Talk:Federal Reserve/Archive 3

Relationship with the US Treasury
I think it would be worthwhile to include information on the relationship between the Federal Reserve and the United States Treasury. It is mentioned in the "Central bank" and "Independent" sections briefly but there is more stuff involved. I'll start a list of some of the things involved in the relationship below: Analoguni (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The history of the relationship. I'm pretty sure it evolved since 1913 and some changes have occurred.1
 * Exchange Stabilization Fund 23 (international currency exchanges)
 * The difference between treasury notes (bonds and bills too) and federal reserve notes and the legal tender law 4
 * The process through which new currency is created which involves the treasury creating notes, bills, or bonds and exchanging them for federal reserve notes (need a source)

Clean up references
I think the references are a little sloppy. I'm not questioning the sources but format/method used. I think they can done in a better way. I've seen some articles where the "references" section is linked to the "bibliography" section. This is useful when different pages from one source are used throughout an article. The reference will show the page number and it will be a hyperlink to the title in the bibliography section. There are several references in this article in which this should probably be done. For other references, there doesn't seem to be a standard format being used. I think these can be presented in a neater way. I'm responsible for some of these, such as ones which contain quotes, and it would probably be a good idea to have some consistency as to how this is done. Analoguni (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Fed is a private entity. Get over it! Just let it go, please!
Without naming any names, let me just say this:

The fact that one holds a Juris Doctor doesn't make one a de facto authority on the banking system of the United States. It is a VERIFIABLE FACT--one that Alan Greenspan himself has repeatedly disclosed in public on numerous occasions--that the Federal Reserve Bank system is a private entity beholden to none. Not even the congress. Period. Why is it, that any time someone attempts to post this fact to this entry, some ignorant dolt removes it? What is the problem? Why are you people so terrified the truth might get out? Do you work at the fed, or what? The word "federal" was specifically chosen back in 1913 in order to mislead the public; to lull them into believing the Fed was somehow a "quasi-government" agency. So, is it safe to say then, that those of you who patently refuse to allow the true nature of the central bank to be posted here are in absolute denial or are you just as totally ignorant as the citizenry of that era? Like another poster stated in this discussion, "there are so many lies and falsehoods" in this article, it is difficult to know where to begin...and you folks who refuse to acknowledge this situation are delusional if you think you're educating anybody. To call this entire entry misleading is a colossal understatement. It's nothing more than propaganda.

As far as this film "Zeitgeist" goes...NEVER HEARD OF IT. My statements are based simply on my study of U.S. monetary policy while obtaining my Master's degree in Economics from The College of William & Mary (1998). We call it education. Some of you people might want to try it sometime.

Jimmy (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Closer71


 * And surely your education at William & Mary taught you to back up conclusory assertions with some kind of evidence?Tom Cod (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Closer71/Jimmy: Thank you for sharing your feelings with us, but the purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article. The article is accurate in its present form. No, "The Fed" is not a "private entity." Please read the article carefully. You may also want to consider reading the commentary on this talk page. If you have any specific suggestions for the article or you know of any specific statements in the article that violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines, please point them out. Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that this has to do with something called "Nerd Rage" That is when something doesnt follow every single guideline of Wikipedia they say it is an opinion and needs to be removed other wise their editing days will end and everyone will suffer because of it. Next time you put an arguement cite it with modern money mechanics, the book written by the federal reserve in 1913. This book contains all info about the fed being a private organization, and is a legible source. Oh and all of you nerds living in your moms basement trolling wikipedia for things that you dont think are correct... Modern Money Mechanics is a legible source and may be cited as one. Just because there isnt a wikipedia page doesnt make it a false source you tards, stop having ocd attacks. Feel free to reply to this at any time or email me at randomrd@gmail.com, I will be copying this and reposting it daily to prevent editing. 71.55.122.30 (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Sam Gelman

Thanks for "sharing your feelings" again to Famspear and mr. Gelman. One name springs to mind. Norman Dodd. But I guess history isn't important to anyone anymore. oh well. Enjoy your debates on this rotten corporation while the Pacific Garbage Patch grows accordingly. Other historians up ahead will probably not be so impressed with your skills either in market economic theory nor accuracy in describing history. But it doesn't seem to bother you just now, now does it? Here's a few other words that spring to mind: mass psychosis and utter lunacy. So long. Nunamiut (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

End The FED
I am new to editing on Wikipedia so please be mindful of my ignorance to it's policies. I have been trying to add a section about the current End The FED movement in place to abolish the FED and I thought I was posting incorrectly because the post kept disappearing. I have since found out that it was being deleted and I was actually involved in a edit war hence the reason for this post. Here is the entry I have written that I believe is something that people should be aware of in regards to understanding the FED. It seems the one of the problems may be neutrality so I am here to request assistance for this and and other "problems" that make it not preferable to be listed in an encyclopedic reference. Thank you.

"End the FED"
Ron Paul has been the leader in a grassroots campaign, Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty, to restore the Constitutional rights to the people of the United States. In the 111st Congress, 2009-2010, Representative Paul introduced a bill to "End the FED", H.R. 833: Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act. Support for this movement has grown rampantly, with much public and media attention, due to the failing U.S. economy with the Federal Reserves Fractional-reserve banking system believed to be at it's root. Mass protests were held in front of Federal Reserve buildings in 38 U.S. cities on November 22nd, 2008 and plans for another rally to "Repeal the FED", in support of Bill H.R. 833, are being discussed to occur in 40 U.S cities on April 25th, 2009. The "End the FED" campaign and "Restore the Republic" have been working diligently to increase exposure for Bill H.R. 833 as well as fighting to secure many other constitutional liberties for "We The People of the United States".



Discussion on "End the Fed"
No problem. Thank you for coming to the talk page. Note that the software will automatically sign and date your comments if you type four tildes (" ~ ").

The main problem I see with this section is sourcing. The protests and plans don't seem to be based upon reliable sources, see WP:RS. I'm also not confident that these are very notable to the topic either&mdash;that is, I suspect they're undue weight, see WP:UNDUE. Reliable sources from independent publishers would help demonstrate the magnitude of this movement.

Part of this section seems to be already covered in the article. Ron Paul is mentioned in three sections of this article, and one of them does explain that he submits bill to abolish the Fed every year. We could certainly provide a citation to his latest proposal. Generally, this article is overlong and rambling, and I think the size of it causes redundancies that we should try to avoid. Cool Hand Luke 19:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The end the fed campaign has had enough protests and media coverage to warrant its own article, perhaps you should create it as per WP:BOLD.Smallman12q (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You might be right. These seem to be pretty small-scale protests, but they did get some coverage. This page links to several, and most of the URLs still work. 21 protesters in Richmond, a few dozen in Phoenix and Salt Lake City, ect. Would be nice to have a writeup about the whole "End the Fed" thing, but I haven't found one. Cool Hand Luke 07:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was a primary organizer for the END THE FED protest in SLC. As a note, I roughly estimated there to be close to 300 people when it was all said and done. If you feel that this is justification for an article on the movement, I'd be more than happy to spearhead the job.  -- Tyler D Mace  ( talk  ·  contr ) 11:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the page is far too long and a bit redundant and could deal with some revisions. I also agree that the ETF campaign should have it's own page which I was considering just linking back to this page.  Would that be a problem?  I think I read somewhere that there is a way to do this.  As a side note for Tyler, if you'd like to collaborate on starting an "End The FED" page that would be great!  I am the coordinator of the NYC ETF group @ RestoreTheRepublic.net.  We had 4-500 folks in NYC on 11.22.08 and are expecting more on 4.25.09.  Support H.R. 1207 - Federal Reserve Transparency Act.  DSciphire (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So is this a consensus to go ahead and create the article?  -- Tyler D Mace  ( talk  ·  contr ) 17:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, it probably has enough. Try to use mostly independent (media) sources when you write it. Drop me a note when you have a draft, and I'll see what I can do to make sure it's on the right side of notability. I'm pretty good at finding sources. Cool Hand Luke 03:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Beautiful my friends, I am looking forward to it. It will be a pleasant introduction article for me.  My email has been activated so please keep me posted when we come to a consensus. DSciphire (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with fellow editors that this article is pretty long. I express no opinion on the notability or non-notability of the "end the fed" material but, assuming it belongs in Wikipedia, I agree that it might work better as a separate article. Famspear (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Split Apart

 * The federal reserve system is a massive banking operation encompasssing numerous banks and government institutions. This article is 160kbs long. It needs to be disambiguated so that the sections can grow to encompass more information.Smallman12q (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur.  -- Tyler D Mace  ( talk  ·  contr ) 21:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think this article should at least be split in the History section. Nonamer98 (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think an encyclopedia would just have one entry for the Federal Reserve. Perhaps the main page for the Federal Reserve would only be the Intro and Contents section, with all the other sections on different pages?  That would be less than ideal.  The alternative means giving different sections different weights of importance: what stays on the main page, and what goes off to a lowly page of it's own?  It's all important.--70.125.108.39 (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Request

 * I would like to request that this article be semi-protected as it is constantly vandalized.Smallman12q (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur.  -- Tyler D Mace  ( talk  ·  contr ) 21:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding. I'm reading, "Let's censor by only allowing the priveledged to edit."  Always a bad idea.  Just have patience and keep on fixing.--70.125.108.39 (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

FDIC Insured Banks list is confusing
Seeing as the member banks lists are available on the regional fed sites it doens't make sense to drag the FDIC into this. It is needlessly confusing. This section should be deleted and replaced with links to Fed Bank lists, if it is needed at all. They chart, likewise,must go.

Unless I get some reason why the current stuff should stay I will make this change in a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.177.193 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Types of banks in the United States and their regulators
I think that if people become confused with the FDIC list, it is because the U.S. banking system is confusing. I think the U.S. banking system is confusing because it evolved over time with some things kept and some things discarded. With that said, I would like to be able to get ahold of what all the types of banks in the United States are and where to get a list of all of them. Since I'm a little confused as to how banking in the U.S. is organized, I'm going to put in some info here on what I know so far.

As is stated at the top of the "Member banks" section in the article and referenced on page 12 of "Purposes and Functions", all of the commercial banks in the USA are divided into 3 types:
 * 1) national
 * state
 * 2) state members
 * 3) state nonmembers

So, what exactly is a commercial bank? What other types of banks are there? Also, not all banks in the USA are insured by the FDIC. So, what banks are not insured by the FDIC?

I'm going to include the exact quotes from 2 official federal reserve souces which give some clues and numbers:

In Purposes and Functions on page 12:
 * The nation’s commercial banks can be divided into three types according to which governmental body charters them and whether or not they are members of the Federal Reserve System. Those chartered by the federal government (through the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in the Department of the Treasury) are national banks; by law, they are members of the Federal Reserve System. Banks chartered by the states are divided into those that are members of the Federal Reserve System (state member banks) and those that are not (state nonmember banks). State banks are not required to join the Federal Reserve System, but they may elect to become members if they meet the standards set by the Board of Governors. As of March 2004, of the nation’s approximately 7,700 commercial banks approximately 2,900 were members of the Federal Reserve System—approximately 2,000 national banks and 900 state banks.

From federalreserveeducation.org at http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/fed101_html/structure/tour/tour.htm:
 * Member Banks


 * Approximately 38 percent of the 8,039 commercial banks in the United States are members of the Federal Reserve System. National banks must be members; state-chartered banks may join if they meet certain requirements. The member banks are stockholders of the Reserve Bank in their District and as such, are required to hold 3 percent of their capital as stock in their Reserve Banks.


 * Other Depository Institutions / American People


 * In addition to the approximately 3,000 member banks, about 17,000 other depository institutions provide the American people checkable deposits and other banking services. These depository institutions include nonmember commercial banks, savings banks, savings and loan associations, and credit unions. Although not formally part of the Federal Reserve System, these institutions are subject to System regulations, including reserve requirements, and have access to System payments services.

The law (U.S. Code) says that national banks are all insured by the FDIC (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/222.html) but I would like to find what part of U.S. code says that all state members are also insured by the FDIC.

Title 12, Chapter 16 of U.S Code is the part for the FDIC (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_16.html). The "Definitions" are in section 1813 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/1813-) which actually defines the types of banks but I'm not sure if this is complete because it's under the FDIC chapter and there are banks that are not insured by the FDIC.

Dr. Econ (an official federal reserve source) gives some information on the types of banks in the United States and their regulators: http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/answerxml.cfm?selectedurl=/2006/0611.html  There is also a link on that page to a document titled, Banking Institutions and Their Regulators at: http://www.newyorkfed.org/banking/regrept/BIATR.pdf

If anyone can help out here, that would be great. This could help get rid of some confusion. Analoguni (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul's opinion: Referenced four times?!
In the transparency issues section:

In the inflation section:

In the "business cycles, libertarian..." section:

In the "congress" section:

Isn't this undue weight? His opinion is certainly notable enough to be mentioned, but not four times in different sections throughout the article. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with you. There may be a bit of POV-pushing going on there. I support toning down the Ron Paul references. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite so sure. I think perhaps some of the long quotes could be trimmed down, but Rep. Paul is one of the most widely known critics of the Fed and his role on the Monetary Policy Subcommittee puts him in an important position vis-a-vie the Fed; although they are in separate subsections (representing different criticisms), all of those quotes are within the "Criticisms" section of the article. On a slightly related note, the structure of the "Criticisms" section is a little confusing (about 1/2 of each of the sections on inflation and on money issuing power deal with modern issues, but they are in the "Historical Criticisms" section), and after shifting things around it might make more sense to remove one or two of the Ron Paul quotes. But based on how it reads now, I say keep them. Cmadler (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And as a minor point of order, criticism sections are frowned upon per WP:NPOV. Consensus is that the criticism should be included throughout the article, wherever it is most relevant. Of course, this article could use a lot of work on that front. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The criticism's section overall needs to be restructured. Some points I'd make (some of which have already been made):
 * Present criticisms should be distinguished more clearly from historical criticisms
 * Scholarly criticisms should be distinguished from public suspicion, from pop economics and conspiracy theory (actually including the fact that the Fed is prominent in many conspiracy theories, for instance, would be something neat to add)
 * Fringe views are given undue weight
 * Austrian economics is given undue weight. No textbook on economics would even mention it and very few college courses, at any level, would mention it.
 * Re-write the two sections which quote Ron Paul, then Nader, then Kucinich. In politics, all three of these people are considered very radical. In the last presidential elections they've gone in, they all polled extremely low.
 * There shouldn't be a section on "Libertarian ideology". Much of the content there is fine, but the existence of such a section seems dubious.

Also, although criticisms sections are frowned upon, sometimes during discussions they are more practical. By separating the neutral content from the critical, we can more easily come to an agreement on what should go up and what should stay. In the past, in various articles relating to monetary theory, they were often filled with fact mixed with gold bug silliness throughout. Eventually, this seems to have been generally dealt with by moving criticism to a criticism section, then cleaning up the criticism section to make it more presentable and encyclopedic. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, I think the Ron Paul quotes are appropriate as they are in the article because he is a noteworthy United States Congressman who has a reputation for being involved in philosophical discussions about the Federal Reserve System. I think he is also good at explaining his viewpoints in easy to understand ways. If I understand the philosophical debates correctly, people who share the same viewpoints with Ron Paul tend to agree with the things that Ron Paul says and that he says things in ways that a lot of people can understand. In other words, he's a good communicator. So in summary, the Ron Paul quotes are good ones to pick because they aren't just from Ron Paul, but are representative of a lot of people who tend to be critical of the Federal Reserve System so things could be simplified by just quoting Ron Paul. On the other hand, I think that a wikipedia article is better off with a diverse array of sources. I think it is possible to find other people who say essentially the same things that Ron Paul does on particular aspects of the Federal Reserve System. Analoguni (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

While his status as ranking on a committee doesn't have to be mentioned each time, I would say that since Ron Paul is the congressman most associated with talking about the Federal Reserve and certainly with opposition to it, it is not outrageous for him to be quoted four times in this article.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there should be a section for criticism?Smallman12q (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There already is a section for criticism. Famspear (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's just make this another edition of "All Things Considered"! Or maybe we can just remove all that minority trash, because non-mainstream thinking is just the devil's work!  They've done it in the textbooks, why not here as well?  Why does Wikipedia have to strive for balance among different viewpoints?  I think this article needs more quotes from the bible. --70.125.108.39 (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No central bank in 2010?
Someone just added a section saying that in 2010 there will be no central banking (See history). Is there a reason this is in the section? If not, I'm going to remove it. -Nonamer98 (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Milton Friedman now claimed to be an Austrian Business Cycle aficionado
Federal_Reserve_System


 * "Austrian economist Murray Rothbard and Keynesian economist Milton Friedman, have argued that the Federal Reserve System directly caused the Great Depression through monetary inflation in the 1920s."

I do not believe Milton Friedman has ever faulted the Federal Reserve for increasing of the money supply, in relation to the Great Depression. This may need to be cleaned up. BigK HeX (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Some misguided editor seems to think that this quote:
 * "The Fed was largely responsible for converting what might have been a garden-variety recession, although perhaps a fairly severe one, into a major catastrophe. Instead of using its powers to offset the depression, it presided over a decline in the quantity of money by one-third from 1929 to 1933 ... Far from the depression being a failure of the free-enterprise system, it was a tragic failure of government." —Milton Friedman, Two Lucky People, 233
 * somehow supports this statement in the wiki article:
 * Milton Friedman... argued that the Federal Reserve System directly caused the Great Depression through monetary inflation in the 1920s.


 * In addition to discussion of Friedman being redundant to the article, I would also say that most people would find a significant diffence between Friedman's quote:
 * it presided over a decline in the quantity of money...from '''1929 to 1933

'''
 * and the claim made in the article
 * Milton Friedman... argued that the Federal Reserve System directly caused the Great Depression through monetary inflation in the 1920s.
 * BigK HeX (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Friedman clearly blames contractionary policy after 1929 for exacerbating the Depression, and suggests that the death of Benjamin Strong partly accounts for this failure, but neither this quote nor anything else I've seen supports the claim that the Fed caused the Depression, and Friedman's praise for Strong suggests the opposite. JQ (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over text included, as suggested by WP:UNDUE
Some text has been added, which I believe allows an uninitiated reader to come away with a proper sense of weight to some of the small minority perspectives discussed in the article, which is my understanding of WP:UNDUE. A couple of the editors seem to find such notation disagreeable. Would any of you care to discuss why? BigK HeX (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally, large block quotes do not belong in the articles but rather in Wikiquotes. Their inclusion makes the article difficult to read and follow.radek (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And, as noted earlier in this talk page, several of the quotes are not critiques of the Federal Reserve System. For a Wikipedia editor to insert these materials and claim that the materials are "critiques" of the Federal Reserve System is an act of prohibited original research.


 * The out-of-context quote from the Lewis case (again, already discussed over and over on this talk page or the archives hereto) is not a "critique" at all.


 * A quotation should be treated as a "critique" only when the person who actually said (or wrote) the quoted statement intended that statement to be a critique, or when some previously published third party source has held that quote out as a critique -- of the Federal Reserve System -- not a critique of central banking in general, etc., etc. It is not proper for Wikipedia editors to shop around for and insert quotations that we happen to believe could serve as critiques of the Federal Reserve System. Famspear (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the court did not rule that "the Fed" is privately owned: A lesson for new Wikipedia readers
Unfortunately this message must be posted over and over again on this talk page, and it appears that it's time for the message again.

One of the many urban legends that repeatedly creeps into Wikipedia is the legend that "The Fed" is a "corporation," or that it is a "private corporation." The legend takes various forms. Readers should simply read the article carefully.

"The Fed" is not a "corporation" at all. Saying that the Fed is a privately owned corporation is like saying that "the universe" is "a planet" merely because the universe CONTAINS planets. The Fed means THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. The SYSTEM contains privately owned corporations. The SYSTEM also includes government agencies. So it's not only incorrect to say that "The Fed" is "privately owned"; it's also meaningless.

The following entities are separate from each other and, together with various other entities, comprise the "Federal Reserve System":


 * 1. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;


 * 2. Federal Open Market Committee;


 * 3. The Federal Reserve Banks (e.g., the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, of San Francisco, of Dallas, etc.) (THESE are, in some sense, privately owned corporations, but not in exactly the same way as, say, ExxonMobil is a for-profit "corporation");


 * 4. "Member banks" in the Federal Reserve System (THESE are the privately owned corporations).

When someone says "Federal Reserve" or "the fed" some people are going to think about the entire "Federal Reserve System," not a specific Federal Reserve Bank (e.g., the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, of Dallas, etc.) or even the Federal Reserve Banks generally. The use of the phrase "Federal Reserve" without the suffix "System" or "Bank" is unfortunately very common, and it may sometimes be a source of confusion.

The court in Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982) (noted above) stated: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region." Notice the terminology. Not "the Fed", not the "Federal Reserve System." What the court was talking about was "each Federal Reserve Bank." There are twelve of them.

The Lewis court noted that "the fact that the Federal Reserve Board [and here the court probably meant "the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System"] regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the [Federal Tort Claims] Act."

To make things more confusing, the court also noted that the "Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation."

In other words, what the court was talking about in Lewis was not the Federal Reserve System, and not the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and not the Federal Open Market Committee, and not the member banks of the Federal Reserve System -- but only the specific Federal Reserve Banks themselves (in the Lewis case, specifically the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco). The "Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco" is NOT THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. It's just ONE PART of the System.

So, we have at least two sources of confusion. One is the indiscriminate use of the term "Federal Reserve" without making clear whether we're talking about the entire Federal Reserve System or, alternatively, just the Federal Reserve Banks or, alternatively, the member banks, or some other part of the System.

The second source of confusion is that a Federal Reserve Bank, like other "things" can be considered one "legal thing" (to use a non-technical term) for purposes of one law such as the Federal Tort Claims Act and another "legal thing" for purposes of another law, such as a state tax law. The concept of things being treated one way under one law and another under another law is very familiar to lawyers, judges, etc.

So, the question is not "Who owns the fed", but rather a series of questions, such as:


 * Who owns the Federal Reserve Bank of (fill in the blank, e.g., "San Francisco")? Answer: Each Federal Reserve Bank is technically owned, in the form of shares of stock, by the member banks in that region of the country.


 * Who owns the member banks? Answer: The shareholders of the member banks, whoever they happen to be.

Note: Ownership of shares in a Federal Reserve Bank is not completely analogous to ownership of shares in ExxonMobil, etc. Ownership of shares in a member bank is more comparable to owning shares of ExxonMobil -- i.e., you or I could theoretically own shares in ExxonMobil or in a member bank.)

Who owns the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System? The answer, obviously, is that no one does, as the Board is really a government entity. See.

Thus, some parts of the Federal Reserve System (such as the member banks) are privately owned and at least one part (the Board of Governors) is a governmental entity.

The important thing is to understand that the Federal Reserve System is composed of various parts, each part having different characteristics -- and it's therefore important that we be clear about what we mean when we say "the fed." Famspear (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Famspear:

I am admittedly a new Wikipedia contributor, however I see precisely what you are saying here and I thank you for your clarification. To that end I would like further clarification on one particular point, if you would be so kind as to provide it:


 * 3. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks are nominally "owned" by the member banks (although that "ownership" is not private ownership in the sense with which I think you and most readers are familiar).

Could you shed some light on the details of this "ownership" that is not private ownership in the sense with which we are mostly familiar, i.e. as in owning shares of Exxon Mobile? I ask only because I would prefer clarification here from someone who obviously has a better understanding of the Federal Reserve System (in its entirety). Thank you for your clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.168.171.157 (talk • contribs) on 4 November 2008.


 * Dear user at IP207.168.171.157: Well, I'll give some examples. One of the basic characteristics of ownership of stock in, say, Exxon/Mobil would be that the owner has the legal power to transfer the stock to anyone who is willing to buy that stock at whatever price the seller and buyer agree. By contrast, a member bank in the Federal Reserve System cannot generally transfer its stock in a Federal Reserve Bank. See 12 USC 287. Remember that when the value of your shares of Exxon/Mobil stock goes up, you can benefit from that by selling those share on the open market at a big gain (and Exxon/Mobil is traded on a stock exchange, so it's easy to sell the stock pretty much any time you want to do so). By contrast, a member bank in the Federal Reserve System generally cannot "sell" its stock in a Federal Reserve Bank.


 * Another basic characteristic of ownership of stock in Exxon/Mobil is that the owner can hypothecate the stock -- that is, the owner can use the stock as collateral to obtain a loan. By contrast, a member bank in the Federal Reserve System cannot legally hypothecate the Federal Reserve Bank stock that it owns. Again, see 12 USC 287.


 * Another example: Let's say that you have a corporation that happens to own stock in Exxon/Mobil. If that corporation goes out of business and dissolves, the corporation can transfer its shares in Exxon/Mobil to its own shareholders (after paying the corporation's debts and following whatever laws apply to the dissolution, etc.). By contrast, a member bank in the Federal Reserve System that goes out of business and dissolves cannot transfer its shares in a Federal Reserve Bank to that member bank's shareholders. Instead, the member bank is required to surrender its stock in the Federal Reserve Bank (essentially, the stock is cancelled). Again, see 12 USC 287. Yours, Famspear (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Interpreting the Official Response
If you take a look at the Federal Reserve FAQ, it lists who owns the federal reserve.(Or it tries to)..

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

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

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. So essentially, the federal reserve is an "independent"(private) bank with a confidential list of shareholders(other banks). Smallman12q (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are also numerous videos on how ron paul has tried to get the list of shareholders and his interpretations as to who owns the "independent" federal reserve.


 * Ron paul has also repeatedly said that the Federal Reserve hasn't been audited in years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by smallman12q (talk • contribs) 24 January 2009.


 * Dear Smallman12q: You may want to re-read the material you quoted, as well as the article itself. Nowhere does it say or even imply that The Federal Reserve System is an independent, private bank with a "confidential list of shareholders." Famspear (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Famspear, I have re-read the material and this is what I found. shareholder disclosure policy.

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

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.


 * What does independent within the government mean? What is your interpretation?Smallman12q (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What I was saying is that the material you quoted neither states nor implies that The Federal Reserve System is an independent, private bank with a "confidential list of shareholders." In my view, that's a nonsensical statement. Only the member banks themselves could possibly have a "confidential list of shareholders -- not the Federal Reserve System. The member banks are simply part'' of the System. This has been discussed at length here on the talk page.


 * On the term "independent," we need to specify what part of the System we are talking about. Example: If I were to say that "the Federal Reserve System (meaning the entire System) is independent," that would be pretty much a meaningless statement. I could ask the "independence" question separately about the Board of Governors, or about the Federal Open Market Committee, or about the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, or about the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, or about a specific member bank -- such as Bank of America (assuming Bank of America is a member bank; I think it is). We just need to be clear on what we are talking about. Famspear (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue its not a meaningless statement, but it is what the official response is.


 * "The Federal Reserve System is not 'owned' by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects"


 * Their FAQ clearly says that he entire federal reserve system is an independent entity. I'm simply asking what that means? I'm not here to defend them(who would=P)?

Why did Congress want the Federal Reserve to be relatively independent? The intent of Congress in shaping the Federal Reserve Act was to keep politics out of monetary policy. The System is independent of other branches and agencies of government. It is self-financed and therefore is not subject to the congressional budgetary process. I love a good debate. Cheers!Smallman12q (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh...I see Famspear is a lawyer.=D Nothing better than debating with lawyers.(Really!)To clarify, I would simply like to know what "independent within the government" means. (You are correct in that the system itself does not have a confidential list of shareholders...but what does "independent" legally mean?Smallman12q (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to quote Ellen Hodgson Brown, J.D., author of "Web of Debt": "The Federal Reserve is an independent, privately owned corporation. It consists of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks owned by many commercial member banks which hold Federal Reserve Stock in an amount proportional to their size. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York holds the majority of shares in the Federal Reserve System (53 percent). Its [the NY Fed Bank] largest shareholders are the largest commercial banks in the district of New York....[In the NY Fed's case, the largest member banks are Citibank and Chase]. The NY Fed has some 500 member banks."

The "stock" is not traded on any exchange. You or I can't own it. The government can't own it. The stock is private. This is a private corporation. Yes, the president appoints a chairman, but the congress has no power over him. The private stock-owning member banks elects the Federal Reserve board. Recently, I saw the Fed chairman being grilled on C-Span by congressmen wanting to know what institutions they had lent 2 trillion dollars to. Over and over, he refused to say. A government institution refusing to answer congress?

Think about it. If the Fed was a government entity, then when the Fed bought treasury bills, it would pay for them by crediting the treasury with new reserves (creating money out of thin air), and then the treasury would pay itself back with interest. I.e. the government loaning money to itself and paying itself back with interest. The Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel created by an act of congress in 1913.Skipper80501 (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Skipper80501: You may want to re-read the article and the talk page materials. As is clearly stated, the Fed is not "a government entity." However, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRS) is a government entity. The member banks (such as Wells Fargo or Citibank) are not government entities -- they are indeed privately owned, at least so far, I think.


 * Ellen Hodgson Brown is wrong. The Federal Reserve -- meaning the Federal Reserve SYSTEM -- is not a "privately owned corporation." It is not privately owned, and it's not "a corporation" either.


 * The Fed does not "consist of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks" etc., as the quote suggests. The 12 regional banks are only PART of the FRS. Obviously, the Fed cannot possibly "consist" just of those 12 banks, since it also includes a lot more -- including the private member banks, the government boards such as the Board of Governors, and so on.


 * The FRS is not controlled by the private member banks. It is controlled by the Board. The Board exists at the whim of Congress. The Board (and the Federal Reserve System) was created by a statute enacted by Congress. What Congress creates, Congress can destroy.


 * The private stock-owning member banks do not elect the members of the Federal Reserve Board. All the Board members are appointed by the President (not just the Chairman), and confirmed by the Senate. The Board members may be removed from office by the President. You're confusing the Board of Governors with some of the other components.


 * The Federal Reserve Bank of New York does not hold "the majority of shares in the Federal Reserve System (53 percent)." Why? Because there is no such thing as "shares in the Federal Reserve System." There are shares in the 12 regional banks -- but there is no such thing as a "share" in "the Federal Reserve System." The concept of a "share" in the System as a whole would be nonsensical.


 * With all due respect, almost everything you wrote was incorrect. Famspear (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sure everyone agrees that the Federal Reserve Banks are private. We all need to be clear that the Federal Reserve System is the compliation of the board and the private banks. The board is slowly determined by the POTUS, (and confirmed by the Senate) but does so over a lenghthy amount of time and from a list of nominees provided by the private banks.

So this is where the "private or public debate" stems from.

Statements that the "Federal Reserve System is private" are clearly a matter of opinion, because one has to determine and interpret how much influence the private banks have over determining the board.

But statements such as "The Federal Reserve Banks are private" are indisputable fact, backed up by the cited court case or even the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

So I believe that this disctintion needs to be made, and once made, I don't see how all sides won't be able to get along with each other.EzraPoundem (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Fed is not under direct public control by any of the peoples chosen representatives. The Fed has stock holders in it's member banks, the regional federal reserve banks who are privately owned institutions. The members of the board in the Fed is primarily chosen by unelected officials or officials pre-chosen and afterwards "appointed" by officials after the fact. The public or its elected representatives do not control it and have absolutely no means to control its policies, hence the disingenuous term "independent". Profits from the actions of the fed are derived from knowledge of how and when great changes in the markets will occur, which is information the member regional banks and its owners and shareholders are the only ones who could possibly have prior knowledge and access to. All money in the US are evidence of debt, it is therefore evident that the entire USA pays interest on all its money. a debt that increases so much that every 5, 10 and 20 years there has to be a shearing, just as the gold and silver years of the middle ages when all loans or 50 percent of the loans value were deleted from the books so as not to make the system collapse. the shearing of the public is hidden behind the financial crashes like those of October 1929, October 1987, october 1997, october 2008. The preposterous choice of the same time of the year each time clearly demonstrates the lunacy and vanity of the people behind, or their fondness of astrology and or just sticking it in the face of the parts of the population that are intelligent enough to have noticed the soon to be hundred year old scam since the federal reserve act of 1913. All an easy play really, since so few are smart enough to understands that really all human labour and production should really make the US economy _grow_ every year instead of increasing its debt. so whether there is 10% interest or 5 %, as long as money supply in the US increases their debt will also increase ad infinitum. But people and politicians are brought up to be blindingly adherent to authority so they wont even admit to the scam until decades after it has been revealed. In that regard there is no difference between the left or the right, the right will keep on denying the fact for just as long as the left has denied the faults of the soviets, Stalin or Mao. Most people would rather die than to change their minds or even open them a tiny fraction to new possibilities. It's been repeated throughout the ages but there you have it. "Educated" people are often the worst, since they feel they have unshakeable "proof" of their beliefs. All in all the scam will perpetuate until such time as enough people understands that the only way to change the system is not to vote for _any_ of the mainstream parties or anything that resembles the old authorities. Humanity's combined intellectual capacity should have been able to think and solve its problems, but I think we wont be holding our breaths waiting for anyone to solve any of our current problems any time soon. cheers to you all whatever your favourite delusion might be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.3.220 (talk • contribs) on 19 April 2009.

Difference between quasi-public and quasi-private
Can anyone please explain the difference to me?  -- Tyler D Mace  ( talk  ·  contr ) 08:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Quasi has two meanings which are subtly distinct: 1) having some resemblance usually by possession of certain attributes ; or 2) having a legal status only by operation or construction of law and without reference to intent . In context of the federal reserve banks (not the "system", which includes both the banks and the reserve board, which is a government agency) this could mean either a) Fed Reserve Banks have attributes of private corporations (but not all) and hence 'resemble' private corporations, or b) have legal status of private corporations while in fact being public entities/agencies. In context of US government, the latter is probably more accurate, but the "resembling" private corporations provides some nominal independence. (Note that the interpretation and underlying status has not been stable over time, either - it was probably closer to a) in the early years).
 * And of course, the choice of quasi-private/quasi-public depends on one's interpretation of the nature of the relationship AND which definition is being used.
 * But the general view of the Fed _Banks_, not the Fed Reserve _System_, is that they are technically privately owned but essentially public, as they convey few or none of the usual attributes of ownership (such as control). I'm quoting from another source here, "It's a hybrid, part corporation and part government, part private, part government. ... Every bank that's in the system is an owner of the Federal Reserve... But that's as far as it goes because those stock certificates do not carry with them any of the attributes of private ownership. For example, the holders of these certificates cannot sell them. If you can't sell something then you don't really own it, that's one of the tests of ownership, your ability to dispose of it. You cannot sell it." The owners don't get control, ability to sell, ability to receive profits (which are given to the Treasury) apart from a minimal fixed dividend, etc. And most members are required to become shareholders, and to contribute capital; who has the power to so compel private corporations by law to contribute capital at a dictated rate of return in exchange for effectively none of the usual attributes of ownership? Only government.--Gregalton (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would vote for the Fed to be classified on the quasi-private end of the spectrum. The Fed banks are owned, though stock, by member banks as stated in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. However, the Fed Chairman for instance, is appointed by the POTUS. (Although he selects from a list of nominees supplied by the board, and can only re-appoint board members over a lengthy period of time.) This would be an example of public, or governmental control, which shows the quasi-character of the Fed. Clearly, though, because of the nomination process by private Fed banks which make up the system it leans far more towards the private end of the quasi-spectrum. EzraPoundem (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical Critiques of the Federal Reserve System
I deleted several quotations that seem to keep creeping into the article, such as references of Alexander Hamilton. These obviously are not "historical critiques" of the Federal Reserve System and, in some cases, are not even critiques at all. To insert these materials and disguising them as critiques of the Federal Reserve System is not only an act of prohibited original research, it is not very good original research.

Some of the remaining quotations are suspect as well, such as the quotation with the incomplete citation to the Congressional Record. (I left the quotation in, but another editor might remove it.) Legitimate citations should include enough information to point the reader to the exact place where the quotation is found, preferably including a volume number and page number where applicable.

One of the quotes I removed was simply an out-of-context quote from the Lewis case (a case discussed many times in this talk page), and was not a critique at all.

Putting a quotation in the article because a Wikipedia editor imagines that it can be used as a critique is not proper. That is original research by an editor. Instead, a quotation should be treated as a critique only when the person who actually said or wrote the quotation intended it as a critique of the Federal Reserve System. Famspear (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Quoting other arguments as if they were directed at the Fed is original research. Even if you think the Fed has the same problems as whatever body was being criticized, it's synthesis to apply them here. Cool Hand Luke 03:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the historical arguments (Jefferson, Madison, Jackson) have been against central banking in general. Just because the Fed happens to be the third central bank, and appeared after they died, doesn't make it immune from criticisms of central banking.

However, it must be apparent that the quotes are not directed at the Fed, but rather at the concept of central banking.EzraPoundem (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Executive Order 11110
I think this order should be added. Here is some more information: http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm Mustanggt5000 (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Mustanggt5000

This order basically opened the silver window, allowing citizens to redeem paper dollars with silver coin. While it is related to the Federal Reserve somewhat, I'm not entirely sure how it would appear on the article, under what section, etc. EzraPoundem (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Member banks
this article needs a credible source and list of member banks. The link to FDIC member banks is totally incorrect and has been deleted. Should anyone know of a CREDIBLE source and link to Fed member banks, this article needs it. thanks.Soledad22 (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is the FDIC's own website, which is clearly impeccable. The text and link have been restored. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Steve: the source is for the FDIC, and this article is about the Federal Reserve System, which are two different entities. The text and link are apples and oranges, and must go since it is totally incorrect and misleading. I have reworked the text for accuracy on this issue. Soledad22 (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Soledad, that is a great idea! We need a list of member banks. Unfortunately, I do not know where to find the list of all the shareholders of the Fed Banks. (It wouldn't suprise me if that sort of info isn't disclosed.)
 * I do know that Jamie Dimon (JP Morgan's CEO) was criticized for being both a member of the NY Fed Bank board as the Federal Reserve bailed out Bear Stearns with alot of dollars they had to print so that Dimon could recapitalize Bear Stearns after he bought it for pennies on the dollar. (Come to think of it, that fact should be in the article!)
 * The reason I suggest the Dimon debacle is that you could easily get a list of the board members of all 12 of the Fed Banks and see which banks are represented on the boards. True, it wouldn't be ALL the member banks, but it would at least be a start.EzraPoundem (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't be so conspiratorial! The FDIC allows you to search for all Federal Reserve member banks. See this form, and click on the drop down for "Bank Charter Class." "National banks" are in the Federal Reserve system, and "Federal Reserve Members" shows you the state banks in the Federal Reserve System. Cool Hand Luke 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I mentioned this issue in the section above. There might be an issue with the FDIC not insuring some state members, but I'm not sure: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Federal_Reserve_System#FDIC_Insured_Banks_list_is_confusing).  According to Purposes and Functions (offical Fed publication), There are 2 types of member banks: national and state.  Since U.S. code says that all national banks are insured by the FDIC (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/222.html), than all national banks are included in the FDIC list.  It would be nice if U.S. code said the same thing about state banks too, but there's a Fed website which says otherwise (http://www.dallasfed.org/banking/apps/faq.html):
 * Q. Does Fed membership convey FDIC insurance?
 * No, a separate application will need to be filed with the FDIC.
 * So then what Fed members does the FDIC not accept? It can't be national banks because the U.S. Code already says that national banks (upon membership) "shall thereupon be an insured bank under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act".  It must be that some state banks that become member banks can have their application rejected by the FDIC and therefore they will not be insured and therefore they won't be included in the FDIC list.  I would guess that the FDIC doesn't reject many member banks, but I'm not sure.  Anyone know how to find out which state members are not insured by the FDIC?  My best guess so far is that almost all, if not all, member banks are included in the FDIC list, and that the FDIC doesn't normally reject insurance for state members, but this needs to be confirmed with a source.


 * Another problem I found is that according to U.S. Code here: (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/221-), the member banks are more than just national and state banks:
 * The term “member bank” shall be held to mean any national bank, State bank, or bank or trust company which has become a member of one of the Federal reserve banks.
 * So what gives?


 * I have found mention of uninsured member banks in U.S. Code: (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4406a-). It mentions:
 * an uninsured State member bank which operates, or operates as, a multilateral clearing organization pursuant to section 4422 of this title
 * I'm not too keen on the legalese here but I think that might be talking about private insurance, if not the FDIC. Can anyone find any info on state member banks that are not insured by the FDIC?  If every state member is insured, than the FDIC list is THE list of all member banks and probably the best source for this list.  Even though the 12 Federal Reserve Bank websites contain lists, I have found at least one that lists all of the  private banks and variations of banks, but doesn't differentiate between members and non-members (or I just didn't find it), but the important thing, in my opinion, is to know where one place is that people can go to get the entire list.  Analoguni (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

State banks are not necessarily insured by the FDIC. However, all Federal Reserve member banks must be insured by the FDIC. National banks are only required to be members of the Federal Reserve System if they are in the 50 states or D.C. Territorial national banks may elect to become members or not. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, take a look at the definitions section, 4402(6)(B). An uninsured member bank is one that isn't eligible for insurance under 1815. From what I've read in banking law treatises, all members are required to be insured by the FDIC. I'll look into this more later. Cool Hand Luke 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Information to add to introduction
The intro so far is just a summary of the structure, but it could be useful to include a summary of some other things. Analoguni (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

summary of membership
I think the intro should mention how not every bank in the U.S. is a member of the Fed. National banks are the only ones that are automatically members, whereas state banks voluntarily choose to become members. Also mention how most banks in the U.S. are not members. Some summary statistics can be useful, like saying, "of the 17,000 commercial banks in the U.S., 2,300 are members" or something like that.

organization of banking in the United States
To me, the organization of banking is confusing since there are various regulatory agencies and whatnot. The historic evolution of banking in the United States contributes to this, I think.

summary statistics
Some general numbers like the numbers of banks and total assets.


 * I don't think this is appropriate for the lead, although summary statistics might be a good way to explain the scope of Fed membership. The FDIC keeps such statistics, as you've uploaded. Cool Hand Luke 19:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We Need a Better Description of what the Fed is
As it stands, the Federal Reserve System is a quasi-public entity (government entity with certain private components).

This really is not accurate, though, as the:

1)Fed Banks are privately owned by member banks

2)The member banks are, of course, private

3)The Fed board is composed from a list of nominees provided by the private banks, and from that list, chosen by the POTUS, confirmed by the Senate.

4) The FOMC is composed of the board members and 5 of the 12 Fed Bank Presidents.

So, the very composition of the "Fed System" is overwhelmingly privately-controlled.

From there, there are minor restrictions on the Fed, such as the FOMC being required to meet 8 times a year.

Basically, the Fed has very few differences from a privately owned public utility company. Certainly we wouldn't say that the utility company is a government entity with private components, would we? We would say it is a private entity granted a monopoly by the government to operate for the public's service.

I'm thinking that changing it to "The Federal Reserve System is a quasi-private entity (privately composed entity with certain government restrictions) which regulates monetary policy for the United States..." as that is a bit more accurate of its nature.

I know it's a more major change so I wanted to get feedback from everyone before making the change.EzraPoundem (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear EzraPoundem: The comparison to a utility company is, in my view, very weak. "Ownership of stock" in a Federal Reserve Bank is not the same as "ownership of stock" in a utility company. Ownership of stock in a Federal Reserve Bank does not really give you ownership rights in the sense of owning stock in a regular company like Microsoft or IBM, or a public utility. The shareholders of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks cannot even sell their stock. You as a private citizen can buy shares of stock in a utility company. You as a private citizen cannot buy shares in one of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks.


 * By the way, you probably will not get unanimous "agreement" that the twelve Federal Reserve Banks are "private." This has already been covered in the talk pages as well. In any case, it is not for us as Wikipedia editors to go beyond what the reliable sources actually say.


 * Ezra, your rationale is interesting and has been pretty much covered before; it is what we call Original Research, and it's prohibited in Wikipedia. This has pretty much been discussed and debated to death right here on this talk page for the past few years. The reliable, previously published third party source information is as follows: By law, the Federal Reserve System is controlled by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Nowhere have we found a reliable source that says the System is "really" controlled by private member banks (like Wells Fargo, Citicorp, etc.). Maybe there is a source out there, though. In any case, even if the System were "really" controlled by "private" interests and not by that government board, it is not for us as Wikipedia editors to decide that. We are here only to report on what reliable, previously published third party sources have said. I would argue that we should stick to the reliable sources, and avoid cobbling together our own Wikipedia Editors Theory. Famspear (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, for starters, Federal Reserve System was created by an act of congress. If it were private, there's no way they would have located two branch banks in Missouri. The Banking Act of 1935 changed the original structure and put member branches under the policy control of the central Chairman and Board of Governors, which has a similar setup to other federal agencies (which were being created left and right during the New Deal). Banks are required own "stock" in the regional branches, but they don't have control of them. They can't even sell the stock, let alone vote for their top management&mdash;no private corporation even closely resembles this.
 * Anyhow, the Board of Governors is no less "unaccountable" than any other independent agency. The whole points of these agencies is to insulate them from political control.
 * Early in the Fed's history, quasi-public might have been an appropriate term, but quasi-public the the term that textbooks use. That's the bottom line here&mdash;we follow what reliable sources say about the subject. We cannot conduct our own novel analysis for this article. That's original research, as Famspear says. Cool Hand Luke 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, it's obvious you guys haven't thought through the private issue very much: what I and everyone else mean is that the Fed is purely controlled by private banks (and yes, the regional banks do make money and send that to the members.) But more than the fact that the Fed Banks do make money is that they and the whole system are controlled by purely private banks working in their interests and not those of the people. You're both really smart guys so I'm sure that, one day, you'll come around.
 * I do cede to the fact that it's original research, so the private issue probably shouldn't be in the opening.EzraPoundem (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"insulate them from political control" is just newspeak for insulating them from public democratic control and lawful audit. Some people are just totally brainwashed these days. They're even ending up calling democratic action "socialist or "collectivist". The powers that be really have confused people so totally that they dont even know what their own real interests are anymore, not even how to exercise their own rights in the face of private institutions and power. Absolutely fascinating..Nunamiut (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Are the members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (who do control the FED) official public servants and employees? Is their income recieved from the government and does the income and their job description adhere to governments laws and standards? If the Federal Reserve System is controlled by its board and the board is appointed by, chosen, appointed or elected and paid by private interests then the FED is privately controlled, and also outside public control and "insulated" from "political control", i.e. public control no matter what kind of newspeak you adhere to. But intellectual dishonesty is not going to die easily I gather.Nunamiut (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Members are appointed by the President (14 year terms, appointed on even years, staggered), with salaries set by Congress. Between the various articles on Wikipedia and the sources for those articles, you can easily find additional information on this.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Official explanations of changes in Federal Reserve balance sheet
From St. Louis Fed's Economic Synopsis section
 * Federal Reserve Assets: Understanding the Pieces of the Pie
 * Bankers Acceptances and Unconventional Monetary Policy: FAQs

From the Cleveland Fed's Indicators & Data section
 * Credit Easing Policy Tools graphic and data.

Bernanke lecture at 2009 symposium

Ben Bernanke gave a lecture (transcript here) about changes in monetary policy involving the Fed balance sheet at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond 2009 Credit Markets Symposium, inside the Charlotte, North Carolina branch. I think it's noteworthy because he explains what is going on with the balance sheet and also because he essentially says here that there has been a fundamental change in how monetary policy works:


 * "As I will discuss, we no longer live in a world in which central bank policies are confined to adjusting the short-term interest rate. Instead, by using their balance sheets, the Federal Reserve and other central banks are developing new tools to ease financial conditions and support economic growth."

Analoguni (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Law Dictionary defines the FED as private
Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as, "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves." Privately-owned banks own the stock of the Fed. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said:

"Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors."

Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Taking another look at Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money: "Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.).

The FED banks, which are privately owned, actually issue, that is, create, the money we use. In 1964 the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is: "The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them.

Note: Black's Law Dictionary is the most widely-used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black. It is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases. Nunamiut (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy
This article makes absolutely no mention of JFK's order to close down the Federal Reserve. --98.198.220.205 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's technically correct, but functionally it's wrong. Executive Order 11110 has not been revoked, but the relevant paragraphs that it added to EO 10289 HAVE been revoked.  Read the article on EO 11110, and do a quick google search for the text of EO 12608 which revoked that section.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow - I really did mangle English in that reply ... To avoid total embarrassment, allow me to restate that.  EO 11110 allowed the Secretary of the Treasury to issue silver certificates against bullion held by the government that didn't already have certificates issued against it.  This was done by adding a new subparagraph(Section 1(j)) to EO 10289.  The theory that this was done to "close down the Federal Reserve" is a bit of a stretch - this order didn't stop the issuance of Federal Reserve Notes.


 * In 1987, President Reagan signed EO 12608, which revoked Section 1(j). Essentially, this revoked EO 11110, as the only change made by that EO was just deleted.  So Kennedy's EO has never been repealed, but it's functionally gone.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What the executive order would have done would not have been to shut down the FED, per se. It reopened the silver window, allowing people the choice to turn their Federal Reserve notes in exchange for silver. Capital gains taxes on silver would not have to be paid by the holder. This, in effect, would hedge one against inflation and prevent the FED and the bankers that run it from monopolizing the US currency....so, no, it would not have shut the FED down, but would have rather diminished the bankers' power to run wild with dollar-creation out of nothing. Afterall, silver is abundant but finite.
 * I do think that the article should make reference to this EO, but only in the way I described. Saying that it would have shut down the FED is not entirely accurate.EzraPoundem (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it should reference the EO. It was in effect for some 30 years, and didn't seem to have been used or have any effect.  It's now been revoked for over 20 years.  From what I can tell, it's been fodder for conspiracy buffs, but that's about it.  We mention the EO in some Kennedy articles and, of course, in the EO 11110 article.


 * It's also referenced in the List of Conspiracy Theories article, which I feel is the right place for it. I'm not sure if it's there, but mentioning it in an article about the Secretary of the Treasury would be appropriate, as it did grant them power for 30 years before revoked. But here, in this article?  Nope - it just doesn't belong here.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Blacks' Law Dictionary defines the FED as private
Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as, "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves." Privately-owned banks own the stock of the Fed. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said:

"Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors."

Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Taking another look at Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money: "Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.).

The FED banks, which are privately owned, actually issue, that is, create, the money we use. In 1964 the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is: "The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them.

Note: Black's Law Dictionary is the most widely-used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black. It is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases. Nunamiut (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Black's says that each Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned ... so does this article. No conflict. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing "quasi" about the completely private control and ownership of the FED. It's completely privately owned, and hence a private institution. it is "insulated" from the publics only way of exerting democratic control: through democratic government, hence no public control! there is nothing democratic or even remotely public about its interests, it's owners or its executive officers, a few government façade appointments of a board already consisting of 95% privately handpicked members is not "quasi-public" and is intellectually dishonest newspeak to say the least to serve up as "facts" to the general public. It's a downright open scam and a pathetic farce, not to mention an insult to anyone with their mental and moral capacity still intact. Does anyone in the general public own any of its stock? is any private person from the general able to purchase ownership of such stock? No. There is so close to nothing "quasi" about the purely private ownership of the FED, that what little image there is of it qualifies neither as "public influence"( i.e. democratic influence" as they so often expressly proclaim is the actual intent not to allow, hence there is nothing "quasi" about its control or ownership.Nunamiut (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Nunamiut: We've been through this already on this talk page about about thousand times. This is an article about the Federal Reserve SYSTEM, not a specific Federal Reserve Bank, and not about a specific member bank. Member banks are privately owned.


 * Much of the rest of the SYSTEM is a United States government entity. The article is accurate. The word "quasi" is accurate. The Federal Reserve System is not "completely private owned."


 * We understand that you don't like the Federal Reserve System. However, Wikipedia is not the proper place for you to express your feelings about that. Please review the many, many, many discussions of this topic in the history of this talk page. You are bringing up absolutely nothing new. Famspear (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Where's your logic, your reasoning, arguments? Doy have any at all? "The FED is not completely private owned" just because you say it is not??? This line of 'refutation' defies belief. Are you being serious?? Nunamiut (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I too 'understand'. I understand intellectual dishonesty and a thoroughly mediocre view of this worlds political workings or any ability to comprehend and perceive the worlds political systems is somehow what passes as being objective and pretending to be presenting logical valid arguments and reasoning, without providing either logic, sound reasoning or valid arguments of any kind at all. Just stating your opinion. Well your only attempt at using reasoning or a sound argument is just as if stating private corporations as Exxon or the likes were "government entities" within the fascist states Spain, Portugal or places and states like Indonesia or Thailand simply because they were given (through deceit,pressure or brute force) an almost dictatorial part and immense influence by the government over all aspects industrial planning, execution and legislation. Hey, while we're at it, and since we're intellectually dishonest anyway, why dont we just let Exxon call itself the 'Federal Exxon SYSTEM' and appoint the members Exxon themselves suggest every 14 years and let them dominate all the other oil companies and have all the inside information on all that concerns oil and giving out new prospected oil fields, that would make them " a government entity" all right, and we could all pretend they weren't "completely priavetly owned" and controlled. And sort of like claiming an Exxon gas station is private, but the owning and administrative mother company is a somehow just a "SYSTEM". Yes, it IS a "system", a system that keeps the scam afloat and pushes the pretence in the media. Pretending government, the current administration or any democratic bodies have any say in the appointing of an undemocratic elite that sits for 14 years. It would be fascinating to see all of this inability to conduct simple political analysis if it weren't for the fact that it was so tedious to read so mediocre attempts at defending the very systems that actually create and perpetuate the economic troubles the people of the United States and the world faces. Nunamiut (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

“The fundamentalist mind, running in a single rut for fifty years, is now quite unable to comprehend dissent from its basic superstitions, or to grant any common honesty, or even any decency, to those who reject them” -- Henry Louis Mencken Nunamiut (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Nunamiut: The article is very clear. We don't need to repeat the article in the talk page. A government agency cannot be "privately owned." And the SYSTEM -- the Federal Reserve SYSTEM -- consists of both privately owned banks AND government agencies. Therefore, the SYSTEM AS A WHOLE cannot be a "privately owned" bank. Please re-read the article. Again, we understand that you don't like the Federal Reserve System. This talk page is not the proper place to expound on your personal beliefs on that. Thanks, Famspear (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your dishonest definition of ownership notwithstanding. I have not stated any "beliefs" whatsoever. And I will not thank you for anything since the only thing you have provided is nefarious and orwellian (what else?) newspeak. Ownership is defined by the ability one has to exert control or legal claims and ability to influence,and hold/exert power over. Government "agencies" or any part of the US government to put it bluntly, more clearly than ever, do NOT hold or wield ANY such power or control over the FED. As you, the article AND Greenspan & Bernanke both openly have admitted to on camera: central banks, or "systems" as you so euphemistically label it, are "insulated from political influence" as is the term used for making the public believe that they are saved from their own representatives having any democratic influence and control over their own nations moneys and destiny. Nunamiut (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, such irony to see "orwellian newspeak" used in a post that's just about entirely orwellian newspeak ... Ravensfire2002 (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Federal Reserve is a Private Financial Institution: Cited Legal Ruling Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
As you will see, the 9th circuit court ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency:

Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982) No. 80-5905 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.145.47 (talk • contribs)


 * Federal Reserve Bank, not the Federal Reserve System. That ruling is also fairly tight in scope, stating "we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act".  The ruling specifically mentions that the Reserve Banks are owned by the commercial banks in their region, not by private individuals.  It quotes from HR report 69, which notes that "the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of routine."


 * The ruling also mentioned that a Federal Reserve Bank is considered a federal agency at times, "The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes." The court also noted that "The Reserve Banks, which further the nation's fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function."


 * The Lewis ruling is in the article already - see Federal_Reserve_System. It's correctly used near the section on the aspect of the system that it covers, the Federal Reserve Banks.  It does not cover the entire Federal Reserve System.


 * This article correctly calls the both the Reserve Banks and the Reserve System what they are - quasi-public and quasi-private. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Cannot Account for $9 Trillion
The Federal Reserve apparently can't account for $9 trillion in off-balance sheet transactions.

When Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Orlando) asked Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman of the Federal Reserve some very basic questions about where the trillions of dollars that have come from the Fed's expanded balance sheet, the IG didn't know.

Worse, nobody at the Fed seems to have any idea what the losses on its $2 trillion portfolio really are.

"I am shocked to find out that nobody at the Federal Reserve is keeping track of anything," Grayson says.

Source: http://moneynews.newsmax.com/..

Not sure this can account as a reliable source - if not I hope a reliable source will issue a news about it. It would affect the section about the balance sheet in the current article. - 222.225.110.201 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, this isn't the best source. However, Bloomberg (who originally reported in February about 9 trillion missing and later, in march reported about 12 trillion missing) is a reliable source. I like your idea here and I think the outrage over the missing trillions should be mentioned with its own sub-section. EzraPoundem (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just ordinary congressional committee grandstanding, with reporters shamefully playing along. The IG didn't say she "can't account"; she said that such accounting was not the goal of her review. WillOakland (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it's grandstanding is your opinion. The fact is that there is well-documented, well-cited outrage and it needs to be mentioned.EzraPoundem (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Congressmen get "outraged" in committee routinely. It's not a significant event. More importantly the IG didn't say what's attributed to her, even if a hundred newspapers say she did. WillOakland (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the well-documented, well-cited outrage doesn't extend to Grayson alone. As you may be aware, outrage is quite extensive. HR 1207 has around 170 Congressional co-sponsors, and there's been many, many Congressman express outrage over the unaccounted-for trillions in recent months on record. Grayson is but one example.
 * Therefore, I believe this issue needs to have its own subsection under the Criticism section. I have a few different ideas for a title: "Audit Bill of 2009", "Trillions in Off-Balance Sheet Transactions", "Recent FED outrage"...Any other ideas?EzraPoundem (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Proposing titles of that nature suggests to me that you're pursuing some kind of sensationalist agenda here. The IG didn't say the Fed "couldn't account" for anything or "lost" anything. I don't care how many Congressmen and reporters put words into her mouth. WillOakland (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not hearing me correctly. Grayson grilling the IG is but one example of the recent FED outrage. There are 170 plus CO-SPONSORS to a bill which will audit the FED entirely. That's not sensationalism, that's huge, legitamite news and MUST be added to the article. The proposed titles were merely propositions. Perhaps Audit Bill of 2009 would be the best choice here. EzraPoundem (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism: Legality
Earlier this week User:99.132.183.14 added a paragraph after Paul's illegality claim that advanced a theory of why the federal reserve is legal. While I welcome that effort, the paragraph did not describe any theory of legality supported by the federal courts, and in fact directly contradicted the theory that they do support. I replaced the paragraph with one that refers to the relevant case law, but 99.* continues to restore the other paragraph and even claims that it is supported by the cases that contradict it. I can only assume that he has not read these cases.

As a sign of good faith, I attempted to restore one (uncited) part of the paragraph addressing who precisely oversees monetary policy. (It's not the private banks.) Unfortunately the edit does not show up and there is some kind of synchronization problem preventing me from fixing that.

The claim by 99.* that Federal Reserve notes are not money is one that courts have repeatedly found frivolous (a harsh word that courts use to mean "absurd", "crazy", or "not worth their time"). If 99.* continues to restore that claim, it needs to be removed. WillOakland (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Lock Down
Hello, this isn't really about the Fed, but does anyone have the authority to restrict edits so that only registered users can make changes to the article? There are a lot of nonsense edits being made (though they're quickly erased). Anyway, I think it would be a service to the sane majority if we could restrict access. Just a suggestion.--Dark Charles (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer to edit without a login name, myself.74.131.16.45 (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sometimes I don't log in either, but about a third of the edits to this article are vandalism, most of which is from people that haven't logged. I don't know why, but it has gotten a bit better recently, however.--Dark Charles (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

HR1207
Ron Paul's Audit the Federal Reserve Bill seems notable enough to make mention of here, especially since it mentions his other (failed) bills involving the Federal Reserve, and especially since HR1207 has more than 218 cosponsors, right? 74.131.16.45 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct. It is the first Audit the Fed Bill that has actually recieved serious attantion and made it to the floor for a vote (which hasn't happened yet, but I imagine it'll pass and make it to the Senate) It's definately noteworthy...alot of mainstream media is even covering it. EzraPoundem (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I added HR 1207 to the relevant article list, but someone reverted it because it is not out of committee (and never will be, according to them.) Since the bill itself has had a lot of publicity, and has bypassed the normal no-vote benchmark, and has a wide bi-partisan support base, should it not be relevant enough to at least mention? Even if it doesn't make it out of committee, it at least shows how much of the House is apprehensive about the current status of the Federal Reserve and it's auditing system.74.131.16.45 (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to revert it, at the moment. Until this bill actually gets passed, it's not affecting the Fed.  It's relevant to Ron Paul, but that's it.  This bill is in committee, it hasn't been voted on in either the House or the Senate.  For this article, it simply does not belong.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am confused as to how a bill getting major national (and international) attention is not relevant to the subject matter of said bill. Including this bill as a relevant article will help readers of this article find current legislation about the subject of the article. How is this a bad thing for the article?74.131.16.45 (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My major concern about including it is that this bill is not affected the Fed in any way right now. If it passes, it absolutely makes sense to include a reference to it.  But right now?  It simply doesn't seem to fit the objective of any encyclopedia to include a reference here.  See WP:Crystal. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I vote/'motion' to include the bill in the article. It's both historic and a major even concerning the FED directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.3.220 (talk) 21:32, June 24, 2009

Executive Order 11110
I can't see a reason this shouldn't be included (see: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/jfkeo/eo/11110.htm), but I don't want to add it myself without putting it here. As near as I can tell, JFK doesn't appear in this article at all, even though he stripped the Fed of their power in an EO. The only amendment I can find revoked section A, which still doesn't affect the reality that Kennedy took away the Federal Reserve's power. Thoughts? 69.155.137.105 (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look in the archives, you'll find several discussions on Executive Order 11110. It didn't really affect the Fed, and has been essentially revoked (see the EO article for info on that).  Maybe it's something for the History of the Federal Reserve System article, but for this article, it doesn't merit anything more than the See Also reference.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference for McFadden comment
I've just reverted an edit from 142.177.156.231, adding a reference for a comment about McFadden. The reference itself appears to be to a user's web-site for an ISP, based on parsing the link. The site has the usual stuff about the the current financial system being bad, etc. As we've seen, some of these sites can take quotes out of context and create something new (see W. Wilson quote and Famspear's work tracking the actual quotes down).

Here, the reference is supposed to be a speech given by McFadden in Congress. At the bottom of the page, there's a link to two scans from the Congressional Record for that speech. It's not the full speech, the scans represent maybe a quarter of the text on the page. Given the history of manufactured quotes that gain a life of their own, I suggest that we're better served here by referencing the best source possible - the Congressional Record. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

CROCK - So because you claim it is not the entire speech it is not a valid reference? Can you prove it is not the entire speech? How do you know it is not the entire speech? Is it fair to say that the only way a reference can be made to the speech is if it is a link from the us government? This speech exists in numerous locations on the www web of lies - will you claim that none of the loactions of the speech are valid because they are not official us government www web of lies sites. Even if the copy is not the entire speech as you claim, it still verifies McFadden's opinion of the fed as stated in the article and I have provided the citation that wes deened needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpoisson (talk • contribs) 18:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with editor Ravensfire2002. I will try to locate a reliable source for the quotation.


 * And Mrpoisson, please re-read the comments. Ravensfire2002 did not say that the link must be to a U.S. government web site. He said that we're better served by referencing the best source possible. The Congressional Record happens to be a government source. That does not mean that whatever source we end up finding "must be" a government source.


 * Neither did Ravensfire2002 "claim" that the reference is not valid because the text is not the entire speech. This article has historically been the target of fakery, and there is no valid reason not to be careful about the sources we link to or cite. The burden is not on Ravensfire2002 (or me) to prove that the cited source is unreliable. The burden is on the persons arguing in favor of the source to demonstrate to fellow editors that the source is reliable.


 * Anyway, I'll see if I can find a better source. Famspear (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

me too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpoisson (talk • contribs) 05:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For now, I've added a reference to the Congressional Record for 1932, using the initial page number from the scan on the original source. Regrettably, THOMAS only goes back to 1989 or so, and nothing else goes farther on-line that I can see.  If I get a chance, I'm going to visit the main branch of our library, and maybe try the main city library as well.  Both this reference and the other one in the same section (bill to impeach) can probably be knocked out in the same trip.  I did add a verify source tag to the reference.


 * Mrpoisson, I was kinda hoping to see an apology for your earlier statement. Your comment was a bit hostile, and probably not the tone you'd like others to take when they disagree with you on something.  Given there have been fake quotes created for this topic, I get concerned when I see a reference going to what appears to be a user's web site at their ISP, hostile to the Federal Reserve and quoting a massive speech but only having a small portion of the CR text scanned to verify.  I think if there was a reference to a similar type of web site strongly pro Fed that you'd put it under the same scrutiny.  As you'll note, I have tried to dig a bit for this.  There are numerous other sites that have the same speech, but all that I've seen are similar fringe type sites that won't work for Wikipedia.  As the comment discusses a speech made before Congress, the CR is absolutely the best place to get the actual text.  Likewise, there should be a copy of the impeachment bill in the record.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that upon review an apology is in order. a very defensive reply on my part.

The facimiles presented sure seem authentic. I'm not certain why anyone would want to alter this difficult to obtain document Or any of the other writings of McFadden; They are not easily available at all and I can't figure out why. There seems to be a classification for web sites as you have described some as 'fringe'. Which fringe? No pro-fed web-site would display a document like this difficult to obtain document. Would a pro-fed website be considered a fringe website?

I have managed to obtain images of the pages in question of the congressional record from volume 78 june 10 1932 pages 12595 through and including 12603 - this is not a fake and it is the whole thing unaltered - I reviewed the requirements for linking and believe this link is permissible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpoisson (talk • contribs) 04:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So I go and get the document and the entire section gets deleted - is this some type of information supression being practiced here. Is this the I love fed the page or a presentation of facts? Is the a 'fringe' web site? Should I expect an apology for having my research deleted? for having the presentation of FACTS deleted because they do not flatter the fed? Who will apologise for deleting the congress sub-section?


 * Please, remember to [WP:AGF]. Nothing has been lost - it's just moved.  As with other large sections of this article, a sub-article was created with the details moved over.  At the top of the criticism section you'll see the link to the article.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that you will leave the McFadden reference in the main article under criticism of the fed since he was IN FACT the chairman of the US House Committee on Banking and Currency for over 10 (ten) years. You cannot justify relegating the comments of someone of McFadden's stature to a sub-article. Moving this stuff is simply an attempt to obfuscate the FACTS. If you want to put stuff in a sub-article why not the economic double talk that litters this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.89.34 (talk)  12:27, July 13, 2009


 * I'm sure you will leave the McFadden reference in the sub article for criticism, exactly as other criticism have been moved. A great way to obfoscute facts is to bury them in a massive article, which is where this article is at.  Note that we've got more than one sub-article already in place, and this thing is STILL massive.


 * The refence was moved to the sub article some time ago - I'm more than happy to discuss the decision about the criticism sub-article, but as long as it's there, it should be used for any and all details criticism. This article should have a brief summary, as it does.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the Federal Reserve
Hello, I revived the Criticism of the Federal Reserve article because that section of this page is quite large and a source of great controversy.

At some point, I'd like to shorten the criticism section here because of the redundancy. I'm going to wait a bit, however, because I've made some edits to the information after it was copied and pasted onto the new page and don't want anything important to be lost. Please help if you're able.--Dark Charles (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think the entire article is too long, and could do with some more summaries pointing to subpages, so I definitely like your thoughts! It's a pretty complex subject though, which accounts for a lot of the length.  I read through several sections, particularly the history section (summary which points to a seperate article), and really didn't see anything there to cut.


 * I'm looking through what you'd done (probably over the next few days as I stay indoors away from the oppressive heat!). If I see something that should be shifted, I'll post here.  Any comments about formatting the critisicm article, I'll post there.


 * One immediate comment would be to remove the link to the sub article from the "See Also" at the top. None of the other sub-pages of this article are listed there - so the Criticism should also not be there.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't tinker too much with taking out critisisms, as long as they are not repeatable and/or backed by valid sources. Also, when you delete something from an article as sensitive as this, the subject matter in question should be raised in this discussion section for debate before removal. I would like you to state the specific subject matter in question, and then wait for at least a week for feedback.99.17.34.154 (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that link is appropriate. For one, there's a Federal Reserve act link there and that's in a subsection of the page.  Two, right now, the Criticism section is the second longest, after Structure ,(I think) and probably the most popular so people might want to read more criticism info. once the section is shortened.--Dark Charles (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This pretty much seems to me to be the definition of pov forking, and is not the way to go about this. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said in the above message that it's a source of great controversy, but by that I mean that there are frequently disputes about what sort of information should be in the criticism section of the Federal Reserve System page (just look at the other comments here in the discussion section). I for one, think that within the Fed's article, the criticism section should mainly include key concepts and big events but not go off into criticisms made by members of congress or small/unpassed legislation (e.g. inflation complaints, Austrian school stuff, and the Fed's role in the Great Depression are appropriate but quotes from politicians and bills that haven't been passed are not).  However, in a separate article it would be more appropriate to cover things like HR 1207.  The criticism section will have the chance to naturally expand in a way that would be inappropriate here.  There's also the issue of length; the criticism section takes up about a third of the page which is far more than most other criticism sections I've seen.  If you look at the page I created, you'll see that it's a suitable length to be an independent article.  I'm not saying that we should erase the stuff on this page, just summarize it and cut out a few things.--Dark Charles (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm going to start shortening the section tomorrow (Monday), unless there's a lot of objection.--Dark Charles (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's it. If there's deleted information that someone wants to keep, I would suggest going into history of the Federal Reserve system page and retrieving it. Then adding it to the Criticism of the Federal Reserve page.  The length of the section is just about perfect now, in my opinion.--Dark Charles (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested
Due to the repeated attempts by an IP to add unsourced WP:OR/WP:Fringe material, I've requested semi-protection for the article. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the Federal Reserve System page
I recommend that we simplify the monetary policy section. There's currently an entire article (Monetary policy of the USA). We should integrate the information here onto Monetary policy of the USA and then simplify that section here.

I think that the Criticism section also needs to be worked on a bit. The paragraphs don't flow very well and we still have a lot of unsourced material which needs to be addressed.--Dark Charles (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Act
The information added is directly from the congressional record. It has been deemed 'craziness' and there is no doubt the events of that day in 1913 were 'craziness'- read the record. The item in quotes is directly from the congressional record and is a statement of fact directly contradicting the claim from the minnesota document. FACT is the congressional record contradicts what is entered from the minnesota document stating that the public has more control when the record undisputedly says otherwise. It is a legitimate entry regarding the federal reserve act. The FACT the power is taken from the public by the federal reserve act is stated on page 1469 of the congressional record by Mr. Bristow and the re-stated by Mr. Works - http://www.scribd.com/doc/17234309/Congressional-Record-Dec-23-1913 - I don't like it - you don't like it but is a FACT Mrpoisson (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dark charles I have provided my evidence for the fact that the federal reserve act passed by congress differs from the act passed by the upper house. I have also provided evidence from the congressional record to substantiate that the federal reserve act passed by congress TAKES POWER FROM THE CITIZENS AND GIVES IT TO THE BANKS. You have not shown wikipedia readers anything to indicate otherwise. THe facts are the facts. THe congressional record clearly indicates less power for the people. You must prove otherwise. You must show evidence that the congressional record is wrong untill you do so my edit can be nothing less than valid representation of facts. I have proven my case using US government documents - unless you produce documents contradicting what I have edited you are not allowing the truth to be disclosed for anyone who cares to try and learn why the nation is bankrupt.Mrpoisson (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is craziness. But beyond that it is a clear violation of wikipedia standards. Read wp:or, and while you are at it wp:3rr. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that, first, it would be constructive to quote your changes here. Your edit goes as follows:
 * The Congressional Record of December 23 1913 clearly indicates that the Act passed as the Federal Reserve Act by Congress was different from the act passed by the upper house and in fact took powers from the public and gave them to bankers "If the stock is not taken by the banks and sold to the public, the that stock has no representative, has no voting power upon the regional bank boards ... The public might own a majority of the stock of a regional bank, but the banks would have absolute power.."


 * There was already information on the page supporting what was there before (http://www.bos.frb.org/about/pubs/begin.pdf). I looked at your source and had a lot of difficulty reading it, because it was quite illegible, so I would advise that one shouldn't use it. Nonetheless, http://www.bos.frb.org/about/pubs/begin.pdf seems to support that the two versions of the act were different, but all those differences were resolved in a committee.  The source that was already there disagrees with the statement that banks have more control, however.  This is supported by how the Fed is structured; the President of the U.S. appoints seven twelfth of the FOMC, which is the committee that makes the majority of the Fed's decisions (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/frseries/frseri.htm).  So, it follows that the public does, indeed, have more control.  The stock is irrelevant because shareholders (which are simply banks) can't vote.  Furthermore, I think it's inappropriate to address the issue of who has more control in the history section; such statements should be reserved for the structure section.  As you way have noticed, my most recent change made the phrase about public vs. private control more neutral.


 * I should make a few technical notes: 1) we refer to the "upper house" as the Senate in the U.S. and 2) there are often discrepancies between the House and Senate version of acts; when there are some, the act goes to a committee to resolve the differences.


 * Lastly, I would recommend that you relax a bit. You're being quite hostile. --Dark Charles (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The congressional record is not recommended a source. Two congressmen state in the congressional record that public power has been taken away and more power granted to the banks. The stock is absolutely relevent because it determines who dictates the the direction of the bank and the public has not power to influence the direction of the bank. That is not an important point to make about the way the federal reserve works. The record clearly states a dicrepancy between what the upper house passed and what was proposed to congress and untilmately passed. The congressional record indicates what happend in congress the minnesota fed document is a propaganda lie. The history section misrepresents the facts about control. The change simply stating the the bill was modified is inadequate. The sources stating that support the idea that banks gave up some control are products of the fed after the fact and lies. Just becaiuse I use CAPS once in while does not mean I'm hostile, I'm simply trying to make a very important point regarding the truth. It was my belief that wikipedia was objective and neutral and that truthfullness was a paramount goal. Is publication of the truth the main objective here? additionally - to say that the copy of the congressional record refered to is hard to read is not relevent - if you want to you can read it with ease - weight should be given to the CR over documents produced by the fed - making the statement about public vs private more neutral only hides the truth and the facts Mrpoisson (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Mrpoisson: Your edits appear to be (1) prohibited original research, (2) not supported by the sourced material (verifiability problem), and (3) somewhat tendentious (NPOV problem). Also, comments on this talk page (1) about "propaganda lies," (2) about trying to make "a very important point regarding truth", (3) about a supposed problem of hiding "the truth and the facts", (4) etc., appear to hurt your position.


 * By the way, thousands and thousands of bills in Congress have "discrepancies" between and among (A) what was originally proposed in one chamber, (B) what one chamber or the other (House or Senate) passed, and (C) what was finally enacted by both chambers (in a full vote of each chamber, after a conference committee) and presented to the President for signature. Indeed, that is a part of the essence of the legislative process in Congress and in state legislatures.


 * I would respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath. Thanks. Famspear (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your source is hard to read, so it's not clear where it says what you're claiming. I would also like to point out that Congress is not an authority on the structure of the Fed (it's laughable to see how the current Congress thinks the Fed is structured).  In addition, if you're a shareholder in a corporation but you can't vote, then your share doesn't give you power in the corporation.  Shareholders in the Fed can't even sell their stock; they simply get a dividend.  How the Fed is currently structured is completely relevant because that part of the Fed hasn't been changed since the Federal Reserve act was modified, so if the public has more control now then it had more control then.


 * Please understand that this is the history section. If you want to address who has more control over the Fed, you should try modifying the structure section.  The history section should be neutral.  I didn't know that what was there to begin with was controversial, but when I found out it was I modified so that it would be neutral, right before you undid by revert.--Dark Charles (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what is not verifiable about the congressional record, how does quoting the congressional record constitue original research? - thousands of bills may have discrepencacies this however is not any bill. If the facts hurt the pursuit of truth then the whole wiki project is in peril for lack of credibility. fudging over this important point is a disservice to anyone trying to learn about the fed and the politics that created it. the legistative process was not true to itself in the passing of the federal reserve act and documents produced by the fed are not objective Mrpoisson (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning about about terminating my account due to editing. I wish I was 3 people. The evidence provided earlier in this 'discussion' refers to documenation supporting the false idea that the final revison of the federal reserve act favors the public over the banks in terms of power to influence the actions of the bank - I do not see either of these items in the section about the federal reserve that I have been to trying to correct. The 'full vote' refered to in congress is another lie a quorum of 48 senators participated in the debate to pass the act in congress - a congress that was not suppose to adjourn untill 14:30 on the 23rd of dec as reflected here http://www.scribd.com/doc/17411624/Congressional-Record-Dec-22-1913-pg1465 - It has been claimed That I have 'new research' in my quoting from the CR - indeed it is old research - older that any of the three documents that have been referenced to propagate the falsehood of the public getting power in favor of the banks. - simply saying that the act was modified as the last sentence of the federal reserve act section states is a disingenuous representation of the contents of the act. The documentation I have provided is the CR not biased fed stories and I think you know it but are unable to admit it as you must be someone's schill.


 * First, wikipedia is not about truth. Were that I could wave a magic wand and change several fundamental policies here, I would put a lot more emphasis on the value of truth. But in the end wikipedia is about verifiability using particular kinds of sources. Predominantly, a reliance on second or third person accounts of events and opinions. What you are doing is not "new research" but "original research." The idea here is that you are creating a new idea by extending and synthesizing multiple primary sources beyond what they originally say. You can't do that here. Your best bet is to find a reliable sources, that discuses this issues directly and that does not require you to synthesize multiple sources. Start there. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So I must conclude firstly, that READING the official record, the congressional record - which is a SINGLE SOURCE and then directly quoting from it is considered 'original research' especially when it conflicts with misinformation that has already been accepted as truth. secondly that directly quoting from the congressional record is creating new ideas and extending and synthesizing multiple primary sources beyond what they originally say ( despite the FACT I provided direct quotes you call it extending and synthesizing multiple primary sources beyond what they originally say ) Thirdly, that the CR is NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE NOR A VERIFIABLE SOURCE - despite being advised in the past the CR is the BEST source - lastly, and is completely evident by the previous three items, wikipedia is not about truth - wonderful - it seems to me that since I went and obtained the actual cr for the day in question, posted it on the internet it is all the sudden unreliable; - outrageous - just what do you suppose my agenda is? The entry in question stated somthing that completely contradicts the cr, I made an attempt to correct the entry so that readers of wikipedia might correct information and I get this royal screw around and told my resrearch is no good, my copy of the cr is unreliable and my direct quotes from it are "extending and synthesizing multiple primary sources beyond what they originally say" this is craziness as the first revrter of my edit said craziness - normally I would not really give a crap but the article in question is about the federal reserve of the US and the wikipedia page for the fed is simply wrong in saying that powers were taken from the banks and given to the people in the version passed by congress and it is not true - and I have shown you that it is not true but truth is not the issue with wikipedia I have just learned - Telling me to get a single source tells me that you have not even looked at what I have done - tell me why the CR is not a single source - I have been accused of using multiple sources tell me how the CR is multiple sources - please defend that - Mr.P Mrpoisson (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Such shouting! *grin*  Please - relax and let's talk calmly.  You will not persuade others using such techniques.  The Record has one Senator saying that power was taken from the people during a debate about the conference committee report.  That source admirably backs up that the Senator in question feels that way.  I suspect that other Senators felt otherwise.  I read parts of the Record, and still am trying recover from the headache.


 * Different statements require different sources. For backing up what was or was not said on the Senate floor the Record is the best possible source.  For a broad, blanket claim it doesn't do so well.  We've got a politician that's voting against the bill complaining about it - that's noteworthy?  How is the Senator notable in this field?  Most importantly, what's the general concensus among scholarly works about this question?  From what I can tell, that's the view that power was taken away from banks.  Overall, the People ended up with more power than they had before.


 * There are other sources that say power was taken from the banks, yet you're willing to overlook those sources, just as you're accusing others of doing. Remember WP:AGF, even when others aren't.  Lashing out simply will not help your views become more accepted.


 * In short - different points require different types of sources. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hate it when I think of something just after I hit save. Nuts!  On a totally different article, one editor commented that if Wikipedia was around when Galileo was first arguing that the Earth orbited around the Sun, an article about that would say that the Sun orbited around the Earth.  Is that truth?  From what we know now - of course not.  To Galileo (and surely others), it was also obviously false.  But the consensus view at the time was that the Sun orbited the Earth.  (*sigh* wish I'd kept the diff to the editor's quote, the wording was much, much better) Ravensfire2002 (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

it is claimed I choose to overlook other sources - There are other sources that say power was taken from the banks, yet you're willing to overlook those sources, just as you're accusing others of doing. - the 'other sources' are the fed itself! c'mon - would you expect the fed produce anydocument that would cast it in a bad light - I submit documents produced by the fed are biased and not objective besides nothing in( http://www.bos.frb.org/about/pubs/begin )refers to the banks yeilding power to the people Mrpoisson (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? I have?  Huh, didn't realize that.  I just kinda figured that I looked at the information and decided what was most persuasively presented.  Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they've ignored what you've presented.  It usually just means that your case wasn't strong enough to change their mind.


 * Uhh ya you did - you said I choose to overlook other source @ 22:05 20 july - look upMrpoisson (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When you accuse others of something, why would we assume that you don't do that? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW - please consider indenting your comments. It helps make conversations more readable! Ravensfire2002 (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * nothing in( http://www.bos.frb.org/about/pubs/begin )refers to the banks yeilding power to the people . i was previously advised -

The source that was already there disagrees with the statement that banks have more control, however. - where is that source?Mrpoisson (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's an alternative, non-Fed, source that claims the Federal Reserve Act was more pro-public and less pro-banker: http://books.google.com/books?id=fNFh1i97ZGAC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=Aldrich+Federal+Reserve+Act&source=bl&ots=yFWNHp44CN&sig=UyB3daMKGq5J_4W6dlhW5MVW65I&hl=en&ei=fR1lSsG-PMultgeSof3yDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4 (page 48-9). I read over the source before I used it.  I'll find where it says it.--Dark Charles (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * gee i'm so flattered that I've got the attention of 4 wikisupervisors designated to protect the reputation of the fed on the 'not about truth' wikipedia Mrpoisson (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a very hostile comment, and it didn't in anyway provide relevant information. Anyway, your claim about the original source that I referred to was false.  On page 23 near the bottom of the left column and at the top of the right "The 'capstone' that Wilson wanted--a Federal Reserve Board--was to be a public agency unlike the banker-dominated central bank of the Aldrich plan."  In addition, on page 28 first column "Despite Wilson's efforts the bankers at the conference were no satisfied, for they did not get what they wanted--a centralized structure under banker control--and the heart of the bill retained what they didn't want--a decentralized structure under public (...) control."--Dark Charles (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. You may not have copied the entire url.  It was: http://www.bos.frb.org/about/pubs/begin.pdf.--Dark Charles (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that link in the federal reserve act section of this article which is what is under discussion here and irregardless it is a document produced by the fed for the benefit of the fed - biased - Mrpoisson (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the google book link, then it's a non-Fed source that supports the claim (I could just as well add it to the page). If you're referring to http://www.bos.frb.org/about/pubs/begin.pdf, then it's source 9 on the Federal Reserve System page.  You said that you didn't see where the source says that the Aldrich plan is more pro-banker than the Federal Reserve Act, so I pointed it out to you.  Anyway, I don't plan on replying to any more of your comments, because you're just repeating nonsense.  You're extremely biased and hostile.  Your objections to the revert isn't justified for the following reasons: (1) the congressman may have been biased or uniformed himself; (2) it's a primary source and, apparently, that's against Wikipedia policy; (3) the edit was poorly composed; (4) the stock quote is irrelevant because shareholders can't vote; (4) the differences between the Senate and House version of the Act were resolved in a committee (and discrepancies in bills are common in congress); (5) I provided a non-Fed source that supports the original wording, though the one on the Fed page is an appropriator source according to Wikipedia policy; (6) the public has more control of the Fed now and that part of the Federal Reserve Act wasn't modified since the act passed; (7) the history section is supposed to be non-biased and the structure of the Fed should be reserved for the structure section. To sum up your edit: 'craziness.'--Dark Charles (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * DC source #9 is from the minnesota fed and is not the link you have stated above - it's interesting I have been called hostile several times, it must be an amazing gift to be able to know another person's state of mind based on typed words - I could be laughing the whole time I have done this and you would never know one way or the other - it is interesting that you speculate on how informed or biased the congressmen in question are - why don't you just label the liars - I submit that your google book that you have provided here is written by an uninformed biased individual. It's also interesting that you claim you could easily add it to the fed page, what you left out is that your little army of editors would happily add their voices to your additionand make it stand the same way they reject the truth I presented. You forgot to say that my edit was from multiple sources, and an extrapolation on the words of multiple sources, that it is invalid original research, that I have ignored the sources others have presented, that CR is not a reliable credible source, ( gee I can read ) 142.177.159.251 (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph
I could do nothing short of laughing when reading the first paragraph. Wow, now that looks messy. Not all of us have the oppertunity for an ivy league education, and acknowledge trying to explain the federal reserve has its complexiities. On the other hand, I submit to the editor to simplify the opening paragraph, to entice the median educational reader. For instance, the fed should at least be noted as the issuer of national currency (heck even the word "debt" could be used here without ruining POV). Now I know this is a function, but this function is more profound in explaining the fed in general terms, rather than what it is made of. It's like an extraterestrial being asking humans what water is. According to this article your reply would be,"H20, 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen molecules." When the answer would be more like,"It is the necessity of human life for drinking, cleaning, etc." Forgive me but I must add for a little comic relief...When I read the opening paragraph a song popped into my head (Maybe you guys have heard of it). Conjunction-junction what's your function. Hehe.§Danimal22 (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just changed it so that the introduction is more about function and less about structure (though there is still quite a bit about it there). Anyway, I added information about what the Fed's objectives are, so that should help.--Dark Charles (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

History Section
Hello, I just noticed that the entire section is poorly source, with the exception of The Federal Reserve Act part. If someone has the time and is willing, I think it would be a good idea to source that information.Dark Charles (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why has the Criticism Section been GUTTED?
Today, it appears that a couple of editors have completely gutted the criticism section. There were plenty of well-sourced legitimate criticisms that have been removed with no discussion. I will assume that the editors who made these changes do not understand that there are a large number of editors on this article who demand a democratic process before major changes take place to the article. So I will first ask that the editors who are responsible for these major changes to revert their edits and discuss their proposed changes on this talk page. EzraPoundem (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted one major edit because it was very recent and it entirely changed the article. Please discuss any proposed changes in this section here. Also, anyone who made a change to the criticism section without consulting the other wikipedia editors, please revert your edits and discuss the proposed changes here. This is a very volatile article and any major removals need to be discussed beforehand.EzraPoundem (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't "gut" anything. I created section headings where there hadn't been any and removed a few passages that described exactly the same criticisms as other passages. WillOakland (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your one massive edit did contain some usefulness. But it's not true that you didn't gut anything. Just one example: you removed the "private ownership criticism" which isn't mentioned anywhere else. Articles as delicate as this one must not be edited with a chainsaw.EzraPoundem (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Parts of the Criticism sections were trimmed because a lot of it is fringe, undue and weasely.A lot of the criticism are not cited to reliable sources but to political pages. The section could probably use more trimming - it tends to easily get overgrown if not watched closely as everyone with an axe to grind or a kooky idea wants to throw their two cents in there.radek (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we can remove weasel words without removing an entire, valid, well-sourced point. Axes can grind either side of an issue. While I do support removal of weasel words and bloat, I don't think complete removal of well-sourced, valid points is the best way to go about doing such a thing.
 * For instance, you removed an example of Dennis Kucinich giving his opinion that the FED is controlled by private interests. That is a valid criticism and was sourced with a youtube video of him saying it. You claimed that youtube wasn't a valid source. In certain cases, I'd agree; in this case, it was simply a video of DK making his speech. You also said that you don't think DK is prominent enough to make a criticism on the FED page. He's a pretty famous Congressman, a two-time Presidential candidate, chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee, and on and on. If he's not prominent enough to criticize the FED, who is? EzraPoundem (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I might have gotten a bit too bold - but that section really does grow wild if someone doesn't take clippers to it once in awhile. I think folks like DK and Ron Paul would be fine during the presidential elections but then they go off radar. I guess my main concern here is undue weight - there were like 50 statements by Ron Paul in there that I removed and I thought I'd remove DK "for balance". Basically, I'm fine with a sentence or two of DK's opinion (same for RP) but not more than that. We shouldn't insert every single criticism that's ever been made and expound upon it at length. I also think that economists' criticisms of the Fed are better than that of the politicians who want to get their hands on the money printing press or are playing up to populist sentiments during an election year.radek (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Greenspan, Volker, Bernanke; they're the only ones prominent enough to criticize the FED. &#124;3 E &#124;_ &#124;_ 0 VV E &#124;) (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick thought on who is, and who is not, sufficiently worthy to be cited in Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not concern itself with notability of the the humans involved in various references; it is rather, by policy, concerned with the verifiability of sources and that references are properly cited and are, generally, from reliable secondary sources.  This helps nip the original research problem that is often endemic on controversial articles such as this one.
 * In my view, both Congressmen (Kucinich and Paul) are quite valid as sources, but we ought to endeavor, whenever possible, to get their opinions as they have been reflected in verifiable secondary sources. YouTube and blogs generally do not fit the criteria.  That being said however, there are myriad reliable secondary sources for nearly every criticism of the Fed.  As editors, our job ought to be to find them and then cite those -- resulting in a criticism section that is balanced with pro/con on every (verifiable) controversial issue. N2e (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Because of the discussion on this talk page, I have re-inserted the Kucinich quote, albeit changed somewhat, using his interview with Glenn Beck as one of the sources. EzraPoundem (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EzraPoundem (talk • contribs)

So I go and get the document and the entire section gets deleted - is this some type of information supression being practiced here. Is this the I love fed the page or a presentation of facts? Is the a 'fringe' web site? Should I expect an apology for having my research deleted? for having the presentation of FACTS deleted because they do nt flatter the fed? Who will apologise for deleting the congress sub-section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpoisson (talk • contribs) 14:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

it has been said that "Parts of the Criticism sections were trimmed because a lot of it is fringe, undue and weasely" much like the way the fed came into existence weasely - - who decided what is fringe? who decides what is mainstream? kinda thin. kinda weasely. kinda lame.Mrpoisson (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"The [establishment] mind, running in a single rut for fifty years, is now quite unable to comprehend dissent from its basic superstitions, or to grant any common honesty, or even any decency, to those who reject them" -- Henry Louis Mencken -- The "robber Barons" and their stooges have even sent out their lackey's to murder a million Iraqi's for their agenda, lied the people in their faces, and still the jokers here at wikipedia pretend nothing is wrong. They mistake their interpretation of reality for objectivity in the face of anything that is presented of actual EVIDENCE. Common honesty is less common than common sense with these guys. Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Edison, Einstein and anyone else of those deceased who were capable of independent thought roll in their graves. But things are coming to a head in the next four to eight years. Let's see whats deemed acceptable " conventional wisdom then. Information wants to be free. We might see some serious changes yet... Nunamiut (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Member banks
This section (3.7.1) claims that "A list of all member banks can be found at the website of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)."

Maybe, but where?

I couldn't find even a list of insured banks on the FDIC website. Presumably there are too many to list, so the database is only accessible via search (e.g. their Bank Find page).

Also as discussed here in April 2009, the list of Federal Reserve member banks is in any case only a subset of the list of banks insured by the FDIC.

So where is the list of Federal Reserve member banks? If it exists, a more precise link is needed. If there isn't one, this section should be changed to say so and ideally explain why. Jondoig (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Banks are members of the individual Federal Reserve Banks, not the system as a whole. Taken all together, that would be a pretty massive list.  It's also changing, as new banks come and old banks fail.  That's something that shouldn't be on Wikipedia itself.  Each FRB's website will have a list (someplace) of their member banks.  I took a really quick glance at the FDIC site, and didn't see anything that jumped out as useful.


 * I think the "List of member banks" section should be pulled, with any useful material added to the "Member banks" section right above it, plus mentioning that the website for each FRB has the list of member banks. We've got links to the WP articles on the FRB's (and the websites for each) just a bit above the current list section, so that's easy for the reader to find.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with Ravensfire2002. Famspear (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Vacancy*
There are two stars next to "Vacancy" but no explanation as to what this signifies. 80.193.130.5 (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Court Orders Fed to Disclose Emergency Bank Loans
Bloomberg News reports, "The Federal Reserve must for the first time identify the companies in its emergency lending programs after losing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit... Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who led the biggest expansion of the central bank’s power in its 95-year history, was nominated to a second term today by President Barack Obama... Obama promised a new era of government openness when he took office in January, issuing a statement telling agencies 'to adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure' in responding to requests under FOIA... The case is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)."

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting the article
This whole article needs rewriting and making it 1-2 page long. Currently it looks like the Fed's PR department has a copy and just pastes this copy inside the article. When you go to the Fed's official web-page and click About, what you see there are some faces and a 16 Mb pdf file with bullshit - this is for fools. Anything in this world can be described in 1 page. The whole history of Fed is history of a deception and conspiracy and needs to be accepted as such. And the editors just maintain and protect this nonsense. There is no point of arguing about some missing part in Criticism section, it's like saying that Jack the Ripper did not brush his teeth before his action. The Fed is doing very well but needs to be clear what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.13.227 (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Provide some reliable, verifiable sources that don't violate WP:NPOV and the edits will be allowed.Alan (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean the web-site of a unconstitutional and criminal organization like Fed which sucks everybody's money through inflation is more reliable than a commercial web-site like www.measuringworth.org which just sells information? For your information Soviet official newspaper "Truth" was the most lying in the world. So need to be careful, things can be deceptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.155.195.7 (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article is an abhorrent mess...it requires a ton of cleanup, as well as updating.Smallman12q (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

check drawn
DESCRIBE HOW A CHECK DRAWN ON A COMMERCIAL BANK BUT DEPOSITED FOR COLLECTION IN ANOTHER BANK IN A DISTANT CITY MIGHT BE CLEARED THROUGH THE FACILITIES OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.217.228.249 (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, we don't answer homework questions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Historic critisism, the critisism section and POV
Has it not struck any of you yet? Historic critisism and a critisism section has to be "POV" by its very nature and definition. You cannot "edit" historic criticism. Whats that? Orwellian big brother history writing? It's historic fact now. Wether people agree with the views of the past or not. Nunamiut (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See Criticism of the Federal Reserve.


 * Actually, the criticism section of an article must be presented with a neutral point of view, just like the rest of the article. That means that the SOURCES -- the person doing the critique -- can have a BIASED point of view, but the material must still be presented by the editors of Wikipedia in a neutral way.


 * For example: "It is well known that the Federal Reserve System is harmful to the economic system." [with no sourcing provided]. That would probably violate Wikipedia rules. It's written in a way that probably violates both the Neutral Point of View rule and the Verifiability rule.


 * But: "Professor Joe Smith wrote in article xxxxx on [date] in Time Magazine that the Federal Reserve System is harmful to the economic system." That might be OK. Here, Wikipedia is showing that it is Professor Joe Smith who is making the critique -- not Wikipedia itself.


 * Often in Wikipedia, editors with an axe to grind will insert an unsourced critique into an article. Watch for weasel words like "Many people believe...." or "It is well known that....." or "It is generally accepted that......" or "Many economists believe......" These kinds of phrases may indicate an effort on the part of a Wikipedia editor to insert his own point of view in an article. This kind of approach can lead to a non-neutral presentation, a violation of Wikipedia rules. As Wikipedia editors, we should be looking for the views of reliable, previously published third party sources, and those views (even though biased) should be presented in a neutral way. Famspear (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Which is why I do not understand that there is not a larger and more serious and thorough criticism section. Seeing as it is more than a little blatantly obvious that there are large amounts of well documented historic criticism publicly available from enough reputable sources. As it is, the article makes it seem as if there has been little no historic controversy. It sort of defies both logic and intellectual honesty.Nunamiut (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's an entire criticism of the Federal Reserve article (as Famspear pointed out above). The current length of the criticism section, on this page, is about average for this sort of article.  The point here is to educate readers, not to give a comprehensive exposition of it.  People that want to know more about Fed criticism can go to the separate article.  Similarly, those that would like to know more about monetary policy can go to that article.  --Dark Charles (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a stab at cleaning up the critique section, but it's so full of undocumented material and weasel words, it's pretty difficult without simply gutting the section. It reads like a Wikipedia editor's privae, biased commmentary on the Federal Reserve System. This is a pretty blatant example of the use of weasel wording to push unsourced, personal points of view of Wikipedia editors. The more sound approach would be to FIRST look for reliable, previously published third party sources that critique the Fed -- and there should be plenty of those sources available. Oh well. The work continues.... Famspear (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems better now, though I just looked over it. And your idea about how one could compose the section seems like a good one.--Dark Charles (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What I was trying to point to was that a serious historic controversy that is not documented is on a par with writing the history of any close election or revolution even, pretending the side that lost did not exist, or somehow weren't all that opposed to the ideas of it's adversaries anyway. It's just not serious portrayal of history or actual events, and it sure as hell isn't 'encyclopedic' by any stretch of the imagination. Nunamiut (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore any and all criticism might be construed as "weasel" by someone of the opposing view. Criticism by it's very nature more often than not has to come in the form of a negative. Just a point, if one is at all to understand the nature of ones own undertakings in accomplishing "fair and balanced" viewpoints.Nunamiut (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Unemployment rate
The Unemployment rate section is completely lopsided and unsourced...it needs to be rewritten.Smallman12q (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wilson quote (again)
I've reverted the recent addition of a quote attributed to Wilson. This is not a single quote, but several quotes stitched together to create a certain impression. See the discussion on the Federal Reserve Act talk page and on Wikiquote. Ravensfire (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Humorously, an IP just added the quote again, sourcing it to a Salon.com article . This article DEBUNKS the quote, showing it to be false.  So our editor added a fake quote with a source, but the source actually disproves the quote!  Ravensfire (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it helps to read the material that is being used as a source. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen someone cite a source for some sort of fake quote or some goofball proposition where the source contradicts the proposition, etc. Famspear (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * When I see this sort of thing I wonder to what extent this is carelessness/ignorance on the part of the person trying to introduce the dodgy material and to what extent it is a cynical attempt to deceive others who might not look at it closely. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For most, I think it's the former. They see it on an anti-Fed site, and take it as The Truth.  Others know the story behind it, but ignore it so they can twist words to say what they want.  The worst ones are those that defend it, even when they know the history.  I've got a few links that dispel the quote, and have them bookmarked for future uses of "the quote".  Ravensfire (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve System and the term "agency"
The Federal Reserve System may or may not constitute an "agency" under federal law. The cited source in the article does not state that the SYSTEM is an "agency." The source states that the Board of Governors (which is only part of the system) is an "agency." Let's keep this precise. The System consists of many components, some of which are indeed government agencies and others of which are not. As the opponents of the Federal Reserve System so frequently complain, some parts of the System are indeed "private" (i.e., non-governmental), such as the member banks. If we can find a reliable source that states that the entire system is a government "agency," then fine. But let's stick to what the sources say. Famspear (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

4wajzkd02 - being CIVIL
I is not CIVIL to jump to the conclusion that the discussion is over and that a Consensus has been reached since a Consensus most certainly has NOT been reached. Also: Despite your 3RR warning to me, I now point out that you are yourself in violation of 3RR.

Since you ALSO deleted the material in question as Original Research please read the material I have added above and the material copied below from my talk page which you may have missed. Since I have other things to do I will look at your responses tomorrow. In order to avoid 3RR violation I advise you to restore the material you deleted on the obviously wrong conclusion that the material in question is original research. Unless you believe that I am Mr. Withers, who died in 1866, I did not originate the concept that striping the power to print legal tender paper money from the US Constitution strips Congress of that power.

Material below is copied from my talk page.

You seem confused

The primary material in question is the "minutes of the debate" provided as a supplement to the conclusion reached by Mr. Withers. As to whether Mr. Withers contradicts what I added to the article, I believe that you actually need to read what Mr Withers wrote http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/witherst/witherst.html Please do not confuse what I wrote with what he wrote, despite the similarities

HE wrote ALL the following - pay special attention to the bold sections

Now, observe, according to the "draft" Congress was to be empowered to "coin money" and "emit bills of credit"--i. e., a paper currency, undoubtedly. Were they the same or equivalent things, in the contemplation of the convention? If so, why specify both? That body knew how to use the English language, and were not given to tautology. The States were prohibited to make anything but "specie" a legal tender without the consent of Congress. The scheme is manifest that proceeded from the brain of the Committee of Five. It was this: Congress alone should issue a paper currency, and the States should be confined, as to a legal tender, to specie, and that alone, unless Congress should "emit bills of credit;" and in that case, the States might, had Congress authorized it, not that they should, make the Federal "bills of credit" a legal tender. But not even by this scheme, as it came from the committee, was Congress empowered to declare what should be a legal tender in payment of debts.

But soon afterward Congress was shorn of the power to make a paper currency, or to allow a State to use such a currency, made by any authority whatever, as a legal tender. To the proof:

"August 16.--It was moved and seconded to strike the words'and emit bills,' out of the 8th clause of the first section of the 7th article--which passed in the affirmative"--nine states aye--two (New Jersey and Maryland) nay. Thus the clause read (as it now reads in the Constitution of the United States and in our own) " to borrow money on the credit," etc.96.237.134.44 (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)96.237.134.44 (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is argumentative to the point of being disruptive. We are not here to argue the rights or wrongs of your opinions. Please either show us reliable sources that prove that there is a genuine, ongoing controversy in this specific matter or accept that it is just your personal, and encyclopaedic, opinion. You need to understand that WP:SYN is an element of WP:OR. What you are posting seems very much to be WP:SYN. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Already did

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Is+the+Federal+reserve+illegal&aq=&aqi=&oq=Is+the+Federal+reserve+illegal&fp=1c443ffcb5a5cce1 and

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Is+the+Federal+reserve+unconstitutional&aq=f&aqi=&oq=Is+the+Federal+reserve+unconstitutional&fp=1c443ffcb5a5cce196.237.134.44 (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, those are google search pages, with links to places where people argue that the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional. Dear IP96.237.134.44, please review the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability and Original Research. Famspear (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Original Research only applies to material to be included in wiki articles. Discussion pages do not suffer that handicap and last I checked this is a discussion page. Do you dispute that there is an ongoing debate as to the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve?96.237.134.44 (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Congressman Ron Paul explicitly stating that http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/24/the-federal-reserve-vs-the-constitution/

Congress created the Federal Reserve, yet it had no constitutional authority to do so. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

wiki aleady recognizes critique of unconstitutionality
Yesterday I provided this link to show that the unconstitutional critique of the Federal Reserve is current and ongoing

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&ei=h2UFS6X4BJPslAfmx7yoDA&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAYQBSgA&q=Is+the+Federal+Reserve+unconstitutional&spell=1&fp=5b7cf21b103219ea

I am now pointing out that the VERY FIRST link provided in that google search is to a wiki article.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_Federal_Reserve_unconstitutional

wiki already recognizes that the critique is current and ongoing.96.237.134.44 (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * wiki is not an entity that can have opinions. It is a generic type of software. Answers.com is nothing to do with Wikipedia or Wikimedia. The statement is meaningless. Besides, the link to answers.com just underlines the point that nobody takes this stuff seriously. I think you know this because you are not making any attempt to give us specific references from reliable sources. Please give it up. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not opinion that there is criticism of the fed based on the belief that it is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.It is fact. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, clearly there is you for a start. What you need to do is show us proof that this criticism is notable. Not every random theory can go into Wikipedia. Again, I refer you to the need to find reliable references, not just internet chatter. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See links provided and check the number of google hits. One link shows over 1 million hits. Seems notable to me. You may also want to check the Tenth Amendment Movement for evidence of widespread disgust at massive continuing violations of the 10th Amendment by the Feds. It takes quite a bit to get state legislatures to propose, never mind pass, immunity from federal laws for their states. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=10th+amendment+movement&aq=2&aqi=g10&oq=10th+amendment&fp=5b7cf21b103219ea 96.237.134.44 (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop giving us Google searches. They don't prove anything in themselves and it is not our job to trawl the net for stuff that might help your argument. If you can't give us specific RS references (newspapers, major broadcasters, notable books, serious academics) that directly support the notability of the idea that you want to insert then there is nothing to discuss. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this article could be semi-protected for a while to reduce WP:DIS? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At the moment there isn't much going on on the article itself to merit it, just the pointless discussion here, but if things take a turn for the worse then I would agree. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with DanielRigal. Also, this is just a single IP editor.  If they prove disruptive, we should probably go through the 3RR and/or WQA boards first.  I'd hate to punish all IP editor just because of the actions of one without trying other efforts.  Ravensfire (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(<-) reverted re-addition of this materiel per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP has reverted] the removal, offering the same reasoning "well referenced". --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * and considering that my small addition has more references then portions of the article 10 times its size, it is in fact "well referenced".96.237.134.44 (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no it's not. You've been pointed several times to what is considered a good reference and what's considered original research.  Your essay still fails both of those requirements.  Ravensfire (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Original Research yet again: The fact that the Fed is being criticized as unconstitutional is not of my origin. The fact that the language removing the power to "emit bills of credit" was removed from early drafts of the US Constitution is not of my origin and is historically recognized by a reference which YOU cited as "excellent" - see page 38 of the link provided yesterday. The fact hat the power "to emit bills of credit" is a constitutional level power is obvious from the fact that it appears within the Constitution and I SHUDDER to think that standards of scholarship are so low that no one else in the history of the US has come to the same conclusion. Obviously none of this originated with me. What is your problem?96.237.134.44 (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Material in dispute - what citations are bad and why? Please be specific.
The Federal Reserve also faces criticism of being an unconstitutional and therefore illegal body

- ref is http://immortalityroad.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/ron-paul-says-that-federal-reserve-bank-is-unconstitutional/ Congressman Ron Paul "The Federal Reserve System is not a part of our federal government, and there is no reserve of real money (gold and silver), and it is not constitutional." and

and http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/24/the-federal-reserve-vs-the-constitution/ Congressman Ron Paul "Congress created the Federal Reserve, yet it had no constitutional authority to do so."

The criticism over its constitutionality take two forms, one being that Congress cannot transfer a Federal power to a private nongovernmental entity and the other is that Congress cannot exercise a power it does not have, never mind assigning that nonexistent power to a private nongovernmental entity. The power in dispute is the power to issue legal tender paper money, called bills of credit by the Founding Fathers

ref is http://www.lectlaw.com/def/b099.htm "Bills of credit may be defined to be paper issued and intended to circulate through the community for its ordinary purposes as money redeemable at a future day."

. The criticism that Congress does not have the power to issue paper money is based on the fact that language authorizing this power was removed

ref is http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/documents/Papermoneyart.pdf Robert G. Natleson Paper Money and the Original Understanding of the Coinage Clause page 38 - All those who voted to retain the language believed that deleting the language would delete the power

from early drafts

ref is an early draft of the Constitution http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/draft.html The Legislature of the United States shall have the power to coin money; To borrow money, and emit bills on the credit of the United States;

of the US Constitution as too subject to abuse

ref is (this cite should be placed a bit earlier - my mistke) '''http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/witherst/witherst.html Thomas Jefferson Withers - But soon afterward Congress was shorn of the power to make a paper currency, or to allow a State to use such a currency, made by any authority whatever, as a legal tender. To the proof: "August 16.--It was moved and seconded to strike the words 'and emit bills,' out of the 8th clause of the first section of the 7th article--which passed in the affirmative"--nine states aye--two (New Jersey and Maryland) nay. Thus the clause read (as it now reads in the Constitution of the United States and in our own) " to borrow money on the credit," etc.'''

and '''http://www.angelfire.com/ut2/lrtopham/convention.html "Mr. Govr. Morris moved to strike out 'and emit bills on the credit of the United States' If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless." "Mr. Read, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations" "On the motion for striking out N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay.* N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay."'''

and the belief that the exercise of a power not granted to Congress, is a violation of the Tenth Amendment, which states that powers not granted to the Federal government are retained by either the states or by the people

ref is '''http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'''

The power "to Coin" and the power to "emit bills of credit" are listed as separate powers within the Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution "No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit;" and only the power "to coin" remains as a granted power after the delegates at the Constitutional Convention voted to remove the power to "emit bills of credit". "The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"

ref is the US Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html.

In Federalist #44 James Madison stated - ref ishttp://www.constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your entire addition is WP:SYN. Regarding the citations:
 * http://immortalityroad.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/ron-paul-says-that-federal-reserve-bank-is-unconstitutional/ - not WP:RS
 * http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/24/the-federal-reserve-vs-the-constitution/ - not WP:RS
 * http://www.lectlaw.com/def/b099.htm Nothing wrong with the source per se, but you're doing WP:SYN
 * http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/documents/Papermoneyart.pdf As noted earlier, an excellent source that contradicts your addition - another great example of WP:SYN on your part (as well as improper use of references - in this case, you use it to make a point that the source itself contradicts firmly and clearly (I quoted it in one of the sections above))
 * http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/witherst/witherst.html - also a good source, but a historical, not current, issue (see wiki document previously referenced)
 * http://www.angelfire.com/ut2/lrtopham/convention.html - not a [[WP:RS]
 * http://www.usconstitution.net/const.htm - a primary source - we use secondary sources here.
 * Apologies, but your beating of this dead horse isn't helping you gain WP:CONSENSUS. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: references to Ron Paul, quotes attributed to political figures are acceptable wiki sources. I have seen them on a number of articles.

Synthesis implies I am coming to an original conclusion. That is in fact not the case. The "excellent source" states others share my point of view and for the same reasons.

on Mr. Withers - The constitutionality of paper money is a current issue - see the "excellent source" below as well as continuing attempts by Ron Paul to kill the Fed though Congressional action.

on text from the US Constitution - either early draft or final version - it is acceptable to provide section of a historical document to supplement other sources - for clarity f nothing else. If this is not allowed, then the article on the Bill of Rights cannot have a listing of the Bill of Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights That article not only includes constitutional language but a link to am image of the Bill of Rights. Your point of view is therefore contrary to current wiki practice.96.237.134.44 (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Missed angelfire.com - that link is to a text of the minutes of the vote in question. I have already offered to provide another link to that text. The "excellent source" has the exact same text of the vote. I have no objection to using that or any of a thousand other places where that text exists.96.237.134.44 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI: Per top of this page, a quote was deleted not because quotes are not allowed, but because it was a fake quote. Per above (and the zillion quotes within wiki articles), quotes are in fact allowed. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are. See WP:QUOTE].  And yes, if the quote is fake, it's generally removed.  On rare occasions, a fake quote may get it's own section, explaining why it is a fake quote.  Hmmm, might be something useful to add to the [[Woodrow Wilson article.  Ravensfire (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In other words a quote attributed to Ron Paul is OK.96.237.134.44 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Excellent Source" states
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/documents/Papermoneyart.pdf

Direct quote from the Abstract "Over a century ago, the Supreme Court decided the Legal Tender Cases, holding that Congress could authorize legal tender paper money in addition to metallic coin. In recent years some commentators have argued with this holding may have been incorrect"

Direct quote from page 4 of that "excellent" source

"In the later half of the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court decided a series of cases that upheld the power of Congress to issue paper money and make it legal tender for all debts. Although the last of these was decided in 1884 several constituencies have kept this debate alive. One of those constituencies is a small, but vocal group that has never been reconciled to the idea of American paper money. These folks maintain that the Constitution did not authorize paper money ... More Influential, perhaps, have been legal commentators who agree that he Legal Tender cases were, from an originalist point of view, wrongly decided" 96.237.134.44 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as noted now for the third time, this same source contradicts your thesis (I quoted it in a previous thread). To cherry pick extracts from this document to support your position that it is illegal for the Fed to print money is contrary to proper use of this source. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is not whether the criticism is wrong, the question is whether it EXISTS! Do you now agree that the criticism exists and as the "excellent source" points out - that this criticism is VOCAL? You may use me as an example. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! 96.237.134.44 (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether it exists is not exactly the criterion used. Whether the critics are "vocal" is also not strictly sufficient.  AFAIK, the theories that Congress has no right to issue paper money nowadays would be a pretty small minority (fringe?) viewpoint deserving, at best, a passing mention in this article. If there is a must be some lengthy detailing of the historical criticisms, then I'd say it more properly belongs somewhere such as Legal Tender Cases, IMO.  Even if there are decent sources that indicate this to be a significant contemporary view, there's probably a more appropriate article than this one.BigK HeX (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You will notice that all was it got was a passing mention, a portion of a small paragraph in a large article. The section it was included in is titled "criticism of the Fed". Criticism that it is illegal and uncontsitutional does seem to fall in that section.96.237.134.44 (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Power to print money was removed from the US Constiution.
The power to print paper money (Bills of Credit) was removed from the final version of the US Constitution during the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution as too subject to abuse. That removal was on a vote of 9 to 2. As the power to print money was taken away from the Federal government (it was included as a power in the Articles of Confederation and early drafts of the US Constitution), the Federal government does not have the power to print money. Congress CANNOT transfer a power it does not have to a third party like the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve istherefore an unconstitutional body.

To meet objections of original research see link to something written 150 years ago. I HOPE nobody here thinks I am over 150 ears old.

http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/witherst/witherst.html

But soon afterward Congress was shorn of the power to make a paper currency, or to allow a State to use such a currency, made by any authority whatever, as a legal tender. To the proof:

"August 16.--'''It was moved and seconded to strike the words'and emit bills,' out of the 8th clause of the first section of the 7th article--which passed in the affirmative"--nine states aye--two (New Jersey and Maryland) nay. Thus the clause read (as it now reads in the Constitution of the United States and in our own) " to borrow money on the credit," etc.'''

Again: the twelfth article of the "draft" provided as follows: "No State shall coin money nor grant letters of marque," etc. In the Convention, August 28, "it was moved and seconded to insert the words'nor emit bills of credit,' after the word'money' in the twelfth article--which passed in the affirmative"--yeas, 8; nay, (Virginia) 1; divided, 1 (Maryland). "It was moved and seconded to insert the following clause after the last amendment:'Nor make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;' which passed unanimously in the affirmative--eleven States being present." It is now established, upon a foundation impregnable, that deliberately, on specific motion, and by ayes and noes, the Convention, overruling its committee, denied to Congress the power to emit "bills of credit," or to authorize the States to make a paper issue a legal tender, but explicitly and rigidly confined the former to the power to "coin money"--that is, to make specie, to render it current, at a regulated value, and the States to that, and that only, as a legal tender.

When the above proceedings are examined in the light of the history of the times, reflected somewhat, as it is, by the debates in the State conventions to which the Constitution was referred, it is safe to say that the people, the Convention at Philadelphia, and the statesmen of those days, almost universally looked with horror upon a paper currency, and they had the most abundant reason for the sentiment, as their posterity have had, on sundry occasions since. Rhode Island may constitute a special exception, which State had gained an infamous notoriety by the frauds perpetrated through her paper issues and her legislation to support that currency and the frauds, not to mention other scandalous iniquities.

Now a link to a transcript of the vote itself

http://www.angelfire.com/ut2/lrtopham/convention.html

"Mr. Govr. Morris moved to strike out 'and emit bills on the credit of the United States' If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless."

"Mr. Butler, 2ds. the motion."

"Mr. Madison, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best."

"Mr. Govr. Morris. striking out the words will leave room for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The monied interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited."

"Mr. Ghorum was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure."

"Col. Mason had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergencies, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed."

"Mr. Ghorum. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing."

"Mr. Mercer was a friend to paper money, though in the present state & temper of America, he should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. He was consequently opposed to a prohibition of it altogether. It will stamp suspicion on the Government to deny it a discretion on this point. It was impolitic also to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money. The people of property would be sure to be on the side of the plan, and it was impolitic to purchase their further attachment with the loss of the opposite class of Citizens."

"Mr. Ellsworth thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good."

"Mr. Randolph, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions which might arise."

"Mr. Wilson. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the United States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources."

"Mr. Butler. remarked that paper money was a legal tender in no Country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the Government of such power."

"Mr. Mason was still adverse to tying the hands of the Legislature altogether. If there was no example in Europe as just remarked, it might be observed on the other side, that there was none in which the Government was restrained on this head."

"Mr. Read, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations"

"Mr. Langdon had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words '(and emit bills)'"

"On the motion for striking out N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay.* N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.131.111 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Printing Money addition by User:96.237.134.44 / User:96.237.131.111
I have left a note on User talk:96.237.134.44 regarding that user's addition and 3 reversions of the section regarding the "printing of money", inviting discussion here per WP:BRD and requesting no edit warning. My concern regarding the addition is as follows: I don't know enough about the subject to say whether the topic is being given due weight or is WP:FRINGE (I just ran across this article during WP:RCP. Regardless, let's discuss. Thanks, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) One editor noted that the citation did not support the addition
 * 2) I feel the addition does not meet WP:MOS
 * 3) There is clearly lack of WP:CONSENSUS for the addition
 * See also 96.237.131.111 and this edit to Talk:Criticism of the Federal Reserve. It seems User:96.237.134.44 and User:96.237.131.111 are the same editors (that's OK, just want to acknowledge that we've not got 2 different editors proposing the same text). --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

About the above objections


 * RE: one editors complaint that the citation did not support the addition. - That editor obviously did not read the citation


 * RE: not meting WP:MOS - state your specific objections and I will reformat the addition to satisfy your objections.


 * RE: no discussion - The material was added to the talk page for discussion - Not my fault if others do not wish to comment.


 * RE: no consensus - No consensus on what? The vote referenced took place as shown by historical documents. Do you believe that we will get a consensus that those historical documents are wrong and that the vote did not take place?


 * RE:Fringe - I've run across several pols as to whether the Fed should be abolished. They tend to run in the 80-90% in favor of abolishing. That is as mainstream as it gets. This one is currently at 84%. http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-07-21/poll-should-congress-abolish-the-federal-reserve/96.237.134.44 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * RE:Different IP address - "almost" every ones internet address can change at the whim of the internet service provider. I know mine does.96.237.134.44 (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Three editors reverted you - that suggests lack of WP:CONSENSUS. That others didn't comment is suggestive that the reverting editors should comment, too. As for restoring your addition yet again - WP:3RR is not a license to make 3 reverts in a day (as you have now done). There is no WP:DEADLINE, so lack of comment in a week does not mean there is consensus. I urge you to revert your change and waiting for other discussion; otherwise you should not be surprised if one of the editors reverts it for you. As for the IP issue - it isn't one, just trying to confirm that all of the IP edits were indeed made by the same person (which you seem to be confirming) - as I said, its not a problem. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the above editors obviously did not read the cite provided and his objection is therefore without merit. Why should I revert well referenced material? Per my understanding of wiki policy, if an editor disagrees with material he (or she) is free to find balancing material and add it for balance. If you feel that the referenced vote did not take place, feel free to look up references that so state and add them for balance.96.237.134.44 (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "One of the above editors obviously did not read the cite provided and his objection is therefore without merit" - clearly, that editor disagrees, WP:AGF. I've invited the editor to comment here.
 * "Why should I revert well referenced material?". The more salient question is "Why should you not edit war?". To reiterate - there is no WP:DEADLINE, so there is no reason to keep reverting without WP:CONSENSUS.
 * "Per my understanding of wiki policy, if an editor disagrees with material he (or she) is free to find balancing material and add it for balance" That is a common misunderstanding, and one that leads to a lot of turmoil with (relatively) new editors sometimes. Articles are written with WP:NPOV and without WP:UNDUE - they're not a collection of pros and cons on an issue. Similarly, WP:RS is not the only policy guiding additions (and, respectfully, http://www.ronpaul.com is not a reliable source, although I understand you were using it to make a WP:POINT here on the talk page).
 * Let's see if any other editors care to comment. As I said, I am uninterested, personally, in the content issue, but noticed the series of additions and reversions, which are fundamentally disruptive. I'd like to see this resolved without turning this page into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I encourage you to read through the linked policies and guidelines, and to please assume good faith. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up on this. I reverted the addition for a couple of reasons.  The primary reason is this is original research.  At a minimum, there needs to be a cite to a good  verifiable, reliable secondary source that comes to these conclusions.  There's various sources on the web that claim this, but they certainly aren't reliable, verifiable sources.  That alone means this does not belong in Wikipedia.  Ravensfire (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless you believe that I am someone that died in 1866, it is not original research. One of the cites is based on material from Thomas Jefferson Withers who lived from 1804-1866. Do you believe that I am Thomas Jefferson Withers?96.237.134.44 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The minutes of the vote likely originated from the papers of James Madison. Do you believe that that the man considered the father of the US Constitution is an unreliable source on that document?96.237.134.44 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The material added is as follows

'''Another criticism is whether the the power to print money is even allowed under the US Constitution. During the Constitutional Debates the power to print paper money by the Federal government was removed from the US Constitution on a vote of 9 to 2. Since the delegates to the Constitutional Convention specifically took away that power, which was allowed to Congress under the Articles of Confederation and within early drafts of the US Constitution, there is reason to believe that any use of this power by Congress or by a body created by Congress, such as the Federal reserve, is unconstitutional and therefore illegal '''

The cites referenced are to the actual text of the vote, and to the following written some 150 years ago. There is no question that the cites back up the added material. See above section for a more complete portion of the cite which was provided for discussion purposes.

'''But soon afterward Congress was shorn of the power to make a paper currency, or to allow a State to use such a currency, made by any authority whatever, as a legal tender. To the proof:  "August 16.--It was moved and seconded to strike the words'and emit bills,' out of the 8th clause of the first section of the 7th article--which passed in the affirmative"--nine states aye--two (New Jersey and Maryland) nay. Thus the clause read (as it now reads in the Constitution of the United States and in our own) " to borrow money on the credit," etc.'''

The power of Congress and the states to print paper money PRIOR to the enactment of the Constitution can be easily confirmed. Look up "Continental" as in "not worth a Continental". If you insist I believe I can find a link to the Articles of Confederation which contains the language authorizing paper money such as the Continental.96.237.134.44 (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a poll hosed by CNBC that shows 90% are in favor of abolishing the Fed. http://www.cnbc.com/id/32881898 This subject is not fringe and is mainstream.96.237.134.44 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also not relevant to this discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Haven't see ANYTHING that resemble a discussion of the material. Objections designed to bury the material don't count as a discussion of that material.96.237.134.44 (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember, there is no WP:DEADLINE, so please be patient. Also, please assume good faith - don't assume "Objections designed to bury the material", and remember to be WP:CIVIL. When you're not, you diminish your credibility. Thanks, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't see anything constructive to the article being discussed here. To be honest, it all sounds a bit crazy. If there has been serious discussion of this claim by notable historians or economists them maybe it merits inclusion but there is no evidence of this as yet. If all we have is an eccentric claim backed up by an editor's personal interpretation of the legal precedents then that fails WP:SYN. Common sense says that this is fringe (at best). The notion that any independent nation state would, either by accident or intention, put itself in a situation where it was prohibited to issue or operate a currency seems absurd. The only example of anything like this actually happening that I can think of is Democratic Kampuchea, where money was actually abolished and outlawed. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been WP:AGF and trying to help the editor understand the issues of WP:OR and use of secondary vs. primary sources on his talk page. I assume the editor is sincere (and not pulling our chain, and just doesn't understand. I've explained and explained WP:3RR, but the editor reverted 3 times in 24 hours despite lack of WP:CONSENSUS - trying to justify doing so by lack of comments by other editors here. I removed the text twice per WP:BRD, and two other editors did the same. I recommend someone else revert it and note why here (or do so based on their comments already made here), as I don't want to have 3 reverts on this. Feel free to review my comments on User talk:96.237.134.44 and add anything you think will help the editor understand the issue. Thank you,--4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet again pointing out that the conclusion in question was reached by Mr. Withers some 150 years ago. As Mr. Withers died in 1866 it is HIGHLY unlikely that the conclusion was originated by myself. As to lack of historical documets on this issue prior to the 1860's there was no need to debate the issue as this was the first time that Congress authorized legal tender paper money.

In the interest of furthering the debate I am providing the following link http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/documents/Papermoneyart.pdf which on pages 36 - 38 discusses the above referenced vote and refers to the source of the minutes of the vote as originating with Madison's papers. It also includes the full text of those minutes as well, if anyone believes that the minutes provided above are in error. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The document you reference is an excellent secondary source that directly contradicts your addition to the article. CONCLUSION By the original understanding, the Constitution’s Coinage Clause grants to Congress the express power to coin money and bestow legal tender quality upon that money. A similar power of lesser, but still broad, scope is also created by the Commerce Clause, since part of the eighteenth century definition of “regulating commerce” was the issuance and regulation of the media of exchange. By the original understanding also, the money thus “coined” need not be metallic . Paper or any other material that Congress selects will suffice. Because the power to coin paper is express, there is no need to justify it by the incidental powers doctrine of the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Supreme Court’s opinions in The Legal Tender Cases did rely on the Necessary and Proper Clause, and to that extent their reasoning was at odds with the original understanding. However, the holding of those cases – that Congress had authority to issue legal tender paper money – was correct as a matter of original understanding. There is, therefore, no need for originalists or others propounding interpretive theories to make any special accommodation for the holdings of The Legal Tender Cases. emphasis added Based on this alone, the removal of your addition seems amply justified. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether the author of the article in question agrees or disagrees is irrelevant to the fact that the issue has been examine in recent works and is therefore not "fringe". The author "compares" quite a number of legal issue in the article. Some views are obviously directly opposed to others. The fact that they are examine shows that they are not "fringe". The vote in question is in fact examined and takes up 3 pages of the work in question. A "Fringe" issue does not take up 3 pages worth of space. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It may well be worth mentioning on the page that historically there was a controversy about printing paper money and link to the discussion at the Legal Tender Cases page. As a legal matter, it was settled in the nineteenth century, but there is no clear authorization in the Constitution and is a historical controversy as to whether it was intended.—KHirsch (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your proposal (mention of the historical controversy and the wikilink to Legal Tender Cases) would be a good addition, I believe. However, stating the resolved controversy as a current matter of fact is not a good addition. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion here - Lets deal with them one at a time - first with the repeated allegations of Original research

As repeatedly pointed out I am not the originator of the conclusion that a vote to strip language from an early draft of the US Constitution also strips that power from Congress. Mr.Withers came to that conclusion 150 years ago. While it is unlikely that Mr. Withers himself originated this concept, he did believe it. Mr Withers also wrote his opinion in the early 1860's, during the Civil War when Congress for the first time ever issue legal tender paper money. Please do no confuse Congress under the US Constitution with the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation specifically allowed THAT Congress to issue legal tender paper money96.237.134.44 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Briefly, there are two objections. First, the material appears to be prohibited original research. Second, the cited material does not support the assertion. The assertion is that there actually exists a "criticism" as to "whether the the power to print money is even allowed under the US Constitution." Instead of providing material that shows that someone -- someone other than the Wikipedia editor who inserted the material -- has previously raised that particular critique, what the editor is doing is providing material that he or she apparently feels supports the critique itself -- the critique about whether the power to print money is even allowed under the US Constitution."


 * In short, adding material that merely supports or rejects the idea that that the power to print money is allowed under the Constitution does not qualify for support that there exists a critique to that effect. Instead, what the editor should be doing is finding previously published third party sources that state that critique -- and I suspect there might well be such sources out there.


 * A Wikipedia article is not the proper place for cobbling together sources to show that you, the Wikipedia editor, have a critique as to whether the power to print money is allowed, etc., etc. Instead, what you should be doing is finding examples of where other people have already made that critique. The purpose of the critique section of a Wikipedia article is not to come up with your own critique, but rather to document critiques that have been made by previously published third party sources.


 * As proposed, the "critique" material appears to violate two Wikipedia rules: Verifiability, and No Original Research. In this context, Verifiability means that you can show that someone else -- not you, the Wikipedia editor -- has already made the critique, and that the document you are sourcing actually includes that critique by that "someone else." No Original Research means that you cannot simply cobble together statements from Source A and Source B and Source C and then argue that, when taken together, those sources support the idea that the power to print money is (or is not) allowed under the Constitution.


 * Again, you should not use the Critique section of a Wikipedia article to publish your own Critique -- even if you are using sources that, when logically combined together, seem to support your own Critique. Wikipedia is not the proper place for you to publish your own critique. Famspear (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To go along with what Famspear said, IP, please read the WP:OR article. Yes, your material is original research.  It's that simple.  Ravensfire (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It now seems that the material in question is to be deleted because you people now think that the CRITICISM is original research? Do you people SERIOUSLY believe that I am the first person to believe that the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional organization and therefor illegal? If so you have a serious but easily curable misunderstanding of the facts of life. All you need to do is look at the material in the following 2 links. Hopefully nobody here will accuse me of being the author of ALL that material.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Is+the+Federal+reserve+illegal&aq=&aqi=&oq=Is+the+Federal+reserve+illegal&fp=1c443ffcb5a5cce1 and

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Is+the+Federal+reserve+unconstitutional&aq=f&aqi=&oq=Is+the+Federal+reserve+unconstitutional&fp=1c443ffcb5a5cce1


 * There are two basic lins of thought for the unconstitutional criticism, one is that Congress cannot transfer a power IT DOES HAVE to another body, and two that Congress cannot transfer a power that is DOES NOT HAVE to another body. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A snippet from Richard Russell. Mr Russell is author of Dow Theory Letters and one of the top investment advisers in the US. I hope that nobody here now states that I am Richard Russell.

http://www.321gold.com/editorials/russell/russell111709.html

The Federal Reserve is doing work expressly forbidden by the US Constitution. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty plain quote that the criticism cited does not originate with me,

http://www.healthfreedom.info/Federal_Reserve_Fraud.htm

The passage of the Federal Reserve Act was unconstitutional because 1) the US Constitution prohibited "bills of credit" (i.e., paper notes) and 2) the US Constitution would have to be amended to go off the silver and gold coin standard for money.

unless of course you believe that I am Mr. Withers who died in 1866, Mr Russell, who more then likely has better things to d with his time then edit an article in wikipedia, and also at the same time the author of the link just added. Do you? SERIOUSLY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.134.44 (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Cites supporting my position - showing it is not OR or SYN
I believe that Congress does NOT have the power to make paper money a legal tender and does not even have the power to make gold and silver a legal tender.The reference below show clearly that at least one US president and Funding Father agree with me on both counts and that at least two US presidents, and Founding Fathers agree with me on one count.

I hope that claims of original research and synthesis can now be put to rest as BOGUS.

An old NY times article http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9501E2DB133BEE33A25751C1A9669D94679ED7CF references the following quotes

James Madison - Thus the pretext for a paper currency and particularly for making the bill a legal tender, either for public or private debt, was cut off

Thomas Jefferson - I now deny their (Congress's) power of making paper money, or anything else, a legal tender

A Mr Benton who is also cited, states: The power granted to Congress to coin money is an authority to stamp metallic money, and is not an authority for emitting slips of paper containing promises to pay money.

Per Yale Law School records of the minutes of the vote to TAKE AWAY from Congress the power to "emit bills of credit" during the Constitutional Convention as recorded by Founding Father and future president James Madison http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp

FN23 This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts.

and

"Mr. Ghorum was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure."

My aside: The power to be struck out was the power to "emit". Mr. Ghorum, (Madison misspelled the name - the person is actually Nathanial Gorham) states that if the words stand (the words being "emit bills of credit") that "they may suggest and lead to the measure" with the measure being printing legal tender paper money. To be ABSOLUTELY clear, this vote denied Congress the power to "emit" per money, and strikes at the core of arguments in favor of paper money, because Congress cannot make paper money a legal tender because the power to print paper money was REMOVED from Congress. If Congress cannot even print paper money, how can it make it legal tender?

In Federalist 44 - Madison states

The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it.

From Craig v Misouri

 ''The whole was intended to exclude everything from use as a circulating medium except gold and silver, and to give to the United States the exclusive control over the coining and valuing of the metallic medium. That the real dollar may represent property, and not the shadow of it. ''

From the dissenting opinion to one of the Legal Tender cases http://supreme.justia.com/us/79/457/case.html - starts with THE CHIEF JUSTICE, dissenting

Acts of Congress not made in pursuance of the Constitution are not laws.

We perceive no connection between the express power to coin money and the inference that the government may, in any contingency, make its securities perform the functions of coined money, as a legal tender in payment of debts

''It is unnecessary to say that we reject wholly the doctrine, advanced for the first time, we believe, in this Court by the present majority that the legislature has any "powers under the Constitution which grow out of the aggregate of powers conferred upon the government or out of the sovereignty instituted by it." If this proposition be admitted, and it be also admitted that the legislature is the sole judge of the necessity for the exercise of such powers, the government becomes practically absolute and unlimited.''

''It is true that notes issued by banks, both in England and America, were then in circulation and were used in exchanges, and in common speech called money, and that bills of credit, issued both by Congress and by the states, had been recently in circulation under the same general name; but these notes and bills were never regarded as real money, but were always treated as its representatives only, and were described as currency. The legal tender notes themselves do not purport to be anything else than promises to pay money. They have been held to be securities, and therefore exempt from state taxation, [Footnote 3/13] and the idea that it was ever designed to make such notes a standard of value by the framers of the Constitution is wholly new.''

''The sense of the Convention which framed the Constitution is clear from the account given by Mr. Madison of what took place when the power to emit bills of credit was stricken from the reported draft. He says distinctly that he acquiesced in the motion to strike out because the government would not be disabled thereby from the use of public notes, so far as they would be safe and proper, while it cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts. [Footnote 3/14] The whole discussion upon bills of credit proves beyond all possible question that the Convention regarded the power to make notes a legal tender as absolutely excluded from the Constitution. [Footnote 3/15]'

''but he added, "NOTHING BUT GOLD AND SILVER COIN CAN BE MADE A TENDER IN PAYMENT OF DEBTS." [Footnote 4/68] Utterances of the kind are found throughout the reported decisions of this Court, but there is not a sentence or word to be found within those volumes, from the organization of the court to the passage of the acts of Congress in question, to support the opposite theory.''

Excellent source states - http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/documents/Papermoneyart.pdf

"In the later half of the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court decided a series of cases that upheld the power of Congress to issue paper money and make it legal tender for all debts. Although the last of these was decided in 1884 several constituencies have kept this debate alive. One of those constituencies is a small, but vocal group that has never been reconciled to the idea of American paper money. These folks maintain that the Constitution did not authorize paper money ... More Influential, perhaps, have been legal commentators who agree that he Legal Tender cases were, from an originalist point of view, wrongly decided" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.142.108 (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Ownership"
Despite prior consensus being documented in this article's FAQ, an editor (67.249.74.255 (talk)) has been edit warring to state:"However, in Lewis v. United States (1982), it was ruled that the Federal Reserve is privately owned. In particular, neither the Federal Reserve System nor its component banks are owned by the US Federal Government."I have left notices regarding the policy for WP:3RR on the editor's talk page, and encouraged said editor to gain WP:CONSENSUS here before adding the text again, per WP:BRD. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Some links for our IP editor to previous discussions on this:, ,
 * And that's just from part of the first archive. The answers there go into detail about the ownership question, so I'll let the IP read through them.  Ravensfire (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed my addition to a direct quote from the court case. There's no more disputing my first entries because I have changed them and should be a seperate issue and not count toward my initial warnings. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC).


 * Thanks for coming to discuss, but please read WP:3RR - you misunderstand edit warring, I'm afraid. "not count toward my initial warnings" - reverting is not an entitlement. Regarding the court case, also please be careful with original research and synthesis - Wikipedia does not use original sources, but rather reports what secondary sources have to say on issues (assuming the sources are reliable and that the issue is not given undue weight. Finally, I encourage you to read the references provided above regarding prior discussions on this topic. The issue of "ownership" is more subtle and involved than your edit provides. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lewis v. United States 1982
In Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982). the court stated "Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.”

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/Lewis_v_US.htm http://www.nesara.org/court_summaries/lewis_v_united_states.htm

I inserted a quote from a court case. This is NON DISPUTABLE. How can ypu dispute a quote from the court? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.74.255 (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you read any of the discussions linked just above this, in a section about your posts? I don't think so, so I ask you to read them, as they answer your question in detail.  It's not the first time that's been asked. Ravensfire (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. You cannot dispute a quote. A quote is a quote. Period. 67.249.74.255 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Such a response! So kindly show me where, in that quote, it says that Board of Governors, or Open Market Committee are private, please.  Alas, it doesn't.  IP, you need to read those discussions.  Your question is answered in there, so I will not post further here.  Ravensfire (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (Edit Conflict) "You cannot dispute a quote. A quote is a quote." See my response in the prior question, and Ravensfire's posted links. Your statement is incorrect. There are many, many circumstances in which a quote is insufficient for an addition to an article. Prior discussions (previously linked) do just that. I'll further state that changing your addition does not change the rules of WP:3RR, either - further reinsertions on your part without WP:CONSENSUS (which will require thoughtful review of prior art and insightful comment, not argument) will lead to sanctions for disruption. I've avoided reporting you to the edit warring notice board as you appear to be a new user who is unfamiliar with the process. As this is a sometimes contentious article, and draws new users with strong opinions, the intention is to be civil and helpful. But you do need to do your part. Please read the linked policies and discussion threads provided. There is no WP:DEADLINE in Wikipedia, so there should be no rush for you to "hurry and get your edits inserted". Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to belabor the point, but since, as the IP says, a quote is a quote, let me quote from the article, from the lede of the article to be exact. "Twelve regional privately-owned Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation".  I've bolded the parts that are of interest here. Ravensfire (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh good, so then you admit they are private. Werdtoyadonkay (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Werdtoyadonkay: Look, we've been through this a gazillion times on these talk pages over the years. Here is the original offending material this time:


 * However, in Lewis v. United States (1982) it was ruled that the Federal Reserve is privately owned. In particular, neither the Federal Reserve System nor its component banks are owned by the US Federal Government.


 * Obviously, the Court in Lewis never stated or ruled that the "Federal Reserve" is privately owned. Indeed, that would be nonsensical, since the Federal Reserve System includes both governmental and non-governmental components, as already noted in the article.


 * Re-read the quote from Lewis. The Court in Lewis was referring to a specific Federal Reserve Bank (I think it was the San Francisco bank). The term "Federal Reserve" means the Federal Reserve SYSTEM -- not an individual Federal Reserve Bank.


 * Also, the Court in Lewis did not rule that neither the Federal Reserve System nor its component banks are owned by the US Federal Government. Re-read the quote from Lewis.


 * The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is a COMPONENT of the Federal Reserve System (it is nominally privately owned, but not privately owned in the sense that you can own and sell a share of stock in ExxonMobil or Microsoft). Wells Fargo Bank is a COMPONENT of the Federal Reserve System (and Wells Fargo is privately owned -- in the sense that owning a share of Wells Fargo is indeed like owning a share of ExxonMobil or Microsoft). The Board of Governors is a COMPONENT of the Federal Reserve System (it's a government entity). The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is a COMPONENT of the Federal Reserve System (and the FOMC is another governmental entity). NONE OF THESE ENTITIES -- by themselves -- is "the Federal Reserve." Each is only PART of the Federal Reserve.


 * Similarly, "Baton Rouge" is not "Louisiana." Yes, Baton Rouge is located within Louisiana. It's a part of Louisiana. Baton Rouge is a CITY. That does not mean that "Louisiana" is a "city." The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is not "the Federal Reserve." Yes, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is a PART of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is a BANK. The "Federal Reserve" -- that is, the SYSTEM -- is not "a bank." It's a central banking SYSTEM, and it's composed of "privately owned" banks (like Wells Fargo) and quasi-privately owned banks (like the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco) and government entities (like the Board of Governors).


 * The statement that the "Federal Reserve" is "privately-owned" is meaningless gibberish. Famspear (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's not private then why can't the government audit it? Seems pretty private to me. Common sense. 67.249.74.255 (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ASF, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves". The facts, as documented in the aforementioned links, and as explained above, show that the "Federal Reserve System" is comprised of both private and non-private components. Your assertion that because "the government [can't] audit it" (an issue subject to current legislation), the entire "Federal Reserve System" is private, is an example of synthesis, the policy about which cautions "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". I'm hopeful you understand the issue, now (that the System is comprised of both public and private parts), and that you'll not mistake "common sense" for verifiability in the future.


 * P.S. Read WP:INDENT, too. --4wajzkd02 (talk)


 * IP, it's actually false that the government can't audit the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Reserve Banks. From it's inception in 1913, there have been audits .  A bill passed in 1978 specifically allows the GAO to audit the Fed. .  The caveat to this (and this is where many anti-fed sites get the "never been audited") is there have always been exceptions to what can be audited (see my first link for a list of the current major exceptions).  Since you're almost certainly aware of it, Ron Paul has been proposing for years a bill that would remove most of those exceptions.  This year's version is the Federal Reserve Transparency Act - the article on the Act has some good details on it.  A recent development is that Paul and Grayson got an amendment with similar provisions to the FRTA added to a major bill in the House.  Nothing in the Senate yet though.  Take a look through the FRTA article, and the two links - should give you some more info about the audits.


 * Oh, and the indenting that 4wajzkd02 is talking about really helps make the take page easier to read. It's a help to everyone if you wouldn't mind using indents!  Ravensfire (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok fine...they can't FULLY audit it. Werdtoyadonkay (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Specific criticism
My previous entry _was_ discussing a pretty specific issue. One look at the criticism section and it is obvious that the entire section is rather lacking. I just found three more unfounded statements that have absolutely no reference, no documentation, and no sources. In fact it might be said that the entire section isn't properly sourced. Hence my feeling that the entry was pretty ridiculous as it stands. Am I allowed to voice that opinion this time or should I expect summarily deletion again for daring to criticise the article? Re your explanation for deletion: "WP:SOAPBOX - please discuss specific changes," etc. Nunamiut (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This contains constructive feedback, with specific concerns. Anyone who sees an opportunity to improve the article, while maintaining a neutral point of view is encouraged to do so.  As your concerns emphasize, it's well-sourced facts the articles need.  -- Scray (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Easiest way to mark those is to add a tag to the statement.  And that's just what you did - perfect and thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The full Criticism article is in even worse shape, to be honest. Quite a few valid points there are raised without references.  Ravensfire (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I could now summarily delete Ravensfires comment as it has nothing to do with this article.Nunamiut (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Or I could come up with some derogatory statement or snide remark to make it seem like this user is constantly breaching guidelines. That sometimes seems to be the accepted general practice around here when people are not accurate enough for the tastes of some, or if people just do not like that there is clear evidence of differing views on an issue and clearly has a desire to silence all evidence of alternate views. That is the kind of dishonest practice I have long since grown tired of. Nunamiut (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This article has been bastardized by adding the following. Please correct and lock the article for further editing:

Destroying the nation's economy by influencing monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum unemployment, high unstable prices, and short-term bubbles which burst if you blow on the them too hard. Supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the unsoundness of the nation's banking and financial system, and protect failing companies that should go bankrupt. Maintaining a failing financial system and taking away the risks that arise in financial markets that self-regulate greed and Malinvestment. Providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including maintenance costs of Ben Bernanke's Helicopter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goganess (talk • contribs) 08:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Splitting Up The Article
I was going to add the tag to this article, but noticed the smaller tag already there suggesting that this article may be a good candidate for breaking up into multiple smaller articles. I personally would vote "yea" to doing this; as it stands, the article is simply too long with too much content in one space; one cannot easily get a "rundown" of what the fed is about without surfing through tons of detail you might notbe looking for or interested in. Spiral5800 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've thought the same, and you can see that there are already several smaller articles (History, Criticism) already created. What other areas do you think would work to split off?  Maybe a Detailed Structure, but I think the Monetary Policy and Budget are both best served as they are.  The hardest part is that the Fed is a pretty broad topic, but most people, even when they mean a specific part, say "The Fed", so this article needs to stay fairly complete.  Ravensfire (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think structure would be best to "split" and after that probably the history of it. It's definitely too long though and needs to be revamped.--Levineps (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A hard trim to sections that already have sub-articles (history, criticisms) seems the best course. Everything there except for a brief summary should be moved to the sub-articles, and redundancies edited out. And then, maybe one or two more subarticles spun out leaving only brief summaries, I suggest splitting off 'structure' first and then maybe 'monetary policy'. LK (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorporation in the state of Delaware in 1914
Why does the article not state that the Federal Reserve Association is a private company that was incorporated in 1914 in the state of Delaware? https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/GINameSearch.jsp

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy8912 (talk • contribs) 16:54, December 18, 2009


 * The FRA isn't connected to the Federal Reserve System in any way, so it shouldn't be in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? where is the reference that proves no association? Sammy8912 (talk)


 * Really. A quick google search will pull up some info from a guy who paid for the extra info from Delaware.  And since we're going for references, where the reference that proves association?  And please, usual requirements for the reference (WP:V, WP:RS).  Ravensfire (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this what you are referring to? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070724031652AAj9OAs. He states that the Delaware franchise tax status is VOID as of 2001. That does not mean that the Federal Reserve Association formed in 1914 has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve System. I tried to research proof of association but I cannot find anything. Maybe someone in the Wikipedia community has knowledge beyond Google that can contribute to this. The Federal Reserve Association was formed in 1914 a year after the Federal Reserve Act passed. The Federal Reserve is a quasi govt/private entity, so it is speculation that the Federal Reserve Association could be associated with the Federal Reserve in some form due to its name and formation date. The state of Delaware does not store the names of corporate directors in their database so there would be no way for us to verify who formed the company.


 * I opened this topic in the discussion page to bring it to the attention of the wikipedia community, because there may be a link, and someone here in the community may have knowledge to contribute.Sammy8912 (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not include references in articles based on similarity of names. There is no evidence that the "Federal Reserve Association" has anything to do with the "Federal Reserve System", any more than the record company known as "I.R.S. Records" has anything to do with the "Internal Revenue Service."


 * Further, the "Federal Reserve Association" is not "associated" with the "Federal Reserve System," and there is no reliable source that states otherwise. Famspear (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You keep stating that it is not associated with the Federal Reserve System. Where is your reference proving that it is not associated with the Federal Reserve System? Sammy8912 (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No, as Wikipedia editors, we do not have to prove that "Federal Reserve Association" is not associated with "Federal Reserve System," any more than we have to prove that any other two organizations with similar names are not associated with each other. That's not how Wikipedia works.

If you as a Wikipedia editor have something from a reliable previously published third party source to the effect that there is some sort of association betweeen the two, then let's hear about it. Famspear (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to need to see some reliable source that "Sammy8912" is not, in fact, associated with Sammy Davis Jr. or the Son of Sam, or Samuel Becket. Just trying to lighten the mood a bit.  Cheers to all!Bkporter12 (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)BKPorter12

Misleading sentence in "Creation of Third Central Bank"
This reads " ... think that Federal Reserve System helped to cause the Great Depression." This is misleading because it seems to imply the following: All these people thought that the Fed caused the depression through positive action; if there were no Fed then there wouldn't have been any depression. They all didn't think that of course; Bernanke for instance thought that it was LACK of action on the part of the fed that was responsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.44.122 (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Balance sheet and networth figures are internally prepared by the FED and are not audited
The figures stated in the balance sheet and networth section of the article are not audited figures. It should be stated in the article that the figures were internally prepared by the Federal Reserve, and that the figures were not audited by an independent accountability organization such as the GAO, so there is a possibility that they could be inaccurate http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21427.html Sammy8912 (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not in the business of evaluating the reliability of audited -- or unaudited -- figures in financial statements that are mentioned in Wikipedia articles. However, if you have a previously published third party source that says the Federal Reserve System financial statements are (because of the lack of an audit) "possibly inaccurate," then that can be discussed here.

Sammy, as Wikipedia editors, we are not here to evaluate the Federal Reserve System ourselves. We are here to write a Wikipedia article based on what OTHER people (previously published, reliable third party sources) have written about the subject (in this case, the Federal Reserve System). Famspear (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. The article states that there is a possibility that the internally prepared figures could be inaccurate. Senator Ron Paul of Texas has proposed an amendment in the Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009 to give the GAO the power to audit the Federal Reserve. This amendment was passed by the United States House of Representatives. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29734.html. Sammy8912 (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Paul-Grayson (Paul and Alan Grayson both sponsored the amendment) was successfully added to the FSIA, which was then folded into a large bill and eventually passed. See the Federal Reserve Transparency Act article - details are there. Also, take a look at the Criticism of the Federal Reserve article (which is linked from this one at the Criticism section), it does include the audit criticism.  Ravensfire (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ron Paul is not now nor has ever been a United States Senator, nor has he ever served in the Senate of any of the several states. Bkporter12 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Bkporter12

This article has been bastardized by adding the below edits. Please fix and lock the article from further editing.

Destroying the nation's economy by influencing monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum unemployment, high unstable prices, and short-term bubbles which burst if you blow on the them too hard. Supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the unsoundness of the nation's banking and financial system, and protect failing companies that should go bankrupt. Maintaining a failing financial system and taking away the risks that arise in financial markets that self-regulate greed and Malinvestment. Providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including maintenance costs of Ben Bernanke's Helicopter.

Goganess 1-22-2010 Goganess (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph Misleading
I had edited one portion of your first sentence to accurately reflect the truth about how and why the Federal Reserve Bank was imposed upon the American people. The misleading part is in bold below.

"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]"

This is completely inaccurate. The banking interests that pushed for the central bank did so strictly out of a desire to be able to control their ability to expand fractal banking. They simply pointed to recent financial crises as a duplicitous justification, and this is how the myth was born that the Federal Reserve Bank was implemented to "help" control an otherwise volatile economy. In fact, all previous crises and bank runs were born from fractal banking to begin with. The very institution that was and is supposed to be helping us is causing the problems. Please refer to http://mises.org/books/fed.pdf for verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litwinp (talk • contribs) on 27 January 2010.


 * Dear Litwinp: Regarding the edits you made, please review Wikipedia policies and guidelines on Neutral Point of View and No Original Research. Yours, Famspear (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is important to abide to NPOV policy, however I would say that the current form is quite confusing if not outright misleading. this first sentence seems to give the impression that the fed is a government institution, like the dep. of agriculture, or other government entity.  rephrasing to be more clear is appropriate... something like "[..] is a private corporation with some features of a public institution and is responsible for the central banking system of the united states" work for everyone?Yourmanstan (talk) 0240, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer the current phrasing, as the system as a whole is more public than private, it's the individual banks only that are private. Also, note than when you do a revert but also change wording, you should really change the comment, not use the default from the reversion.  It gives a misleading impression of what you've done.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 04:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * that is like saying that because Blackwater Worldwide mostly serves public interests that it should be portrayed as a public entity. that is completely misleading75.151.80.94 (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)