If you check out the Federal Reserve website's FAQ section, they define themselves as "an independent entity within the government."  My offhand guess would be that they say they are "within" the government because the Fed System was partly created by an act of congress (The Federal Reserve Act of 1913) and could be dissolved by congress (in theory).

Yeah, and I think they've been stretching the truth a bit past the breaking point with that one.   "Independent entities within the government" are not provided for by the U.S. Constitution.  There are only three branches of government, and a constitutional bank would fall under the executive branch -- meaning it would answer directly to the President and not be an "independent entitity."    What actually happened was basically an early example of "outsourcing"  ... in this case, the government's constitutional authority to "coin" money.   Congress in theory could wipe the whole thing out, but we're living in an age where just about every single legislator voted for the Patriot Act without even reading it.  That I think says it all as far as whether Congress is ITSELF even  an independent entity within the goverment nowadays.

Of course, I know that this is old news and it's nothing more than an intellectual exercise to talk in these terms today.  But I still like to try and think in terms of a rational government, even if it's only hypothetical.  Perhaps one day in the unforeseeable future, a time will come when people will once again endeavor to institute a new system based on truth, justice and all that other nonsense Americans used to pretend to care about.   I'd like to be there when they do.

"Torrenting" it now. Hope it will finish ok. Thank you.

I'm seeding it at the moment, hope that helps!   Also if you can still get it, be sure and get "Money Masters" which I just started watching ... so far it looks to be even more important.  I think these couple of videos are ones that every living human being needs to see ... it really lays bare, through undisputable concrete evidence, how these banking cartels have been the single greatest enemy of the people in general, in every country, for hundreds of years.   Absolutely incredible stuff.  Two different versions are currently being torrented as I write this, try and get either.

Now back the my research paper, I have to present a debatable question  about this subject, can anyone help me with this.

Umm dude, it's starting to sound like you want somebody to write your paper your ya.  I think a plethora of suitable debate topics have already been opened in this thread.

If you check out the Federal Reserve website's FAQ section, they define themselves as "an independent entity within the government."  My offhand guess would be that they say they are "within" the government because the Fed System was partly created by an act of congress (The Federal Reserve Act of 1913) and could be dissolved by congress (in theory).

Ok I just read this thread whole, and I can't understand your statement it seems to contridict everyones point.
So is the Federal Reserve part of the government, or is it a private corporation i.e. (something like Citibank).
From my understand The Federal Reserve is a Bank the finaces other banks.

Now back the my research paper, I have to present a debatable question  about this subject, can anyone help me with this.

Take metals alone.  Silver, copper, platinum, nickel, cadmium, palladium, and even rhodium are all used in industry to a greater degree than gold.

A "multiple commodity" backing for currency provides both more stability, and flexibility.

gold has been the object of desire for millennia and the love of gold may be in our genes at this point.

it also seems to me that most nations which have abandoned the gold standard have subsequently seen their economies falter or fail. i'm no expert in these things, but it's what i've read.
i see gold standard currency as a promise that can be kept, and "concept-backed" currency as a promise that can't be kept.

From the point of view of the FR banks, the more money they spend on subsidizing economic research the less tax they pay. So funds are gushing forth abundantly, and are granted generously to subsidize research in dismal monetary science, taking good care to shut out any dissonant noise about the gold standard."

I'm not a big fan of the fiat money system, however for the purposes of debate, I'm not clear that a return to the gold standard is the best solution to the problem.

Gold has always been tied to nobility, and a big part of the story of the United States is gaining freedom from control from the oligarchy.  To be certain, we have ended up substituting one group of elitists for another.

A little known fact which relates here is the original Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which, according to some sources, was ratified by the states in the early 1800's.  This Amendment prohibited people with titles of nobility from holding public office in the U.S.   Now you don't hear much of Dukes and Princes running for office, but government offices are chock full of lawyers (e.g. John C. Smith, Esquire), who do in fact hold titles of nobility.

Glossed over in U.S. history books is the War of 1812, which was a war of the British Crown and the Federal Government of the United States, NOT the States themselves.  That's why only Washington, D.C., and various federal military establishments were attackes.  It is speculated that part of the reason for the torching of D.C. was to remove evidence of the existence of this Amendment.

During the next 50 years following, the stage was set for the Civil War, and again the controversy over central banking was a primary theme.  Interestingly, both the North and South were funded by different branches of the same bank (Rothschild).  Following the secession of the Southern states from Congress, much new legislation was railroaded through Congress, including the new Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery.

Having U.S. currency tied to gold was a big problem because it allowed a major avenue for the Crown, and the bankers supporting the Crown, to maintain a hold on U.S. economy.

A little known fact is that, while individuals in Bankruptcy have their slate wiped clean after 7 years, for nations that time period is 70 years.

The first major loan taken out by the Federal Government was in 1789, just after the election of George Washington and the foundation of the U.S. Dept. of Treasury.

1789 + 70 = 1859.  The following year saw the beginning of the secession of the Southern States.  I would suggest researching Abraham Lincoln's views on central banking, rather than slavery, for some interesting related facts.  Point being, the U.S. now needed to borrow more money, which of course would only be allowed through reaffirmation of the original unpaid debt.

1859 + 70 = 1929.  Heavy manipulation of the U.S. stock market causes it to crash.  Was the crash engineered by U.S. creditors to get another reaffirmation of the debt?

Shortly after in 1933, Congress passed HJR 192 which forbade anybody from demanding gold as payment for debt.  Hence "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE".  That same year, the international gold standard was dissolved as a result of the London Conference.   

1929 + 70 = 1999.  Another crash, but this time limited to the tech stock sector. 

Coincidence?

The main problem with having a gold standard is that it severly limits the issuance of credit, which under a fiat system, is essentially infinite.

My feeling is that U.S. policy makers have been pretty much gambling that if they allow U.S. businesses and individuals to borrow enough money, our natural creativity will enable us to capitalize on the debt.  To this end, I think having faith in the American people is a noble endeavor, though whether or not it wise remains to be seen.

There is no denying that we are at a critical junction here.  The question is whether enough people will make a return to a sustainable value system, which is of course the true backing for any monetary system. 

If we brought back the gold standard tomorrow, there would be massive deflation of our currency which would result in the default on billions of dollars of borrowed money.  I don't think there are too many people that would welcome that change, however it may be prudent to prepare for such an occurrence.

I'm not an economist, but IMO a better solution would be to back worldwide currencies by an index of several different commodities that are of differing value to society.

Why did we choose gold in the first place?  That is the subject of a whole other inquiry.  But what I've always found strange is that, generally speaking, gold is rather useless.  Why would anybody base their economy on something that has such little practical purpose?

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html … 01_12.html

Or try the Fed's website:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/

Federal Reserve Banks are not government agencies because, well, they are banks. 

Federal Reserve Banks are not publicly owned, as you can't buy stock in the company.

Therefore Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned corporations. 

Federal Reserve Banks, as all banks, operate for profit.  That's why they charge the government and other banks interest on the money they loan/print.

You may find it helpful to historically follow the debate over the concept of central banking systems.  It's something that we take for granted, as just part of the way things are.  But prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, it was a hotly contested issue.

We have all learned the phrase "no taxation without representation" in school as a primary reason for the Revolutionary War.  Actually, the real issue was that the British Crown was demanding that taxes be paid in gold, while the various Colonies wanted to pay their taxes in printed notes.

A note is a promise to pay.  It is like I wrote down on a piece of paper that I owe you 10 ounces of gold, signed it, and handed it to you.  The note is not the money itself but something which can circulate as money.

Griffin -- is a researcher and doesn't write without documentation.  I was fortunate to meet him about 15 years ago.  His book "A World Without Cancer" amazed me, so  I simply called his publisher -- who was himself.  AND he lived in Calabasas -- I lived in LA -- so I drove out to meet with him and spent about 3 hours just talking about "stuff."  He was gracious and inspiring.

NotOneThing -- you live in LA -- not sure if he still lives in Calabasas but I'll bet he would be very happy to meet with someone who is interested and awake!!

Good luck.

I have to chose to do a Research Paper on the the federal reserve, and a while back I read someone talk about how it is not a government corporation but a private company.
So I discussed this with my teacher and she helped my find a question to present in this paper - how many people know about this fact , if indeed this is a fact, and why would people think its a government corporation.
P.S. I don't know if saying government corporation is correct?

NotOneThing,

I think what you're trying to ask is "why would people think it's a PRIVATE corporation, as opposed to a department in the government?

I don't like the way your teacher is setting up the question for you, though: "why would people think that?"   That question ASSUMES in and of itself that it's a stupid idea ... "why would anyone in their right mind believe such a crazy thing?!"   Or "how many people know about this fact?"  NO!! Your main point is not to discuss HOW MANY people know it!   Right?   So if your teacher is insisting that you "present a question" in the paper, maybe you could try something like "How did the Federal Reserve come into being?" or "What is the basis for money in America?"  Something like that would probably be closer to what you want to talk about, I bet. 

I'm guessing you're in high school, right?  I bet that particular teacher is not the only one like that ... the whole system is designed to drill you into conformist thinking and obedience.   That's why you have loud (Pavlovian) bells ringing to begin and end each class.   Most of the teachers are a part of that program without even realizing it; they just think they're doing their jobs.    Do your best to stay sane and not buy into all the lies and mind-control, and stand up for yourself if you know you're right (just do it carefully and diplomatically  wherever possible).

Do what feels right.   The educational system is in shambles and the answers to essay questions are already known although they may not be correct.  Perhaps if you want to change the system you should become a teacher and change it from the inside.  Contradicting and/or antagonizing your teacher will only get you a bad grade.  Follow your heart!  It sounds like a chicken shit type of advice but the world turns one rotation at a time...........just wait for the right one!  Some people change the system from within others go to revolution.  Two different approaches.