As He Clips Our Coins, Bernanke Steals A Page From Nero's Playbook

Forbes ^ | 9/25/2013 | Keith McCullough

[george76]

In 64 A.D., in a naïve attempt to deceive the populace, Nero decreased the silver content in the coins and made silver and gold coins slightly smaller ... central planners have been clipping coins and devaluing the The People’s hard-earned currency for at least two thousand years. The Roman Emperor Nero of course devalued the Roman currency for the first time in the Empire’s history. What was it that gave both the Roman and Ottoman Empires the audacity to plunder the purchasing power of their people?

After 200 years of operating as an independent bank, what made the British Empire so soft that it felt the need to socialize (nationalize) the Bank of England in 1946? What was the US “Free-Market” Empire and why have we empowered the Fed to change it?

If you disregard the vacuum of history in which Ben Bernanke thinks (the 1930s) and contextualize the moment his Fed currently occupies (within the construct of long-term history, which will ultimately judge Bernanke when he’s long gone), it’s getting scary again. But you probably already knew that. The sad thing is that some of his Fed heads do too.

On Monday, Dallas Fed Head Richard Fisher basically admitted two key things:

1.) The current White House Administration has politicized the US Federal Reserve.

2.) By not doing what they led the market to believe they would do (taper), the Fed is losing credibility

[Durus]

Now, when most people buy stock shares in a private company they may want to control or own the company and sometimes it's for capital gains or dividends. FRA Section 5 specifically forbids these goals...

The stock pays a 6% dividend per year by law.

... and the fact that Congress even retains control of management. The only reason banks buy shares is so they can "avail themselves of the advantages of this Act."

Each of the 12 regional bank districts is operated by a 9 member board of directors. 3 of the members are appointed by the board of governors of the FRB and 6 are elected by the member bank that own stock in the regional bank. Each District has at least one branch (most have multiple). Each branch also has a board of directors. The branch board of directors are appointed by both the FRB district bank (they appoint the majority) and the FRB board of governors (they appoint the remainder). These directors are involved in formulating monetary policy. While true that congress could over-rule anything the FED decides to do, it generally doesn't.

[expat_panama]

The stock pays a 6% dividend per year by law.

If you've got a link to that law please share, though what we're talking about is ownership that provides control.   Dividends don't constitute ownership and control; think-- savings bonds.

directors are involved in formulating monetary policy

Sort of.  What they do is participate in the activity of the setting of monetary policy (from here).  The FOMC makes policy.  If Congress doesn't like the FOMC's policy then they can abolish the Fed.  The stockholders have about as much control as someone who writes a crank email the the Fed -- which is yet another form of participation in the activity of the setting of monetary policy. 

[Durus]

If you've got a link to that law please share, though what we're talking about is ownership that provides control. Dividends don't constitute ownership and control; think-- savings bonds.

Here
The mention of the 6% dividend was in direct rebuttal of your comment that these weren't really stock because, in part, they didn't pay dividends.

The FOMC makes policy. If Congress doesn't like the FOMC's policy then they can abolish the Fed.

The FOMC is made up (in part) of 5 of the district bank presidents. Really it is 4 members plus the head of the NY FRB but that is neither here nor there. District bank presidents are elected by the district FRB bank's boards of directors. Recall that the majority of District bank boards are appointed by member banks ie: stock holders. In other words shareholders determine 5 of the 12 members of the FOMC.
Congress could abolish the FRB but the economic problems that would cause would be quite extreme. Much more likely is that Congress would legislate a change to any of the FRBs decisions that they don't like, but I am unable to find an instance where they have. What that means in reality, as opposed hypothetically, is the FRB sets monetary policy.

The stockholders have about as much control as someone who writes a crank email the Fed.

As 5 of the 12 directors that determine monetary policy are (indirectly) appointed by shareholders I believe this statement to be wildly erroneous.