Federal Reserve Bank

And so that's what what all that I could think is.

If you are a Federal Reserve Bank, what are what are you what does this mean for their program?

Well, for now, the Federal Reserve has not signed on to the proposal.

We're hearing that they may continue to move forward with the rescission and stay with the 1995 rules.

Ken is widely recognized as an expert on monetary policy.

Along with his academic career, he served as Assistant Vice President in the research departments of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

I'm also proud of the fact that he's published a number of impactful memos on monetary policy for Accountifact.

Ken, welcome to Accountifact Chats.

It's a very unique institution.

You could call it an independent agency in the sense that it's a creation of the government, but technically it's not part of the government, unlike nominally independent government agencies like the SEC or the FTC.

Moreover, while the board of governors, including the chair, are presidential appointees, as they are for other agencies, the 12 Reserve Bank governors are not.

They were appointed by the bank's boards of directors, not the president.

So when the Democrats took power, they denounced the Aldrich Plan and then passed a bill whose technical machinery was, in large part, the same plan.

The Glass-Owen bill swapped the branding and added a presidentially appointed board in Washington to answer the charge of banker control and renamed the branches Federal Reserve Banks.

Fed historian Gary Richardson puts it a lot plainer than I just did.

He said, a lot of it is word for word.

Gone are the most ambitious funding ideas.

Of course, the original directed a study of acquiring Bitcoin using discretionary surplus remittances from Federal Reserve Banks or revaluation of gold certificates held by the Federal Reserve Banks, along with tariff revenues and gifts.

Steele's version cuts it all out, leaving only asset swaps, forfeitures, and cooperative programs with states.

The bill's long title, which had promised to offset costs utilizing certain resources of the Federal Reserve System, was rewritten to drop the phrase.

The network calculates each bank's net position, what it owes and what it's owed.

Then only the net differences are settled, usually through a central account at a Federal Reserve Bank.

And that process is called interchange.

It's this massive, invisible accounting system.

The Federal Reserve consists of 12 independent but affiliated banks, one for each region.

These regional banks, called the Federal Reserve Banks, are privately owned and operated by the commercial banks of the area.

Just where does Congress get the authority to create independent banks, much less a bank that is privately owned? The answer is, nowhere I've seen.

However, are we really surprised by Congress making up the rules as they go along? Above those banks sits a board of governors, which supervises the system with an eye to the economy's long-run growth.

The Constitution vests three branches, and only three branches, with unique powers.

Congress legislates, the President executes, and the courts decide controversies.

As Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent in the Federal Reserve case, "...the Board, unlike the Federal Reserve Banks, is a federal executive agency that regulates much of the nation's economy." After President Trump was elected, he learned that Cook may have committed mortgage fraud, a federal crime punishable by up to 30 years in prison, shortly before she took office.

He thus removed Cook from the board.

This is a case that we lost.

It also dealt with firing deep staters, but it had to do with the Federal Reserve Bank governor, Cook, who Trump fired.

The court ruled that Trump didn't have the authority to fire her.

It was a 5-4 decision.

I'm not saying it was the worst.

I'm saying someone could make that argument using the same types of rationales that have been used to blast...

Gorsuch and Barrett, you could say, look, we're talking about the Federal Reserve Bank, like the heart of the deep state, the Rothschilds and all that, and Kavanaugh voted with them.

Well, if you're going to say that, then wouldn't you say, but Barrett voted against them? So wouldn't that mean that she voted the right way and she was good? Again, Barrett made some mistakes, guys, but all I'm saying is keep it in perspective with the criticism.