The British Federal Reserve

[zennon]

I've heard a lot about the American Federal Reserve. But does the UK have its own version screwing us over in the same way ? I've had a look around the net but can't find a thing.

[blackcat]

Its called The Bank Of England over here. Does the same job.

[landless peasant]

I know the BoE is not a private bank since 1946. Who knows how much dirt there is to dug up on the BoE...

[blackcat]

http://encarta.msn.com/text_761551723___0/bank_of_england.html

[acrobat74]

As far as I know the BoE is in public ownership nowadays.

But the actual ownership of central banks is a bit beside the point.

The real power lies with commercial banking, for it is commercial banks that generate 97% of the money supply nowadays, all of it as debt and generated out of thin air.

What really matters is to understand the gigantic hoax that our money & fractional reserve banking systems are.

We are absolutely dependent on bank credit being constantly ejected into the economy. If not, the system will collapse. This can only lead to slavery.

Imho, this is a far bigger issue than 9/11 Truth itself.
This is the heart of the beast.

The Money Scam
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12235

The Money Masters
http://www.themoneymasters.com/faqs.htm

[Busker]

I think the best response is the BoE is in public ownership.

However, ownership is irrelevant. You need to look at influence rather than ownership.

[PatrickSMcNally]

The Bank of England is publicly-owned. As for the Federal Reserve, the Board of Governors which makes decisions about the paper money supply is determined by the President and Senate. There are no private share-holders with any say over such matters in the Federal Reserve. People often miscite the fact that the member banks of the different branches of the Federal Reserve System are in private hands to give the false impression that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation of some kind. It's not. What the term private corporation implies is that shares are bought and sold freely on the stock exchange and that large shareholders (who must be kept happy so that they don't sell their shares and deflate the company) are consequently allowed to vote for who should be on a board of directors. None of that is true about the Federal Reserve System.

It's also false to imagine that fractional reserve banking was somehow created in 1913. That's the reverse of things. The creation of the Federal Reserve System placed, for the first time, clearly defined boundaries on how far fractional reserve banking could go. During the period when the United States were steadily expanding across North America with one state after another conquered from the American Indians it was not uncommon for loans to be made where people promised up to 20,000 times more than what they actually possessed as assets. A new state would be claimed from the Indians and the economy there would be in flux for a time. Established banks were consequently cautious about giving any loans, so fraudsters would ride into town ready to promise out loans at a speed that would be unthinkable in today's world.

The reason why such activity hardly ever resulted in any open scandals or economic crises was simply that the US economy was constantly growing at a rapid rate as the US expanded territorially to the west. That is the most primary underlying assumption not only fractional reserve banking but of capitalism as a whole. Profit can only exist and be legitimate to the extent that it is reflected in real economic growth that is reflected in more and better products and services for the majority of consumers. Without that, profit can only take the form of a shell game aimed at transferring assets around in the economy without adding anything new. The fact that this has been a normal practice in the modern capitalist economy occurs not because of anything which the Federal Reserve has or has not done, but simply because our modern economy is too developed for the old way to apply.

Marx called it the decline in the rate of profit brought about by overproduction. With our modern economy so highly developed we have the capacity to theoretically service everyone's basic needs at low cost while cleaning up the environment. The fact that this has not been done is because it brings no profit and consequently any meaningful notion of economic growth is lost. That is what creates the problem not only for fractional reserve banking per se but for every other aspect of the capitalist system which depends upon economic expansion as the fundamental rationale for profit as a legitimate gain achieved without stealing.

It should be noted, however, that under conditions of real economic growth the creation of money by credit loans is not only all right but is absolutely essential. An economy in which the body of products and services steadily increases while the money supply stays the same will suffer from deflation which will in turn stop economic growth. The granting of credit when money has not yet been printed is an important part of any policy which seeks to keep the economy growing. Our problem today is not that fractional reserve banking is inherently good or bad. Today's problem is that the whole economy remains founded on ideological assumptions which only make sense when the economy is actually generating more consumers on a rising basis, although that clearly has not been the case for several decades.

[blackcat]

[PatrickSMcNally]

[blackcat]

[PatrickSMcNally]

[blackcat]