The Creature from Jekyll Island author G. Edward Griffin interviews Norm Dodd

[seemslikeadream]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8312005344518277506&q=NORM+DODD&total=179&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9

[SDuderstadt]

1. You do realize that G. Edward Griffin is a RW quack, right?

Do you even know how the Federal Reserve works and what it is supposed to do? It's clear Griffin doesn't.

Among other goofball claims he's made, he claims that Noah's Ark has been found. Again, I ask. Is there any RW quack whose claims are so outrageous that even you won't pass them along?


http://realityzone.com/disofnoahark.html

[CGowen]

2. It was posted before and it's not really about the private Fed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=190863&mesg_id=190863

[seemslikeadream]

3. Thanks I missed that post

[SDuderstadt]

9. What do you mean by...

the "private" Fed?

[CGowen]

10. Even Greenspan admitted it in 1966 in his essay, although not telling the whole truth

And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government.

http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html
http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952



There were different times, and during Roosevelt's term some argue that the President and the Treasury had more control over monetary policy and the Fed was effectively nationalized, like it should be according to the constitution.

http://tinyurl.com/2mfgyf

[SDuderstadt]

15. The Federal Reserve is NOT "private"

It is an independent federal agency to firewall it from undue pressure or influence by the legislative and executive branches.

All surpluses generated above and beyond operating costs are returned to the US Treasury, as provided by federal law. The Federal Reserve is, in no sense, privately owned but people often get confused because the member banks are, indeed, privately owned (not the 12 Regional Federal Reserve Banks). Most of the "exposes" of the Fed make outlandish claims because their authors simply don't understand how the Fed functions. Most of this bullshit comes from Libertarians and the RW. I find it truly appalling when it gets repeated here (I am not, by any means, saying you are doing that).

The Federal Reserve plays an integral role in our economic and monetary systems and should hardly be above scrutiny. However, many people pile on with the most idiotic of claims simply because they don't take the time to figure out how the Fed works and why.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/fed.htm

[wildbilln864]

27. bullshit!

Aaron Russo's excellent documentary

[SDuderstadt]

30. Let me make sure I get this straight...

Bill,

Are you seriously claiming the Federal Reserve is not an independent Federal agency? Do you even know how the Federal Reserve works?

In your own words, please. Posting a video from someone doesn't establish anything other than that person's take on things. Are you seriously denying that the Federal Reserve is not privately owned?

[wildbilln864]

32. neither federal nor is it a reserve!

nor is it constitutional IMHO. That particular person's video expresses my take on the fed. Watch it.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Ummm, Bill...

if you deny something as fundamental as the Federal Reserve being an independent federal agency, there's no point in discussing this further with you. Your claim betrays your utter lack of knowledge about this subect matter.

[wildbilln864]

34. yes part federal and part private.

talk about comflicts of interest. It still should be abolished. :hi:

[SDuderstadt]

35. Ummm, Bill....

It is NOT part federal and part private. Your claim confirms exactly what I thought about your lack of knowledge about how the Fed works. The reason people make the rather stupid claim that it is "part private" is because they are confusing the ownership of the MEMBER BANKS, which ARE privately held, with the Fed itself which is, again, an independent federal agency and is NOT, in any sense, privately owned.

The Fed is an INDEPENDENT federal agency to insulate it from undue pressure or influence from the legislative and executive branches. Beyond that, it is considered to be self-funding, in that it finances itself through fees and interest derived from both loans it makes and federal securities it holds. By federal law, the Fed has to return any "profit" it makes, minus operating costs to the US Treasury. In this last fiscal year, it did exactly that, returning 95% of what it "earned" by the aforementioned means to the US Treasury, which you would know if you would bother to read the Annual Report of the Board of Governors. Is this sinking in, Bill?

Your lack of knowledge in this respect is simply appalling and, frankly, makes further attempts to reason with you beyond futile. Instead of parrotting silly CT talking points, why don't you educate yourself on how the Fed works and why, then we can resume our "conversation". Not a moment before, however.

[wildbilln864]

37. You're fucking hilarious dude....

linky
look and learn:link
And one more duder for your educational benefit: 3 minute video

[SDuderstadt]

38. Look, Bill...

My undergraduate degree was in comparative political systems. As such, I studied central banking systems and we spent a fair amount of time on the Federal Reserve. You can post as many videos as you want, but they prove absolutely nothing, especially given your sources. As I said earlier, it is pointless to attempt to reason with someone who is absolutely incapable of evaluating the soundness and validity of claims. In a nutshell, your "sources" are as uneducated as you are about the inner workings of the Federal Reserve. If you believe this claptrap, there is NO reasoning with you, simply because you won't take the time to properly educate yourself about precisely how our government works.

I dare you to post another one of your goofy videos. In the meantime, here is the relevant section of the United States Codes (federal law) which provides EXACTLY what I said before, that is, any surpluses generated by the Federal Reserve system is transferred to the United States Treasury. You're hopeless, Bill.

"(a) Dividends and surplus funds of reserve banks
(1) Stockholder dividends
(A) In general
After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders of the bank shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend of 6 percent on paid-in capital stock.
(B) Dividend cumulative
The entitlement to dividends under subparagraph (A) shall be cumulative.
(2) Deposit of net earnings in surplus fund
That portion of net earnings of each Federal reserve bank which remains after dividend claims under paragraph (1)(A) have been fully met shall be deposited in the surplus fund of the bank.
(b)  1 Transfer for fiscal year 2000
(1) In general
The Federal reserve banks shall transfer from the surplus funds of such banks to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the general fund of the Treasury, a total amount of $3,752,000,000 in fiscal year 2000."

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/usc_sec_12_00000289----000-.html

[AZCat]

39. Welcome to my world.

wildblln64 seems to delight in refusing to educate himself about various topics, instead preferring to draw his knowledge from miscellaneous "kook" websites, where he swallows crapola like this without even bothering to check it out first. There is little point in engaging someone so inclined.

[Diane_nyc]

56. The "FED 101" site

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=197088">SDuderstadt wrote:

You can post as many videos as you want, but they prove absolutely nothing, especially given your sources.

...

In a nutshell, your "sources" are as uneducated as you are about the inner workings of the Federal Reserve.

Actually, one of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=197083">Bill's links was to http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/fed101/structure/">a page on http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/fed101/index.htm?CFID=10589131&CFTOKEN=33975709">FED 101, which appears to be a legitimate educational site about the Fed. According to a very small-print notice at the bottom left corner of the home page, the site is "developed and hosted by the http://www.kansascityfed.org/">Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City."

Perhaps Bill is misinterpreting what he saw there, but that's another matter.

What's your impression of the "FED 101" site?

[SDuderstadt]

41. Jesus Fucking Christ, Bill...

In the first minute of your ludicrous video, the interviewee makes a HUGE error in claiming that the Federal Reserve "prints" our currency. If you'd bother to learn exactly how our government works, you'd learn that our paper currency is printed by the Bureau of Printing and Engraving, an agency of the Treasury Department (not the Federal Reserve) and our coins are minted by the...guess...U.S. MINT! Jesus, it is impossible for ANYONE to be this ignorant of how our government actually works. Wait...nevermind, Bill. You just proved me wrong.

[Diane_nyc]

49. Part public, part private

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=197079">SDuderstadt wrote:

It is NOT part federal and part private. Your claim confirms exactly what I thought about your lack of knowledge about how the Fed works. The reason people make the rather stupid claim that it is "part private" is because they are confusing the ownership of the MEMBER BANKS, which ARE privately held, with the Fed itself which is, again, an independent federal agency and is NOT, in any sense, privately owned.

There's a little bit more to this stuff about "public vs. private."

On the Federal Reserve website's http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/FRED/faq/faq.cfm">Fed FAQ page, select "Federal Reserve System" from the drop-down menu next to “Search by Category.” The answer to the question "What institutions are members of the Federal Reserve System, and what does membership entail?" includes the following:

Member banks must subscribe to stock in their regional Federal Reserve Bank in an amount equal to 6 percent of their capital and surplus, of which 3 percent must be paid in; the remaining 3 percent is subject to call by the Board of Governors. The holding of stock in a Federal Reserve Bank does not carry with it the control and financial interest conveyed to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations. It is merely a legal obligation that goes along with membership, and the stock may not be sold or pledged as collateral for loans. Member banks annually receive a 6 percent dividend on their stock, as specified by law, and vote for some of the directors (so-called class A and class B directors) of their Reserve Bank.

So, in a sense, the member banks "own stock" in their local Federal Reserve Bank, except that they don't have the usual privileges of stockholders beyond receiving a dividend.

As far as I can tell, that "stock ownership," with dividend, seems to be the main semi-factual basis of the hullabaloo about the Fed being a privately owned entity intended to make a profit for the member banks. However, the dividend is miniscule compared to the amount of money that the Fed pays to the Treasury as interest. (See, for example, the http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/sec5/c1t02.htm">Fed's 2006 annual report.)

[Diane_nyc]

54. P.S.: Correction of error above

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=216155">I wrote, regarding a quote from a pop-up answer to a question on one of the Fed's FAQ pages:

So, in a sense, the member banks "own stock" in their local Federal Reserve Bank, except that they don't have the usual privileges of stockholders beyond receiving a dividend.

Actually, according to the quote, they do get one more privilege of stockholders: they "vote for some of the directors (so-called class A and class B directors) of their Reserve Bank." Nevertheless, they don't get quite the degree of "control and financial interest conveyed to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations."

[William Seger]

36. What's next on your agenda, wildbill?

Maybe those pesky anti-trust laws and the Federal Trade Commission? They were also part of Wilson's Progressive Reform initiative.

[BeachBaby]

40. Last I checked....

the Federal Reserve is a quasi-governmental agency. That's what I was taught in high school and college.

So you're correct, bill.....part private, part federal - aka Quasi-governmental agency. :hi:

[SDuderstadt]

42. Wrong, wrong, wrong...

As I stated earlier, the MEMBER BANKS are, indeed, privately owned. But the Federal Reserve is an INDEPEDENT Federal Agency, under the oversight of Congress and is NOT, in any way, privately owned. How many freaking times do I have to explain this fairly simple fact??? Read the relevant sections of the United States Code, for Christ's sakes? Unfuckingbelievable!

[seemslikeadream]

43. Post a link

[BeachBaby]

44. What is your problem?

This is the first time I've posted here in this thread, and I wasn't talking to you.

Anyway, I'm too tired to pull out my college textbooks right now, but I did find this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

I know, I know....it's wikipedia. Whatever.

SLaD -how ya been, chickie? Ya snowed in over there?
:hug:

[SDuderstadt]

45. From your own link...

'The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects. As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."


My "problem" as I stated earlier is that uninformed people wrongly interpret the term "private" to mean "privately owned", which is simply not the case. In the instance at hand, the "private" aspect of the Federal Reserve system simply means that it operates somewhat independently of the U.S. government on purpose. It doesn't mean that it is privately owned, a distinction that its detractors rarely, if ever, make. The "ownership" issue is somewhat difficult to comprehend, given the private ownership of the "member" banks but, as stated in your own source, the Federal Reserve is not privately owned and is, in fact, an agency of the Federal government.

It's easy to see why the issue confuses most people. However, that doesn't absolve them of the responsibility of learning how our government works before launching silly, uninformed attacks.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/ch3.html

[BeachBaby]

46. From my own link....

"...The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, it is a quasi-public (part private, part government) banking system<1> composed of (1) the presidentially-appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors; (4) numerous private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks; and (5) various advisory councils."

[SDuderstadt]

47. Which does not mean...

privately owned, which was my point.

[truedelphi]

144. I'm getting a "no longer available" message. Where'd it go??

I have a DVD of Aaron Russo's take on the Fed. HAve been passing it around and people like the information.

[SDuderstadt]

148. Just because people "like" the information....

doesn't make it remotely true. Russo's video is full of blatant errors from the very beginning. What I find most appalling is how so many people manage to make it through high school and even college without even the most basic understanding of how critical parts of our government system work.

[truedelphi]

152. Can I ask you why you are on this forum??

I am not a Mormon. Don't believe that Joseph Smith found golden seals, don't believe that all was well in their little kingdom, etc.

BUt since it is a non-belief of mine, I don't spend any time or effort on websites devoted to communicating such beliefs to those who are Joseph Smith folowers...

You, on the other hand, have only the greatest amount of time to come up with such clever insights as "Not this again."

Why are you here?? It makes no sense.

Maybe some of us here in the dungeon believe things that will later be proven to not be true (There were planes when there actually were not or vice versa.)

But at least we have an interest in these matters, and are still at a point where we are trying to find out about our cause.

You, on the other hand, are doing something worse than believeing in something that may or may not true - you are wasting a lot of time ridiculing people. I guess time is not of value to you. We all know where you stand on all dungeoned issues, and so why are you bothering??

[SDuderstadt]

154. Correcting blatant misinformation is hardly....

"wasting people's time". Why do you seem to have a problem with people calling you on your factual errors? Do you understand the difference between correcting a factual error and disagreeing with someone's belief set? If you're going to post here and try to persuade people to your view, don't cry "foul" when someone has the temerity to call you on your errors.
As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan so aptly said, "You are entitled to your own opinions. However, you are not entitled to your own facts".

[truedelphi]

155. If you show me ONE EXAMPLE of someone here posting somthing that

Influenced you into not being a ridiculer of that supposed "heresy" then clue me in.

Otherwise in 48 hours I will have you on ignore.

[SDuderstadt]

157. I'd respond to your post....

but it's so incoherent, I have no idea what you are talking about. What in the world is "ONE EXAMPLE of someone here posting somthing that influenced you into not being a ridiculer of that supposed "heresy" then clue me in" mean, anyhow? Are you saying I have never agreed with anyone's post?

Besides that, I don't own an explanation of my right to be here to you. Take it up with the moderators. Or you can take the intellectually easy way out and put me on ignore.

[Diane_nyc]

55. "Independent federal agency" vs. "part public, part private"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=197024">SDuderstadt wrote:

Are you seriously claiming the Federal Reserve is not an independent Federal agency?

The highest levels of the Federal Reserve system constitute an independent federal agency.

However, the local Federal Reserve banks are certainly not just part of an independent Federal agency. Member banks elect some of the directors of their local Federal Reserve bank. (See the quote from one of the Fed's websites in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=216155">my post here, and see also http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=216176">my correction here.)

Thus, based on what I've been able to glean so far by looking at the Fed's own websites, it would seem that each local Federal Reserve bank is partly a federal agency (to the degree that it is subject to the higher levels of the Federal Reserve system), and partly an agency of the private member banks.

[Realityhack]

123. Aron Russo is an idiot and a tax cheat.

His claims are so bad they are almost funny.

[wildbilln864]

143. well, he's dead from cancer...

but I thought him to be a patriot. You, OTOH, not so much. :shrug:

[seemslikeadream]

4. Isn't that your job - TKOTRWQ?

The Keeper of the RW quacks

[seemslikeadream]

5. I have got to stop listening to Nova M Radio I guess

[seemslikeadream]

6. The main culprits were the Carnegie Institution,

http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/



How American corporate philanthropies launched a national campaign of ethnic cleansing in the United States, helped found and fund the Nazi eugenics of Hitler and Mengele — and then created the modern movement of "human genetics."


In the first three decades of the 20th Century, American corporate philanthropy combined with prestigious academic fraud to create the pseudoscience eugenics that institutionalized race politics as national policy. The goal: create a superior, white, Nordic race and obliterate the viability of everyone else.

How? By identifying so-called "defective" family trees and subjecting them to legislated segregation and sterilization programs. The victims: poor people, brown-haired white people, African Americans, immigrants, Indians, Eastern European Jews, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the superior genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists. The main culprits were the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune, in league with America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, operating out of a complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. The eugenic network worked in tandem with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the State Department and numerous state governmental bodies and legislatures throughout the country, and even the U.S. Supreme Court. They were all bent on breeding a eugenically superior race, just as agronomists would breed better strains of corn. The plan was to wipe away the reproductive capability of the weak and inferior.

Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes.

American eugenic crusades proliferated into a worldwide campaign, and in the 1920s came to the attention of Adolf Hitler. Under the Nazis, American eugenic principles were applied without restraint, careening out of control into the Reich's infamous genocide. During the pre-War years, American eugenicists openly supported Germany's program. The Rockefeller Foundation financed the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the work of its central racial scientists. Once WWII began, Nazi eugenics turned from mass sterilization and euthanasia to genocidal murder. One of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute doctors in the program financed by the Rockefeller Foundation was Josef Mengele who continued his research in Auschwitz, making daily eugenic reports on twins. After the world recoiled from Nazi atrocities, the American eugenics movement — its institutions and leading scientists — renamed and regrouped under the banner of an enlightened science called human genetics.

[seemslikeadream]

230. Apparently you don't

[seemslikeadream]

7. Transcript of interview

Griffin: Mr. Dodd, let's begin this interview by a brief statement, for the record, telling us who you are, what your background is, and your qualifications to speak on the subject.



Dodd: Well, Mr. Griffin, as for who I am, I am just as the name implies -- an individual born in New Jersey and educated in private schools, eventually in a school called Andover, Massachusetts, and then Yale University.



And, running through my whole period of being brought up, growing up, I have been an emphaticable reader, and I have had one major interest and that was this country, as I was led to believe that it was originally founded.



I entered the world of business knowing absolutely nothing about how that world operated. And, I realized that the only way to find out what that world was, and consisted of, would be to become part of it. And I then acquired some experience in the manufacturing world, and in the world of international communications, and finally chose banking as the field I wished to devote my life to.



I was fortunate enough, to secure a position in one of the important banks in New York. I lived there. I lived through the conditions which led up to what is known as the crash of 1929. I witnessed what is tantamount to a collapse of the structure of the United States as a whole.



Much to my surprise, my superiors, in the middle of the panic in which they were immersed, confronted me. I was confronted with the question, "Norm, what do we do now?"



I was thirty at the time, and I had no more right to have an answer to that question than the man in the moon. However, I did manage to say to my superiors, "Gentlemen, you take this experience as proof of something that you do not know about banking." And you better go find out what that something is, and act accordingly.



Four days later, I was confronted by these same superiors, with a statement to the effect that, “Norm, you go find out.” And I really was fool enough to accept that assignment, because it meant that you were going out to search for something, and nobody could tell you what you were looking for. I felt so strongly on the subject that I consented to it.



I was relieved of all normal duties inside the bank and, two and a half years later, I felt that it was possible to report back to those who had given me this assignment. So, I rendered such a report and, as a result of the report I rendered, I was told the following: "Norm, what you are saying is, we should return to sound banking." And I said, “Yes, in essence, that's exactly what it is that I am saying.”



Whereupon, I got my first shock, which was a statement from them to this effect: "We will never see sound banking in the United States again." And they cited chapter and verse, to support that statement.



What they cited was as follows: since the end of WWI, we have been responsible for what they call the institutionalizing of conflicting interests. And they are so prevalent inside this country, that they can never be resolved.



This came to me as an extraordinary shock because the men who made this statement were men who were deemed as the most prominent bankers in the country. The bank of which I was a part was spoken of a Morgan bank. Coming from men of that caliber, a statement of that kind made a tremendous impression on me.



The type of impression that it made on me was this: I wondered if I, as an individual, as what they call a junior officer of the bank, could with the same enthusiasm foster the progress and the policies of the bank. I spent about a year trying to think this out, and came to the conclusion that I would have to resign.



I did resign. As a consequence of that, I had this experience. When my letter of resignation reached the desk of the president of the bank, he sent for me. I came to visit with him and he stated to me, "Norm, I have your letter, but I do not believe you understand what has happened in the last ten days." I said, “No, Mr. Cochran, I have no idea what's happened.”



“Well,” he says, "the directors have never been able to get your report to them out of their minds and, as a result, they have decided that you, as an individual, must begin at once, and you must re-organize this bank in keeping with your own ideas." He then said, "Now, can I tear up your letter?”



And inasmuch as what had been said to me, what he was offering me, at the age of (by then) thirty-three, was about as fine an opportunity for service to the country as I could imagine. I said, “Yes.” And they said they wished me to begin at once, and I did.



Suddenly, in a span of about six weeks, I was not permitted to do another piece of work. And, every time I brought the subject up, I was kind of patted on the back and told, "Stop worrying about it, Norm. Pretty soon you will be a vice-president and you will have quite a handsome salary, and ultimately be able to retire on a very worthwhile pension and, in the meantime, you can play golf and tennis to your hearts content on weekends."



Well, Mr. Griffin, I found I could not do it. I spent a year, figuratively, with my feet on the desk, doing nothing. I just couldn't adjust to it. So I did resign. This time my resignation stuck.



Then, I got my second shock, which was the discovery that the doors of every bank in the United States were closed to me and I never could get a job, as it were, in the bank. So I found myself for the first time since I graduated from college, out of a job.



From then on, I followed various branches of the financial world, ranging from investment counsel, to membership in the stock exchange. I finally ended up as an advisor to a few individuals who had capital funds to look after.



In the meantime, my major interest became very specific, which was to endeavor, by some means, to get the educational world to actually, you might say, teach the subject of economics realistically, and move it away from the support of various speculative activities that characterized our country.



I have had that interest and you know how it is, if you generate a specific interest, you find yourself gravitating toward persons with similar interests. Ultimately, I found myself kind of at the center of the world of dissatisfaction with the direction in which this country was headed. And, I found myself in contact with many individuals who, on their own, had done a vast amount of studying and research in areas which were part of the problem.



Griffin: What point in your career did you become connected with the Reece Committee?



Dodd: Nineteen hundred and fifty-three (1953).



Griffin: 1953. And what was that capacity, Sir?



Dodd: That was in the capacity of what they called “Director of Research.”



Griffin: Can you tell us what the Reece Committee was attempting to do?



Dodd: Yes, I can tell you. It was operating and carrying out instructions embodied in a Resolution passed by the House of Representatives, which was to investigate the activities of foundations as to whether or not these activities could justifiably be labeled “un-American” -- without, I might add, defining what they meant by “un-American.” That was the Resolution and the committee had, then, the task of selecting a counsel, and the counsel, in turn, had the task of selecting a staff; and, he had to have somebody who would direct the work of that staff, and that was what they meant by the “Director of Research. “



Griffin: What were some of the details, the specifics, of what you told the committee at that time?



Dodd: Well, Mr. Griffin, in that report, I specifically -- number one -- defined what was, to us, meant by the phrase “un-American.” And, we defined that, in our way, as being a determination to effect changes in the country by un-Constitutional means.



We have plenty of Constitutional procedures, assuming that we wished to effect a change in the form of government, and that sort of thing. And therefore, any effort in that direction, which did not avail itself of the procedures authorized by the Constitution, could be justifiably called “un-American.” That was the start of educating them, up to that particular point. The next thing was to educate them as to the effect on the country, as a whole, of the activities of large, endowed foundations over the then past forty years.



Griffin: What was that effect, Sir?



Dodd: That affect was to orient our educational system away from support of the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and implemented in the Constitution; and to educate them over to the idea that the task now was to effect an orientation of education away from these briefly stated principles and self-evident truths.



And, that’s what had been the effect of the wealth which constituted the endowments of those foundations -– foundations that had been in existence over the largest portion of the span of fifty years -- and holding them responsible for this change. What we were able to bring forward was -- what we had uncovered was -- the determination of these large endowed foundations, through their trustees, actually to get control over the content of American education.



Griffin: There is quite a bit of publicity given to your conversation with Rowan Gaither. Will you please tell us who he was, and what was that conversation you had with him?



Dodd: Rowan Gaither was, at that time, President of the Ford Foundation. Mr. Gaither had sent for me, when I found it convenient to be in New York. He asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did.



Upon arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said, "Mr. Dodd, we have asked you to come up here today, because we thought that, possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves."



And, before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on, and voluntarily stated, "Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here, have had experience either with the OSS during the war, or with European economic administration after the war. We have had experience operating under directives. The directives emanate, and did emanate, from the White House. Now, we still operate under just such directives. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is?"



I said, “Yes, Mr. Gaither, I would like very much to know.” Whereupon, he made this statement to me, "Mr. Dodd, we are here to operate in response to similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States, that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."



Well, parenthetically, Mr. Griffin, I nearly fell off the chair. I, of course, didn't, but my response to Mr. Gaither then was, “Oh, Mr. Gaither, I can now answer your first question. You've forced the Congress of the United States to spend a hundred and fifty thousand dollars to find our what you have just told me.” I said, “Of course, legally, you're entitled to make grants for this purpose. But, I don't think you're entitled to withhold that information from the People of this country, to whom you're indebted for your tax exemption. So why don't you tell the People of the country just what you told me?” And his answer was, “We would not think of doing any such thing." So, then I said, “Well, Mr. Gaither, obviously, you forced the Congress to spend this money, in order to find out what you just told me.”



Griffin: Mr. Dodd, you have spoken, before, about some interesting things that were discovered by Kathryn Casey at the Carnegie Endowment. Would you tell us that story, please?



Dodd: Sure, glad to, Mr. Griffin. This experience you just referred to, came about in response to a letter which I had written to the Carnegie Endowment Center, National Peace, asking certain questions and gathering certain information.



On the arrival of that letter, Dr. Johnson, who was then President of the Carnegie Endowment, telephoned me and said, "Did you ever come up to New York?" I said, “Yes, I did, more or less each weekend.” And he said, "When you are next here, will you drop in and see us?” Which I did.



And again, on arrival, at the office of the Endowment, I found myself in the presence of Dr. Joseph Johnson, the President, who was the successor to Alger Hess, two vice-presidents and their own counsel, a partner in the firm -- a fellow by the name of Cromwell. And Dr. Johnson said (again after amenities), "Mr. Dodd, we have your letter. We can answer all those questions, but it would be a great deal of trouble. We have a counter-suggestion. Our counter-suggestion is that, if you can spare a member of your staff for two weeks, and send that member up to New York, we will give to that member a room in the library, and the minute books of this Foundation since its inception. And we think that, whatever you want to find out or that the Congress wants to find out, will be obvious from those minutes."



Well, my first reaction was they had lost their minds. I had a pretty good idea of what those minutes would contain, but I realized that Dr. Johnson had only been in office two years, and the vice-presidents were relatively young men, and counsel also seemed to be a young man. I guessed that, probably, they had never read the minutes themselves.



And so, I said that I had somebody and I would accept their offer. I went back to Washington, and I selected the member of my staff who had been a practicing attorney in Washington. She was on my staff to ensure I did not break any Congressional procedures or rules. In addition to that, she was unsympathetic to the purpose of the investigation. She was a level-headed and very reasonably brilliant, capable lady, and her attitude toward the investigation was this: “What could possibly be wrong with foundations? They do so much good.”







Well, in the face of that sincere conviction of Kathryn's, I went out of my way not to prejudice her in any way, but I did explain to her that she couldn't possibly cover fifty years of handwritten minutes in two weeks. So, she would have to do what we call “spot reading.” I blocked out certain periods of time to concentrate on. Off she went -- to New York. She came back at the end of two weeks, with the following recorded on dictaphone belts.



We are now at the year nineteen hundred and eight, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion. And the question is this: Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?



Well, I doubt, at that time, if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the People of this country, than its involvement in a war. There were intermittent shows in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were. And finally, they answer that question as follows: we must control the State Department.



And then, that very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? They answer it by saying, we must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country and, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective. Then, time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I. At that time, they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatch to President Wilson a telegram cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly. And finally, of course, the war is over.



At that time, their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914, when World War I broke out. At that point, they come to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, we must control education in the United States. And they realize that is a pretty big task. To them it is too big for them alone.



So they approach the Rockefeller Foundation with a suggestion: that portion of education which could be considered domestic should be handled by the Rockefeller Foundation, and that portion which is international should be handled by the Endowment.



They then decide that the key to the success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American History. So, they approach four of the then most prominent teachers of American History in the country -- people like Charles and Mary Byrd. Their suggestion to them is this, “Will they alter the manner in which they present their subject”” And, they get turned down, flatly.



So, they then decide that it is necessary for them to do as they say, i.e. “build our own stable of historians." Then, they approach the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in fellowships, and say” “When we find young men in the process of studying for doctorates in the field of American History, and we feel that they are the right caliber, will you grant them fellowships on our say so? And the answer is, “Yes.”



So, under that condition, eventually they assemble twenty (20), and they take these twenty potential teachers of American History to London. There, they are briefed in what is expected of them -- when, as, and if they secure appointments in keeping with the doctorates they will have earned.



That group of twenty historians ultimately becomes the nucleus of the American Historical Association. And then, toward the end of the 1920's, the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) for a study of our history in a manner which points to what this country look forward to, in the future.



That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is, of course, in essence, a summary of the contents of the other six. The essence of the last volume is this: the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with characteristic American efficiency.



That is the story that ultimately grew out of, and of course, was what could have been presented by the members of, this Congressional Committee, and the Congress as a whole, for just exactly what it said. But, they never got to that point!



Griffin: This is the story that emerged from the minutes at the Carnegie Foundation?



Dodd: That's right.



Griffin: And so?



Dodd: It was official to that extent.



Griffin: And Kathryn Casey brought all of these back, in the form of dictated notes, or verbatim readings, of the minutes?



Dodd: On dictaphone belts.



Griffin: Are those in existence today?



Dodd: I don't know. If they are, they're somewhere in the archives, under the control of the Congress, the House of Representatives.



Griffin: How many people actually heard those? Or, were they typed up, transcripts made?



Dodd: No.



Griffin: How many people actually heard those recordings?



Dodd: Three maybe. Myself, my top assistant, and Kathryn. Yeah, I might tell you this experience, as far as its impact on Kathryn Casey is concerned. Well, she was never able to return to her law practice. If it hadn't been for Carroll Reece's ability to tuck her away in a job with the Federal Trade Commission, I don't know what would have happened to Kathryn. Ultimately, she lost her mind as a result of it. It was a terrible shock to her. It is a very rough experience for her to encounter proof of this kind.



Griffin: Mr. Dodd, can you summarize the opposition to the Committee, the Reece Committee, and particularly the efforts to sabotage the Committee?



Dodd: Well, it began right at the start of the week of the operating staff, Mr. Griffin. It began on the day on which the Committee met for the purpose of consenting to, or confirming, my appointment to the position of Director of Research. Thanks to the abstention by the minority members of the Committee from voting, that is, the two Democratic members – that is why, technically, I was unanimously appointed.



Griffin: Wasn't the White House involved in opposition?



Dodd: Not at this particular point, Sir. Mr. Reece ordered Counsel and myself to visit Wayne Hayes. Wayne Hayes was the ranking minority member of the Committee, as a Democrat. So, we -- Kathryn and I -- had to go down to Mr. Hayes’ office, which we did. Mr. Hayes greeted us with the flat statement, directed primarily to me, “I am opposed to this investigation. I regard it as nothing but an effort on the part of Carroll Reece to gain a little prominence. So, I'll do everything I can to see that it fails.” Well, I have a strange personality, in the sense that a challenge of that nature interests me.



Our Counsel withdrew. He went over and sat on the couch in Mr. Reece's office, and pouted. I, sort of, took up this statement by Mr. Hayes as a challenge, and set myself a goal of winning him over to our point of view.



I started by noticing that, on his desk, there was a book. The book was of the type – and there were many in those days -- that would be complaining about the spread of communism, and Hungary. That type of book.



This meant to me that, at least Hayes had read the book. So, I brought up the subject of the spread of the influence of the Soviet World. For two hours, I discussed this with Hayes and, finally, he ended up by rising from his desk and saying, "Norm, if you will carry this investigation toward the goal that you have outlined to me, I will be your biggest supporter."



I said, “Mr. Hayes, I can assure you. I will not double-cross you. Subsequently, Mr. Hayes sent word to me that he was in Bethesda Naval Hospital, with an attack of ulcers. He asked if would I come and see him. Which I did. He then said, "Norm, the only reason I've asked you to come out here is that I just want to hear you say, again you will not double-cross me." I gave him that assurance, and that was the basis of our relationship.



Meanwhile, Counsel took the attitude expressed in these words, “Norm, if you want to waste your time with 'this guy' (as he called him), then you can go ahead and do it, but don't ever ask me to say anything to him, under any conditions, on any subject.”



So, in a sense, that created a deck for me to operate in relation to Hayes, on my own.



As time passed, Hayes offered friendship, which I hesitated to accept because of his vulgarity. I didn't want to get mixed up with him socially, under any conditions.



Well, that was our relationship for about three months. Eventually, I had occasion to add to my staff. As a result of adding to my staff a top-flight intelligence officer, both the Republican National Committee and the White House resorted to stopping me from continuing this investigation in the direction Carroll Reece had personally asked me to go.



Mr. Griffin, that direction was to utilize this investigation to uncover the fact that this country had been the victim of a conspiracy. That was Mr. Reece's conviction. I eventually agreed to carry out that direction.



I explained to Mr. Reece that his own Counsel wouldn't go in that direction. He gave me permission to disregard our own Counsel and to set up an aspect of the investigation outside of our office -- more or less secretly. The Republican National Committee got wind of what I was doing, and they did everything they could to stop me. They appealed to Counsel to stop me. Finally, they resorted to the White House.



Griffin: Was their objection because of what you were doing, or because of the fact that you were doing it outside of the official auspices of the Committee?



Dodd: No. The objection was, as they put it, my devotion to what they called "anti-Semitism." That was a cooked-up idea. In other words, it wasn't true at all. But, any way, that's the way they expressed it.



Griffin: Excuse me. Why?



Dodd: Then they made it stick.



Griffin: Why did they do that? How could they say that?



Dodd: Well, they could say it, Mr. Griffin. But, they had to have something in the way of a rationalization of their decision to do everything they could to stop completion of this investigation, given the direction that it was moving. That direction would have been exposure of this Carnegie Endowment story, and the Ford Foundation, and the Guggenheim, and the Rockefeller Foundation -- all working in harmony toward the control of education in the United States.



Well, to secure the help of the White House in the picture, they got the White House to cause the liaison between the White and the Hill -- a major person -- to go up to Hayes and try to get him, as it were, actively to oppose what the investigation was engaged in.



Hayes, then, very kindly, would listen to this visit from this major person. Then he would call me and say, “Norm, come up to my office. I have a good deal to tell you.”



I would go up. He would tell me he just had a visit from this major person, and he wants me to break up this investigation. So then I said, “Wayne, what did you do? What did you say to him?” He said, “I just told him to get the hell out.” And he did that three times. I got pretty proud of him, in the sense that he was, as it were, backing me up. We finally embarked upon hearings at Hayes’ request. Hayes wanted to get them out of the way, before he went abroad in the summer.



Griffin: Why were the hearings finally terminated? What happened to the Committee?



Dodd: What happened to the Committee, or to the hearings?



Griffin: The hearings.



Dodd: The hearings were terminated. Carroll Reece was up against such a furor in Hayes, through the activity of our own Counsel. Hayes became convinced that he was being double-crossed; and he put on a show in the public hearing room, Mr. Griffin, that was an absolute disgrace. He called Carroll Reece publicly every name in the book.



Mr. Reece took this as proof that he couldn't continue the hearings. He actually invited me to accompany him when he went down to Hayes’ office and, in my presence, with the tears rolling down his face, Hayes apologized to Carroll Reece for all he'd done, and his conduct. He apologized to me. I thought that would be enough, and Carroll would resume. He never did.



Griffin: This charge of anti-Semitism is kind of intriguing to me. What was the basis of that charge? Was there any basis for it at all?



Dodd: The basis used by the Republican National Committee was that the intelligence officer I had taken on my staff -- when I oriented this investigation to the exposure of, and proof of, a conspiracy -- was known to have a book, and that book was deemed to be anti-Semitic. It was childish, but it's what the second-in-command at the Republican National Committee said, and he told me I'd have to dismiss this person from my staff.



Griffin: Who was that person?



Dodd: A Colonel Lee Loraine.



Griffin: Lee Loraine. And what was his book? Do you recall?



Dodd: The book they referred to was called Waters Flowing Eastward. It was a strong castigation of the Jewish influence in the world.



Griffin: What were some of the other charges made by Mr. Hayes, against Mr. Reece?



Dodd: Just that Mr. Reece was utilizing this investigation for his own prominence inside the House of Representatives. That was the only charge Hayes could think up.



Griffin: How would you describe the motivation of the people who created the foundations -- the big foundations -- in the very beginning? What was their motivation?



Dodd: Their motivation was, well, let's take Mr. Carnegie, as an example. His publicly declared and steadfast interest was to counteract the departure of the colonies from Great Britain. He was devoted just to putting the pieces back together again.



Griffin: Would that have required the collectivism to which they were dedicated?



Dodd: No. No. No. These policies are the foundations' allegiance to these un-American concepts; these policies are all traceable to the transfer of the funds over into the hands of Trustees, Mr. Griffin. Those Trustees were not the men who had a hand in the creation of the wealth that led to the endowment, or the use of that wealth for what we would call public purposes.



Griffin: It was a subversion of the original intent, then?



Dodd: Oh, yes! Completely so. We got into the worlds, traditionally, of bankers and lawyers.



Griffin: How have the purpose and direction of the major foundations changed, over the years, up to the present? What are their purposes and directions today?



Dodd: 100% behind meeting the cost of education, such as it is presented through the schools and colleges of this United States, on the subject of our history -– to prove that our original ideas are no longer practical. The future belongs to collectivistic concepts. There is just no disagreement on this.



Griffin: Why do the foundations generously support communist causes in the United States?



Dodd: Well, because, to them, communism represents a means of developing what we call a monopoly -- as the organization, we'll say, of large-scale industry into an administrable unit.



Griffin: Do they think that they will?



Dodd: They will be the beneficiary of it, yes.

[SDuderstadt]

8. This excerpt from the transcript alone should tell you...

that it's nearly impossible to determine who's goofier...Griffin or Dodd.


"I said, “Yes, Mr. Gaither, I would like very much to know.” Whereupon, he made this statement to me, "Mr. Dodd, we are here to operate in response to similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States, that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."


As I have stated before, I don't know why you insist on posting RW propaganda in a liberal Democratic forum.

[seemslikeadream]

11. Sid you should get out more

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=344

[greyl]

14. That link doesn't help your case, it hurts it. nt

[seemslikeadream]

16. So you think Sibel is a liar?

Do yo see any RW links there?

[greyl]

18. Quality journalists don't leap to such hasty conclusions.

If you're genuinely interested in what I meant in my previous post, ask.

[seemslikeadream]

19. Again are you a journalist?

I think this is the 10th time I've ask you

[greyl]

22. Do you want to be a better one? nt

[seemslikeadream]

20. genuinely interested?

no not at all to tell you the truth

[seemslikeadream]

12. Do you ever post in any other forums here?

I never run into you anywhere else here maybe that's way you have such a prejudiced view of me

[SDuderstadt]

13. Quit posting RW propaganda and...

I won't have a "prejudiced" view of you.

[seemslikeadream]

17. Do you really think I give two shits about what you think of me?

[SDuderstadt]

21. No, but...

again you dodge the question. Why do you keep posting RW propaganda on a liberal Democratic message board? Don't you find that odd? Or, is it that you don't care about the source as long as it supports your preconceived notion? Are you really objecting to be called out for posting RW propaganda?

[angstlessk]

23. Maybe because the attacks of 9/11 were on AMERICANS and not Democrats???

even reight wingers are suspicious of the government...which should make you go hmmmmmm even more!

[SDuderstadt]

24. Help me understand your post..."

Since even rightwingers are suspicious of government (if that's something new, you need to study the RW a little closer), that justifies posting obvious RW propaganda (i.e., not true)?

Here's my problem. A significant percentage of people of all political persuasions fall prey to a logical fallacy called "false certainty". That is, seeing something in print, no matter how questionable, establishes the claim as true in their minds and they abandon the rational thinking processes needed to evaluate the validity and soundness of said claim. Aren't we liberals supposed to be more intelligent? Shouldn't we, therefore, demand higher standards of information? Shouldn't we be diligent in fact-checking and drawing provisional conclusions pending further conclusions, assuring that we are constantly vigilant as to the truth?

Why in the world are we rationalizing posting John Birch Society propaganda on a liberal Democratic message board? Frankly, that mystifies me.

[angstlessk]

25. rw's being suspicious of boosh is the hmmmm to which I refer...

not their government per se. I agree we democrats should demand a higher standard, which is why we are calling for a NEW INVESTIGATION..and only referring to alternative evidence as proof that the 'original conspiracy theory' seems more bogus with each passing year!

[seemslikeadream]

26. I've heard only ants read The Washington Times

actually I think it's full of spiders also

[angstlessk]

29. here in Virginia we call them aunts..not ants...aunt rhymes with haunt

and not pant...spiders and ants and webs oh no(s)!1!

[seemslikeadream]

28. Do not I repeat DO NOT link to any of these

or I will have to take your membership in the club away :hi: Sorry about the movies, there were a few I would have like to have seen.



Damn it now I have to take all my photos off of Photobucket



Twentieth Century Fox
Twentieth Century Fox Español
Twentieth Century Fox International
Twentieth Century Fox Television
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Fox Studios Australia
Fox Studios Baja
Fox Studios Los Angeles
Fox Television Studios

Television
20th Century Fox Television
bTV
BSkyB
The DirecTV Group
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Sports Australia
Fox Television Stations
Foxtel
Premiere (19,9%)
Star Group Limited
Sky Latin America
SKY Network Television New Zealand
Sky Television Italy
Latvijas Neatkarīgā Televīzija
TV5 Rīga

Cable
Fox Business Network
Fox Movie Channel
Fox News Channel
Fox Soccer Channel
Fox Sports Channel
Fox Sports Enterprises
Fox Sports en Español
Fox Sports Net
FUEL TV
FX Networks
Fox Reality
National Geographic Channel
SPEED Channel
Turner South
LAPTV (Latin America - co-owned with Paramount Pictures/Viacom, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer/MGM Holdings and Universal Studios/NBC Universal)
Telecine (Brazil - co-owned with Globosat Canais, Paramount Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Universal Studios and DreamWorks/Viacom);

Magazines and Inserts
InsideOut
donna hay
News America Marketing
SmartSource
The Weekly Standard
Gemstar

Newspapers
News International
United Kingdom
The Sun
News of the World
The Times
Sunday Times
News Corporation Ltd.
Australia
The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)
The Sunday Telegraph (Sydney)
The Australian (national)
The Advertiser and Sunday Mail (Adelaide)
The Sunday Times (Perth)
Herald Sun (Melbourne)
Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne)
mX (Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane)
The Courier-Mail (Brisbane)]])
Geelong Advertiser
Gold Coast Bulletin
The Mercury and Sunday Tasmanian (Hobart)
Northern Territory News (Darwin)
The Sunday Territorian (Darwin)
New Zealand
Sunday Star-Times
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea Post-Courier
Fiji
The Fiji Times
United States
New York Post
The Wall Street Journal

Books
HarperCollins

Miscellaneous
National Rugby League (NRL) (50%)
MySpace
Photobucket
Sibelius Software
Ansett Australia, Until 2000 (50%)

[SDuderstadt]

31. RWers are suspicious of Bush because...

by and large, they don't think he's conservative enough. For the record, I despise Bush and his entire administration. But that doesn't mean MIHOP or LIHOP are true without some definitive proof. I hear many from the "truther" movement say things like, "we can't trust anything they say" and there is largely good reason not to just take their word on about anything. My problem is the "truth" movement does not apply the same rigorous standards they demand of the "offical story" to their own wild claims. When they can provide some convincing, concrete evidence of their claims, I'm all ears.

[truedelphi]

145. When did Griffin interview Dodd??

Dodd was born in 1899. So this interview had to have been some time ago.

[Bassman66]

48. The Federal Reserve operating costs.

Is it true that it pays on average £21 billion p.a back to the Treasury but has operating costs of £100 million?

What do they spend that on?

When was the last complete audit of the Federal Reserve?

[Bassman66]

57. I guess nobody knows where all that money goes. nt

[Realityhack]

124. Maybe they want you to try finding out for yourself n/t

[Bassman66]

125. That's impossible.

The FOMC is protected by law.

Stinks.

[Diane_nyc]

61. At least some of it must go to salaries of employees of the Federal Reserve banks.

Let's assume the average employee of the average Federal Reserve bank earns $50,000 per year. (Just a wild guesstimate.) I forget exactly how many FR Bank districts there are offhand, but, if I recall correctly, I think there are somewhere on the order of 10 of them. In that case, $100 million would be enough for approximately 2000 employees total, or approximately 200 employees per Federal Reserve Bank district. This isn't outrageously far outside the ballpark of what I would expect.

And of course they would have other expenses too, such as building maintenance.

Of course it would be desirable to see more detailed financial statements. Who knows what sort of corruption might be uncovered?

But, offhand, I see no good a priori reason to conclude that the FR banks are ripping us off bigtime via their "operating expenses" in particular.

On edit: I notice that you used "£" rather than "$". Was that a typo? Above, I've assumed that you actually meant "$", since this is the U.S.A.

[Bassman66]

50. Nelson Aldrich

I'm puzzled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

According to Wiki Nelson Aldrich who was at the supposedly unimportant Jekyll Island meeting didn't get his way because:

The Federal Reserve Act
Main article: Federal Reserve Act

Newspaper clipping, December 24, 1913 The chief of the bipartisan National Monetary Commission was financial expert and Senate Republican leader Nelson Aldrich. Aldrich set up two commissions — one to study the American monetary system in depth and the other, headed by Aldrich himself, to study the European central-banking systems and report on them.<4> Aldrich went to Europe opposed to centralized banking, but after viewing Germany's banking system came away believing that a centralized bank was better than the government-issued bond system that he had previously supported. Centralized banking was met with much opposition from politicians, who were suspicious of a central bank and who charged that Aldrich was biased due to his close ties to wealthy bankers such as J.P. Morgan and his daughter's marriage to John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

Aldrich fought for a private bank with little government influence, but conceded that the government should be represented on the Board of Directors. Most Republicans favored the Aldrich Plan,<5> but it lacked enough support in the bipartisan Congress to pass.<6> Progressive Democrats instead favored a reserve system owned and operated by the government and out of control of the "money trust", ending Wall Street's control of American currency supply.<5> Conservative Democrats fought for a privately owned, yet decentralized, reserve system, which would still be free of Wall Street's control.<5> The Federal Reserve Act passed Congress in late 1913 on a mostly partisan basis, with most Democrats in support and most Republicans against it.<7>

This gives the impression that Aldrich didn't get his way, but as far as I can see the Federal Reserve is owned by private companies and does not have government representation on the board and hasn't had for 50 years.

"Progressive Democrats instead favored a reserve system owned and operated by the government and out of control of the "money trust"..."

That didn't happen either.

What gives?

[Bassman66]

51. Rockerfeller connection.

Would I be right in thinking that the relationship between Aldrich and Rockerfeller was extremely close in view of the fact that Nelson Aldrich Rockerfeller was born in 1908.

Cosy.

You'll have to excuse me if you know all this, it's all new to me and very interesting.

[Bassman66]

52. The horse's mouth?

For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

—David Rockefeller, "Memoirs" autobiography (2002, Random House publishers), page 405

Who voted for David Rockefeller?

[Bassman66]

53. The Council on Foreign Relations

Founded in 1921.

By who? The CFR website doesn't give any detail.

Who votes for them?

So much to learn...

[End Of The Road]

136. Look at Cecil Rhodes. nt

[Diane_nyc]

58. Relevant stuff on the "Liberalism Resurgent" website

On the websits http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/tenets.htm">Liberalism Resurgent (an old site, last updated shortly before http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/The_Year_2000.html">the year 2000, apparently, but full of good stuff), the http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm">Long FAQ on Liberalism contains links to two pages relevant to the discussion here.

One is a page titled http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gold.htm">Myth: The gold standard is a better monetary system. Fact: The gold standard causes deflation and depressions. This essay discusses much more than just the gold standard. It contains an excellent, easy-to-read basic overview of the history of monetary systems. This history is necessary background in order to understand the controversies about the Federal Reserve System and about fractional reserve banking.

Also relevant is a section about the so-called http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm">Austrian School of Economics, adhered to by various right wing libertarian critics of the Fed, such as Murray Rothbard.

[Diane_nyc]

59. Right wing populism: Political sleight-of-hand

As exemplified in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=196707">this thread, too many left-leaning but politically un-knowledgeable people are fooled by right wing populism.

At first glance, right wing populism comes across as defending the interests of the common people against "the Elite." In reality, right wing populism involves one group of rich people scapegoating another group of rich people in order to advocate, in the name of the common people, policies which are in fact against the interests of the common people, and which benefit only some rich people.

A classic example is the hullabaloo against the Federal Reserve System.

Anti-Fed polemicists make it sound as if the only people who ever wanted this country to have a central bank were a small cabal of elite bankers. In fact, many other people have advocated the idea of a central bank too. For example, Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto advocates a central bank. Of course, leftists and elite bankers disagreed sharply on how the central bank should be run, and by whom. But the basic idea of a central bank has been seen, by various different kinds of people, as a necessary reform.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 ended up being a compromise between what the bankers wanted and what progressive Democrats wanted - somewhat favoring the bankers, of course.

Nevertheless, history clearly shows that the Fed was a vast improvement over the monetary systems that existed before - an improvement for the common people, as well as for the bankers.

The U.S.A. has not had another major depression since the Great Depression of the 1930's. The Great Depression was in part caused, or at least exacerbated, by some major errors on the part of the Fed. But the Fed learned its lesson, and, since then, has been to a large degree successful at stabilizing the economy. Things have been far from perfect, of course. But they're a lot better now than before 1913, when periodic "panics" like the Great Depression were commonplace.

But not all rich people appreciate having a stable economy. Some rich folks actually seem to like the idea of having frequent Great Depressions, or at least recessions. (See, for example, http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/hangover.html">The Hangover Theory and http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/pain.html">No Pain, No Gain?, refuting some people's claims that depressions, or at least recessions, are a good thing in the long run, in the collection of essays on http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/8.html">Crank Economics by Paul Krugman, a highly reputable liberal economist.) Of course, these particular rich folks probably aren't among the people who would get hurt by another Great Depression.

"Free market" dogmatists hate the Federal Reserve System because, by regulating the banks, it violates free-market dogma. But, because the average person doesn't care about free-market dogma, anti-Fed crusaders have to talk about something else in order to give their crusade more popular appeal. So, what do they talk about? Scapegoating the evil bankers. That has a lot more popular appeal than talking about, say, the "Austrian school of economics."

From a left-wing perspective, the problem with our economic system isn't just the banking system per se. From a left-wing perspective, the problem with our economic system is the concentration of wealth in the hands a few - including wealthy capitalists of all kinds, not just bankers. Scapegoating bankers, in particular, is beside the point.

[Bassman66]

62. I think what you have done here...

...is highlight just how important a central bank is.

What the US have is one of the most powerful financial tools in the world in the hands of a few private individuals and certainly outside the control of The People.

The central bank should be accountable to the people. Banking of the People, by the People, for the People.

If you don't see a problem with the lack of control of the Fed by the People then I guess we have agree to differ.

I think the American People have been hoodwinked.

[SDuderstadt]

63. It's really kind of silly to claim....

the Federal Reserve effectively has no checks and balances. This is like claiming the FAA should "controlled" by the "people" (whatever that means). Do you honestly think the average person understands ATC enough to vote on how it should be conducted??

[Bassman66]

65. Do The People own the Federal Reserve?

Are The People represented on the Board of the Federal Reserve?
When did the Federal Reserve last have a complete audit so that The People could see what they are up to?

The People are too dumb to understand Federal Reserve issues?

Nice.

[SDuderstadt]

70. I would sure hope you weren't...

the "people's representative" on the board, given how little knowledge you have of how the Federal Reserve actually works. As I have pointed out repeatedly, no one "owns" the Federal Reserve. Where you get confused is that the member banks of the regional Federal Reserve banks are required by federal law to own subscription stock. That doesn't mean they "own" it.

I am also confused as to why you seem to thnk the internal financial workings of the Federal Reserve are some sort of big secret. Do you have any evidence at all of financial impropriety? I didn't think so.

[Bassman66]

71. No one "owns" the Federal Reserve.

So you're admitting The People don't own it.

A Board makes all the decisions, a Board on which there is no representation of The People.

And you dodged the question about the last time a complete audit was carried out so that The People can see that they are not up to no good.

The internal financial working of the Fed are indeed a big secret.

[SDuderstadt]

72. Anyone can look up their financial report, Bassman....

and it's kinda silly to claim the "people" aren't represented on the board when becoming a member of the board of givernors requires Senate confirmation. This is yet one more of your silly red herrings. You don't even know how the Federal Reserve actually works. Why would someone "own" a federal agency?

[Bassman66]

73. So anyone can be on the Board?

Who selects the candidates?

You dodged the question again, when was the last complete audit of the Federal Reserve.

[SDuderstadt]

74. Jesus, Bassman.....

last I checked, we "citizens" don't vote (or get a say)on the President's nominees to the SCOTUS. That doesn't mean that we're not represented in the process (since the nomination requires confirmation by the Senate and WE elect all the senators). As far as your claim that there has, apparently, been "no complete audit" of the Federal Reserve, do you have any proof of this whatsoever? Or, is this another one of your "arguments from ignorance". I would suggest you take a civics class and learn how our government actually operates, rather thab launch your constant red herring arguments.

[Bassman66]

76. Exactly!

The People have no say in the the nominees, who selects the potential presidential nominess?
If you can't see how this system is rigged then there's no hope for you.

And again, I ask, when did the Federal Reserve last have a complete audit? One where every single aspect of what they do was audited?

The Federal Reserve is not owned by the People, not controlled by the People.

[SDuderstadt]

82. Asking the average American to "control"...

extraordinarily complicated monetary policy makes about as much sense as some RWers I tangled with who thought non-lawyers should sit on the SCOTUS.

Newsflash: The Federal Reserve is not the nefarious organization you think it is. Its dealings are largely accomplished in reasonably transparent processes with sufficient checks and balances and oversight. You're buying into RW propaganda, Bassman. It's embarrassing.

[Bassman66]

90. "reasonably transparent processes "

That is simply not true.

And you know it.

The FOMC is protected from scrutiny.

[SDuderstadt]

92. Oh, bullshit, Bassman...

You act like it's some sort of black box that no one understands. Just because you don't, doesn't mean that everyone else doesn't. It's simply above your head and your posts prove it.

[Bassman66]

99. "Bullshit"?

I just proved it's not.
The FOMC is protected from audit, no amount of crys of "bullshit" are going to change that.

[SDuderstadt]

106. Exactly what would you audit concerning the

FOMC?

[SDuderstadt]

75. Christ, I hope this shuts your silly blathering up....

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty6.html

[Bassman66]

77. There are audits and there are audits.

I've known a few Auditors in my time :-)

When was the last complete Federal Reserve audit?

[SDuderstadt]

83. When you can explain the current....

audit protocols maybe we'll listen to you.

[Bassman66]

87. I know what is not audited.

Why is that?

[Bassman66]

78. You missed this bit

Exemptions to the Scope of GAO Audits
The Government Accounting Office does not have complete access to all aspects of the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Banking Agency Audit Act stipulates the following areas are to be excluded from GAO inspections:

(1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;

(2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, open market operations;

(3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or

(4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items.

Stinky!

[SDuderstadt]

84. Bassman....

it's set up that way to insulate the Fed from undue political pressure as they set monetary policy. Have you ever taken a civics class?

[Bassman66]

88. So you say.

Others see it differently. The ideal that the Fed is insulated from Political pressure is interesting. How do you know that? What other pressures are brought to bear on these non-representative people? They must make decisions for some reason, how do we know that it's in the best interests of the American people?

Who voted for any of these people.

Would you say that the Board of the Federal Reserve was in any way representative of the American people from an ethnic point of view?

26% of the American populace is non-white and yet I don't see a non-white face on the board.

2% of the American populace are Jewish but I believe that the current board is 100% jewish.

How is that representative of The People?

[SDuderstadt]

95. Omigod.....

Are you fucking serious? 100% of the Board is Jewish? Unfuckingbelievable. Your ignorance is astounding. I'm also starting to believe you are anti-semitic.

[Bassman66]

102. Ah, the "A" word.

When you're losing an argument then use the "A" word.

I'm not anti-semitic, I'm just pointing out how 98% of American ethnic groups are not represented by the Board of the Federal Reserve.

Is that right?

When we going to get a black person on the Board?

[SDuderstadt]

107. What evidence do you have that the "Board" is....

"100% Jewish"? And, exactly which "Board" are you talking about?

[Diane_nyc]

110. Jews do NOT dominate the American banking industry as a whole ....

The most powerful American banking families, e.g. the Rockefellers and the Morgans, are WASP, not Jewish. And, no, the Rockefellers and the Morgans aren't "owned" by the Rothschilds, as some right wingers claim. The Rockefellers and the Morgans are more than wealthy enough, in their own right, not to be "owned" by anyone else.

However, Jews do tend to be over-represented at the highest levels of almost any field requiring a great deal of education and expertise, due to Jewish culture's traditional emphasis on education. This is not tha fault of Jews. Other people need to value education more, too.

It is desirable for the people who run the Fed to be not just any old bankers, but highly-educated experts on economics and finance.

So it wouldn't be surprising if Jews are overrepresented there, though I suspect that your sources may be exaggerating on that point.

Please see also http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=217237">this post of mine.

[Bassman66]

104. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Benjamin S. Bernanke - Jewish
Donald L. Kohn - Jewish
Kevin M. Warsh - Jewish
Randall S. Kroszner - Jewish
Frederic S. Mishkin - Jewish

Seriously, please educate me.

[SDuderstadt]

108. And you know they're Jewish how, exactly?

By their last names?

[Bassman66]

118. You're in denial.

They are jewish, that is 100% of the Board is controlled by an ethnic group that represents 2% of the American populace.

I want a black American on the Federal Reserve board, I want someone that represents the 25%(or more?) of America that isn't white, protestant or jewish.

Imagine the outcry if the board consisted of 5 black Americans, 5 native Americans, 5 Muslims or 5 Catholics.

But nobody says anything about the current situation.

[SDuderstadt]

120. Do you have any proof that they're all "Jewish", Bassman?

Telling me that I am "in denial" does not constitute proof. Do you honestly believe you can tell if someone is Jewish merely by their name? Do you?

[Bassman66]

129. You know they are jewish. nt

[Bassman66]

131. They are ALL listed as American Jews on Wikipedia.

But you knew they were Jewish anyway.

[SDuderstadt]

142. I'm calling bullshit on this....

please prove your claim.

Ben Bernanke is, of course, Jewish.

However, there is absolutely no mention of Donald Kohn being Jewish on Wikipedia as you can see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Kohn

Nor is there any mention at all of Mishkin being Jewish, as you can see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Mishkin

Of course, you know that Mishkin is a Russian name, right? Right?

The only mention that Warsh is possibly Jewish is that his wedding to Jane Lauder was co-officiated by a Catholic priest and a Jewish rabbi. Are you assuming that Warsh is Jewish and not Lauder?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Warsh

There is absolutely NO mention of Kroszner being Jewish in Wikipedia, as you can see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Kroszner

How about Elizabeth A. Duke? Do you think she's Jewish, Bassman? There is also currently a vacancy on the Board of Governors. Do you suppose Bush will tap a Jew to fill it. Bassman?


Frankly, I find your whole line of reasoning here to be deeply troubling, however, that is dramatically overshadowed by your absolute lack of critical thinking and your seeming absence of education about how the Federal Reserve actually works. What's more offensive is how RW propaganda about the Fed finds its way into your claims.

[Diane_nyc]

121. Education and culture

SDuderstadt's question here is legitimate. How do you know that they are all Jewish?

Anyhow, as I pointed out elsewhere, it would hardly be a surprise if at least a majority of them were Jewish. Because Jewish culture traditionally places a very high value on education, Jews tend to be disproportionately represented in any profession requiring a great deal of education. And, on the Federal Reserve Board, we don't want just any old bankers; we want highly educated experts on monetary policy.

On the other hand, here in the United States, the banking field as a whole is dominated not by Jews but by WASPs, e.g. the Rockefellers and the Morgans.

[Bassman66]

130. Are there no intelligent black, catholic, muslim, atheist, indian...

people capable of doing this job?

This group of people represents 2% of the American people and affects 100% of The People, what they do is largely hidden.

It's not right.

[Diane_nyc]

133. My point had to do with education, not innate intelligence.

A kid whose family places a very high value on education is, other factors being equal, obviously likely to have educational advantages over a kid whose family does not place as high a value on education.

Jews traditionally place a very high value on education. So too do people from many Asian countries, especially Chinese. Hence both Jews and Asians tend to be disproportionately represented in highly technical fields, especially those levels thereof requiring a great deal of higher education.

So, if there's any ethnic discrimination involved in the selection of members of the Federal Reserve Board, it would more likely be discrimination against Asians (and perhaps non-whites in general) than discrimination against all non-Jews, because the American banking industry as a whole is dominated by WASPs (e.g. the Rockefellers and the Morgans), not Jews.

[Bassman66]

134. The makeup of the Board of the Fed disproves your argument.

The Fed board is 100% Jewish.

What are the chances of that happening when 2% of the American populace is jewish? I don't buy the education argument, there are plenty of non-jewish people in banking.

To have such an unrepresentative group of people make some of the most important decisions in the world behind closed doors and without accountibility is not healthy or democratic.

It stinks.

[Diane_nyc]

137. The educational factor, vs. banking in general

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=217968">Bassman66 wrote:

134. The makeup of the Board of the Fed disproves your argument.

The Fed board is 100% Jewish.

What are the chances of that happening when 2% of the American populace is jewish?

Possibly very high, especially if a large percentage of economics professors at elite colleges are also Jewish.

I don't buy the education argument, there are plenty of non-jewish people in banking.

I've already pointed out, myself, that there are plenty of non-Jewish people in banking. However, the people in charge at the Fed aren't supposed to be just any old bankers. They are supposed to be highly educated experts on monetary policy. That's where the educational factor comes into play.

[Bassman66]

138. Are you saying that Jewish people have covered the market?

Really?
Isn't that what some "A" people have been complaining about?

[Diane_nyc]

139. No. Please re-read my earlier posts more carefully.

My claim is not that Jewish people have completely "covered the market," These days, here in the U.S.A., Jews are not the only ethnic group to be disproportionately represented in various learned professions. So too are various Asian ethnic groups.

That's why http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=217967">I said, here, that if ethnic discrimination is involved in the selection of FRB members, it is more likely to be discrimination against Asians (i.e., against the other group of people likely to highly represented in the pool of learned potential candidates) than discrimination against all non-Jews. The major bankers who influence the selection of FRB members are unlikely to show exclusive favoritism toward Jews, because the banking industry as a whole is not dominated by Jews. (I would be inclined to guess that the Rockefellers, for example, have at least a little bit of behind-the-scenes influence over the selection of the FRB. The Rockefellers are WASPs.)

Observations about the disproportionate number of Jews in various professions are "the A word" if you falsely allege or insinuate that the situation is caused by Jews conspiring to keep non-Jews out of those professions, or if you otherwise regard Jews as an enemy because of their disproportionate representation in certain professions.

[Bassman66]

141. Your comment...

"if you falsely allege or insinuate that the situation is caused by Jews conspiring to keep non-Jews out of those professions,"

It looks like the banking industry has limited opportunities as far as the Fed goes if you're not from that rich American Jewish social background, it seems to me that some families and friends at the moment look like they control the whole shebang.

The makeup of the Fed board certainly seems confirm that.

That is not an "a" statement, I have nothing against the jewsih people as a whole - I do now however - after looking into this - have what I believe are justifiable concerns about a certain social strata, if you're going to cry "a" because certain circles are being critically examined I would be very disappointed.

The makeup of the Federal Reserve Board is unrepresentative of the American People as a whole - this is unconstitutional and undemocratic and open to abuse - especially when the Fed is not completely audited.

Like I said, if the Fed was run by 5 Catholics or Muslims there would be an uproar.

[SDuderstadt]

96. Your questions betray your lack of understanding of how...

our most basic institutions work.

Again, I ask, have you ever taken a civics class? Have you ever studied how our economy works? Have you ever studied how the Federal Reserve actually works? I am not remotely saying that either does not deserve scrutiny nor am I even remotely suggesting that there isn't room for improvement. At a bare minimum, anyone who sits on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve would have to be well educated in a variety of subjects, something the average citizen typically does not possess. I'm not certain that having an unskilled, untrained person deliberating incredibly complicated monetary policy issues is a step in the right direction, especially if they are anywhere near as poorly informed as you are.

In the meantime, if you're curious about my take on economic matters, I would strongly suggest you review the following sites regarding democratic capitalism as addressed by Ray Carey and Charles Kelly. Reforming capitalism in the manner they suggest would go a long way to the shared prosperity I believe most liberals (myself included) envision for our country. If you want to read more about the excesses of our current system, I suggest "Free Lunch" and "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston.

http://www.kellysite.net/

http://www.democratic-capitalism.com/

[Bassman66]

103. How can you know how the Fed works...

..when nobody knows what the FOMC gets up to? (Amongst other things).

[Diane_nyc]

122. Very worthwhile links! Thanks!

Thanks very much for your links to http://www.kellysite.net/">Charles Kelly's site and http://www.democratic-capitalism.com/">Ray Carey's site on democratic capitalism. These look like excellent resources for countering various far-right nonsense.

[Bassman66]

126. Diane, FOMC is not audited - protected in fact.

Where does all that operating cost go?

The People deserve to know what this unelected unpresentative body of people get up to.

[Diane_nyc]

127. You might have a valid government accountability issue here ....

I haven't yet studied enough about the FOMC, in particular, to know whether you're correct about it not being audited. For all I know, you might be correct about this. If so, I would agree with you that it SHOULD be audited.

However, this issue, by itself, is a far cry from a lot of the nonsense that has been spread about the Fed, e.g. the claim that the Fed in general is essentially just a profit-making private enterprise, "as Federal as Federal Express."

[Bassman66]

128. How can you know it's nonsense if it's not audited?

If you read my posts in this thread you would see I included links from Fed sites that say the FOMC is not audited and neither are the Feds transactions with other central banks (like the Bank of England).

Where does the operating costs go, a very small amount of the turnover actually goes back to the treasury as "profit".

This setup stinks.

[Diane_nyc]

132. The FOMC is not the Federal Reserve System as a whole

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=217953">Bassman66 wrote:

128. How can you know it's nonsense if it's not audited?

The "nonsense" mentioned in my previous post had to do with the Federal Reserve system as a whole, not the FOMC in particular. Most parts of the Federal Reserve System are audited.

If you read my posts in this thread you would see I included links from Fed sites that say the FOMC is not audited and neither are the Feds transactions with other central banks (like the Bank of England).

Could you please post those links again? It's a long thread.

Where does the operating costs go, a very small amount of the turnover actually goes back to the treasury as "profit".

Are you talking about the Federal Reserve System as a whole here, or just the FOMC?

The above is certainly not true of the Federal Reserve System as a whole. Here is the http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/sec5/c1_list.htm">Fed's 2006 financial report, including http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/sec5/c1t10.htm">income and expenses of the Federal Reserve banks, which are indeed audited.

[Bassman66]

135. The audited bits are fine.

Of course they are - it's so they can say "the fed is audited", which is true but it is an economy of the truth.

However, there is a totally unknown amount of the Fed's dealings that we have no idea about because they are not audited, ie. the FOMC and any dealings with other central banks (whuch may also not be owned by the people of that particular country).

You have no idea of the scale of what goes on there, nobody does - and that's the point.

This is just not democratic or constitutional.

[Diane_nyc]

140. This may be a valid reform worth calling for (as distinct from denouncing the Fed as a whole)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=217969">Bassman66 wrote:

However, there is a totally unknown amount of the Fed's dealings that we have no idea about because they are not audited, ie. the FOMC and any dealings with other central banks (whuch may also not be owned by the people of that particular country).

.

You have no idea of the scale of what goes on there, nobody does - and that's the point.

If the scale were orders of magnitude bigger than alleged, this would have a substantial effect on the money supply, which would be noticed by economists. So it's an exaggeration to say that nobody has any idea of the scale.

Still, I agree with you that the FOMC and the Fed's dealings with foreign central banks should be audited, if indeed they aren't already. This may indeed be a reform worth calling for.

However, I think it would be best just to call for that specific reform (and maybe a few other specific reforms) rather to denounce the Federal Reserve System as a whole. Historically, whatever the Fed's flaws may be, it has had the net effect of stabilizing the economy (at least from the 1940's onward), which, on the whole, is a good thing, not a bad thing, at least for the vast majority of people.

[LARED]

185. Wow, if the board was 100 percent Protestant would you

even be mentioning it?

Just wondering.

[Bassman66]

79. Federal Open Market Committee

Not audited.

Got it yet?

Structure of the FOMC
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) consists of twelve members--the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents,

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomc.htm

Who voted for them?

Where are The People represented in this nice little club that impacts the lives of some many people?

[Bassman66]

80. Timothy F. Geithner

Vice-Chairman of the FOMC, President of the FRBNY and member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

It's a small world.

Who voted for him?

[SDuderstadt]

86. Of what significance is it that he....

is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations? Are you buying into RW propaganda about the CFR?

[Bassman66]

91. RW propaganda?

The CFR is perhaps the most powerful unelected body in the world.
Tentacles everywhere.

Who voted for them?

[SDuderstadt]

93. Jesus Christ, Bassman....

do you honesztly think the CFR controls the world?

[Bassman66]

101. I honestly think they are immensly powerful and have

a lot of immensley powerful people as members.

[SDuderstadt]

85. Do you even remotely understand the concept of....

representative democracy? Do you honestly think all members of the Board of Governors should be elected by the people in direct elections? How would that work? How would the average American even begin to evaluate their credentials? This is getting goofier and goofier.

[Bassman66]

89. No, what is goofy is that the most powerful financial institution...

..in the world is run by a tiny number of people from a very narrow social background, they are not elected, they are not open to complete auditing, and people think that's ok.

It's not OK.

[SDuderstadt]

94. Well, great.....

take it up with the House and the Senate. I'm sure they'll take your call. Ypur claims are absurd.

[Bassman66]

100. "Absurd".

Clearly not and I have demonstrated such.

In what way are The People represented by such a narrow social band of board members?

I note you are reduced to saying "bullshit" and "absurd" without offering any argument.

[SDuderstadt]

109. I've offered plenty of arguments, Bassman....

you can drop this silly act right now.

As I said earlier, you don't demonstrate the slightest understanding of how the Federal Reserve actually operates and it's obvious from the questions you pose.

[seemslikeadream]

111. What's a Ypur?

:shrug:

[Bassman66]

81. Why are there no black Americans on the board? nt.

[Diane_nyc]

97. You seem to be assuming here that the ideal form of government is pure democracy ....

It's not. In a pure democracy, where majority rule counts for everything, there would be nothing stopping 90% of the population from voting to kill off the remaining 10%.

The best system of government is not a pure democracy. Rather, the best system of government is one with a strong democratic component, ultimately accountable to the people, but with strong meritocratic components too (e.g. the court system) and a system of checks and balances to limit the power of any one part of the government and to protect everyone's rights. (See the Wikipedia article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers">separation of powers.)

Anyhow, there are many government agencies that have been created by acts of Congress. If and whenever any of those government agencies do something seriously wrong, Congress can vote to change them (if there's enough political will to do so, of course). In the meantime, it only makes sense to have those government agencies run by experts in the relevant fields, rather than directly by Congress or by "the people." They are still ultimately accountable to the people, via the Congress, which, as I said, can vote to change them at any time.

Regarding the Federal Reserve System, there are probably some relatively minor reforms that could be made, possibly including, as you've mentioned, greater accountability on the part of the FOMC. (I haven't yet researched that particular issue enough to know how how big a deal that actually is.) However, that's a separate question from the issue of who runs it.

Obviously, the Fed is dominated by people from the banking field. But to what extent is that, in and of itself, a problem? It's a problem only insofar as there is a conflict between the interests of bankers and the interests of ordinary people. Is there, in fact, such a conflict that substantially affects the workings of the Fed?

It seems to me that both banks and most ordinary people benefit from a stable economy. Therefore, insofar as the Fed acts to stabilize the economy, it acts in the best interests of both the bankers and ordinary people. Therefore, it seems to me that the interests of bankers and ordinary people are not in conflict regarding the main things that the Fed aims to do (i.e., stabilizing the economy), though they may be in conflict regarding some relatively minor issues.

Only a small minority of people, e.g. Wall Street speculators, benefit from an unstable economy. And I would suspect, though I'm not sure, that these latter folks are the main people behind the anti-Fed propaganda.

Be that as it may, the important question is: What specific things, if any, does the Fed do that benefit bankers but harm ordinary people? To the extent that the Fed benefits both bankers and ordinary people, there's no reason to gripe about the mere fact that it's run largely by bankers.

On edit: There are plenty of reasons to gripe about the larger issue of huge disparities in wealth, but that's a separate issue.

[truedelphi]

146. You say:

"The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 ended up being a compromise between what the bankers wanted and what progressive Democrats wanted - somewhat favoring the bankers, of course."

Yep the Fed was so slightly in the favor of the bankers that most of the top banking people were out of the stock market right before the Crash. Funny thing, that.

And you claim it to be a vast improvement over what had happened before its creation.

But how come the Biggest of all Depressions occurred only sixteen eyars after its creation?? If it was such a marvelous system, why didn't it prevent the Depression??

[SDuderstadt]

149. Can you provide any evidence for your claim that...

"most of the top banking people were out of the stock market right before the Crash"?

[Diane_nyc]

60. Some further recent discussion about the Fed and about G. Edward Griffin here on DU

Some further discussion about the Fed, and about G. Edward Griffin, can found in the sub-thread following http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216004">this post of mine in the recent DU thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215928">The multiple meanings of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracism" - highly ambiguous and loaded terms.

[Diane_nyc]

64. A possibly legitimate gripe about the Federal Reserve System in its present form?

The private member banks are each required to deposit a portion of their reserves at their local Federal Reserve Bank. On that money, the private banks receive a dividend.

What useful public purpose does that dividend serve? It doesn't seem to me that it serves any necessary role as part of the Fed's economy-stabilizing function. Does it?

If not, then it seems to me that the dividend is just an undeserved, pork-barrel government subsidy to the banks, nothing more.

It's not nearly as big a deal as a lot of the anti-Fed crusaders make it out to be. It's only two to three percent of the Fed's total "profits," most of which are returned to the Treasury.

Still, it's quite a bit of money. http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/sec5/c1t10.htm">In 2006, it was 871,255 million dollars. Seems to me like an awfully wasteful government subsidy, like subsidies to tobacco farmers.

It seems to me that the Federal Reserve System provides an exceedingly valuable service to the private member banks, as well as to everyone else, simply by stabilizing the economy. It doesn't seem to me that the banks need a dividend from the Federal Reserve banks in addition to that service.

Can anyone here think of a good reason not to phase out that dividend?

Given that a lot of popular activist energy has gotten stirred up against the Fed, it would be desirable to try to channel that energy into an actual useful reform, rather than just dismiss it entirely.

I certainly don't favor abolishing the Fed, which has played an exceedingly valuable role in stabilizing the economy. But perhaps there are some real reforms that could be made? Perhaps phasing out that dividend might be one of them?

[Bolo Boffin]

66. That's thousands, not millions.

There. I've just saved America 870 billion dollars. I'll take 10% of that as a finder's fee. :)

[Diane_nyc]

67. You're right. I misread the table. Any other objections?

Looking again at the http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/sec5/c1t10.htm">Fed's 2006 financial report, I see that those numbers are indeed in thousands, not millions, of dollars. (I had a vague recollection, from the previous time I looked at the table, that those figures were in millions. Evidently my memory was wrong. Perhaps I had this table confused with another one?)

But still, even 871,255 thousand dollars seems to me like an unnecessary subsidy to the banks. Do you agree?

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Under a billion, with the kind of money we're talking about?

It's chicken feed.

[Diane_nyc]

69. True, it's not a huge deal, but ....

... together with a whole lot of other "chicken feed" unnecessary expenditures scattered throughout various parts of the government, it's part of a total of a lot of chicken feed.

Anyhow, quite apart from the question of how significant it is, compared to, say, the total size of the national debt, do you think that the dividend to the Fed's member banks serves any useful public purpose?

Some government subsidies do serve a useful public purpose. For example, I'm in favor of subsidies for low and middle income housing in regions where the cost of housing is high.

But I'm in favor of getting rid of pointless subsidies, such as the subsidy to tobacco farmers. Do you agree?

On the other hand, if you think the dividend to the Fed's member banks serves any useful public purpose, what do you think that purpose might be?

[AZCat]

98. Why do you think subsidizing housing is a good idea?

Don't you think this would just prop up inflated real estate values? Why is this necessarily any better than any other federal subsidy?

[Diane_nyc]

105. Housing should be considered a basic human right, like health care ....

Are you against any and all government involvement in health insurance, too?

[AZCat]

112. Perhaps you should reread my post.

I think housing is a human right, I think availability of housing to the working class is important, I just don't think subsidizing housing prices is the solution.

[Diane_nyc]

113. What do you think would be a better solution, then? nt

[AZCat]

114. I'm no economist...

but you have to look at ways to restrict the influence of the market on availability of housing to your target demographic. Price controls and low income housing constructed by the local government are two ways. The City of Tucson is building a new low income/seniors apartment complex downtown, for example.

[Diane_nyc]

115. Price controls, by themselves, tend to create shortages ....

... because lower profits means fewer people in the construction business.

To counteract this effect, subsidies are needed, and are probably a less expensive solution (tax dollar-wise) than having the government go into the construction business itself. (I'm not absolutely sure of the latter point, though.)

[AZCat]

116. But all subsidies do is jack up the prices of the homes.

So instead of paying $150k for a house, a $100k subsidy means the market price will float up to $250k, since it is based on the relationship between supply and demand and not the cost of the goods and services required to construct the house.

I don't think it's a bad idea to reduce some of the construction business, particularly the speculative nature. If there were a more consistent relationship between cost of construction and sale price, there would be less problems with solvency. After all, wasn't that the root of the whole S&L thing in the 1980's? We just had a homebuilder file for bankruptcy here in Tucson (Sierra Pacific Homes a month ago).

[truedelphi]

147. Hmpfh... Hate to be all so curmudgeonly about this

but since you say:
It seems to me that the Federal Reserve System provides an exceedingly valuable service to the private member banks, as well as to everyone else, simply by stabilizing the economy.

What stabilization? Just in the last fifteen years we had an economy that was relying on the dot com industry to keep itself afloat (while many other jobs went overseas) and that bubble burst. Then a new bubble, the housing bubble came into being, and that bubble burst also.

If the Federal Reserve had the American people's interests at heart it would not have someone like Greenspan aiding and abetting these types of bogus "bubble" markets.

[SDuderstadt]

150. You realize that Greenspan is no longer chairman....

right?

[truedelphi]

151. Huh? So Greenspan didn't have anything to do with

Any of this? I'd credit him with much of the blame for both bubbles.

I also realize that some are saying that Paulson is handling the Fed because the great Bernacke is of the "Good Job, Brownie" type of manager.

[SDuderstadt]

153. Maybe if you wrote more clearly.....

Here's what you said:

If the Federal Reserve had the American people's interests at heart it would not have someone like Greenspan aiding and abetting these types of bogus "bubble" markets.

Since you wrote it in the present tense, what was someone supposed to make of it? And, it's "Bernanke", not "Bernacke". Nor is Paulson "handling" the Fed, since the Federal Reserve is an independent federal agency. I'm hardly saying that the fed does not deserve scrutiny but, to put it frankly, I don't think you have the slightest idea how it works.

[truedelphi]

156. Check out this mainstream media article:

http://oldelmtree.com/discussion/index.php?topic=683.0

My understanding of the Feds may be expresed unclearly but that does not make it something to dismiss.

[SDuderstadt]

158. Do you remotely understand what I said you wrote unclearly???

It was your use of present tense to describe Greenspan, when Bernanke has been chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors since February 1, 2006.

[seemslikeadream]

117. link no longer working here's another

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8420234617900600333&q=The+Creature+from+Jekyll+Island+author+G.+Edward+Griffin+interviews+Norm+Dodd&ei=Qa-MSJGLBofy4AKOzPWECA&hl=en

[Bassman66]

119. Very interesting, thanks for posting.

The propositions put forward seem to be:

The Foundations have promoted war as a means to change society.
The Foundations have promoted a merging with Russia.
The Foundations have hijacked education as a means to change the way American history and it's constitution is viewed.
The Foundations have promoted collectivist (communist?) principles not because of the interests of the collective but because with amalgamation control becomes easier and they will be the beneficiaries.

So much money, so much power, and The People don't get a say!

Thanks again SLAD.

[wildbilln864]

163. "It is well enough...

that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system for, if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -Henry Ford

[truedelphi]

159. Do most people even realize that Bernanke admitted that the Fed caused the Great Depression??

I was reading about our current Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, and I came across an amazing quote.
Why this admission hasn't been spread to the four corners of the world, I don't know. But it should.

From his Speech to the Federal Reserve Board
http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/ 20021108/ default.htm
From wikipedia.org:
Bernanke is particularly interested in the economic
and political causes of the Great Depression, on which
he has written extensively.
On Milton Friedman's ninetieth birthday, Nov. 8, 2002, he stated:
"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve.
"I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."
_______

Now if only we could believe that "they" won't do it again!!

[SDuderstadt]

160. Reading it, do YOU realize that Bernanke....

is joking? Read it again. If you can't tell that's an obvious joke from the context, no wonder you post such goofy stuff. A joke is not a confession.

[truedelphi]

161. Sad but true -- a joke is not a confession

And let's see now, those weapons of Mass Destruction could be here, or maybe they are over here...

[SDuderstadt]

162. Nice try at a dodge....

we're not talking about W. We're talking about Bernanke and his obvious joke. Your posts just keep getting sillier.

[wildbilln864]

164. 1924 U.S. Banker's Association Magazine quote...

"...Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When through the process of law the common people loose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers...It is thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished."

[SDuderstadt]

165. Jesus Christ, Bill...

what is the SOURCE for this supposed "quote"? Is it actually the magazine itself or is it someone saying that's what the magazine said? Do you ever bother to fact-check anything? I'm willing to bet this "quote" is totally bogus. For example, why would a magazine say that people would "loose (sic) their homes", instead of "lose their homes"?

In fact, what makes this even more suspect is that there is no "U.S. Banker's Association", at least not that I can find, either currently or historically. There is a American Banker's Association, founded in 1875. My problem with you is you are so easily taken in by conspiracy crap.

[Bolo Boffin]

166. Ron Paul on today's "Washington Journal" -- This book is #2 on his reading list.

Just thought we should all be aware of where the trash being peddled around here is coming from.

[seemslikeadream]

167. ooops delete

forgot


PAINT IT BLACK

[Bassman66]

168. Yeah because people are incapablle of thinking for themselves...

..unlike you?

I personally don't have a clue about Ron Paul.

That's the truth.

But if it makes you happy...

[seemslikeadream]

169. My record posting at DU stands

quit trying to smear me with bullshit

[SDuderstadt]

171. No one's "trying to smear you", SLAD....

but, as I pointed out here upthread, you are, in fact, disseminating RW propaganda in the form of this book, whether you know it or not. Frankly, I am appalled at the amount of RW propaganda that is seeping into the progressive movement.

[Bassman66]

173. Your RW wing propaganda...

...is another man's search for the truth.

Smear.

Why not address the post instead of this boring tactic.

[SDuderstadt]

176. Please, Bassman....

Could you explain what role RW propaganda should play in a pregressive website? Do you deny the book is RW propaganda?

[Twist_U_Up]

201. What is a pregressive website? You`ve got me curious now......

:wtf:

[SDuderstadt]

202. It's a typo...

duh.

[Twist_U_Up]

203. Sorry dude. I can never tell with you. Your all over the place.

:crazy:

[SDuderstadt]

204. "your (sic) all over the place"

so are you.

[Bassman66]

172. Smear.

Yep.

It's a cheap shot, but it's also the modus operandi for some.

No shot is too cheap.

[Bassman66]

170. Oh yeah...

..did you ever figure out the ethnic makeup of the Fed Board.

I got shot down for that, until...

But I was right.

[SDuderstadt]

174. No, you weren't....

as I pointed out before. It's kinda silly to claim, for example, that Elizabet Duke is Jewish. Even if she is, what difference does it make?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Duke_(banker)

[Bassman66]

175. Yes I was!

They are ALL American Jews according to wikipedia.

Fact!

Which you ignored before.

Not representative, not democratcic.

I want a brother on the board!

[SDuderstadt]

177. I already debunked your stupid claim once, Bassman....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=218654

Somehow, I doubt you even bothered to read it. I supplied the links to show that Wikipedia does NOT identify them all as American Jews. Can you read? If I'm wrong, it shouldn't be hard for you to link us to where Wikipedia identifies them all as American Jews. Of course, you can't.

[Bolo Boffin]

178. Toss a brick, huh? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

179. If you're saying what I think you're saying....

I only need to toss him a feather, as he'll sink under his own weight.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

181. There is no delicate way to put this. but....

your claim that they "are ALL mentioned as American Jews on the American Jews Wiki page" is an outright fabrication, period. I've included the link for the "American Jews" page from Wikipedia below. Any reader interested in confirming what I've said can go to the webpage and search for:

Bernanke
Kohn
Mishkin
Warsh
Kroszner
Duke


and you will find, with the exception of Ben Bernanke, contrary to Bassman's claim, nada, zip, nil, goose egg, zilch, etc.


This is a particularly egregious claim, as it appears to me that Bassman, whether knowingly or unknowingly, is willfully trying to perpetuate the myth of the "evil Jewish banker" so popular in RW circles. As if that isn't bad enough, his outright dishonesty about these members of Board of Governors appearing on the "American Jews" wikipage is stunning and unforgiveable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_economists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Jews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews

[Bassman66]

183. RIght... 1st one: DONALD KOHN

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:American_Jews&from=K

Admit you are wrong SD - they are all there.

Apologise.

[Bassman66]

184. Smear - Apologise!

"Bassman, whether knowingly or unknowingly, is willfully trying to perpetuate the myth of the "evil Jewish banker".

I have posted verifiable facts.

Apologise.

[Bassman66]

186. 2nd one: Frederic Mishkin

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:American_Jews&from=M

Apolgise

Do you want me to continue?

[Bassman66]

187. 3rd one: Kevin M Warsh

WAS listed in the American jews list (I checked them all a few weeks ago).

However he is listed as jewish on this "whos who" database.

http://www.nndb.com/people/074/000169564/

[SDuderstadt]

190. Then please tell us why he's not listed anymore....

which, by the way, makes your claim false.

[Bassman66]

193. Apologise.

Because you know I was right.

[Bassman66]

196. I just checked the version history on wiki

It was changed.

The link to American Jews was removed - it's there if you go back through the revisions.

Apologise.

[SDuderstadt]

199. One word.

No.

[Bassman66]

188. 4th one: Randall Kroszner

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:American_Jews&from=K

Apologise.

[Bassman66]

189. Newly appointed Betsy Duke.

Appointed 5th August and not on my original list.

I can't find anything about her background, other than details of her education and banking career. No background - nothing.

Who the hell is she? Who suggested to Bush he nominate her (don't tell me Bush works it out for himself).

Married?
Children?

I did find ONE page that said she comes from "a banking family" - that was the only hint about her personal life.

Who is she?

I never voted for her.

[SDuderstadt]

191. It's really stupid to suggest that voters...

should elect the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Apparently, you do not understand the concept of representative democracy, nor the checks and balances inherent in our system. If the voters need to elect the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, why don't we elect the director of NIST? What about the CIA? Etc.?

The answer of course, is that it would be far too cumbersome, as well as interjecting politics (more than already so) into agencies/organizations which should be shielded from political pressure to the greatest extent possible.

The fact that Duke is NOT listed here also disproves your point that ALL of the Board of Governors is Jewish, as well as the other one you cannot find listed even though you supposedly did before. I thought I searched pretty thoroughly before, however, I did not find their names (with the exception of Bernanke) listed on either the main page nor the page for economists. I did not realize there was a larger alphabetical list and, of course, you didn't provide a link in your initial claims. So, I was wrong about several of them and you're apparently wrong about several, which makes your claim patently false.


Above and beyond that, what difference does it make if they all ARE Jewish? So what? What are you getting at? I find your line of "reasoning" quite offensive. I'll say it once more. "The Creature from Jekyll Island" is RW anti-Federal Reserve propaganda and I find anything (including your claims) that perpetuates the myth of "evil Jewish bankers" to be repugnant. I'm done with you and your silliness.

[Bassman66]

194. Apologise.

[Bassman66]

197. Is she connected to the Dukes of Duke Energy?

You know it's really strange that someone can rise to such a powerful position in America without any personal background being available.

[SDuderstadt]

200. You know, it's really strange that you can't seem to perform the most perfunctory of....

research and fact-checking. Here's Duke's "personal background" taken directly from the Federal Reserve website. Why you can't find these things is beyond me.

[Bassman66]

205. I checked everywhere - her background doesn't exist.

As I explained, education and banking career, that's all you'll find.

Nothing about her family background. Not a thing.

Is she connected to one of the most powerful energy companies in the world?

[SDuderstadt]

207. Jesus, Bassman

What the fuck difference does her family background make????? Does it occur to you that Duke is not all that unusual of a name? You are the archetypal conspiracist and, frankly, embarrassing to the progressive movement.

[Bassman66]

212. What difference?

It would be nice to know something about the the people being undemocraticlly put into powerful positions.

Her family for instance.

Her connections via her family to other corporate and banking concerns.

Possible conflicts of interest.

Jeeze, do you believe in open democracy or not?

[SDuderstadt]

214. Do you know anything at all about the confirmation process?

If you why so concerned, why didn't you attend her confirmation hearing. This just gets dumber and dumber.

[Bassman66]

215. Why is the public denied this knowledge?

Why can't we openly see which families she is connected to?

[SDuderstadt]

216. Please prove that "the public is denied this knowledge"

Jesus.

[Bassman66]

217. Please tell me something about Duke.

Like.. anything other than education and career.

She IS on the Fed Board for goodness sake!

I never voted for her.

Democracy?

[SDuderstadt]

219. Psst....Bassman....

I understand the SEC had a meeting without you and, what's more, you never got to vote on them. You should complain to the Supreme Court. Oh, shoot...they often meet behind closed doors and you didn't vote for them, either. Rats.

[Bassman66]

222. You seem happy that people are appointed...

to positions of power without:

a) Any say by The People
b) Without any background information on the people being appointed beyond education establisments attended and career posts held.

Family connections and potential conflicts are of immense interest.

Is she connected to the Duke Energy family?

It's a fair question.

[SDuderstadt]

223. And you seem happy to remain ignorant of how representative democracy works...

This is the last civics lesson I'm giving you, Bassman.

First of all, people aren't just "appointed" to positions of power, which you'd know if you remotely understood how our system of government works. The members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve are NOMINATED by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate. If they aren't confirmed, they don't get the position. It's called a check and balance. Perhaps you've heard of it. In fact, it's precisely BECAUSE of this system of checks and balances that Elizabeth Duke only recently took office because the Democrats in congress (you know, OUR party?) refused to confirm Duke for some length of time and are still sitting on the nomination of Larry Klane, which means you still have time to make sure he's not a "Jew" (since you seem to think that's such a big deal) before he's confirmed. Perhaps you can find some sort of bargain on tickets prior to the hearings. If you can't attend, you can find out more about Klane here:

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:PQvp1QVdQMIJ:banking.senate.gov/public/_files/klane.pdf+Larry+Klane&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:aMW--KWjbPgJ:www.fmcenter.org/atf/cf/%257BDFBB2772-F5C5-4DFE-B310-D82A61944339%257D/LarryKlane07.PDF+Larry+Klane&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

You'd find similar information about Duke, if you'd bother to look. Of course, it's more fun to stay here and yammer about all these nefarious goings on without "any say by the People". Of course, that just illustrates (again) your utter lack of knowledge/education/common sense about the workings of our system of government. Since it would be impossible for every citizen to attempt to oversee/participate in every working/dealing/regulation/appointment of the Federal Government, those are delegated powers (you know, as provided for in the constitution, under the powers of Congress?), hence the term representative democracy. The President nominates and the Senate confirms. Do you even know how your senators voted on Duke's nomination? Do you even know who your senators are? Want some say "by the People"? Then pay attention to these things and DON'T vote for your senators if they don't do what you think they should do. See how that works?

It's not our fault that your research skills suck but, as noted earlier, it's much easier for you to be lazy and not do the research, then yammer here about how everything appears to be conducted in a black box, impenetrable to oversight by the People. It's getting real tiring. The one thing I can't quite figure out is if you are really this ignorant about how representative democracy works or if this is some huge act on your part just for grins. If it is, it's really not very funny. It should, however, be embarrassing for you to admit just how little you know about how our system of government works. I'm pretty sure you can find an enlightening civics class at a junior college close to your house. Of course, spending time educating yourself properly would cut into your time displaying your ignorance here.

[Bassman66]

182. Why was my post deleted?

Ther are ALL listed on the wiki American Jews page as American Jews.

This is a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_Jews

This is also unpresentative of the American people and undemocratic.

When we going to get a brother (black person) on the Fed Board?

If this gets deleted I despair.

You're wrong SD, very wrong.

[SDuderstadt]

192. You already disproved your own claim, Bassman....

I'd seriously let it go if I were you.

[Bassman66]

195. Apologise.

You really are looking very silly now.

[SDuderstadt]

198. It's real simple, Bassman....

YOU claimed that ALL of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve are listed on the American Jews Wikipage. By your own admission, two are not. That disproves your claim. Deal with it.

[Bassman66]

206. Apologise.

This is outrageous.

You're showing yourself for what you really are SD.

[SDuderstadt]

208. I'm not apologizing for anything....

YOU made a false claim, period. I clearly acknowledged the ones I was wrong on and why. You continue to blather on even after you, yourself, have disproven your own claim. If you don't remember what it was, let me refresh your memory. YOU claimed that all the members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors are listed in the American Jews entry in Wikipedia. Since you made that claim, you've been forced to acknowledge that two of them are not and one seat is vacant.

Let's have a little lesson in Logic:

If claimant states ALL A is listed in B, all the respondent has to do is point to one or more members of A who AREN'T listed in B and that renders the claim false. Deal with it. I also do not, for the life of me, understand where you are going with this. It's another one of your typical red herrings. Bye.

[Bassman66]

209. Apologise.

I thought you were an expert on the Federal Reserve.

Clearly not.

My claims are completely and utterly true and are backed up as I have show.

Outrageous behaviour from yourself.

Are you a man or a mouse?

[SDuderstadt]

210. Jesus, Bassman...

Was your claim that ALL the members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors are listed on the American Jews entry in Wikipedia or not? Hint: it was, which means it's false as you, yourself, showed when you acknowledged that two of the members are NOT listed. Your intellectual dishonesty is stunning.

I'm not apologizing for anything.

[Bassman66]

211. Apologise - you know they are listed as American Jews.

All of them except were at the time of my post except for Duke who joined on 5th of August, AFTER my post.

Wiki has a neat little "page history" tag. But you know all that.

Seems someone was a bit sensitive about Warsh being listed as such on Wiki, but I found futher backup for him being a jew on another website.

You are a dissembler, sir.

Apologise.

[SDuderstadt]

213. Is Warsh listed on Wikipedia "American Jews" entry or not, Bassman?

Answer: he isn't. Why is that? We've also been talking about Elizabeth Duke for a number of threads so it's disingenuous to claim she's not been in the mix.


I am not apologizing for anything. Get it through your head.

[Bassman66]

218. Apologise.

YOU know he was when I posted.

YOU know it's been removed since.

YOU know there are other web sites that say he's jewish.

Stop being such a richard.

[SDuderstadt]

220. Even if you were right about that, you were dead wrong about Duke....

Why was Warsh removed? Could it be that Wikipedia got it wrong? Who cares? Apparently, only you. Silly thread. Bye.

[Bassman66]

221. Apologise.

I didn't claim anything about Duke because Duke was appointed AFTER my post.

But you know that.

[SDuderstadt]

224. It's kinda silly to claim you didn't know anything out about Duke, when...

I pointed her out several times. Did you not know how many members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve there are? Why didn't you know that? If you were so concerned that she might be connected to the all-powerful Duke energy family, why didn't you contact the Senate Banking Committee?

Drop your silly demands for an apology. Your claim was false. It's not my fault you don't keep up with current affairs, Bassman. BTW, you apparently still have time to discover whether or not Larry Klane is a "Jew" before he's confirmed, because his confirmation is stalled in the Senate.

[Bassman66]

225. Apologise.

You are have resorted to telling untruths now.
How low can you go?

You know full well my post was accurate at the time of posting.
You know full well that the 5 people who were on the board of the Fed prior to Duke's appointment are all jews and were listed as such on Wiki.

Apologise.

[SDuderstadt]

226. Warsh isn't....

that makes your claim FALSE, Bassman. Why do you care whether they are Jews or not? If your theory holds true, why isn't Bush making sure that Duke and Klane are both Jewish? Is he slipping? Again, your post seems quite anti-semitic, although you deny that.

[Bassman66]

227. My post is factual. How dare you call it anti-semtic!

Until Duke was appointed the Fed was run by 5 jews.

That's a fact.

2% of Americans are Jews, 100% of the Fed board was Jewish - since august 5th it's now 83%.

That is unrepresentative and undemocratic.

When we going to get a black man on the board? Or a muslim? Or a non-jewish majority?

It's ridiculous and leaves the jewish community open to attacks by people who say that the banking industry is controlled by jews.

[SDuderstadt]

228. No one cares, Bassman....

you're just making yourself look silly which, admittedly, is hard to do.

[seemslikeadream]

229. Well now

Started in Feb. interesting