Talk:Federal Reserve

Non-neutral criticism quote

as New York Times columnist Frank Rich noted, "Ron Paul and Jim DeMint, political heroes of the tea party right, and Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson, similarly revered on the left, have found a common cause in vilifying the Federal Reserve Bank and its chairman, Ben Bernanke."

Rather than explain their specific criticisms this inflammatory quote was produced which is not neutral. Linking criticism to fringe groups like the Tea Party, and then not state the actual criticism is not exercising the neutrality which this article asks for. Again, the quote fails to be neutral: "Similarly revered on the left" and "found common cause in vilifying the .." - and then fails to explain what these people actually criticized. This is strawman reduction of their argument. So again, why use a quote which belittles these arguments without actually stating them? And then, why does the article not state them either? I came to this page wanting to learn about the Fed and hear what opponents had to say about it. I find it hard to believe that all criticisms of the Fed should be dismissed as wild conspiracy theory. Has no person ever made a valid argument about such a controversial banking system? I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure a handful of our historical leaders have opposed the philosophies behind the Fed and many politicians continue to speak out against it (as this biased quote suggests). These arguments seem to have been omitted from the article. I am not inclined to believe hearsay or subscribe to wild "conspiracy theories" as many of you have dismissively put it (perhaps rightfully so). I for one have no agenda but to be educated, but this article is very one sided for something which claims to represent "diverse opinions" and be "highly sensitive". I would like to know why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharlos (talk • contribs) 09:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Two informal edit requests

Change The responsibilities of the central bank are divided into several separate and independent parts, some private and some public. to The responsibilities of the central bank can be classified into private and public groupings. Please change According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve is independent within government in that "its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government." to According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve is independent within government in that "its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government." However, a search of public Executive or Legislative documents does not support their opinion.John Eamon (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC) John Eamon (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the first request isn't immediately obvious. Could you clarify your reason for this change?

For the second request, there would need to be a reliable secondary source cited to support the proposed addition. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

For my first request, I simply wish the word parts to be replaced by some word more appropriate since responsibilities are not part of any structure and if I look at WIKI's definition of parts, none of the four definitions fit. As a comprise, how about deleting the word parts and simply describing the responsibilities as either private or public. For the second edit request, there are numerous footnotes which reference the independence statement. Those footnotes trace back either directly or indirectly to the information published on the Federal Reserve website or in speeches given by members of the Fed. However, a review of the Federal Reserve Act and the legal documents which have modified it will not result in the discovery of any statements pertaining to the above stated independence. The second verifiable source link is simply www.fedreserve.gov which contains copies of the Federal Reserve Act and other legal documents. Also note this example. A janitor cleaning the floors does not need to have his or her decisions ratified, etc. etc. It would be meaningless for that janitor to issue such a statement. It is just a meaningless for the Fed to issue such a statement. As an aside, in general, excluding conspiracy, we are not held accountable for decisions, only for actions.John Eamon (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As to your second suggestion, if you're using the Federal Reserve Act as your source, then that qualifies as WP:OR.--Dark Charles 00:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with user John Eamon's comment about "ratification" of decisions. I've always thought that this was an odd statement to make in the article -- that decisions of the Board of Governors, etc., do not have to be "ratified" by someone else. (I guess it never bothered me quite enough to edit it myself.) Indeed, many of the most important decisions by government agencies do not have to be ratified or approved by someone higher up. For example, most decisions by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue do not have to approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, and most decisions made by the Secretary of the Treasury do not have to be approved by the President. The Secretary of the Treasury certainly has the legal authority to overrule the Commissioner, and the President cetainly has the legal authority to overrule both the Commissioner and the Secretary -- but those powers are exercised only rarely.

On the other points, though, I would disagree with John Eamon. The publications of the Federal Reserve System on its independence are quite sufficient for purposes of Wikipedia. And Wikipedia editors are not generally supposed to be in the business of doing prohibited Original Research on the statute itself (in this case, the Federal Reserve Act) to find some sort of support for the statements. I would argue that the statement that it is "just meaningless for the Fed to issue such a statement" regarding its own independence is not persuasive. Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, this is a quote from the web site for the Federal Reserve System:

The Federal Reserve System is an independent central bank, but only in the sense that its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or the executive branch of government. The entire System is subject to oversight by the Congress because the Constitution gives to the Congress the power to coin money and set its value--and that power was delegated to the Federal Reserve by the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government; therefore, the description of the System as "independent within the government" is more accurate than "independent."

--from Federal Reserve: The Nation's Central Bank/Overview, at [1]. As I noted above, the remark that "its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or the executive branch of government", while correct, is a bit beside the point, as there is really nothing "remarkable" about that fact. Most decisions, even most MAJOR decisions, of federal government agencies do not have to be "ratified" by the President, etc. Nevertheless, that is a statement on the Federal Reserve System's official web site, and the Federal Reserve System's web site is a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

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). [2] 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"[3]; the second ref states in the last sentence of the second paaragraph "In short, the Fed is an independent entity within the government."[4]; 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)[5]. 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)