The "Independent" Fed Admits The Truth

The Market Ticker ^ | 1/22/2011 | Karl Denninger

[FromLori]

It is not independent, it is an arm of Treasury.

Everything you were told was a scam and a lie - yet another time for

But the new rules have slowly begun to catch the attention of market analysts. Many are at once surprised that the Fed can set its own guidelines, and also relieved that the remote but dangerous possibility that the world's most powerful central bank might need to ask the U.S. Treasury or its member banks for money is now more likely to be averted.

The change essentially allows the Fed to denote losses by the various regional reserve banks that make up the Fed system as a liability to the Treasury rather than a hit to its capital. It would then simply direct future profits from Fed operations toward that liability.

Got it?

Independent monetary authority my ass.

Function follows form. Anyone who believes that The Fed is independent after this charade, which incidentally it did on its own (and that, by itself, is cute - The Fed's "balance sheets" would never have passed examination under GAAP) has rocks in their head.

The simple fact of the matter is this - The Fed is out of bullets and they know it. They've driven rates to zero but still can't get beyond the premium demanded for loans, and the fact that cash flow is insufficient to meet service requirements. This is why the shift has taken place to the Government, which (thus far) has been able to keep borrowing and borrowing, since nobody is (yet) questioning whether the government will be able to meet the cash flow.

The key there is "yet."

Treasury, for its part, is worried too. They should be.

In his January 6, 2011 letter urging that Congress act to protect America’s creditworthiness by increasing the statutory debt limit, Secretary Geithner made clear that any default on legal debt obligations of the U.S. would be unthinkable. In response, Members of Congress of both parties have indicated agreement that the United States must honor its obligations. However, Treasury disagrees with suggestions by some that Congress could somehow evade this responsibility by passing legislation to “prioritize” payments on the national debt above other legal obligations of the United States.

Uh huh.

Guess what Timmy? Most of what The United States spends money on is not a legal obligation.

Oh sure, some of it is. Salaries for our servicemembers, for example. They worked, they're owed. Legally. That's a legal obligation. Debt service (interest) is a legal obligation.

Social Security and Medicare are not. Nor are farm subsidies, Department of Education meddling, and, incidentally, while your salary Timmy is for work you've already done, Congress can de-fund your position and reduce your salary for future work to one penny.

If they did, you'd be overpaid.

The simple solution to the "Debt Ceiling" is to spend only what you take in via taxes.

That means no more debt is required.

And yes, I'm well-aware that it also means a 43% (roughly) immediate cut in Federal Spending.

I assert that such a cut can be made without impinging on one dollar of actual legal obligation of The United States.

Stop lying Neal, and tell your boss Timmy that we know he's lying too.

[TruthConquers]

For a bank apologist, you don’t answer questions very well.

I say he was lying. Period. And Ben Bernank, JP Morgue, Turbo Tax Timmy and all the rest KNOW they are lying as well.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Federal Reserve is owned by its shareholders, the member banks.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

Prove it.

To maintain the illusion

LOL! $78.4 billion is a pretty powerful illusion.

I defined the term

No you didn't.

while the indirect profits it makes for its member owners by implementation of its unchecked and uncontrolled policies are retained by those banks.

See, that's not a definition.

What conspiracy website or "idiot" did I cite?

You didn't cite any source for your silly claim. Feel free to cite one that proves your claim.

[Toddsterpatriot]

For a clown, you don't know very much.

I say he was lying. Period.

That means a lot to me.

[DuncanWaring]

So it’s privately owned but it’s not a private institution?

[Oatka]

>They keep allocating profits until it does.<

A noble intention, but my argument is what if they never do? Is the Fed that great a money-making enterprise (for other than the owners)? :-)

[Toddsterpatriot]

So it’s privately owned

No.

[Toddsterpatriot]

A noble intention, but my argument is what if they never do?

What if they never do? If they hold their bonds long enough, they all mature at face value.

[TruthConquers]

For a troll, you know nothing.

[The Comedian]

Yes, it is.

The Federal Reserve Act requires national banks and participating state banks to purchase shares of their regional Federal Reserve Bank upon joining the System, thereby becoming "member banks" (12 USCA 282). No Fed stock has ever been purchased by a public, non-bank entity.

100% of the Fed stock is owned by member banks. Government agencies do not offer "stock". Ergo, member banks own the Fed by virtue of their stock holdings.

Now, it is up to you to explain how a government agency can sell stock in itself.

And again, you need to explain how you fail to understand why citing the definition of the Fed as supplied by the Fed is different from citing the Democrat Party to define the Democrat Party.

I don't know if it's willful misdirection because you're a shill, grotesque and persistent ignorance, or some sort of chemical imbalance you're suffering from.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[DuncanWaring]

In Post 3 you laughed (and I quote ... “LOL!”) at the idea that the Fed is not privately owned.

Now you say yourself that it’s not privately owned.

Consistency is apparently not one of your stronger traits.

[Toddsterpatriot]

100% of the Fed stock is owned by member banks. Government agencies do not offer "stock".

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

[Toddsterpatriot]

In Post 3 you laughed (and I quote ... “LOL!”) at the idea that the Fed is not privately owned.

The original poster recently had a thread recommending we sue the nasty private Federal Reserve. Now she posts a thread complaining the Fed is an arm of the Treasury. It is her consistency I was chuckling at in post #3.

[The Comedian]

You continuously fail to answer very simple and specific questions. If I need to use smaller words or bigger pictures, please say so. This is becoming quite frustrating, as I am not used to teaching remedial logic or fundamental economics.

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

Your assertions,regardless of how shrill you are when you present them, are unsupported by the facts.

Here, allow me to present my question, again. Read it out loud if it helps:

The Federal Reserve Act requires national banks and participating state banks to purchase shares of their regional Federal Reserve Bank upon joining the System, thereby becoming "member banks" (12 USCA 282). No Fed stock has ever been purchased by a public, non-bank entity.

100% of the Fed stock is owned by member banks. Government agencies do not offer "stock". Ergo, member banks own the Fed by virtue of their stock holdings.

Now, it is up to you to explain how a government agency can sell stock in itself.

The clock is a' tickin', shill.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your assertions,regardless of how shrill you are when you present them, are unsupported by the facts.

My assertions? In case you forgot, the passage I keep posting is from the Fed's own website. If you have any facts that prove otherwise, please be sure to provide them.

Government agencies do not offer "stock".

Unless it's "an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects".

Ergo, member banks own the Fed by virtue of their stock holdings.

Can member banks keep the $78.4 billion the Fed earned after expenses last year? Why not?

The clock is a' tickin', shill.

If you say so, clown.

[The Comedian]

In case you forgot, the passage I keep posting is from the Fed's own website

Yes, that's my point.

Can you please explain to us how citing the Fed to describe the Fed is any different than citing the Democrat Party to describe the Democrat Party?

Your credibility, and paycheck, is on the line here Timmy. I mean Todders.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can you please explain to us how citing the Fed to describe the Fed is any different than citing the Democrat Party to describe the Democrat Party?

We can prove the Democrat claims are false. I'm still waiting for you to do the same for the Fed.

[Lurker]

Can member banks keep the $78.4 billion the Fed earned after expenses last year? Why not?

Because the game is rigged. That's why.

[The Comedian]

We can prove the Democrat claims are false. I'm still waiting for you to do the same for the Fed.

No son, you're confused. Or uneducated. Or both.

We're waiting for you to prove that the Fed's claims about itself, which you have personally endorsed, are *true*.

See, this is why I don't teach basic logic any longer. The fundamentals are too obvious, and neophytes are too frustrating to try to educate. It is not up to me to prove your negative. Here, let's start from the very simple beginning. Again. (Sigh):

The Federal Reserve Act requires national banks and participating state banks to purchase shares of their regional Federal Reserve Bank upon joining the System, thereby becoming "member banks" (12 USCA 282). No Fed stock has ever been purchased by a public, non-bank entity.

100% of the Fed stock is owned by member banks. Government agencies do not offer "stock". Ergo, member banks own the Fed by virtue of their stock holdings.

Slowly. Read it S L O W L Y.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Toddsterpatriot]

We're waiting for you to prove that the Fed's claims about itself, which you have personally endorsed, are *true*.

I'm waiting for you to prove them false.

It is not up to me to prove your negative.

Prove your own claim.

100% of the Fed stock is owned by member banks.

Yes.

Government agencies do not offer "stock".

Except the Fed.

Ergo, member banks own the Fed by virtue of their stock holdings.

Fed stock is not like stock in IBM.

[Lurker]

How much do these ‘shares’ cost? Where are these ‘shares’ traded? If they can’t be owned by anyone but a member bank how can they be considered ‘shares’ in any sense of the word?

Can member banks trade or sell these shares to each other?