Thought You Knew About Banks Did You?

[Number79]

Global Banking: The Bank for International Settlements

Who controls global monetary affairs? The BIS! Based in Basle, Switzerland, the BIS is central bank to central banks. The BIS has greater immunity than a sovereign nation, is accountable to no one, runs global monetary affairs and is privately owned. This is a must-read report to understand the globalization process.

Preface

When David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973, the intent was to create a "New International Economic Order" (NIEO). To this end, they brought together 300 elite corporate, political and academic leaders from North America, Japan and Europe.

Few people believed us when we wrote about their nefarious plans back then. Now, we look back and clearly see that they did what they said they were going to do... globalism is upon us like an 8.6 magnitude earthquake.

The question is, "How did they do it?" Keep in mind, they had no public mandate from any country in the world. They didn't have the raw political muscle, especially in democratic countries where voting is allowed. They didn't have global dictatorial powers.

Indeed, how did they do it?

The answer is the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), self-described as the "central bank for central bankers", that controls the vast global banking system with the precision of a Swiss watch.

This report offers a concise summation of BIS history, structure and current activities.

Introduction

The famous currency expert Dr. Franz Pick once stated, "The destiny of the currency is, and always will be, the destiny of a nation."

With the advent of rampant globalization, this concept can certainly be given a global context as well: "The destiny of currencies are, and always will be, the destiny of the world."

Even though the BIS is the oldest international banking operation in the world, it is a low profile organization, shunning all publicity and notoriety. As a result, there is very little critical analysis written about this important financial organization. Further, much of what has been written about it is tainted by its own self-effacing literature.

The BIS can be compared to a stealth bomber. It flies high and fast, is undetected, has a small crew and carries a huge payload. By contrast, however, the bomber answers to a chain of command and must be refueled by outside sources. The BIS, as we shall see, is not accountable to any public authority and operates with complete autonomy and self-sufficiency.

Leading up to Founding

As we will see, the BIS was founded in 1930 during a very troubled time in history. Some knowledge of that history is critical to understanding why the BIS was created, and for whose benefit.

There are three figures that play prominently in the founding of the BIS: Charles G. Dawes, Owen D. Young and Hjalmar Schacht of Germany.

Charles G. Dawes was director of the U.S. Bureau of the Budget in 1921, and served on the Allied Reparations Commission starting in 1923. His latter work on "stabilizing Germany's economy" earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1925. After being elected Vice President under President Calvin Coolidge from 1925-1929, and appointed Ambassador to England in 1931, he resumed his personal banking career in 1932 as chairman of the board of the City National Bank and Trust in Chicago, where he remained until his death in 1951.

Owen D Young was an American industrialist. He founded RCA (Radio Corporation of America) in1919 and was its chairman until 1933. He also served as the chairman of General Electric from 1922 until 1939. In 1932, Young sought the democratic presidential nomination, but LOST to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

More on Hjalmar Schacht later.

In the aftermath of World War I and the impending collapse of the German economy and political structure, a plan was needed to rescue and restore Germany, which would also insulate other economies in Europe from being affected adversely.

The Versailles Treaty of 1919 (which officially ended WWI) had imposed a very heavy reparations burden on Germany, which required a repayment schedule of 132 billion gold marks per year. Most historians agree that the economic upheaval caused in Germany by the Versailles Treaty eventually led to Adolph Hitler's rise to power.

In 1924 the Allies appointed a committee of international bankers, led by Charles G. Dawes (and accompanied by J.P. Morgan agent, Owen Young), to develop a plan to get reparations payments back on track. Historian Carroll Quigley noted that the Dawes Plan was "largely a J.P. Morgan production"1 The plan called for $800 million in foreign loans to be arranged for Germany in order to rebuild its economy.

In 1924, Dawes was chairman of the Allied Committee of Experts, hence, the "Dawes Plan." He was replaced as chairman by Owen Young in 1929, with direct support by J.P. Morgan. The "Young Plan" of 1928 put more teeth into the Dawes Plan, which many viewed as a strategy to subvert virtually all German assets to back a huge mortgage held by the United States bankers.

Neither Dawes nor Young represented anything more than banking interests. After all, WWI was fought by governments using borrowed money made possible by the international banking community. The banks had a vested interest in having those loans repaid!

In 1924, the president of Reichsbank (Germany's central bank at that time) was Hjalmar Schacht. He had already had a prominent role in creating the Dawes Plan, along with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen and other prominent German bankers and industrialists.

The Young Plan was so odious to the Germans that many credit it as a precondition to Hitler's rise to power. Fritz Thyssen, a leading Nazi Industrialist, stated

"I turned to the National socialist party only after I became convinced that the fight against the Young Plan was unavoidable if complete collapse of Germany was to be prevented." 2

Some historians too quickly credit Owen Young as the idea-man for the Bank for International Settlements. It was actually Hjalmar Schacht who first proposed the idea3, which was then carried forward by the same group of international bankers who brought us the Dawes and Young Plans.

It is not necessary to jump to conclusions as to the intent of these elite bankers, so we will instead defer to the insight of renowned Georgetown historian, Carroll Quigley:

"The Power of financial capitalism had another far reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks, which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence co-operative politicians by subsequent rewards in the business world."4 [bold emphasis added]

So here we have a brief sketch of what led up to the founding of the BIS. Now we can examine the nuts and bolts of how the BIS was actually put together.

The Hague Agreement of 1930

The formation of the BIS was agreed upon by its constituent central banks in the so-called Hague Agreement on January 20, 1930, and was in operation shortly thereafter. According to the Agreement,

The duly authorised representatives of the Governments of Germany, of Belgium, of France, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of Italy and of Japan of the one part; And the duly authorised representatives of the Government of the Swiss Confederation of the other part Assembled at the Hague Conference in the month of January, 1930, have agreed on the following:

Article 1. Switzerland undertakes to grant to the Bank for International Settlements, without delay, the following Constituent Charter having force of law: not to abrogate this Charter, not to amend or add to it, and not to sanction amendments to the Statutes of the Bank referred to in Paragraph 4 of the Charter otherwise than in agreement with the other signatory Governments.5

As we will see, German reparation payments (or lack thereof) had little to do with the founding of the BIS, although this is the weak explanation given since its founding. Of course, Germany would make a single payment to the BIS, which in turn would deposit the funds into the respective central bank accounts of the nations to whom payments were due. (It would be the subject of another paper to show the shallowness of this operation: Money and gold were shuffled around, but the net amount that Germany actually paid was very small.)

The original founding documents of the BIS have little to say about Germany, however, and we can look directly to the BIS itself to see its original purpose:

“The objects of the Bank are: to promote the co-operation of central banks and to provide additional facilities for international operations; and to act as trustees or agent in regard to international financial settlements entrusted to it under agreements with the parties concerned.†6

Virtually every in-print reference to the BIS, including their own documents, consistently refer to it as "the central banker's central bank."

So, the BIS was established by an international charter and was headquartered in Basle, Switzerland.

BIS Ownership

According to James C. Baker, pro-BIS author of The Bank for International Settlements: Evolution and Evaluation, "The BIS was formed with funding by the central banks of six nations, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. In addition, three private international banks from the United States also assisted in financing the establishment of the BIS."7

Each nation's central bank subscribed to 16,000 shares. The U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve, did not join the BIS, but the three U.S. banks that participated got 16,000 shares each. Thus, U.S. representation at the BIS was three times that of any other nation. Who were these private banks? Not surprisingly, they were J.P. Morgan & Company, First National Bank of New York and First National Bank of Chicago.

On January 8, 2001, an Extraordinary General Meeting of the BIS approved a proposal that restricted ownership of BIS shares to central banks. Some 13.7% of all shares were in private hands at that time, and the repurchase was accomplished with a cash outlay of $724,956,050. The price of $10,000 per share was over twice the book value of $4,850.

It is not certain what the repurchase accomplished. The BIS claimed that it was to correct a conflict of interest between private shareholders and BIS goals, but it offered no specifics. It was not a voting issue, however, because private owners were not allowed to vote their shares.8

Sovereignty and Secrecy

It is not surprising that the BIS, its offices, employees, directors and members share an incredible immunity from virtually all regulation, scrutiny and accountability.

In 1931, central bankers and their constituents were fed up with government meddling in world financial affairs. Politicians were viewed mostly with contempt, unless it was one of their own who was the politician. Thus, the BIS offered them a once-and-for-all opportunity to set up the "apex" the way they really wanted it -- private. They demanded these conditions and got what they demanded.

A quick summary of their immunity, explained further below, includes

diplomatic immunity for persons and what they carry with them (i.e., diplomatic pouches)

no taxation on any transactions, including salaries paid to employees

embassy-type immunity for all buildings and/or offices operated by the BIS

no oversight or knowledge of operations by any government authority

freedom from immigration restrictions

freedom to encrypt any and all communications of any sort

freedom from any legal jurisdiction9

Further, members of the BIS board of directors (for instance, Alan Greenspan) are individually granted special benefits:

“immunity from arrest or imprisonment and immunity from seizure of their personal baggage, save in flagrant cases of criminal offence;â€

“inviolability of all papers and documents;â€

“immunity from jurisdiction, even after their mission has been accomplished, for acts carried out in the discharge of their duties, including words spoken and writings;â€

“exemption for themselves, their spouses and children from any immigration restrictions, from any formalities concerning the registration of aliens and from any obligations relating to national service in Switzerland ;â€

“the right to use codes in official communications or to receive or send documents or correspondence by means of couriers or diplomatic bags.â€10

Lastly, all remaining officials and employees of the BIS have the following immunities:

“immunity from jurisdiction for acts accomplished in the discharge of their duties, including words spoken and writings, even after such persons have ceased to be Officials of the Bank;â€[bold emphasis added]

“exemption from all Federal, cantonal and communal taxes on salaries, fees and allowances paid to them by the Bank…â€

exempt from Swiss national obligations, freedom for spouses and family members from immigration restrictions, transfer assets and properties – including internationally – with the same degree of benefit as Officials of other international organizations.11

Of course, a corporate charter can say anything it wants to say and still be subject to outside authorities. Nevertheless, these were the immunities practiced and enjoyed from 1930 onward. On February 10, 1987, a more formal acknowledgement called the "Headquarters Agreement" was executed between the BIS and the Swiss Federal Council and basically clarified and reiterated what we already knew:

Article 2

Inviolability

The buildings or parts of buildings and surrounding land which, whoever may be the owner thereof, are used for the purposes of the Bank shall be inviolable. No agent of the Swiss public authorities may enter therein without the express consent of the Bank. Only the President, the General Manager of the Bank, or their duly authorised representative shall be competent to waive such inviolability.

The archives of the Bank and, in general, all documents and any data media belonging to the Bank or in its possession, shall be inviolable at all times and in all places.

The Bank shall exercise supervision of and police power over its premises.

Article 4

Immunity from jurisdiction and execution

The Bank shall enjoy immunity from criminal and administrative jurisdiction, save to the extent that such immunity is formally waived in individual cases by the President, the General Manager of the Bank, or their duly authorised representative.

The assets of the Bank may be subject to measures of compulsory execution for enforcing monetary claims. On the other hand, all deposits entrusted to the Bank, all claims against the Bank and the shares issued by the Bank shall, without the prior agreement of the Bank, be immune from seizure or other measures of compulsory execution and sequestration, particularly of attachment within the meaning of Swiss law. 12 [bold emphasis added]

As you can see, the BIS, its directors and employees (past and present) can do virtually anything and everything they want, with complete secrecy, immunity and with no one looking over their shoulders. It was truly a banker's dream come true, and it paved the international freeway for the rampant financial globalism that we see manifest today.

Day-to-Day Operations

Acting as a central bank, the BIS has sweeping powers to do anything for its own account or for the account of its member central banks. It is like a two-way power-of-attorney – any party can act as agent for any other party.

Article 21 of the original BIS statutes define day-to-day operations:

buying and selling of gold coin or bullion for its own account or for the account of central banks;

holding gold for its own account under reserve in central banks;

accepting the supervision of gold for the account of central banks;

making advances to or borrowing from central banks against gold, bills of exchange, and other short-term obligations of prime liquidity or other approved securities;

discounting, rediscounting, purchasing, or selling with or without its endorsement bills of exchange, checks, and other short-term obligations of prime liquidity;

buying and selling foreign exchange for its own account or for the account of central banks;

buying and selling negotiable securities other than shares for its own account or for the account of central banks;

discounting for central banks bills taken from their portfolio and rediscounting with central banks bills taken from its own portfolio;

opening and maintaining current or deposit accounts with central banks;

accepting deposits from central banks on current or deposit account;

accepting deposits in connection with trustee agreements that may be made between the BIS and governments in connection with international settlements.;

accepting such other deposits that, as in the opinion of the Board of the BIS, come within the scope of the BIS’ functions.13

The BIS also may

act as agent or correspondent for any central bank

arrange with any central bank for the latter to act as its agent or correspondent;

enter into agreements to act as trustee or agent in connection with international settlements, provided that such agreements will not encroach on the obligations of the BIS toward any third parties.14

Why is "agency" an important issue? Because any member of the network can obscure transactions from onlookers. For instance, if Brown Brothers, Harriman wanted to transfer money to a company in Nazi Germany during WWII (which was not "politically correct" at that time), they would first transfer the funds to the BIS thus putting the transaction under the cloak of secrecy and immunity that is enjoyed by the BIS but not by Brown Brothers, Harriman. (Such laundering of Wall Street money was painstakingly noted in Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, by Antony C. Sutton.)

There are a few things that the BIS cannot do. For instance, it does not accept deposits from, or provide financial services to, private individuals or corporate entities. It is also not permitted to make advances to governments or open current accounts in their name.15 These restrictions are easily understood when one considers that each central bank has an exclusive franchise to loan money to their respective government. For instance, the U.S. Federal Reserve does not loan money to the government of Canada. In like manner, central banks do not loan money directly to the private or corporate clients of their member banks.

How Decisions are Made

The board of directors consist of the heads of certain member central banks. Currently, these are:

Nout H E M Wellink, Amsterdam (Chairman of the Board of Directors)

Hans Tietmeyer, Frankfurt am Main (Vice-Chairman)

Axel Weber, Frankfurt am Main

Vincenzo Desario, Rome

Antonio Fazio, Rome

David Dodge, Ottawa

Toshihiko Fukui, Tokyo

Timothy F Geithner, New York

Alan Greenspan, Washington

Lord George, London

Hervé Hannoun, Paris

Christian Noyer, Paris

Lars Heikensten, Stockholm

Mervyn King, London

Guy Quaden, Brussels

Jean-Pierre Roth, Zürich

Alfons Vicomte Verplaetse, Brussels16

Of these, five members ( Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland) are currently elected by the shareholders. The majority of directors are "ex officio," meaning they are permanent and are automatically a part of any sub-committee.

The combined board meets at least six times per year, in secret, and is briefed by BIS management on financial operations of the bank. Global monetary policy is discussed and set at these meetings.

It was reported in 1983 that there is an inner club of the half dozen central bankers who are more or less in the same monetary boat: Germany, U.S., Switzerland, Italy, Japan and England.17 The existence of an inner club is neither surprising nor substantive: the whole BIS operation is 100% secret anyway. It is not likely that members of the inner club have significantly different beliefs or agendas apart from the BIS as a whole.

How the BIS works with the IMF and the World Bank

The interoperation between the three entities is understandably confusing to most people, so a little clarification will help.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) interacts with governments whereas the BIS interacts only with other central banks. The IMF loans money to national governments, and often these countries are in some kind of fiscal or monetary crisis. Furthermore, the IMF raises money by receiving "quota" contributions from its 184 member countries. Even though the member countries may borrow money to make their quota contributions, it is, in reality, all tax-payer money.18

The World Bank also lends money and has 184 member countries. Within the World Bank are two separate entities, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA). The IBRD focuses on middle income and credit-worthy poor countries, while the IDA focuses on the poorest of nations. In funding itself, the World Bank borrows money by direct lending from banks and by floating BOND issues, and then loans this money through IBRD and IDA to troubled countries.19

The BIS, as central bank to the other central banks, facilitates the movement of money. They are well-known for issuing "bridge loans" to central banks in countries where IMF or World Bank money is pledged but has not yet been delivered. These bridge loans are then repaid by the respective governments when they receive the funds that had been promised by the IMF or World Bank.20

The IMF is the BIS' "ace in the hole" when monetary crisis hits. The 1998 Brazil currency crisis was caused by that country's inability to pay inordinate accumulated interest on loans made over a protracted period of time. These loans were extended by banks like Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and FleetBoston, and they stood to lose a huge amount of money.

The IMF, along with the World Bank and the U.S., bailed out Brazil with a $41.5 billion package that saved Brazil, its currency and, not incidentally, certain private banks.

Congressman Bernard Sanders (I-VT), ranking member of the International Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, blew the whistle on this money laundry operation. Sander's entire congressional press release is worth reading:

IMF Bailout for Brazil is Windfall to Banks, Disaster for US Taxpayers Says Sanders

BURLINGTON, VERMONT - August 15 - Congressman Bernard Sanders (I-VT), the Ranking Member of the International Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, today called for an immediate Congressional investigation of the recent $30 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout of Brazil.

Sanders, who is strongly opposed to the bailout and considers it corporate welfare, wants Congress to find out why U.S. taxpayers are being asked to provide billions of dollars to Brazil and how much of this money will be funneled to U.S. banks such as Citigroup, FleetBoston and J.P. Morgan Chase. These banks have about $25.6 billion in outstanding loans to Brazilian borrowers. U.S. taxpayers currently fund the IMF through a $37 billion line of credit.

Sanders said, "At a time when we have a $6 trillion national debt, a growing federal deficit, and an increasing number of unmet social needs for our veterans, seniors, and children, it is unacceptable that billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being sent to the IMF to bailout Brazil."

"This money is not going to significantly help the poor people of that country. The real winners in this situation are the large, profitable U.S. banks such as Citigroup that have made billions of dollars in risky investments in Brazil and now want to make sure their investments are repaid. This bailout represents an egregious form of corporate welfare that must be put to an end. Interestingly, these banks have made substantial campaign contributions to both political parties," the Congressman added.

Sanders noted that the neo-liberal policies of the IMF developed in the 1980's pushing countries towards unfettered free trade, Privatization, and slashing social safety nets has been a disaster for Latin America and has contributed to increased global poverty throughout the world. At the same time that Latin America countries such as Brazil and Argentina followed these neo-liberal dictates imposed by the IMF, from 1980-2000, per capita income in Latin America grew at only one-tenth the rate of the previous two decades.

Sanders continued, "The policies of the IMF over the past 20 years advocating unfettered free trade, privatizing industry, deregulation and slashing government investments in health, education, and pensions has been a complete failure for low income and middle class families in the developing world and in the United States . Clearly, these policies have only helped corporations in their constant search for the cheapest labor and weakest environmental regulations. Congress must work on a new global policy that protects workers, increases living standards and improves the environment."

One can surmise that a financial circle exists where the World Bank helps nations get into debt, then when these countries can't pay their massive loans, the IMF bails them out with taxpayer money -- and in the middle stands the BIS, collecting fees as the money travels back and forth like the ocean tide, while assuring everyone that all is well.

BIS dumps gold-backed Swiss Francs for SDR's

On March 10, 2003, the BIS abandoned the Swiss gold franc as the bank's unit of account since 1930, and replaced it with the SDR.

SDR stands for Special Drawing Rights and is a unit of currency originally created by the IMF. According to Baker,

"The SDR is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement the existing official reserves of member countries. SDR's are allocated to member countries in proportion to their IMF quotas. The SDR also serves as the unit of account of the IMF and some other international organizations. Its value is based on a basket of key international currencies."21

This "basket" currently consists of the euro, Japanese yen, pound sterling and the U.S. dollar.

The BIS abandonment of the 1930 gold Swiss franc removed all restraint from the creation of paper money in the world. In other words, gold backs no national currency, leaving the central banks a wide-open field to create money as they alone see fit. Remember, that almost all the central banks in the world are privately-held entities, with an exclusive franchise to arrange loans for their respective host countries.

Regional and Global Currencies: SDR's, Euros and Ameros

There is no doubt that the BIS is moving the world toward regional currencies and ultimately, a global currency. The global currency could well be an evolution of the SDR, and may explain why the BIS recently adopted the SDR as its primary reserve currency.

The Brandt Equation, 21st Century Blueprint for the New Global Economy notes, for instance, that

Since the SDR is the world's only means of meeting international payments that has been authorized through international contract, "The SDR therefore represents a clear first step towards a stable and permanent international currency"22 [bold emphasis added]

As to regional currencies, the BIS has already been hugely successful in launching the euro in Europe. Armed with new technical and social know-how, the BIS' next logical step is to focus on America and Asia.

For instance, according to BIS Papers No. 17, Regional currency areas and the use of foreign currencies,

"Canada, Mexico and the United States are members of the trade group NAFTA. Given the high proportion of Canada and Mexico’s trade with the United States, a NAFTA dollar or “Amero†has been proposed by some Canadian academics such as Grubel (1999). See also Beine and Coulombe (2002) and Robson and Laidler (2002)."23

Assuming that NAFTA permanently identifies Canada, the U.S. and Mexico as one trading block, then North America will look like the European Union and the Amero will function like the Euro. All of the work put into the SDR would be perfectly preserved by simply substituting the Amero for the U.S. dollar when they choose to bring the Amero to ascendancy over the dollar.

For those American readers who do not grasp the significance of the adoption of the euro by European Union countries, consider how one American globalist describes it.

C. Fred Bergsten is a prominent and core Trilateral Commission member and head of the Institute for International Economics. On January 3, 1999, Bergsten wrote in the Washington Post

"The adoption of a common currency is by far the boldest chapter of European integration. Money traditionally has been an integral element of national sovereignty ...and the decision by Germany and France to give up their mark and franc ...represents the most dramatic voluntary surrender of sovereignty in recorded history. The European Central Bank that will manage the euro is a truly supranational institution".24 [bold emphasis added]

Bergsten will have to rephrase this when the U.S. gives up the dollar for the amero -- that will become the most dramatic voluntary surrender of sovereignty in recorded history!

Conclusions

Our credo is "Follow the money, follow the power." This report has endeavored to follow the money. We find that:

The BIS is central bank to all major central banks in the world

It is privately owned by central banks themselves, most of whom are also private

It was founded under questionable circumstances by questionable people

It is accountable to no one, especially government bodies

It operates in complete secrecy and is inviolable

Movement of money is obscured and hidden when routed through the BIS

The BIS is targeting regional currency blocks and ultimately, a global currency

It has been hugely successful at building the New International Economic Order, along with its attendant initiatives on global governance.

[Dave Spart]

So do the same arguments for action against The Fed (auditig etc) also apply to the BIS?

[Alan B'Stard MP]

I'm having trouble stilfing a yawn. The word Amero does that to me.

[Deckard]

I'm having trouble stilfing a yawn. The word Amero does that to me.

+1

and where is the evidence the most central banks are privately owned?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.bis.org/events/agm2008/ar2008o.htm

Chapter VIII: Conclusion: the difficult task of damage control

In the aftermath of a long credit-driven boom, it would not be surprising to see turmoil in financial markets, slowing real growth and temporarily rising inflation. The crucial questions at the present juncture have to do with the severity of these individual trends as they now appear and how they might interact. While difficult to predict, their interaction does appear to point to a deeper and more protracted global downturn than the consensus view seems to expect. At the same time, inflationary forces, particularly in emerging market economies, could also prove unexpectedly strong and persistent. A major factor in inflation prospects everywhere is likely to be the behaviour of wages, but in some countries the effect of a depreciating exchange rate on domestic prices could also play an unwelcome role.

With inflation a clear and present threat, and with real policy rates in most countries very low by historical standards, a global bias towards monetary tightening would seem appropriate. That said, the circumstances of different countries, both actual and prospective, currently rule out a "one size fits all" response. Moreover, should the global economy slow sharply and inflationary pressures recede, the bias to tightening would evidently also be reduced.

In the current and prospective environment, it should nonetheless be borne in mind that the effectiveness of a lowering of policy rates might be significantly reduced in the aftermath of a credit-induced spending boom. In view of the potential negative side effects of such a policy, not least the risk of encouraging further financial imbalances and misallocations of real resources, complementary policies might be envisaged to avoid overburdening monetary easing. Expansionary fiscal policy could have some merit, but in many countries current debt levels mean there is little room for manoeuvre. Steps to recognise and deal with losses and debt overhang problems, in a timely and orderly way, and subject to conditionality, must then be a high priority.

Perhaps the principal conclusion to be drawn from today's policy challenges is that it would have been better to avoid the build-up of credit excesses in the first place. In future, this could be done through the establishment of a new macrofinancial stability framework, which would call for both monetary and macroprudential policies to "lean against the wind" of the credit cycle. Recognising that cycles can be attenuated but not eliminated, a number of preparatory steps are also suggested that would allow periods of financial turmoil or crisis to be more effectively managed.

Yep it's the NWO.

[Number79]

I'm having trouble stilfing a yawn. The word Amero does that to me.

Not quite sure what 'stiling' means, sounds rude but I have to agree that the metion of 'amero' normally gains a sigh from me. Although, the future possibilities can't be ignored and regional currencies do seem the next step of globalisation. Consider the euro before calling BS.

[Number79]

+1

and where is the evidence the most central banks are privately owned?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

you only need look. Start with the fed or did you think that was run by the government?

[JonoP]

Green lizards! You forgot to mention the green lizards!!

[Deckard]

you only need look. Start with the fed or did you think that was run by the government?

No, let's start with the ECB, BOJ, SBN and NBC.

Go ahead and show evidence they are privately owned.

Until you do, your post remains firmly in green lizard territory, as another posted pointed out.

Edited July 16, 2009 by VoteWithYourFeet

[moneyscam]

Arrghh! I despair sometimes reading some of these responses. Well done Richyc for posting this about the BIS, you at least understand and care about the central bank scam - others prefer to focus on symptoms like HPI/HPC rather than try and understand the cause.

As to whoever said where is the evidence the central banks are private, please explain to me why one organ of the government needs to "lend" to another organ of the government and why the borrowing organ needs to pay interest back on that loan? Do you lend yourself £100 at 5% and at the end of the year to pay yourself back £105? Also where do you get that extra £5 to pay the interest? If the govt is the only entity allowed to coin money, then why does it need to borrow it from a central bank? If it owns that central bank, why does it need to borrow it in the first place and not just print it?

Go to Companies House and look up the Ministry of Defence - incorporated and it has a parent company - guess who? - BIS!

Edit : corrected grammar

Edited July 16, 2009 by moneyscam

[Injin]

I'm having trouble stilfing a yawn. The word Amero does that to me.

A ringing endorsement there.

[Number79]

Green lizards! You forgot to mention the green lizards!!

Do green lizards admit their existence or produce reports? Do green lizards call themselves the central bank of central banks?

http://www.bis.org/statistics/index.htm

Try a little research next time before jumping in with smart **** remarks.

[Deckard]

Do green lizards admit their existence or produce reports? Do green lizards call themselves the central bank of central banks?

http://www.bis.org/statistics/index.htm

Try a little research next time before jumping in with smart **** remarks.

What does that link prove?

You seem to be of the opnion that it's ok to put out all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories, which are by definition unprovable 'cos the conspiracy is working.

Boring.

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/economic...ank-of-england/

Readers Question: Who Owns the Bank of England?

The Bank of England is owned by Her Majesty’s Government.

From Bank of England website

“As a public organisation, wholly-owned by Government, and with a significant public policy role, the Bank is accountable to Parliament”

Bank of England

The Bank of England was set up by, ironically, a Scotsman - William Paterson. It was initially a private bank in 1694 acting as lender to the Government.

The Bank was given a Royal Charter, and in 1844, the Bank Charter Act gave the Bank of England sole right to issue notes and coins.

The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946. (Nationalisation means government takes ownership)

In 1997, the Bank of England was given independence over Monetary Policy.

Update: For some reason, many people think the Bank of England is privately owned by the Rothschilds. (There is a similar conspiracy theory about the US Federal Reserve). I wrote to the Bank of England and asked for clarification. This was there reply.

The Bank of England is the central bank of the United Kingdom and was established as a corporate body by Royal Charter under the Bank of England Act 1694. The Bank was nationalised on 1 March 1946, and gained operational independence to set interest rates in 1997 (the Bank of England Act 1998 Part II sets out the responsibilities and objectives of the Bank in relation to monetary policy).

The Bank is a public sector institution, wholly-owned by the government, but accountable to Parliament. The entire capital of the Bank is, in fact, held by the Treasury solicitor on behalf of HM Treasury. Each year, the Bank is required to submit its Report and Accounts to Parliament, via the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For more information you may be interested to see the Bank’s latest Report and Accounts, which can be found on our website at:

www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/annualreport/index.htm

As to the supposed ‘Rothschild’ connection, I don’t know why people should think that the family own us. But a number of the Rothschilds have served on the Bank’s Court of Directors over the years.

Is the BoE lying?

Edited July 16, 2009 by interestrateripoff

[Number79]

No, let's start with the ECB, BOJ, SBN and NBC.

Go ahead and show evidence they are privately owned.

Until you do, your post remains firmly in green lizard territory, as another posted pointed out.

ECB

A Structural Framework for Democratising Monetary Control

Sovereignty & Seignorage is a framework within which to redress the imbalance between corporate private and democratic public control of the money supply, nationally and internationally.

The natural sovereignty to issue currency has been removed from European countries such as Italy, Germany and France without a democratic referendum. Instead, the European Central Bank Corporation, whose shareholders are the national Central Banks, controls the money supply unaccountable to anybody.

As the ECB threatens to extend its scope into the UK, it is important to maintain the sovereignty of the Bank of England to issue

Sterling.

Seignorage is the revenue that a government makes from the difference between the cost of producing notes and coins and their face value.

This income stream for the State has gone down as its share of creating cash has gone down from nearly 30% in 1969 to about 3% currently.

In accountancy terms, the debts and credits between nations are treated differently than between banks and companies or individuals. But they all boil down to + or – and sums or differences over short and long time spans.

Likewise, credit created by banks does not appear as ‘assets’ but as ‘expenditure’ and the accounts of bank would look very different if they were kept according to the same conventions as other companies.

Redressing imbalances between ‘state-created money’ (interest-free notes and coins) and ‘bank-created money’ (interest-bearing credit) thus means taking back the democratic control over the money supply and the creation of money for a Nation

Through the sovereignty to issue money by a public democratic rather than private corporate institution

By ensuring seignorage as an income stream for the State and a measure for controlling the money supply besides varying interest rates.

Our network of monetary reformers is preparing to take simultaneous legal actions in the major Eurozone countries demanding the relevant courts to rule that the European Central Bank and the Eurosystem are unlawful under the respective constitutions. This is because they dispossess the involved states of their natural monetary sovereignty in favour of an independent unaccountable politically uncontrolled institution, namely the European Central Bank Corporation (see Articles 104, 105 and 107 of the Maastricht treaty). The shares of the ECB are mostly owned either directly or indirectly by private banks, bankers and financiers, most of which are not European citizens. We will lay the emphasis particularly on the difference existing between the continental Eurosystem and Britain, whose monetary sovereignty is retained by the nation and its government thanks to the nationalization of the Bank of England. This was achieved in 1946 and constitutes a bulwark of democracy. Were Britain ever to enter the European Central Bank system, she would lose her monetary independence and sovereignty to an unaccountable foreign and privately owned financial organisation, thus becoming a sort of financial colony of not completely identified potentates.

http://bombs.wordpress.com/sovereignty-seignorage/

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/jfin.htm

8. The Bank of Japan

The central bank of Japan was established in 1882 to control the money supply and to be the lender of last resort to the banking system. It controls the money supply primarily through its control of the discount rate, the interest rate for loans from the Bank of Japan to banks. The government owns 55 percent of the Bank of Japan and the private investors own the rest. There is an uneasy relationship between the Bank of Japan and the Ministry of Finance.

Is this correct?

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.snb.ch/e/welt/questions/4.html

Who owns the National Bank?

The Swiss National Bank is owned by its shareholders. A majority of its shares are held by the cantons and the cantonal banks. Many private individuals are also National Bank shareholders. The Confederation, however, owns no National Bank shares. The number of voting rights that a private individual may exercise is limited. So the National Bank cannot simply be taken over by a private company.

[Deckard]

ECB

A Structural Framework for Democratising Monetary Control

Sovereignty & Seignorage is a framework within which to redress the imbalance between corporate private and democratic public control of the money supply, nationally and internationally.

The natural sovereignty to issue currency has been removed from European countries such as Italy, Germany and France without a democratic referendum. Instead, the European Central Bank Corporation, whose shareholders are the national Central Banks, controls the money supply unaccountable to anybody.

As the ECB threatens to extend its scope into the UK, it is important to maintain the sovereignty of the Bank of England to issue

Sterling.

Seignorage is the revenue that a government makes from the difference between the cost of producing notes and coins and their face value.

This income stream for the State has gone down as its share of creating cash has gone down from nearly 30% in 1969 to about 3% currently.

In accountancy terms, the debts and credits between nations are treated differently than between banks and companies or individuals. But they all boil down to + or – and sums or differences over short and long time spans.

Likewise, credit created by banks does not appear as ‘assets’ but as ‘expenditure’ and the accounts of bank would look very different if they were kept according to the same conventions as other companies.

Redressing imbalances between ‘state-created money’ (interest-free notes and coins) and ‘bank-created money’ (interest-bearing credit) thus means taking back the democratic control over the money supply and the creation of money for a Nation

Through the sovereignty to issue money by a public democratic rather than private corporate institution

By ensuring seignorage as an income stream for the State and a measure for controlling the money supply besides varying interest rates.

Our network of monetary reformers is preparing to take simultaneous legal actions in the major Eurozone countries demanding the relevant courts to rule that the European Central Bank and the Eurosystem are unlawful under the respective constitutions. This is because they dispossess the involved states of their natural monetary sovereignty in favour of an independent unaccountable politically uncontrolled institution, namely the European Central Bank Corporation (see Articles 104, 105 and 107 of the Maastricht treaty). The shares of the ECB are mostly owned either directly or indirectly by private banks, bankers and financiers, most of which are not European citizens. We will lay the emphasis particularly on the difference existing between the continental Eurosystem and Britain, whose monetary sovereignty is retained by the nation and its government thanks to the nationalization of the Bank of England. This was achieved in 1946 and constitutes a bulwark of democracy. Were Britain ever to enter the European Central Bank system, she would lose her monetary independence and sovereignty to an unaccountable foreign and privately owned financial organisation, thus becoming a sort of financial colony of not completely identified potentates.

http://bombs.wordpress.com/sovereignty-seignorage/

Yep, that is conclusive evidence.

Everything you read on internet blogs is definitely 100% true.

[Number79]

What does that link prove?

You seem to be of the opnion that it's ok to put out all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories, which are by definition unprovable 'cos the conspiracy is working.

Boring.

it is for you to draw your own conclusions, discussion would be preffered first though rather than going straight to mockery.

The BIS is the CB of CB's yet few even know it exists. The IMF barely registers as significant by comparisson.

[interestrateripoff]

http://europa.eu/institutions/financial/ecb/index_en.htm

The European Central Bank

The European Central Bank (ECB) was set up in 1998, under the Treaty on European Union, and it is based in Frankfurt (Germany). Its job is to manage the euro - the EU's single currency, and to safeguard price stability for the more than two-thirds of the EU's citizens who use the euro. The ECB is also responsible for framing and implementing the EU’s economic and monetary policy.

To carry out its role, the ECB works with the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), which covers all 27 EU countries. However, only 16 of these countries have so far adopted the euro. The 16 collectively make up the ‘euro area’ and their central banks, together with the European Central Bank, make up what is called the ‘Eurosystem’.

The ECB works in complete independence. Neither the ECB, the national central banks of the Eurosystem, nor any member of their decision-making bodies can ask for or accept instructions from any other body. The EU institutions and member state governments must respect this principle and must not seek to influence the ECB or the national central banks.

The ECB, working closely with the national central banks, prepares and implements the decisions taken by the Eurosystem’s decision-making bodies - the Governing Council, the Executive Board and the General Council.

Jean-Claude Trichet, from France, became President of the ECB in November 2003.

Top

What does the Bank do?

One of the ECB’s main tasks is to maintain price stability in the euro area, so that the euro’s purchasing power is not eroded by inflation. The ECB aims to ensure that the year-on-year increase in consumer prices is less than, but close to, 2% over the medium term.

It does this in two ways:

*

First, by controlling the money supply. If the money supply is excessive compared to the supply of goods and services, inflation will result.

*

Second, by monitoring price trends and assessing the risk they pose to price stability in the euro area

Controlling the money supply involves, amongst other things, setting interest rates throughout the euro area. This is perhaps the Bank’s best-known activity.

Top

How is the Bank's work organised?

The European Central Bank’s work is organised via the following decision-making bodies.

The Executive Board

This comprises the President of the ECB, the Vice-President and four other members, all appointed by common agreement of the presidents or prime ministers of the euro area countries. The Executive Board members are appointed for a non-renewable term of eight years.

The Executive Board is responsible for implementing monetary policy, as defined by the Governing Council (see below), and for giving instructions to the national central banks. It also prepares the Governing Council meetings and is responsible for the day-to-day management of the ECB.

The Governing Council

The Governing Council is the European Central Bank's highest decision-making body. It comprises the six members of the Executive Board and the governors of the 15 central banks of the euro zone. It is chaired by the President of the ECB. Its primary mission is to define the monetary policy of the euro zone, and, in particular, to fix the interest rates at which the commercial banks can obtain money from the Central Bank.

The General Council

The General Council is the ECB’s third decision-making body. It comprises the ECB’s President and the Vice-President and the governors of the national central banks of all 27 EU member states. The General Council contributes to the ECB's advisory and coordination work and helps prepare for the future enlargement of the euro zone.

[Number79]

Yep, that is conclusive evidence.

Everything you read on internet blogs is definitely 100% true.

agreed, it was the first link that I found, am rushing because I have to go get my daughter from school.

Will look for more credible info when I can, although it appears that others are starting to post it already.

[Deckard]

agreed, it was the first link that I found, am rushing because I have to go get my daughter from school.

Will look for more credible info when I can, although it appears that others are starting to post it already.

Take your time, no problem my friend.

For the record, nothing posted so far by anyone on this thread proves that the major central banks are privately owned, like your OP claims.

BTW, you forgot to provide any link for the source of the "information" in your OP.

Is it anothe blog I wonder?

See you later.

[moneyscam]

Take your time, no problem my friend.

For the record, nothing posted so far by anyone on this thread proves that the major central banks are privately owned, like your OP claims.

BTW, you forgot to provide any link for the source of the "information" in your OP.

Is it anothe blog I wonder?

See you later.

Great, lot's of posts showing the CB's are "owned" by the governments yet no one cares to explain why the govt engages in a circular merry-go round of lending to itself when they "own" the cental banks in the first place. I'm not saying this is "conclusive proof" that they are private, I am just asking how is this logical if the central bank and the government in totality are one and the same entity? I am genuinely interested in everyone's replies and am not just picking and argument for the sake of it.

[CokeSnortingTory]

The ownership of these banks should be on their websites. I'm pretty sure the Fed's is.

I'm not convinced by the assertion that the BIS is a shadowy organisation. I knew about it as it was BIS that drew up the Basel I and II accords on bank regulation and capital ratios.

There is a school of thought that Basel II was indirectly responsible for the derivatives boom, as it was the tighter capital ratios that encouraged investment banks to invent "securities".

[General Melchett]

Presumably this is all related to the giant-squirrel-Nutkin-worshippers in Califormia?

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...howtopic=114046