Jump to content

Talk:Federal Reserve/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Large, Medium, and Small Banks

"... member banks are divided into 3 groups based on size—large, medium, and small banks. Each group elects one member of Class B." This point may be a little obscure - I can't figure out the specifics on how big each size group is. This site clarifies a little: "the member banks of each District (are) classified into three groups based on the amount of capital – small, medium, and large." The thing I don't understand is, does each size group contain an equal number of banks (one bank one vote), or banks representing an equal amount of capital (weighted voting), or do they not have to be equal at all? Boris B (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro paragraph slightly misleading

This is not true

"The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created in 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, and was largely a response to prior financial panics and bank runs, the most severe of which being the Panic of 1907.[1][2][3]"

The Fed had itself imposed on America for one purpose only; to be granted unlimited freedom to practice unlimited fractal reserve banking. End of story. The rest of your explanation is mostly fiction.


The Intro also states "Events such as the Great Depression were some of the major factors leading to changes in the system.[9]" However, the Federal Reserve was passed into law in 1913 and the Great Depression did not begin until the 30's, therefore, it is impossible the Federal Reserve to have been started as a response to this event. This sentence is misleading because it makes it seem like the Great Depression occurred before the Federal Reserve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.159.16 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as the banking panic: One of the key roles of the Fed was to be the lender of last resort. So during bank runs, banks that were otherwise solvent would have the chance to borrow money for a short amount of time (these days it's around 90 days). That was one of the rationals for the Fed, though many (e.g. Bernanke and Friedman) believe that the Fed failed to meet that mandate during the great depression, particularly around 1933. And, for your information, fractional reserve banking was going on before the Fed.
As far as the great depression, I'm sure there's a whole list of additional legislation regarding the Fed that was passed during the great depression. Leaving the gold standard is one that comes to mind, and another I think is the Fed's emergency lending authorities. The latter was used to make loans to some troubled institutions during our recent recession.--Dark Charles (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like someone already dealt with this question below. Sorry everybody--Dark Charles (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


Even an article by a Life Magazine author noted some time after that it had been fairly obvious at the time that Morgan interests had initiated the 1920's scare by setting out rumours that one (independent) bank was not solvent. This inevitably led to a run on the bank and several / a great many independent banks went bust and Morgan Banks came to be domineering. So much so that by 1921 most all banks on the east coast district of the New York Federal Reserve district bank and Morgan Banks dominated the region completely. Again, it must be noted that the district banks _as_well as_ the FED itself was from the outset a private enterprise, run by private people who had economic interests all over the place. That is to say they belonged to the same groups and strata, they colluded, cooperated and _had_ to have been acting in concert in order at all to achieve the results that finally came about by the end of 1921. By late october 1929 the scheme is so obvious that even people such as noted scholar and Professors like John Kenneth Galbraith dare point out the fact.

Who controls the federal reserve exactly and what is its value?

This should be in there somewhere in the article who owns the feds and what is the company worth. From my understanding the federal reserve is not a government owned company but the article makes it appear that way

[Reply to the above] The Fed is a system, rather than a company. Its important elements have separate governing boards who separately pick leadership. At the top sits the Board of Governors which is a 100% publicly-appointed (i.e. President w/ consent of Senate). There are also 12 regional bank Presidents who are chosen by the regional boards, two-thirds of which are privately-appointed (i.e. by member banks, in a process I don't understand fully but asked about above). So the system is partly private, partly public, with no direct control by President or Congress. Boris B (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sound off here about edits from IP 68.7.241.68

My complaints about the latest edits would include:

  • poorly sourced edit (ref went to some coupon clipping(?) website with commentary on the Federal Reserve),
  • blatant POV presentation of assertions,
  • unwillingness to engage in productive discussion and consensus-seeking, and
  • generally tendentious and disruptive editing, including 6 or more reverts.

Anyone else care to opine? Is there perhaps a consensus opposing the edits in their current form? BigK HeX (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, they were never meant to be genuine and were merely a briefly successful attempt to disrupt the article. The tone of his comments and his comments on his talk page make clear that this was not serious. -Rrius (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree, but it seems easy enough to explicitly establish (and work from) consensus in this case. BigK HeX (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Both of you are pathetic evil scum. You can jabber on and on about how you did the right thing when the truth is it is RRIUS who adamanetly insisted on a WRONG POINT OF VIEW and BEING DISRUPTIVE I LISTED 3 CLEAR CITATIONS FOR MY CHANGE and you pig-fuckers just want to enforce your tyranny. You call yourself an ADMINISTRAToR? What a joke. You're supposed to PREZVENT VANDALISM AND SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY PROCESS NOT SUPRESS IT. SO I HAVE A WELL SOURCED CHANGE. I'VE GIVEN 3 CLEAR CITATIONS. NOW EXPLAIN YOURSELF. UNLESS YOU WORK DIRECTLY FOR THE CIA OR COMMUNISTS HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU LIVE WITH YOURSELVES. HOW DO YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT. You're an IMPARTIAL administrator? YAh RIGHT. WHAT A JOKE. MOre like a CON ARTIST. HOW DARE YOU SUPPORT A BULLY. PATHETIC.


You're more than welcome to disable CAPS LOCK, and discuss your edit on this page. BigK HeX (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Obfuscation of primary role of the Fed

The Fed is a tax body and this needs to be prominently stated in the introduction. The Fed is the only agency authorized to print money on its own behalf. The amounts printed are exempt from standard bookkeeping rules. On average they print about $300 billion in loans just to the federal government. Ostensibly these are loans and need to be payed back. In practice it is the primary cause of inflation (a form of taxation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk • contribs) 10:05, April 13, 2010

Sorry, it's not a tax body. Central bank is quite a bit more accurate. Also, the Fed does undergo regular audits, just not as complete as some would want. I expanded the accountability section to go over that, and mentioned an example of the proposed legislation. The audit information is already in the article in more detail, however. Also, there aren't GAO rules for printing money, at least there are none mentioned in the source you used. Kinda hard to be exempt from something that doesn't exist. Ravensfire (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory wording

The article says:

The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It is the only entity with the permission to print U.S. currency.

However, there's also:

The structure of the central banking system in the U.S. is unique in the world, in that an entity outside the central bank creates the currency. This other entity is the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Now who's creating the currecy? Please fix the wording so that someone who's not familiar with the subject can also understand it. --213.178.103.205 (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


More precisely, the Federal Reserve is authorized to place US paper currency into circulation. However, the Federal Reserve still has to place orders for the paper dollar bills to be printed by the Treasury [specifically, the Treasury Dept's Bureau of Engraving and Printing]. BigK HeX (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Would anybody add that? My English is not good enough for that. --213.178.106.243 (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Structure of the Federal Reserve System page

I started the Structure of the Federal Reserve System page. There has been a lot of talk about moving the structure section and just giving a summary here, but no one has done it. Tomorrow, I'll shorten the structure section on here, though help is invited--and then we'll have a page of reasonable length.--Dark Charles (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks - I've had a version that I've worked on for a bit, but didn't get done/didn't like what I had done. Badly, badly needed summary - should help to pull a lot of information out of the article that really isn't helpful to most readers. Ravensfire (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I got anxious and started on the summary. It's located in my Sandbox right now (User:Dark Charles/Sandbox). I want to put something in about giving the profits to the treasury, and also something about public vs. private parts of the Fed. Anyone can edit it, if they like.--Dark Charles (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You undid my factual addition to the article but offered no explanation as to why.

Famspear: I noticed that you undid my addition to the Federal Reserve System article: Although it is not an agency of the United States government, it I was wondering if you offered any explanation for undoing my addition of the fact that the Federal Reserve is not an agency of the U.S. government, refer to 31USC where all agencies of the U.S. government are listed. 75.203.6.190 (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.203.6.190 (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that "31 USC" does not list "all agencies of the U.S. government." Famspear (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Please note that your response does not address the real question. Is the Federal Reserve an agency of the U.S. government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.199.183.154 (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The answer is yes ... and no. Parts of the Fed are agencies, parts are not. It's in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear IP 12.199.183.154: Ravensfire's "yes and no" is very good answer. The article is about the Federal Reserve SYSTEM. The Board of Governors is part of the system, and the Board is a governmental entity. But Wells Fargo Bank is also part of the system (it's called a "member bank"), and Wells Fargo is owned by its shareholders - it's "private" in a sense. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is part of the SYSTEM. So is the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. There are twelve Federal Reserve Banks, plus hundreds of "member banks". And so on. The SYSTEM has different parts, some of which are government entities and others of which are not. Famspear (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a new template for Banking in the United States that links to this article and added it here.

I suggest that a new Public finance in the United States navigation box would improve this topic area, and could replace both Template:Public finance and the template I just added, Template:Banking in the United States.

Pnm (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up, I added "clear:right" to the style area of the template to eliminate the need for a separate {{clearright}} template in front of each use; I also moved it below the Public Finance template because the latter is wider and was overlapped by the TOC, and I haven't figured out how to make the TOC narrower yet (without butchering the offending section title), which is what really needs to be done. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Great, that makes it more robust. -Pnm (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to have your help with Template:Bank regulation in the United States, too. -Pnm (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Private and non-profit?

"The System is not a private organization and does not operate for the purpose of making a profit.[63] The stocks of the regional federal reserve banks are owned by the banks operating within that region and which are part of the system"

So it's stock is owned by private organizations who operate for making a profit, but it is not a private organization nor does it operate to make a profit.

Sorry but that sounds like utter BS to me 91.188.53.70 (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that private companies own the shares does not mean that the reserve banks operate to make a profit just as the fact that Hersey's is owned by a not-for-profit trust does not make Hershey a not-for-profit organization. As for the rest, try actually reading what the article says and its references. The three sections of most interest are "Federal Reserve Banks" and "Legal status". -Rrius (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
" This stock "may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan" and all member banks receive a 6% annual dividend". OK so it is owned 100% by private companies and it pays out a 6% annual dividend, but in your eyes this is neither a private company nor a profit-making one? Sounds like you've read the article, but there's a difference between reading and understanding.91.188.53.70 (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
So you don't argue my first point that a company that is wholly owned by private institutions (e.g. The Fed Bank of New York) is itself a private institution? And again, paying a 6% dividend looks suspiciously like profit return to shareholders to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.188.53.70 (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
As pointed out below, and as I have pointed out to you before, there is a difference between the Federal Reserve System and the individual reserve banks. What's more, it is ignorant and simplistic to describe as private entities that are creatures of statute, have portions of their boards of directors appointed by a government agency, and are subject to direction from that government agency. You need to cast your information net wider than Rand Paulian crackpottery and develop some appreciation for nuance. -Rrius (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"Crackpottery" nice putdown. I appreciate nuance fine thank you, but to claim ""The System is not a private organization and does not operate for the purpose of making a profit" when it pays a dividend to privately owner institutions is not nuance, it's bullshit propaganda.217.24.77.46 (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. While you appreciate the put down, you are wrong to think you appreciate nuance. Your response demonstrates the contrary yet again. -Rrius (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So if I were to create a company, and its stock was owned by some private firms, and I paid them an annual dividend, would you say my company was private and profit-making? Of course you would. 91.188.53.70 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear IP91.188.53.70: You're re-asking questions that have been asked and answered over and over and over and over again. This is an article about the Federal Reserve System, not about a specific Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve System is not "a company" with "stock owned by some private firms". The Federal Reserve System does not "pay an annual dividend." Please review the archives. Thanks, Famspear (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response (and yours Rrius), but the fact remains that the money earned by the Fed is paid out in forms of annual dividend of 6%. So somebody is making a profit from it. And that somebody is the twelve federal reserve banks, which are privately owned. So every time the Fed "lends" the Treasury money, the interest paid on that is going into the pockets of private shareholders. Quite how you can possibly "nuance" that to make it not a private enterprise is beyond me. It doesn't matter who appoints the board, what matters is where the interest on money created from nothing goes, and it goes into the accounts of private individuals and firms. Still, someone has to be the mouthpiece I guess. 217.24.77.46 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all, "nuance" isn't a verb. Second, the reserve banks straddle traditional notions of "public" and "private" organizations. It does matter who appoints the board. That is a part of the nuance that you either can't or won't recognize. The reserve banks are not strictly private concerns. Period. Third, you yet again fail to appreciate the difference between an individual reserve bank and the Federal Reserve System. Until you manage to figure out the difference, no one is going to take you seriously. Finally, calling someone a us mouthpieces just underscores that your position is not driven by serious and informed research, but by populist conspiracy theorists for whom it has replaced the Trilateral Commission as antagonist-in-chief. -Rrius (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
To IP91.188.53.70 - I can understand your confusion, as the Fed system is multi-faceted in it's function. The primary purpose of the regional federal reserve banks is that of a payment system between the private member banks. The concept is really quite brilliant in that the banks themselves finance the payment system (instead of the government). When you write a check and mail it accross the the street or across the country, it is the regional FR banks that routes that payment back to your local bank. In order to participate in the system (I can't see how a bank could operate without being a member of this payment system), the private banks are required to purchase stock in one of the regional FR banks. It is this payment system that generates enough profit to pay the private member banks the 6% dividend on their investment. The 6% dividend is NOT based on the operation of the entire Federal Reserve System. As is pointed out in the article, any profit that the FR System as a whole earns is paid to the US Treasury. And by the way, a 6% return on investment is very low for a for-profit company. Most businesses, including commercial banks, would expect an internal rate of return (on investment) in the range of 20% to 25%.Banker 49 (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes to lead

There have been a few changes to the lead that I disagree with in part or entirely, and would like to bring here for discussion. The changes where initially made by user:Ganjadi on July 5th. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unique structure statement

Statement removed [1] - "The structure of the central banking system in the U.S. is unique in the world. It is also unusual in that an entity outside the central bank (the U.S. Department of the Treasury) creates the currency used."

Ganjadi said in his edit summary that this is false, pointing to the Bank of England and Bank of France as having the same structure. They both have a similar purpose, but the structure of the Fed is not the same, and is unique (blame politics and the geographic scale of the US). There's some discussion on this later in the article, with a link to a source from the Atlanta FRB. I feel that including this in the lead is useful information as this is a central bank unlike the others which impacts how decisions are made and executed. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
—but Ravensfire, neither you nor the article specifies *in what way* the Fed is a unique central bank? (In fact, from this article: "Examples [of a central bank] include the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Federal Reserve System in the United States. Some central banks are publicly owned, and others are privately owned. For example, the United States Federal Reserve is a quasi-public corporation.") Simply declaring the Fed's uniquenes is meaningless: without respect to the property by which it is unique, asserting its uniqueness amounts no more than saying "The Fed is very special."—ganjadi (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so digging down in the article where the structure is explained, there are a few citations. One is to the FRB in Atlanta, who uses the term "unique" without explaining why. The cite to the CRS report by G Thomas Woodward also calls the structure unique, pointing to the mix of public and private aspects. The structure section can probably be expanded with this information. Ravensfire (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If you state in the head of the article that the Fed is unique, you can't wait to explain HOW it is unique until the Structure section. Either take this statement out, or explain immediately HOW the Fed is unique: if it's because it's both private and public, then say so and explain what this means.—ganjadi (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
We don't need to explain the full details that are in the intro. We're not supposed to - WP:LEAD. It's a summary of the article, going over what's coming ahead - a tease if you will. The entire background of the creation of the Fed is summarized in a single sentence. Hmmm, what about this?
"The division of the responsibilities of a central bank into several separate and independant parts, some private and some public, result in a structure that is considered unique among central banks. It is also unusual in that an entity (the U.S. Department of the Treasury) outside of the central bank creates the currency used."
I think that addresses your concern about not having any details about what is unique without going overboard with details. Ravensfire (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I have made this change. Ravensfire (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Shareholders statement

Phrase added [2] (additions in bold) - In particular, the U.S. Government does not own shares in the Federal Reserve System nor its component banks, but does take 94% of the Federal Reserve System's profits. The other 6% is paid out to the shareholders of the Federal Reserve—privately-owned, member banks —in the form of a dividend on their stock

The section added is extremely misleading, and was removed prior to my reversion by Someguy1221. The Federal Reserve does not have shareholders and is not privately owned. The dividend is paid to the member banks of each Federal Reserve Bank. That's where the lead should end - it doesn't matter how the member banks are owned - private, public or a mix. There's more detail given in the Structure section. I left Ganjadi a note about this edit on his talk page explaining why, as I assumed it was pretty evident that the information was wrong. I should have left it here and avoided this. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. But can we please have, somewhere in the head of this article, something which tells the reader that the Federal Reserve is not as Federal as the Post Office—that in some ways it's more like the Federal Express, in that it returns a yearly 6% dividend to private shareholders (the Member Banks), who also potentially sit on the FOMC (whether publicly appointed as one of the 7 Board of Governors, or private and UNappointed as one of the 5 Bank Member Presidents)—and thus participate in an at least partly private organization which, according to [3] the New York Times' About section for the Fed, "has exercised more influence over economic growth and the level of employment than any other government entity"? —ganjadi (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
—also, more concretely, your statement that "the Federal Reserve does not have shareholders and is not privately owned" is false. Read their own FAQ [4]: "The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."—ganjadi (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
No - please read is carefully. The Federal Reserve does not have shareholders and is not privately owned. The Federal Reserve Banks are owned by the member banks of each FRB. Ravensfire (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Um, you've made the point clear Ravensfire, that the Federal Reserve System includes more entities than the Federal Reserve Banks. But since the Federal Reserve Banks are its FINANCIAL institutions—ie, its appendages if you will, rather than the mind of the FOMC—and since (private or public) member banks own all the stock of these Federal Reserve Banks, and NOT the Us Govt, this is a significant difference from the financial organization of all other "federal" entities, and needs to be well-documented in a faithful encyclopedia.—ganjadi (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you get the point - saying the Federal Reserve is privately owned, then pointing to the member banks as the owner is totally misleading, and does not belong in this article. Especially given the conspiracy theorists - the article needs to be precise in the terms used. Ravensfire (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You are the one not getting the point, my friend! The Federal Reserve System is often only a categorical term to describe a financial body, which is of course really the Federal Reserve BANKS. How could anyone own stock in a system? You have made this distinction how many times now, and yet you have not even noticed that it exists in much stronger potency right in the article itself: "In particular, the U.S. Government does not own shares in the Federal Reserve System nor its component banks, but does take 94% of the Federal Reserve System's profits." Writing that the govt does not own shares in the Fed, NOR the banks, implies both are possible (but not true for the govt). Thus, by *denying* that the US govt owns the shares, this raises the question in the reader's mind: WHO DOES own the shares, and who takes the remaining SIX PERCENT profit? These questions should be immediately answered, not only because they are essential to understanding that the Fed is not like the post office, but because the Structure section is a long way off from their first raising here in this context.—ganjadi (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I want to clarify a point made by Ravensfire where he stated that "The Federal Reserve Banks are owned by the member banks". This is incorrect. Member banks own 'shares' in the Federal Reserve Banks, but these shares are unlike shares in publicly listed companies. They are different in that, a) these shares cannot be bought and sold, b) they are not a claim on a share of the profits of the Federal Reserve Bank, c) they do not collectively give full control over the Federal Reserve Bank, d) they cannot collectively vote to liquidate the Federal Reserve Bank and distribute its assets.
So, ownership of these 'shares' do not confer ownership of the Federal Reserve Bank. They are instead more like preference shares, a hybrid instrument that are closer to bonds than to stock. Ownership of preference shares do not imply ownership of the company. Federal Reserve Banks are essentially independent government entities. LK (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see from your explanation how they are "government entities". There seems to be a leap of logic here. Where did the government come into it? Or did you mean "governing entities"? Yworo (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
They are government entitites, in that they were created by government action (Federal Reserve Act, 1913), they function according to government regulations, the chairman and vice-chairman of the board of directors of each Federal Reserve Bank is appointed by the Federal Reserve Board (which is in turn appointed by the POTUS), the president of each Federal Reserve Bank must be approved by the Federal Reserve Board, policy of each Federal Reserve Bank is subservient to policy set by the Federal Reserve Board, and lastly, the Federal Reserve Banks turn over their profits over to the US treasury. LK (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
You can read more about it here and here. LK (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Ganjadi, I think the phrase "Federal Reserve" gets used by the media to talk about several parts of the system - most notably the Board of Governors (various regulations) and the Federal Open Market Committee (monetary policy). It's not something that I've seen to talk about the various FRB's because they just don't hit the public notice that often. You can't use a generic phrase to talk about a specific part of the system when that phrase gets misused and can cause confusion. Again, it's in the lead, so it's a summary of what's in the article, not every detail. How do you think that phrase can be rewritten so there's more clarity, but is still a summary? Ravensfire (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the typical user would fail to realize the unusual usage of "Federal" and we should work to improve the language here. the way they phrase it "is 'not a private, profit-making institution'. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects." seems contradictory and is confusing. clear as mud for 99% of readers.Yourmanstan (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead

Tag added [5] - a "Citation needed" tag was added to the statement "The structure of the central banking system in the U.S. is unique in the world. It is also unusual in that an entity outside the central bank (the U.S. Department of the Treasury) creates the currency used."

The statement is explained in more detail in the article with a source provided. Given this, I do not feel the need for duplicating the citation from the main article. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Ravensfire. It's hardly contentious and is covered in detail with citations in the body where citations are required. I think it's perfectly fine. BigK HeX (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
BigK HeX, thank you for your comment. But brother, you neither specify what is "hardly contentious", nor to which citations you refer. Without this specific information, how can anyone evaluate this conversation objectively? —ganjadi (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe what BigK HeX is agreeing to is that "the statement is explained in more detail in the article with a source provided", and that a source is not needed in the lead. I tend to agree with both Ravensfire and BigK HeX, however, I see no problem in adding the source to the lead as well. On the other issue, about the member banks, it can be noted that they are shareholders of the district federal reserve bank (but not of the Federal Reserve System itself). However, the term 'privately owned' should not be included, as ownership of member banks is unrestricted, they may be privately owned, publicly listed, cooperatives, or even state owned. LK (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
So far from being so obvious it doesn't even need citation, the second sentence of this statement ("It is also unusual in that an entity outside the central bank (the U.S. Department of the Treasury) creates the currency used.") is false three ways.
  • First, the US Dept of Treasuy is not a central bank. The Fed is a central bank.
  • Second, the US Dept of Treasury does not create our currency—the Fed does. The Fed has the power to increase or decrease the money supply, ie create or uncreate money. The Dept of Treasury only prints and mints the amount of currency that the Fed told it to print and mint.
  • Third, ALL cenral banks "create the currency used"—ie, the currency of their respective nations. This is their defining characteristic! From central bank: "However, a central bank is distinguished from a normal commercial bank because it has a monopoly on creating the currency of that nation, which is loaned to the government in the form of legal tender." Do you know anything about central banks? —ganjadi (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The above objections seem pretty nonsensical. You state that the "Dept of Treasuysic is not a central bank", but you are quoting a passage that says that exact same thing, namely that the Dept of Treasury is "an entity outside the central bank".
You then explicitly tell us that the Dept of Treasury "mints the currency" .... which is the exact meaning intended in the passage you are objecting to where it states that "the US Dept of the Treasury creates the currency". Granted, this could be somewhat clearer, but it certainly doesn't merit the intensity of the objections here.
Lastly, you quote a passage from a Wikipedia entry as if that's authoritative. Not only that, but the passage seems to describe the usual arrangement, which would only serve to highlight the passage you're objecting to where it states that "It is also unusual...."
The wording in the article could use some minor improvement, but the way you've made a mountain out of the molehill would seem to indicate the faults may have lain more with the reader and less with the words being read. BigK HeX (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Edited the lead to clear up confusion about relationship between the Treasury and the central bank. LK (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Changes to introduction

Hello, I erased some information that I do not believe is in compliance with WP:POV. Specifically, because the POV page says "the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." However, the source for the stuff I removed was written by an author named G. Edward Griffin. It is easy to see this person is not an expert on the Federal Reserve or economics in general. Furthermore, the book's name is The Creature from Jekyll Island which does not come across as scholarly. The other source, though I doubt its scholarliness, does not actually say what I removed in the introduction. It says:

But then the conference closed, after a week of earnest deliberation, the rough draft of what later became the Aldrich Bill had been agreed upon, and a plan had been outlined which provided for a ‘National Reserve Association,’ meaning a central reserve organization with an elastic note issue based on gold and commercial paper.

According to http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm. There are other sources, within the article already, which say there were some changes made. And the source doesn't even specify the specifics of what was agreed upon. --Dark Charles (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The source is also a tacit violation of the information in http://www.bos.frb.org/about/pubs/begin.pdf%7Cformat=PDF, which says that the Aldrich plan was created after Aldrich had examined the banking system of several other countries.--Dark Charles (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If you have a problem with ONE of those sources, then the discussion should be regarding that specific source and whether it is credible. It isn't ONE source, there are FOUR sources INCLUDING the Federal Reserve itself! see here: http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3815 and read the section titled jekyll island.
"One evening in early November 1910, Warburg and a small party of men from New York quietly boarded Sen. Aldrich's private railway car, ostensibly for a trip south to an exclusive hunting club on an island off the coast of Georgia. In addition to Warburg and Aldrich, the others, all highly regarded in the New York banking community, were: Frank Vanderlip, president of National City Bank; Harry P. Davison, a J.P. Morgan partner; Benjamin Strong, vice president of Banker's Trust Co.; and A. Piatt Andrew, former secretary of the National Monetary Commission and now assistant secretary of the Treasury. The real purpose of this historic "duck hunt" was to formulate a plan for US banking and currency reform that Aldrich could present to Congress."
If there is any dispute over this historic fact, then I have not come across it. I would ask that before you remove this content again, you should first dispute all four sources (not just one), present your own sources with experts of the topic of the origins of the federal reserve, and reach a consensus first. since this information is provided by the federal reserve itself as well as independent authorities i can't imagine how it would be possible to find more reliable information. 208.13.140.37 (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't notice the last source, but it actually contradicts what you're trying to put in the intro. It says the Aldrich plan was crafted with the help of bankers. It goes on to say:
Before the Aldrich Plan could be enacted into law, the Democrats won the White House and took control of the Congress in 1912. The Democratic position called for a divisional reserve bank system, with a number of reserve banks or central banking cities. Nevertheless, President Woodrow Wilson believed that the Aldrich Plan was "60-70 percent correct." As a result, the plan became the basis for constructing the Federal Reserve bill, which began to take shape in Congress with the presentation of a bill proposed by Sen. Robert Latham Owen in May 1913.
When the Aldrich bill was rejected and the Democrats began to rework the banking bill, the group of bankers that had worked so hard in support of the Aldrich Plan began to split apart, and many of those bankers refused to consider an alternative plan...
that is not a contradiction at all... from your quote: "As a result, the plan became the basis for constructing the Federal Reserve bill"... and that is precisely what the introduction of the sentence states. "Conceived by the worlds leading bankers" is correct, short, neutral, and relevant for the purposes of the introduction. There is controversy about why the bankers later disagreed, which i think we need not go into, but it still doesn't change the fact that their plan was the basis for the bill which was passed. It appears that your edits are well intended however the introduction stood in this form for months until it was deceptively removed by another user. I will give you some time to respond here. If you still disagree I will ask you to produce independent sources, not simply your own editorial opinion on the four independent sources. Or if you agree, I would encourage you to revert your edits directly. Yourmanstan (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
So that pretty much settles it, at least for me. I am sorry that I missed the fourth source. However, in my defense, you shouldn't mix poor and good sources together.--Dark Charles (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
No issues from me - too much detail and needless references for the lead. The section Federal Reserve Act does have more details, including about Aldrich visiting other countries. Could add something to that section about the origins of the Aldrich plan date to a secret meeting in 1910 with Aldrich, Warburg, bankers and Treasury officials. The MinFed article was an interesting read. Ravensfire (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the information in your source was integrated into the history section.--Dark Charles (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yourmanstan--I disagree, and two people agree with me so a consensus has been reached. If you change it you'll be in violation of WP:CON. The legitimate source you provided for the edit says changes were made to the plan, and it also says that many of the bankers refused to work an alternative plan. For what you put in the introduction to be literally true, the exact plan written would have to be passed, which isn't the case. Even very minor changes can distort the effects of legislation; in this case it looks like that's what happened (to name two: more control for the public in the FOMC and 12 regional banks not 15). The information you provided has already been added to the history section, where legislative details belong. Also, I already provided an alternative source (http://www.bos.frb.org/about/pubs/begin.pdf%7Cformat=PDF), which describes the formation of the Federal Reserve as a deliberative process.
Lastly, please make comments in a more linear fashion. It's hard to follow what you're writing.--Dark Charles (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
What you have done is provided your opinion and I believe we are all aware of it. What you have not done is provide sources of any kind. the information you removed is cited from multiple reliable sources. opinions are not basis for inclusion or removal of material from wikipedia. there is overwhelming data on this issue, and your claim is like saying that slavery wasn't one of the precursors to the civil war. do any search on google for "federal reserve act" "jekyll island", "federal reserve conception" etc etc etc.. you will find thousands of sources stating exactly what is described in the introduction. there is nothing more to be said until you provide reliable sources which conflict with the sources already cited. if you remove this content again i'm afraid i'll have to report the issue.Yourmanstan (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. There is clearly no consensus for the changes you keep pushing.
  2. Before lecturing other editors on OR, you might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of the lede (lead), its purpose and content. Details of the inception of the Fed, including the Jekyll Island meeting, are accurately presented in the article and its sub-articles. Loading up the lede with a distorted presentation of those details and a laundry list of intermixed reliable and questionable references is merely POV pushing which does nothing to improve the article.
Fat&Happy (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes there is a consensus. A couple editors on wikpedia does not represent consensus at large WP:CONLIMITED. This information was live for several months without complaint until it was deceptively removed (also WP:CONLIMITED. then two of you took up arms about it randomly. if you were to perform even the most rudimentary research you would return the same result. I am perfectly comfortable with the lead, and i do agree that more information about the meetings should be included in subsections. the fact that they are included later on does not mean that they shouldn't be in the lead. Also i don't know why you would make claims about "questionable reference" THREE published books and the federal reserve itself. you have provided ZERO anything. this is not distorted presentation, not a laundry list. it is important, relevant, historical fact. i'm afraid this is going to dispute resolution.Yourmanstan (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the only "consensus" reached is a consensus of bullies. Not a single one of you (Ravensfire, Fat&Happy, Dark Charles) has had your edits changed in any permanent way, whereas everyone you oppose is crushed instantly. The content of this article is clearly being protected in the most insidious way. Shame on all of you. You are evil. —ganjadi (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you believe the edit is supported by http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3815? That was the key point in the argument. I sighted a quote later in the source that said the Federal Reserve Act was not what the bankers wanted. And then I integrated the information that I felt was important from the source into the history section.
I hated to use consensus (everyone that spoke out at the time agreed with me), but I don't think most people would draw the same conclusion from the sentence in the into. as what's supported by the source. I think I followed the rules of the road, and even helped to further the reasonable aspects of Yourmanstan's information. Plus, I cited an additional scholarly article about the history of the Federal Reserve to support my point, which met the degree of proof he requested me to show. Please, "evil" is a very strong word; everybody believes they're helping to improve the article and I would appreciate it if you kept that in mind.--Dark Charles (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yourmanstan, I'm going to make a few points, and I suspect you're probably not going to accept them, but please hear me out.

  1. The statement you put in the introduction reads: "It was conceived by several of the world's leading bankers in 1910..." Now, the definition of "conceive", in this context, is: "form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind." That's from the Oxford American dictionary. So, it follows that the phrase means the Federal Reserve Act was formed in the minds of the bankers. But, technically, that means the exact system that was implemented would have to have been thought up by the bankers. It's not possible to think collectively, so the only way the sentence makes sense is if what was written down in the Aldrich plan was the same as what was in the Federal Reserve Act, which isn't the case.
  2. You may object to my first point, which is reasonable because words are often not meant to be interpreted literally. However, the sentence does convey some proposition content. Specifically that a system was devised by the bankers that was very much in the mold of the ideas to which the bankers espoused. However, this is not the case either. In fact, your fourth source (http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3815) says that wasn't the case (as I've already pointed out). In fact, it says the bankers were displeased. I also provided a source of my own (http://www.bos.frb.org/about/pubs/begin.pdf%7Cformat=PDF), which also says that the bankers were displeased. In addition, my source describes legislative details that were not in the Aldrich plan but in the Fed. Res. Act, which piles onto the faultiness of the propositional content conveyed.
  3. Next, since the banker's work was merely an input to a final bill, and what's more an input that was modified and could have been rejected if it did not fit into the agenda of Congress and the President, a historically correct reinterpretation of the information you provided is not sufficiently important to be placed in the introduction.
  4. Your sources are shaky. I can't check sources two and three, so Wikipedia:Verifiability applies. Also, WP:POV says that articles should represent "the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." However, it's clear that G. Edward Griffin is not an economist or a historian; he is a libertarian author, which is fine, but not appropriate here. Your last source is great, but doesn't support your edit.
  5. As of now, we have four people on my side, and two on yours, so WP:CON applies. I'm sorry to do this, but I don't think you're being reasonable.

By the way, could you please reply at the bottom of the section? It's hard to follow you.--Dark Charles (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I do not accept them... because they are wrong. if they were right i would accept them... but they are not.

  1. you are talking semantics. you are welcome to change the word "conceived" to something else if you think it would work better... though i disagree with your assertion that it is not possible for a group to conceive an idea. in any case removing the information entirely is completely different from editing/improving it.
  2. for this point i'd first like to say that i disagree with your method of trying to hinge everything on a single point. practically EVERY source which gives the history of the federal reserve will reference the bankers meeting and jekyll island. in addition to that, you ignore the fact that "As a result, the plan became the basis for constructing the Federal Reserve bill"
  3. again "As a result, the plan became the basis for constructing the Federal Reserve bill" being the BASIS for the plan and having MINOR input are completely different and you are misconstruing the facts. and again, most every search for a history of the federal reserve will reference the bankers meeting on jekyll island... but perhaps you think we should ignore all these sources and use truthiness to determine what to include in wikipedia? why would the fed include this information if it wasn't relevant to its history???
  4. sources are not shaky and it is ridiculous to even discuss that. these are BOOKS published all throughout the 20th century as well as the fed itself. you have provided ZERO sources. i would be astonished if you could produce one unless it was something like that guy that asserts that the holocaust never happened. do a search on google you welcome to add other sources... there are thousands! (two minutes to find: http://www.frugalfun.com/jekylisland.html - "Frank Vanderlip wrote later in the Saturday Evening Post, "...it would have been fatal to Senator Aldrich's plan to have it known that he was calling on anybody from Wall Street to help him in preparing his bill...I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System."", http://www.jekyllexperience.com/site/539681/page/887302 - "he brought together many of the country's leading financiers to Jekyll Island to discuss monetary policy and the banking system, an event which some say was the impetus for the creation of the Federal Reserve.", http://www.jekyllislandhistory.com/federalreserve.shtml - "The Jekyll Island conference offered a secluded location to discuss banking ideas and enabled the development of a plan that eventually became the Federal Reserve Banking System." TWO MINUTES to find this. i mean how could it be any more clear? do you not believe slavery should be mentioned for the intro of the american civil war? do you not believe britain should be mentioned for the intro to american revolutionary war? do you not believe the internal combustion engine should be referenced in the intro of gasoline?
  5. getting a couple editors on your side doesn't change historical fact and doesn't mean you have a consensus. there happens to be a policy on this: WP:DEMOCRACY

So, perhaps you would like the introduction to read, "The basis of the Act was formulated by the world's leading bankers in 1910 and was enacted in 1913"? if you have a better way to word it, i'm open. but removing it entirely based on your faulty interpretations is not acceptable (especially without providing your own sources).Yourmanstan (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there was some copying and pasting problems with my source. It was http://www.bos.frb.org/about/pubs/begin.pdf. My apology; I should have checked the link.--Dark Charles (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I read part of the source a sited before again, and took the time to record some important quotes that contradict Yourmanstan's version of the intro. There might be some typos in the quotes; it's hard to copy and past from the document. Anyway:
"…the political and legislative struggle to create the Federal Reserve System was long and often extremely bitter, and the final product was the result of a carefully crafted yet some- what tenuous political compromise" page 5 left side
A provision in the Aldrich-Vreeland Act "…[the National Monetary] composed of nine senators and nine members of the House of Representatives, had the responsibility of making a comprehensive study of the necessary and desirable changes in the money and banking system of the United State." page 17 right side (I know this one is not new information)
"Though this opposition [to the Aldrich Plan] signaled an early demise for kind of currency and financial plan that the bankers wanted, two significant events of 1912 helped to prepare the way for passage of a banking and currency reform program which the bankers in general feared, but which the progressives wanted--a reform designed to limit the power of the banking system and put central banking under public, rather than banker control." page 19 right side
William Jennings Bryan opposed the Aldrich Plan, but "… Bryan’s views were a strong force in shaping the financial reform program that ultimately became the Federal Reserve System." page 20 right side
"The Glass-Willis proposal of December, 1912, with Wilson’s modifications, formed the basic elements of the Federal Reserve Act signed into law in December, 1913." page 22 right side
"… Senator Owen and Secretary of State Bryan who… played a major role in writing the bill and adding a the government control, through the Federal Reserve Board, which bankers appeared to find most obnoxious." page 26 right side
Page 27 talks about negotiations with bankers, and describes some changes made.
"The Federal Reserve Act was now law, and of all the men who deserve credit for this major reform of Americia's banking and currency system -- Nelson Aldrich, Carter Glass, Robert Owen, William McAdoo, H. Parker Willis, and even William Jennings Bryan -- none deserves more credit than President Wilson himself. Withstanding the contrary demands of the private bankers on the one hand and the agrarian radicals on the other, the President had supervised the development of a bill and had skillfully commanded Democratic support for it and led it through the congressional thicket. The passage of the Federal Reserve Act stands as almost a textbook case of wise and skillful presidential leadership over Congress." page 34 right side
More generally chapter 2 describes the legislative process of the Federal Reserve Act... It notes a lot of contributions from Congress and others.--Dark Charles (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reading more into this. I'm glad to see you are at least attempting to find sources. However perhaps this will help:
Another member of the "First Name Club" was less reticent. Frank Vanderlip later published a few brief references to the conference. In the Saturday Evening Post, February 9, 1935, p. 25, Vanderlip wrote: "Despite my views about the value to society of greater publicity for the affairs of corporations, there was an occasion near the close of 1910, when I was as secretive, indeed, as furtive, as any conspirator. . . . Since it would have been fatal to Senator Aldrich's plan to have it known that he was calling on anybody from Wall Street to help him in preparing his bill, precautions were taken that would have delighted the heart of James Stillman (a colorful and secretive banker who was President of the National City Bank during the Spanish-American War, and who was thought to have been involved in getting us into that war) ... I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System." http://www.archive.org/stream/TheSecretsOfTheFederalReserve/MullinsEustace-TheSecretsOfTheFederalReserve227P._djvu.txt
as well as this:
Vanderlip later wrote in his autobiography, From Farmboy to Financier "Our secret expedition to Jekyll Island was the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System. The essential points of the Aldrich Plan were all contained in the Federal Reserve Act as it was passed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System
Yourmanstan (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like we're almost in agreement about the wording begin wrong (by the way when we're talking about a phrase semantics is key). That's actually already enough to justify a revert of your edit.
What we're talking about now is a legislative detail. But that detail is already addressed accurately in the history section. Legislative details do not belong in the into.
By the way, not everything in a book is true...You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of what a reliable sources is... Anyway, I sited the stuff above simply for reference. I'm satisfied with my presentation, and I won't respond to your comments about this anymore.--Dark Charles (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
i believe the word you were looking for is "cited" not "sited". after all semantics are important! don't worry about responding this has already been sent to dispute resolution.Yourmanstan (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Hi all. I'm stepping in from WP:EAR, where Yourmanstan has asked for some additional eyes to assist in resolving what's going on in this article. Frankly, I don't see a problem with Yourmanstan's addition to the lead section, except that it probably doesn't even need to be referenced as it's a summary of information already in other parts of the article, and WP:LEDE doesn't require referencing in the lead section. I don't get the objections based on the sentence being wrong or misleading; if there is a problem then why not change the wording?

But what I'd like to mention as more concerning to me is the enormity of this article's lead section. There are long numbered lists and there's a lot of info in general. I don't think Yourmanstan's single sentence is particularly more extraneous than some of the other information. Of course, the article itself is large; it may be time to break out sections into sub-articles with summary style coverage in this as a main article. Would there be any interest in performing those sorts of changes to the article? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello sir. The problem with Yourmanstan's edit was that it did not accurately represent the data the way it would most likely be interpreted. Even a correct interpretation of his edit is not consistent with Wikipedia lead, which says "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." To be consistent with that, and integrate the info. in Yourmanstan's edit into the intro. you would have to write something like:
There was considerable controversy regarding the legislative process leading up to the passing of the Federal Reserve Act. The need for a central bank in the U.S. became apparent after the panic of 1907. A commission to study alternative banking systems, lead by Aldrich, was set up by Congress. Aldrich, who was originally opposed to the idea of a central bank, but ultimately recanted after observing the German system. When he returned he was determined to set up a central banking system in the U.S., but was having difficulty devising a system. In 1912 [I think] he invited a group of well know persons in the New York banking community to help craft a bill, which would later be know as the Aldrich plan. The plan was introduced to congress, but before it could pass the Democrats took control. They feared that the Aldrich plan favored bankers over the general public... [at this point you'd need to take some time to describe some key players in the crafting of the Federal Reserve Act]... The final bill altered the Aldrich plan in key areas. For instance, control over the Federal Reserve System was shifted from private to public control, and the number of Reserve Banks was decreased from 15 to 12. The Federal Reserve Act was objected to by the majority of the original bankers that helped craft the Aldrich plan, as well as the majority of bankers in general. The final version of the Federal Reserve Act was passed in the House on [...], with the "yeas" being [..] and the "nays" being [...]. In the senate things were a bit more difficult... [describe some problems] The Federal Reserve Act finally passed with [...]. The Act was signed into law by President Wilson on [...].
Something like that. That's what you'd need for the information to stand alone, without giving someone the wrong idea. However, I don't consider all of these legislative details to be some of the most "important aspects of the subject of the article." Maybe the majority of editors do.
After I looked at Yourmanstan's good source, Fat&Happy and I integrated the info. into the history section via. the following paragraph:
In early November 1910, Aldrich met with five well known members of the New York banking community to devise a central banking bill. Paul Warburg, an attendee of the meeting and long time advocate of central banking in the U.S., later wrote that Aldrich was "bewildered at all that he had absorbed abroad and he was faced with the difficult task of writing a highly technical bill while being harassed by the daily grind of his parliamentary duties."[1] After ten days of deliberation, the bill, which would later be referred to as the "Aldrich Plan", was agreed upon. It had several key components including: a central bank with a Washington based headquarters and fifteen branches located throughout the U.S. in geographically strategic locations, and a uniform elastic currency based on gold and commercial paper. Aldrich believed a central banking system with no political involvement was best, but was convinced by Warburg that a plan with no public control was not politically feasible.[1] The compromise involved representation of the public sector on the Board of Directors.[2]
So no true information was lost.
Also, a lot of the Wikipedia editors have been working to break this article down. A few weeks ago we started the Structure of the Federal Reserve System, and summarized the information in the corresponding section. In general, though, it's tough to shorten this article, because sometimes you really have to go into as much detail as we have, because the Federal Reserve System is complicated. You're welcome to make changes, if you like. --Dark Charles (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Yourmanstan concisely summarizes the information in a manner that stands on its own. I don't understand why it would have to be so verbose and exhaustive as you're putting it above. The later sections discussing the events in 1910 indicate that there was a group of bankers who formulated the idea for the FRS. The entire purpose of a lead section is to provide a concise, accessible summary to people peripherally interested in an article subject. While information on when the FRS concept was formulated may also be more detail than is necessary for the lead section, it is not out of line considering the verbosity and level of detail presently in the lead section. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Good sir, the reason why is because the sentence on its own gives you the wrong impression of what went on. Your the one that cited the summary style, which says the intro. needs to stand alone. It doesn't because: For one, you're ignoring Aldrich's earlier ideas, which are cited in Yourmanstan's good source. Two, it makes you think that the bankers got what they wanted, though I can site numerous sources (including Yourmanstan's good source) that says they didn't. Third, it undermines all of the other numerous changes to the bill; take a look at chapter two of the source I provided above for a lot of those changes. So even if you rephrased Yourmanstan's edit differently, it still violates WP:POV because it's placing unfair emphasis on one particular aspect. It would be like if I put: "As the bill was authored, Democrats pushed for strong public control of U.S. central banking," and then put nothing in about banker influence. What you're advocating is not a summary; you're picking and choosing information within the legislative process.--Dark Charles (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Dark Charles on the specific issue. The lead is there to summarize the article, but it shouldn't be giving a false impression of the article. The version proposed by Yourmanstan gives a false impression of what happened by giving undue weight to the impact of the meeting. Ravensfire (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for summing this up Ravensfire. I can understand that, if that's the problem. I'm not sure why, but I seem to have been completely missing the point of your discussion here Dark Charles. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear! And I thought I was doing a good job articulating myself. No matter. Glad we were able to work this out ; ) This is a rare feat!--Dark Charles (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
No, no; I merely misread what'd been said to date and arrived at too simplistic a conclusion. Best of luck on improving things here! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a complex (and long!) article that's a target for various conspiracy theories. If you aren't precise in your phrasing, it can trigger a wave of response - "See! Wikipedia says the Fed was created by the bankers!", ignoring the rest. To Yourmanstan's credit, he did identify an area that did need more information and clarification. The history of the bill is ugly in many places, and should not be glossed over. That said, the lead is too long - gonna look into that. Appreciate the discussion! Ravensfire (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Ravensfire... both your and dark charles' complaint is only on your own analysis and not of a reliable third party. as i have looked into this further... practically every historical account of the federal reserve mentions the bankers and jekyll island. the federal reserve itself mentions it. the bankers state that the act had all of their essential concerns. that means that BOTH the primary AND secondary sources account the history this way. the intro as i had worded it did not assert anything sinister or corrupting about the bankers' conception... merely that there was a conception. i don't know any other way to account for it reasonably as it is the kind of bullet point summary that one would expect from the intro. *passed 1913 *chairman is ben bernanke *governed by the federal reserve act... etc. just like if someone were to look into the american civil war... they might say, "see! slavery had something to do with the war!" right out of the intro to that article. i don't see any difference here.Yourmanstan (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Term Securities Lending Facility section

I edited this section in order to update the primary dealers listed. Original text listed Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, and Merril Lynch. I presume that this was an oversight of the editors, as Bear Stearns is now defunt and Merril Lynch is essentially Bank of America. I do not have any preference as to how the article is edited in the future, and my edit that replaced Bear Stearns and Merril Lynch with JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley is correct as far as I know. If any future editors see an error in my edit, please correct my statements. I have no complaint if subsequent edits maintain Merril Lynch's inclusion on this list, nor will I have any complaints if my edit is deleted entirely and replaced with the older text. My only goal was to update a list that appeared to have fallen between the cracks. If any feathers are ruffled, please understand that my intent was neutral and without animosity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.74.0.42 (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bloomberg litigation

An anonymous editor inserted this verbiage under the section on accountability:

Bloomberg L.P. News has brought a lawsuit against the Federal Reserve to force it to reveal the identities of firms it has provided guarantees for, but the Federal Reserve so far has denied these requests, even though the case has been decided in favor of Bloomberg in U.S. District Court.[6]

This verbiage is misleading.

First, the lawsuit was against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, not "the Federal Reserve."

Second, the verbiage seems to falsely imply that the "Federal Reserve" is in violation of the court order. The verbiage cites as its source the article by Ryan Chittum on August 25, 2009, entitled "Bloomberg Wins Its Lawsuit Against the Federal Reserve." But the article does not say (or imply) that the Federal Reserve is in violation of the court order.

The court order was issued on August 24, 2009 (docket entry 31, Bloomberg, L.P. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, case no. 1:08-cv-09595-LAP, U.S. District Court for the District of New York). The source article was published the next day, on August 25, 2009. However, the court stayed the order a few days later, on August 28, 2009 (docket entry 33). The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Obviously, on August 25, 2009, the author of the source article could not be aware that the order was stayed three days later -- on August 28, 2009.

At the Court of Appeals, this is case no. 09cv4083. The judgment of the District Court (in favor of Bloomberg, L.P.) was affirmed on March 19, 2010. On May 3, 2010, the Board of Governors filed a petition for rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc. The petitions were denied on August 20, 2010.

On August 26, 2010, the Board of Governors filed a motion to stay the mandate. On August 27, a sixty day partial stay of the mandate was granted.

In other words, this case is still ongoing -- and there is no source for the apparently false implication that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is in violation of a court order in this case. I made some edits to add more detail. Famspear (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you would update the article, we would very much appreciate it. Starting discussions on the talk page is not necessary for things which are not controversial and I would encourage you to start initiatives by boldly directly editing articles to reduce the strain on resources. Noticed you already did that, thanks, but I still recommend that talkpage sections not be opened for uncontroversial fixes II | (t - c) 20:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dubious causal relationship between open market operations and federal funds rate

Hello, I was working on the Fed. open market operations and was a little confused about what makes it work. I've always thought that the reason why the open market operations worked was because it manipulated T-bill yields. However, the quote from The Federal Reserve in Plain English said that it worked because it added cash to the banking system. This seems somewhat unreasonable to me because: 1) It doesn't seem like the cash from open market operations would be enough to do much good and 2) the Fed. buys T-bills from primary dealers and not from thrift banks so how the money gets to the thrift banks and then lent to other thrift banks is unclear. Any good sources to clear things up would be great.--Dark Charles 23:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

1) Check the Fed's balance sheet; the amount of money created to buy Treasury Securities is a lot to say the least. 2) The primary dealers consist of large banks, which lend and borrow money from other banks overnight at the federal funds rate. Banks lend each other money overnight in order to meet the reserve requirement. Dotter (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not completely true, good sir. Here is Wikipedia's list of primary dealers:

* BNP Paribas Securities Corp.

As you can see, most of the above banks are actually investment banks, not thrift banks. Also, we're talking about open market operations. The question is: How does the Fed affect the federal funds rate using open market operations?--Dark Charles 07:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, in order for this section to be constructive sources are needed.--Dark Charles 07:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
You're right; strictly speaking, these are not banks. Banks use their investment banks in order to engage in securities transactions. The effect, however, is the same. If the balance sheet of the subsidiary company is affected, the parent company's balance sheet is also affected. Some of these securities firms are not affiliated with banks, but they interact with banks (both directly and indirectly). The point is that if the liquidity of the overall financial market improves by injection money, interest rates decline. It is simply a matter of supply and demand. You can count on banks and investment banks to put their money to work (as opposed to just leaving it under a mattress).Dotter (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that's reasonable. Investment banks buy things that thrift banks sell (most notably mortgage backed securities). I see your point (I think). However, it still seems to me like T-bill interest rates would be the primary reason for a change in the federal funds rate. After all, why would a bank lend to another bank when they could simply buy treasury bills--unless the yield for T-bills was quite a bit lower than the federal funds rate? Do you know of any good sources on the topic?--Dark Charles 03:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I found something:
This structure [i.e. open market operations] works because the primary dealers have accounts at clearing banks, which are depository institutions. So when the Fed sends and receives funds from the dealer's account at its clearing bank, this action adds or drains reserves to the banking system. (http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed32.html)
I'll change the article.--Dark Charles 03:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, it was a pleasure to talk to you. Most of the time, talk page conversations are a bit more... contentious. --Dark Charles 03:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Banks lend other banks their excess reserves because they don't want cash sitting idle overnight. Buying T-Bills would expose banks to greater opportunity cost because their cash would be tied up for longer than they would like. BTW, the NY Fed's website has plenty of information on how the open market operations work.Dotter (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

New Source

What may prove to be a valuable new source was just published, Inside the Nixon Administration: The Secret Diary of Arthur Burns, 1969-1974 by Arthur F. Burns edited by Robert H. Ferrell (Oct 28, 2010). see the excerpt online Rjensen (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ownership by private banks

Why is there no list mentioned? didn't see one.

There's way too many member banks to list, and one would have to update the information quite frequently. But be careful because no one really "owns" the Fed.--Dark Charles (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The big question is: It is a government owned bank or not? If it is not owned by the government it is a private bank, end of story. I asked the same question yesterday and it got deleted. I find a conspiracy theory on the internet and I come here to get real information and I find the questions themselves gets deleted.Wolfenstein (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It's in the article. Is the Federal Reserve System owned by private banks? No. Are elements (Federal Reserve Banks) of the FRS owned by member banks? Yes. Read the Federal Reserve Banks section. The conspiracy theories you find on the internet are about as accurate as the ones about the moon landing being faked. Ravensfire (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

intro

added a neutral, concise, notable, mainstream, undisputed, fact to the intro... and taking into consideration wp:weight fringe theories, etc.

  • paul warburg - critical originator of the aldrich plan says that the federal reserve act is what he was looking for
  • federal reserve bank of minnesota explains how the origins of the federal reserve began in 1910 on jekyll island
  • this year the fed is celebrating 100 years at jekyll island and specifically mentions how close the federal reserve is to the original plans laid out in 1910
  • the word "conceived" per princeton website (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conception), "(have the idea for) "He conceived of a robot that would help paralyzed patients";" the conception of an idea does not mean the idea doesn't change. just as the conception of a child doesn't mean you know exactly what career choice they will make... it is merely conception therefore it is perfectly accurate and neutral for the purposes of this article. perceived bias is unjustified. if one were to say that "Obama conceived current health care reform" republicans may read the statement with distaste, democrats may read the statement with admiration. others would recognize its neutrality

Dark Charles is exhibiting ownership ownership behavior of this article per WP:OWN list of actions. i'd recommend taking the advice of the page: "If you find yourself in an edit war with other contributors over deletions, reversions, and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later. Or, if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page, appeal to other contributors, or consider thedispute resolution process." the fact that you have quite a bit of extra time on your hands to make hundreds of edits to wikipedia does not make your opinions more right than those who only have precious little time to help contribute to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 06:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you, not me. And it looks to me like WP:OWN applies at least as well to you. We've already had this argument, and you haven't introduced anything new here. Here's how the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta's described the event (this is what you referred to in your edit summary):
This special conference marks the centenary of the 1910 Jekyll Island meeting that resulted in draft legislation for the creation of a U.S. central bank. Parts of this draft (the Aldrich plan) were incorporated into the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. To commemorate the 100th anniversary of the drafting of the Aldrich plan, the conference will take place at the Jekyll Island Club Hotel on Jekyll Island, Georgia—the same building where the 1910 meeting occurred.
The conference's discussions focus on three themes: the origins of the Fed and lessons from the pre-1913 era, how closely the Fed's actual performance has adhered to the original vision expressed by the framers of the Aldrich plan, and what the Fed's almost 100-year track record teaches us about its role going forward.(http://www.frbatlanta.org/news/conferences/10jekyll_index.cfm)
So your source clearly marks the meeting as an input in the process of crafting the legislation, and so it's not consistent with WP:LEAD to put it in the introduction. This is also a violation of WP:WEIGHT because you've omitted other important inputs leading to the final version of the Federal Reserve Act, e.g. the "The Glass-Owen Bill".
According to another source you cited before, most of the people that helped craft the Aldrich plan disapproved of the final bill. So your point about Warburg is silly, and you know it.
Your interpretation of the word "conceived" makes it utterly useless. By your reasoning, it would be perfectly reasonable to state that the Germans conceived the Federal Reserve because that was the plan that inspired Aldrich.
We've already had this conversation before. The overwhelming majority of editors didn't agree with you, yet you're putting almost the exact same content into the article again and again. The information is already covered more accurately in the history section. Just let this go.--Dark Charles 07:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
EVERY source i look at mentions the 1910 meeting as the origins. NO ONE mentions germany. this info is CITED, REASONABLE, PROVEN, and not disputed by any expert or subject matter expert i can find. you have ZERO justification to remove it unless you provide strong sources that SPECIFICALLY address how the 1910 meeting was NOT the origin. to date you still rely on your own analysis and NOT that of a third party. you merely try to coerce your opinion by taking advantage of your unusually high level of free time. please, for a few weeks, take a break from editing and discontinue trying to own this article.75.151.80.94 (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry I simply cannot come close to comprehending your logic. The federal reserve itself marks is celebrating the 1910 anniversary. The title of the press release is "The Origins, History, and Future of the Federal Reserve " I don't know in what possible scenario it could be more fundamental and clear. if you dislike this information, then the entire lead is not acceptable... equally as ridiculousYourmanstan (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry - that ref does absolutely nothing to counter the objections that have been repeatedly raised by many editors to your change. It's not like you haven't been told those objections - you can scroll up to read them. Please explain how you address the previously raised concerns. Also, you are edit-warring on this, and have announced your intention to continue to do so despite the material being objected to. I'm asking you to work on the talk page, not continue your pattern of continual reversion of material that is strongly objected to by multiple editors. Ravensfire (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I am perfectly aware of the "multiple editors" you are referring to which are yourself and dark charles who's unjustified/unqualified opinons perfectly shadow each other. i have addressed your concerns... and rather than responding or attempting to find compromise, you flatly state that there is no new information and ignore any information that doesn't fit into your narrow interpretation which is NOT cited. the press release i read is only a few days old... it is NEW information which reinforces the same information i had already put which is why added that information. i did not announce i intended to edit war, i was simply stating that i will continue to implement truth/reality in a reasonable mannor despite your efforts to reject it.
  • paul warburg, one of the first on the board of governors, says the fed has the same core that they envisioned in 1910
  • federal reserve bank of minnesota explains how the origins of the federal reserve began in 1910 on jekyll island
  • and with the press release from a couple days ago titled "" they say "To commemorate the 100th anniversary of the drafting of the Aldrich plan, the conference will take place at the Jekyll Island Club Hotel on Jekyll Island, Georgia—the same building where the 1910 meeting occurred. [...] The conference's discussions focus on three themes: the origins of the Fed and lessons from the pre-1913 era, how closely the Fed's actual performance has adhered to the original vision expressed by the framers of the Aldrich plan,"

so basically every accounting of the origins of the fed discuss the 1910 meeting. the fed itself makes sure to bring it up in its own literature and is on each of the fed's regional banks that i've looked at. this year they mark as a Special Conference as it is now 100 years since the origins. and yet you, without any source, say that this information is false/unimportant? you remove the citations without trying to compromise? you believe you understand the fed beter than the fed? i can't for the life of me understand what your resistance is. IF your argument seriously is that this information does not belong in the lead, then we MUST also remove much of the other origins information from the lead as those would equally fail your arbitrary test of what should be in the lead. i believe both belong in the lead, however in the interest of compromise i am willing to reduce the lead so that it meets your interpretationYourmanstan (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly clear that you either don't understand or are choosing to ignore all our points. We don't dispute that something similar to what you're saying happened. In fact, Fat & Happy and I integrated the information in some of your sources into the history section. What we're saying is that it shouldn't be in the intro., because it fails to represent both the political process leading up to the creation of the Federal Reserve Act and the rest of the Federal Reserve System article, see WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD. By the way, it's not just Ravensfire and myself that have objected to your edit. Other editors that have objected/agreed with the arguments of Ravensfire and myself in the past include: BigK HeX, Fat & Happy and Mendaliv. At very least, respect WP:CON and bring things to the talk page first.--Dark Charles 02:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
i disagree strongly with your biased interpretation of the purpose of the lead... especially since the lead in its current form fails your own standards. I will try to revamp the lead per your own standards when i have some free time. 1907 is gone because it encompass the full context of the situation surrounding the lead. 1913 is gone because the fed has evolved substantially since its inception. probably need to shorten a few other things which do not fully illustrate the complexities and per your interpretation should not belong in the lead. i also intend to request support against what appears to be WP:GANG174.51.189.11 (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's the relevant paragraph from WP:WEIGHT:
Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints—also to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material, as well. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
You're taking an isolated event, then not putting it into context within the legislative process.
As far as the 1913 information, that stands on its own because that's what gives the Federal Reserve its legal power and doesn't lead readers to draw misguided conclusions about how the act was crafted. What's more, the passing of the Federal Reserve Act is obviously more important than any particular step in the process. It's also worth noting that the lead does mention that there were changes to the Federal Reserve Act over time. The reference to the banking panic of 1907 stands alone, because that was the event that inspired Congress to create the Federal Reserve, and it doesn't lead readers to draw misguided conclusions. Furthermore, take a look at the rest of the article. There's a lot of information about the Federal Reserve Act throughout the page, so--to be consistent with WP:LEAD--it should be in there. The same goes for the banking panic of 1907, but to a lesser extent.
There are multiple layers of detail in concepts. Loosely speaking, the layers of the legislation of the Federal Reserve Act go something like: (1) the actual passing of the Federal Reserve Act. (2) What's in actual bill. (4) The inputs leading to the Federal Reserve Act. And so on. Layer (4) or so is where the Aldrich plan belongs, but there's other stuff in that echelon too, like the The Glass-Owen Bill. Even lower on the list of details is how each piece of legislation was crafted/the motivation for the crafting of the piece, and maybe the relationship to the final version of the act--that's where the stuff you want to put in the lead is. I know, the exact layers to the legislative process aren't as well defined as I've made them sound, but it's clear that what you're trying to put in is a far more esoteric part of the legislative process than what's in the lead now. It's like insisting that Algebra II students learn Liouville's theorem because they use the Fundamental theorem of algebra.
What's more your edit will confuse readers into thinking that, for example, the Federal Reserve Act was what these "leading bankers" wanted, which isn't true--according to one of your own sources.
Anyway, bring on the administrators; you're the only one that's broken the rules.--Dark Charles 05:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Col. House recorded some of his efforts on behalf of the Federal Reserve Act in The Intimate Papers of Col. House,

December 19, 1912. I talked with Paul Warburg over the phone concerning [glass-owen bill]. I told of my trip to Washington and what I had done there to get it in working order. I told him that the Senate and the Congressmen seemed anxious to do what he desired, and that President-elect Wilson thought straight concerning the issue.

Paul Warburg maintained a small office in the Capitol building, where he directed the successful pre-Christmas campaign to pass the bill, and where Senators and Congressmen came hourly at his bidding to carry out his strategy. He said:

if all the successive drafts of the law, beginning with senator aldrich's bill of 1910, could have been preserved and now laid before us, we should find that , as in all these great matters, the law was an evolution. bits were snipped of here and added on there. whole paragraphs were verbally recast as to form, but left little changed as to substance

[3]

Paul Warburg [7]

benjamin strong (in Henry P. Davison: the record of a useful life pg 102),

davision was a supporter of the Owen-Glass plan"

st lois fed[8],

Almost immediately after the [federal reserve act] was signed, it was hailed on all sides [...] including such remote possibilities as Secretary McAdoo, Colonel Houseand Samuel Untermyer. [...] In the realm of ideas, and in some of the language of the bill, Paul Warburg was a major contributor

frank vanderlip

Although the Aldrich Federal Reserve Plan was defeated when it bore the name Aldrich, nevertheless its essential points were all contained in the plan that was finally adopted.

so Colonel House, Paul Warburg, Henry Davison, Benjamin Strong, and Frank Vanderlip all supported the federal reserve act. and who was it that met on jekyll island 1910?

  1. Frank A. Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York, associated with the Rockefellers
  2. Paul Warburg, to become a member of the first Federal Reserve Board.
  3. Henry Davison, senior partner of J.P. Morgan Company;
  4. Benjamin Strong, vice president of Banker's Trust Co..
  5. Col. Edward House, who would later become President Woodrow Wilson's closest adviser and founder of the Council on Foreign Relations.
  6. two others that i haven't had time to look into

but good lord, seriously...

Washington Post, Roy Hoopes writes:

In 1910, when Aldrich and four financial experts wanted a place to meet in secret to reform the country’s banking system, they faked a hunting trip to Jekyll and for 10 days holed up in the Clubhouse, where they made plans for what eventually would become the Federal Reserve Bank.

berate charles forbes, forbes magazine founder,

Nelson (Aldrich) had confided to Henry, Frank, Paul and Piatt that he was to keep them locked up at Jekyll Island, out of the rest of the world, until they had evolved and compiled a scientific currency system for the United States, the real birth of the present Federal Reserve System, the plan done on Jekyll Island in the conference with Paul, Frank and Henry... Warburg is the link that binds the Aldrich system and the present system together. He, more than any one man, has made the system possible as a working reality.

frank vanderlip,

I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System.


STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH... basically exactly as i had worded it. and just how crucial was this 1910 conference? let's quote warburg:

The period during which nonpolitical thought held the leadership in the banking reform movement may be considered as having ended with this conference.

essentially what he's saying: no meeting in 1910, no federal reserve system as it exists today. it doesn't get more critical than that.

if you have rebuttal, please rebut each of the quotes i have outlined WITH CITATIONS Yourmanstan (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, the issue is not about the validity of the content of your revision; it's about your need to have this information included in the introduction. There is a reason why we have a separate article for the history of the Fed in History of central banking in the United States. Dotter (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
You're still not understanding the point, as Dotter has said. Your focus is way off. Remember, the information about the crafting of the Aldrich Plan is already in the article. What we're arguing is that it's too esoteric for the lead, and that your edit inappropriately places focus. Yes, I think the edit is deceptive, but it's because of WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD, and not because I don't believe that something similar to what you're saying is true (though I do object to the word "conceived" in this context).--Dark Charles 04:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The death of a free, shared Wikipedia

I'm appalled at the level of disinformation that plagues Wikipedia recently. I've noticed that you can add true, concrete information, food for thought; but as long as there's corporate interest in the ignorance of the masses on certain topics, Wikipedia users just delete information that is not so pleasant. This entire page is one big, fat lie, that just moves the limelight from what is really important. Why hasn't anybody said that the fact that the Federal Reserve lends the money to the government at interest means that America can never pay off its debt? At best the Government can return all the money in circulation to the banks and sell off half the country to get even with the bankers! And that is just because the bankers can create money out of thin air and make Americans "pay" for it. It's the most destructive policy I've ever heard of and it was FORCED by the bankers for they threatened the Government with depressions and promoted the politicians who had made deals with them! The banks have manipulated America for centuries and all that is left for them is to demand their debt be returned and all of the country's remaining sovereignty will be gone. Just by browsing the Internet you can find numerous bankers's quotes about controlling the country, deceiving the people trough the media, claiming absolute control, that have even been published in newspapers during the last century! Bottom-line: this page is worthless for what it should really inform about.

If someone who wants to educate himself about this is reading now, I'd suggest he googled "federal reserve debt conspiracy" and a recent documentary by Bill Still titled "The Secret of Oz". They would be really enlightening. And all the others who are behaving like hired disinformation agents can go jump off a building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.130.143 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read a WP:TRUTH - should give you an idea of what Wikipedia is about, and not about. Don't worry - it's harmless. No need for jumping off buildings or grand conspiracy theories. Ravensfire (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
If you have any suggestion on how the owners of Wikipedia should improve their page, you could post it here. Otherwise, if you find Wikipedia so unappealing you should find another information source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.196.239 (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express. It is a private corporation and in no way tied to the United States of America. Why is this not mentioned in the intro. The intro implies that the Federal Reserve is part of the United States of America's Federal Government. It is not and that is a fact. Please make that clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.77.101 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Partially because it's completely untrue, but mostly because of the noticeable lack of reliable sources making that assertion. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mistake in the balance sheet

I'm not an expert, but it looks to me like there's a mistake in the balance sheet table: liabilities (1348) + equity (57) = 1405 falls almost 1bn short of total assets (2340) !!! The shortfall seems to be in deposits (245) which should be around 1bn higher at 1255. you can see this on the fed website:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm#h41tab9

i'm sure i can't be the first person to notice this, so maybe i'm doing something really stupid?

George Gskelton (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the sheet dated for 11/24/2010, and it's showing total liab at 2292, with deposits at 1255. It could have been posted with a mistake, then corrected. Ravensfire (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The -now- trillions of lended $$ in the 2008 crisis are not in the balance too. Anybody can explain that? --178.139.41.125 (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The TALF program stuff and non-government securities information is already listed in the assets column within the balance sheet table in the article. Can you name something specifically that's missing?--Dark Charles 06:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The total amount of TALF and diferent loans are now acording to several congress members more than 9! trillion dollars. I see here: "Total Assets 2340.44 ( in bilions)" I dont see more than 4 trilions of difference.... --178.139.41.125 (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a few thing that are not listed on the Fed's balance sheet. However, the $9 trillion number you stated is almost certainly false. You can check out the website for yourself to verify. To give you something to compare your number with: US GDP is around $14 trillion. Unfortunately, Congress persons aren't good sources for economics information.--Dark Charles 08:33, 24 December 2010

In a democracy you can trust a politic better than a banker. The data has been forced after months of battle. And what hapens to the M1, M2, money in circulation, what the fed will do with the money back... This all seems nosense. Absolute nosense.--178.139.37.33 (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Fed Mission

I came here looking for the purpose of the Fed. Why is the Fed's mission completely omitted? http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm Simplulo (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See Section 2 of the article 'Purpose'. LK (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It's also in the intro.:
Its duties today, according to official Federal Reserve documentation, are to conduct the nation's monetary policy, supervise and regulate banking institutions, maintain the stability of the financial system and provide financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions.
--Dark Charles 03:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Policy loan

Is this the appropriate article to introduce this concept? I don't mean insurance policy either. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.61.161 (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you clarify what you do mean in addition to what you don't mean? Fat&Happy (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-neutral criticism quote

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

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

Two informal edit requests

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

The purpose of the first request isn't immediately obvious. Could you clarify your reason for this change?
For the second request, there would need to be a reliable secondary source cited to support the proposed addition. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

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

As to your second suggestion, if you're using the Federal Reserve Act as your source, then that qualifies as WP:OR.--Dark Charles 00:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with user John Eamon's comment about "ratification" of decisions. I've always thought that this was an odd statement to make in the article -- that decisions of the Board of Governors, etc., do not have to be "ratified" by someone else. (I guess it never bothered me quite enough to edit it myself.) Indeed, many of the most important decisions by government agencies do not have to be ratified or approved by someone higher up. For example, most decisions by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue do not have to approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, and most decisions made by the Secretary of the Treasury do not have to be approved by the President. The Secretary of the Treasury certainly has the legal authority to overrule the Commissioner, and the President cetainly has the legal authority to overrule both the Commissioner and the Secretary -- but those powers are exercised only rarely.
On the other points, though, I would disagree with John Eamon. The publications of the Federal Reserve System on its independence are quite sufficient for purposes of Wikipedia. And Wikipedia editors are not generally supposed to be in the business of doing prohibited Original Research on the statute itself (in this case, the Federal Reserve Act) to find some sort of support for the statements. I would argue that the statement that it is "just meaningless for the Fed to issue such a statement" regarding its own independence is not persuasive. Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

--from Federal Reserve: The Nation's Central Bank/Overview, at [9]. As I noted above, the remark that "its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or the executive branch of government", while correct, is a bit beside the point, as there is really nothing "remarkable" about that fact. Most decisions, even most MAJOR decisions, of federal government agencies do not have to be "ratified" by the President, etc. Nevertheless, that is a statement on the Federal Reserve System's official web site, and the Federal Reserve System's web site is a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Request a change to clearly indicate the private status of the federal reserve

I start by getting my non-neutral opinions off my chest, then I will proceed to my request proper. The system of centralized money control in place today accross the world is the source of the increasingly disparate division of wealth and income we are experiencing today; just as it was the cause of the great depression and almost every recession and expansions since. You may laugh me off as a conspiracy theorist as some of the less well mannered people on this page have done to others. When we and and everyone we know lose their employment, you will know where to look for the blame. The people controlling central banks operate outside the attention of the media, and are the true regulators of the world economy - reaping obscene profits from their prior insider knowledge. OK, on to the more neutral, evidence based stuff. Here is a link to a section of the federal reserve act regarding the distribution of earnings (profits). [10] Note the reference to 'stockholders'. This is a clear indication that the federal reserve is privately held corporation and not part of the US government, just like Federal Express (the same is true in most other countries, such as the UK). Please update the page to reflect this fact. Thanks. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexBehrman (talk • contribs)

As the article clearly points out, aspects of the SYSTEM are public, and aspects are private. Please read the article carefully. Ravensfire (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The stocks only represent membership and not ownership; they are very different from stocks of corporations as the stockholders of the System do not get any voting rights. Instead, they get a 6% dividend, which exposes them to a high opportunity cost since the stocks are non-transferable. Dotter (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear AlexBehrman: As Ravensfire has pointed out, please read the entire article carefully. The reference to "stockholders" is a reference to member banks, who hold "shares" of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks -- not to ownership of the Federal Reserve System. The member banks are not "the federal reserve." The member banks are part of the Federal Reserve System. It is both incorrect and meaningless to say that "the federal reserve is [a] privately held corporation." That is like saying that because the Solar System contains some planets, the Solar System must be "a planet." The Solar System contains much more than "planets," and the Federal Reserve System contains much more than some "corporations." The Solar System is not "a planet" and the Federal Reserve System is not "a corporation." Famspear (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the assessment of the FRS as a pseudo-private entity. The fact that the FED chairman is appointed by the POTUS or is able to be removed from appointment (with cause) suggests that the FRS is not entirely private. Kjmonkey (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear the Fed Bank is private like my Electric and Natural Gas companies are private. Yes the government can choose the CEO of each respective company, as well as set the prices on electric/CNG, but they still remain private entities. Same with the Fed. ---- Theaveng (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It is most clearly NOT a private bank. As others pointed out to AlexBehrman, read the full article carefully. The SYSTEM (note that word in the title) consists of some private aspects and some public aspects. It is a very different structure from utility companies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Please provide a citation showing the "public" aspects which make the Fed part of the government (like USPS and the Navy are). Thank you. ---- Theaveng (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Four refs supporting that statement are already in the paragraph (note, when testing those refs, I found one was broken, so just updated it). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
All the refs say is Congress selects the Board of Directors. If Congress selected the Directors of GM, would that GM is now "within" the government? Of course not. Same logic applies to the Fed. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
If Congress selected the Directors of GM, and GM returned all its profits to the Treasury--which the Fed does, then I would probably describe it as within the government.Isamil (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
To quote one of the references for the paragraph in question, "The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government." http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

So please stop adding gibberish to articles.Ratemonth (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ratemoth - this is a civil discussion, and edits by all parties have been in good faith to improve the article - no need to categorize anyone's edits as "gibberish"
Theaveng - there are four refs in the paragraph - The first sentence of the first ref states "The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government"[11]; the second ref states in the last sentence of the second paaragraph "In short, the Fed is an independent entity within the government."[12]; the third ref provides support for other statements in the paragraph, so not directly related to this one sentence; and the fourth ref is an organization described in its Wikipedia article as a non-partisan, nonprofit website and as a "'consumer advocate' for voters" - and that ref also endorses the statements from the Fed's own website (the first ref mentioned)[13]. Given that three of the four refs directly support the statement that "the Federal Reserve is independent within government", I'm not seeing why you continue to claim it's an unsourced statement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The role in the last crisis, the obscurity of his actions and protocols, creating money of thin air, the secret scandal loans... make clear his PRIVATE nature.--80.25.191.37 (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious edits

I made a couple of edits, but one of my explanations did not "take" in the edit summary area. In short, I reverted the usual tendentious edits. This is an article about the Federal Reserve SYSTEM, not just about a specific Federal Reserve BANK. Please refrain from adding commentary about the power to coin money and arguments that the Federal Reserve System is not part of the government. Some parts of the System are part of the government, and others are not. The Lewis case has been cited over and over and over and over and over and over. Please do not add commentary about the Lewis case without reading the prior dicussion about what the court ruled in this case, etc., etc.

The Federal Reserve System is not a "private bank." The BANKS which are PART of the system are private banks. This is already explained in the article. There is no need to clutter the article (especially the lead) with argumentative, tendentious commentary. Famspear (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"ome parts of the System are part of the government" --- Which parts? From the article it appears NO parts are part of the government. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
To quote one of the references for the paragraph in question, "The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government." http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm So please stop adding gibberish to articles.Ratemonth (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Is a citation about Oneself considered a valid citation? For example I would not want to use "We did nothing wrong" from microsoft.com in the article about their lawsuit by the US DOJ. ---- Theaveng (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Fed Balance Sheet

The Fed balance sheet shown in this article has assets, liabilities and net equity that do not add up correctly. For any accounting (including the Fed!), assets=liabilities+net equity.

Looking at the underlying data at http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm

The Fed balance sheet is missing the item "Reserve Balances with Federal Reserve Banks" which would make the balance sheet "add up" correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.199.108 (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You can put it in yourself, if you like. It might be better just to delete the balance sheet information however, since I don't think anyone is keeping it up to date.--Dark Charles (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

One sided presentation lacking objectivity

This article needs more critical viewpoints addressing the fed. The stated intent of the fed should be presented more objectively. Please use phrases like 'purported', 'allegedly', 'according to the fed', 'critics have claimed' etc. Critics of the Federal reserve system have continually tied in international banking families to their perceptions of the fed. It is unfortunate that there is no reference or link to Rothschild for example. This article is presented without regard for these dissenting views which I am interested in. The reader should be free to come to his own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.51.88.154 (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to say that something is 'alleged' or 'purported' and thus possibly not true, please provide a source for this possibility.Ratemonth (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear user IP 202.51.88.154: We already have an entire separate article on critique of the Federal Reserve System. There's no need to add duplication in this article. Famspear (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: See Criticism of the Federal Reserve. Famspear (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia articles are (or are supposed to be) reflections of information from reliable, previously published third party sources. There are always people who are going to believe that the Federal Reserve System is somehow "a private bank" or that it is controlled by Evil International Banksters, or that the Federal income tax is unconstitutional, or that the Moon is made of green cheese. In Wikipedia, Neutral Point of View does not mean giving equal weight to all points of view. If an article is properly sourced and is presented from a neutral point of view (as I believe this article is), there is no need to pepper the article with phrases such as 'purported', 'allegedly', 'according to the fed', 'critics have claimed', and so on. Famspear (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
There really needs to be a Criticism section in this article. The "Criticism of the Federal Reserve" link is buried at the bottom of the article and is not easily found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.54.252 (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
There is criticism in the article, but it's integrated into the other sections, so as to be in line with WP:STRUCTURE.--Dark Charles (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Also see WP:ALLEGED. I can't deny that the Fed. article has some problems, but not having the word "alleged" in front of sourced claims isn't one of them.--Dark Charles (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Senate vs. Congress

In the opening section of the article it says the Board of Governors "...are chosen by the President and confirmed by Congress." and later in the article on two occasions it says the Board of Governors "...are selected by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate.". So, is it the Congress or the Senate? Montclaire (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Answer: Senate. Article corrected. Famspear (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Money Supply Graph is Misleading

The graph showing the growth of the money supply since 1960 is misleading. The graph appears to show constant growth however the amount of money shown along the verticle axis goes from 0 to 500 up to about halfway, and then goes from 500 to 10,000 in the remaining half of the axis. The graph would obviously look very different if the units on the verticle axis were evenly distributed as the reader would intuitively expect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.159.165 (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a Logarithmic scale plot, fairly standard for exponential growth patterns. --Freeone3000 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

FED is privately driven, it consist of 12 american regional banks mostly private driven thus by definition its operating with more private interests than public

The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is a privately driven* central banking system of the United States. It consists mostly of private banks but also public ones. The majority of the 12 regional banks are private profit driven entities and therefore by definition it’s operating with more private interests than public. FED advocates a debt based monetary system, this system itself is not in the public’s interest since it is not the government who issues the money but a clusters of public and mostly privately own banks through FED^.

  • Lewis v. United states 680 f.2d 1239 (1982), was set by a federal court with national jurisdiction. Book Web of Debt chapter 13. http://www.webofdebt.com

^ The Money Masters and The Secret of Oz documentary films by Bill Still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.216.136.254 (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The nature of the Federal Reserve System is correctly noted in the article. It's a hybrid system, with public and private aspects. The individual Federal Reserve Banks are clearly noted in the article as being private institutions. Ravensfire (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Self-contradicting section in "Creation of Third Central Bank" section?

There's a few lines in the Third Bank section that read: "Many believe this act was passed on December 23, 1913, in a special session, when many opponents of the Act had left Washington for Christmas.[33] However, this is not the case as the House voted on December 22, 1913 with 298 yeas to 60 nays and 76 not voting and the Senate voting on December 23, 1913 with 43 yeas to 25 nays and 27 not voting. [34] President Woodrow Wilson signed the bill later that day at 6:02pm.[35]"

Am I understanding this wrong, or do the lines following the first confirm (and contradict) that the bill was in fact "passed" (meaning approved by both the House and Senate) on December 23rd 1913, and that there were enough "not voting" members in the Senate for the outcome to have possibly been different had they stayed and voted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.255.52 (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. I deleted the first part. The readers can come to their own conclusions about the vote.--Dark Charles (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
To add, when there are blocks of non-votes they typically can't affect the outcome had they voted. When members of either house have a scheduling conflict with a vote, they will find another member who was expected to vote in the opposite direction and will agree that neither will vote. This is referred to as "vote pairing." So for every non-voter who would have voted "yea" there is another non voter who would have voted "nay." What happens is that a present member will state that they have "a live pair" and will vote "present." Neither of the votes are then counted because they would have offset each other anyway. Sperril (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve

The Fed is a private, for-profit corporation named to perpetuate the deception that it is part of the federal government. Such is the truth. Why does Wikipedia contain false information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.29.212 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 March 2012‎

This has been discussed extensively on the talk page (look at discussions above, and on the archives of this talk page), and the existing reliable sources do not support your statement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

New Facilities and Bloomberg Lawsuit

I am considering adding a brief summary table of the data that resulted from the Bloomberg lawsuit. Unfortunately, even condensed, it is very unwieldy. See my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ski67dOO/sandbox. Is there some way to create a wikipedia page just for tables? And link it in the main article? Thanks,--Ski67dOO (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That's way too much for this article. I'd put it on Wikisource and use a Wikisource template to link back to it. Ravensfire (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve

I am amazed the word "constitution" isn't mentioned even once in both the article and this talk page. Article 1, Section 8 says, “The Congress shall have Power to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof”. Today it's the Federal Reserve that is performing this function under the congressional oversight. Technically this is not what constitution says. There is whole body of work examining the issue with varying opinions. Supreme Court hasn't spoken (or has it) on this issue. All this should be reflected in the article. Yurivict (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Yurivict: Don't be amazed. These kinds of issues have already been covered over and over and over and over and over on these talk pages.
No, the Federal Reserve -- meaning, the Federal Reserve System, does not "coin money" in the narrow sense. There is such a thing as a Federal Reserve note, but a Federal Reserve note is not a coin, and the printing of Federal Reserve notes is not "coining money" in the strictest sense.
The printing of Federal Reserve notes is not "regulating the value of Money" (coins or otherwise), either. Actually, Federal Reserve notes are printed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, not by the Federal Reserve System, but the outstanding notes generally are shown on the financial statements of the twelve Federal Reserve banks as liabilities of the banks.
You haven't really precisely stated what you believe the "issue" is regarding constitutionality, and it's unclear what you mean when you use the phrase "all this". Various U.S. federal courts have made rulings on various issues about various aspects of the Federal Reserve System. And various people have written articles on the Federal Reserve System. You may want to review Criticism of the Federal Reserve if you have not done so already. Famspear (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Coin or banknote, it doesn't matter. The congress has to regulate money, that's what the constitution means. And currently this isn't the case. Private banks through the ownership of the Federal Reserve regulate the money. Yurivict (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Yurivict: No. The courts determine what the Constitution means, in court decisions.

No, "private banks" (called "member banks" in technical parlance) do not own the Federal Reserve. The term "Federal Reserve" is a sort of short-hand term for the Federal Reserve System. Since the Federal Reserve System includes some government agencies and some "private banks" (such as Bank of America or Wells Fargo), it is incorrect to say that private banks "own" the Federal Reserve System. I realize this is pretty technical.

Various private banks (that is, "member banks") do "own" stock in the twelve Federal Reserve banks. The 12 Federal Reserve banks are PART of the Federal Reserve System. They are not the entire "Federal Reserve" itself. And this kind of "ownership" is not "ownership" in the precisely same sense in which I believe you are thinking (as in "I own 10 shares of Microsoft stock" or "I own my house" or "I own my car" or "I own this cell phone").

And neither the Federal Reserve banks nor the member banks "regulate money" in the sense in which I suspect you might be thinking. All banks can create money (not Federal Reserve notes, but money) in the technical sense. Perhaps that's what you are thinking. Please re-read the article. Famspear (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And, to the extent the Federal Reserve does regulate the value of coin money, it does so as an instrument of the federal government created by Congress. Congress does not regulate anything on its own. It creates statutes that are enforced by executive departments or independent executive agencies. As for "Coin or banknote, it doesn't matter", you are wrong—it matters a great deal. Read Banknote and United States dollar#Banknotes for starters. Banknotes are issued, not under the "coin money" clause, but under the borrowing clause, and for large periods of our history, banknotes were (as in other countries) issued by private banking institutions (hence the name). -Rrius (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the old argument that there is something wrong about the Federal Reserve System because only "Congress" can coin money and regulate the value thereof is based on a misunderstanding of terminology.
The Constitution says that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense...." That does not mean that under the Constitution, the members of Congress itself must go around and physically collect the taxes, physically pay the debts, and physically guard the borders.
Instead, the power of Congress is a legislative power -- it's the power to enact statutes, which are a form of legislation. The jobs of physically collecting the taxes, paying the debts, and guarding the borders are an executive power that is physically done by units of the executive branch of the government, such as the Department of the Treasury (of which the IRS is part) in the case of collecting taxes, or the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, etc., in the case of guarding the borders. Famspear (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Speculation or relevant political discourse

This edit was reverted as "pure speculation and crystal-ball". The edit first summarized a position taken by one of the two major-party candidates for US President about a Fed-related decision he would face if he won. Then it relayed what a former Fed member with a connection, as it happened, to the opposite political camp said about ways the decision could go. Both items seemed to me to have substance, both in the decision itself and in who was addressing it.

Some background: I discovered one surprising thing about Wikipedia recently, namely that there is no article accumulating a narrative of the US presidential general-election campaign. Having had some experience with the Paul Ryan article, locked-down a few days ago though reopened to edits yesterday, I guess I can maybe understand why: It takes work. This talk item signals a possible way the gap could be – maybe already has been -- filled. But my recent experience with the Fed article brought the no-article discovery to mind because noone (I exaggerate; a widely deployed (not to be conspiratorial) phalanx of guardians, may I say?) seem to want to keep political discourse from trespassing into the various many arenas (article subjects) being addressed by the campaigns. I've also had brought back to mind a wrangle which I precipitated a few weeks ago, documented here.

Back to the Fed: At risk of drawing even more extreme deletions, I've fought some over a year or more to develop the Nominations and confirmations section from which my recent edit was banished so dismissively. I think the encyclopedia is better for having a record of some of the political jockeying that goes into staffing the independent-charter (may I call it?) board. I think the encyclopedia loses when political discourse is banished. Yes, I could see proliferating opinion and debate reports jockeying for inclusion. Maybe that's the resistance. To that I'd say, “We can start another sub-article if such becomes excessive”. But specialized articles whose subjects have a political component, to put it another way, suffer if there's a total ban. Of course a political campaign involves speculation and prediction around and behind as well as in the contest. Banish it all from the record? Act like it doesn't exist? How does that help the subject? I don't know.

Finally: I was trying to add this additional illuminating footnote, in text form below, to my edit when I found my edit had been removed. I think the headline in the footnote alone illustrates the relevance of the subject to the article to anyone minimally following the Fed. For those not familiar, this link -- QE3 -- will help. And "Meyer" was the source of the primary information in the edit.

<ref>Robb, Greg, [http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2012/09/12/qe3-would-do-more-harm-than-good-ryan-says/ "QE3 would do more harm than good, Ryan says"], ''[[MarketWatch]]'', September 12, 2012. A contemporaneous example of campaign criticism from Romney running mate [[Paul Ryan]] not addressed by Meyer. Retrieved 2012-09-12.</ref>

Thanks and cheers. Swliv (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Five weeks on, today: "Countdown to change at the Fed: Bernanke seen leaving at end of his term regardless of election", this time by Greg Robb but again at MarketWatch. I felt a yearning for the foundational speculations I had prepared, five weeks ago, deleted and lamented above. Life, and speculations, go on, part of the process I on the outside ("in the political process and firmament") go through to relate to an institution like the Fed.
A line I like from today's story: "Joe Gagnon, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said he saw only a 20% chance that Bernanke would stay on under an Obama second term"; Joe Gagnon not previously cited in Wiki it appears, but Peterson Inst. well known and Gagnon listed at that page. What are the factors at play around the members of the Fed board? for instance, a question one can usefully pose and then help to answer in the kind of piece I put in five weeks ago; which would then usefully have been augmented today with a bit from the new story; as I see it. How does an astute person arrive at that 20% guess/wager/estimate? is a question worth raising, and pondering, I think, for any educated observer.
I didn't before and quite possibly again won't today alert the editor of the deletion (a regular ed. of the article) to this discussion, though I've worked up the section heading I'd maybe use at his/-er talk page: "Fed pre-appointment process from the outside, where we mostly are by definition". Another editor opposes "conspiracy" analyses; this ed. dismisses the reported "speculations" and reverts other contrib's without explanation (but for reasons I can understand). It's interesting to me the ed. process. How about a section "Alternative analyses of Fed's form and function" to handle opinion like in this edit (if properly sourced) in the article? On we go. Cheers, all. Swliv (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"Profit"?

Why is the interest paid to the Fed by the debtor considered as profit, but the debt itself when repaid to the Fed is not? Is the money (discounting the interest) destroyed when it is repaid to the Fed? Firrtree (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specific transaction you're talking about, but here's how a loan works. Suppose someone loans you $1,000 and charges you 10% interest per year. If you pay back the loan with interest after exactly one year, you pay the lender $1,100, which consists of $100 of interest and $1,000 of return of principal. The repayment of the $1,000 principal is not "income" or "profit." It's just a repayment of what the lender loaned to you. The only "increase" or "profit" to the lender is the $100 of interest. I hope that helps. Famspear (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
But the Fed creates money out of nothing (or the Treasury does, and the Fed buys it for a nominal sum, amounting to the same), so every dollar that it creates is profit for the Fed. If the Fed creates a billion, and loans it to banks, and the banks repay it with interest, but the Fed gives the Treasury only (94% of) the interest payments -- and if the Fed keeps doing similar business -- then the Fed will become filthy rich while never giving the government more than crumbs. So, if the Fed doesn't destroy the credit it receives as repayments of debt, then it is, in fact, profiting. That would mean that the NYT article referenced at the end of the intro is obfuscation, and most of the bona fide profit, i.e. the money made, actually never reaches the government. Firrtree (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Firrtree: OK, you're confused. Let's go through this step by step. First, what does it mean when we say that the Fed creates money? Famspear (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hint: The money that the Federal Reserve System creates does not belong to the Federal Reserve System. And there's no profit to the Federal Reserve System (or anyone else) when the Federal Reserve System creates that money. Profit essentially means an increase in net worth. However, when the Federal Reserve System issues a Federal Reserve note, the net worth of the Federal Reserve System generally does not increase or decrease. There is generally no profit (or loss for that matter) to the Federal Reserve System when it issues a Federal Reserve note -- although the Fed is definitely creating money.

Think about it in terms of just a Federal Reserve note (such as the one dollar bill in your wallet). If you were going to have an accountant prepare a statement of financial position for you and also one for the Federal Reserve System, how would that one dollar Federal Reserve note be shown on YOUR financial statement, and how would that same note be shown on the Fed's financial statement? Think about it. Famspear (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Re your last paragraph: I would assume that that dollar would show as one dollar in my balance sheet, and that I would be able to use it to buy assets worth one dollar. From what I understand, the Fed often uses the money it issues to buy assets, thereby getting richer through the creation & buying process according to basic logic. You will have to base your assertion that that isn't so on some sort of argumentation, otherwise I will have to go with what basic logic says.
However let us get back to that dollar in my pocket. What relation that exact same dollar would have to the Fed would depend on its past: if the Fed had loaned it to me, the Fed would be one dollar the poorer until I paid it back, unless my promise to pay it back would somehow count as credit in the possession of the Fed. Again, basic logic. Perhaps that is not how you expected my mind to work, but it is how money is known to work. When you get money which you can use, or create money which you can use, you will be richer than previously. If the Fed is an exception, this is the first time I have heard about it.
Your assertion that the money that the Fed issues doesn't belong to anyone seems like an odd one. The Fed uses it to make loans and buy assets, so it appears, in all ways, to function like real credit belonging to the Fed. Furthermore, there is no law of logic or of economics that would make it impossible for the government itself to create money, call it its own, and use it to buy assets without ever borrowing anything from anyone, creating new money whenever it needed it: the problem would be decreasing purchasing power resulting from the inflation. That's why it would make sense for the Fed to destroy the principal parts of the debts it receives as repayments (to avoid long-term inflation).
I may be confused, but you will have to do more than merely assert (and without a source at that) to demonstrate that that is so.Firrtree (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Yes, you are confused, no disrespect intended. This is a complicated, hard to understand subject.
You stated that "From what I understand, the Fed often uses the money it issues to buy assets." In a sense, that's correct -- but not in the sense that I think you mean. For example, when the Fed issues Federal Reserve notes (the money you carry around in your wallet), the Fed is creating a liability of the Fed, not money owned by the Fed. The Fed may, for example, buy government securities by issuing Federal Reserve notes. That means that the Fed is BORROWING in the same way that you borrow when you borrow money from a bank to buy a house.
Think of a Federal Reserve note as being similar to the promissory note you sign when the bank makes a loan to you to buy a house -- because that's what a Federal Reserve note essentially is. It represents a LIABILITY OWED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, not MONEY OWNED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.
The same dollar that you hold in your wallet (which would be shown as an ASSET on the left side of your balance sheet, if you were to prepare one) is shown on the consolidated balance sheet of the twelve Federal Reserve banks as a LIABILITY OWED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS -- on the RIGHT side of their balance sheet. It's money, but IT'S NEVER THE MONEY OF THE FED. At the moment it is issued, it's a LIABILITY OF THE FED, a DEBT OWED BY THE FED. It's a debt owed to WHOEVER OWNS the dollar, and it stays that way until the Fed gets it back. When the Fed gets it back, its legal and economic status is extinguished -- just as the debt you owe on a promissory note is extinguished when you pay off the debt and the lender hands you back your cancelled note (as some lenders still do).
I'll be glad to continue this on your talk page later. Suffice to say, the concept of money creation and how banks work can be very confusing. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The basic concept is that you cannot owe a debt to yourself. The Fed cannot owe a debt to itself. To the Fed, the printed but unissued Federal Reserve note represents nothing more than what you would have if you typed up a promissory note at home that said "Firrtree hereby promises to pay the holder of this note the sum of twenty dollars on demand." As long as you, Firrtree, hold that note in your possession, the note is meaningless. It has no legal or economic status. But if someone cuts your lawn and for 20 dollars, and you say to that person "hey, will you let me owe you until next week and just take this promissory note as evidence of my debt to you?" that note becomes evidence of a debt you owe to that person AT THE MOMENT YOU ISSUE THAT NOTE to that person.

As long as the note is in YOUR possession, it is neither money you own nor a liability you owe.

With the Fed, it's the same thing. The Federal Reserve note, when held by the Fed prior to its issuance, is neither "money" nor "money owned by the Fed" nor a "liability owed by the Fed." At the moment the Fed ISSUES that note to someone (usually, to member bank like Wells Fargo or Bank of America), it becomes a LIABILITY owed by the Fed, not money OWNED by the Fed. Famspear (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"From what I understand, the Fed often uses the money it issues to buy assets, thereby getting richer through the creation & buying process according to basic logic..."
Wrong. Let's say that the Fed decides to buy government securities owned by Wells Fargo. The people at Wells Fargo and the people at the Fed decide that the securities in question are worth $10,000. What happens is that Wells Fargo transfers $10,000 of securities to the Fed, and the Fed transfers $10,000 of Federal Reserve notes to Wells Fargo (actually, more likely the Fed simply credits Wells Fargo's checking account at the Fed, but we're illustrating a point here). On the Fed's books, the Fed debits an asset account called "investment in government securities" (or whatever) for $10,000 and credits a liability account called "Federal Reserve notes outstanding" (or whatever) for $10,000. You have a balance entry, and there is no gain or loss on the transaction. If the value of the securities later goes UP to $11,000 and the Fed sells them for that amount, the Fed has a $1,000 gain -- but that's no different than if YOU had bought the securities for $10,000 and sold them for $11,000.
Again, a Federal Reserve note is generally never "money" when its held by the Federal Reserve System. It's money for YOU when YOU hold the note. But as soon as that note is returned to the Federal Reserve System, its legal and economic substance is extinguished. The Fed cannot "owe money to itself." Similarly, you cannot "owe money to yourself" (at least not in the sense that we're talking about). Famspear (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"When you get money which you can use, or create money which you can use, you will be richer than previously. If the Fed is an exception, this is the first time I have heard about it."

And the Fed is NOT an exception. The point is that when the Fed creates money, it does so not by printing the Federal Reserve notes (actually they're physically printed by the Treasury, as I think you may have mentioned), but by ISSUING the notes. And the money that is created is NEVER OWNED BY THE FED. The money is owned by the people who RECEIVE the notes FROM the Fed. The Federal Reserve note represents a LIABILITY owed by the Fed TO the HOLDER of the note, not money OWNED by the Fed.

This stuff is difficult to understand in part because the average person is not used to thinking of the dollar bills in his wallet as representing a liability owed by someone else to him. Those dollar bills are an ASSET for YOU, because YOU'RE NOT THE FED.

Similarly, that promissory note issued by Firrtree -- as long as it's held in the pocket of the guy who mowed your lawn -- represents an ASSET for HIM, in part because HE'S NOT YOU. As long as YOU'RE holding your own note, you "own" nothing (other than a piece of paper with some writing on it with no legal or economic significance). Famspear (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it. I will have to think about it more to really understand it, but I think such information should be added to the Money Creation page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation
Firrtree (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. And of course, there is more to it than this. The basic concepts are gleaned gradually over a period of time, as a person studies. In a college or university economics curriculum in the United States, there is often going to be a course called "Money and Banking", which will inevitably include the coverage of some aspects of the Federal Reserve System. A person majoring in economics or accounting would do well to take this kind of course. The textbooks tend to be a bit technical. To really grasp the basics and put all the concepts together, one should also consider taking college courses in auditing, financial accounting, and an introduction course in macro-economics. A law school course on commercial transactions will typically include coverage of the laws on bank collections and deposits, and that's helpful too. Famspear (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of the Fed

Why is the article being sanitized and any criticism of the fed removed?

As to whether the Fed has destroyed the value of the US dollar and acts to protects its member banks - It is well known that the fed has printed so many dollars that the dollar is now worth 3-4% of what it was worth when the fed came into existence with a mission to protect the dollar. In the 99 years since its founding instead of protecting the value of the dollar it has destroyed the value of that dollar instead.

As to whether the Fed protects the banks who own it, one only needs to look at the trillion plus purchases of crap mortgage paper a few years ago, NONE of which was worth face value, and some of which was worth pennies on the dollar but ALL of which was purchases a full face value. Oh! That program was only authorized to be done in big chunks, 10-20 billion minimum and any bank with less then that in mortgage paper had no opportunity to participate. To put it in simple terms the program was designed to bail out the big money center banks from the pestilent effects of their decisions.71.174.141.4 (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

We've already been through this over and over and over. We have a separate article, just for criticisms of the Federal Reserve System. There is no point in repeating the same stuff in both articles.
And, this Wikipedia talk page is not the proper place to air your own criticisms of the Federal Reserve System. Famspear (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The article you refer to makes no mention of Constitutional issue, so obviously it has also been sanitized as well. A one sentence summary of the criticism of the Fed is way too short for THIS article considering its size. I was referenced to the talk page to clear up disputes with other editors. The current dispute is the size of the criticism section in this article. Considering the size do you a one sentenca summary is just right? I personally prefer a paragraph and along paragraph at that.
BTW: You are almost in a 3RR violation!71.174.141.4 (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You say the point is the relative length of the summary, but your focus does drift a bit, doesn't it? First of all, it is not just "some article" Famspear is referring to; it is a subarticle of this one. The point of a subarticle is to put text that would otherwise overwhelm the parent article in a place where it can be fleshed out without regard to the length of the parent. What is left behind at the parent article is a section heading, a link, and a summary. Since the criticisms of the Fed are so varied, it just isn't possible to summarize the points briefly. That means the summary has to be extremely broad. This isn't exactly unique. Also, what you were adding was not a summary of the criticism article; rather, you were adding your own spin. Your understanding of this topic seems so shallow (as evidenced by your attempt to use a quote from factcheck.org) that you really ought to consider learning something about the Fed instead of reading or listening to crackpot theories and then looking for whatever nuggets you can take out of context to support what the lunatic fringe has told you to believe. Finally, you cheekily point to Famspear's revert total, but you are edit warring more fiercely than anyone else, so you needn't be so smug. -Rrius (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP71.174.141.41: I have been editing in Wikipedia for nearly seven years. I have made two reverts to your material today, and I am well aware of the three-revert rule. I'm the one who informed you of the rule.

The point is that this is a LONG article. For that very reason, the separate article on Criticism of the Federal Reserve was created. The point is: The longer the MAIN article is, the SHORTER should be the list of "critiques."

The comment that the article has been "sanitized" tends to lead other editors to assume that you are on a mission to tell the truth about the Federal Reserve System -- not an impression you want to leave with other editors. Wikipedia is not the proper place to expose what you believe to be the truth about the Federal Reserve System. We have seen it all here before.

Also, I would strongly urge you to read or re-read the ENTIRE article as well as the article on criticisms of the Fed, and the article on G. Edward Griffin. Many of the critiques of the Federal Reserve System are based on lack of understanding of banking and how the Fed works. Other critiques have more substance, of course. Famspear (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Completely disagree. A long article by definition devotes more space to more issues. By minimizing the criticism section to one sentence the article is biased on favorable reporting of the Fed. That means it is a biased article.
As to whether the articles have been sanitized, this article in a one line summary includes the Constitutional issues criticism, which has been completely obliterated in the "criticism of the Fed" article. If it walks, talks and looks sanitized it most likely has been sanitized. Lets see how long my summary of the Constitutional issues lasts on the criticism article and how soon someone will sanitize that article. 71.174.141.4 (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Only took 9 minutes for the Constitutional issues section to be sanitized aka deleted, in the criticism sub article.71.174.141.4 (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Criticism sections are disfavored to begin with. In an article this long, it is wholly unacceptable to have a lengthy one. If you disagree, that is just too damned bad. We are not here to indulge your snits. The same goes for your bleating about sanitizing the article. Finally, your "Constitutional Issues" section at the subarticle is nonsensical and of no value. Again, go learn something instead of spewing nonsense you read at conspiracy sites. Your drivel doesn't even rank with the average level of conspiracy crap we get here, let alone the good stuff. Buy some books or go to a library, but stop embarrassing yourself. -Rrius (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
That is your opinion - I am sure that the criticism article was separated from this one by people like you, more interested in sanitizing the article then informing the reader. The fact that you are now deleting material on Constitutional criticism in the subarticle, when this main article states specifically that there are such constitutional criticisms shows you bias. To your knowledge what are those criticisms? and if you don't know why are you parading your ignorance?
Why are you calling James Madison crazy? and why was Thomas Jefferson crazy as well?71.174.141.4 (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't be an idiot. Madison and Jefferson have nothing to do with anything. The constitutional (note the adjective is supposed to be in lowercase) issues you raise are nonsensical. Article I, Section 10, restricts the states, not the federal government. By definition, the section can't forbid the federal government to print money. The second crticism is also nonsense. First of all, the Open Market Committee are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, so it is the government acting. More importantly, you provide no evidence from any reliable source suggesting that Congress cannot delegate the printing of money to a private company. If prisons can be delegated to private companies, why not that? Your final point is so stupid as to be laughable. Read what you actually wrote! Morris himself said that if Congress had credit, it could issue bills of credit. So even in your bizarro world where bills of credit from the 1700s are the same thing as paper money, Morris and his brethren still believed Congress had the power despite stripping the language from the draft.
While your proposed language is laughable, the worst part is that you have ho idea what citing sources means. It is not enough for you to cite the Constitution. What you need is a reliable source for the proposition that it means the insane things you think it does. You could look for such things, but it would be a waste of time because no such thing exists. You can't just make shit up and expect us to include it if you act childish enough. Either learn about Wikipedia's guidelines and take some lessons in logic and critical thinking, or go away. -Rrius (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 71.174.141.4: You're trying to do what is known as prohibited original research. Madison and Jefferson were not writing critiques of the Federal Reserve System. The Fed didn't exist back then. You are trying to put Comment A from Source A and Comment B from Source B together and fashion your own Conclusion C. That is OK if you are a researcher out there in the "real world," but it is not OK for purposes of your role as an editor in Wikipedia.

You are also trying to critique the Federal Reserve System YOURSELF. That is NOT the proper role for you here in Wikipedia. You are NOT HERE TO TAKE SIDES. You are here only to help edit Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

2011 prognostication

"The Reserve Banks will have reduced the number of full-service check processing locations from 45 in 2003 to 4 by early 2011."

It is now practically 2013. Does anyone know if this check-processing-location trimming operation has actually taken place? Should't this old prognostication be updated? Baon (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"Printing Money"

I've heard it said, by Ben Bernanke no less, that the Fed "prints" or creates money. Is this just a euphemism or does some such mechanism exist? I'm told the Fed supports the Dollar by buying Treasury securities. Where does the money for this come from? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

See Federal Reserve System#Central bank. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Clear as mud. Let's see if I understand this: The Fed expends Dollars to buy Treasury securities thereby introducing more Dollars into the country's economic system via the mechanism of the National Debt. Where do those original Dollars come from? This has the appearance of an unstable feedback system. Elasticism run amok. Sooner or later the whole system is going to go "screech" like a loudspeaker with the gain set too high. Some discussion of the stability of the money system is needed here or somewhere. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear user Zbvhs/Virgil H. Soule: I agree with you in part. However, you can argue that the transaction you are describing, which is essentially what we call an "open market operation" when the Fed is buying Treasury securities, does not really increase the total dollar amount of national debt. If you assume that outstanding Federal Reserve notes (or deposit liabilities of that bank) are a liability of the Federal government rather than a liability of the applicable Federal Reserve bank, then the purchase of Treasury bills would arguably be, in economic substance, a retirement of Federal government debt, since the T-bills are now "owned" by the Federal government (really, owned by the applicable Federal Reserve bank, of course).
Alternatively, if you consider the Federal Reserve bank NOT to be part of the government at all, then the purchase of the securities by that bank is NOT a retirement of government debt, and the issuance of Federal Reserve notes is NOT an increase in government debt.
You can't really have it both ways. Either you consider the assets and liabilities of each Federal Reserve bank to be assets and liabilities of the government itself, or you don't.
You are right on your basic point, though. Whichever way you look at it: The purchase of government securites by a Federal Reserve bank in the open market DOES result in an increase in the money supply (generally, mainly by an increase in bank deposit liabilities). So, I agree that this does affect the money supply. The money supply is increased when a Federal Reserve bank purchases T-bills in the open market. Famspear (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Federal Reserve System is not an entity of the Federal Government. This is to prevent political meddling by the Congress or the Administration in power. (Calls for an audit of the Fed are an example of political meddling.) This independence allows the Fed to set monetary policies that maybe nobody agrees with. The National Debt is wholly-owned by the U.S. Treasury. Treasury is authorized by the Congress to borrow money to support government programs. (Every dollar of the National Debt is out here on someone's account, which forms the basis for the Dollar and the money supply.) Treasury borrows money by issuing T-bills. So, when the Fed buys T-bills, it is contributing to the National Debt. Treasury is also a major depositor. Money it deposits become Fed assets, so when the Fed buys T-bills, it is loaning Treasury's deposits back to it. This is that feed-back loop I asked about above. The "Dollars" we have in our bank accounts are Treasury Dollars. The currency we carry in our pockets are Federal Reserve Dollars. Is the issuance of Federal Reserve Notes what is referred to as "printing money" or is some other mechanism involved? How exactly are Treasury Dollars and Federal Reserve Dollars related? If these questions are not pertinent to this venue, perhaps someone could suggest another place (in Wikipedia) to look. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Zbvhs/Virgil H. Soule: Indeed, in one sense the Federal Reserve System is not "an entity" at all; it is a group of entities, some of which are governmental entities and others of which are non-governmental entities.
Calling for an "audit" of "the Fed" is in some sense political grandstanding by some politicians, and legitimate advocacy by others. There is no such thing as an audit of "the Fed." There is such a thing as an annual audit of certain components of the Fed. For example, the consolidated financial statements of the twelve regional Federal Reserve banks are audited every year in much the same way that the annual financial statements of Wells Fargo Bank or Microsoft are audited. The auditors' report (a report issued by certified public accountants) is readily available on line. When politicians use the term "audit," however, they're using the term in a different sense -- they just tend not to explain exactly what they mean.
When the Fed -- and here, I think you mean that when a given regional Federal Reserve BANK (not "the Fed" overall) buys a T-bill -- we need to understand that the FR bank is not really INCREASING the amount of national debt. When a Federal Reserve bank buys a T-bill, the bank is usually buying a pre-existing T-bill on the open market. This means that the debt owed by government was already in existence before the FR bank bought the T-bill. When the FR bank buys the T-bill, what is happening is that instead of the government owing the money to the original owner of the T-bill, the government now owes the debt to the new owner -- the FR bank that bought the T-bill.
I'm not sure what you mean by supposed difference between "Treasury Dollars" and "Federal Reserve Dollars."
The issuance of Federal Reserve notes (printed by the U.S. Treasury but issued by one or more Federal Reserve banks) is indeed what people refer to as the "printing of money." Prior to issuance, a given note is just a piece of paper. Once it is issued, it represents a liability owed by the issuing Federal Reserve bank to the person or entity to whom that note was issued. If you own a Federal Reserve note (that dollar bill in your wallet), that note technically represents a debt owed to you by a Federal Reserve bank.
Federal Reserve notes used to actually show the name of the issuing bank -- such as "Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas." Now, the notes just say "United States Federal Reserve System". For example, look at the circular seal on the left side of a five dollar bill, to the left of the portrait of Lincoln. This of course is again (perhaps) a source of confusion, as the note is not issued by the ENTIRE SYSTEM. After all, Wells Fargo Bank and Bank of America and (perhaps) Your Local Neighborhood Bank are part of the SYSTEM.
The statement that every dollar of the National Debt "is out here on someone's account, which forms the basis for the Dollar and the money supply", may be a bit misleading. The money supply generally consists of Federal Reserve notes outstanding and the balance of demand deposits (generally, checking accounts) at any given time, subject to various exceptions. Again, this is too complex to accurately and completely explain in this talk page. Famspear (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I think my original question has been answered. The Fed issues or "prints" new currency based on its own assets to meet the demands of the marketplace and to expand the M0 for whatever reason. I can understand the latter. Currency disappears from circulation for various reasons. The drug cartels probably have warehouses filled with the stuff. Then there's the story of the guy who had a storage unit with barrels filled with pennies. This money is out there and still on the books but is unusable. Perhaps all this could be made a little clearer in the article.
The difference between "Federal Reserve Dollars" and "Treasury Dollars" is the source. They are dollars either way. The former are tangible assets we carry in our pockets. The latter are virtual assets that only exist on paper in somebody's bank or investment account. Treasury sells T-bills at auction and the money obtained is disbursed worldwide into bank accounts or even other countries' treasuries without ever touching the ground, as it were. When we take money out of the bank, we "monetize" a portion of the virtual funds in our bank account thereby converting "Treasury Dollars" to "Federal Reserve Dollars".
What we are left with is an ever-expanding national debt. The M1, M2, and M3 are measures of the total amount of dollars in the World's economic system but are no doubt imperfect. The upper limit would be the National Debt and all three fall short of that. All of the dollars borrowed by the U.S. Treasury are on somebody's books somewhere. I can visualize situations in which dollars have simply disappeared: A myriad of bankruptcies, stock market crashes, and the infamous mortgage-backed securities debacle, for example. In cases like these, the value of accounts in which dollars were invested has gone to zero and the dollars invested are unrecoverable. Is this discussed elsewhere in Wikipedia? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Charter expiration?

Does the charter have to be re-newed? The history section mentions that the first two banks ended because their charters were not re-newed. I think the article should therefor indicate that the Fed does or does not have to have its charter re-newed. Kdammers (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Good question, but the Federal Reserve System was created by statute -- by an Act of Congress, not by the grant of a charter (unlike the earlier banks you mentioned).
Further, like most statutes, the statutes creating the Federal Reserve System do not have an expiration date, so there's nothing to "renew." The statutes are referenced in the article, so I'm not sure that there is a reason to explain that in the article, any more than it would be necessary to explain in another Wikipedia article that a given law does not have an expiration date. I would argue that this is pretty much understood. Just my opinion. Famspear (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Perhaps you're right, but given the discussion about the two preceding banks, its seems to me (and that's why I was moved the ask the question) that there is sort of an indication that there could be an expiration date. Couldn't this information be put in in a short clause?Kdammers (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a strong need for it, but maybe we can work it into the article. We would have to be pretty specific. In contrast to the Federal Reserve System as a whole, the member banks (e.g., Wells Fargo, etc.) do have "charters." I'm not sure about the twelve regional Federal Reserve banks, except that they are required to file an organizational "certificate" with the Comptroller of the Currency, so that might be considered a "charter" of sorts. It can get confusing with this topic, because some people can't quite "get" the difference between the different components of the System: the Board of Governors, the FOMC, the member banks, the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, etc. As noted, the System as a whole isn't "a bank", strictly speaking, and it's created by statute, not by a "charter." Let me do a little checking and see what we find. Famspear (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Privately owned

Why this is being kept removed? Is it so bad for everyone to know Fed is privately owned bank? What is the specific Wiki rule for removing this? Give me a quote and link or rather shall put back this vital information! --109.110.5.158 (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting is that I have tried to post it for second time and both times it has been removed less then in hour. Comparing to other undos and edits it is really fast. Why is so? --109.110.5.158 (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear User at IP 109.110.5.158: Please review Wikipedia rules and guidelines. No, you are not allowed to repost information over and over that is being removed by other editors. Reposting in that way is called edit warring and it is not allowed.
As has been explained over and over and over and over a thousand times on this talk page (see the archives), this is an article about the Federal Reserve SYSTEM, not the individual member banks. The individual member banks are "privately owned." The Federal Reserve SYSTEM is not "privately owned", and it's not "a bank" in the strictest sense (although it is sometimes called "the central bank"). It it the central banking system in the United States, and it contains thousands of banks as well as governmental agencies. PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE CAREFULLY. Famspear (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer and your time. To opponent you, I have to ask. Is it possible to control a system by a person? I mean.. if it is a school system, someone has to control it, right? If it is local car wash shop, then there is system to wash the cars which someone controls so the system itself continue to work, Right? In ancient Rome there were legions of soldiers those controlled by emperor - a sole men who controlled army til death. Now proven the point that not only a physical thing, but a system can be controlled by few (or one) I feel the urge that the fact FED is privately controlled (owned? -a mystery, hard to tell, right?) and USA government does not have (or does not willing to) any saying in it (as only to take credit) is being shown. As also the fact no audit has been done to Fed for a long time. --109.110.5.158 (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope I understand your question. The private "owners" are not the ones who control the Fed's activities; ultimately, that falls to people appointed by the president with the advice of the Senate. -Rrius (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
You mean, the Jews, right? Just kidding...and highlighting the fact that this is just conspiracy-speak masquerading as an intellectual debate. It's a quasi-public entity, but this fact contradicts what the conspiracy theorists want to believe. No need to continue with a discussion, just delete and move on. They are free to dig through the archives and read the many, many, many discussions on the matter. JoelWhy?(talk) 14:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
My thinking was that language might have more to do with it than anything else. -Rrius (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I tend not to believe conspiracy, however I skip through all information with 50% believe. Quote: Plain and simple, the Federal Reserve is not part of the Federal Government. It is a privately held corporation owned by stockholders. Prove this quote to be wrong! (it's all about the discussion) Prove me with literally written on fed or usa gov website , or whatever official website that THIS QUOTE is wrong or otherwise it is fair to be included in main article. Am I right? --109.110.5.158 (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Why should any of us? You could read the article or even just take on board the point already made: that the decision makers are appointed by the President (of the United States, not Citibank) with the advice and consent of the Senate. -Rrius (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
"Am I right?" NO, user 109.110.5.158. YOU ARE WRONG. No conspiracy here. I regret that you "skip through all information with 50% belief". That seems like a rather burdensome way to go through life. There ARE credible sources. We strive for better than 50% here at Wikipedia. And guess what? The Federal Reserve now publishes quarterly unaudited financial statements AS OF 27 Aug 2012! It is in the article. Read the article. The information is on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors' website. Furthermore, the Fed IS audited annually, or maybe even bi-annually now. You can read the Wikipedia article, or dig through the voluminous reams of documentation freely provided for your benefit, in an eclectic assortment of formats (HTML, PDF, XLS, TXT) on the Fed's website. Sigh... --FeralOink (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear new user 109.110.5.158: The rest of us aren't here to prove that nonsense is nonsense.

By the way, "the Fed" means the Federal Reserve System. It would be somewhat meaningless to say that the Federal Reserve System hasn't been "audited" in a long time. The Federal Reserve System is a group of entities, not just one entity. It is laughable nonsense to say that the Fed is a "corporation," or that it is a "private corporation."

The Moon is not made of green cheese, and the rest of the world is not here to prove something to you.

The twelve Federal Reserve banks -- the 12 regional banks -- are audited every year. And the member banks are audited every year. You can download the audit reports on the internet.

The old "the Fed isn't audited" nonnsense is a myth. It is true that the confidential deliberations of certain components of the Fed are -- well, confidential. But that's also true of the confidential deliberations of "private companies." For example, you or I, as individuals, generally cannot obtain access to the records of the meetings of the Board of Directors of Wells Fargo Bank. I'll tell you who does have such access though: the people who audit that bank.

I would suggest that you take some time and actually learn about banking and the Federal Reserve System. A good start would be to READ THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. Actually READ it.

After that, a college course on money and banking would be very helpful.

Then, if you've done all that, and you really want to learn about how banking works, then obtain a college degree in accounting, sit for and pass the Uniform Certified Public Accountant Examination, become licensed as a CPA, work in a large firm that audits banks, and work on bank audits. Famspear (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and to be more to the point: You cannot post the nonsense that you call a "quote" (for which you have not even provided a reliable source) and then demand that other Wikipedia editors prove that the quote is incorrect AND be taken seriously. That is not acceptable. Wikipedia works on the basis of reliable, previously published third party sources. The burden is on YOU, as the person proposing that material be ADDED to an article, to persuade other Wikipedia editors that the material belongs in the article. It is not the job of everyone else to scurry around and look for something that negates or disproves unsourced nonsense. That's especially true in this case; the nonsense material you proposed has already been discussed here in the talk page for this article over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over AND OVER AND OVER again. Read the archives.
Hey, I know! I'm thinking that maybe I'll just start claiming that I have a copyright in the phrases "the Fed is a private corporation" and "the Fed is privately owned" and "the Fed has never been audited", and then start demanding that every newcomer here pay me a royalty every time one of these phrases (or a variation thereof) is used without my permission! Famspear (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

confused about fed assets

Simply, where does the fund come from? Reading through the article and some topics on the "talk" archive, I can only site earnings on "services" provided. But the magnitudes do not add up. Fed is depositing some 80 billion dollars in "profit" to the treasury for a fiscal year, but it is buying some 80 billion dollars of mortgage backed securities and treasuries a month (late 2012, and ongoing)?

Does the asset part of the balance sheet just grow every time they make the purchase? Does the liability also increase accordingly? Confusing... 148.87.19.214 (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC) spark

A comprehensive discussion of how the transactions work would be beyond the scope of this article. However, as an example, when the Federal Reserve Bank of New York acquires government securities (as an asset of the bank), the bank generally would increase its liabilities by the same amount. So, yes, liabilities would increase accordingly. Famspear (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Interest

This article doesn't explain interest on borrowing from the Federal Reserve (FR). I don't understand how the government can borrow from a "public institution" such as the FR and pay interest on the loan. If it really is public, it doesn't make sense to charge yourself for interest, when you would only be paying it back to yourself. What am I missing? Leitmotiv (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The article does not say that the Federal Reserve System is a "public institution." The article explains that the System is a group of entities -- some of which are governmental entities, others of which are non-governmental. In other words, the "it" is not really an "it" but is a group of entities.
If the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (the "FRB-Dallas") acquires a U.S. Treasury bond on the open market, the United States government owes the principal and accrued interest on that bond to the FRB-Dallas. The government is the debtor, and the FBR-Dallas is the creditor. The FRB Dallas and the U.S. government are separate entities.
Part of the problem with explaining -- and understanding -- the Federal Reserve System is that the terminology is so confusing. It's complicated, but a discussion of all the legal, accounting and economic concepts is probably beyond the scope of the article, and certainly is beyond the scope of this talk page. Famspear (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I guess I misread. The article doesn't say "public institution" but "public component." So in that regard, the way I understand the article, is that the government is borrowing from itself, if not in total sum. So does it owe interest to that part?
It makes sense that it pays interest to the FRB-Dallas, because it's not government. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Another thing to think about: Even if the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas were a federal government agency, one federal government agency could theoretically have dealings with another federal government agency, and I suppose that could include borrowing and lending. I can't think of any specific example off hand.
But think about it also in terms of non-governmental entities. Corporation A owns Corporation B. Corporation A can loan money to B, or vice versa. It happens all the time. The mere fact that B is in a sense "part" of A doesn't matter.
An an individual, you cannot really borrow from "yourself" or owe money to "yourself". But if we're talking about a government with lots of different "subparts" called "departments" or "agencies," whatever, etc., one department or agency could at least theoretically borrow from another agency. That that means that one agency could pay interest to the other agency, in the same way that Corporation B might pay interest to Corporation A. Famspear (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
That makes sense too. I just figured that it would be a little bizarre that when taking out a loan to balance the budget, when taking a loan from itself it would create more debt to itself. That seems illogical to me. If the government is more than less borrowing from other banks, then it seems to make more sense. Whether that is the case or not, I don't know! Leitmotiv (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

"but independent" vs "rather than independent"?

My edit was reverted because editor Fat&Happy deemed it to be my "analysis" presumably because I used the word "contrast" to describe the following inconsistency: Currently the page describes the system operating "independently within the government, but independent of it" [my bold] which is a quote from the Philadelphia Bank. However the Board of Governors of the system [14] describe it as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government." [my bold]

If we must choose one definition then shouldn't it be that of the Board of Governors? If not then shouldn't both definitions be given? And if so, how is it wrong to use the word "contrast"? Sqgl (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The pdf appears to have a typo in it. You can watch the source video that is referenced by the PDF by going to the source of the PDF at http://www.philadelphiafed.org/education/teachers/resources/fed-today/ , then choose to view "The Fed Today" via their link to YouTube.
In the PDF it attempts to quote the video as saying:
"The Fed has a unique public/private structure that operates independently within the government, but independent of it"
But the video, from which that quote was taken, the narrator starting around the 3:23 mark states:
"The Fed has a unique public/private structure that operates independently within the government, but not independent of it"
So, the actual video does appear to agree with the BoG information; but when the Philadelphia Bank had the pdf materials written up, they left out the word "not" from the quote being transcribed, which fundamentally changes the meaning. Given that the source video agrees, I don't see an issue here - other than someone at the Philadelphia Bank really needs to correct the quote to match the video from which it's based. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Rather than wait for the Philadelphia Bank to amend its transcription, replacing it with the BoG definition would make it 100% consistent with the citation.Sqgl (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What's the relationship between federal reserve and U.S. Treasury?

Federal reserve is under U.S. Treasury?125.82.252.245 (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the Federal Reserve System, which contains both governmental and non-governmental components -- as explained fully in the article. The U.S. Department of the Treasury, is a department in the executive branch of the U.S. federal government. The short answer would be that the "Federal reserve" is not "under" the Treasury, and the Treasury is not "under" the "Federal reserve." Further, the parts of the Federal Reserve System that are governmental entities (such as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System) are not "under" the Treasury, and the Treasury is not "under" any of those entities. Please read the entire article carefully. Famspear (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson fakery is back

The Woodrow Wilson fake quotes are coming back. An anonymous user inserted this material, which was removed by an editor:

Later on, Woodrow Wilson will change his mind saying: "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

The false implication is that this is a quote from Wilson, and that he wrote this after the Federal Reserve System was established, and that he was referring to the Federal Reserve System. All that appears to be false. This is what Wilson actually wrote:

We are at the parting of the ways. We have, not one or two or three, but many, established and formidable monopolies in the United States. We have, not one or two, but many, fields of endeavor into which it is difficult, if not impossible, for the independent man to enter. We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.

--from The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People, by Woodrow Wilson (1913).

There is nothing in this Wilson quote from The New Freedom in 1913 about him saying he was an "unhappy man." Nothing about him saying that he had "ruined" the country. And nothing about the Federal Reserve System -- which didn't even exist at that time. The phrase "unhappy man" does not even appear in the book. The phrase "unwittingly ruined my country" also does not appear in the text. The Act creating the System wasn't even signed into law until late December of that year. Famspear (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

So... you are quoting once piece of publicly available material against another? Only the second one is definitely correct because the authorities have endorsed it?
I believe the first quote is incorrect, but I doubt the second quote as I didn't hear him say it as I wasn't born. If you believe the peasants have some kind of "power" or "influence" over the production of money and believe all the information spoon fed to us through the media, then good for you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.249.147.155 (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear IP118.249.147.155: Go back and re-read the material. This has nothing to do with "peasants" or production of money or information being "spoon fed" through the media. That's all phony anti-banker conspiracy crap. A fake quote is a fake quote. Famspear (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Famspear, I agree a fake quote is a fake quote, but I still don't see on what basis you decided which one is fake and which one is true?.--KevinFrom (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You can search for the quotes and you'll find that only various fringe sites will have the "full" quote. As you get into more reputable sites and especially the books these quotes are from, you'll find the truth. When a quote is supposedly from a book, but you can't find the full quote anywhere in that book, there's a problem. Ravensfire (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear KevinFrom: See Ravensfire's explanation. The actual book by Woodrow Wilson is available online from the Gutenberg Project. See [15]. And, study the Wikipedia rules on Reliable Sources. Also, review the archives for this talk page. Famspear (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

misleding sentence

The Federal Reserve System's structure is composed of the presidentially appointed Board of Governors (or Federal Reserve Board [FRB]), the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), ...

do you all here accept here the misleding sentence? Is it the goal?

why misleding?: [[President of the United States] appoint only some members of Federal Open Market Committee some are chosen otherwise. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay both of you two edit warring over this share the same viewpoint. Grammatically 99.90's is closer to correct (yes there should be explicit clarification of what is and is not presidentially appointed otherwise you have confusion). I patched up a few smaller grammar fixes as well. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

spring cleaning in the criticism section

volunteer Marek thanks for your attempt at cleaning . I recently went through teh same. I agree and dont agree with you. In this edit you threw out a good source and claims that were ok sourced, although paraphrasing closely. I am rephrasing it.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If you can reword that based on NY Times then that's fine. If you did a google search on the previous phrasing, it turned out that it was more or less taken verbatim from zero hedge.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Source misrepresented

Re [16] this edit.

Please read the source. First, it's just an op-ed. Ok, more importantly it doesn't 1) even mention "the Austrian school" and 2) it's more of a criticism of contemplated regulation, not Fed policy, although it does complain about low interest rates. Anyway, the text requires much stronger sourcing than that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Public or private?

The article only makes clear that the bank is actually not an actual Government entity in the criticism section. The fact that it's not actually a federal institution should be there since the intro. --20-dude (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read the entire article. There is no "the bank." There is no one "entity." This is an article about the Federal Reserve SYSTEM. The article very clearly describes the entire SYSTEM. Famspear (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole system, if you check the Organization Certificates, is private. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader20000 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Wikireader20000: No, that's nonsense. And there are no "Organizational Certificates" you would be able to "check" that somehow show that the "whole system" is "private." Read the article more carefully. Famspear (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This is easy to resolve it's private banking backed by the American public via the FDIC. The Fed borrows money against the U.S. Treasury (backed by the tax payers) to pursue a private agenda. That is the coarse interplay between public/private. It's most likely as Louis Thomas McFadden says "one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known" This statement can be found on the congressional record of 1934. Winstalfred Alfronzo (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve System is made up up both public and private aspects as noted in the article. You can find several prior discussions about this in the archives of this talk page easily accessible through the Archives box on the right side of the screen. Ravensfire (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes this has been established, the 12 private banks make a public statement of finance to the Speaker of the house. Winstalfred Alfronzo (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Famspear -What significance does Lewis-v-United-States[4] have pertaining to the Federal Reserve Banks in your opinion? Thanks. Brokor (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC) --

References

  1. ^ a b "Paul Warburg's Crusade to Establish a Central Bank in the United States". The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  2. ^ "America's Unknown Enemy: Beyond Conspiracy". American Institute of Economic Research.
  3. ^ Eustace Mullins (researcher for library of congress and author "secrets of the federal reserve, 1952
  4. ^ "Lewis V. United States 680F2d 1239". Open Jurist. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Retrieved 12 July 2015.
The Lewis case is referenced extensively in the archives. There are a couple of things you need to note about the Lewis case. First, it's related to Federal Reserve Banks, not the Federal Reserve System. Second, it's a very narrow ruling, saying that Federal Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act. It's mentioned in the article already. Ravensfire (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear Brokor: See Ravensfire's comments. The Lewis case has been cited over and over and over and discussed many times.
Generally, some people who don't like the Federal Reserve System seem to think along these lines, to "prove" to themselves that the System is "bad": The Federal Reserve System should not be operated for "private" benefit. "Private" means "non-public." "Public" means "governmental." There's a case called the Lewis case where a court ruled that the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is "private" (not "public") for purposes of some law or another. If the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is "private" for purposes of some law or another, then the entire Federal Reserve System must also be "private." Therefore, the Federal Reserve System is "bad."
This is specious "logic," and it is "supported" in part by a series of logical fallacies. One of these illogical "arguments" can be illustrated by the following nonsense: "Planets are bad. Jupiter is a planet. Jupiter is part of the Solar System. The Solar System is part of the Milky Way Galaxy. Therefore, the Milky Way Galaxy is a planet. Therefore, the Milky Way Galaxy is bad." Famspear (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Federal Reserve System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ownership

I would like to clarify the ownership of the Federal Reserve. Who owns the Federal Reserve makes clear that the twelve Federal Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks, NOT the U.S. Treasury nor the U.S. Government. Despite the restrictions on ownership of these shares, it is clear that the Federal Reserve is Private Property.

What if any objections are there to this position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WouNur (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to quote from Lewis vs The United States, "There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of that entity"

Again, I bring your attention to the distinct nature of ownership and governance. The subject of this section is ownership. Now, do you have any objections to the private ownership of the Federal Reserve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WouNur (talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the "Federal Reserve" is not "private property." The Federal Reserve is a SYSTEM that has both governmental parts and "private" parts.

We've already been through this OVER AND OVER AND OVER. You are not bringing anything new to Wikipedia. The Lewis case has been discussed and explained OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Please read the archives for this talk page.

You cannot "clarify the ownership of the Federal Reserve." The article already CLEARLY explains all this. Please read the article COMPLETELY. Please do not make us re-copy and re-paste the same explanations over and over. Famspear (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear WouNur: It is obvious from your comments and questions that you have been reading the same fringe materials that perhaps hundreds of newcomers to Wikipedia have been reading and bringing here over the years. Again, please READ the artice -- in its entirety. Famspear (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: Dear WouNur: Also, go back and read the materials already posted on your talk page. All this has been clearly explained to you, in detail. Famspear (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Federal Reserve System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The use of maximum employment is technically not correct, this part of the dual mandate should read "full employment", an economic term. 173.15.92.132 (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Fed Criticism

Why do some people want this paragraph removed? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Reserve_System&action=edit&undoafter=656200061&undo=656202815--FedTruther (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Because it's fringe junk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
That's your opinion.They are one of the most common criticisms and so I think its a good introduction in that section, and Milton Friedman isn't fringe--FedTruther (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, that's Wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. And Milton Friedman never argued that the Fed was unconstitutional, since that would have been... well, stupid, and Friedman wasn't stupid. The contention is from Ron Paul instead.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, someone called "FedTruther" will have as much an unbiased opinion on The Fed as someone called "EvolutionHoax" will have on Darwin.213.175.38.130 (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Short of ‘criticism’, Donald J. Trump wants an audit of the Federal Reserve. -- AstroU (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

[1]

References

  1. ^ "GOP frontrunner makes good on promise to call for audit of Fed". TeaParty Infowars. February 23, 2016.
The "FED" or "FRS" Federal Reserve System is a racket that has a front "composed of the presidentially appointed Board of Governors or Federal Reserve Board (FRB)", so it makes the system to "seem accountable". However the real owners are the private shareholders, that are unknown / not public. FRS is a sort of private business in that sense. The US. government is a debtor to the FRS. FRS holds the most of the US. 19 Trillion+ debt. The interest on that debt is the profit of FRS, and the shareholder's dividends (6%!) are paid upon the business profit. In that sense "FRS" is a mechanism to tax US. citizens directly into private hands without required authority. Also the handing over the authority of issuence of money to a non-governmental institute i.e. a private bank is prohibited by US. constitution, therefore the FRS is unconstitutional. The FRS has been breaking the constitution of US. since -71. "Auditing the FED" would mean a 50+yr retroactive sanctions for braking US. constitution. Secondary crimes are forms of financial terrorism, handmade depressions, handmade war efforts, funding of terrorism both domestic and international, participating in terrorism, circumventing democratic election procedure and decisionmaking, bribing the elected representatives, assassinations, tax evasion and mass murder. However the FRS is an institution overpowering the US. Government and its laws, hence it has no obligations nor accountability to the US government or the US. constitution, or the people of US. therefore it really cannot be "audited" or "sued" or "held accountable" by a lesser institute like US. courts, government etc. In fact the US. debt makes the US. Government accountable to the FRS. In many cases the US. government has to pay the interest in forms of favours, mostly military interventions, which increase the profitablity on loans issued to the US. Government on Military spending; by the FRS. (Forms a closed cycle of lending) Just some points to add into the article. --Timperi (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Timperi - Thanks, but everyone has already heard all that a bazillion times. Welcome to the world of internet conspiracy theories. These are criticisms of the Federal Reserve System, but this talk page is not the place for posting this kind of garbage (much of which is false). Please review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Famspear (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is a conspiracy a real conspiracy against common tax payer. But they are facts. Why don't you add some of the facts into the article? Let people know they pay their taxes into private shereholder's pockets. Perhaps a critical mass required for a change will be achieved eventually. Or do you accept the financial slavery? I don't.Timperi (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM.19:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Please provide a counter argument, if you consider my argument "garbage". My comment has purpose to improve the article and the public awareness and NOT general discussion. Did you know that US governement pays most of the real reveneue like: income tax, customs, exports DIRECTLY into the Loan interest on the Federal Reserve 19Tril+ loan? After that the government then loans out the missing budgeted expenditures from the FED, forever increasing the loan and the interest. This mechanism removes the democratic accountability of the tax usage, because a privately owned bank decides about tax expenditure. That fact in fact makes the income tax illegal, because taxes are only allowed to be spent in accordance with decisions of elected representatives, and NOT private corporations. You as a lawyer should know.--Dmitri 152 (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't need to provide you with a "counter argument". You're repeating foolishness that I and other regulars here have seen over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. The verbiage you're writing is not worthy of serious consideration.

Instead of reading crap websites spouting frivolous arguments on the internet, I encourage you to do some real studying of the subjects of banking and taxation.

Further, in terms of Wikipedia, look for reliable sources and summarize what those sources say. Famspear (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Structure chart

The chart kicking off the Structure section of the article has a typo in its third silo - it says on member from this and one member from that. The chart was derived from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Organiztion_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System.jpg which does not have the typo. The source urls for the chart at the Richmond Fed are all dead links. The editors who contributed the chart are presently long gone from Wikipedia. Without taking a course (a quickie is available at https://www.edx.org/course/understanding-federal-reserve-new-york-institute-finance-yca2015-1-2x-0 ) I can't evaluate the accuracy of this article's chart except to say that it has a typo and no reliable source. If the chart reflects the facts, a possible solution is to fix the typo by doing a little sneaky original research on it; or (and it comes to almost the same thing) substituting the original at commons, which possibly has a source reference findable by means of the way-back Internet gizmo. - 173.16.170.120 (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

conspiracy theories

It's quite amazing this article doesn't have a section on conspiracy theories since most criticism is of this variety. I was very surprised that it wasn't easy to find reliable online sources that debunk these crazy but extremely widely known and believed theories. I suppose we can use a lot from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#Common_arguments_against_the_Fed --Espoo (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

All that was moved to the separate article, Criticism of the Federal Reserve. Famspear (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The RationalWiki article is ideologically controlled and should not be used.--2600:8800:2180:91:14E8:F19:55E3:5047 (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Federal Reserve System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Federal Reserve System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Federal Reserve System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Federal Reserve System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


Federal Reserve System → Federal Reserve – Per common name, the proposed name redirects here anyway, it's very frequently referred to as simply the Fed, while although there are Federal Reserve Banks in the different states, I do believe "Federal Reserve" refers overwhelmingly to the Federal Reserve System Tærkast (Discuss) 17:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment. We have enough problems as it is, with readers confusing the Federal Reserve System with certain components of the System, such as the 12 Federal Reserve banks, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and especially the member banks. Retaining the word System is more accurate, more complete, and arguably helps the reader understand that the System consists of a group of different parts, some of which are governmental entities and others of which (for example, member banks) are business entities with shareholders. Indeed, the admittedly common use of the phrase "Federal Reserve" may tend to foster the incorrect impression that the "Fed" is one and only one "thing." Famspear (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  • 'Comment' Can you suitably demonstrate that most readers would actually confuse the Federal Reserve System with its Governors, or with any one of the 12 member banks? After all, Chair of the Federal Reserve is already titled as such, it's commonly known that that title refers to the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. In addition, member states have the titles of Federal Reserve Bank of....Chicago... etc, so I'm not sure that it would be entirely accurate to say that readers would in fact confuse the state Federal Reserves with the... well... federal Federal Reserve.--Tærkast (Discuss) 12:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • 'Comment' Dear TaerkastUA: We don't need to demonstrate that most readers are confused in that way. I'm saying that we have enough problems with readers who are that confused, and (as noted below) your own comment illustrates an example of the confusion. Readers come here as editors and try to insert nonsensical garbage about "the Fed" being "privately owned." This happens quite frequently. It's a chronic problem, and has been a chronic problem for years, as evidenced by the edits, both in the article and in this talk page. Ironically, your comment demonstrates some confusion as well. With respect to the Federal Reserve System, there is no such thing as a "member state", and therefore there is no such thing as a "member state" having a "title" such as "Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago." The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago is part of the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago is neither a "state" nor a "member state". There is something about this subject that engenders confusion in many people, and Wikipedia should not be making the problem worse. Famspear (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
You have not convincingly demonstrated that most readers are confused. The System is indeed commonly referred to as the "Federal Reserve", further demonstrated by the fact that Federal Reserve already has redirected here for a substantial number of years (12 years, in fact), and were there any significant confusion in the meantime, attention would surely have been brought regarding it. The regional banks are mentioned in the article, from which readers can be directed to any suitable particular bank. --Tærkast (Discuss) 10:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Add Fed Ownership to Infobox

I suggest to add to that Article Wikipedia Infobox an item about the ownership of the Fed. Most other Articles about Banks or Financial organisation include such item. Also in my personal experience this is one of the most frequent question and misconception during various debates. There is also frequent confusion in the media about that present Fed ownership. Adding that information to the Infobox could potentially clarify that and facilitate friendly discussions. Here is a suggested concise draft for discussion. With reputable sources. 

Mix private and public[list 1]

Francewhoa (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "FAQ – Who owns the Federal Reserve?". Federal Reserve website. Retrieved December 1, 2015.
  2. ^ Lapidos, Juliet (September 19, 2008). "Is the Fed Private or Public?". Slate. Retrieved August 29, 2011.
  3. ^ Toma, Mark (February 1, 2010). "Federal Reserve System". EH. Net Encyclopedia. Economic History Association. Archived from the original on May 13, 2011. Retrieved February 27, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)https://eh.net/encyclopedia/federal-reserve-system/
  4. ^ "Who owns the Federal Reserve Bank?". FactCheck. March 31, 2008. Retrieved February 26, 2014.
I've reverted. Please see the large "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" template at the top of this very talk page ("Q: Who owns the Federal Reserve?"): Talk:Federal Reserve System/FAQ. As the citations say, the Fed is not "owned" by anyone. Neutralitytalk 03:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If other reserve banks have this section, then this page should. But misinformation about private ownership should be vigoursly defended or at the very least noted that "ownership" in this context is quite different. Yes, other reserve banks have shares that are publicly traded. The US federal reserve is an institution of the US government and "ownership" by member banks is a requirement rather than optional and bestowing control. Thekasser (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

This cannot be covered adequately in an infobox, nor would it be useful to the reader. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I support adding this entry. Other central banks do have this entry as part of their info boxes. With the FED being the largest of them, it is a glaring omission not having that information present. Though I also agree that it may not be easy to convey, but that is not a reason to not try. Albeit imprecise, a single word could be "hybrid" and the article itself takes care of the details. Digisus (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thekasser's statement that " The US federal reserve is an institution of the US government" is wholly inaccurate and completely false. The Federal Reserve is not listed in Title 31. Not all congressional creations are government institutions. Refer to Title 31 of the United States Code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4174:c560:94dd:3cb8:b907:f665 (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Bank Regulation

Purpose: To clarify, and eliminate contradicting language in “Bank Regulation".

Because all member banks, and the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are all privately owned, a more accurate statement is needed in the "Bank Regulation" section.

Old Text: The legislation that Congress ultimately adopted in 1913 reflected a hard-fought battle to balance these two competing views and created the hybrid public-private, centralized-decentralized structure that we have today.

New Text: The legislation that Congress ultimately adopted in 1913 reflected a hard-fought battle to balance these two competing views and created the privately owned – publicly regulated hybrid structure that we have today.

2600:1700:4174:C560:94DD:3CB8:B907:F665 (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope. That passage is quoted directly from a source. It is also accurate in broad strokes, although it glosses over certain reforms between 1913 and 2006. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=list> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=list}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Federal_Reserve/Archive_4&oldid=1142547203"