Replies

Stating the FACT that the profits from the Fed are turned over to the Treasury is not an argument. It is the statement of a fact. I said almost 30 billion in interest was turned over in 2001. That may not be all the profit, I don't know. It is no secret that the Fed profit goes to Treasury. One would think that anyone interested in the Fed would know this.

I found that number on the web yesterday but forget where. You can find it if you are interested as I did.

How can I explain that transaction? It is a fact that the FEd does indeed deposit those profits with the Treasury. I have lots of facts.

The National Bank performed the functions of the Central Bank just as the Bank of England (very similiar to the National Bank of the US) performs those functions for Great Britain. I see little difference but the names. Though the National Bank kept the profit for its shareholders.

I have no idea what you are talking about I am merely explaining certain relevent facts about the operations of the Fed or trying to.

The National Bank performed the functions of the Central Bank just as the Bank of England (very similiar to the National Bank of the US) performs those functions for Great Britain. I see little difference but the names. Though the National Bank kept the profit for its shareholders.

We don't have a national bank. We have a central bank. The federal reserve is a central bank, not a national bank. Those are two different things. Not just different names. A central bank is a private corporation owned by memebers of the banking syustem. A national bank is owned by the governent. They are two different things. They can perform the same function (i.e. ISSUE CURRENCY), but they are different types of entities. "the bank of England" was a private central bank founded in 1688. It was nationalized in 1946. It is now a National Bank.