Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by veidelis | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

veidelis

Is it true that selected group of people can buy shares in Fed?

View on HN

The Fed is quasi-private so yes you can

Not at all.

Here's a quote from the Kansas City Fed webpage [1]

  Who owns the Federal Reserve?
  The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

[1] https://www.kansascityfed.org/about-us/frequently-asked-ques...

They are owned by it's member banks.

The member banks are most certainly for-profit.

Those member banks are in turn owned through a web of funds and trusts by individuals.

Do you really think these institutions exists for the good of the people? They exist to control the people by controlling the availability of credit, which is the main driver of the artificial boom-bust economic cycle.

This is a fairly widespread misconception. It needs to be dispelled.

The member banks do formally own "stock" in the Federal Reserve, but this stock does not confer any ownership rights.

From Wikipedia [1]

  The amount of stock a member bank must own is equal to 3% of its combined capital and surplus. However, holding stock in a Federal Reserve bank is not like owning stock in a publicly traded company. These stocks cannot be sold or traded, and member banks do not control the Federal Reserve Bank as a result of owning this stock.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#Member_banks

Voting rights. Influence. Nothing more is even required. The governance by committee results in de-facto control by the biggest stake-holders -- the biggest banks, who are controlled by their private share-holders. It's just a smoke-screen. Also those are not very reliable sources on this topic. Wikipedia is run by an e-beggar and edited by seo farm workers. For a good comparable to the PR website referenced why don't we ask the CCP if they are democratic and government for their people? Let's check their own website?

> Voting rights.

Citation needed. Or rather, it's not needed. The Federal Reserve Board has 7 members, all nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with a term of 14 years [1]. All the decisions of the Federal Reserve Board are taken by a vote of these members only. The record of the votes is public, and available at [2].

> Influence.

This is quite an unfalsifiable statement, isn't it? I claim that the Knights Templars have lots of influence with the Fed, can you refute that? In any case, influence has nothing to do with legal ownership, which was the thing we were arguing about. My first quotation was straight from the Kansas City Fed webpage, and states clearly that the Fed is not owned by anybody. The legal act behind the Fed is the Federal Reserve Act, which you can peruse at your leisure [3]. It will just confirm that. Or is that not reliable? Is the Constitution reliable, or maybe it's on par with the publications of the CCP?

[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/board/defaul...

[2] https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/boardvotes.htm

[3] https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fract.htm

I find the video associated with Ron Paul's tweet to be very informational on this subject.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ronpaul/status/106601525488535552...

The Federal Reserve isn't "federal" and it has no "reserves."

Is it a public institution? No... Is it private? No again... Is it Constitutional? Absolutely not!...

I stopped watching the video after the guest stated that the Fed makes “counterfeit money”. This is deep into lala land.

Maybe he has issues with debt-to-GDP ratio, federal debt interest payments, bubble in derivatives or whatever. I'm sure there are many valid points of criticism and maybe the comparison “counterfeit money” is not a statement too far from reality. Why FED has not been audited is one thing to think about.

The Fed is audited [1]. I am personally not a fan of the Fed manipulating the money supply via the FOMC, in particular I consider them to be the main culprit in the 2008 crisis. But it's one thing to disagree with some of the Fed's actions, another to engage in delusions that the Fed is unconsitutitional or it issues "counterfeit" money. The Fed was created by an Act of the Congress. It cannot be any more legal than that. Asking the question "Who owns the Fed" is as meaningless as asking "Who owns the CDC".

[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12784.htm

I can't take your quotation seriously because, obviously FED "knows about the auditing issue", and there is a conflict of interest. The Fed was created by an Act of the Congress and a collusion. I believe Ron Paul thinks that the FED is engaging in actions that the congress has not given permission to do. Is that argument about FED creating money (purchasing assets) and not having permission by congress to do so? Is it stated somewhere that there are rights to "mint coin" and it is interpreted by the issuer in a way that "allows to add zeroes in a computer"? ...if you understand what I mean.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com