Per Yurj sulla Federal Reserve Bank

[Amati75]

Yurj, qui ti posto un articolo che controbatte le toeire Cospiratrici su chi e' il "padrone" della banca federale degli USA.


"Who Owns the Federal Reserve?
by Edward Flaherty
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.

Who Owns and Controls the Federal Reserve?

by

Dr. Edward Flaherty University of Charleston

July 18, 1997

Is the Federal Reserve System secretly owned and covertly controlled by powerful foreign banking interests? If so, how? These claims, made chiefly by authors Eustace Mullins (1983) and Gary Kah (1991) and repeated by many others, are quite serious because the Fed is the United States central bank and controls U.S. monetary policy. By changing the supply of money in circulation, the Fed influences interest rates, affecting the mortgage payments of millions of families, causing the financial markets to boom or collapse, and prompting the economy to expand or to stumble into recession. Such awesome power presumably would be used to benefit the U.S. economy. Mullins and Kah both argued that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is owned by foreigners. Although the New York Fed is just one of twelve Federal Reserve banks, controlling it, they claimed, is tantamount to control of the entire System. Foreigners use their command of the New York Fed to manipulate U.S. monetary policy for their own and, as Kah asserted, to further their global political goals, namely the establishment of the sinister New World Order.

This essay examines the accuracy of these claims. Specifically, it investigates the charge that the New York Federal Reserve Bank is owned, directly or indirectly, by foreign elements, whether the New York Fed in effect runs the whole Federal Reserve System, and whether its enormous annual profits accrue primarily to foreigners or to the U.S government. This essay shows that there is little evidence to support the idea of foreign ownership and much that contradicts it. In addition, it presents evidence to show that the New York Fed does not command the entire System, as well as recent data demonstrating that the System's profits are paid to the federal government.

Who Owns the Federal Reserve Bank of New York?

Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized into a corporation whose shares are sold to the commercial banks and thrifts operating within the Bank's district. Shareholders elect six of the nine the board of directors for their regional Federal Reserve Bank as well as its president. Mullins reported that the top eight stockholders of the New York Fed were, in order from largest to smallest as of 1983, Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York (Mullins, p. 179). Together, these banks owned about 63 percent of the New York Fed's outstanding stock. Mullins then showed that many of these banks are owned by about a dozen European banking organizations, mostly British, and most notably the Rothschild banking dynasty. Through their American agents they are able to select the board of directors for the New York Fed and to direct U.S. monetary policy. Mullins explained,

... The most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic since its very inception. The power was the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today (Mullins, p. 47-48).

He further commented that the day the Federal Reserve Act was passed, "the Constitution ceased to be the governing covenant of the American people, and our liberties were handed over to a small group of international bankers" (Ibid, p. 29).

Unfortunately, Mullins' source for the stockholders of the New York Fed could not be verified. He claimed his source was the Federal Reserve Bulletin, although it has never included shareholder information, nor has any other Federal Reserve periodical. It is difficult researching this particular claim because a Federal Reserve Bank is not a publicly traded corporation and is therefore not required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to publish a list of its major shareholders. The question of ownership can still be addressed, however, by examining the legal rules for acquisition of such stock. 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). Since the eight banks Mullins named all operate within the New York Federal Reserve district, and are all nationally chartered banks, they are required to be shareholders of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. They are also probably the major shareholders as Mullins claimed.

Are these eight banks on Mullins' list of stockholders owned by foreigners, what Mullins termed the London Connection? The SEC requires the name of any individual or organization that owns more than 5 percent of the outstanding shares of a publicly traded firm be made public. If foreigners own any shares of Mullins' eight banks, then their portions are not greater than 5 percent at this time. With no significant holdings of the major New York area banks, it does not seem likely that foreign conspirators could direct their actions.

Perhaps foreigners own shares of the New York Federal Reserve Bank directly. The law stipulates a small portion of Federal Reserve stock may be available for sale to the public. No person or organization, however, may own more than $25,000 of such public stock and none of it carries voting rights (12 USCA 283). However, under the terms of the Federal Reserve Act, public stock was only to be sold in the event the sale of stock to member banks did not raise the minimum of $4 million of initial capital for each Federal Reserve Bank when they were organized in 1913 (12 USCA 281). Each Bank was able to raise the necessary amount through member stock sales, and no public stock was ever sold to the non-bank public. In other words, no Federal Reserve stock has ever been sold to foreigners; it has only been sold to banks which are members of the Federal Reserve System (Woodward, 1996).

Regardless of the foreign ownership conjecture, Mullins argued that since the money-center banks of New York owned the largest portion of stock in the New York Fed, they could hand-pick its board of directors and president. This would give them, and hence the London Connection, control over Fed operations and U.S. monetary policy. This argument is faulty because each commercial bank receives one vote regardless of its size, unlike most corporate voting structures in which the number of votes is tied to the number of shares a person holds (Ibid). The New York Federal Reserve district contains over 1,000 member banks, so it is highly unlikely that even the largest and most powerful banks would be able to coerce so many smaller ones to vote in a particular manner. To control the vote of a majority of member banks would mean acquiring a controlling interest in about 500 member banks of the New York district. Such an expenditure would require an outlay in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Surely there is a cheaper path to global domination.

An historical example may make clear that member banks do not control the Federal Reserve's policies. Galbraith (1990) recounted that in the spring of 1929 the New York Stock Exchange was booming. Prices there had been rising considerably, extending the bull market that had begun in 1924. The Federal Reserve Board decided to take steps to arrest the speculative bubble that appeared to have been forming: it raised the cost banks had to pay to borrow from the Federal Reserve and it increased speculators' margin requirements. Charles Mitchell, then the head of National City Bank (today known as Citibank), which was the largest shareholder of the New York Federal Reserve Bank according to Mullins, was so irritated by this decision that in a bank statement he wrote, "We feel that we have an obligation which is paramount to any Federal Reserve warning, or anything else, to avert any dangerous crisis in the money market" (Galbraith, p. 57). National City Bank promised to increase lending to offset any restritive policies of the Federal Reserve. Wrote Galbraith, "The effect was more than satisfactory: the market took off again. In the three summer months, the increase in prices outran all of the quite impressive increase that had occurred during the entire previous year" (Ibid). If the Fed and its policies were really under the control of its major stockholders, then why did the Federal Reserve Board clearly buck the intent of its single largest shareholder?

This information also eluded fellow conspiracy theorist Gary Kah, who disagreed with Mullins on who owns the New York Fed. His Swiss and Saudi Arabian contacts identified the top eight shareholders as the Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris; Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy; Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam; Lehman Brothers of New York; Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York; Chase Manhatten; and Goldman, Sachs of New York (Kah, p. 13). It is impossible to verify Kah's information because it is not known who his "contacts" were. Nevertheless, Kah's list differs substantially from Mullins' compilation. Most interestingly, in Kah's list foreigners own the New York Fed directly without having to own majority interests in U.S. banks, as is the case with Mullins' list. The discrepancies in the two lists mean that at least one of them is wrong, and possibly both. Kah's list is the bogus one because no public stock has ever been issued, so it is not possible for anyone on Kah's list other than Chase Manhatten to own shares of the New York Fed.

Moreover, Kah seemed ignorant of important details about the organization of Federal Reserve stock and management, especially for someone claiming to have done as much research on the subject as he did. He refered to the organizations on his stockholders list as "Class A shareholders," which is curious because Federal Reserve stock is not classified in this manner (Ibid). It can be either member stock, which can be purchased only by commercial banks and thrifts seeking to become members of the Federal Reserve System, or public stock. However, the directors of a Federal Reserve bank are separated into Class A, B, and C categories, depending on how they are appointed (12 USCA 302, 304, 305). Three class A directors are chosen by the member banks. Three class B directors are also elected by the member banks to represent the non-bank sectors of the economy. The final three directors, class C, are picked by the Board of Governors also to represent the non-bank public. This may be the source of Kah's confusion, but it is a relatively simple point that he should have detected had his research efforts been thorough.

Does the New York Fed Call the Shots?

Mullins and Kah further argued that by controlling the New York Fed the international banking elite could command the entire Federal Reserve System, and thus direct U.S. monetary policy for their own profit. "For all practical purposes," Kah stressed, "the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the Federal Reserve" (Ibid, emphasis his). This is the linchpin of their conspiracy theory because it provides the mechanism by which the international bankers execute their plans.

A brief look at how the Fed's powers over monetary policy are actually distributed shows that the key assumption in the Mullins- Kah conspiracy theory is erroneous. The Federal Reserve System is controlled not by the New York Fed, but by the Board of Governors (the Board) and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The Board is a seven member panel appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. It determines the interest rate, known as the discount rate, for loans to commercial banks and thrifts, selects the required reserve ratio which determines how much of customer deposits a bank must keep on hand (a factor that significantly affects a bank's ability create new loans), and also decides how much new currency Federal Reserve Banks may issue each year (12 USCA 248). The FOMC consists of the members of the Board, the president of the New York Fed, and four presidents from other Fed Banks. The FOMC formulates open market policy, which determines how much in government bonds the Fed Banks may trade, and is the most effective and commonly used of the Fed's monetary policy tools (12 USCA 263). The key point is that a Federal Reserve Bank cannot change its discount rate or required reserve ratio, issue additional currency, or purchase government bonds without the explicit approval of either the Board or the FOMC.

The New York Federal Reserve Bank through its direct and permanent representation on the FOMC has more say on monetary policy than other Federal Reserve Banks, but it still only has one vote of twelve on the FOMC and no say at all in setting the discount rate or the required reserve ratio. If it wanted monetary policy to go in one direction, while the Board and the rest of the FOMC wanted policy to go another, then the New York Fed would be out-voted. The powers over U.S. monetary policy rest firmly with the publicly-appointed Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee, not with the New York Federal Reserve Bank or a group of international conspirators.

Mullins also made a great to-do about the Federal Advisory Council (the Council). This is a panel of twelve representatives appointed by the board of directors of each Fed Bank. The Council meets at least four times each year with the members of the Board to give them their advice and to discuss general economic conditions (12 USCA 261, 262). Many of the members have been bankers, a point not at all missed by Mullins. He speculated that it is able to force its will on the Board of Governors.

The claim that the "advice" of the council members is not binding on the Governors or that it carries no weight is to claim that four times a year, twelve of the most influential bankers in the United States take time from their work to travel to Washington to meet with the Federal Reserve Board merely to drink coffee and exchange pleasantries (Mullins, p. 45).

A point very much missed by Mullins is that the Council has no voting power in Board meetings, and thus has no direct input into monetary policy. In support of his hypothesis that Council members have been able to impose their will on the Board, Mullins offered no evidence, not even an anecdote. Moreover, his Council theory is inconsistent with his general thesis that the Federal Rerserve System is manipulated by European banking interests through their control of the New York Fed. If this were true, then why would they also need the Council?

Who Gets the Fed's Profits?

Gary Kah and Thomas Schauf have also maintained that the huge profits of the Federal Reserve System are diverted to its foreign owners through the dividends paid to its stockholders. Kah reported "Each year billions of dollars are 'earned' by Class A stockholders of the Federal Reserve" (Kah, p. 20). Schauf further lamented by asking, "When are the profits of the Fed going to start flowing into the Treasury so that average Americans are no longer burdened with excessive, unnecessary taxes?"

The Federal Reserve System certainly makes large profits. According to the Board's 1995 Annual Report, the System had net income totalling $23.9 billion, which, if it were a single firm, would qualify it as one of the most profitable companies in the world. How were these profits distributed? By an agreement between the Borad of Governors and the Treasury, nearly all of the Fed's annual profits are paid to the federal government. Accordingly, a lion's share of $23.4 billion, which represents 97.9 percent of the Federal Reserve's net income, was transferred to the Treasury. The Federal Reserve Banks kept $283 million, and the remaining $231 million was paid to its stockholders as dividends.

Given that less than one percent of the Fed's net earnings are distributed as dividends, it seems that an investor could easily find much more profitable ways to store their wealth than buying Federal Reserve stock. Regarding Schauf's lamentation, the Federal Reserve System has been paying its profits to the Treasury since 1947.

Conclusion

It does not appear that the New York Federal Reserve Bank is owned, either directly or indirectly, by foreigners. Neither Mullins nor Kah provided verifyable sources for their allegations, nor did their mysterious sources agree on exactly who owns the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Moreover, their central assumption that control of the New York Federal Reserve is the same as control of the whole System is wrong and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the System's basic organizational structure. The profits of the Federal Reserve System, again contrary to the assertion of Kah and Schauf, are funnelled back to the federal government, not to an "international banking elite." If the U.S. central bank is in the grip of a banking conspiracy, then Mullins and Kah have certainly not uncovered it.

References:

82nd Annual Report, 1995. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Galbraith, John K. 1990. A Short History of Financial Euphoria. New York: Whittle Direct Books.

Kah, Gary. 1991. En Route to Global Occupation. Lafayette, La.: Huntington House.

Mullins, Eustace. 1983. Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Staunton, Va.: Bankers Research Institute.

Shauf, Thomas. 1992. The Federal Reserve. Streamwood, IL: FED- UP, Inc.

Woodward, G. Thomas. 1996. "Money and the Federal Reserve System: Myth and Reality." Congressional Research Service

United States Code Annotated. 1994. U.S. Government Printing Office.

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/int...g/fedowns.html"

[yurj]

Ottima ricerca, che conferma che la Federal Reserve e' un cartello delle banche private.

domanda: se io ti do i soldi per andare avanti e tu nomini qualcuno nel consorzio che non mi va bene, se io mi ritiro, tu che fine fai?

[Amati75]

Originally posted by yurj
Ottima ricerca, che conferma che la Federal Reserve e' un cartello delle banche private.

domanda: se io ti do i soldi per andare avanti e tu nomini qualcuno nel consorzio che non mi va bene, se io mi ritiro, tu che fine fai?

Piu' che cartello di banche private e' una forma di fare le banche (che tirano avanti il sistema) partecipi e sopratutto corresponsabili della salute finanziaria del paese...insomma nonmi sembra che abbiano fatto un "cattivo" lavoro.. gli USA osno dopo tutto l' economia piu' grande dle pianeta.
Inoltre come visto dall' articolo la FED apporta il 97.7% dei suoi guadagni (muostruosi) al dipartiemnto del Tesoro, cioe' ogni anno apporta risorse como una o due finanziarie correttive nostrane...
inoltre chi ha controllo cotinua ad essere una perosna messa li dal presidente del paese e confermata dal congresso...alla fine le banche sono forzate ad entrare nel sistema della FED, controllato dal governo, i soldi a fine anno vanno al governo, e basicamente hanno da dire la loro ma se la storia non inganna hanno fattoun buon lavoro, anzi devo dire che la FED e' un ottimo esempio di "privatizzazione" (anche se non totale, dato che il governo basicmaent ela controlla via nomine), cioe' ottimo esempio che non vi e' necesita' di governo nell' economia, per lo meno totalmente.
Per rispondere alla tua domanda, guarda che nell' articolo fanno propio un esempio della situazione che tu citi... ed inoltre ogni banca ha un voto, quidni s euna banca si ritira...non succede priopio nulla anche perche' poi alla fine non sono le banche che decidono e l' articolo spiega bene chi e' che alla fine decide.

Riepto la FED e' un ottimo esempio di come il privato possa benissimo prendersi repsonsabilita' di sezioni del pubblico o che possano lavorare assieme.

[yurj]

se si ritirano, crolla il palco.

[Amati75]

Originally posted by yurj
se si ritirano, crolla il palco.

Se leggi bene l´articolo non possono ritirarsi (almeno sarebbbe illogico dato che sarebbero fuori dal sistema e quindi non starebbero aperte) ed il palco sta in piedi dagl inizi del 1900, passando per due guerre mondiali, una depressione economica come nessun altra,crisi energetiche e periodi inflazionari.. eppure il palco e´ sempre li bello solido.
Lo scenario che tu citi e´piu´o meno utopico come il comunismo, cioe´ irrealizzabile.
Inoltre scusa, che diffrenza ci sarebbe se una banca centrale sotto guida del governo, o meglio autonoma ma pubblica finisce i soldi..il palco cade lo stesso, tipo URSS, tipo Argentina, tipo Messico 1994.
Il dollaro e´ la valuta per ecellenza sul mercato mondiale) ora in concorrenza con l'euro ma questa e' appena iniziata) e la gestisce una Banca centrale semi-privata.

[yurj]

Prior to 1913, there was no Federal Reserve Corporation, no IRS and no personal income tax.

Yet, most people lived well without the burden of the transnational bankers' "profitable" wars and taxation without representation.

When you follow the money, you'll observe that ultimately most taxes don't pay for "our" government, but for the private profits of the Federal Reserve Corporation. - JPC

http://www.ny.frb.org/pihome/orgchart/board

Letter of the month Re: Executive Order 11110

http://astridmm.com/prouty

Col. Prouty,

Could JFK's decision to curtail the power of the fed have anything to do with his assassination.

$6 trillion seems a good enough reason. The following article may be of interest to you. The original EO was no. 10289.

Neil Turner.

------------

The following article appeared in "The Final Call", Vol 15, No.6, on January 17, 1996 (USA).

President Kennedy, the Federal Reserve and Executive Order 11110 by Cedric X:

On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest.

On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve.

Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury."

This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation.

In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.

With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business.

If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes.

This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything.

Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the gevernment the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money.

Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.

After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it?

Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level.

Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money.

Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank.

His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment.

As America's debt reaches unbearable levels and a conflict emerges in Bosnia that will further increase America's debt, one is force to ask, will President Clinton have the courage to consider utilizing Executive Order 11110 and, if so, is he willing to pay the ultimate price for doing so?

(All Readers are urged to obtain a copy of Executive Order 11110 by contacting their Congressional representative, it is dated June 4, 1963.)

------------

Reply From Col. Prouty to Neil Turner:

Thanks for your good question Neil,

Your comment about "The power of the Fed" as a factor in the over-all decision to assassinate JFK is correct. Do you recall the line at the beginning of the conversation of Garrison and Man X in Washington in Stone's movie "JFK"?

Jim Garrison asks, "How do you think it all started?"

Man X (Prouty) responds, "I think it started in the wind. Money -- arms, big oil, Pentagon people, contractors, bankers, politicians like L.B.J. were committed to a war in Southeast Asia.

As early as '61 they knew Kennedy was going to change things... He was not going to war in Southeast Asia. Who knows? Probably some boardroom or luncheon somewhere - Houston, New York -- hell, maybe Bonn, Germany... who knows, it's international now."

You're correct, and the above is what I wrote for Oliver Stone. It is what I believe from my experience. And, you are correct to go back to Exec. Order no. 11110. That money JFK put into circulation was an enormous challenge to the business world.

I am a graduate of the American Bankers Assn "Graduate School of Banking" at the University of Wisconsin and I have heard some of the top bankers, such as Arthur Burns lecture. That was in the late Sixties; but you could still feel the stress of those JFK years in what they had to say.

JFK was serious about getting "all Americans" out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. That was NSAM 263 and my boss General Victor Krulak, with the JCS, had worked on that document. Even the Pentagon Papers made an attempt to conceal NSAM #263.

In addition to the references you have cited, may I suggest that you get the "Foreign Relations of the united States. 1961-1963, Volume IV, VIETNAM, August-December 1963" from the US Gov't Printing Office and see what it was all about in those days.

------------

2) Len: You have made a good comment about the use of the "$220 to $570 billion: potential of the war in Vietnam. It's a good point that requires an understanding of the inside talk in a place like the Pentagon.

For example: No less than "4,865 U.S. helicopters were lost in the war." Source: "The World Almanac of the VIETNAM WAR" 1985. At a cost of "250,000 each" that is some $1,316,250,000. In addition 3720 conventional aircraft were lost at much greater cost. That's basic usually sucjh losses are replaced more than doubling the cost.

In the military we always figure that in the "life of type" of military equipment about ten times as much money is spent to keep it in operation and to support it as it cost initially. Use that kind of perfectly valid thinking and the numbers grow fast.

I recall at the end of 1963 we had a few more than 16,000 military personnel in Vietnam. Of that number no more than 1,500 were actually combat tuype men. The others were just expensive support such as maintenance men, supply depot men, hospitals, etc. Recall that later that number grew to 550,000 in Vietnam. More than 10,000,000 military personnel were flown to Saigon by commercial aircraft during the thirty years of our involvement.

I have a Report that was made to Congress that reveals that no less than $51 billion were stolen one way or another during the Vietnam war.

So when some budget worker gives a figure he cites what he has on the books as the "initial spending" for the cost of the war. Meanwhile the over-all books easily multiply that. So in some testimony before the Congress the figure might be $220 billion, while in another context an over-all figure of $550 billion will be used. Both are correct for different reasons.

How much did your car cost you? How much have you spent on it, or will you have spent on it during its life cycle?

L. Fletcher Prouty

------------

TREASURY

http://egroups.com/group/jpchance/li...y_000993420879

9-11 INVESTIGATION

http://egroups.com/group/jpchance/li...n_001021231891

egroups.com/group/jpchance

[Amati75]

Yurj begl' articoli ch eposti peccato pero' che sono "illusioni". Anche senza postare una risposta di un ricercatore (che cmq te la posto ugulamente). gli articoli che tu posti in vari punti dimostrano una completa ignoranza su come funziona non solo il sistema federale Americano (nel sneso della FED) ma pure ocme sono regolati i valori delle monete nel mondo. Adirittura nell'a rticolo da te postato si indica che i osldi della FED non avrebbero valore perhce' non sono rispaldati dall' argento.... E' dal 1973 che le monete dle mondo non sono rispaldate da niente, l' unico valore che hanno e' la percezione del mercato (la gente che lo usa) come credi che le monete possano oscillare ocsi come fanno?
Certo vi sono dei fattori tali quali la bilancia dei pagamenti, gli interessi, ecc.. che hanno un efetto ma tutto cio' si puo' riassumere nella confidenza del "mercato" in un a determinata moneta, cioe' che quando usero tale moneta, essa sara' riconoscita eds acettata ad un certo valore.
Cmq a seguito ti posto l' articolo (leggi troppi siti di Cospirazioni...):

"Federal Reserve Notes, Interest, and the National Debt

by

Dr. Edward Flaherty
University of Charleston

July 18, 1997

How does currency enter our economy? This is a common question that any curious citizen will eventually ask. Depending on whom they ask, they could get an alarming answer. Some groups claim that the Treasury prints the currency, sells it to the Federal Reserve at tiny fraction of its face value, and that the Fed then buys Treasury bonds with the money -- bonds for which the Treasury must then make interest payments. In effect, then, the federal government is paying interest on its currency to the Federal Reserve system. Conspiracy theorists believe this is part of the New World Order plot to bankrupt the United States. What is the truth here? Does the government, that is, do we really pay interest on our own currency?

Thomas Schauf of FED-UP circulates an information letter in which he writes:

Why pay interest on our currency? A typical incorrect answer is - the FED profits are returned to the U.S. Treasury. The truth is, the FED is a private bank in business for profit. We pay roughly $300 billion in interest on our artificial debt and by special agreement, the U.S. Treasury receives $20 billion in return. Taxpayers lose $280 billion to the FED banking system per year ... Your local library has these dollar figures. The numbers don't lie.

Schauf also argues that the Federal Reserve system is part of the international banking conspiracy, and that President Kennedy might have been assassinated because he allegedly attempted to curb the power of the Federal Reserve ( both of these topics are covered in other essays on my Fed Conspiracy Myth page ). The currency interest issue is also raised by other conspiracy theorists. Television evangelist Pat Robertson in his book The New World Order and Jacques Jaikaran in Debt Virus make identical claims, as do several on-line organizations such as the Coalition to Reform Money and Citizens for a Better Government. How accurate are these claims?

Some of Schauf's statement is correct. The Treasury Department prints U.S. currency and then sells it to the Federal Reserve system for an average cost of about 4 cents per bill. However, the Fed must present as collateral for the currency an amount of Treasury securities that is equivalent in value to the currency purchased. The Federal Reserve collects interest on all the Treasury securities it owns, including the ones held as collateral. But this is as far into the realm of fact as Schauf's statement can take his reader. (For more on how currency enters the economy, see the New York Federal Reserve site)

What Schauf does not tell his reader is that nearly all the Federal Reserve's net earnings must be paid to the Treasury. This is done per an agreement between the Board of Governors and the Treasury. In fact, Schauf goes as far as to say that this is incorrect. Schauf seems to make two mistakes that lead him to an erroneous conclusion. First, he seems to believe that all the outstanding Treasury securities -- the national debt -- are held by the Federal Reserve. This is not true. About 7.5 percent of Treasury bonds, $391 billion as of September 1996, are owned by the Federal Reserve. As shown below, the Fed receives only about $20 billion of the Treasury's interest payments, with the remainder paid to those who own the other 92.5 percent of the Treasury's bonds. Second, he seems to believe that the Treasury only receives a fixed amount of the Fed's annual net earnings. In reality, the Treasury gets about 94 percent of the net earnings, which frequently yields a payment in excess of $20 billion to the Treasury.

These two errors lead Schauf to assert that the Treasury is paying the Federal Reserve about $280 billion each year in net interest payments. This is totally wrong. Let's examine the abbreviated income statements for the Federal Reserve system, audited by Price Waterhouse, for 1994 and 1995 (figures are in billions).

1994 1995


Income: ---------------
Interest on Treasury Securities $19.2 $23.8
Other Income 2.3 1.6
---------------
TOTAL INCOME 21.5 25.4

Payments to U.S. Treasury $20.5 $23.4

Source: Annual Report, 1995, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

For the two years combined the Federal Reserve collected $43 billion in interest on its holdings of Treasury securities. The Fed also repaid $43.9 billion to the Treasury. Since 1980 the Fed has collected $255 billion in interest from the Treasury, but has repaid a total of $267 billion.

Clearly, the Treasury is not paying any net interest on the bonds held by the Fed, and is therefore not paying any net interest on Federal Reserve Notes. In fact, the Treasury usually profits from this arrangement. Indeed, Mr. Schauf, the numbers do not lie.

Schauf and other similar conspiracy theorists believe that the Treasury ought to issue its own currency in the form of United States Notes, a form of currency issued on a few occasions in the past (there are still some in circulation, although the total amount is limited by law) . This, Schauf, argues, would be an interest-free form of currency. However, clearly there is no functional difference between U.S. Notes and the Federal Reserve notes we now use. Neither impose a net interest burden on the Treasury. The key difference is who controls the issuance of the currency. The publicly-appointed Board of Governors now controls the emissions of Federal Reserve notes, and can make monetary policy decisions independent of political pressure. U.S. Notes, on the other hand, are controlled by the Treasury Department, an arm of the executive branch and a purely political entity. Monetary policy, in my view, ought to be based on the needs of the economy, not on the needs of current incumbent political party.

Another implication of the arrangement between the Federal Reserve and the government is that the bonds held by the Fed are, in effect, interest-free loans to the federal government. As far as the Treasury is concerned, the more bonds held by the Fed, the better, as it reduces the Treasury's net interest burden. In fact, bonds held by the Fed are the equivalent of literally printing money and spending it into the economy. This is because the bonds are interest-free and may be refinanced by the Fed indefinitely. Rather than a loan, most people would call that a gift.

Like the other Fed conspiracy myths, this one has also proven to be false. The federal government does not pay any net interest on the Federal Reserve notes that serve as our currency. The key error of the conspiracy myth-makers, or errorists, is their failure to recognize that the Fed's annual payment to the Treasury almost always equals or exceeds the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed. But such sloppy research, factual errors, and fabrications are par for the course in the world of the Federal Reserve conspiracy theorist. "

[Amati75]

"Prior to 1913, there was no Federal Reserve Corporation, no IRS and no personal income tax.

Yet, most people lived well without the burden of the transnational bankers' "profitable" wars and taxation without representation. "

Questo e' un altro esempio di completa ignoranza in questioni economiche e sopratutto di come funziona il mondo.
Prima del 1913 non v'era bisogno di tasse dirette sui cittadini, come del resto nella maggior parte del mondo.
Ma poi i governi sono cresciuti sia nei servizzi offerti sia in quanitta' . Tutto cio' per andare avanti ha bisogno di risorse ("soldi" per parlarci chiaro) e le sole tariffe sui prodotti importati (daot poi che tlai tarife stavano scendendo) non erano ( e non sarebbero) piu' sufficienti per finanziare la cosa pubblica.

[yurj]

Originally posted by Amati75

Questo e' un altro esempio di completa ignoranza in questioni economiche e sopratutto di come funziona il mondo.
Prima del 1913 non v'era bisogno di tasse dirette sui cittadini, come del resto nella maggior parte del mondo.

Da che vangelo e' tratto?

[Amati75]

Originally posted by yurj


Da che vangelo e' tratto?

Yurj... senti se vogliamo parlare di fatti bene, se vogliamo continuare a postare "teorie della cospirazione" tratte da siti alquanto poco seri (difatti basta farsi un po' di ricerca o sapere come funzioanano un po' le cose e t' accorgi che cadono in contradizione da soli) bene anche questo ma poi quando mi vuoi fare il sarcastico su di qualcosa che ovviamente non conosci bene beh il discorso cambia.
Le tasse sui redditi dei cittadini sono "relativamente" nuove, v'erano tasse e sopratutto gli stati si autofinanziavano con le tasse tariffarie ed altre tasse indirette. Come esempio vi e' per l' appunto il post da te postato, cioe' che prima del 1913 (negl' USA) non v' erano tasse sul reddito perosnale delle persone:
"Prior to 1913, there was no Federal Reserve Corporation, no IRS and no personal income tax. "