| 作者 |
 《货币战争》罗斯切尔德家族–欧洲唯一的强权 |
 |
| 所跟贴 |
《货币战争》罗斯切尔德家族–欧洲唯一的强权 -- godmanbj - (6163 Byte) 2007-1-14 周日, 14:34 (3936 reads) |
highstake
头衔: 海归上尉
性别:  年龄: 51
加入时间: 2005/12/03
文章: 74
来自: US
海归分: 9064
|
|
|
作者：highstake 在 海归商务 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
Here are some answers with links to authoritative sources.
A) Is the Federal Reserve owned by the Government?
'Ownership' of the Federal Reserve is the subject of much debate. It was intentionally designed to be quasi-independent so there are distinct elements of both public and private ownership. To understand these levels of 'ownership', we need to take a look at the structure. (ref: https://www.federalreserveeducation.org/f... )
At the top of the Federal Reserve System is the Board of Governors. These are all appointed for 14-year terms by the president and confirmed by congress. It operates per it's charter and laws set by congress. it is overseen by congress. There is absolutely no structure or mechanism for private ownership at this level. (If someone disagrees, please explain how someone could take legal title to own and control the Board of Governors).
The 12 branches, however, are organized similar to private corporations. Member banks are required to buy shares in their branch. They can vote for 6 of their 9 board members. The shares get a standard 6% dividend. These shares cannot be sold on the open market. All 'profit' from the Federal Reserve branches are turned over to the Treasury at the end of the year.
Is this 'private ownership'? Even the courts have a hard time with making the distinction in related decisions. Wikipedia describes these as "nominally" owned by the member banks whose legal status can be considerd "privately owned" for some purposes and a federal instrument for others. (Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/federal_res... )
The Fed itself has a wishy-washy answer saying the branches 'are not really "Private" companies but owned by the citizens" (see https://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinf... )
I personally equate it to contracting out; the Board of Governors has oversight and ultimate responsibility but the branch work is carried out by this contrived joint partnership arrangement of member banks.
B) Does it have currency reserve?
Yes, the branch banks serve is currency storehouses so banks can draw out currency as needed.
(Ref: https://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinf... "... (Reserve banks) hold the cash reserves of depository institutions)
C) Is fed is owned & the majority of controllers are foreign bankers?
No.
First we already established that the Board of Governors is publicly owned and controlled, but branches are structured like corportations wih member banks having shares.
So who owns the shares for these branches? That's fairly easy to deduce since member shares are proportional to the member bank size. So just look for the biggest banks and you'll have the biggest shareholders.Here is a link to the largest banks - https://www.infoplease.com/ipa/a0763206.h...
So who owns the banks that owns the branch shares? Another easy thing to find out. By law, a public company has to list anyone with more than 5% ownership. Go to finance.yahoo.com, look up the banks stock symbol. You can then look at the largest individual and institutional shareholders.
For instance, the biggest U.S. bank is Bank of America. You can look up their shareholders at https://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=bac.... The largest foreign owner of stock is Barclays at 4.76%. No other foreign stockholders are listed. Look up #2 and #3 banks Citicorp and Chase as well. There appears to be no foundation for the foreign bank majority ownership espoused by the conspiracy sites.
C.2) ... with the primary shareholder is listed as Rothschild Bank in London.
The Rothchilds are cited as the source of many a new world order conspiracy, and especially in anti-semetic conspiracy theories. And while it is true the family once had an incredible european bank empire, it's power as severely diminished. Wikipedia cites "...the Rothschild bankers of today being only a minor player in the global economy."
(Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rothschild_... )
D) It’s also claimed that US Federal Income Tax goes into the pocket of these private bankers.
The Federal budget (income and outlays) is well documented and and there is no evidence that backs that claim. (Ref: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/b... ) Perhaps this allegation comes from the fact that a significant portion of taxes go to pay the national debt.
E) "..the film..."
I watched the 'Freedom to Fascism' video. As a liberatarian and someone who loves documentaries, I was very disappointed. I found the film to be intellectually dishonest and a vehicle for the filmmaker to further his political beliefs with blatant misformation.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and educate the viewer. This one doesn't.
Here are some examples:
--- The film claims there is no law that requires someone to pay income tax with the only explanation that we pay tax is because of a huge conspiracy with everyone in government going along.
I thought it was odd the filmmaker could not find the statute. So I looked it up on the internet and found it in five minutes (ref: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/u... )
Huh? If it is so easy to find, why does the filmmaker say otherwise? In a NY times story, he was aware of the IRS statute and claims it does not constitute law for some reason. OK, that's fine but a good documentary maker would tell the whole story, not leave out signficant facts because they harm his main thesis.
--- Another claim: The 16th amendment was not ratified. Yet there are countless sources that say otherwise. Wikipedia lists all the states and the dates they ratified it. The arguments against ratification are actually quite interesting but the filmmaker does not bother to inform us those reasons; only paint it as part of the conspiracy.
Why do tax protestors say otherwise? Because most of the states had punctuation or spelling errors in what they passed. Hmmm... is that enough? No. Apparently this happens frequently with amendments and business; remember these were the days before you could "cut-and-paste" and everyone had to transcribe by hand. In law, an inconsequential error in a legal document is not enough to nullify the document as a whole.
The film is entertaining but in the final analysis, just a fine example of political propaganda and conspiracy thinking.
For more detail on some of the argument, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tax_protest...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tax_protest...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tax_protest...
Source(s):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/federal_res...
https://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/b...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tax_protest...
https://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinf...
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/movies...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sixteenth_a...
作者：highstake 在 海归商务 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
|
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题, 不能回复主题, 不能编辑自己的文章, 不能删除自己的文章, 不能发表投票, 您 不可以 发表活动帖子在本论坛, 不能添加附件不能下载文件, |
|
|
