It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A Phone Call To The Fed

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:30 PM
A Phone Call To The Fed
From Dan Benham 1988-2002

The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation.

CALLER - Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?

MR. SUPINSKI - We are an agency of the government.

CALLER - That's not my question. Is it owned by my country?

MR. SUPINSKI - It is an agency of the government created by congress.

CALLER - Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?


Above each form for creating a post: MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 11:31 PM
This has been around for a while. Interesting stuff in there, though.

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 07:19 AM

The original Stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks in 1913 were the Rockefeller's, JP Morgan, Rothschild's, Lazard Freres, Schoellkopf, Kuhn-Loeb, Warburgs, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs.

Good to see who really runs America then.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but given the above list of names, would it be fair to say that the NWO is alive and well and has a direct influence on the US economy?

Also, if indeed this is accurate (I appreciate the source of this story is, could this list of names go some way into explaining Israel's influence over the US?

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 01:59 PM
A very enlightening sight. Please correct me if I am wrong but the jist of it basicly is, our current banking system is not a part of our congeress but is prity much independantly owned by the stock holders? If this is inaccurate please dont hold it agenst me im kinda new at all this wall street/political stuff.

posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 11:55 PM
Don't you realize that we can't have an economy as large as ours if we don't have the Federal Reserve. How would you propose that we back the currency of our nation when we have a GNP of 10 trillion dollars?

You would be producing coins more valuable than their minted value to issue enough money to the people for commerce because the amount of Gold in US possesion is incredibly small by comparison. Some 24-36 BIllion dollars.

posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 12:03 AM
Well, obviously gold would be less valuable. The only reason price of gold is so high is that it is based on the dollar. I've read plenty of reasons to go back to gold-backed currency, and why we should never have strayed from it in the first place. I just don't see much basis for your argument. The way I see it is the way it is now is progressively going to a communist system.

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 02:19 AM
no the gold wouldn't be less valuable, it would be extremely valuable...right now it floats between what 200 dollars and 800 dollars an ounce over some 20 year period?

Ounce here-after refers to "troy ounce"

A 10 trillon GNP (we are worth way more than that...that's what we produce in a single year...all transactions, but not properties that were not it's even larger but we'll go with 10 trillion) would need to be backed by gold.

It won't be very accurate but let's just try and figure this together of what it would require to back everything by gold.

First the 10 trillion would need to be hard backed, so let's say it's at $450.00 an ounce right now...

That is 22222222222 ounces of gold.

Out of 236 billion circulating bills that is...0.094 onces a bill.

Or 42 dollars and 3 cents a bill.

So at the current number of ounces we have at the current economy we could back our GNP with that much gold...and the average bill would be $42.3.

That actually seems pretty good...I don't know what the average denomination of our bills are but I don't think they are that high?

This makes sense to me...because naturally if we wanted ever bill to be the same unit, then they'd have to be a certain unit based on the value of our economy and complex stuff, and I don't know what that average unit would be...but if it were backed by the gold it'd be $42.3, if we were interested in keeping our economy as it would be if backed by that much gold...that's what the average would be, but we're not interested.

Two reasons.

One our total net worth is much more, and we have no where near that much gold.

From this website:

It says that there are 771,629,746 ounces of gold in the world.

So we need 22222222222 ounces of gold to have a nice valued currency. At least I think the 40 bucks is a nice value...I'm expecting our current average bill is worth much less...

This means if the US owned all the gold alone, we could only produce bills on average of 3 dollars and 26 cents.

We don't own all the world's gold...

I think that website attempts what I am attempting more feebly...not sure.

But I'm trying to give myself and yourselves with me, an idea of what valuless currency in todays economy we'd have if we were backed by gold...unless you want to back our currency with say iron?

It seems to me that our GNP needs 22,222,222,222 when we only have 771,629,746

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 02:25 AM
Tr33stump the fed is half owned by private entities and half owned//operated by the federal government.

And jahmun the argument is everything, our economy is too large to be supported by even all the gold in the world.

There are 192 countries on the planet. This would mean there would be an
average of US$1,205,671,478 (one billion two hundred and five million
six hundred and seventy one thousand four hundred and seventy eight
dollars) per country. Not even enough to carry the economy of one of the
smaller countries let alone the world economic system. The US has a debt
of 8 trillion dollars. That is 8 thousand billion dollars.

Good-backed currency is a pipe dream of immense proportions. If there
were enough gold to back all currency the gold would be worthless.

same site as before.

The end is an important fact.

If gold were a dollar an ounce in the gold standard you could obviously by 20 ounces of gold with 20 dollars. In fact you'd just exchange.

If we wanted to lose a commodity investment, we could mine asteroids for their gold and add to the total gold on earth to maybe compensate for our entire economies.

Then we could say that gold is worth 450 dollars an ounce, then you could have 450 dollar bills printed and they'd each be worth 1 dollar. Which would roughly return us to 1830s prices...

But as it is, that is a pipe dream.

The argument is entirely worthless, we need the federal reserve bank to govern our money's value in the world and at home.

posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 06:47 AM
fed ownership info
the remedy?

[edit on 8-6-2004 by lightboy]

posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 07:28 PM
I'm really disappointed that these sensationalist claims were not researched before they were rehashed.


"The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."

So the "owners" can not pressure the Fed by
-threatening to change the Board (appointments are made by the President and confirmed by the Senate)
-threatening to sell shares and attack the share price (shares can't be sold, so price is fixed or rather doesn't exist)
-threatening to sell shares and affect the company's ability to raise capital (the Fed needs not raise capital)

In other words, unlike a normal company, the Fed can not be pressured by its shareholders. The ownership of shares is no more than a ceremonial relic.

new topics

top topics


log in