Federal Reserve Bank Profits, here are the numbers

Yes, the Federal Reserve banks* do make a profit... but what are those profits?

Well, I was going through the National Income and Product Account tables from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, like the dork that I am, and came across reported numbers for Federal Reserve Bank profits. Needless to say, I was surprised to find them. I adjusted them for inflation and made this quick graph that I thought I’d share…


This data is from NIPA Tables 6.17B-C at www.bea.gov, and adjusted with the CPI (about 1984 dollars)

Interesting, no? I think this is an important point against the Fed. In 2000, the profits of the Federal Reserve Banks made up about 15% of total profits in the financial and banking sector. That's about 5% of all US corporate profits. Whether that's a significant portion of US profits or not is debateable. These numbers are all before taxes and domestic industries only.

Aside from the Fed operating for a profit, I think the more important criticism is that the Fed operates for the benefit of the elite rentier upper crust through its control over interest rates, etc. That's how they really get rich while screwing the common guy.

*Note: These are the 12 regional "Federal Reserve Banks" NOT the member banks of the federal reserve system.



[edit on 29-8-2006 by ArbitraryGuy]

You'll know if you're on to something when your computer starts acting weird and you lose research you've worked on for months. Note: its weird if your computer reboots on its own while you're working on your research.

you've got to be kidding right? 18 billion, gee thats a lot, unless your exon and you make nearly 20 times that.

now it is my understanding, and this could be folklore, that the federal reserve like all certral banks, do not pay taxes. certral banks do the tax'n around here. when somebody tells me that the US is in debt to the federal reserve trillions of dollars, what does that mean? do the tax payers have to come up with that doe? and if they do, how can a central bank be claiming only 18 billion a year? these numbers are not matching up. I suppose that someone will tell me that that is why the dollar is so low and that is how the public pays debts, but it still appears to me that portions of the tax pot go to pay down the deficit. so which is it? do we owe money to a bank? or do they deside how much our money is worth? or do they get their cake and eat it to?

it's funny how they say that the day of kings and rulers of people are over, just because we do not hail to king does not mean we are not ruled by kings, kings that cannot be defeated by battle or treason, no. these days we can no longer stand by our king, because we are ruled by kings that hide in solitude from those they control.

The Federal Reserve Bank doesn't make a "profit"...atll the money they take in just magically disappears.

Conversely, they can create money in any amount they want to out of thin air.

Originally posted by tom goose
you've got to be kidding right? 18 billion, gee thats a lot, unless your exon and you make nearly 20 times that.

The year 2000 figure of 18 billion... that's in 1984 dollars. In 2000 dollars, their profits were about 30.8 billion in 2000.

Sorry that the graph is in 1984 value dollars, it's a price index I already had, so I used it for ease.

Originally posted by tom goose
these days we can no longer stand by our king, because we are ruled by kings that hide in solitude from those they control.

True, true. And that very hiding gives them their control and power over us.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The Federal Reserve Bank doesn't make a "profit"...atll the money they take in just magically disappears.

Conversely, they can create money in any amount they want to out of thin air.

Profit for the Federal Reserve Banks is reported by the BEA in the NIPAs... I'm not sure why the NIPAs would list the Federal Reserve Banks taking money out of circulation (e.g., via open market ops) as profits in the financial sector.

That is to say, I don't think that the tables are reporting changes in the money supply, but rather profits. If these reported profits were to reflect changes in money supply, why don't they fluxuate as such, e.g. wouldn't there be no profits in years money supply expanded? Also, shouldn't the numbers be larger than 30 billion if we're dealing with changes in money supply?

[edit on 30-8-2006 by ArbitraryGuy]

The year 2000 figure of 18 billion... that's in 1984 dollars. In 2000 dollars, their profits were about 30.8 billion in 2000.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The FED today makes a PROFIT of One Trillion Dollars per year.

It's all here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

and lots more!!

No offence Excitable, but I think Arbitrary has done a nice job here of producing some concrete numbers. (from the feds own books apparently)
I love the work you did in your thread man, good stuff indeed, but I feel if these numbers actually pan out, then they deserve their own thread.
Information tends to get lost if threads become too long.

No offence Excitable, but I think Arbitrary has done a nice job here of producing some concrete numbers. (from the feds own books apparently)
I love the work you did in your thread man, good stuff indeed, but I feel if these numbers actually pan out, then they deserve their own thread.

Why would anyone in their right mind believe the FED does its own books legitimately? Honestly..does it make sense to you? The FED has also NEVER been audited....why is that? But...we are to believe that the worst money mongers on the planet are legitimate businessmen and do honest book keeping??

Wow....I have some lovely swamp land in Florida I can sell you real cheap!!

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The FED today makes a PROFIT of One Trillion Dollars per year.

It's all here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

and lots more!!

I do appreciate the information in your thread (I've kept up on it). However, I looked at the website that you got your info from, and they didn't list their primary source for this trillion number. I need primary sources, and found one that makes sense at the BEA.

Frankly, that trillion number looks like a very large exageration, since the US's GDP was about 11 trillion last year (chained 2000 dollars). I find it hard to believe that the Fed makes a little less than 1/10th of the GDP, especially since the national income accounts show that that money goes somewhere else. The claim is pretty outlandish.

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
Why would anyone in their right mind believe the FED does its own books legitimately? Honestly..does it make sense to you? The FED has also NEVER been audited....why is that? But...we are to believe that the worst money mongers on the planet are legitimate businessmen and do honest book keeping??

Fair enough, but I think the BEA's numbers are pretty reliable.

I'm not sure that the Fed is the big money-maker of the elite. A very, very, very improtant tool to impliment their plans and screw us over, yes... but not their big money maker.

[edit on 30-8-2006 by ArbitraryGuy]

[edit on 30-8-2006 by ArbitraryGuy]

ArbitraryGuy

a trillion bucks a year for one central bank may be a stretch, i would assotiate that figure with a group of banks making a cartel that could very well produce this figure. but 30 billion? Why bother? i'm sure youve read some into the creatoin of the US federal reserve, and what manouvers were taken in order to secure such a hold on nations currency. jackle island ring a bell?

this isn't a one man con, this is what makes the elite, elite.

but you are right about the fed not being their main cash cow (directly) but manipulating markets of all kinds leads to all sorts of cash cows. I doubt nathen rothschild and his successors to follow put away their understanding of market manipulation too easily, after waterloo, how could they? that would be like the man that figured out how to read playing cards through the backside just deciding not to go to the casino anymore.

If public figures tell all, then how come not a single rothschild name can be found when looking up the richest people on earth. have you read the history of this family. it is said that in the will of amschel rothschild, that the family wealth shall never be reported publicly, among other things some a little unsavery for modern times. unless you know how to use google well, try a different search engine cause google has a way off keeping the juicy rothschild info well hidden, i wonder why

Originally posted by tom goose

If public figures tell all, then how come not a single rothschild name can be found when looking up the richest people on earth. have you read the history of this family. it is said that in the will of amschel rothschild, that the family wealth shall never be reported publicly, among other things some a little unsavery for modern times. unless you know how to use google well, try a different search engine cause google has a way off keeping the juicy rothschild info well hidden, i wonder why

YAY someone who understands!!

The Forbes list of the second tier of wealth is laughable. The Rothchilds could lose Gates wealth in a hour and lose little sleep over it.!...Someone would die of course , but they'd still lose little sleep...if they actually do sleep!

Yah, the list is a joke. If Forbes started to print list of the real wealthiest people, the masses will start asking questions like how they get to be so rich. Banking you say. 'You mean the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, Warburgs make money from the Federal Reserve too?'

[edit on 22-9-2006 by tazadar]