By Ryan McMaken
Does it matter if a central bank is privately owned? No, it makes no difference. Public or private, central banks give the state what it wants.
pull down to refresh
related posts
22 sats \ 2 replies \ @DEADBEEF 18 Oct
Central banks are a means of control.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 18 Oct
Even their advocates would acknowledge that.
reply
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @DEADBEEF 18 Oct
Yep, that’s why they like them.
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Satosora 18 Oct
"The two quintessential private central banks of Europe—the Bank of England and the Bank of France."
When you look at private banks, and you see how well they are doing...are you sure you want them to be private?
'The Federal Reserve is less private than these other central banks. The stockholders of the Federal Reserve are the private member banks of the twelve regional Reserve Banks. But these shares are not traded on any stock market and US statutes dictate how much stock these member banks must own. This is hardly a matter of private investors buying up equity as would be in the case with normal ownership. The shareholders can’t simply dump their stocks if they disagree with management."
I found this a bit comical, that they cant just dump stocks when they are upset.
Just imagine how many roller coaster rides we would be going on if that happened.
Not saying the Federal Reserve is a good thing.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 18 Oct
One of the big problems is that the Federal Reserve makes it so that there really aren't any private banks in America. One way or another, they are all tied into this system, which makes it hard to see what actual private banking would be like.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @7e6e393a56 18 Oct
I agree. Everyone in charge followed current government guidelines
reply