The political leaders use the Fed as cover. When things go bad they can always blame the fed. The political leaders are just as bad as the fed, maybe worse. Think of it this way, how would you like political parties controlling the money, thatâs scary. I honesty they both are blood suckers.
I apologize if I misled. That wasn't my intention. But I certainly wouldn't call it a "private bank", and in my opinion its purpose is so that banks are regulated versus regulators, rather than to enable some shadowy "elites" to "rule the world", which many conspiracy theorists seem to imply. Calling it a "private bank" is a much worse description -- being a "shareholder" in the Fed isn't like being a shareholder in AAPL -- than mine, which I admit is flawed. And I'm certainly not here to defend the Fed's actions, which (in my opinion) have been far less than optimal over the past 10 years. But you can all formulate your own opinions based on much more reliable sources than Internet blogs or ET. Sorry for helping to turn this thread into a pretty meaningless debate.
Hi, The underlaying question behind this thread is: ''who is better in ruling a central bank: (i) a greedy capitalist or (ii) a shitty politician. That's why I needed to know if there are more private central banks in the world. Regards
Hello Batman28, I am trying to help my girl-friend to devise her MA thesis. She studies economy. After I watched the movie that I posted in my first message I just thought that she could impress her professors with something like this: "State-owned private banks (cases: BundesBank of National Bank of XYZ contry) are contibuting better / worse than privately held central banks (cases: FED, Bank of ZYX country) to contry's economy''. I suspect her professors do not even realize that there are such entities as privately-owned central banks That is why I need some clever guys like you to tell me if there are more privately-held central banks in the world, so that she could show not only US based case. Thank you
I agree Aaron, there doesn't seem to be a viable alternative at the moment to the self serving banks and governments. Would you say that the burden of debt and interest on the taxpayer is a fair price to pay to protect the government? And isn't this an issue that deserves some public debate, especially in these times? AMT4SWA: I've seen 'Creature from Jekyll Island' referenced in 'Web of Debt', is it worth reading in accompaniment?
I remember an economics professor I had in college who fully supported the FED and the fiat currency system. A student in one of my courses argued that it was privately owned and the professor got his panties in a bunch. It's impossible to know who really owns it, but there are several sources that say its private shareholders are Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris; Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy; Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam; Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York; Chase Manhatten; and Goldman, Sachs of New York. It's really quite sad. The few people who understand what the FED is and does believe that it's a public entity.
I'm sure the professor is aware of the theory that the FED is privately owned. Unfortunately, with no way to prove it, how do you cite your sources? I'm afraid that if your girlfriend mentions that she believes the FED is private, she'll be kicked out of her class and called a kook.