Once again, the ownership of the Central Bank, the Monetary Committee

  • Central Bank in the foam
  • Central Bank in the foam

 

A new wave of discussion threads Conditioning Central Bank. The wave is quite muddy — first in the network has some paraphrase my old article, "Who owns the Central Bank?"

 

Retellings of these were a disguised rip-off with the loss of many important aspects of the original publication, which plagiarists just have not noticed. And then there is a response from the lawyers banksters quite expected the logic of protection. This wave has merged with the theme of "currency board" — the colonial financial policy of "national" Bank of Russia, which is the same attorneys diligently trying to hide. As its essence, and the facts that prove the implementation of this policy in relation to Russia. Looks like it’s time to join the discussion as my followers something not too hard in the arguments. The same old man who inspired by my article even written a book, "The nationalization of the ruble," was not very convincing in the debate with the same Kashcheyev (head of the analytical department of the Savings Bank of Russia). First, a few words about plagiarism. Fight for copyrights on this issue I’m not going, I do not make scientific discoveries about the "independence" of the Central Bank. On the contrary, I am glad that my articles have generated a wave of publications on this topic. But the problem is that if too loosely paraphrase distorted reasoning, many facts fall out of the spotlight. And sad to but among publicists statists full of people, do not disdain rather dirty methods of obtaining popularity. Same Old Men, in general, is a talented writer, I borrowed almost all the contents of the first chapters of his book about the "nationalization of the ruble," without making any reference. Borrowed, of course, not literally. Told in their own words. But the fact that this is not a retelling prove difficult — the thread of reasoning with examples, reference is strictly according to the original site malchish.org. Old Men story begins on the establishment of the Federal Reserve, and my reference to the trial of John Lewis is not used — the old man decides his own logic will be enough to convince the reader. In addition, the example of the California court decision would be immediately issued borrowing. But as a result of a conviction in the text Starikova have strong problem — a contrived example with the "Coca-Cola", which allegedly contrary to the criticism of the Congress may continue to produce products with a high sugar content, is far less convincing decision of the U.S. Court with clear and specific wording and the specific examples of jurisprudence. "The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the law" — so said the California court, what else can I add? Why invent about Coca-Cola?

Lawyers for the Fed to camouflage the private property of the Federal Reserve Banks of government regulation. The difference between the concepts of government regulation of property rights — the most important point, which has a clear legal basis. There is private property and there is government regulation activities private company. One does not contradict the other, because the state, through its legislative and executive bodies, regulates the activities of any company, regardless of their form of ownership. Maybe her and strip, issuing a law or decree. What does the state owned everything. Safety standards, labor laws restricting the minimum wage of employees, environmental regulations, the requirement of reporting to the tax authorities — all state regulation of private companies, which owned the rights to do. It is engaged and the public agency under the name "Federal Reserve Board" or, in another translation, "the Fed’s Board of Governors." He appoints the refinancing rate, reserve requirements and even determines the size of the monetary issue. Going for it a few times a year.

It would seem that the state body — Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is monitored all the activities of the Federal Reserve banks. And what does the Russian Federal Agency for Subsoil Use? Issues licenses for mineral mining companies. These licenses may be revoked at any time. All mining companies otchitvayutsya to the tax authorities and pay tax to the budget of the mineral extraction tax (MET). When you export the extracted resources — export duty. That is, all their activity is also regulated and controlled by the state. This makes them public? By no means! Owners manage their companies’ activities and use of the income. Regulation only defines framework, within which the activities of companies controlled freely by their owners. This framework can be narrow or wide, but the owner within this framework takes control solutions on their own and always receives revenue possession of their property. This latter point can serve as a criterion decides whether a particular organization. And in regard to the Russian Central Bank there is just not all that clear. How is being dealt in my article on the Central Bank and my followers?

In the second article of the law on the Central Bank, which I quoted in full, and the old man behind me says that "capital and other property of the Bank of Russia are federal property." As I commented on it? To quote myself:

Now, pay attention to the phrase, which stands immediately after the establishment of ownership of the property: the state is not liable for the obligations of the bank, the bank — the obligations of the state … How’s that? The property belongs to the state and the state of this property can not answer for its obligations? In other words — the state can go bankrupt even with the huge gold reserves. GCR is untouchable! GCR is, but not for our honor. That’s what this article says. Well, about the property, building, furniture — these are trifles. They belong to the state, calm down. The authorized fund of $ 3 millirdov rubles — too. When we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, such amounts are not taken into account. So, we can say that the Law on the Central Bank is contradictory in nature. Formally the federally owned Central Bank, however, does not carry any obligations towards the state.

And what he wrote in his book Old Men? I quote him:

Quote: So it belongs to the state? Property of the Bank of Russia. That is — real estate. Well, there is furniture, chairs. Wallpaper on the walls. The handles in the stands, mouse pads on. The plates in the microwave. All of them? No, not all. Also — "authorized capital" of the Central Bank of $ 3 billion. [34] Is it much? Sami answer to this question. First, look at the size of the foreign exchange reserves of the Central Bank. [35] These figures are published each day. Today reserves of about 465 billion dollars. So tell me, 3 billion at 465 billion dollars — that’s a lot or a little? It is very small. The main thing — it’s not the authorized capital and the assets of the Central Bank, its gold reserves, that is reserves.

Not only are the chairs at Starikova are somehow "real estate" because "chairs" and proved that plagiarism is a bad paraphrase. Not occurred to him to mention some other property, other than chairs and wallpaper. But this is not enough — the old man very badly told the main point made by me. His only bright fascinated compare the cost of furnitu
re to the size of gold reserves. It’s amazing, but this is not important. The main thing is that the state, being formally the owner of the Central Bank, can not dispose of this property! The phrase "the state is not liable for the obligations of the bank, the bank — the obligations of the state" completely denies this. The legal concept of property implies the exclusive right to dispose of, possession and use of the subject property. Which of these concepts reserves the state law on the Central Bank? Nothing! It is independent of the government’s decisions are not liable for the debts of the state, the state can not use monetary creation for its expenses. Even loans from the Central Bank can not take! So what are the signs of the owner of the state left?

Over all, the state of the law in effect on the CB resembles the minority shareholder, which neither rule nor a profit really can not. He would get only chairs and what a "tomorrow", after the liquidation of the company. And a word about the shareholder’s not accidental. Let us ask ourselves — can have a general government agency authorized capital? Think of it have? Like no, never heard of. Can the government? The Ministry of Finance, at least? There is none. My own institution, part of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences — either, although it carries on business. The authorized capital are ONLY commercial the company started to make a profit. Central Bank was not created as a public body, and how commercial bank! It is important to note at once. This commercial bank has a profit and, despite the fact that according to the state-owned share capital, lists the state only 75% of it, and until recently — only 50%. This is in contrast to the Reserve Bank USA, which is not having its shareholders state in general, nevertheless lists all the profits to the Treasury. So they try to neutralize one of the formal characteristics of private property these banks. Our own Central Bank considered it unnecessary. The law also said about the property, which still prove something? However, formal approval must be filled with more and relevant content. Confirmed all the legal attributes of this property. They are something or not. On the contrary, the rest of the contents of the law on the Central Bank eliminates them.

The minimum share capital of the Central Bank shows what part of the property upon liquidation of a commercial bank receives state. And this shows the share capital of the amount you would pay commercial banks, if take in head to privatize the Central Bank. More precisely formalize the existing relationship completely. Article of the law does not contain a word about the bank reserves that are no "property", strictly speaking, are not. In case of liquidation of the bank, these "reserves" as any financial assets of the company, should be used to pay liabilities — liabilities of the company. But after that the remains should be given to the owners of the company are, by whom the law seems to be a state. Nothing of the old man explained. As a result of such "small" oversights Starikova very easy to criticize. Be honest Old Men, he would have just quoted me and would make a reference to the source. It turned out be much more convincing. Even science, science does not hesitate to cite this collective work. But the old man to share his "guess about the nature of the Central Bank," no one wants. It is his own discovery, not the other way.

And the old man is not alone in his vain attempts. Another interpreter, a Nersessov, a supporter of the BER ("Concept of Public Security" — the doctrine of "Conceptual Party Unity") and, concurrently, an analyst at the IIHF FIBO Group, gives his version of the same paragraph "about the furniture":

Quote: By law, the authorized capital of the bank and the property is federally owned, but the bank’s authorized capital — is 3 billion rubles. Ownership of the bank, it’s his house, furniture and office equipment. But what of 3 billion rubles, compared with $ 500 billion foreign exchange reserves, which the Central Bank the right to dispose of at their discretion, I think no need to explain? In addition, the fact is "our" Central Bank is not liable for the obligations of the state. Ie, each has its own debt, the Central Bank — their own, in the State — and their Central Bank is not responsible for them. And rightly so, let them in, their state, for its own debts and meet. The Central Bank, here, and?

Was given to them, the furniture! Could official Mercedes recall. Or even armored cars, which carry the money. And on the subject powerfully push anything … Type of armored cars, then we will take, but the fact that they vozilos … But his fantasy is not enough, and this lack of imagination gives out again plagiarism. About the meager share capital can somehow most doperet, unless you stumble eye can see, and most are the same contradictions in the law, but accidentally specify precisely on the furniture in the assets of the Central Bank …

Another version of the interpretation of the same paragraph, and again about furniture:

 Translated into the language in the public property of the state space of the Central Bank, computers and furniture of his office, and the authorized capital of the Bank, which, in accordance with Article 10 of the Act of 3 billion rubles, which currently stands at only $ 100 million in the same time, the whole currency, earn Russia, including Reserve Fund and National Welfare Fund (formerly the Stabilization Fund) are available in the accounts of the Central Bank, which it manages in its sole discretion and independent of the state. In addition, the Central Bank is not liable for the obligations of the State, ie it is a private office.

Such an interpretation is suggested Alex Dobychin, Chairman of the Union of "Holy Russia". President of the Union, too, we have to somehow gain popularity and original thinking, but could not come up with anything except furniture … I believe that the network can still find options retelling, and everywhere is about furniture … Well, to hell with them, with these plagiarists. At least convey the basic idea — we did not CB state. That means that our state does not dispose of the printing press. Which means that the issue of money is not controlled by the state, and benefit from it — the seigniorage to the budget does not go. And who is going? This is an interesting question, my interpreters have not discussed it. This is a complex issue that requires some basic knowledge of macroeconomics and I have not touched in that first publication. While it is important one — declared independence from the government of the Central Bank — is its dependence on Western financial oligarchy. This subordination to them of our financial system. What benefit they recovered from this — an important conversation that requires a separate detailed discussion.

Many times, it is proving dependence of CB from international financial bodies I have already mentioned in another article — "Who controls the Central Bank?" And it does not even bother to read the plagiarists, they had the imagination to excite one of the first part. That is why the criticism has turned solid — a banking lawyer Learn gained popularity on it. He called his article intriguing — "Poker Club Fed and Bank financial bluff." There he gathered up all the flaws of my interpreters and splashed in the form of an entire article. Get powerful, even the popular website "Made us" it published. We’ll have to clean up these flaws.

Will have to start from the end. For the lawyer, "banksters" began not with the problem of ownership of the Central Bank, and with the characteristics of the regime "currency board":

Little do not
understand the origin of the statement on compulsory equality printed ruble money supply busy dollar. This is the basic thesis and it does not correspond to reality. According to the Central Bank the amount of all of our international reserves now stands at 513,491 billion. This is all the reserves, of which about half dollar directly. The dollar — 29.64, ie provided equality ruble supply our international reserves, the money supply in Russia should be 15.2 trillion. rub. M2 money supply for today — 23,851 trillion. rubles. Does not converge. The dollar should be 46 rubles 45 kopecks. Or Russia’s international reserves should

a) consist of U.S. assets;

b) be 804.689 billion.

Again, to nationalize the Central Bank, if all he has under the law of the Central Bank is already federal property?

About the "federal" property we have already discussed. In fact, the law in this respect is contradictory, as declared by the law of nationality is not confirmed by the formal characteristics of the owner in the state. All proprietary rights in respect of their property removed by other provisions of the law on the Central Bank. The state has no rights of ownership in respect of the property is not, that is the status of the Central Bank is not legally defined. It remains to deal with equality "printed ruble money supply busy dollar." There are traces of my more recent publications about the mode of "currency board". These articles are also found their interpreters. Although, of course, about the regime itself has been written before. Not only marked its colonial essence — the deprivation of the Central Bank of emission features. Of course Ruble-emits it, but only in the absorption of the corresponding mass of U.S. currency and the EU. If we consider it as a source of precisely rubles — it is, of course, it is as if the source of the money in the global financial system — is not, in global terms, the Central Bank is not issuing center. This is the only exchange the item.

Money now acquired global significance, the financial systems of different countries have long been merged banking network and the ease of conversion from one currency to another, erased all barriers in the difference in specific currencies. And in the global financial system are the source of money, only those central banks that lie outside the regime of "currency board". Those that are able to produce their own currency without the need to ensure its currencies of other countries. Formal sign of the regime could be considered equal money supply of the currency and foreign exchange reserves of central banks — only in this case there is no issue of "global money" is merely the exchange of one currency for another. But coming to the issue formally with regard to the Russian Central Bank this mode you can not find! And the lawyer said that the bankers. This is despite the fact that at one time he was introduced almost official. A quote from the memo Sergei Aleksashenko (formerly the first deputy chairman of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation), "Chairman of the Bank of Russia (22 May 1997)

"Since October 1996, Russia is in a fundamentally new situation in the conduct of monetary policy: we almost went to the mechanism of currency board, ie one new ruble monetary base is provided with a corresponding increase in foreign exchange reserves of the Bank of Russia."

This quote was found not me, but one of my followers, Igor Averin — another researcher "conspiracy of bankers." Unlike the others, however, he tends to think for themselves and trying to seek the truth exploring many alternative sources, not disdaining to look in the official statistics. Although not always successful. For example, in his article "Currency Board in Russia. Visually." He tried to determine whether the regime in Russia comparing formal monetary base and international reserves of the Russian Federation in accordance with the floating exchange rate of the ruble. Even painted graphics. As a result, came to the conclusion that from approximately 2005 in Russia, this mode does not work! And it is absolutely not true. This mode functions. We just need to be read correctly. Beginning with the words that "confuses a lot of people in everything, aggregates, reserves, monetary base, the mass …"And promising to unravel all, he is all completely confused. He, too, will not match the money supply with gold reserves. And just unravel this knot, I explained in my article" Will Kudrin’s resignation to the rejection of the regime "currency board"? ":

Let’s try to understand the terms "money" and "monetary base." The fact that different central banks considered "base" and "weight" based on their own its definitions, including the various components therein. A Textbook "monetary base" — a set of liabilities of the central bank. That is his obligation, "banknote". CBR all the obligations included in its base? It turns out that’s not all! Therefore to study the statistics are not just on the basis determined by the Central Bank at its option, and check the balance of the Central Bank, which is based on the overall balance of the banking rules, can not contain such a tyranny. Why balance proves the existence of this regime for Russia? For one simple reason — in the assets of the Central Bank is not gold. No obligation Russian banks or the government of Russia. There are the obligations of a different origin — foreign. That’s gold reserves. It determines the basic size of the asset corresponding to the passive — the monetary base (in the textbook).

"Foreign securities" — 13273145000000 rubles (1.08.2011). This is what defines the basic money supply of the country — Central Bank liabilities (cash (5925962000000) + balances with the Central Bank (7726311000000). = 13652273000000). Almost full compliance less petty! In the monetary base financiers Central Bank does not include government funds amounting to about 4 trillion rubles. That’s why we differ from the gold reserves of the monetary base. Of course, the Fed also has foreign securities in the asset. In the minimum amount. But there they do not form part of the core. The main part of it — "Treasuries" obligation native his government. The same as that from us! Funny? Not really. For it is said that our Central Bank — is a branch of the Federal Reserve in Russia. It produces its obligations — money only on the security of U.S. debt. Well, the EU, of course, the "basket" we "double". We can say that we are a colony of two metropolitan areas. They have somehow there was shared …

A formal approach is not always possible to adequately judge a particular monetary policy. After all, the money supply can be considered in different ways and financiers of the Central Bank using 4 different ways to calculate it. This is the monetary base and the three "unit" of the money supply. And the government’s money in the accounts of the Central Bank is not included in any of them. And I am confident that the legal bankers will try to persuade them that this is done correctly, and therefore no "currency board" no. But right in relation to what? By counting the money in circulation? Or to the determination of the total money supply of the Central Bank? These questions and distinguish themselves financiers. Required to distinguish between us, if we want to understand the issue. But it is better to do it in the next part of the article …

Like this post? Please share to your friends: