Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Please refrain from copy and pasting messages over and over and over, or you will be removed from the forum. We all have input to make so let's keep this at a discussion and not a text block of commercials. Here are some helpful guidelines for good discussion and debate recommended by one of our members:

  • * Stay on topic
  • * Be clear
  • * Build upon your points and address those of other people
  • * Refrain from making assumptions about others' unstated views
  • * If you disagree with somebody, do so politely
  • * Clarify your terms and seek to understand others' (but avoid semantic derails)
Note: The opinions expressed by the moderators and members of this discussion board do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Occupy Together or Occupy Wall St. In the spirit of free information, open discussion, and the freedom of expression, members are able to speak about issues relating and directly pertaining to the Occupy movement. You will be banned for hate speech or intentional misinformation and please refrain from any violent rhetoric; this is a peaceful movement. Thank you.
Who Actually Owns the Fed and Why That Must End
  • ironboltbruce October 2011 +1 -1

    WHO ACTUALLY OWNS THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND WHY THAT MUST END
    Global Revolution 1: American Revolution 2: Day 25: Communication 1
    11 Oct 2011 (g1a2d0025c1)

    Few questions of late have been asked more frequently or answered with less transparency than this one:

    WHO OWNS THE FED?

    The domain name for the official website is FederalReserve.gov, the ".gov" extension of which suggests that the Federal Reserve System (a.k.a. the "Fed") is part of the United States government and therefore owned by the American taxpayers. But that is not the case. As the Fed itself states...

    "The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not 'owned' by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

    Parts of that statement are true, sort of, and parts of that statement are not. Factcheck.org provides a better answer:

    "There are actually 12 different Federal Reserve Banks around the country, and they are owned by big private banks. But the banks don't necessarily run the show. Nationally, the Federal Reserve System is led by a Board of Governors whose seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate... The concept of 'ownership' needs some explaining here, however. The member banks must by law invest 3 percent of their capital as stock in the Reserve Banks, and they cannot sell or trade their stock or even use that stock as collateral to borrow money. They do receive dividends of 6 percent per year from the Reserve Banks and get to elect each Reserve Bank's board of directors. The private banks also have a voice in regulating the nation's money supply and setting targets for short-term interest rates, but it's a minority voice. Those decisions are made by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which has a dozen voting members, only five of whom come from the banks. The remaining seven, a voting majority, are the Fed's Board of Governors who, as mentioned, are appointed by the president."

    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/

    That's a better answer, but not a totally complete or correct one. Yes, there are 12 Federal Reserve Banks, all of which are owned by private banks, and all of which must pay dividends to their owners. So contrary to what it claims, the Fed is not only privately-owned but a for-profit enterprise. And yes, there *should* be 7 members of the FOMC appointed by the government and 5 appointed by the banks. In fact, however, for unstated reasons and for some time now there have been only 5 people seated on the FRB Board of Governors, none of whom are celebrated consumer advocates...

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/default.htm

    ...which means government appointees do NOT outnumber bank appointees on the FOMC, and you can rest assured that the private banks DO "run the show":

    http://tinyurl.com/6346ltz

    So the question then becomes:

    WHICH PRIVATE BANKS CONTROL THE FED?

    The Web is awash with lists and percentages on this one supported by nothing more than links that refer to other links that refer back to the original and often anonymous post. A notable exception is the work of Jake Towne, who in March of 2009 applied an admittedly imperfect but plausible engineering approach to the problem and, after some extensive research and number-crunching, concluded the following:

    "[The] top 4 banks - Bank of America (BAC), JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Wachovia - would control roughly 50% of the stock of the Federal Reserve Bank, and the top 10 banks, including Wells Fargo (WFC), HSBC (HBC), and the Bank of New York (BK), would control over 68% of the stock."

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/123381-who-owns-the-fed

    So according to Jake, whoever ultimately controls these ten banks thereby also controls the Federal Reserve:

    Bank of America Corp.
    JPMorgan Chase & Co.
    CitiGroup
    Wachovia Bank (subsequently acquired by Wells Fargo)
    Wells Fargo N.A.
    US Bank
    State Street Corp.
    HSBC Bank
    Suntrust Bank
    Bank of NY Mellon

    TO RECAP... The Federal Reserve System that has used its debt-based currency to exploit our economy since 1913 is a private banking cartel consisting of 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks. Each of those banks are required to pay dividends to their shareholders, which makes them for-profit enterprises. Those shareholders are all private banks and obviously also for-profit enterprises that exist not to maintain the welfare of humankind - or even the American subset thereof - but rather to maximize the wealth of their shareholders.

    AND WHO ARE THEIR SHAREHOLDERS?

    Keep tracing your way up the ownership pyramid, and you may find some have (in)famous names like Rothschild, Rockefeller or Buffett. Others in this global elite we collectively refer to as "the 1%". Either way, their interests align with those of the rest of us - "the 99%" - only in the same manner as those of shepherds and the sheep that they shear in good times and slaughter in bad.

    This must end. And that is why the Fed must end.


    Related Image:

    http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/9514/fedmembersgraph.jpg

    Related Video:

    http://tinyurl.com/kleptocracytutorial


    ###

    I AM NOT ANONYMOUS. I AM AN AMERICAN.

    I am not just a Consumer. I am a Citizen.

    I will no longer be labeled Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative, Demopublican or Republocrat.

    I will no longer follow Puppets labeled Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative, Demopublican or Republocrat.

    I am the People. And I am coming for the Puppetmasters.

    I am part of the 99 Percent. And I demand the following:

    1. End the Fed.

    2. Reverse Citizens United.

    3. Repeal PATRIOT Act.

    4. Expose 9/11 Truth.

    5. End Profit Wars.

    6. Refund Taxpayer Trillions.

    7. Imprison the Kleptocrats.

    8. Single Term Limits.


    ###

    LABELS (A POEM OF PROTEST)

    "Democrat", "Republican",
    The parties of the system;
    Puppets both, for sale their votes,
    No character or wisdom.

    "Liberal", "Conservative",
    For change or status quo?
    Pick either one, the change is none,
    All charlatans and whores.

    Far "Left" we place the Anarchists,
    Libertarians claim far "Right";
    Yet both decry the government:
    False continuum brought to light.

    For oil, "We" bomb their mud huts,
    Strip them bare, then offer "Aid";
    And fake their retribution as
    Pretext - a false flag raised.

    Unarmed hundred thousands killed
    By weapons of "Defense",
    While rights are lost for "Freedom" sake -
    On profit, all depends.

    With stroke of pen, the "Patriot" Act,
    And patriots' gifts are taken;
    Then "Citizens United" leaves
    Our citizens forsaken.

    We protest loss of liberties,
    Put "World Wide Web" to use;
    Cloudmark Authority censors us
    For "messaging abuse".

    They label us to finger-point,
    With labels, "They" deride us;
    Their labels keep us all at bay,
    For with labels, "They" divide us.

    IronBoltBruce


    ###

    JOIN THE GLOBAL REVOLUTION!

    Occupy Wall Street:

    http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

    http://occupywallst.org/

    Occupy DC:

    http://www.ustream.tv/channel/october2011

    http://october2011.org/

    Occupy LA:

    http://www.livestream.com/owslosangeles

    http://occupylosangeles.org/

    Occupy Together:

    http://occupytogether.org/

    Watch these Videos:

    http://tinyurl.com/kleptocracytutorial

    Take this Pledge:

    http://wp.me/p19dS3-9o


    ###

    PUBLIC NOTICE: No talking heads on Comcast/GE's NBC/CNBC/MSNBC speak for us. No talking heads on Murdoch's Faux News speak for us. No talking heads at the Kleptocracy's Compliant News Network (CNN) speak for us (no matter how dull, deliberate or subtle their delivery). No talking heads in the lamestream media speak for us, period. And neither do ANY of the 537 bought-and-paid-for Kleptocracy puppets in Washington DC who will soon be joining our legions of unemployed!


  • helfeather October 2011 +1 -1
    Check out this video on YouTube:


  • 99er99percenter October 2011 +1 -1
    Thank you for posting this concise synopsis on the Fed that trumps reading a close to 1000 page tome on it and which needs to be the #1 reason on the list of changes demanded by protestors here and abroad (as it concerns the world banking system.)

    You're in good company too, many of us abandoned the 'two party system' and are now registered as 'Independents' for all of your above mentioned reasons. Please warn others that this choice is not to be confused with 'American Independents' or 'Progressive Independents' something we encountered while still living in California in connection with our voter registration and also in our new state of Nevada. Apparently, even though you can check a box identifying yourself as an Independent does not prevent someone in the registrar's office from changing it with the result of our ballots arriving with the incorrectly intended choice of party affiliation when we meant None/Independent.

    The following article in The Atlantic caught my eye that you might want to forward to fellow Occupiers in the interest of focusing our purposes for the duration pending the desired results of our efforts: 'Occupy Wall Street's Greatest Strength Is Neutering It' ‏
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/occupy-wall-streets-greatest-strength-is-neutering-it/246671/#.Tpi3wD4szrM.mailto

    Occupy Wall Street's Greatest Strength Is Neutering It
    By Conor Friedersdorf
    Oct 14 2011, 8:37 AM ET 106

    Attacking a symbol made the protest movement powerful, provoked a backlash, and made reform an unlikely outcome
    In the Joan Didion essay "Goodbye to All That," the California born writer observes that it is not possible for people in the East to appreciate what New York City means to other Americans. "To an Eastern child, particularly a child who has always had an uncle on Wall Street and who has spent several hundred Saturdays first at F.A.O. Schwarz and being fitted for shoes at Best's and then waiting under the Biltmore clock and dancing to Lester Lanin, New York is just a city, albeit the city, a plausible place for people to live," she writes. "But to those of us who came from places where no one had heard of Lester Lanin and Grand Central Station was a Saturday radio program, where Wall Street and Fifth Avenue and Madison Avenue were not places at all but abstractions ("Money," and "High Fashion," and "The Hucksters"), New York was no mere city."

    Instead it was "an infinitely romantic notion, the mysterious nexus of all love and money and power," and so it remains. The Occupy Wall Street protestors beat their drums in lower Manhattan within sight of big financial firms and their suits. But their chants aren't aimed at Goldman Sachs and its board, or junior executives who commute in from Connecticut, so much as the average American's idea of Wall Street. The symbol is what gives the protestors and their movement the bulk of its strength -- and it is, at the same time, the movement's fatal weakness.

    How to explain this seeming contradiction?

    The protestors benefit by treating Wall Street as an abstraction because it permits them to tap into familiar narratives. Allies are made of everyone who believes, as so many do, that dishonest financial elites take advantage of the basically honest masses; that big, greedy corporations maximize their profits by screwing regular folks; that the top one percent of Americans possess wealth that is obviously incommensurate with what they've earned relative to "the 99 percent."

    For Occupy Wall Street, the problem is that a counter-narrative every bit as familiar also appeals to many Americans. These are people who believe that wealth in this country accrues to talented people who work hard and benefit their fellow man through the market; that envying the successful is a kind of poison corrosive to any society; that to attack Wall Street is the same as declaring that you've got no confidence in capitalism itself; and that for all its flaws, our free market economic system has generated tremendous wealth and prosperity for rich and poor alike.

    So long as the protestors in the financial districts of American cities attack symbolic Wall Street, they'll attract folks who see the world the same way that they do. As Matt Yglesias writes, it's "an incredibly useful platform for engagement and education." But an attack on symbolic Wall Street inevitably provokes a backlash by defenders of symbolic Wall Street, for whom it symbolizes different things. The ensuing debate is no likelier to end in a declared winner than a long conversation about political philosophy between Ronald Reagan against Jimmy Carter.

    There is a time for battling over first principles and political philosophy, especially for those of us who enjoy doing it. But it isn't all the time. How remarkable that in America, where the political spectrum is so narrow relative to other countries, and the consensus in favor of being a mostly free market liberal democracy so large, our politics is so frequently mired in ideological battles; and waged in rhetoric that is absurd when one reflects on the continuity in ideology and policy from one Congress and presidency to another. It's no wonder that so many Americans are frustrated by political debate, political protest, and political campaigns. More often than not, they're all conducted at a level of abstraction that is both needless and maddening.

    What drum circle would I join?

    One dedicated to the proposition that it's often enough to grapple with the world as it is -- to see that we're not confronted by the impossible question, "Is Wall Street basically good or malign;" what we must actually answer are questions like, "What sort of regulations, if any, should govern the market for derivatives of mortgaged backed securities," and "Should the federal government subsidize home ownership," and "What should the reserve requirements be for lending institutions."

    Those are contentious questions, and they can't be totally separated from value judgments or political philosophy. But they're manageable, in a society that agrees about as many things as ours, if we take them discretely, and avoid elevating them into symbolic battles about bigger things whenever it is possible. Figuring out precisely how to feel about Occupy Wall Street or "We are the 53 Percent" is difficult for many. Much easier to decide that it's wrong to create a mortgage-backed security filled with loans you know are going to fail so that you can sell it to a client who isn't aware that you sabotaged it by intentionally picking the misleadingly rated loans most likely to be defaulted upon; or that it actually doesn't make sense to blame Wall Street for inflation in college costs, the student loan market they spurred, and the culture that sent a message to too many young people that borrowing for education is always a good investment.

    What I wonder is how many of the protestors realize that the case against symbolic Wall Street is actually much weaker than the one against actual Wall Street. Symbolic Wall Street is the financial center of earth's most prosperous country. Actual Wall Street's most powerful firms bear responsibility for the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression. At times, actual Wall Street violated the law. It squandered many billions of dollars, inflating the market for mortgage backed securities that the people in charge didn't even understand. Taxpayer money was subsequently redistributed to these firms. That is a powerful case that reform is needed.

    There is, however, a robust market in America for ideological thinking, for turning every matter into an epic battle in the war between right and left, red and blue, "the 53 percent" and "the 99 percent." Doing so swells the profits of Fox News and the email lists of Occupy Wall Street organizers and their allies, among many others. They're all in theoretically defensible businesses; but perverse incentives are at play, and we ought to insist, regularly, that we won't go along.

    We ought to avoid always treating politics as "an infinitely romantic notion," for while there is a time for doing so, it's too often indulged. We too seldom address problems with solutions characterized by pragmatism and narrowness; we too seldom celebrate a proposal precisely because it permits us to improve the status quo without having to grapple with the bigger questions.

    Image credit: Reuters





    Signed 99er99percenter (laid off due to 3 real estate and mortgage banker/brokerage company closures in 2001, 2006 and 2008)



    Keep asking questions people! Bernanke vs the people



    #OWS Protester Nails It! Federal Reserve : Fractional Banking : FIAT Currency : Wars


    The Greatest Speech Ever Made (When Will The Human Race Ever 'Get' It?)
  • BradB October 2011 +1 -1
    wow,,, this is going to a fantastic thread... ;)

    from dolphin,

  • gavemehope October 2011 +1 -1
    Wow is right. When you first here end the fed, well i'm not sure for other people, but for me. It is a little shocking, but I think it's because so few really understand or have ever heard the argument.
    You guys are bringing me on board. The more people are educated on this the better. I'm a little worried about the how to do it, and if the world economy could take it. Talk about to big to fail. It's like Too big to fail really rich grandpa that no one ever sees. Just rights the checks when you need them.
    Yet, is there any way they will even look on how to start if not faced with a demand like, End the fed ? Probably not, but somehow, someway there has to be a full audit of the fed. That is something I am fully behind. Thanks for the info, and keep educating.
    AUDIT THE FED, THE WHOLE THING !!!!!!!
  • stevonbi October 2011 +1 -1
    Hi folks,
    I'm new here, and sort of new to researching the Fed, mortgage/lending practices etc. One thing that I have seen that I find flat-out unbelievable is the report on the limited audit of the Fed that was recently done. On the face of it, a quasi-federal agency loaning MORE THAN OUR GDP to foreign corporations etc. would seem to be to be the biggest news story since Watergate. Does anyone have any idea how this has not been reported? Here's a link: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3

    My sense is that if you make ending the Fed an OWS "demand", it would not be well received. Most people have no clue; I was only alerted to it because I have three Tea Party brothers (I am generally left-leaning/progressive) who told me the Fed was a PRIVATE bank. I now have an understanding of how these bankers are drawing the wealth out of our systems via inflation and interest on the debt they create.

    Auditing the fed, or otherwise shining some light on the workings and the genesis of the Federal Reserve System might lead to a general call to end it.

    Another question: Wikipedia says the Fed has 7,000 tons of gold. I have heard that Ron Paul has called for this gold to be audited. What can you tell me about this?

    This whole question of the Fed seems to dovetail perfectly with corporate interests being put in front of the will of the people. But it will be harder to get this into the public's consciousness than it has to get them to see how the corporate financial interests have co-opted the election system.
  • Brad October 2011 +1 -1
    I would like to ask all to watch the educational videos "Money as Debt". They explain the issue of fractional banking. Why it does not work and how it can only lead to ruin.
    Also keep in mind when you are looking for someone or something to blame that in America the buck stops with each of us. We the people have the voice and the vote so in the end we, each of us are to blame. We allowed these things to happen with our inaction. Lets try to approach each issue and person with and open hand and mind not harsh words and anger.
  • Chuckles2035 October 2011 +1 -1 (+1 / -1 )
    All for ending the FED.

    Literally NOTHING good, or beneficial to us comes from this completely unneeded financial system.

    That's right the Federal Reserve is completely unnecessary. Created in 1913 it's only purpose is to give power to the banking sector and create a debt system for ALL Americans. Even if you never take out a loan, never borrow money in anyway you still are in debt, because of the federal reserve, and it is a debt that will never be paid.

    To make matters worse the FED is ran by those same greedy bastards that cause all the problems in the first place. the people who believe the government should step in an stop this silly OWS nonsense because they are the ones who contribute millions of dollars to campaigns. The people who take YOUR money, and when you close your account they tell you, "You can't be a customer and a protestor at the same time." then call the police.

    The people who for every sense of the words think, that they are the masters, and we are their slaves.

    That's really who the FED is, the plantation owners.

    Agrees: MundusVultDecipi

    Disagrees: stidmatt

  • Brad October 2011 +1 -1
    We humans are very good about pointing fingers, name calling and laying blame but that doesn't solve the problem. Why don't we try talking about solutions, any suggestions?
  • helfeather October 2011 +1 -1
    Yes, I love all people....banks are not people and the FED needs to be abolished. Thomas Jefferson agrees too, calling it the one threat to our nation. This is an article from today about the latest heist illustrating the connection behind the private bank called the federal reserve and our public tax dollars being stolen
    http://dailybail.com/home/holy-bailout-federal-reserve-now-backstopping-75-trillion-of.html.
    All my love to humanity around the world.
  • 99er99percenter October 2011 +1 -1
    ###UPDATE 11/23/2011### Video of Author William Greider discussing the book:


    PS: If anyone has the time, the following book written by William Greider of The Rolling Stone is worthy (and probably should be a kind of protester's required educational read for a thoroughly detailed expose' of The Fed:

    http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple-Federal-Reserve-Country/dp/0671675567/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1319110511&sr=8-3

    Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country [Paperback]
    William Greider
    William Greider (Author)
    › Visit Amazon's William Greider Page
    Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
    See search results for this author
    Are you an author? Learn about Author Central
    (Author)
    Editorial Reviews
    From Publishers Weekly
    In this penetrating study of the Federal Reserve Board in the Reagan era, Rolling Stone writer Greider (The Education of David Stockman) views the "Fed" chairman (until recently Paul Volcker) as the "second most powerful" officer of government, the high priest of a temple as mysterious as money itself, its processes unknown to the public and yet to be fully understood by any modern president. Controlling the money supply by secretly buying and selling government bonds and thus affecting interest rates, the Fed can manipulate billions in business profits or losses and millions in worker employment and stock, bond or bank account values, the author explains. Greider's conclusions are startling at times. The Fed, he maintains, could have prevented the 1929 crash. He also asserts the "awkward little secret" that the federal government deliberately induces recessions, usually to bring down inflation and interest rates. A time-consuming but extremely informative read.
    Copyright 1987 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
    From Library Journal
    The recent retirement of Paul Volcker as chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System seems an appropriate time to look at the man and at the system itself. William R. Neikirk's Volcker ( LJ 10/15/87) brought out the subject's personality, convictions, and modus operandi. Greider ( The Education of David Stockman, LJ 10/15/82) touches on these characteristics, but focuses on the system's influence on world economy. Greider throws much light on how our nation's unelected managers of monetary policy make day-to-day decisions. A very readable narrative, recommended for academic and public libraries. M. Balachandran, Univ. of Illinois Lib., Urbana-Champaign
    Copyright 1987 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

    151 of 155 people found the following review helpful:
    5.0 out of 5 stars Central Banking for Poets, November 11, 2002
    By T. J. Graczewski "tgraczewski" (Burlingame, CA United States) - See all my reviews
    (VINE VOICE) (REAL NAME) This review is from: Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (Paperback)
    One might think of William Greider's "Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country" as "Central Banking for Poets." If you've ever scratched your head in wonder when reading how Alan Greenspan and the Fed have "lowered interest rates" or are "easing monetary policy," this book will be extremely enlightening and well worth the time it will take you to plow through all 700 plus pages. If (like me) you majored in economics, you'll be surprised how much better Greider is in explaining arcane economic theory than your college professors (and you'll probably learn -- or re-learn -- quite a bit in the process).
    The focal point of the book is the celebrated and controversial tenure of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker (1979-1987), but the mechanics of central banking so clearly and concisely explained are just as much applicable today as in 1980 - or 1950 for that matter.

    Greider divides the book into three more-or-less equal thirds. The first covers the inflationary surge of the 1970s, Carter's tenuous decision to appoint Volker, and Volker's radical move of abandoning the control of interest rates in favor of controlling the nation's money supply. (In other words, a shift from the Keynesian orthodoxy dominant in the post-War period in favor of a monetarist approach more in line with the theories of the iconoclastic economist Milton Friedman.) The second, and most informative third provides an historical overview of central banking and its development in the United States. For those solely interested in a better understanding of central banking and the US Federal Reserve in particular, this book will be worth your while even if you only read this middle section. The final third deals with Volker's punishing monetary policy during the early 1980s, as he attempted to destroy lingering anticipation of inflation and the incredibly simulative effects of the Reagan era federal deficits and tax cuts.

    Greider is highly critical of Volker's performance as Fed chairman. In short, he argues that far from being the independent and benevolent Shepard of the economy it often claims to be, the Fed, in practice, is beholden to its most powerful constituency: the major money-center financial institutions (i.e. Citibank, Bank of America, etc.). Traditional central bankers view combating inflation as their primary professional objective, which tends to favor creditors at the expense of debtors. Grieder suggests that in waging war on inflation the Fed in effect was waging war on the millions of ordinary Americans struggling to make end meets and keep their heads above water.

    Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, Greider's "Secrets of the Temple" is exhaustively researched, expertly written, and extremely enlightening.

    Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
    Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report abuse | Permalink
    Comment Comment



    63 of 65 people found the following review helpful:
    5.0 out of 5 stars Secrets of the Temple - William Greider, July 2, 2000
    By W. Gruenwald (Sarasota, FL USA) - See all my reviews
    (REAL NAME) Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
    This review is from: Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (Paperback)
    While this book dismisses in one paragraph the idea that the Federal Reserve System was born of a conspiracy, it than goes on for over 700 pages to describe in fascinating detail the operation of, what must surely be the most sinister conspiracy ever hoisted upon mankind, the Federal Reserve System. The author is not a conspiracy theory kook or a John Birch society member, but rather an ex Editor of the Washington Post. The book is endorsed by Ted Kennedy, The Washington Post, and the NY Times, all noted for their liberal bent. It is not a politically motivated book but rather a shocking expose of the organization of banks that controls our economy and the worlds. Instead of "and that government of the people, by the people and for the people", the Federal Reserve system has made it "government of the banks, by the banks, and for the banks shall not perish from the earth". It is clear from reading this book that our economy and the world's economy is controlled by a handful of very powerful bankers. Our President and Congress have abdicated all responsibility via the Federal Reserve act of 1914. As Meyer Rothschild, Europe's premier Central Banker, said, "Give me control of the issue and value of money and I care not who makes the laws". Our government has no say whatsoever in the direction our economy is taking or for that matter how much of our money (printed by the Fed) is loaned to foreign countries. The banks have complete freedom to loan whatever amounts they choose to whichever countries they choose. If the interest on the loans cannot be repaid, they simply have the Fed print more money to loan enough to pay the interest. This book makes it clear that our entire financial system is built on a house of cards for the exclusive benefit of the banks that control it. They benefit in boom times and when there's depression and they are solely responsible for both. If you're concerned about your economic survival, your own personal freedom and our country, you should read this book. It wil enlighten you and also frighten you. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
    Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report abuse | Permalink
    Comment Comment



    54 of 56 people found the following review helpful:
    5.0 out of 5 stars One of the very best books I've read in my life, July 13, 2002
    By A Customer

    This review is from: Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (Paperback)
    I'm not going to recap the book contents; others, who have read the book more recently, can do a better job of that. I will tell you, instead, about its long term impact.
    It's been probably fourteen years since I read _Secrets_of_the_Temple_ and it still haunts me as one of the most important, most influential books I've read in my 46 years of life.

    The common beliefs that the Fed is near infallible, that it always knows what it is doing when it takes action, and that 80 years since the last Depression is proof that the Central Bank will always pull us through are more mistaken than most people would believe. Reading the history of Central Banking will open your eyes considerably, I think. Oh, yes, and this book is actually a pleasure to read -- it's that smoothly written.


    Product Details
    Paperback: 800 pages
    Publisher: Simon & Schuster; 1st Touchstone Edition, 1989 edition (January 15, 1989)
    Language: English
    ISBN-10: 0671675567
    ISBN-13: 978-0671675561
    Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.2 x 1.8 inches
    Shipping Weight: 2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
    Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars See all reviews

    (52 customer reviews)
  • helfeather October 2011 +1 -1
    Ther first ever audit of the federal reserve is just starting to trickle out.

    The links to the document can be found here:
    http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/d1218%20(2).pdf

    And an analysis of the big points is here:
    http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/101911%20-%20THE%20SANDERS%20REPORT%20ON%20THE%20GAO%20AUDIT%20ON%20MAJOR%20CONFLICTS%20OF%20INTEREST%20AT%20THE%20FEDERAL%20RESERVE1.pdf

    Also, here are two links to the Dapartment of Defense private contractors whom also received money ( evidence of war profiteering in my opinion):
    http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/102011%20-%20DOD%20Fraud%20Report.pdf

    http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/102011%20-%20Combined%20DOD%20Fraud%20Tables.pdf

    Poverty, fraud, war, pollution, and racisim can all be traced back to the FED if you follow the money; those are the symptoms of the Federal Reserve disease. To cure the world, remove or de-privatize the FED.
  • Bryson October 2011 +1 -1
    I'm all for ending the FED but it will not be ended without an audit to prove wrongdoing, and people get too radical of vibes when they just hear "End the Fed" from people they already don't understand. If we call for, and get a comprehensive and transparent audit of the Fed, the things they've been doing will be open for everybody to see, and then people will understand why we're saying "End the Fed." Plus the idea of auditing the Fed is inherently just, as all financial institutions have to be audited at some point and we just went through an economic crisis so it only makes sense to have all the transactions recorded for analysis of their effectiveness. There's no legitimate argument against the demand.

    tl;dr We should be calling for a comprehensive, transparent audit because it's less scary to people and necessary anyway.
  • hampmac November 2011 +1 -1
    I just watched a video by G. Edward Griffin, and in it he believes that if or when an audit of the Fed is done, it will show that the Fed's books are clean. How could this be, you may ask? Because the Federal Reserve is working within the laws that they, themselves, have crafted. Auditing the Fed need not be a necessary step to abolishing the Fed. An audit may prove to simply be a waste of several years with nothing to show for it. It should not be difficult to convince a majority of the citizenry that inflation, the bailouts, political corruption, market manipulation, and corrupt lending practices are direct results of the Federal Reserve System.
  • KnaveDave February 2012 +1 -1
    Thank you for this excellent article. It added a significant component to my own article (http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2012/02/the-us-federal-reserve-for-dummies-what-is-the-federal-reserve-system-and-what-is-the-gold-standard/). I went back and added a section "But who REALLY owns the Federal Reserve." I had wondered about the fact that there are only five members on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, but had not given it quite enough thought. I thought maybe it was just a brief current situation. You are right that it effectively means the number of voting members appointed by the private banks is equal to the number of voting members appointed by the U.S. government. That means, so long as Ben Bernanke has the same interests in mind that the big banks do, they are assured of completely controlling the entire U.S. monetary system with scarcely any accountability to Congress.

    --Knave Dave
  • slave February 2012 +1 -1
    Federal reserve was created to smooth out the boom and bust cycles of capitalism. As capitalism's appetite has become more voracious and consequently its exploitative devastation, the "Fed's" power as an enabler of this drive by socializing its costs throughout the country and the world has increased. It is as much an institution of global capital (if not more so), as the military industrial complex, the judicial legal police torture prison industrial complex, the misinformation "education" / media / "entertainment" industrial complex, the religious industrial complex, the pharmaceutical / "health" / "medical" industrial complex, etc.

    The end of the Fed will come only when the entire Ponzi scheme, i.e., all the institutions of exploitation and slavery, i.e., capitalism itself is destroyed, either by capitalism's ever self-destruction itself which would result in the extinction of our species or by establishment of an alternative sustainable economic system by which people can survive outside capitalism, rendering the Fed and all capitalism's other various illegitimate parasitic institutions irrelevant and abandoned without causing the death of the species itself.
Add a Comment