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

[cheeple]

I think the questions really are about how exactly this "owning" works. Who are the actual individuals, and how much power do they have? Who exactly decides US foreign policy? London Bankers? Chinese Bankers? Who decided to start a war with Iraq?

And how does it work on the world stage? Who owns South Korea? Who owns China?

The Federal Reserve effectively "Owns" America, they control the money supply which controls everything, they answer to no one, they lend Trillions to foreign Govt's and even "lose" $9 Trillion and still answer to no one.

Thomas Jefferson warned us

[h=1]"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered. "[/h]"Money is Power", or shall we say, "The Monopoly to Create Credit Moneyand charge interest is Absolute Power" Alex James.

"Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws".

Letter written from London by the Rothschilds to their New York agents introducing theirbanking method into America: "The few who can understand the system will be either so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while, on the other hand, that great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that Capital derives from the system, will bear its burden without complaint and, perhaps, without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests."

Amsel (Amschel) Bauer Mayer Rothschild, 1838:

 

[Mick West]

Control of the money supply seems like a very blunt tool. How do they use it to get things done?

 

[cheeple]

Control of the money supply seems like a very blunt tool. How do they use it to get things done?

Consolidating all of the wealth into the hands of a few individuals leaving the rest to spend their lives desperately scrambling to pay off debts with currency which loses value through inflation faster than they can accumulate it. Thats complete control.

 

[Mick West]

Consolidating all of the wealth into the hands of a few individuals leaving the rest to spend their lives desperately scrambling to pay off debts with currency which loses value through inflation faster than they can accumulate it. Thats complete control.

But how do they do that by controlling the money supply. What exactly do they do?

And it seems quite straightforward to live a reasonable life with very little debt. Nobody is forcing you to get into debt. And you can invest your money in inflation protected securities if that's your concern.

 

[Mick West]

This guy is British, lays it out pretty well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx9w2beoGcw

Really? He seems to be arguing for essentially the Federal Reserve System, at least for something like the Fed Board of Governors being an independent body managing the money supply. And he wants to keep inflation at a steady 2%, and constantly add money to the money supply.

What he seems to be advocating is greater regulation of the financial system, and a strong focus on avoiding conflicts of interest. He doesn't say much about the government being "owned" by the banks.

... later ...

Aha, so what he is actually proposing is an independent central bank with a form of full reserve banking.

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/our-proposals/

He's also suggesting that one way of injecting money into the money supply would be to simply give it to people.

 

[vortexan]

I'm a little confused by your example figures above. The "High powered" money (by your link) seems to be equivalent to paper money. Like if I have a $100 bill, it's still high powered money. You can base fractional reserve banking on a big pile of $100 bills the same as on central bank loans.

So I'm not following exactly how a member bank can lend $9000 from a $1000 fed loan, but only $900 from a deposit of 10 $100 bills?

I agree, maybe I don't have that example right. sorry to bring up wikipedia but this info is pretty pertinent. High powered money is also known as "M0" <--thats a zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

 

[vortexan]

Control of the money supply seems like a very blunt tool. How do they use it to get things done?

I would probably bring up the CAFR and the pushing of Pension Systems all across the public and private world. In fact the Social Security "Fund" is one huge pension pool that the govt uses to invest. Once a fund buys 'controlling' stock of a particular corporation, they have a huge amount of sway in the board room. Before you say Vanguard owns most of Microsoft, realize that they do so on behalf of their clients. I've not been able to track down their client list, yet.

Of course it's an assumption, but so is stating controlling money is a blunt tool. Money is the lifeblood of any kind of hierarchy of power, since the majority chase it instead of their dreams.

The ultimate money would be one you could eat. I'm working on that lol.

 

[cheeple]

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

No this was at a time when people were taught a Trivium education based on Grammar, Logic, and most importantly Rhetoric the rhetoric is clear and concise so to accept his words verbatim would mean to acknowledge a conspiracy grand in scale and accept the objective truth of the matter.

Who is responsible for that in a democracy??

We have never lived in a true democracy and were never meant to, we were a Republic by design.

 

[MikeC]

We have never lived in a true democracy and were never meant to, we were a Republic by design.

And why is it that a republic cannot be a democracy??

I love this one......it's a doozy....

 

[MikeC]

No this was at a time when people were taught a Trivium education based on Grammar, Logic, and most importantly Rhetoric the rhetoric is clear and concise so to accept his words verbatim would mean to acknowledge a conspiracy grand in scale and accept the objective truth of the matter.

In what way is the rhetoric clear and concise?

As I pointed out in the quote you didn't attribute to me, there are multiple meanings of "owned", and I do not see the meaning as clearly being one or the other.

I suspect that you do because it supports your case - however for those of us who require convincing I suggest that it takes more than your statement that it means one over the other.

Whether it can be considered rhetoric or not is irrelevant - rhetoric is nothing more than the art of discourse - it does not change the meaning of words, nor deprive them of meaning unless that is indicated somewhere.

And in the context of the late 18th century I suggest that "owned" was well understood in the sense of a creditor "owned" a debtor in exactly the manner I suggested - debt in those days could be a lot harsher than it is now!

 

[MikeC]

I got a question - aren't $$ notes actually a "promise to pay" on behalf of the Govt?

And so in fact the issuing of notes means that the Govt is the debtor?

How then is it that the Govt "owns" everyone if the Govt is actually the debtor??

 

[Mick West]

I would probably bring up the CAFR and the pushing of Pension Systems all across the public and private world. In fact the Social Security "Fund" is one huge pension pool that the govt uses to invest. Once a fund buys 'controlling' stock of a particular corporation, they have a huge amount of sway in the board room. Before you say Vanguard owns most of Microsoft, realize that they do so on behalf of their clients. I've not been able to track down their client list, yet.

So what exactly are you bringing up here?

What pension fund owns a controlling stock in ANY corporation?

 

[cheeple]

I got a question - aren't $$ notes actually a "promise to pay" on behalf of the Govt?

And so in fact the issuing of notes means that the Govt is the debtor?

How then is it that the Govt "owns" everyone if the Govt is actually the debtor??

You missed the entire point of this thread, it's the Federal Reserve who have enslaved a nation, every "$$" or Federal Reserve note Printed or digitized is debt which has to be paid by a generation further and further into the future, Silver and Gold as Money is actually an asset but Fiat Currency is debt which is why the debt can NEVER be paid off, in order to make it's interest payments it has to take out a loan to make that payment which must be paid back with interest, and where does the federal reserve get this "$$"? it creates it out of Thin Air.

 

[cheeple]

The problem is that we don't know what FDR meant. It's a comment in passing. The bunk is in the usage of the quote to support a world view of covert elite domination and conspiracy. It's similar to the debunking of JFK's quote about a "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy", except here we've got far less to go on.

Nobody doubts that JP Morgan had a lot of political power - but how much? And was he part of a larger homogenous conspiracy, or just one of several individuals? What aspects of government did he influence? How extensive is the "ownership". When FDR says they are fighting the bank, then what does that mean - fighting about what?

Context is important. But a lot of the context is unknown. Repeating the quote without the context, and without addressing the unknowns, that's the bunk.

Mick, I'd like to know what you think FDR's quote means instead of just saying "we dont know" or atleast a possible explanation of it's context.

Also will you please read Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin, I can even mail you a copy if you PM me a mailing address but I've seen it for only a couple bucks on Amazon, you might even be able to get it at your local library.

 

[Mick West]

Mick, I'd like to know what you think FDR's quote means instead of just saying "we dont know" or atleast a possible explanation of it's context.

I don't know what it means. I'd need to learn a lot more about the context of the time, and of the specific events he was referring to. It does NOT seem to suggest that the banks tell the government what to do in all matters. To me it simply suggests a disproportionate political influence by bankers.

Also will you please read Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin, I can even mail you a copy if you PM me a mailing address but I've seen it for only a couple bucks on Amazon, you might even be able to get it at your local library.

No, I have no respect for GEG. His web site is an unending stream of nonsense with far too many ads.
http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

 

[cheeple]

I don't know what it means. I'd need to learn a lot more about the context of the time, and of the specific events he was referring to. It does NOT seem to suggest that the banks tell the government what to do in all matters. To me it simply suggests a disproportionate political influence by bankers.

ok, cause if this were the other way around the whole "I dont know" wouldnt fly, this isn't the book of Revelation with Symbology, it's historical, factual, and rhetorical.

 

[MikeC]

You missed the entire point of this thread, it's the Federal Reserve who have enslaved a nation, every "$$" or Federal Reserve note Printed or digitized is debt which has to be paid by a generation further and further into the future, Silver and Gold as Money is actually an asset but Fiat Currency is debt which is why the debt can NEVER be paid off, in order to make it's interest payments it has to take out a loan to make that payment which must be paid back with interest, and where does the federal reserve get this "$$"? it creates it out of Thin Air.

I didn't miss the point of the thread - I asked a question, which apparently you can't answer?

 

[vortexan]

So what exactly are you bringing up here?

You were wondering how they use the monetary system to get things done. I was attempting to illustrate a thought about pooled investment accounts, the fact is it's alot of money to play around with, plus with the impetus that they do it for 'the people.'

What pension fund owns a controlling stock in ANY corporation?

I believe there are statutes against any specific government owning more than 5% of anything they've invested in. To circumvent such a statute, some have created umbrella fund managers to 'pool' various government's investments to become a larger voice, of course, to protect the people's money. Laughable. Anybody wonder what the overhead of such a system is?
I realize this is a vague scheme i've proposed, research into pooled investment accounts would most likely show how many governments can 'pool' their investments and be the proverbial elephant in the board room. The managers of those accounts is where the control ultimately rests, the people's money have been entrusted with these double dealing gangsters, aligned with a banker agenda of financial unification of this system across the world... but thats my take.

What else do they talk about at World Economic Forum but this?
------------------
I wonder why they dont invest that pooled wealth locally, into businesses that aren't traded on wallstreet, let alone China? After all, they write the statutes that govern themselves. There is other statutes that forces any government investment into a company with more than a million dollar market cap, almost guarenteeing maximum social stratification.

 

[cheeple]

I didn't miss the point of the thread - I asked a question, which apparently you can't answer?

I did answer your question your just dont want to see it, you said how can the government "own" us if they are the debtor, and I said it's the Federal Reserve who has control, they control the money supply.

 

[MikeC]

You are right - if that is the answer I still don't see it - how does that answer the question?

 

[Mick West]

ok, cause if this were the other way around the whole "I dont know" wouldnt fly, this isn't the book of Revelation with Symbology, it's historical, factual, and rhetorical.

On the contrary, "I don't know" is the one thing that conspiracy theorists should be saying a lot more often. The problem is they start with "I know there a ruling elite that's conspiring to own the planet", then then they go from there. Perhaps if they started with "I don't know if there's a ruling elite, or what form that elite has", then conversations might progress better.

You know the aim of rhetoric is not to communicate, but to persuade or influence. So perhaps you use the wrong word there?

 

[cheeple]

On the contrary, "I don't know" is the one thing that conspiracy theorists should be saying a lot more often. The problem is they start with "I know there a ruling elite that's conspiring to own the planet", then then they go from there. Perhaps if they started with "I don't know if there's a ruling elite, or what form that elite has", then conversations might progress better.

You know the aim of rhetoric is not to communicate, but to persuade or influence. So perhaps you use the wrong word there?

Mic, your saying you dont know and thats the end of it as if thats where it ends, re-read the original quote then please offer an eductated deduction on the meaning, also everyone including me starts off not knowing then investigates and makes a determination, you want the safe way out by opting out of having to make a determination.

Also I mentioned a Trivium education based on Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric not just Rhetoric, your throwing in a red herring to change the subject, in no way shape or form have you debunked this thread regarding the federal reserve conspiracy to control a nation from the top level down "I dont know" shouldn't be how you aim to debunk conspiracies.

 

[cheeple]

You are right - if that is the answer I still don't see it - how does that answer the question?

I answered your question the govt is not in control, I personally never said they were maybe someone else did and you were talking to them, it's us and future generations that have been reduced to serfdom, Maybe not you, me, or others reading this but look around the country, Ny, NJ, Maryland, Detroit, they are all living in utter poverty only able to eat and have shelter on a handout, and it's only gonna get worse, you can quote me on that, it will not get better.

 

[vortexan]

do I bring anything to the discussion?

why can't "trickle up" economics work? Credit directly to the people, better yet, each municipality. Banks should go out of the governing business, as William Jennings Bryan opined.

 

[MikeC]

I answered your question the govt is not in control,

My question was not about whether the Gov't is in control or not.

I personally never said they were maybe someone else did and you were talking to them,

As above - I have no idea what your point is in this regard.

it's us and future generations that have been reduced to serfdom,

I understand that hte value of a fiat currency is backed by the taxation of the population (and such other forms of revenue gathering as a Govt may be able to engage in), however I do nto see how this is serfdom.

Maybe not you, me, or others reading this but look around the country, Ny, NJ, Maryland, Detroit, they are all living in utter poverty only able to eat and have shelter on a handout, and it's only gonna get worse, you can quote me on that, it will not get better.

There seem to be plenty of people in those areas who are not living in utter poverty, and there have always people living in such condition all throughout history and in every society ever - whether it had a central bank or not. So i do not see why it is that the Federal Reserve is the reason forthis to be the case here and now.

 

[MikeC]

Mic, your saying you dont know and thats the end of it as if thats where it ends, re-read the original quote then please offer an eductated deduction on the meaning, also everyone including me starts off not knowing then investigates and makes a determination, you want the safe way out by opting out of having to make a determination.

Making a determination, decision or conclusion is not actually compulsory.

It is perfectly reasonable to say "I don't know, and haev either no way of knowing or no great interst in knowing."

Also I mentioned a Trivium education based on Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric not just Rhetoric, your throwing in a red herring to change the subject, in no way shape or form have you debunked this thread regarding the federal reserve conspiracy to control a nation from the top level down "I dont know" shouldn't be how you aim to debunk conspiracies.

AFAIK no-one is actualy trying to debunk a conspiracy. Debunking is related to particular pieces of information.

For example "The fed is privately owned" can be debunked because it is a particular piece of information that we can make enquiries about. "The fed is a conspiracy to own the nation" cannot be debunked because it does not contain any actual identifiable information. Should you wish to list the premise upon which you make this conclusion then those particular items might be debunked - assuming they have bunk.

 

[cheeple]

My question was not about whether the Gov't is in control or not

.

Thats the question I read if it's not re-state your question, I'll give my opinion.

I understand that hte value of a fiat currency is backed by the taxation of the population (and such other forms of revenue gathering as a Govt may be able to engage in), however I do nto see how this is serfdom.

It's simple, by over taxation on multiple levels -paychecks, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes, property taxes and a dollar which loses purchasing power continually it's easy to make a serf slave to scratch out an existence. If we had a strong dollar backed by something tangible money would be an asset and not debt and a simplified fair tax we could all be retired by 30, since this is not the case you have to keep on working and producing pretty much til the day we die, now I'm talking about the majority of people in this country and also I'm talking about most recently, this hasn't been the case for the majority of the country it's always been a country where the "American Dream" is real and all you have to do is work hard, and save. Now it takes two people to raise a family to make enough money to pay the rent, forget about saving, buying a house, sending kids to college, once again I know you'll say thats not your situation, it's not mine either but recently in the last ten years it's the new reality for most of the Country, and all those people in the cities I mentioned that you say alot of them are not living in poverty, yes some have good jobs, others made good money while the gettn' was good, and others have jobs afforded by the tax payer i.e. police, firemen, city workers, in alot of cities if this is not your situation their is no opportunity.

 

[MikeC]

We could all be retired by 30?? I'm sure we'd all be intrested in that - but TBH my first reaction is "if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is" - I suspect the math & reasoning is quiet complicated so if yuo ahev a link or 3 that might save space rather than posting it all here??

You do realise, don't you, that a strong dollar means fewer jobs????? It means itr is cheaper to import stuff made elsewher than to build it yourself - so goodbye to even more manufacturing, and subsidising agriculture even more in order to prop up farmers. the quantitative easing the USA has been going through is a last resort (because interest rates are already as low as they can be!) to try to keep the value of hte US$ low so as to try tio prevent the flight of manufacturing overseas, and indeed to bring it back.

By "something tangible" to back the dollar I have a sneaking suspicion you mean a return to a gold standard. Sadly for yuor utopia such a move would bankrupt the country almost instantly - without all those dollars "created by the banks" through fractional banking, pretty much every mortgage in the country would fall due instantly but there would be no money to pay them. Also the working overdraufts small businesses often have would be recalled - shutting most of them down at the same time.

The gold standard also doesn't prevent speculation and profiteering - the 1920's should be enough to convince you of that, and before then was the "long depression" from 1873-1879, and which by some counts in the USA actualy went to 1896!! Note that this was also before hte Federal Reserve was bought into existence.

so sorry - I do not share your rose-tinted view of how simple it would be to fix everything.

 

[cheeple]

so sorry - I do not share your rose-tinted view of how simple it would be to fix everything.

yes it would be impossible to return to a strong currency now, too much damage has been done, too much monopoly money printed, too much Globalism and out sourced jobs, too much govt intervention into industry and real estate, we will have to wait for this monetary system to collapse and hopefully return to a Constitutional Republic.

 

[MikeC]

Except of course you are a constitutional republic (wild conspiracy theory accusations notwithstanding), and the current monetary system is not going to collapse in our lifetimes.

the US may well lose much of its primacy in the world - and if the petrodollar disappears it will be a great deal of pain indeed - but the monetary system is worldwide now and no single nation can do without it or change it down to anything else.

 

[cheeple]

Except of course you are a constitutional republic (wild conspiracy theory accusations notwithstanding), and the current monetary system is not going to collapse in our lifetimes.

the US may well lose much of its primacy in the world - and if the petrodollar disappears it will be a great deal of pain indeed - but the monetary system is worldwide now and no single nation can do without it or change it down to anything else.

Monetary Systems have collapsed many times - Yugoalsavia 1993, Zaire 1992, Venezuela 2002, Ukraine 1995, Turkey 1997, Russia 1992, Romania 2001, Peru 1989, Georgia 1994, etc. Thats the natural course of Fiat currency, to run it as hard and as long a central bank can while turning that imaginary wealth into Tangible Assets, then line the pockets of politicians to make the same mistake again, which is why Thomas Jefferson warned us not to have a central bank or fiat currency and stipulated it in the Constitution.

 

[MikeC]

Yeah but those are single money systems and the countries all came back within the worldwide system with fiat currencies - they did not suddenly adopt a gold standard or any other system that is fundamentally different from the previous one.

And indeed most of them were not actually collapses at all - Ukraine devalued 60%, Georgia replaced its currency and used IMF support to reorganise its economy, Zaire likewise suffered hyper inflation but still has a fiat currency.

Your examples are all good evidence for my proposition - not for your hoped for change!!

Where in the constitution is it stipulated not to have a central bank or fiat currency???

 

[cheeple]

Yeah but those are single money systems and the countries all came back within the worldwide system with fiat currencies - they did not suddenly adopt a gold standard or any other system that is fundamentally different from the previous one.

And indeed most of them were not actually collapses at all - Ukraine devalued 60%, Georgia replaced its currency and used IMF support to reorganise its economy, Zaire likewise suffered hyper inflation but still has a fiat currency.

Your examples are all good evidence for my proposition - not for your hoped for change!!

Where in the constitution is it stipulated not to have a central bank or fiat currency???

I stated clearly after fiat currencies go the pockets of politicians are lined by central bank crooks and convinced to repeat the same process all over again while they take that imaginary wealth and put it into hard assets, thats no surprise and I knew that.

With regard to not having central banks and fiat currency my first example is from Thomas Jefferson not in the constitution but below that is the quote from the constitution.

[h=1]"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered. "[/h]
Article I, Section 10 -- No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

 

[MikeC]

I have no idea what your comment about weath being stolen is about - AFAIK it makes no difference whether the currency is fiat or anything else for that to happen!

Your quote from the constitution does not prevent the creation of a fiat currency by a Federal authority - it says that STATES can only make gold or silver as a tender for payment. Kansas can make gold dollar coins - but it cannot make a fiat Kansas $.

Jefferson's quote talks about PRIVATE banks making currency - nothing at all about a CENTRAL bank doing so. No doubt you see the Federal Reserve as a private bank - it is a common conspiracy meme- but in fact it is not. And moreover private banks WERE making currency - as were shops and companies of all sorts during the various currency crises of the 1800-s - their currency is called tokens, and many of them are now collectables.

 

[vortexan]

Jefferson's quote talks about PRIVATE banks making currency - nothing at all about a CENTRAL bank doing so. No doubt you see the Federal Reserve as a private bank - it is a common conspiracy meme- but in fact it is not.

So is there proof that the FED is a public bank or do we have to just take Bernanke's word for it?
-------
"Atheism turns scientists, bureaucrats, and police into secular zealots." - Vortexan

 

[MikeC]

There's plenty published on the Federal Reserve - why not do some research?

It has aspects of both private and public ownership - if you can identify what the respective features are you will go a long way to improving your understanding of the US system.

 

[vortexan]

There's plenty published on the Federal Reserve - why not do some research?

It has aspects of both private and public ownership - if you can identify what the respective features are you will go a long way to improving your understanding of the US system.

Oh... so can you simply say it's not a private bank and expect us to think it's public?

So your response prooves that the FED is not a public bank. Nevertheless, I know how I think it works... I want to hear it from you how you think it works. Don't tell me to go research it, thats not how a debate is won. A few sentences explaining the system would suffice, no need to write a book.

A quick note on how I think it "works" would probably point to other public-private partnerships that governments enter into. Namely military weapons manufacturers, say Lockheed, & Martin.
---Only to say that are largely dependent on the government for it's business,
---also they produce 'things' that "the government" has determined the people not have direct access to.
---and if they were the only company to produce these types of weapons, they would have a monopoly in that market.
-------------
What is fact is a timeline.
1913 the FED was created. 1914 WWI. 1920s Speculative Roaring bubble. 1929 black tuesday, great depression. 1939 WWII.
If these incredible events are an effect of the FED's creation it would be the result of the ability of "the government" to ""Wag the Dog"" and exclude will of the people from the power of the purse, an important check that the public have over the people within government.

What a wonderful digression. I suppose what would add to this discussion would be to identify the individuals responsible for writing the Federal Reserve Act. That surely could reveal if the FED was truly a creation for the benefit of the people or a few hacks.

 

[MikeC]

No - I can say it's not a private bank because there is a great deal of information out there to support that conclusion.

and I didn't say it was a public bank - the quote in question was about never letting private banks control the money supply, and I pointed out that it is not a private bank, thus debunking the claim.

Then I added that it has many characteristics of both private and public institutions, and suggested that these features are well documented and it might be useful for someone to go do a little research into what they were. Did you do any?

there were depressions before the creation of the Fed - eg the "Long Depression" from 1873-79 (or until 1896 by some counts) - it lasted at least 65 months compared to the "Great Depression" 43 months.......clearly the creation of the Fed is not the only thing that can cause depressions.

 

[MikeC]

I notice that no-one has objected to me pointing out that fiat currency is not actually banned by the constitution - so I shall take some small satisfaction in having improved your knowledge in that respect

 

[knownknows]

The FED and the BoE are at the very least interesting institutions.

I'm not quite sure I understand the role of the BoE, outwardly it seems like a public body, but it doesn't act like any public company by an measure. Even the BBC top analyst, who I dare say knows more than most, says:

But many economists would say this is not quite the difference it's cracked up to be, not least because both the Bank and the government are all part of the UK public sector (actually, the Bank is technically a private company, but for national accounting purposes it might as well be a public one). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/stephanieflanders/

And if Edward Griffin's preachings about the FED are even remotely true, I would be worried.