Should we nationalize the Federal Reserve and take it out of private hands?

[yurbud]

I'm sure it would have some complicated consequences as far as deciding what to do with our past debt (I would tell large banks in US just to eat it), but it would put control of our debt and money back entirely under democratic accountability, and as we have seen with the bailouts Bernanke gave to Wall Street that dwarfed what Congress did and his subsequent resistence to an audit of the Fed, they are not in any real sense accountable to us now--but they do seem to be very responsive to those Wall Street firms that all their top officials come from.

We need to make banks and Wall Street slaves of our national interests (which means middle and working class Americans) rather than our master.

The problem with other kinds of reform like tinkering with regulation here and a handful of prosecutions there, is the money guys will work tirelessly until they undo whatever incremental improvement we make.

We need to do something big, on the order of creating Social Security or Medicare, both of which corporate sociopaths can't seem to undo and divert the money to their own pockets.

Taking away their control of our money supply would do that.

[anonymous171]

1. YES. nt

[Celebration]

2. If we told all large US banks to eat our debt

then we'd just have to bail them out!

[WinkyDink]

3. Yeah, about 233 years ago.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. Absolutely.

Way too many of our vital institutions are privatized.

Time to un-do that mess.

[unblock]

5. EPIC FAIL

the federal reserve is already "nationalized" and out of private hands.

it was created by an act of congress, it reports to congress, and it is run by presidential appointees subject to senate confirmation.

now, if you're talking about how to reduce corruption, the revolving door, and/or the INFLUENCE of private banks on the fed, that's another story.



http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrbanks.htm#6

Are the Federal Reserve Banks private companies?
The Federal Reserve Banks, created by an act of Congress in 1913, are operated in the public interest rather than for profit or to benefit any private group.

Commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System hold stock in the Reserve Bank in their region, but they do not exercise control over the Reserve Bank or the Federal Reserve System. Holding stock in a regional Reserve Bank does not carry with it the kind of control and financial interest that holding publicly traded stock affords, and the stock may not be sold or traded. Member banks do, however, receive a fixed 6 percent dividend annually on their stock and elect six of the nine members of the Reserve Bank's board of directors.

Although they are set up like private corporations and member banks hold their stock, the Federal Reserve Banks owe their existence to an act of Congress and have a mandate to serve the public. Therefore, they are not really "private" companies, but rather are "owned" by the citizens of the United States.

[anonymous171]

7. Why do the banks have any say in this process? They are parasites and should be treated as such

IF they don't comply with regulations then they can go to jail or die. Woodrow Wilson and his particular school of progressive thought were both extremely elitist. Their creation of the Fed reflects this notion. I want the Fed made completely democratic and transparent. Technocracy is just fascism for intellectuals.

[unblock]

13. banks should have some say, just nowhere near the influence they currently have

anyone affected by acts of congress should have a say, and while i'm generally far more sympathetic to the needs of the less powerful, the business should get some say. but the whole government has gotten SO overwhelmingly controlled by business interests, the right balance is so far away and hard to see from here.

before any of that can happen, we need to remove private/corporate money from electoral politics, but feels like a pipe dream as well.

[libertypirate]

9. Damn you is ignorant....

I bet everyone on this list is also on the boards of worlds largest corporations. Benefit any private group, I guess they are right rich people are not "a" private group, at least they don't think they are.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/listdirectors/default.cfm

The news doesn't even hide that the president receives a list of acceptable appointees from the banking overlords. The media brags about how much overlord control exists in the Reserve Bank system, out of the eye of the public, and very little is reported to congress.

When congress starts to prey back the layers of this financial onion, not only do we start to cry the media acts as though they never said anything about the bank.

The reserve bank has been inflating value for years, and the trigger will be pulled when the overlords are about to be caught. The private rich are already closing ranks and the rest of us have been in the squeeze for years. The reserve bank was sold as control mechanism, but it has evolved into a mechanism of control.

[unblock]

10. like i said, less corruption, less revolving door, fine.

i certainly wouldn't mind seeing more academics and union leaders and regulation-minded people in that list.

greater transparency would also be a good thing.

but "nationalizing" the fed is as much an epic fail as "nationalizing" congress.

[anonymous171]

12. The Academics are already there. nt

[unblock]

14. far outnumbered by big corporate business leaders

and often the wrong type of academics....

[PufPuf23]

19. One of the Academics

is President of a regional Fed and was on my Masters committee in 1987.

I seldom post but read much at DU and sit on my hands and bite my tongue most often on the subjects where my experience and education are most relevant.

Personally, I am not happy how our economy is being managed (policy, regulation, nor personalities).

I testified before Congress subcommittees as an economist on several times in the 90s.

[Joe Chi Minh]

15. You seem to be as gullible as an infant. Why would a nationalized bank

issue an annual six percent dividend to private private banks? And why would those private banks be empowered to elect two thirds of the directors on its board? Pursuant to an Act of Congress, indeed.

I'm sure all sorts of 'unworthy' measures have been instituted or repealed by an Act of Congress. Do you really think that makes them all, ipso facto, above reproach in either their conception or their implementation. Our governments attract some qite unsavoury characters, as well as the better types. Is it not possible that the Fed was set up after heavy lobbying by the banks, perhaps those beneficiary banks, as well as, maybe other corporations? Perish the thought!

Apparently, its rationale was utterly spurious. The usual suspects, super-rich individuals, had been pushing for it for some while. There was a series of videos on the history of the Fed and its founding, posted on here a few years ago.

[unblock]

21. i am well informed and hardly gullible. i am also supportive of greater regulation and transparancy

but the term "nationalization" seriously misses the mark.

the dividends are effectively a subsidy, which happens in many other industries, although this one happens to be quite formalized. still, congress could reduce or eliminate this subsidy, although they've never touched it in 96 years. yes, there was plenty of lobbying from the banks at the creation and in fact the concept was largely theirs. they convinced a congress (if anyone was gullible, look there and/or to woody woo) to enact the federal reserve system. that makes it corrupt, but not private.

same goes for participation on the board of directors. there are many boards and advisory panels and such set up by the government that include private parties, nearly always from industry. another corrupt effect of lobbying.

[Libertas1776]

6. I voted NO

since the Fed is...you know...already technically nationalized and out of private hands. As a matter of fact, it has been that way since 1913, when it was created. Might want to do a little more research on the subject before you draw up a poll.

However, if your poll had asked should we get rid of the big bank cronies out of running the Fed, that's a different story.

[dtotire]

8. All Their Profits (Above 6%) Are Returned to the Treasury

It would be a good thing if they were audited regularly, and operating expenses scrutinized. Someone once complained of the perks their employees have.

[yurbud]

11. more important than their profits are who works there and whose interests they serve.

[Joe Chi Minh]

17. Steady on! That's what they do with public companies.

[TexasObserver]

16. YES. Banks will still control it, but they'll have to buy more politicians to do so.

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. 'Not a problem', I hear some hammerhead chuckle.

[woodcarver]

20. Thomas Jefferson had some insight on banking.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson,