Talk:Federal Reserve System

Request a change to clearly indicate the private status of the federal reserve

I start by getting my non-neutral opinions off my chest, then I will proceed to my request proper. The system of centralized money control in place today accross the world is the source of the increasingly disparate division of wealth and income we are experiencing today; just as it was the cause of the great depression and almost every recession and expansions since. You may laugh me off as a conspiracy theorist as some of the less well mannered people on this page have done to others. When we and and everyone we know lose their employment, you will know where to look for the blame. The people controlling central banks operate outside the attention of the media, and are the true regulators of the world economy - reaping obscene profits from their prior insider knowledge. OK, on to the more neutral, evidence based stuff. Here is a link to a section of the federal reserve act regarding the distribution of earnings (profits). [1] Note the reference to 'stockholders'. This is a clear indication that the federal reserve is privately held corporation and not part of the US government, just like Federal Express (the same is true in most other countries, such as the UK). Please update the page to reflect this fact. Thanks. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexBehrman (talk • contribs)

As the article clearly points out, aspects of the SYSTEM are public, and aspects are private. Please read the article carefully. Ravensfire (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The stocks only represent membership and not ownership; they are very different from stocks of corporations as the stockholders of the System do not get any voting rights. Instead, they get a 6% dividend, which exposes them to a high opportunity cost since the stocks are non-transferable. Dotter (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear AlexBehrman: As Ravensfire has pointed out, please read the entire article carefully. The reference to "stockholders" is a reference to member banks, who hold "shares" of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks -- not to ownership of the Federal Reserve System. The member banks are not "the federal reserve." The member banks are part of the Federal Reserve System. It is both incorrect and meaningless to say that "the federal reserve is [a] privately held corporation." That is like saying that because the Solar System contains some planets, the Solar System must be "a planet." The Solar System contains much more than "planets," and the Federal Reserve System contains much more than some "corporations." The Solar System is not "a planet" and the Federal Reserve System is not "a corporation." Famspear (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment of the FRS as a pseudo-private entity. The fact that the FED chairman is appointed by the POTUS or is able to be removed from appointment (with cause) suggests that the FRS is not entirely private. Kjmonkey (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear the Fed Bank is private like my Electric and Natural Gas companies are private. Yes the government can choose the CEO of each respective company, as well as set the prices on electric/CNG, but they still remain private entities. Same with the Fed. ---- Theaveng (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It is most clearly NOT a private bank. As others pointed out to AlexBehrman, read the full article carefully. The SYSTEM (note that word in the title) consists of some private aspects and some public aspects. It is a very different structure from utility companies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a citation showing the "public" aspects which make the Fed part of the government (like USPS and the Navy are). Thank you. ---- Theaveng (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Four refs supporting that statement are already in the paragraph (note, when testing those refs, I found one was broken, so just updated it). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

All the refs say is Congress selects the Board of Directors. If Congress selected the Directors of GM, would that GM is now "within" the government? Of course not. Same logic applies to the Fed. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If Congress selected the Directors of GM, and GM returned all its profits to the Treasury--which the Fed does, then I would probably describe it as within the government.Isamil (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To quote one of the references for the paragraph in question, "The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government." http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

So please stop adding gibberish to articles.Ratemonth (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ratemoth - this is a civil discussion, and edits by all parties have been in good faith to improve the article - no need to categorize anyone's edits as "gibberish"

Theaveng - there are four refs in the paragraph - The first sentence of the first ref states "The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government"[2]; the second ref states in the last sentence of the second paaragraph "In short, the Fed is an independent entity within the government."[3]; the third ref provides support for other statements in the paragraph, so not directly related to this one sentence; and the fourth ref is an organization described in its Wikipedia article as a non-partisan, nonprofit website and as a "'consumer advocate' for voters" - and that ref also endorses the statements from the Fed's own website (the first ref mentioned)[4]. Given that three of the four refs directly support the statement that "the Federal Reserve is independent within government", I'm not seeing why you continue to claim it's an unsourced statement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The role in the last crisis, the obscurity of his actions and protocols, creating money of thin air, the secret scandal loans... make clear his PRIVATE nature.--80.25.191.37 (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious edits

I made a couple of edits, but one of my explanations did not "take" in the edit summary area. In short, I reverted the usual tendentious edits. This is an article about the Federal Reserve SYSTEM, not just about a specific Federal Reserve BANK. Please refrain from adding commentary about the power to coin money and arguments that the Federal Reserve System is not part of the government. Some parts of the System are part of the government, and others are not. The Lewis case has been cited over and over and over and over and over and over. Please do not add commentary about the Lewis case without reading the prior dicussion about what the court ruled in this case, etc., etc.

The Federal Reserve System is not a "private bank." The BANKS which are PART of the system are private banks. This is already explained in the article. There is no need to clutter the article (especially the lead) with argumentative, tendentious commentary. Famspear (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"ome parts of the System are part of the government" --- Which parts? From the article it appears NO parts are part of the government. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

To quote one of the references for the paragraph in question, "The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government." http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm So please stop adding gibberish to articles.Ratemonth (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Is a citation about Oneself considered a valid citation? For example I would not want to use "We did nothing wrong" from microsoft.com in the article about their lawsuit by the US DOJ. ---- Theaveng (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Fed Balance Sheet

The Fed balance sheet shown in this article has assets, liabilities and net equity that do not add up correctly. For any accounting (including the Fed!), assets=liabilities+net equity.

Looking at the underlying data at http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm

The Fed balance sheet is missing the item "Reserve Balances with Federal Reserve Banks" which would make the balance sheet "add up" correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.199.108 (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You can put it in yourself, if you like. It might be better just to delete the balance sheet information however, since I don't think anyone is keeping it up to date.--Dark Charles (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

One sided presentation lacking objectivity

This article needs more critical viewpoints addressing the fed. The stated intent of the fed should be presented more objectively. Please use phrases like 'purported', 'allegedly', 'according to the fed', 'critics have claimed' etc. Critics of the Federal reserve system have continually tied in international banking families to their perceptions of the fed. It is unfortunate that there is no reference or link to Rothschild for example. This article is presented without regard for these dissenting views which I am interested in. The reader should be free to come to his own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.51.88.154 (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to say that something is 'alleged' or 'purported' and thus possibly not true, please provide a source for this possibility.Ratemonth (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear user IP 202.51.88.154: We already have an entire separate article on critique of the Federal Reserve System. There's no need to add duplication in this article. Famspear (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: See Criticism of the Federal Reserve. Famspear (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia articles are (or are supposed to be) reflections of information from reliable, previously published third party sources. There are always people who are going to believe that the Federal Reserve System is somehow "a private bank" or that it is controlled by Evil International Banksters, or that the Federal income tax is unconstitutional, or that the Moon is made of green cheese. In Wikipedia, Neutral Point of View does not mean giving equal weight to all points of view. If an article is properly sourced and is presented from a neutral point of view (as I believe this article is), there is no need to pepper the article with phrases such as 'purported', 'allegedly', 'according to the fed', 'critics have claimed', and so on. Famspear (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There really needs to be a Criticism section in this article. The "Criticism of the Federal Reserve" link is buried at the bottom of the article and is not easily found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.54.252 (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There is criticism in the article, but it's integrated into the other sections, so as to be in line with WP:STRUCTURE.--Dark Charles (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Also see WP:ALLEGED. I can't deny that the Fed. article has some problems, but not having the word "alleged" in front of sourced claims isn't one of them.--Dark Charles (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Senate vs. Congress

In the opening section of the article it says the Board of Governors "...are chosen by the President and confirmed by Congress." and later in the article on two occasions it says the Board of Governors "...are selected by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate.". So, is it the Congress or the Senate? Montclaire (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Answer: Senate. Article corrected. Famspear (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Money Supply Graph is Misleading

The graph showing the growth of the money supply since 1960 is misleading. The graph appears to show constant growth however the amount of money shown along the verticle axis goes from 0 to 500 up to about halfway, and then goes from 500 to 10,000 in the remaining half of the axis. The graph would obviously look very different if the units on the verticle axis were evenly distributed as the reader would intuitively expect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.159.165 (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a Logarithmic scale plot, fairly standard for exponential growth patterns. --Freeone3000 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)