by Dreams End » Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:31 am
JD, there are hundreds of member banks. But that's not even what the article says...it says owners of the fed. <br><br><br>It is BAD information, based on Eustace Mullens. It has been discredited easily because it is simply wrong. If this doesn't bother you, then that is your problem.<br><br>Fed comprised of 12 regional banks. Each regional bank is "owned" by member banks which own "stock" but it is fixed interest...and it is only one vote per member, no matter how much stock they own. Stock cannot be publicy traded except within strict limits...i.e. no one can own more than 25K worth. <br><br>This information is really easy to find, JD. But since you didn't read it last time, here's the most thorough explanation (which needs to be stickied because I keep having to post it.)<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.usagold.com/FederalReserve.html">Why Mullens is a stupid racist asshole....I mean, more information on the Fed.</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Perhaps foreigners own shares of the New York Federal Reserve Bank directly. The law stipulates a small portion of Federal Reserve stock may be available for sale to the public. No person or organization, however, may own more than $25,000 of such public stock and none of it carries voting rights (12 USCA 283). However, under the terms of the Federal Reserve Act, public stock was only to be sold in the event the sale of stock to member banks did not raise the minimum of $4 million of initial capital for each Federal Reserve Bank when they were organized in 1913 (12 USCA 281). Each Bank was able to raise the necessary amount through member stock sales, and no public stock was ever sold to the non-bank public. In other words, no Federal Reserve stock has ever been sold to foreigners; it has only been sold to banks which are members of the Federal Reserve System (Woodward, 1996).<br><br>Regardless of the foreign ownership conjecture, Mullins argued that since the money-center banks of New York owned the largest portion of stock in the New York Fed, they could hand-pick its board of directors and president. This would give them, and hence the London Connection, control over Fed operations and U.S. monetary policy. This argument is faulty because each commercial bank receives one vote regardless of its size, unlike most corporate voting structures in which the number of votes is tied to the number of shares a person holds (Ibid). The New York Federal Reserve district contains over 1,000 member banks, so it is highly unlikely that even the largest and most powerful banks would be able to coerce so many smaller ones to vote in a particular manner. To control the vote of a majority of member banks would mean acquiring a controlling interest in about 500 member banks of the New York district. Such an expenditure would require an outlay in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Surely there is a cheaper path to global domination.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Now, honestly, if NY has 1000 member banks, and there are 11 other regions...aren't you asking a bit much for someone to list them all? <p></p><i></i>