Context: a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government - FDR

[Mick West]

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

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson — and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W. W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States — only on a far bigger and broader basis.​

• Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), pg. 373.​

Content from external source

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

Letter to Edward M. House
Warm Springs, November 21, 1933

My dear Friend:

Dan showed me your letter, and the next day I sent for the Sprague person. To tell you the honest truth I had had no intention of hurting Sprague's feelings by not sending for him, but equally honestly I did not send for him because of the very simple reason that I had entirely forgotten his existence for at least a month.

On several occasions after his return from London, I had long talks with him and tried to get from him some concrete proposal or suggestion which would help us to lift the price level and therefore the debt burden under which the Country, especially the West and South, was staggering. He gave me me absolutely no constructive thought— only the same old suggestions about open market purchases and stabilization of the dollar with the pound. Everyone who is not blind knows that the open market purchases have practically no immediate effect and only a very doubtful long-range effect; also that every time stabilization on the old level of about $4.50 was mentioned, cotton, wheat, corn and everything else started to go down. A continuation of the fall of the price level which ran from the middle of September to the middle of October would have brought the whole Recovery Program toppling about our ears.

Sprague is a nuisance. He carries no real weight except with the Bank of England crowd and some of our New York City bankers, and I regard his suggestion of a meeting as absolutely disloyal. In any event, I kept him from formally delivering a silly letter to me, had Woodin talk with him and subsequently Morgenthau, Jr. Sprague has said that if he resigned, Government bonds would go down five points! Now let me tell you something cheerful.

This Southland has a smile on its face. Ten cent cotton has stopped foreclosures, saved banks and started people definitely on the upgrade. That means all the way from Virginia to Texas. Sears-Roebuck sales in Georgia are 110 per cent above 1932.

Another angle: Hugh Johnson has just telephoned me to be sure to read the latest Dun & Bradstreet Report. He says every section of the country is showing definite gain.

I had a nice talk with Jack Morgan the other day and he and he seemed more worried about Tugwell's speech than about anything else, especially when Tugwell said, "From now on property rights and financial rights will be subordinated to human rights." J.P.M. did not seem much troubled over the gold purchasing, and confessed that he had been completely misled in regard to the Federal expenditures. The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson— and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of WW — The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United Stated - only on a far bigger and broader basis. I am having a grand rest and am catching up on much needed sleep. Take care of yourself and do write me soon

Content from external source

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.

 

[Juror No. 8]

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.

 

[Unregistered]

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.

 

[Mick West]

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?

 

[MikeC]

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??

 

[Unregistered]

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

 

[Mick West]

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

 

[Spongebob]

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

 

[lee h oswald]

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

 

[MikeC]

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.

 

[lee h oswald]

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.

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.

 

[MikeC]

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!

 

[lee h oswald]

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!

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?

 

[MikeC]

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!!

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

An Act to bring the capital stock of the Bank of England into public ownership and bring the
Bank under public control, to make provision with respect to the relations between the
Treasury, the Bank of England and other banks and for purposes connected with the matters
aforesaid. [14 February 1946]
1 Transfer of Bank stock to the Treasury
(1) On the appointed day –
(a) the whole of the existing capital stock of the Bank (hereinafter referred to as “Bank
stock”) shall, by virtue of this section, be transferred, free of all trusts, liabilities and
incumbrances, to such person as the Treasury may by order nominate,(3) to be held by
that person on behalf of the Treasury;
(b) the Treasury shall issue, to the person who immediately before the appointed day is
registered in the books of the Bank as the holder of any Bank stock, the equivalent
amount of stock created by the Treasury for the purpose (hereinafter referred to as the
“Government stock”).

Content from external source

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!

 

[lee h oswald]

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!!

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.uk/article/18th-november-1966/5/in-february-1946-the-attlee-government-passed-its

IN FEBRUARY 1946 the Attlee Government passed its first nationalisation measure, the Bank of England Act. As Labour's policy document Let Us Face the Future had stated: "The Bank of England with its financial powers must be

18th November 1966 from the Tribune Magazine Archive Economy Of The United Kingdom, Bank Of England, Federal Reserve System, Chief Cashier, Central Bank, Hm Treasury, Bank, Chancellor Of The Exchequer, Nationalisation Of Northern Rock, Bank Of Canada, Business / Finance




brought under public ownership and the operation of the other banks harmonised with industrial needs." The Act was designed to bring the capital stock of the Bank of England into public ownership, to bring the Bank under public control and to lay down the formal relationship between the Treasury and the Bank. The Treasury was authorised to give such directions to the Bank as it thought necessary in the public interest.

As William Robson points out in his book Nationalised In dustry and Public Ownership, legislation bringing industries into public ownership usually insists that Ministers should consult with the Board before giving a direction, "the only exception being the Bank of England where the Treasury is required to consult only with the Governor of the Bank." But in any disagreement between the two, the Treasury have the last word.

The Bank is administered by a Governor, Deputy Governor and a Court of 16 Directors, all appointed by the Sovereign, with limited terms of office, but all eligible for reappointment. During the debate on the Second Reading of the Bank of England Bill in the House of Commons on October 29, 1945, Hugh Dalton, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, assured the House that the Court of Directors would not resemble a bankers club.

"We shall advise his Majesty to place upon the Court persons of suitable and varied ability and knowledge . . . and we shall seek in particular to compose the Court as adequately to reflect industrial as well as financial experience." Today the Bank's Directors are Lord Kindersley, Michael Babington Smith,, William Keswick, Sir Harry Pilkington, Lord Nelson of Stafford, Christopher Morse, all prominent company directors; Sir George Bolton, banker; Sir Maurice Laing, President of the Confederation of British Industries; Sir William Carron, President of the Amalgamated Enginee ring Union; Sir Henry Wilson Smith, a former high-ranking Treasury official; Sir Ronald Thornton, Vice-chairman of Barclays Bank; Lord Robens, Chairman of the National Coal Board; Cecil King, Chairman of IPC; James Bailey, a former Chief Cashier at the Bank; Jasper Hollom, the present chief Cashier and W. P.Allen.
The present Governor, Leslie O'Brien, is also a former Chief Cashier. Sir Maurice Parsons, .he present Deputy Governor, was formerly Deputy Chief Cashier and private secretary to Montagu Norman. This list may be a varied one, but it cannot conceivably be said to reflect 'industrial as adequately as financial' experience.



What rewards do members of the Court get for their services? The answer is only partially to be found in the Bank of England Charter, 1946. This states that the Governor should receive a fee of £2,000 a year, the Deputy Governor £1,500 and the Directors 000. But, it continues: "The Governor and the Deputy Governor and any Director rendering exclusive services to the Bank of England may in respect of their exclusive services receive remuneration at such rates as the Court of Directors may from time to time determine in addition to their fees for services at the Court." The Bank refuses to disclose details of this added remuneration. It needs little imagination to guess how astronomically this could have risen since 1946.

Those responsible for the Bank of England Act were optimistic about its effects. They envisaged a new era of responsible partnership between the Bank and the Government, in the national interest. Hugh Dalton said, "we plan . . . for full employment and full production, for an expansive economy . . . against restriction and in favour of abundance. If all this is to be done then we must have the Treasury, the Central Banks and the clearing banks all pulling together . . . and their operations must harmonise with the national interest and industrial needs." William Robson wrote, "The Labour Party determined that never again should the Government and the people be at the mercy of a Bank of England intent on deflation at all costs. (Sounds familiar)

The financial crisis of 1931 was also remembered as an indication of the ease with which financiers can create a state of insecurity and bring about a political crisis by manipulating the instruments they control." Is the situation very different 30 years later? The power of the Governor of the Bank of England may have become more muted since the days of Montagu Norman, but it has continued to influence the economic policies of successive Governments. Dedication to de flation and stop-go, to periodic and drastic pruning of public expenditure programmes and to leaping unemployment figures has been strenuously and effectively expressed from Threadneedle Street, throughout the last 30 years.

Hand in hand with the Treasury, Governors of the Bank of England have prescribed unpalatable doses of deflation to bolster up confidence in sterling. Who should have the last word in any dispute between the two institutions is irrelevant. There have been no disputes, as far as the public (THE OWNERS according to you) can see.

The 1946 Act has allowed the Bank of England to continue to shelter comfortably behind a curtain of secrecy. It enjoys privileges not granted to other nationalised concerns. The salaries of the Court of Directors are never disclosed and the Bank does not have to publish any annual statements of accounts. It's economic advisors are unknown outside exclusive City circles, and yet its influence on Government policy shows no sign of waning.

The Government's new Cornpanies Bill will demand that the salaries of top directors are subjected to public scrutiny. Yet the Bank of England is granted immunity from such sordid treatment, and members of its.

Court of Directors can continue to sit tight on their undisclosed incomes and criticise the efforts of the trades unions to keep wages level with cost of living increases. The Government must take courage and bring the Bank into real public ownership.

JANE McKERRON

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.

 

[lee h oswald]

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?

 

[lee h oswald]

lol - dude ...[!?]

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

Who were the 'previous owners'? What is 'government stock'?

 

[MikeC]

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??

 

[lee h oswald]

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??

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

 

[lee h oswald]

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??

What's been 'debunked' here? Do you know?

 

[lee h oswald]

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.uk/article/18th-november-1966/5/in-february-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.

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

 

[MikeC]

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

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??

Here is a definition og government stock from ft.com:

government stock.
One of the bonds sold by a government to finance its budget deficit (the difference between what it gets in taxes and what it spends). Government bonds are usually considered to be a very safe form of investment. [1]

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.

 

[MikeC]

What's been 'debunked' here? Do you know?

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.

 

[MikeC]

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 1966?? and you think I should keep up??

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.

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.

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.

 

[lee h oswald]

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??

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.

You fail to understand the workings of reality.

 

[lee h oswald]

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.

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.

 

[lee h oswald]

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

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.

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.

 

[MikeC]

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!

 

[lee h oswald]

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!

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:

From:
20 April 2011

Dear Bank of England,

Whilst it appears the Bank of England is 'owned' by the Treasury
Solicitor as fiduciary for the Treasury, itself fiduciary for the
British people, BOEN Ltd is a private corporation. I note that the
FoI Act exempts the BoE from revealing information about (c) the
provision of private banking services and related services.

What can empower the public sector to undertake private business?
It is extremely unusual. Either it is a public operation and its
subsidiaries are public also, or it is not. In my humble opinion,
any private business interest held by the public sector must be a)
called into question, b) subject to the srutiny of the taxpayers on
whose liability it operates and to whom credit should accrue.

BOEN Ltd appears to be a Trojan horse. Of course, you will not
reveal anything to confirm or deny this, but please tell me what
Acts permit the BoE to privateer (in the guise of BOEN Ltd.).

Yours faithfully,

And from the horse's mouth:

BANK OF ENGLAND

London EC2R8AH

Ben Norman
Deputy Secretary of the Bank

16 May 2011

Tel: 020-7601 4748

Fax: 020-7601 5460
E-mail: xxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.uk

Mr xxxxxxxxxxx
Via email to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxm

Dear Mr xxxxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your email dated 20 April.

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. May I refer you to the Bank's website which contains links to the relevant legislation at

www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/iegislation/legis.htm

Yours sincerely


Ben Norman
Deputy Secretary of the Bank

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?

 

[MikeC]

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:

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.

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.

 

[lee h oswald]

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.

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:

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?

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:

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??

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 -

1. Henry Paulson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson
   Contents. 1 Personal life and family; 2 Early career; 3 Goldman Sachs; 4 U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. 4.1 Notable statements. 5 Credit Crisis of 2007–2009 ...
   Personal life and family - Early career - Goldman Sachs
2. Goldman Sachs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs
   In May 2006, Paulson left the firm to serve as U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Lloyd ... In June 2009, Goldman Sachs repaid the U.S. Treasury's TARP investment, ...
   Lloyd Blankfein - Marcus Goldman - Bulge bracket - 30 Hudson Street
3. How close are Goldman Sachs' s connections with the US treasury?
   
   www.guardian.co.uk › Business › Andrew Clark on America
   10 Aug 2009 – Henry Paulson, US treasury secretary and former Goldman Sachs chief executive, talking to the media during the financial crisis last September ...
4. Another Ex- Goldman Sachs CEO for US Treasury Secretary ...
   
   www.thestockenthusiast.com/.../another-ex-goldman-sachs-ceo-for-u...
   4 Aug 2011 – Speculation is growing that US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is going to step down from his position some time soon. The tumultuous ...
5. Goldman Sachs Hires Ex-Treasury Aide Siewert for - BusinessWeek
   
   www.businessweek.com/.../goldman-sachs-hires-ex-treasury-aide-sie...
   13 Mar 2012 – Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), the fifth-biggest U.S. bank by assets, hired former U.S. Treasury Department aide and presidential spokesman ...
6. How Goldman Sachs Took Over The American Economy And The ...
   
   www.prosebeforehos.com/.../how-goldman-sachs-took-over-the-ame...
   29 Jun 2009 – Matt Taibbi details in Rolling Stone how Goldman Sachs has become a financial ... the market, exploiting investors, and taking over the US government. ... As George Bush's last Treasury secretary, former Goldman CEO Henry ...
7. Guessing game begins over next Treasury chief | Reuters
   
   www.reuters.com/.../us-usa-treasury-succession-idUSBRE84M07R20...
   23 May 2012 – WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wanted for the Treasury Department: a new ... U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner takes a tour of the Marlin Steel .... Bush turned to Goldman Sachs chief Henry Paulson to run Treasury and he ...
8. Jon Corzine for Treasury Secretary! - Washington Examiner
   
   campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/.../jon-corzine... - United States
   2 Nov 2011 – (Don't forget, Corzine was CEO at Goldman Sachs during the infamous bailout ... 2008 essay on Corzine as Obama's prospective Treasury Secretary, ... After he was elected to the US Senate from New Jersey in 2000, Corzine ...
9. The White (Goldman Sachs) House
   
   the-classic-liberal.com/white-goldman-sachs-house/
   25 Oct 2009 – It's just a mere coincidence that the following list of Goldman Sachs employees went on to work in the White House and U.S... ... Obama Administration: Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geitner Former Goldman ...
10. Where Will U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner End Up?
    
    www.mises.ca/.../where-will-u-s-treasury-secretary-geithner-end-up/
    15 Mar 2012 – Where Will U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner End Up? ... -Diana Farrell who spent a few years at Goldman Sachs and the McKinsey Global ...

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.

 

[MikeC]

that supports your position that hte BoE is a private bank.

Here's a good one:

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?

Here's a little exercise for you. Where did I say that the words you quote were in the article? Off you go.

where did I quote any words??

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

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

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.

 

[lee h oswald]

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.

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

 

[lee h oswald]

Has FDR's quote been 'debunked'?

 

[lee h oswald]

Here's a good one:

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?

Here's a little exercise for you. Where did I say that the words you quote were in the article? Off you go.

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

 

[MikeC]

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??

 

[lee h oswald]

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??

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.

 

[lee h oswald]

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

 

[MikeC]

And this represents the end of any conversation with you. If you can't be bothered to actually read what people say

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

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.

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.

 

[lee h oswald]

I did read it

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

I have asked you to explain what it is in that document that you say shows the BoE is a private bank

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..