Re: The Fix Is In For The Owners Of The Fed
[quote=Caasi]The Fed structure is indeed similar to a private corporation; however, there are no Articles of Incorporation filed in any state. There are no classes of shareholders. Each bank pays for membership in at most one Fed district bank, according to its size and receives a fixed 6% interest (or dividend if you like). Six of the nine directors of each Fed District are required to be independent of the banking industry. All of the ruling Board of Governors, a Federal Agency, are required to be without ties to the financial industry, appointed by the Pres and approved by Congress. Etc, etc.[/quote]
Of course there are no articles of incorporation. That’s why it’s above the UCC, i.e. the law. It’s incorporation was written by Congress…actually it was written by JP Morgan and friends and then it was passed by Congress.
When was the last time you heard that people making a guaranteed 6% payout from an organization weren’t "owners?" Oh yeah, that type of structure is usually only associated with New Jersey families with Italian last names in "construction" or "waste management." I think they’ve demonstrated over the years that they own whoever pays them. So do these organizations and the power people behind them own the Fed system.
Your source says "each bank pays for membership" as if that implies a diverse voluntary independence. Banks are owned (preferred voting shares) and controlled (debt holders) by a very tight group. The big Wall St ones are a cartel. The other ones are subservient to that cartel…not in terms of real governance, but in terms of financial power and rule-setting.
None of the directors/governors are independent. Sure they might not be owners or obviously paid lobbyists, but every macroeconomist is tied to the banking industry. It’s their worldview. They axiomatically think big is good, cartel is good, debt-based money is good, fractional reserve lending is good, saving "too big to fail" institutions is good, creating ungodly moral hazard is good, etc etc. They are absolutely tied to the financial industry. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be appointed. Heck, even Treasury Secs are tied to it. Remember what happened to Bush’s first Treasury Sec? He was run out of town by the Wall St lobby because he was an industrialist who didn’t understand the ways of the banking cartel. He had to go. Let’s see…other than him we’ve had Geithner, Paulson, Rubin, Regan…they’re not tied to the financial industry? Now that’s funny.