Talk:Criticism of the Federal Reserve/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

OR continued

We seem to have a difference of opinion on what constitutes criticism of the Fed.

Please advise why you consider widespread criticism of the negative effects of central planning as practiced by the Federal Reserve is not suitable for inclusion in this article.

Please advise why you consider "stifling of economic thought" as not suitable to this article. Krugman, considered by many to be the No. 1 living US economist, states that he was blackballed from a Federal Reserve event discussing a field he originated. That BTW was in one of the items you deleted.

Please advise why criticism of the policies of a Federal Reserve chairman are not suitable. You seem to be unaware that the policies of a Federal Reserve chairman are the policies of the Federal Reserve.71.174.137.244 (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I already explained this above. Just because I may be critical of a particular President of the US, does not mean I'm a critic of the institution of the Presidency or of the democratic system which elects the President. Similarly, just because someone has a problem with some particular Fed Chair does not make them a critic of the Fed.

And actually no, the policies of the Fed Res chairman (actually chairwoman these days) are not the policies of the Fed overall, although the chair does have much to say about them.

I'm sorry, based on your comment above, I'm just not seeing this turning into a productive discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Also: At a minimum, the reference to the Lewis case was way off topic. That reference is not even a criticism of the Federal Reserve System, or the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, or of anything else. References to the Lewis case been inserted and removed from Federal Reserve System - related articles here in Wikipedia countless times over and over and over and over and over and over through the years.

A criticism could be something along the lines of: "...the 12 regional banks are private for purposes of the law that was the subject of the court case in Lewis, and being 'private' is bad because [ . . .]" (fill in the blank). But, the Court in Lewis was not saying that. The Court was not engaging in a criticism of the Federal Reserve System, or the 12 regional banks, or of anything else. So, citing to the Lewis case as an example of a "criticism" is not only prohibited original research, it's wildly erroneous original research. This is a classic example of why Wikipedia has the rule on Original Research. Famspear (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't seem to understand why the Congressional Research Service stating that something is private is acceptable and/or allowable in the article but a similar statement by a US District court is not. The relevant comment from the Service is "Because the regional Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned" and is pretty much exactly the same as the comment from the District Court. It may even be based on the District Court language.71.174.137.244 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Famspear: You seem to have a wildly misinformed opinion of what constitutes OR. OR is including an ORIGINAL OPINION not previously existing. Pointing to someone else's conclusion is not OR, otherwise every item in every wiki article would be OR. 71.174.137.244 (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't have a misinformed opinion. YOU need to review the rules on what constitutes OR.

However, the point about CRS in interesting. I hadn't noticed that. The statement by the Congressional Research Service is not a criticism. I suspect that originally, there may have been some critique at the beginning of that section, and it was removed somehow. If there is no critique in that section, then perhaps the entire section needs to be removed.

I know that some of the material in that section was added by me, but that material should have been coupled with other material that contains actual criticism.

If someone is critical of the Federal Reserve System based on the phony allegation that the System itself is "private," it would be OK to have material in the article from reliable sources that indicate that it is NOT private, or that being private is not "bad."

I would suggest: either delete the entire section, or add something from a reliable source, at the beginning of the section, that is truly a criticism. Famspear (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And, to be clear: Yes, pointing to someone else's opinion is indeed prohibited original research, when you are claiming that the opinion is a criticism where it is clearly NOT a criticism. That's why the misuse of the Lewis material is prohibited original research. I've already explained that. Famspear (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, now I see. The criticism is indeed found in the CRS material after all:

Because the regional Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned, and most of their directors are chosen by their stockholders, it is common to hear assertions that control of the Fed is in the hands of an elite. In particular, it has been rumored that control is in the hands of a very few people holding "class A stock" in the Fed.

The CRS material goes on to explain. The criticism is not being made by the CRS itself. Instead, the CRS is referring to the criticism, and is providing information that counters that criticism. Famspear (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Famspear: Here is something to help you out from the wiki OR guidelines "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Per your reference to a US Court statement as OR you are either stating that the Court is NOT RELIABLE, or UNPUBLISHED or both. Ludicrous at best and intentionally disruptive at worst.

Your objection may have more to do with the use of a primary source instead of being OR, however primary source can be used for simple declarative statement verifiable by your average educated person. Are you prepared to say that the average educated person is too stupid to confirm that the US Courts consider the Branch Banks to be private and not public institutions?

BTW: I never claimed that the Courts opinion was criticism. It is supporting material for the criticism of "the Fed is a private institution" which fact all except the ignorant agree on. 71.174.137.244 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not supporting material. The Lewis court was referring to the 12 regional banks -- not to the Federal Reserve System. And no, "the Fed" is not a "private institution."

Just to give some background to new readers who may not be aware of the underpinning of all this:

There is an entire sub-culture in the United States and perhaps other places as well that "sees" the Federal Reserve System as a "private bank" controlled by evil, secretive, nefarious elites. Many, many times -- probably hundreds of times -- we have seen people post material in articles related to the Fed to the effect that the Fed is "privately owned" -- but without saying why "privately owned" would somehow be a criticism, or why it would be something that is "bad."

More to the point: the Federal Reserve System is not "private owned" or "publicly owned". PARTS of the system are privately owned, and other parts are U.S. government agencies. The Federal Reserve System is not "one thing." it is a group of things.

For example, the twelve regional Federal Reserve banks are "private" in some limited sense, and they are "owned" by someone in some limited sense -- but not in the way that you might own your car. The twelve banks are "owned" by the member banks (see next paragraph), but the member banks don't control the Federal Reserve System in the way that you control the use of your car.

Banks such as Bank of America or Wells Fargo and many other commercial banks -- which are a separate part of the Federal Reserve System -- are indeed owned by someone in pretty much the same way that you might own your car. The ownership of these banks is spread out among thousands of people and entities.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a governmental entity. It cannot be "owned" by anyone in the sense that you own your car.

All these components -- and others -- make up the Federal Reserve SYSTEM. The SYSTEM cannot be "owned" and cannot be "private."

Saying that the Federal Reserve System is "privately owned" is like saying that the universe is a star merely because the universe contains stars. The universe contains lots more than just stars. It contains planets, and asteroids, and black holes, and so on. The mere fact that the Federal Reserve System contains private parts does not make the SYSTEM "privately owned." Famspear (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: I don't need "help" on understanding the concept of Original Research. And, no I'm not confusing the use of primary sources with the concept of Original Research. In fact, that is a mistake that some editors do make. I've already explained the Lewis material, and none of what I said has anything to do with whether the material is a primary source or a secondary source. Famspear (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way: Regarding your comment that "all except the ignorant" agree that "the Fed is a private institution": That is incorrect. If you want to learn about the Federal Reserve System and about how banking in general works, then pay attention to what I write, and stop pontificating. Famspear (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup! You got me! I misspoke. What I meant to say in the the Federal Reserve Branch Banks are privately owned which all except the ignorant agree on. Again you are most definitely confused that quoting language in a court case is OR. The Congressional Record was refers to the branch banks as well. Why is material from the Congressional Record not OR while a court case saying the exact same thing is?

Repeating previous material straight fro the OR page - "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Per your reference to a US Court statement as OR you are either stating that the Court is NOT RELIABLE, or UNPUBLISHED or both. Ludicrous at best and intentionally disruptive at worst.

YET AGAIN: By claiming OR you are either saying that the US Court in question is not reliable or that its opinions have not been published. ALSO YET AGAIN: Ludicrous at best and intentionally disruptive at worst.71.174.137.244 (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No.

Yet again: I am saying that the court in Lewis was not making a criticism. You are the only person here who has mentioned anything about the Court not being "reliable" or not being "published."

In terms of your false argument about my comment being "ludicrous at best" or "intentionally disruptive", let's get something straight. I have been editing here for over nine years. I have made many, many thousands of edits. I am also a lawyer and a certified public accountant, and I am a former bank auditor. I have many years of experience auditing banks that are members of ...... wait for it.... you may have guess it..... the Federal Reserve System.

So, calm down and pay attention. Famspear (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Something else to note - Lewis is a bit more nuanced than saying the Banks are private - see Federal Reserve Bank#Legal status. Using Lewis to say the FR Banks are private entities with no qualification is a mis-statement at best. Ravensfire (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good point by editor Ravensfire. This is a reference to the specifics of what the Court held in the Lewis case. The Court in Lewis was interpreting a particular provision of the law and was saying that for purposes of that provision, the 12 regional banks had a particular status. A detailed explanation of what the Court ruled in Lewis would take up a bit more space -- and a bit more time. Famspear (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wait. Maybe I should just provide the material I already have on the Lewis case at (ahem.... clearing my throat...) another place somewhere on the internet. That wouldn't take much time!

Heeeeeeeeeerre we go:

Some critics of the Federal Reserve System cite the 1982 case of Lewis v. United States for the proposition that the Federal Reserve System is "private" -- as a critique of the System. They usually don't bother to explain why "private" is somehow bad, but the underlying theory is that the Federal Reserve System is secretly owned by evil, international banksters who control the System behind the scenes to their own benefit, and to the detriment of the American people. The use of the Lewis case involves the false contention that because the member banks (e.g., Wells Fargo, Bank of America, etc.) "own" stock in an applicable Federal Reserve bank, the owners or managers of the member banks must somehow control the Federal Reserve SYSTEM as a whole.

However, the Lewis case involved the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, not the Federal Reserve System as a whole. Further, the ruling of the Court in Lewis involved interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). In that case, the Court stated that for purposes of the FTCA (allowing certain lawsuits against government entities), "the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations..." The Court stated: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region." The Court further stated: "The Banks are listed neither as 'wholly owned' government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as 'mixed ownership' corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856...." However, the Court also contrasted the status of the Reserve Banks under the FTCA with its status under various other Federal laws, and went on to say: "The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a 'public official' under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting 'for or on behalf of the Government.'" Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982), at [1]. The Court also noted that under the decision in Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), "a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351...." Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court also noted: "The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation." Id.

Gee willikers! Ravensfire was right! Famspear (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

More background: In Lewis, an individual named John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. He sued the "United States of America" itself, in federal district court. He alleged that the court had jurisdiction to hear his case under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). That law allows for courts to hear certain lawsuits against the United States of America. The federal government asked the court to dismiss the case, on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The district court agreed, and held that the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claim Act, and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.

Mr. Lewis appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court. The Court of Appeals held that for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2671, the Bank was not a "federal agency." This meant that the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is not a "federal instrumentality" for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act. The federal government -- the United States of America -- was not liable for the negligence of an employee of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

That's all that was involved in the case. The Court did not make any criticism of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, or of the Federal Reserve System. The Court did not say that the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco was controlled by private interests. The Court did not say that the Federal Reserve System was controlled by private interests.

Citing the Lewis case as support for saying or implying that the Court of Appeals was making a criticism of something is erroneous -- and prohibited -- original research. Famspear (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Gotta say you guys are raising up a smokescreen to avoid a response to my OR complaint. As previously stated the language I added was deleted with the excuse that it was OR. Again According to wiki policy OR applies to unreliable and/or unpublished material. Stating that a US District Courts Opinion is Unreliable may have a small amount of merit, since sometimes District court decisions get overturned but saying it is UNPUBLISHED is about as ludicrous as it gets. And also again the material was not a criticism but supporting material that the US Courts do consider the Regional Banks private entities.

Repeating Again - "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."

Seems pretty clear to me Lewis v the US States that the court considers them private entities and that is all I added and that is supported. "The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act", "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region", "Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities".

Lets see who can answer the question as to why it was OR. Is the Court UNRELIABLE, was the opinion NOT PUBLISHED or was it for both reasons? 71.174.137.244 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear IP71.174.137.244: Once again: Neither reason!

No, THE TEXT OF YOUR COMMENT IS A SMOKESCREEN. You are again harping on this "unreliable" and "unpublished" kick. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON WHO IS TALKING ABOUT THE LEWIS CASE BEING "UNRELIABLE" OR "UNPUBLISHED". NO ONE ELSE HERE HAS REFERRED TO THE LEWIS CASE AS BEING UNRELIABLE OR UNPUBLISHED. Indeed, I just posted extensive material about the case.

THE LEWIS CASE IS NOTHING NEW IN WIKIPEDIA. WE HAVE SEEN THIS MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES. Go back and review the talk page for this article, or the talk page for the article on the Federal Reserve System.

You have also ignored the material I posted just a few minutes ago. It is not enough that a particular source is reliable and published.

The statements in the CRS material actually mentions a CRITICISM of the Federal Reserve System. The material in the text of Lewis does NOT do that.

This is an article on CRITICISM of the Federal Reserve System -- not an article on whether it is "private," or on whether a particular Federal Reserve Bank is "private."

Prohibited original research IS NOT LIMITED TO MATERIAL THAT IS UNRELIABLE OR UNPUBLISHED. Your material tries to leave a false impression about what the Court in Lewis was talking about. In using the word "private", the Court was referring ONLY to the status of a Federal Reserve bank UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT and the liability of the U.S. government for damage caused in a vehicle accident by an employee of the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. That has nothing to do with private ownership in the ordinary sense of CONTROL of the bank.

What you are trying to do is THE VERY ESSENCE OF PROHIBITED ORIGINAL RESEARCH. You are trying to leave a FALSE impression about what a reliable, previously published source was saying. You are also engaging in what some legal scholars refer to as the fallacy of whole word equivocation in the use of the word "private". You are trying to imply, as do many opponents of the Federal Reserve System, that the System is controlled by private interests. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU AS A WIKIPEDIA EDITOR ARE ALLOWED TO DO.

Instead, look for a previously published, reliable third party SOURCE that makes that allegation or criticism. Famspear (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The CRS states that the Branch Banks are private. So do the US courts. That section was deleted with a slew of other material which contain valid criticisms. The objection made at the time of deletion were "FRINGE and OR nonsense, plus irrelevancies" Fringe is even more ludicrous then OR, and how can it be irrelevant when the same thing is included from CRS, leaving OR as the most likely.

BUT since you object to OR, then - Is US Court opinion FRINGE, or is it IRRELEVANT? Pick one or both. Thanks in advance.71.174.137.244 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The CRS gives a much more nuanced take on the nature of the Branch Banks than that. Either way this court case is pretty irrelevant as a criticism and gives people the wrong perception on the nature of Branch ownership. It would be immoral to imply that branch banks are somehow private corporations without proper context of the organization of the entire Reserve System. NeoStalinist (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Branch banks are private entities. They admit it themselves. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York when asked for information under the Freedom of Information Act refused to comply stating it was not a government agency and not subject to the FOIA.71.174.137.244 (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Branch Banks are part of the Reserve System. The Reserve System is an independent government agency. NeoStalinist (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, when faced with a Freedom of Information request refused to comply stating it was not a government agency.71.174.137.244 (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually the Federal Reserve Bank of New York said

"The Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.§ 552) (“FOIA”) requires that agencies of the Federal government make their records available to the public, unless the records are specifically exempted by one or more provisions in FOIA.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is not an “agency” as that term is defined in FOIA and is, therefore, not subject to its provisions. However, the Bank has committed to comply with the spirit of FOIA. Accordingly, this Policy provides for disclosure of Bank records, unless such records fall within one of several exemptions set forth below." NeoStalinist (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Tsk Tsk Tsk Your reference and what happened are far far different. If I remember correctly Bloomberg asked the Federal Reserve Board for information on loans made by the Branch banks. The Board refused to comply on the grounds that the loans were made by the Branch banks and was their proprietary information. Bloomberg went to court, won at that lower court, The Federal reserve Board then appealed and the Appeals court held to the lower courts decision forcing the Board to reveal that information. As a result of this FORCED compliance Bloomberg got information on some 13 Trillion in loans, many of them to foreign banks not even doing business in the US. Your boilerplate legaleze version seems to be far from what actually happened.

To repeat the Board refused to comply because it stated that the Branch Banks were PRIVATE institutions not subject to the FOIA.71.174.137.244 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Source please. Also, if the courts forced the Reserve to reveal information that means they recognized the bank as subject to the FOIA. NeoStalinist (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Link to the appeals court case http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1522864.html and relevant language. "The Board's alternative argument is that the Board obtained information from the Federal Reserve Banks, and that the Federal Reserve Banks are “persons.” Putting aside a fair question as to whether the Federal Reserve Banks are “persons” or agencies,"

In legaleze a "person" can be a person, a corporation, a foundation or other private entity. The Board clearly objected on the grounds that the Regional Banks were "persons" i.e. nonagency entities.71.174.137.244 (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

From your own source.

FOOTNOTES

1. Bloomberg sought information about loans conducted at the Discount Window, the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (“PDCF”), the Term Securities Lending Facility (“TSLF”), and the Term Auction Facility (“TAF”). The Discount Window is the long-standing program through which the twelve Federal Reserve Banks make short-term loans (often overnight) to depository institutions, and it can serve as “an emergency, back-up source of liquidity” for borrowing depository institutions that lack other options. Decl. of Brian F. Madigan ¶ 18. In the financial crisis of 2007, the Board authorized the Federal Reserve Banks to implement the TAF, a form of Discount Window lending that provides longer-term loans to depository institutions in amounts and at rates set by auction. In response to the continuing financial crisis, in 2008 the Board authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to lend to primary dealers (certain banks and broker dealers) through the PDCF and TSLF. The PDCF expands Discount Window-style lending to primary dealers. The TSLF permits primary dealers to obtain Treasury Securities in exchange for a pledge of other types of securities; this is implemented through an auction administered by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

2. This would require a finding that a Federal Reserve Bank is not itself an agency: a “person” includes “an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization other than an agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(2) (emphasis added). Because we reject the Board's argument on a different ground, we need not decide that question.

DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge:

"Your boilerplate legaleze version seems to be far from what actually happened." Actually, thanks to your source it does. You pretty much proved my argument as well as Farmspear's. The Federal Reserve Bank didn't even argue they were a corporation just a "person". Not a a "private institution" as you claim they said.

It seems like the courts actually agree with me that the Federal Reserves regional banks are government agencies and they are subject to FOIA and that the Fed's attempt to define themselves as agencies not subject to it is wrong. NeoStalinist (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You certainly work your way around the point. The Federal Reserve Board argued that the Regional Banks were "persons" i.e private entities. The court DISREGARDED that argument because it had no bearing. The Regional Banks were not part of the case and the location of the records is irrelevant. The case was against the BOARD. The BOARD tried to bring in the status of the Regional Banks as one of its arguments. The court said that the status of the Regional Banks was irrelevant and forced the BOARD to provide the information.

The location of records as an objection is ludicrous. If it had any bearing then any government agency could store records at a private warehouse and refuse to provide information because the records were in private hands. Can you say LUDICROUS? Can you?

Again: The Federal Reserve Board in its arguments in a COURT CASE, stated that the Regional Banks were "persons" i.e. private entities. How can you continue to deny this?71.174.137.244 (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Person's does not exclusivley mean private entities, as the case states, it can also mean a public entity. Of course The Fed never specified what they meant by "person". Once again the the Federal Reserve stated that "The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is not an “agency” as that term is defined in FOIA and is, therefore, not subject to its provisions.". Combine the fact that the Fed did not claim to be a private entity but a "person" with the court not even excepting that vague definition, and all you are left with is that the Federal Reserve Regionals are very unique autonomous government agencies.

Honestly, there is no point in debating this further. You are using semantics to make is seem as if the Federal Reserve Regional Banks are private entities which is a gross oversimplification and simply untrue. They are privately owned, albeit in an incredibly unconventional way that severely limits the power of the owners, yet publicly controlled. Monetary policy is determined by the Board of Governors who are all appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. They enforce and carry out the monetary policy of the Board of Governors. NeoStalinist (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The court did in fact state in Footnote 2 that persons are "entities other then agencies". According to the Court an a agency cannot be an person. Footnote 2 follows. This would require a finding that a Federal Reserve Bank is not itself an agency: a “person” includes “an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization other than an agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(2) (emphasis added). Because we reject the Board's argument on a different ground, we need not decide that question.

No questions that governments are also "persons". The US government is a "person". Your state government is a "person". Your city government is also a "person". The US Army is not a person because it is a part of the US government. Social Security is similarly not a person. The Justice Department is again not a person, and neither is the Federal Reserve BOARD. They are agencies or "parts" of the government. In personal terms your liver in not a person, neither is your spleen, your big toe or even your nose. They are a "part" of you. A "part" of a person cannot be a person. Again the point here is that the BOARD claimed in court that the Regional Boards were "persons". Per Footnote 2 you cannot be an agency and a person at the same time. The Board therefore claimed that the Regional Banks were not agencies or a "part" of the US government. The only thing left is that they are separate private entities, or do you wish to take the position that they are part of some government other then the US government?

Rereading some of this I am frankly AMAZED at your comment "It seems like the courts actually agree with me that the Federal Reserves regional banks are government agencies and they are subject to FOIA and that the Fed's attempt to define themselves as agencies not subject to it is wrong." How does a failure to examine the issue, become full agreement with your position? Where did you get the idea that the Board defines the Regional Banks as agencies when the Board defined them as "persons" i.e. separate entities. Do you understand what this statement means "Because we reject the Board's argument on a different ground, we need not decide that question."? Can you say "no comment"? The Court forced the BOARD to provide the information. It did not force the Regional Banks to provide the information because they were not a part of the case. 71.174.137.244 (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"do you wish to take the position that they are part of some government other then the US government?" No, because they are part of the entire Federal Reserve System. They were created by congressional charter and are under the control of the board of Governors.

"Where did you get the idea that the Board defines the Regional Banks as agencies" In 2012 when they said "The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is not an “agency” as that term is defined in FOIA" Basically they are trying to weasel their way out by claiming to be a unique type of agency.

Footnote 2 state that a public organization can be a person. Thats basically what these Regional Banks are. Privately owned but publicly controlled and regulated organizations. Just another boring bureaucracy. NeoStalinist (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Being part of the system does not make them a part of the government. They are privately owned and the majority of the directors are chosen by member banks.

Show me the 2012 language. There is no such thing as a unique agency. The BOARD claimed that they were NOT agencies in a court of law.

The government appoints only 3 out of 9 board members for the Regional Banks. 3 out of 9 do not exercise control. They are not anywhere near a majority.

Having government appointed directors does not make you a part of the government. I believe there are a number of cases where the government appointed directors to private firms being bailed out in order to protect the bailout money. The GM bailout is notable. Do you think that GM was ever an "agency" of the government just because it was being bailed out and had government appointed directors?

http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v14n2/Horton.pdf

1. A Treasury-Appointed Board of Directors

A receptive board of directors is integral to implementing a government-approved business plan, one that requires the production of environmentally-friendly vehicles. With a 60.8 percent equity interest, the Treasury was in a position to reconstitute GM’s board of directors.199 First, GM CEO Rick Wagner stepped down after an Oval Office meeting with President Obama and was replaced by CEO Fritz Henderson.200

Wagner was not alone, as Treasury moved to replace a large portion of the GM board of directors.201 Treasury named Edward Whitacre chairman of the board on June 9, 2009.202 On July 20, 2009, Treasury named Daniel F. Akerson, David Bonderman, Robert D. Krebs, and Patricia F. Russo to the board.20371.174.137.244 (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The GM thing is irrelevant. Here is what matters.

Is the Federal Reserve System an independent part of the government?: Yes. Are the Regional Banks part of that Reserve System?: Yes. Logically it follows that the Branch Banks are by extension parts of the United States governments. NeoStalinist (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that EVERY commercial bank in the US was forced to become a "member" of the Federal Reserve System, and that Credit Unions were forced to become members after the Credit Union fiasco of about 25 years ago? I believe that was in the early 1990's when a housing bubble blew a lot of them away. Goldman Sach's converted to a bank from an investment house to get Fed loans 7-8 years ago and is now also a member bank. Membership in the system does not equal "being a part of the government", neither does having some members of the board being appointed by the Federal government.71.174.137.244 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear IP 71.174.137.244: No.

Only a minority of commercial banks in the United States are members of the Federal Reserve System. Of the total of all commercial banks, about one-third are member banks in the Federal Reserve System. And, no, credit unions are not required to be members of the Federal Reserve System. Famspear (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That lewis case proved one of the member banks was private. But does that mean the entire fed reserve system is private? How about, is there a reliable secondary source, which refers to the Lewis case, and says it means the entire thing is private? Because it does appear original research otherwise. Popish Plot (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read an introductory undergraduate Money & Banking textbook to see how fundamental facts are presented. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the uneeded insult. Popish Plot (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's no insult. WP must represent the mainstream view of complex subjects. A widely used college text is an easy example and can give you a touchstone for areas of the subject matter with which you may not be familiar. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you weren't replying to me? Otherwise please reread what I posted. Popish Plot (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Famspear: Not ALL credit unions are members, I said that many were forced to become members during the recession of the early 1990's in order to gain access to Federal Reserve loans. Same goes for the S&L's. Nationally chartered banks are required to become members, state chartered banks MAY become members if the they so choose and if they meet the requirements of a member bank.

The point here is that all member banks are part of the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. Since it contains some 3,000 privately owned members banks, the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM cannot be a public institution.71.174.137.244 (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually the Federal Reserve System is a public institution. You've offered 0 evidence to the contrary. NeoStalinist (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Were you the one policing the Federal Reserve article a few years back to delete all references of the Jekyll Island meeting because it never happened? Just curious.71.174.137.244 (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I never used Wikipedia until a few weeks ago. NeoStalinist (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the Federal Reserve System is neither a "public" institution nor a "private" institution. It is an institution, or more aptly a GROUP of institutions, some of which are "public" (in the sense of governmental) and others of which are "private" (in the sense of businesses that are "owned" by someone).

The Solar System contains asteroids. That does not mean that the Solar System, is an "asteroid" system. The Solar System contains a star, plus various planets, plus asteroids, plus comets, and so on. So, to say that the Solar System, is an "asteroid" system would be misleading, as it would falsely imply that the Solar System's "asteroid" components define what the Solar System is. In the same way, to argue that the Federal Reserve System is "public" merely because it contains governmental units, or that it is "private" because Wells Fargo Bank is a member bank, is misleading; such a characterization falsely implies that a particular component of the Federal Reserve System should be used to describe the entire system.

We have been through this on this talk page for many years, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

People who want to argue that the Federal Reserve System is "private" are really trying to disguise their argument -- which is really that the Federal Reserve System is "bad."

Wikipedia is not the proper place for editors to argue about whether the Federal Reserve System is "good" or "bad" or "public" or "private." Instead, look for what reliable, previously published third party sources say, and follow Wikipedia guidelines on prohibited original research, as well as on neutral point of view and reliability. Famspear (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 71.174.137.244: No, in the erroneous post, you did NOT say that many Credit Unions were forced to become members during the recession of the early 1990's "in order to gain access to Federal Reserve loans." You specifically said, and I quote, that "EVERY commercial bank in the US was forced to become a 'member' of the Federal Reserve System" (which was false), and you said that "Credit Unions were forced to become members after the Credit Union fiasco of about 25 years ago..." (which was also false). In that incorrect post, you said nothing about "Federal Reserve loans". A reasonable person would have inferred that you were making flat statement about commercial banks and credit unions being required to be members of the Federal Reserve System -- and that is precisely the flat statement you made. You were wrong. Famspear (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Constitutionality now deleted

Please discuss content, not contributors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can't say I'm surprised. Seems that even through the main article points to this site for further material on Constitutionality, some people are so biased that they can't stand to see anything on this issue.71.174.137.244 (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone like to start a dialogue for "consensus"? If not then please don't delete material based on LACK of consensus. 71.174.137.244 (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What you're adding violates WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. We're not including it. It's almost as if we need another separate article Crazy conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Lets try this again again. The MAIN Federal Reserve article points to this sub article for information on Constitutionality.71.174.137.244 (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, in an unsourced statement. Fixed that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean that criticism of the Fed on Contitutional ground does not exist(Personal attack removed)? 71.174.137.244 (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoStalinist (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you SURE?

"The Federal Reserve is immoral, is unconstitutional, and we don't need it" Congressman Ron Paul http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2014/12/ron-paul-the-federal-reserve-is-immoral-unconstitutional-speech-at-the-cato-video71.174.137.244 (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoStalinist (talk • contribs) 18:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to be 100% certain here. I posted a statement by Congressman Ron Paul the the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional with a link to a video where he makes that statement, asking if you were SURE no such criticism EXISTS. You responded "YES". Let me ask the question again and request that you watch the FIRST FEW minutes of the video if you had not yet done so.

Are you ABSOLUTELY 100% SURE that there is NO criticism of the Federal Reserve on Constitutional grounds? Thank you for your co-operation.71.174.137.244 (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoStalinist (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The opinion of someone who takes a dismissal of a court case on the grounds that a Federal Reserve Branch Bank is not a part of the US government as evidence that it is a part of the US government. What more needs to be said?71.174.137.244 (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Just saying the Fed is unconstitutional is not a legitimate criticism. Criticism of the Fed on the grounds its unconstitutional doesn't exist because it isn't true. I could say the Jews control it as some of its conspiratorial critics do. The fact is Ron Paul is just another lying politician and should not be trusted. People need to think for themselves and not just latch on to whatever the political elite tell us. NeoStalinist (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Some people cannot see what is in front of their faces, as proven by you 3 times in a row.71.174.137.244 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The opinion of someone who thinks the Federal Reserve is comparable to the Khmer Rouge. What more needs to be said? NeoStalinist (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Fed, through its policies has lowered the standard of living of VAST swaths of the population. It is truism that the rich liver longer. Making people poor caused them to die sooner. Whether the Fed has caused more deaths then the Khmer Rouge is open to debate as NOBODY has ever done a study of how many people died early due to FED economic mismanagement. If you are interested in pursuing the subject find the number of people killed by the Khmer Rouge and I will find how many died of starvation during the Great Depression.71.174.137.244 (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

How many people starved during the era of wildcat banking? Trying to link every death in America to monetary policy is absurd and in fact impossible because there is probably almost no way to prove a definite link. Within a market economy there are innumerable factors that effect everyone, you can't just pick and choose based on a personal grudge. The Fed doesn't "make people poor" and at worst most of the population has seen stagnation not decline in wages and living standards since the 80's, and for many reasons. Again, linking the Fed to this as the sole reason why this has happened is well beyond a stretch and ignores other policy changes in the past 35 years. By your own logic the massive increases in wages and living standards during the "golden age of capitalism"(44-73) should also be credited to Fed policy if we are going to hold their feet to the fire for their failure to deliver during the modern "Washington consensus"(81-present). NeoStalinist (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Where did wildcat banking come into this? I'd call this a strawman but I somehow don't see you at that level. It is mainstream that Fed mismanagement of the money sup[ply caused the Great Depression. It is a truism that the vast majority were poorer during the Great Depression then before or after. It is a truism the the poor have a higher death rate then the rich. The increase chance is from such factors as freezing to death in winter (can't pay for heat), increased rate of suicide, increase in violent crime, poor health due to lack of food, and yes Dorothy! starvation due to lack of food.

One of the things you see in accounts of the Great Depression are pictures of soup kitchen ines stretching for blocks.71.184.179.236 (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

IP 71...

A quick look through the archives makes it painfully clear that this IP editors has been wasting people's time on this page for several years now. A quick look also reveals that they generally have completely failed to convince anyone of their POV or their proposed changes to the article and that consistently WP:CONSENSUS has been against them.

After a certain point it becomes just a plain ol' waste of time to try and engage in productive discussion with someone who's clearly WP:NOTHERE. Frankly, I'd just advocate reverting the said IP on sight and semi-protecting this page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

AHHHHH! The joys of consensus!04:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't protect the page at all. NeoStalinist (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much every page protected is politically sensitive and more then anything else the protection serves to shut out unfavorable opinions in favor of asskissing language.71.174.137.244 (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Watch the language. NeoStalinist (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Pick any politiclly sensitive topic and you will find it is protected. Pick any politically sensitive topic and chances are good that there is someone there with a vested interest deleting unfavorable material. The CIA does it, Mossad does it, the Chinese do it, and so does practically everyone else who has something to cover up. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks71.184.179.236 (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Fed destabilization of the economy

Some of the material deleted in the recent "cleanup" or more accurately "whitewash" of this article is Milton Friedman statement that he would prefer that the Federal Reserve be abolished, and that failing that its policy should be to increase the money supply as a slow constant rate in order to minimize business uncertainty and increase stability. Unforseen actions increase business uncertainty and cause instability, both a negative factor to business confidence and the likelyhood of making new investments.

If you object to the reinstatement of this material please let me if it is because Milton Friedman is fringe, irrelevant, or just a plain old kook! Thank's in advance.71.174.137.244 (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Friedman's criticism of the Fed is already in the article, as it should be. What text are you referring to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see what text you're referring to. The problem was that it was based on either unreliable sources (fringe conspiracy websites) or primary sources. You need reliable secondary sources to put in that Friedman wanted to abolish the fed. The un-usability of unreliable sources should be obvious. The un-usability of the primary source (Friedman interview) stems from the fact that Friedman said a lot of things over his lifetime and even changed his mind several times. How monetary policy should be conducted was one of those things. You can't cherry pick one sentence from one interview - that's POV pushing. What you need is a reliable source - preferably a scholarly one - which analyzes Friedman's attitude to the Fed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Didn't Friedmann say he'd like the fed to be abolished, but it wasn't a huge focus of his ideas? I see it mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Federal_Reserve Popish Plot (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah he said it once, but you know, when I was young I believed all kinds of dumb stuff too. We all change our minds. The problem there in that article is that it's text based on a primary sources - to really represent Friedman's ideas about the Fed you'd need a reliable secondary source. He did change his mind about the targeting of money supply and how monetary policy should be conducted in the 90's.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Friedman never changed his mind and his opinion remained that the Fed should preferably be abolished. This was a long term belief of his as was his opinion that the Fed should grow the money supply at a slow constant rate. This opinions were not a passing fancy nor a onetime thing as indicated above. I found multiple references over multiple years by Friedman on these points.

The use of Original source material is allowed by wiki policies to indicate simple declarative statements verifiable by anyone with a bit of eduction. For instance a statement by Friedman that he would "prefer to abolish the Fed" can be plainly verified in a video where he states "My first preference is to abolish the Fed". If Volunteer Marek CANNOT confirm this then it casts doubts on one or more of, his education level, his ability to hear, his ability to understand simple English and/or his veracity. 71.174.137.244 (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of original research allowed? Not sure if that's true. And no need to insult Voluneer. Popish Plot (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems that there is confusion between original research and original sources. Original research is material that did not exist before (a new idea) while an original source is the ORIGINAL SOURCE material. For instance original source material on the US Constitution would include the language of the Constitution itself. 71.184.179.236 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it'd be original research to think he changed his mind. And it can be mentioned in the wikipedia article on milton friendman there, why not use a primary source, a guys own words, to show what his views were on his page. But yeah is there a secondary source to mention it specifically as a criticism of the fed which is what this page in question is? How much weight should it be given. Friedmann is a top source for economics but did he criticize the fed a lot in his career? Yes. But did he make getting rid of the fed entirely a major focus of his career, no. Doesn't seem to. Just one mention advocating that. So I agree, no need to include it here, although my reasoning is different. Popish Plot (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. It's exactly in order to avoid original research that we shouldn't try to read Friedman's mind based on one isolated statement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I keep on looking at WP:PRIMARY and I keep on finding this statement "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I kinda think that Ron Puals statements that the fed is unconstitutional falls into that category.71.174.137.244 (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah nothing wrong with primary sources and it's original research to just guess that someone changed their mind before they died. But his one time comment on abolishing the fed being here would give it undue weight, after all he criticized the fed reserve his entire career but didn't say abolish it every time. We can guess at the reasons there but it'd be original research. Let's just sum up his main criticisms of the fed here. Which the article does right now. Popish Plot (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually for an encyclopedia, yes, there is something potentially wrong with primary sources, if they need to be interpreted or if they are being used to support controversial statements. And I did provide links below where Friedman explicitly says he changed his mind about the way that monetary policy should be conducted (which isn't the same as that he changed his mind about whether the Fed should be abolished but it does illustrate that you can't just pluck out one statement and spin it around to push some POV).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No but just go by wikipedia's guidelines, it says when primary sources can be used. Popish Plot (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, here is a link which describes an article Friedman wrote in the 90's advocating robust monetary expansion via discretionary policy by the Bank of Japan [2]. Here's the original but it's behind a paywall [3]. There's a specific piece out there in which Friedman pretty much says "I changed my mind" (about k-rule, targeting money supply and the like) but I can't find it right now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! The guy bitching about misrepresentation seems to be doing it. Re his "robust growth in the money supply" comment above the actual language is "The surest road to a healthy economic recovery is to increase the rate of monetary growth, to shift from tight money to easier money–to a rate of monetary growth closer to that which prevailed in the golden ’80s, but without again overdoing it." Notice the part about NOT OVERDOING IT. While I have no clue as to what rate the money supply grew during Japans golden age, I can definite state that Friedman thinks that too much money printing causes inflation and therefore has negative consequences, while a too slow or a contracting money supply is also bad. Friedman thinks that the money supply contracting 30% during the Great Depression under Federal Reserve stewardship was a big reason why the Great Depression was as bad as it was.. What Friedman advocates is the happy medium, not too slow (and heavens forbid never negative) and not too fast. 71.174.137.244 (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Free market thinkers like Friedman believe that any action that acts against market forces is negative for long term economic growth, because market fores are the best at finding price points that satisfy the most parties, causing those parties to take action that they deem beneficial for themselves, and that these actions will promotes economic growth. The market price point is the point where the most partied get benefited and therefore the price point where the MAXIMUM number will take action. By that standard ANY action taken by the Fed is contra free market because it moves some price point away from what the free market would have placed it at, thereby REDUCING the number of parties that can take self-beneficial action. The fewer parties taking action the less the economy grows.

Just the existence of the Fed adds another layer of economic uncertainty since players not only have to worry about market forces, but now have to also guess what the Fed will do to distort those market forces. Higher levels of uncertainty reduce the number willing to take action and so reduce economic growth.

Friedman's statement that he would prefer to see the Fed abolished, and that failing that it should stick to a purely mechanical system of raising the money supply is EXACTLY in line with his free market beliefs.71.174.137.244 (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, yes. But what does any of this have to do with this article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of the Fed for causing the inflation of the 70's, as well as criticism of the Fed for distorting market forces thereby reducing economic growth. See Friedman's comments below that the US experiences a 20 year stretch of good economic performance WHEN the Fed decided to follow his advise and provide a slow, steady and constant supply of money of the economy.71.174.137.244 (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)