Central Bank - Revision history

87.121.100.91 at 12:13, 10 July 2015

2015-07-10T12:13:33Z

Jcaine at 11:30, 9 July 2015

2015-07-09T11:30:17Z

Jcaine at 11:29, 9 July 2015

2015-07-09T11:29:56Z

93.152.192.154 at 12:49, 29 June 2015

2015-06-29T12:49:43Z

Show changes

93.152.192.154 at 13:37, 24 June 2015

2015-06-24T13:37:29Z

93.152.192.154: Blanked the page

2015-06-24T13:33:56Z

Blanked the page

93.152.192.154 at 13:33, 24 June 2015

2015-06-24T13:33:42Z

93.152.192.154 at 13:33, 24 June 2015

2015-06-24T13:33:27Z

93.152.192.154 at 13:33, 24 June 2015

2015-06-24T13:33:06Z

93.152.192.154: Blanked the page

2015-06-24T13:30:24Z

Blanked the page

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:13, 10 July 2015
Line 22:		Line 22:

	Only these: that in those cases where the bank does operate efficiently as an instrument of national policy, you may be looking at a national bank as opposed to a "central bank," -- and how ironic it would be if the U.S., which pioneered the concept of a national bank, were to have gone full circle to trying to suppress those impulses in other nations. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) There is nothing truly national about the Federal Reserve, it is a private corporation. Just like the Bank of England. Although it seems that way, intended apparence, it is a private corporation with shareholders. The reason of the countries without a central bank (private corporation) being threatened and blockaded is just that. It has been going on a long time, financiers have financed nations in war thereby always winning, because both sides endebt themselves. Then, these people implant a financial power structure thanks to the debt nations hold towards them. Much of the west is controlled in this way as is Japan and others. So they want their elitist oligarchic power structure in other nations that don't have it yet, no matter what the cost. The madness of grandeur. Pepitopax 20:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Use of Central Bank money to pay Country obligations[edit] I would like to see a clarification about using Central Bank money to pay countries obligations. For example in Argentina the government is using part of the reserves to pay part of the country debt (formally I think this must be approved by the congress). How is the situation in other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.236.74 (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)		Only these: that in those cases where the bank does operate efficiently as an instrument of national policy, you may be looking at a national bank as opposed to a "central bank," -- and how ironic it would be if the U.S., which pioneered the concept of a national bank, were to have gone full circle to trying to suppress those impulses in other nations. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) There is nothing truly national about the Federal Reserve, it is a private corporation. Just like the Bank of England. Although it seems that way, intended apparence, it is a private corporation with shareholders. The reason of the countries without a central bank (private corporation) being threatened and blockaded is just that. It has been going on a long time, financiers have financed nations in war thereby always winning, because both sides endebt themselves. Then, these people implant a financial power structure thanks to the debt nations hold towards them. Much of the west is controlled in this way as is Japan and others. So they want their elitist oligarchic power structure in other nations that don't have it yet, no matter what the cost. The madness of grandeur. Pepitopax 20:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Use of Central Bank money to pay Country obligations[edit] I would like to see a clarification about using Central Bank money to pay countries obligations. For example in Argentina the government is using part of the reserves to pay part of the country debt (formally I think this must be approved by the congress). How is the situation in other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.236.74 (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
−
−	State-owned vs privately-owned[edit] It would be interesting and very informative to classify the banks as either state owned or privately owned. I know the distinction between the two is not always so obvious, but I'm sure some kind of a compromise can be made.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:30, 9 July 2015
Line 12:		Line 12:

	I'm sorry, but it says almost everywhere I look on the internet that the Bank of England is nationalised http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/parliament/index.htm and "wholly-owned by Government". Isn't that the same as state owned? In fact I am trying to find a central bank that is not priately owned apart from the Fed. Any help? User:Pzyktzle 07:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC0) YOu have to draw a distinction between state-owned and government-controlled here. The Bundesbank, for instance, is, and has always been, state-owned - the German Federal Government is its only shareholder, and the bank pays out its annual profits to the government. In its day-to-dsay operations, it is autonomous, however, and legally prohibited from taking instructions from the government or any other German public body. The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946, but granted independence only in 1997. SchnitteUK (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Those I couldn't figure out at all[edit] State Bank of Pakistan (the name could implify state ownership) Central Bank of Syria ("The Central Bank of Syria is an independent public sector establishment operating under the guarantee of the state , and within the guidelines issued to it by the Council of Ministers . The Capital of the bank is fully subscribed by the state.") According to this, a good thumb rule seems to be that those counties treatened or blockaded by the U.S. have fully state owned central bank, except in Norway.		I'm sorry, but it says almost everywhere I look on the internet that the Bank of England is nationalised http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/parliament/index.htm and "wholly-owned by Government". Isn't that the same as state owned? In fact I am trying to find a central bank that is not priately owned apart from the Fed. Any help? User:Pzyktzle 07:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC0) YOu have to draw a distinction between state-owned and government-controlled here. The Bundesbank, for instance, is, and has always been, state-owned - the German Federal Government is its only shareholder, and the bank pays out its annual profits to the government. In its day-to-dsay operations, it is autonomous, however, and legally prohibited from taking instructions from the government or any other German public body. The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946, but granted independence only in 1997. SchnitteUK (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Those I couldn't figure out at all[edit] State Bank of Pakistan (the name could implify state ownership) Central Bank of Syria ("The Central Bank of Syria is an independent public sector establishment operating under the guarantee of the state , and within the guidelines issued to it by the Council of Ministers . The Capital of the bank is fully subscribed by the state.") According to this, a good thumb rule seems to be that those counties treatened or blockaded by the U.S. have fully state owned central bank, except in Norway.
		+
		+	Any thoughts or opinions on this?
		+
		+	Only these: that in those cases where the bank does operate efficiently as an instrument of national policy, you may be looking at a national bank as opposed to a "central bank," -- and how ironic it would be if the U.S., which pioneered the concept of a national bank, were to have gone full circle to trying to suppress those impulses in other nations. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) There is nothing truly national about the Federal Reserve, it is a private corporation. Just like the Bank of England. Although it seems that way, intended apparence, it is a private corporation with shareholders. The reason of the countries without a central bank (private corporation) being threatened and blockaded is just that. It has been going on a long time, financiers have financed nations in war thereby always winning, because both sides endebt themselves. Then, these people implant a financial power structure thanks to the debt nations hold towards them. Much of the west is controlled in this way as is Japan and others. So they want their elitist oligarchic power structure in other nations that don't have it yet, no matter what the cost. The madness of grandeur. Pepitopax 20:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Use of Central Bank money to pay Country obligations[edit] I would like to see a clarification about using Central Bank money to pay countries obligations. For example in Argentina the government is using part of the reserves to pay part of the country debt (formally I think this must be approved by the congress). How is the situation in other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.236.74 (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	State-owned vs privately-owned[edit] It would be interesting and very informative to classify the banks as either state owned or privately owned. I know the distinction between the two is not always so obvious, but I'm sure some kind of a compromise can be made.

	Any thoughts or opinions on this?		Any thoughts or opinions on this?

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:29, 9 July 2015
Line 18:		Line 18:

	State-owned vs privately-owned[edit] It would be interesting and very informative to classify the banks as either state owned or privately owned. I know the distinction between the two is not always so obvious, but I'm sure some kind of a compromise can be made.		State-owned vs privately-owned[edit] It would be interesting and very informative to classify the banks as either state owned or privately owned. I know the distinction between the two is not always so obvious, but I'm sure some kind of a compromise can be made.
−
−	~~I did a good amount of googling to find out those I didn't already know.~~
−
−	~~State owned and controlled banks[edit] Bank of Cuba Bank of Libya I also believe that these are:~~
−
−	Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of IRAN Central Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (north korea) Norges Bank (Bank of Norway) "Norges Bank is a separate legal entity owned by the state." Independent banks[edit] (where the 'democratic' bodies of government might or might not have some kind of saying, these could be separated into two categories)
−
−	Federal Reserve Bank of Canada Bank of Britain Bank of France Bank of Sweden & Bank of Finland Deutsche Bundesbank ('Bank of Germany') Bank of Saudi Arabia Banco Central de Chile (Central Bank of Chile) Bank of Japan 82.46.234.167 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC) NB "Bank of Britain" does not exist - should be Bank of England
−
−	I'm sorry, but it says almost everywhere I look on the internet that the Bank of England is nationalised http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/parliament/index.htm and "wholly-owned by Government". Isn't that the same as state owned? In fact I am trying to find a central bank that is not priately owned apart from the Fed. Any help? User:Pzyktzle 07:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC0) YOu have to draw a distinction between state-owned and government-controlled here. The Bundesbank, for instance, is, and has always been, state-owned - the German Federal Government is its only shareholder, and the bank pays out its annual profits to the government. In its day-to-dsay operations, it is autonomous, however, and legally prohibited from taking instructions from the government or any other German public body. The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946, but granted independence only in 1997. SchnitteUK (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Those I couldn't figure out at all[edit] State Bank of Pakistan (the name could implify state ownership) Central Bank of Syria ("The Central Bank of Syria is an independent public sector establishment operating under the guarantee of the state , and within the guidelines issued to it by the Council of Ministers . The Capital of the bank is fully subscribed by the state.") According to this, a good thumb rule seems to be that those counties treatened or blockaded by the U.S. have fully state owned central bank, except in Norway.
−
−	~~Any thoughts or opinions on this?~~
−
−	Only these: that in those cases where the bank does operate efficiently as an instrument of national policy, you may be looking at a national bank as opposed to a "central bank," -- and how ironic it would be if the U.S., which pioneered the concept of a national bank, were to have gone full circle to trying to suppress those impulses in other nations. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) There is nothing truly national about the Federal Reserve, it is a private corporation. Just like the Bank of England. Although it seems that way, intended apparence, it is a private corporation with shareholders. The reason of the countries without a central bank (private corporation) being threatened and blockaded is just that. It has been going on a long time, financiers have financed nations in war thereby always winning, because both sides endebt themselves. Then, these people implant a financial power structure thanks to the debt nations hold towards them. Much of the west is controlled in this way as is Japan and others. So they want their elitist oligarchic power structure in other nations that don't have it yet, no matter what the cost. The madness of grandeur. Pepitopax 20:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Use of Central Bank money to pay Country obligations[edit] I would like to see a clarification about using Central Bank money to pay countries obligations. For example in Argentina the government is using part of the reserves to pay part of the country debt (formally I think this must be approved by the congress). How is the situation in other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.236.74 (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
−
−	State-owned vs privately-owned[edit] It would be interesting and very informative to classify the banks as either state owned or privately owned. I know the distinction between the two is not always so obvious, but I'm sure some kind of a compromise can be made.
−
−	~~I did a good amount of googling to find out those I didn't already know.~~
−
−	~~State owned and controlled banks[edit] Bank of Cuba Bank of Libya I also believe that these are:~~
−
−	Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of IRAN Central Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (north korea) Norges Bank (Bank of Norway) "Norges Bank is a separate legal entity owned by the state." Independent banks[edit] (where the 'democratic' bodies of government might or might not have some kind of saying, these could be separated into two categories)
−
−	Federal Reserve Bank of Canada Bank of Britain Bank of France Bank of Sweden & Bank of Finland Deutsche Bundesbank ('Bank of Germany') Bank of Saudi Arabia Banco Central de Chile (Central Bank of Chile) Bank of Japan 82.46.234.167 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC) NB "Bank of Britain" does not exist - should be Bank of England
−
−	I'm sorry, but it says almost everywhere I look on the internet that the Bank of England is nationalised http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/parliament/index.htm and "wholly-owned by Government". Isn't that the same as state owned? In fact I am trying to find a central bank that is not priately owned apart from the Fed. Any help? User:Pzyktzle 07:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC0) YOu have to draw a distinction between state-owned and government-controlled here. The Bundesbank, for instance, is, and has always been, state-owned - the German Federal Government is its only shareholder, and the bank pays out its annual profits to the government. In its day-to-dsay operations, it is autonomous, however, and legally prohibited from taking instructions from the government or any other German public body. The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946, but granted independence only in 1997. SchnitteUK (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Those I couldn't figure out at all[edit] State Bank of Pakistan (the name could implify state ownership) Central Bank of Syria ("The Central Bank of Syria is an independent public sector establishment operating under the guarantee of the state , and within the guidelines issued to it by the Council of Ministers . The Capital of the bank is fully subscribed by the state.") According to this, a good thumb rule seems to be that those counties treatened or blockaded by the U.S. have fully state owned central bank, except in Norway.
−
−	~~Any thoughts or opinions on this?~~
−
−	Only these: that in those cases where the bank does operate efficiently as an instrument of national policy, you may be looking at a national bank as opposed to a "central bank," -- and how ironic it would be if the U.S., which pioneered the concept of a national bank, were to have gone full circle to trying to suppress those impulses in other nations. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) There is nothing truly national about the Federal Reserve, it is a private corporation. Just like the Bank of England. Although it seems that way, intended apparence, it is a private corporation with shareholders. The reason of the countries without a central bank (private corporation) being threatened and blockaded is just that. It has been going on a long time, financiers have financed nations in war thereby always winning, because both sides endebt themselves. Then, these people implant a financial power structure thanks to the debt nations hold towards them. Much of the west is controlled in this way as is Japan and others. So they want their elitist oligarchic power structure in other nations that don't have it yet, no matter what the cost. The madness of grandeur. Pepitopax 20:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Use of Central Bank money to pay Country obligations[edit] I would like to see a clarification about using Central Bank money to pay countries obligations. For example in Argentina the government is using part of the reserves to pay part of the country debt (formally I think this must be approved by the congress). How is the situation in other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.236.74 (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
−
−	State-owned vs privately-owned[edit] It would be interesting and very informative to classify the banks as either state owned or privately owned. I know the distinction between the two is not always so obvious, but I'm sure some kind of a compromise can be made.
−
−	~~I did a good amount of googling to find out those I didn't already know.~~
−
−	~~State owned and controlled banks[edit] Bank of Cuba Bank of Libya I also believe that these are:~~
−
−	Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of IRAN Central Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (north korea) Norges Bank (Bank of Norway) "Norges Bank is a separate legal entity owned by the state." Independent banks[edit] (where the 'democratic' bodies of government might or might not have some kind of saying, these could be separated into two categories)
−
−	Federal Reserve Bank of Canada Bank of Britain Bank of France Bank of Sweden & Bank of Finland Deutsche Bundesbank ('Bank of Germany') Bank of Saudi Arabia Banco Central de Chile (Central Bank of Chile) Bank of Japan 82.46.234.167 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC) NB "Bank of Britain" does not exist - should be Bank of England
−
−	I'm sorry, but it says almost everywhere I look on the internet that the Bank of England is nationalised http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/parliament/index.htm and "wholly-owned by Government". Isn't that the same as state owned? In fact I am trying to find a central bank that is not priately owned apart from the Fed. Any help? User:Pzyktzle 07:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC0) YOu have to draw a distinction between state-owned and government-controlled here. The Bundesbank, for instance, is, and has always been, state-owned - the German Federal Government is its only shareholder, and the bank pays out its annual profits to the government. In its day-to-dsay operations, it is autonomous, however, and legally prohibited from taking instructions from the government or any other German public body. The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946, but granted independence only in 1997. SchnitteUK (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Those I couldn't figure out at all[edit] State Bank of Pakistan (the name could implify state ownership) Central Bank of Syria ("The Central Bank of Syria is an independent public sector establishment operating under the guarantee of the state , and within the guidelines issued to it by the Council of Ministers . The Capital of the bank is fully subscribed by the state.") According to this, a good thumb rule seems to be that those counties treatened or blockaded by the U.S. have fully state owned central bank, except in Norway.
−
−	~~Any thoughts or opinions on this?~~
−
−	Only these: that in those cases where the bank does operate efficiently as an instrument of national policy, you may be looking at a national bank as opposed to a "central bank," -- and how ironic it would be if the U.S., which pioneered the concept of a national bank, were to have gone full circle to trying to suppress those impulses in other nations. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) There is nothing truly national about the Federal Reserve, it is a private corporation. Just like the Bank of England. Although it seems that way, intended apparence, it is a private corporation with shareholders. The reason of the countries without a central bank (private corporation) being threatened and blockaded is just that. It has been going on a long time, financiers have financed nations in war thereby always winning, because both sides endebt themselves. Then, these people implant a financial power structure thanks to the debt nations hold towards them. Much of the west is controlled in this way as is Japan and others. So they want their elitist oligarchic power structure in other nations that don't have it yet, no matter what the cost. The madness of grandeur. Pepitopax 20:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Use of Central Bank money to pay Country obligations[edit] I would like to see a clarification about using Central Bank money to pay countries obligations. For example in Argentina the government is using part of the reserves to pay part of the country debt (formally I think this must be approved by the congress). How is the situation in other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.236.74 (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
−
−	State-owned vs privately-owned[edit] It would be interesting and very informative to classify the banks as either state owned or privately owned. I know the distinction between the two is not always so obvious, but I'm sure some kind of a compromise can be made.
−
−	~~I did a good amount of googling to find out those I didn't already know.~~
−
−	~~State owned and controlled banks[edit] Bank of Cuba Bank of Libya I also believe that these are:~~
−
−	Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of IRAN Central Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (north korea) Norges Bank (Bank of Norway) "Norges Bank is a separate legal entity owned by the state." Independent banks[edit] (where the 'democratic' bodies of government might or might not have some kind of saying, these could be separated into two categories)
−
−	Federal Reserve Bank of Canada Bank of Britain Bank of France Bank of Sweden & Bank of Finland Deutsche Bundesbank ('Bank of Germany') Bank of Saudi Arabia Banco Central de Chile (Central Bank of Chile) Bank of Japan 82.46.234.167 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC) NB "Bank of Britain" does not exist - should be Bank of England
−
−	I'm sorry, but it says almost everywhere I look on the internet that the Bank of England is nationalised http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/parliament/index.htm and "wholly-owned by Government". Isn't that the same as state owned? In fact I am trying to find a central bank that is not priately owned apart from the Fed. Any help? User:Pzyktzle 07:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC0) YOu have to draw a distinction between state-owned and government-controlled here. The Bundesbank, for instance, is, and has always been, state-owned - the German Federal Government is its only shareholder, and the bank pays out its annual profits to the government. In its day-to-dsay operations, it is autonomous, however, and legally prohibited from taking instructions from the government or any other German public body. The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946, but granted independence only in 1997. SchnitteUK (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Those I couldn't figure out at all[edit] State Bank of Pakistan (the name could implify state ownership) Central Bank of Syria ("The Central Bank of Syria is an independent public sector establishment operating under the guarantee of the state , and within the guidelines issued to it by the Council of Ministers . The Capital of the bank is fully subscribed by the state.") According to this, a good thumb rule seems to be that those counties treatened or blockaded by the U.S. have fully state owned central bank, except in Norway.
−
−	~~Any thoughts or opinions on this?~~
−
−	Only these: that in those cases where the bank does operate efficiently as an instrument of national policy, you may be looking at a national bank as opposed to a "central bank," -- and how ironic it would be if the U.S., which pioneered the concept of a national bank, were to have gone full circle to trying to suppress those impulses in other nations. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) There is nothing truly national about the Federal Reserve, it is a private corporation. Just like the Bank of England. Although it seems that way, intended apparence, it is a private corporation with shareholders. The reason of the countries without a central bank (private corporation) being threatened and blockaded is just that. It has been going on a long time, financiers have financed nations in war thereby always winning, because both sides endebt themselves. Then, these people implant a financial power structure thanks to the debt nations hold towards them. Much of the west is controlled in this way as is Japan and others. So they want their elitist oligarchic power structure in other nations that don't have it yet, no matter what the cost. The madness of grandeur. Pepitopax 20:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:37, 24 June 2015
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	Use of Central Bank money to pay Country obligations[edit]
	+	I would like to see a clarification about using Central Bank money to pay countries obligations. For example in Argentina the government is using part of the reserves to pay part of the country debt (formally I think this must be approved by the congress). How is the situation in other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.236.74 (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

	+	State-owned vs privately-owned[edit]
	+	It would be interesting and very informative to classify the banks as either state owned or privately owned. I know the distinction between the two is not always so obvious, but I'm sure some kind of a compromise can be made.
	+
	+	I did a good amount of googling to find out those I didn't already know.
	+
	+	State owned and controlled banks[edit]
	+	Bank of Cuba
	+	Bank of Libya
	+	I also believe that these are:
	+
	+	Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of IRAN
	+	Central Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (north korea)
	+	Norges Bank (Bank of Norway) "Norges Bank is a separate legal entity owned by the state."
	+	Independent banks[edit]
	+	(where the 'democratic' bodies of government might or might not have some kind of saying, these could be separated into two categories)
	+
	+	Federal Reserve
	+	Bank of Canada
	+	Bank of Britain
	+	Bank of France
	+	Bank of Sweden & Bank of Finland
	+	Deutsche Bundesbank ('Bank of Germany')
	+	Bank of Saudi Arabia
	+	Banco Central de Chile (Central Bank of Chile)
	+	Bank of Japan
	+	82.46.234.167 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC) NB "Bank of Britain" does not exist - should be Bank of England
	+
	+	I'm sorry, but it says almost everywhere I look on the internet that the Bank of England is nationalised http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/parliament/index.htm and "wholly-owned by Government". Isn't that the same as state owned? In fact I am trying to find a central bank that is not priately owned apart from the Fed. Any help? User:Pzyktzle 07:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC0)
	+	YOu have to draw a distinction between state-owned and government-controlled here. The Bundesbank, for instance, is, and has always been, state-owned - the German Federal Government is its only shareholder, and the bank pays out its annual profits to the government. In its day-to-dsay operations, it is autonomous, however, and legally prohibited from taking instructions from the government or any other German public body. The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946, but granted independence only in 1997. SchnitteUK (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	+	Those I couldn't figure out at all[edit]
	+	State Bank of Pakistan (the name could implify state ownership)
	+	Central Bank of Syria ("The Central Bank of Syria is an independent public sector establishment operating under the guarantee of the state , and within the guidelines issued to it by the Council of Ministers . The Capital of the bank is fully subscribed by the state.")
	+	According to this, a good thumb rule seems to be that those counties treatened or blockaded by the U.S. have fully state owned central bank, except in Norway.
	+
	+	Any thoughts or opinions on this?
	+
	+	Only these: that in those cases where the bank does operate efficiently as an instrument of national policy, you may be looking at a national bank as opposed to a "central bank," -- and how ironic it would be if the U.S., which pioneered the concept of a national bank, were to have gone full circle to trying to suppress those impulses in other nations. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
	+	There is nothing truly national about the Federal Reserve, it is a private corporation. Just like the Bank of England. Although it seems that way, intended apparence, it is a private corporation with shareholders. The reason of the countries without a central bank (private corporation) being threatened and blockaded is just that. It has been going on a long time, financiers have financed nations in war thereby always winning, because both sides endebt themselves. Then, these people implant a financial power structure thanks to the debt nations hold towards them. Much of the west is controlled in this way as is Japan and others. So they want their elitist oligarchic power structure in other nations that don't have it yet, no matter what the cost. The madness of grandeur. Pepitopax 20:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:33, 24 June 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~Independent vs. Private[edit]~~
−	~~A user at Special:Contributions/89.242.29.173 argues that 'independent' and 'private' are the same thing. But this is not correct.~~

−	Saying that the central bank is 'independent' means that it is outside of political control by the government. Saying that the central bank is 'private' means that it is legally constituted as a private corporation instead of as a public entity. There is no particular relationship between 'independence' and the central bank's status as a 'private' or 'public' body.
−
−	In other words, a central bank can be 'independent' and 'public': that means it is owned by the state, but does not take orders from the current government. Or it can be 'independent' and private: that means it is a private corporation, and does not take orders from the current government. It can also NOT be independent, even if it is private: that means it is a private corporation that obeys orders from the current government. Etcetera.
−
−	Neither independence nor the private/public status of the central bank has much impact on the revenues the government earns from the central bank's issuance of currency. If the central bank is public, this (usually) means its revenues go straight into the public treasury and therefore finance public spending. But even when the central bank is officially 'private', like the US Federal Reserve, its profits are (always, as far as I know) taxed at a very high rate (I believe the tax rate is over 90% in the US). Therefore the revenues from issuing currency end up in the public treasury in this case too. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
−
−	If it's not under government control, and not under private corporation control, then who controls it? Somebody has to. Certainly it's under influence by some forces. These forces are most likely from private parties. "Independent" can be a very ambiguous word in this context. --Fotero (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
−	Independence means that the central bank runs itself. Of course, it must run according to very strict rules, which are defined by the government. But it does not take day-to-day orders from the government: in fact, central banks sometimes make politically unpopular decisions, against the wishes of the government that set them up.
−	For example, in the U.S., the laws that govern the Federal Reserve are defined by Congress. In particular, the responsibility of the Federal Reserve, by law, is to maintain low and stable inflation, and low and stable unemployment (I don't remember the exact words of the law, but that's a rough description). The U.S. President, every seven years, appoints the Chairman of the Board of Governors Federal Reserve (most recently, George W. Bush appointed Ben Bernanke). The Chairman (together with the rest of the Board of Governors) controls the decisions of the Federal Reserve.
−	So in the US, the simplest answer to your question 'who controls it?', is this: Ben Bernanke controls the Federal Reserve. But he controls it because he was chosen the the President, and he controls it according to rules established by Congress. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
−	By the way, I agree that 'independent' is a subtle concept. It's not ambiguous, because economists have discussed what it means for several decades now, but it is subtle, so it might not be clear on first hearing. Here is what the Federal Reserve says about its own independence, on pages 2-3 of its publication Purposes and Functions:
−	'The Federal Reserve System is considered to be an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive branch of government. The System is, however, subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress. The Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government; therefore, the description of the System as “independent within the government” is more accurate.'
−	~~That is one way of summing it up. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)~~
−	The word "independence" would seem to be pretty narrowly defined by the fed. It's pretty clear at this point that Greenspan's objectives were anathema to the national interest, but highly consistent with the interests of its owners, who are part of the cartel that own the BIS, IMF and world bank. I think the standard dictionary use of the term would be more informative. By that definition, they aren't independent at all. Furthermore, insider knowledge of policy deliberations presents an irresistable conflict of interest for its owners. This issue needs further elaboration. --Rwinkel (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
−	~~Independent vs. Private[edit]~~
−	~~A user at Special:Contributions/89.242.29.173 argues that 'independent' and 'private' are the same thing. But this is not correct.~~
−
−	Saying that the central bank is 'independent' means that it is outside of political control by the government. Saying that the central bank is 'private' means that it is legally constituted as a private corporation instead of as a public entity. There is no particular relationship between 'independence' and the central bank's status as a 'private' or 'public' body.
−
−	In other words, a central bank can be 'independent' and 'public': that means it is owned by the state, but does not take orders from the current government. Or it can be 'independent' and private: that means it is a private corporation, and does not take orders from the current government. It can also NOT be independent, even if it is private: that means it is a private corporation that obeys orders from the current government. Etcetera.
−
−	Neither independence nor the private/public status of the central bank has much impact on the revenues the government earns from the central bank's issuance of currency. If the central bank is public, this (usually) means its revenues go straight into the public treasury and therefore finance public spending. But even when the central bank is officially 'private', like the US Federal Reserve, its profits are (always, as far as I know) taxed at a very high rate (I believe the tax rate is over 90% in the US). Therefore the revenues from issuing currency end up in the public treasury in this case too. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
−
−	If it's not under government control, and not under private corporation control, then who controls it? Somebody has to. Certainly it's under influence by some forces. These forces are most likely from private parties. "Independent" can be a very ambiguous word in this context. --Fotero (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
−	Independence means that the central bank runs itself. Of course, it must run according to very strict rules, which are defined by the government. But it does not take day-to-day orders from the government: in fact, central banks sometimes make politically unpopular decisions, against the wishes of the government that set them up.
−	For example, in the U.S., the laws that govern the Federal Reserve are defined by Congress. In particular, the responsibility of the Federal Reserve, by law, is to maintain low and stable inflation, and low and stable unemployment (I don't remember the exact words of the law, but that's a rough description). The U.S. President, every seven years, appoints the Chairman of the Board of Governors Federal Reserve (most recently, George W. Bush appointed Ben Bernanke). The Chairman (together with the rest of the Board of Governors) controls the decisions of the Federal Reserve.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:33, 24 June 2015
Line 28:		Line 28:
	Independence means that the central bank runs itself. Of course, it must run according to very strict rules, which are defined by the government. But it does not take day-to-day orders from the government: in fact, central banks sometimes make politically unpopular decisions, against the wishes of the government that set them up.		Independence means that the central bank runs itself. Of course, it must run according to very strict rules, which are defined by the government. But it does not take day-to-day orders from the government: in fact, central banks sometimes make politically unpopular decisions, against the wishes of the government that set them up.
	For example, in the U.S., the laws that govern the Federal Reserve are defined by Congress. In particular, the responsibility of the Federal Reserve, by law, is to maintain low and stable inflation, and low and stable unemployment (I don't remember the exact words of the law, but that's a rough description). The U.S. President, every seven years, appoints the Chairman of the Board of Governors Federal Reserve (most recently, George W. Bush appointed Ben Bernanke). The Chairman (together with the rest of the Board of Governors) controls the decisions of the Federal Reserve.		For example, in the U.S., the laws that govern the Federal Reserve are defined by Congress. In particular, the responsibility of the Federal Reserve, by law, is to maintain low and stable inflation, and low and stable unemployment (I don't remember the exact words of the law, but that's a rough description). The U.S. President, every seven years, appoints the Chairman of the Board of Governors Federal Reserve (most recently, George W. Bush appointed Ben Bernanke). The Chairman (together with the rest of the Board of Governors) controls the decisions of the Federal Reserve.
−	So in the US, the simplest answer to your question 'who controls it?', is this: Ben Bernanke controls the Federal Reserve. But he controls it because he was chosen the the President, and he controls it according to rules established by Congress. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
−	By the way, I agree that 'independent' is a subtle concept. It's not ambiguous, because economists have discussed what it means for several decades now, but it is subtle, so it might not be clear on first hearing. Here is what the Federal Reserve says about its own independence, on pages 2-3 of its publication Purposes and Functions:
−	'The Federal Reserve System is considered to be an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive branch of government. The System is, however, subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress. The Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government; therefore, the description of the System as “independent within the government” is more accurate.'
−	~~That is one way of summing it up. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)~~
−	The word "independence" would seem to be pretty narrowly defined by the fed. It's pretty clear at this point that Greenspan's objectives were anathema to the national interest, but highly consistent with the interests of its owners, who are part of the cartel that own the BIS, IMF and world bank. I think the standard dictionary use of the term would be more informative. By that definition, they aren't independent at all. Furthermore, insider knowledge of policy deliberations presents an irresistable conflict of interest for its owners. This issue needs further elaboration. --Rwinkel (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:30, 24 June 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~Capital requirements[edit]~~
−	Does anyone know what the following is supposed to mean? "Partly due to concerns about asset inflation and term repurchase agreements, and difficulties in measuring liabilities as accurately as pricing assets, capital requirements are considered more effective than deposit/reserve requirements in preventing indefinite lending: when at the threshold, a bank cannot extend another loan without acquiring further capital on its balance sheet."

−	This sounds like nonsense to me, but maybe I just don't get it. The usual understanding with banks is that the liabilities are fairly easy to understand (pace strange derivatives, etc); it's the assets that are unclear. I'd edit, but I don't even know what the author is trying to get at.--Gregalton 22:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
−
−	~~Documentry[edit]~~
−	~~Some might find this link intresting. http://www.tv-links.co.uk/video/9/6883/10985/68389/95863# 89.16.66.150 04:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)~~
−
−	~~Independence[edit]~~
−	~~Why is the section title in scare quotes?~~
−
−	~~And:~~
−
−	"The main decisions on monetary policy, to name but one example, are made by privately appointed figures independently of any elected political powers. Such is the case with the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, where the majority power is elected by and given to members of private corporations."
−
−	is just a bare-faced lie, isn't it? Wikipedia's own entry on the MPC states that four of the members are appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Governor and Deputy Governors are ... Crown appointments too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk270 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
−
−	~~... actually, I just got rid of it. Mk270 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)~~
−
−	~~I think the entire article lacks neutrality, but especially this section. --Fotero (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)~~
−	"However, while a large volume of economic research has been done to define the relationship between central bank independence and economic performance, the results are ambiguous." That needs to cite some actual research. Davidnwelton (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
−
−	~~Independent vs. Private[edit]~~
−	~~A user at Special:Contributions/89.242.29.173 argues that 'independent' and 'private' are the same thing. But this is not correct.~~
−
−	Saying that the central bank is 'independent' means that it is outside of political control by the government. Saying that the central bank is 'private' means that it is legally constituted as a private corporation instead of as a public entity. There is no particular relationship between 'independence' and the central bank's status as a 'private' or 'public' body.
−
−	In other words, a central bank can be 'independent' and 'public': that means it is owned by the state, but does not take orders from the current government. Or it can be 'independent' and private: that means it is a private corporation, and does not take orders from the current government. It can also NOT be independent, even if it is private: that means it is a private corporation that obeys orders from the current government. Etcetera.
−
−	Neither independence nor the private/public status of the central bank has much impact on the revenues the government earns from the central bank's issuance of currency. If the central bank is public, this (usually) means its revenues go straight into the public treasury and therefore finance public spending. But even when the central bank is officially 'private', like the US Federal Reserve, its profits are (always, as far as I know) taxed at a very high rate (I believe the tax rate is over 90% in the US). Therefore the revenues from issuing currency end up in the public treasury in this case too. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
−
−	If it's not under government control, and not under private corporation control, then who controls it? Somebody has to. Certainly it's under influence by some forces. These forces are most likely from private parties. "Independent" can be a very ambiguous word in this context. --Fotero (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
−	Independence means that the central bank runs itself. Of course, it must run according to very strict rules, which are defined by the government. But it does not take day-to-day orders from the government: in fact, central banks sometimes make politically unpopular decisions, against the wishes of the government that set them up.
−	For example, in the U.S., the laws that govern the Federal Reserve are defined by Congress. In particular, the responsibility of the Federal Reserve, by law, is to maintain low and stable inflation, and low and stable unemployment (I don't remember the exact words of the law, but that's a rough description). The U.S. President, every seven years, appoints the Chairman of the Board of Governors Federal Reserve (most recently, George W. Bush appointed Ben Bernanke). The Chairman (together with the rest of the Board of Governors) controls the decisions of the Federal Reserve.
−	So in the US, the simplest answer to your question 'who controls it?', is this: Ben Bernanke controls the Federal Reserve. But he controls it because he was chosen the the President, and he controls it according to rules established by Congress. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
−	By the way, I agree that 'independent' is a subtle concept. It's not ambiguous, because economists have discussed what it means for several decades now, but it is subtle, so it might not be clear on first hearing. Here is what the Federal Reserve says about its own independence, on pages 2-3 of its publication Purposes and Functions:
−	'The Federal Reserve System is considered to be an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive branch of government. The System is, however, subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress. The Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government; therefore, the description of the System as “independent within the government” is more accurate.'
−	~~That is one way of summing it up. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)~~
−	The word "independence" would seem to be pretty narrowly defined by the fed. It's pretty clear at this point that Greenspan's objectives were anathema to the national interest, but highly consistent with the interests of its owners, who are part of the cartel that own the BIS, IMF and world bank. I think the standard dictionary use of the term would be more informative. By that definition, they aren't independent at all. Furthermore, insider knowledge of policy deliberations presents an irresistable conflict of interest for its owners. This issue needs further elaboration. --Rwinkel (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
−	~~Money from Debt[edit]~~