies. This is absurd. 2. Fed lends printed money to gov. World wide governments do print their own money. This produces inflation. But when gov dont want inflation, they borrow money from the market - this produces debt. In US - gov is borrowing printed money - which produces both inflation and debt. And is making the bankers behind fed - very rich. This is absurd - gov should print its own money and not pay interest for money that are just printed. I think those 2 are the biggest issues with fed. Is it ok to put them in the main article pls? I dont know exactly how to do it but will learn how to if you guys think is ok to put them in the main article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.162.55 (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Dear IP 79.113.162.55: Well, that's not the role of Wikipedia. You as an editor cannot use the article to show your own objections to or criticisms of the Federal Reserve System. Look for criticisms made by OTHER people -- by previously published third party sources. There are also some errors in your material. For example, Federal Reserve notes are physically printed by the U.S. government (by a unit in the Department of the Treasury), not by the Federal Reserve System. And Federal Reserve notes represent liabilities owed by the Federal Reserve banks, not assets "loaned" by the Fed. Think of it this way: When you borrow money from someone, you sign a promissory note, a piece of paper. That piece of paper says that you are making a promise to pay a debt that you owe. It's not something you are "loaning" to someone else. You're the one doing the borrowing, not the other person. Same thing with a Federal Reserve note, which is similar to a promissory note issued by a Federal Reserve bank. The bank is not "loaning" money; the bank is incurring a liability. And that's how Federal Reserve notes are shown on the audited financial statements of the Federal Reserve banks -- as liabilities owed by the banks. My explanation is a bit simplified, but it sounds as though the material you've been reading about the Federal Reserve System contains errors and misconceptions. Famspear (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Ta Famspear. Will try to understand what you said. Could you simplify it even more? I know is not your business - only if you would like :). What about the fact that fed (as the regulatory body of banking system) represents the interest of banks not the interests of citizens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.162.55 (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Ps - will create an account, but until then pls call me Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.162.55 (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Dear IP79.113.162.55 or Alex: If you can locate an example of a previously published, reliable, third party source that states, as a criticism of the Federal Reserve System, that the Fed represents in the interests of banks and not the interests of citizens, that might be an example of something for the article. The key here is that it has to be a critique by a reliable, previously published third party source -- not a critique by you yourself as a Wikipedia editor. Famspear (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Dear Famspear I am sure wikipedia must have policies that allow truths to exist in its pages without being quoted. I really hope so. The fact that fed is a private bank is known beyond controversy. Being private bank - it protects its investors interests. What is to be said here? It is obvious that as in any company the shareholders will look after their financial interests not after regular citizens. It does not need to be demonstrated or even said that fed is looking after bank interests and not after citizens interests. The citizens elect their representatives in a democracy by voting and by voting financial policies. In the fed there is no input from the citizens. Fed is outside democracy. Fed protects first the interests of banks then the interests of citizens - this is real criticism and does not need to be quoted. If you need to be a scientist to see this then i am sorry for this world and for anyone who using any kind of arguments stand in the way of ppl saying it - as in this instance it could be you staying in the way of me posting this criticism on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.162.55 (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Dear Alex/IP79.113.162.55: No one said anything about "quoting." The rule in Wikipedia is that you must use reliable, previously published third party sources. Wikipedia is not here for you to publish your own criticisms, no matter how strongly you feel you are right. You are going to have to follow the rules, whether you like it or not. No, "the Fed" is not a "private" bank. We've been through this on this talk page a thousand times. "The Fed" is a term generally meaning the Federal Reserve System. The SYSTEM is composed partially of "private" banks -- called "member banks" -- such as Wells Fargo, and of 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, and of various governmental bodies. If you were to state, in the article, that the Federal Reserve System is a "private bank," you would be wrong. And further, the statement that the Fed is a "private bank" in and of itself would not even qualify as a criticism. Mind your manners. Neither I nor anyone else here needs you to lecture us about the Federal Reserve System. Famspear (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Is it ok if i use wikipedia statements to prove my points? It says in wikipedia on the fed (pls allow me to call it fed - is shorter) page that it is independent (not governmental - not democratic - it is not an institution belonging to the people) And questioning does not means lack of manners. you can reply or not that is up to you. lack of manners means calling questioning lack of manners. i asked you to reply only politely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.162.55 (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Dear Alex/IP79.113.162.55: Well, to the extent that such a discussion is appropriate in Wikipedia, it would be better to do that on your own talk page. I left a message for you there. I'm not sure that providing a place for you to "prove your points" about what you believe about the Federal Reserve System is the appropriate function of Wikipedia, though. Famspear (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks Famspear i will have a look in a mo. But just what concerns this page - assumming we agree that fed represents private interests (thus not citizens interests) would that be a fair criticism by itself against fed that can stand in this page by its own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.162.55 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Well, we're not here to determine whether a given criticism is fair or not, and we're not here to insert our own criticisms. Let us assume for the sake of argument that "the Fed" somehow represents "private" interests and not the interests of "citizens," and let us also assume for the sake of argument that such a statement is a "criticism" that is "fair." That in and of itself would not justify putting the statement in the Wikipedia article. Again, the issue is not what you and I believe to be fair criticisms. Wikipedia rules do not allow us as editors to use Wikipedia to show our own criticisms of a subject. We're here to report what reliable, previously published third party sources have written. You and I are not third party sources; we're just Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia articles are not weblogs that editors can use to insert their beliefs -- even if those beliefs are "true." Famspear (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Does the fact that private organizations take care of their own interests first and only then do they take care of third parties (citizens) interests - needs references to have a wikipedia page? It is stated into their internal statuses - they have a financial purpose and function to accomplish it trough competition and other means. The private institutions forming the fed will take care of their own interest (as stated in their declarations of functioning ) not other ppls interests. As many private institutions form the fed - as many institutions will not care (or not in the first instance care) about citizens interests. Taking each commercial bank (that forms the fed) declaration of functioning (or what that is called in english - pls correct me), that is prof that they do not function for the citizens. If i will search for the list of banks that make the fed and get their functioning declaration. Will this be valid criticism? It is written in their declaration that they dont work for the citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.162.55 (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Hey Famspear - i just recovered my account - pls refer to that for the discussion about the lending printed money. I am not sure i am technically right about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextoader (talk • contribs) 18:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC) PS: To answer a question posed above: No, a statement in the "declaration" of a bank (whatever that means) that the bank "does not function for the citizens" would not, strictly speaking, be a criticism of the bank. If a reliable, previously published third party source critiques a bank because, according to the source (or even according to the bank itself) the bank does not "function for the citizens", that could be a criticism of the bank. However, it is not the job of a Wikipedia editor to go out looking for published statements by a bank -- whether found in a bank's "declaration" or elsewhere -- and then to come up with the editor's own criticism, even if the criticism is based on the bank's own statements. Such an effort would possibly be prohibited Original Research as defined in Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC) I am not making a criticism to a bank (not sure where you saw that). It is wrong to have private institutions governing themselves in a matter of public interest. It would be like road companies would have a body outside government that would decide alone what roads needs to be build using citizens money. Would they build roads for the citizens or for their private interest? It would be like legal system would have a body outside government that would decide which people needs to be in jail and for how long and do all this using public money. Democracy means that the power belong to the poeple - they decide torugh government which they choose trough voting. Fed is outside democracy. Pls tell me which of the following phrases needs to be referenced in order to appear in wikipedia? 1. Is it questionable that private interests governing themselves will govern in their own (declared) interest? (hint - no). 2. It is questionable that fed is made out of private institutions? (any will suffice but we have no more or no less as they are) (hint - no). 3. Therfore is it questionable that the private institutions that participate to build the fed (no more or no leess) will govern for their own (declared) interest? (hint - no). 4. Is it a criticism to the regulatory body in the banking and financial system of a country to be made out of (any - no more or no less) private institutions that will try to govern for their own private interest? (hint - yes) The above is like: a. does 2+2=4? b. does 4+4=8? c. then is it true that if we have 8 is larger than 4? Do we need a refference to make a wikipedia page that says that 8 is greater than 4? No. Please do not deviate and say which of the 1,2,3,4 are false because they are not and if nobody can prove they are then this should be in the article as an obvious fact that it is. Alextoader (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Private institutions forming the Federal Reserve will work to accomplish their private interests before public interests

I am making this new paragraph as somebody deleted a talk section. I am discussing here things so i dont put them in the main article. I am asking reasonable questions and I am ready to admit i am wrong. Please stop deleting discussions and let us build wikipedia.

It is a criticism to the Federal Reserve System the fact that the private institutions forming the Federal Reserve will work to accomplish their private interests before public interests.

This is obvious but it can be extended to a full logical syllogism.

First syllogism.

1. It is a fact that private organizations will act in their own (declared) private interest. (in our case - banks will work to make more proffit)
2. Federal Reserve System is made out of some private institutions (banks).
3. Conclusion - some organizations (the private ones) that made the Federal Reserve will act in their own (declared) private interest.

Second syllogism.

1. There is a firm distinction between private interest and public (general) interest.
2. Some organizations that made the Federal Reserve will act in their own (declared) private interest. (the conclusion of the first syllogism).
3. Conclusion - Some organizations that made the Federal Reserve (the private ones) will not act for the public interest. (but will work to make more proffit).

Syllogisms are logical constructions that allow us to make deductions which - if all the phrases that build the syllogism are correct, then the conclusion is mathematically correct. Logically correct conclusions can stay in wikipedia as any logical conclusion - are they? Espechially obvious ones?

Who is deleting sections of talk page please stop doing it.Alextoader (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Bluntly, this is pure synthesis and not permitted. This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. You've been told this several times by Famspear. Please READ the linked article on synthesis and why it cannot be used. Ravensfire (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I contest why you deleted this post. It is not doubled - it is an improved version. Also pls tell me where i can report your behaviour - it looks to me you are keeping this section in a very bad shape intentionally. You are hiding/deleting valid criticism and keeping the other funny criticism. Also i want to ask somebody else - other established wikipedia editors if is ok to post valid syllogisms. Any idea where can i find such editors?Alextoader (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As i dont know who to ask for help i asked here: syllogism. Please do not remove this section as it is linked there so other people see the syllogism and help mediating this. Alextoader (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alextoader, I noticed your post on the Syllogism talk page but as Ravensfire indicated, I think the issue is more a question of WP:SYN: the entire contents of both premises in the first argument and the first premise of the second would all need to be drawn from exactly the same source.

Given those citations the following syllogisms, for example, would then be verifiable in a straight-forward way:

First syllogism.

1. Private organizations sometimes act in their own interest.
2. Some parts of the Federal Reserve System are private organizations.
3. Therefore, some parts of the Federal Reserve System sometimes act in their own interest.

Second syllogism.

1. Acting in one's own interest may differ from acting in the public interest.
2. Some parts of the Federal Reserve System sometimes act in their own interest.
3. Therefore, the actions of some parts of the Federal Reserve System may sometimes differ from those parts (if any) acting in the public interest.

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Machine Elf for helping improve this syllogism.
I understand that according with the rules of wikipedia - it is unsurced. I will try to find some publications that will publish the criticism (or the premises) so we can just quote it here. (Everyone who reads this is welcome to try). Publications or specialists in echonomics - proffessors etc.
Because this is true. It is a criticism for the banking system of america to be controlled by... the banks in the interests of the banks. The banking system needs to be regulated by a body that functions in the interest of the citizens 100%.
I hope this section wont be deleted as i think is the closest this article gets to a criticism to Federal Reserve System. Alextoader (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Also i think this is a fresh topic and is possible other ppl to want to contribute, what is the hurry to close it? I propose to leave it open for a few more days - maybe a week. Alextoader (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, no. Wikipedia is not a forum where you can discuss your personal views. The talk page is for improving the article and your personal view is totally unsourced. This has been explained to you. There are plenty of forums where you can discuss this, but please, not here. I will be closing this again shortly. Ravensfire (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Creating Bubbles and economic destortions

Easy money policies leading to bubbles and misallocation of capital Especially like "Every time the Fed steps in… money gets misallocated and trouble follows."

http://hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc140407.htm

The tortured narrative of these efforts should be obvious. As Fred Hickey of the High Tech Strategist observed last week, “After the tech bubble broke, the Fed jumped in to save the markets and economy with a period of extraordinarily low interest rates, which then led to the gross malinvestment in the housing sector (another bubble) and the misallocation of capital in the credit markets. The housing bubble imploded first, and the credit markets followed, leading to one of the worst financial crises in US history in 2008. Once again, the Fed stepped in to save the markets and the economy, this time with really free money (0% short-term interest rates for almost six years and counting) as well as trillions of dollars in outright money printing. Every time the Fed steps in… money gets misallocated and trouble follows.”

Some of the misallocations noted by Hickey include the Fed-enabled runup in the national debt to $17.57 trillion, the surge in global debt issuance to $100 trillion, up from $70 trillion at the mid-2007 peak, the suspension of any need to address unfunded entitlement liabilities, a doubling of the student loan burden, record highs in subprime auto lending, soaring corporate borrowing – partly to buy back stock at inflated valuations (notes Hickey, “as they always tend to do at market tops”) and partly to prop up sagging per-share earnings, a record $465.7 billion in margin debt, more initial public offerings in Q1 than at any point since the 2000 bubble peak, and a litany of other speculative outcomes.71.174.141.129 (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

JP Morgan's influence on the Panic of 1907

Theres nothing on the possibility that JP Morgan used his tremendous influence to cause the Panic of 1907 in attempt to force the creation of a central bank. If anyone can possibly research this and confirm, please do so. My source is the documentary "Zeitgeist" by Peter Joseph, who has also stated his sources. I cannot reach these at the moment as I am not at my computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.5.106.14 (talk) 18 April 2011‎

I have also run across sources that claim that Morgan caused the pain of 1907 in order to create an environment supportive of a national bank like the Federal Reserve. Claims have been also made that President Wilson was forgiven a debt of $50,000 by the bankers to sign off on the Federal Reserve Act - which he campaigned against. Wiki editors will of course consider them unreliable and unusable but that does not make then untrue.71.174.141.129 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)