1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    General form of the quote:
    A financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson.- Franklin Roosevelt
    This does appear to be a real quote. What it's lacking is context. What are the "large centers"? Who is this "financial element" Bankers? In what way do they own the government, and how has this changed over time?

    There may be very little to debunk here. But people who believe the Fed is part of some huge Elite conspiracy will point to this as evidence. So I think some context is important.

    Andrew Jackson was president from 1829 to 1837. He was strongly opposed to the Second Bank of the United States, a precursor to the modern Federal Reserve Bank.

    A longer version of the quote appears in wikiquote.org
    I'd been unable to find the full letter online, but snippet views of the book are available via google, which allowed me to piece together a full version of the letter



    Sprague is Oliver Sprague, an economist, and presidential advisor during the new deal.

    Tugwell is Rexford Tugwell, one of FDRs economic advisors. At the time he was Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture.

    By "large centers", I suspect he means the large financial centers, specifically London. Does he mean "own the government" in the sense of national debt? So in the same way the Chinese could be said to fulfill that role today?

    The letter was written a few months after the London Economic Conference.

    One thing that comes to mind after just digging into this briefly is just how complicated global banking and economics are. It's a subject where the average person is hard pressed to ever gain much comprehension - and hence it's an ideal breeding ground for conspiracy theory.

    Of course it's also an ideal breeding ground because there is so much real conspiracy - or at the very least large levels of corruption - involved with money and politics at the moment.
     
  2. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    So, where is the so-called "debunking" of this quote? Roosevelt, a highly educated and most precise communicator, plainly admitted that our government was "owned" by a "financial element". There are only a few different things Roosevelt could have meant by that:

    Owned - controlled by, dominated by, beholden to, in the back pocket of, etc...

    Financial element - Financiers, ruling class, elites, super-wealthy, money trust, etc...

    Is it possible that Roosevelt was basically saying that, in reality, our elected government and our government institutions are "in the back pocket of" or "controlled by" a hidden group of "financiers" and "elites"? Is it also possible that this information has been withheld from the American people since 1933? Could this also explain why our government doesn't seem to represent the best interests of the American people, but instead the corporations?

    I don't see why not.
     
  3. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Simple response. Theres nothing to 'debunk' because its totally clear what FDR is talking about. Quote is concise, very specific and self explanatory. This people who manage this site are spewing hot air.
     
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Surely though the context is important. And there's a lot of ambiguity in the words. Who exactly are these "financial elements", and what are the "large centers". And when they "own" the government, sode that simply mean the government owes them favors, or that they dictate 100% what the government does, or something in-between, or something else?
     
  5. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Yep - ever since governments found they could borrow money they have been owned by the people thy borrow the money from, or, (IMO) more accurately, by the people who control the funds they borrow money from - since the individuals who have their money in those funds usually don't get to make decisions about it.

    Does this mean "owned" in the way that I own a car? No it doesn't of course.

    Does it mean "owned" in the way Juror wrote - "Owned - controlled by, dominated by, beholden to, in the back pocket of, etc..."

    Certainly - but I think he uses emotive language to make it appear more than it really is.

    Debtors are "owned" by their "creditors" in the sense that they have to meet conditions of the debt, and if they want to keep borrowing they have to continue to meet conditions that may change from time to time. These days the conditions of borrowing are petty well known - witness how the Greeks are getting bailed out for example.

    Conspiracy theorists would have us believe that there are secret clauses to the Greek bailout, or perhaps that Goldman Sachs rigged the whole thing....their involvement in the Greek overspending is now well known.

    But the truth of it is that GS enabled the Greeks to do what hey wanted to do - they didn't force them into it - there is no secret to why Greece is in trouble - it's politicians were unwilling to cut back on budgets and force the country live within its means - it was politically unacceptable. And likewise with Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc.

    The conspiracy there is the governments essentially bribing their voters to stay in power.

    Who is responsible for that in a democracy??
     
  6. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    In regards to the financial situation in Greece and other places, the problem goes much deeper than what is explained in the mainstream media.

    Googling 'Money as Debt' will lead to a series of short videos that explains the real situation behind most debt crises.

    Further research on this topic would show that the idea of financial interests owning governments does not fall under the heading of conspiracy theory, but is instead conspiracy fact.

    I would agree that the quote in F.D.R's letter is an anecdotal brief that shines a bit of light on this conspiracy fact and that this page has substantiated, rather than debunked, the quote.

    As to the quote's vagueness, what else can be expected in a couple of sentences summarizing a massive conspiracy of some complexity? Not that an educated person would be stumped in figuring out what and where the large financial centers are.

    Dan Parker
     
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Dan, could you then explain what FDR meant by "large financial centers"?
     
  8. Spongebob

    Spongebob Active Member

    I would like an answer for why the continual refusal to allow an audit of the Fed?

    http://www.auditthefed.com/

    Why not full disclosure?

    Especially if this is true:

    1. The Fed is privately owned.
    Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks.
    None of its stock is owned by the government.


    2. The fact that the Fed does not get "appropriations" from Congress basically means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional approval, by engaging in "open market operations."

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489

    This may be true or not (it seems accurate) ?

    http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html
     
  9. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    It is true. The Federal Reserve is a private bank. As is The Bank of England.
     
  10. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    The bank of england is not private - it was nationalised in 1946

    the idea that the Federal Reserve is "privately owned" because it's "stockholders" are banks is simplistic and a serious misrepresentation of the truth. It is governed and enabled by its own act of Congress, it's board of governors is appointed by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate.

    Stock in the 12 Regional Federal Reserves is helfd by member banks - but unlike normal private companies they cannot trade the stock, cannot change the banks' charters or organisation, and get a fixed 6% return on their capital (stock) with hte remainder going to the US govt - in 2009 the Regionals cdistributed $1.4 bilion to their member banks, and $47 Billion to the Federal Govt.

    So while there are certainly elements of private ownership in the Federal Reserve system the simplistic conspiracy chant "the Fed is privately owned" is not corerct and IMO is deliberately designed to be misleading.
     
  11. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    Blah diddly blah....if you really believe the BoE was natonalised in '46....pfff. The BoE have the say on all those finnicky little decisions like...interest rates...things like that, things that happen to matter to quite a lot of not very well off people....unfortunately.

    "the Fed is privately owned" yes it is. I don't see that as misleading in the least. The whole system is absurd and corrupt in almost equal measure.
     
  12. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Right - so the BoE wasn't nationalised in 1946 - that act of parliament in the public record is a fictin and we know this because

    a/ it suits you and
    b/ you say so

    Anf hte Fed is privately owned because of the same.

    Nice - don't bother addressing the evidence - just a metaphoricaly stick you fingers in your ears and sing "la la la I can't hear you so it isn't so la la la"

    lol - of ocurse I didn't expect anything else, but it was fun to see - thanks! :D
     
  13. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    The Bank of England is owned mainly by a family going by the name of Rothschild - didn't you know? I don't expect anything less from you than: lack of imagination.

    So, are the BoE and the Federal Reserve Bank publicly owned?
     
  14. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    lol - dude ...do you know what "nationalisation" means?? I suspect not - since it is something those nasty socialists do & I don't see you as being familiar with such evil practices!! :D

    Here's some text from the Bank of England Act:



    So the British government took over the shareholding of the BoE, and compensated the previous owners with government stock.

    Imagination has nothing to do with it - facts do. It is a commentary on conspiracy theories that they are so often forced to resort to "you have no imagination" or the equivalent to try to gloss over their complete lack of factual basis!
     
  15. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned


    I think it's you who doesn't understand nationalisation. The Bank of England was never nationalised - only in name and on paper. The reality is a bit different. The legislation has moved on a bit since Attlee's time. The Bank has power of decision over monetary policy (1998 Act of Parliament), meaning interest rates and capital; its court of directors' remuneration packages are secret; its court of directors in the main resembles a club of the super rich in banking and industry...owned by the public and fully accountable to them? Keep dreaming, dude.

    Maybe this might better inform you. Here's an archive article about all that from 1966 - try to keep up.

    From http://archive.tribunemagazine.co.u...ebruary-1946-the-attlee-government-passed-its


    Note the last sentence - The Govt must take courage and bring the Bank into real public ownership.

    The very fact that it is perceived that 'courage' is required for such an act tells us who really brokers the power down Parliament Square. You really should know better.
     
  16. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    I'm struggling to find what exactly has been 'debunked' here; the somewhat sensational heading of the thread suggests something has.

    It looks to me like a pretty straightforward statement. Which bit of bunk has been removed/corrected/clarified and/or made visible?

    Maybe there should be a page called 'Spot the Bunk', where the contributor gets to put an 'x' on the spot where they think the bunk might be?
     
  17. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    Who were the 'previous owners'? What is 'government stock'?
     
  18. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    The previous owners were people and organisations who owned the stock BEFORE nationalisation of course, and government stock is what it has always been.

    are you being deliberately obtuse, or genuinely don't understand these concepts??
     
  19. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    Me being deliberately obtuse? No - that's you!

    Who were the 'previous owners'? (your words) That was the question. And 'What is government stock'? That was the other one
     
  20. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    What's been 'debunked' here? Do you know?
     
  21. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    What about this? Have you got your metaphorical finger in your metaphorical ear?
     
  22. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    They are quoted from the BoE Act, 1946 - they are the words of the British Parliament.

    I really do not understand your question - do yuo truly not know what governmetn stock is??:confused:

    Here is a definition og government stock from ft.com:
    If you are asking who were the actual persons who held BoE stock in 1946 that was purchased by the Govt, I have no idea.
     
  23. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Yes certainly - your statement that the BoE is a private company.

    Do you really not know what it is you are "discussing"?? Perhaps you should ask more pertinent quetions instead of obtuse ones, and make fewer statements of fact until you know some.
     
  24. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    From 1966?? and you think I should keep up??:cool:

    the letter is an opinion piece, and nothing at all in it actually says the BoE is anything other than government owned. It laments the amount of transparency in some aspects, and thinks that more information shuold be made public.....but nowhere does it say that the BoE is actualy a private company.



    really? so who does it tell us those power brokers really are? by name please, and how is it you can identify them from the letter?

    And of course it STILL does nto say anything othe than the BoE is a governmetn owned entity that should be more transparent in its dealings.

    This is just another case of you reading info into something that simply isn't there.
     
  25. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    You fail to understand the workings of reality.
     
  26. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    Ooh, touchy. You still think the Bank of England is nationalised? Never mind all the 'private' bits. Like how much they pay themselves...did you read the article by Tribune from 1966?

    Anyway, you're right, I don't know any 'facts'; not like you do.
     
  27. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    No - it's an example of you not reading something that is there - it's a subtle difference; bit tricky, I know.

    And yes, you should keep up - I was trying to get you into the sixties and out of the forties. The reality of it is that the bank was never really nationalised and any muppet can see it. Except you, apparently.
     
  28. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    OK - so where in that letter does it say the BoE is a private company? where in it does it identify who the "real powerbrokers"?

    Since I missed them obviously you can point the words out to me.

    You still haven't managed to explain how it is that hte Government bying the entire shareholding leaves teeh bank as a private entity.

    If you are truly convinced of that then you shouldhaveno trouble laying out the exzact reasoning for a muppet like me - indeed yuo should enjoy the prospect - go to it!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 3, 2015
  29. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    It's an article isn't it? Not a letter. Anyway, yet more straw man argument from you - it really is all you can do. That and petty demi insults.



    The 'previous owners' of whom you say, you don't know who they are, were paid in govt stock. Have a think about that. The fact that the Bank has full power over monetary policy - without consulting anyone - indicates strongly that the institution is not in public control. Acts of Parliament say so. The piddling bit of public relations/propaganda known as The Bank of England Act is just that, an act. Oh yes, it was that great socialist reformer by the name of Attlee....Good ole Clem, one of us he was - Clement Attlee 1st Earl of Knobsville. Yes, he was an Earl! Keep it in the family, eh? There's more than a few Acts of Parliament that the Bank operates under - here's another example - you really need to get clued up, dude.
    Here's a foi request on a related matter:

    The question:

    And from the horse's mouth:

    So the Bank still trades privately under a charter and an Act of Parliament of 1694. The horse's mouth says: The Bank's powers are determined by reference to the 1694 Charter, the Bank of England Act of 1694 and subsequent Charters and legislative amendments

    Where have you been for the last 330 years? And you prefer to stick to the version you've been sold. No surprises with Mike.

    Anyway, what about this thread? What about FDR's quote - has it been 'debunked'? What did he mean? What do you think he meant Mike?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 3, 2015
  30. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Which bit of "AND subsequent Charters and legislative amendments" do you not understand?? Why is it that you think that legislation from the 20th century is "public relations/propaganda", but legislation from the 17th century that has been massively modified is apparently all that is actually in effect??

    And then you promptly contradict yuorself:

    those would be the BoE Act 1998. But you just said they are only "public relations/propaganda" so why do you also beleive they actually have effect?? Make up your mind please!

    And of course the BoE's monetary policy has a very public target - to control inflation - the inflation target being set by the consumer Price Index - measured by the Office for Natinal Statistics - - a division of the UK Statistics authority, a non-ministerial department that reports directly to Parliament. And if it fails to do so the Governor has to write to the chancellor of het Exchequer (the Finanace minister for those not familiar with archaic Brit offices) and explain why they failed, and what they are going to do about it.

    So it's target is set by a department controlled by parliament, and it is answerable to the Exchequer if it fails to meet the target.

    Not set by to any private persons, not reporting to the illuminati, not by or to the Rockerfellers or Rosthchilds - by Parliament and to the Government. I suspect you will tell us all that this is more PR/propaganda, doesn't actually mean anything or somesuch dismissal. Nonetheless it is actual real evidence of who the BoE is responsible to - whereas you are busy chasing shadows and mythology.

    Why is it you don't actually identify where the BoE being a private company is writen in the article (since you prefer that word) - you said it is in there - which words?

    BOEN is a nominee holding company owned by the BoE - it is not the BoE - this point seems to escape almost everyone in the conspiracy world!

    I wrote what I believe the quote means in the 5th post of this thread - go read it.
     
  31. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    Sorry, I missed the bit where you actually said anything truthful in representing what I've said or pointed you to in the context of the argument. Maybe it's because you have difficulty creating full and flowing sentences with the dots, dashes and letters in the right places.

    Here's a good one:

    Here's a little exercise for you. Where did I say that the words you quote were in the article? Off you go.
    The answer is non-existent, ofcourse, and as usual, Mike made it up and then attributed it to me. It's called a straw man argument and it's about all he can manage, apparently.

    This one's quite good as well:
    You sound like an ad for Goldman Sachs! All this goes to show what a weird and confused way you see things. And what happens when the moneylender doesn't get his pound of flesh? He takes two pounds instead, plus all the family silver; utilities etc and gives them to his criminal friends at a knockdown price..... and the poorest in society are the ones who pay.

    There's really no point discussing anything with you; apparently you lack understanding of the most simple concepts. Where do you live? Are the public being forced to pay for the criminal activities of bankers who fucked up their businesses for the sake of greed? Do you live in a bubble? Oh yeah, last word to Google -


    Ahh, those great 'enablers' of the great Goldman Sachs - as you would have people believe. You really need to step out of the tiny box you think inside. Try a bit of imagination for starters - it might hurt a bit first time.


    Mick - what have you 'debunked'? Nothing. It's very hard to understand how you can put that label on what you've written above - it's nonsense - clearly.
     
  32. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    that supports your position that hte BoE is a private bank.
    where did I quote any words??

    Here is where you said the BoE is a private bank:

    You then used that article to try to defend your position.

    So where in that article is there any information that supports your position that the BoE is a private bank?

    Really it shouldnt' be hard to do - you have an opinion about hte BoE being a private bank - OK - I get that - you use various bits of information to support your case - which is all to the good.

    But I dont' see anywhere in them anything that actually supports your position at all - so I am asking you to clarify what it is in that article in particular (but also in everythnig else you have mentioned) is it that htey support your contention that hte BoE is a prvate bank?

    Why do you not simply do that instead of launching all these silly attacks on me? Could it be that you don't actually know? Or even that you know that there is nothing in them that you can point to that supports your case, and you aer trying to avoid having to admit that???? Or something else?

    I find your inability or unwillingness to clarify your point most peculiar.
     
  33. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    Like I've said many times before - what I write speaks for itself. If you can't fathom it, I'm sorry.
     
  34. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    Has FDR's quote been 'debunked'?
     
  35. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    Then you ask: where did I quote any words?? immediately after quoting the very words you asked! Genius! You should ask for a raise.
     
  36. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    now you are just being silly - I didn't quote anything you said - I asked you where in the article you think it says the BoE is a private bank.

    I agree the article speaks for itself - it laments that the BoE is not very transparent and should be more so since it is publically owned.

    But clearly you see something else in there Why don't you just identify where that is? You can help me fathom it - you can explain where it is in the article. why dont you??
     
  37. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    And this represents the end of any conversation with you. If you can't be bothered to actually read what people say and keep on offering incorrect representations then what would be the gain? Maybe you actually don't understand...but either way, it's absolutely pointless having these circular arguments based on what I didn't say. Jeez.
     
  38. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    'Debunked'? What has been 'debunked'? Nothing. Anyone who can read would concur. To claim the contrary would be disingenuous and somewhat delusional
     
  39. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member


    I did read it - that is quite clear from my interpretation of it.

    If I didn't understand then why do you consistently refuse to explain?

    It is not a circular argument - I have asked you to explain what it is in that document that you say shows the BoE is a private bank, and you have persistently refused to do so. There is nothing circular about that. There's plenty of ducking and diving and avoidance on your part, and I have speculated why. But you haven't ever bothered to actually answer the simple question.
     
  40. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    zzzzz...are you for real, dude? Why do I have to keep on saying this: show me where I said that the article shows or says that the BoE is a private bank.

    Do you understand now? No more..