Who Owns The Bank Of Thailand

[Naam]

OK, Naam has let the cat out of the bag....this whole thread is about generating a zillion views of ThaiVisa. Now we are going to need to research/discuss who really owns ThaiVisa....the Fed or BOT maybe?

give me one valid reason why i should waste my time on the ownership of the FED or the BoT. but before you threaten me with sanctions here's my [not so] humble opinion: both FED and the Bank of Thailand are owned by a group of wealthy Ferengis who have vowed to destroy the leisure life of Farang retirees in Thailand. they are paying Thais to discrimate against Farangs by charging them double prices when using a baht-bus, ordering an additional serving of rice, entering a museum or a national park and last not least sucking them financially dry by providing attractive [sometimes not so attractive] Thai wives and/or Thai girl/boyfriends.

[Pib]

OK, Naam has let the cat out of the bag....this whole thread is about generating a zillion views of ThaiVisa. Now we are going to need to research/discuss who really owns ThaiVisa....the Fed or BOT maybe?

give me one valid reason why i should waste my time on the ownership of the FED or the BoT. but before you threaten me with sanctions here's my [not so] humble opinion: both FED and the Bank of Thailand are owned by a group of wealthy Ferengis who have vowed to destroy the leisure life of Farang retirees in Thailand. they are paying Thais to discrimate against Farangs by charging them double prices when using a baht-bus, ordering an additional serving of rice, entering a museum or a national park and last not least sucking them financially dry by providing attractive [sometimes not so attractive] Thai wives and/or Thai girl/boyfriends.

Naam, you've got a gift with words. Cheers

[Naam]

OK, Naam has let the cat out of the bag....this whole thread is about generating a zillion views of ThaiVisa. Now we are going to need to research/discuss who really owns ThaiVisa....the Fed or BOT maybe?

give me one valid reason why i should waste my time on the ownership of the FED or the BoT. but before you threaten me with sanctions here's my [not so] humble opinion: both FED and the Bank of Thailand are owned by a group of wealthy Ferengis who have vowed to destroy the leisure life of Farang retirees in Thailand. they are paying Thais to discrimate against Farangs by charging them double prices when using a baht-bus, ordering an additional serving of rice, entering a museum or a national park and last not least sucking them financially dry by providing attractive [sometimes not so attractive] Thai wives and/or Thai girl/boyfriends.

Naam, you've got a gift with words. Cheers

i wish you were able to read my gift of words in one of the languages i actually master and not when i use my rather poor English. then you would be really impressed

[Nisa]

So, it would seem the OP and this entire thread has nothing to do with Thailand.

[hyperdimension]

The member banks in each district privately own each of the 12 Federal Reserve banks. However, the government-appointed Board of Governors controls these banks.

That is the official propaganda and doesn't explain much. The Board of Governors appoint directors for each of the Federal Reserve district banks and based on pages 73 to 113 of the document FEDERAL RESERVE DIRECTORS: A STUDY OF CORPORATE AND BANKING INFLUENCE STAFF REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, CURRENCY AND HOUSING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 94th Congress. Second Session August 1976 to which I have previously posted a link, many of the directors are heavyweights in the corporate world. Being directors, they would also have control over the Federal Reserve.

Also, the Federal Reserve System rebates almost all of its profits to the Treasury each year, actually REDUCING the taxpayer burden.

The key word in your statement is "almost". The shareholders get to keep 6% of the profits, which is significant when billions of dollars are being dealt with. The 6% is pure tax-exempt profit for the shareholders. The Federal Reserve therefore is a for-profit institution.

Individuals and non-bank institutions, foreign or domestic, are not allowed to own shares in any Federal Reserve bank.

That is correct. Only banks are shareholders. The shares are not publicly offered for purchase or trading.

[hyperdimension]

So, it would seem the OP and this entire thread has nothing to do with Thailand.

It does as I wanted to learn about Thailand's central bank, of which there is very limited information on the internet, whereas there is plenty about the central bank of the U.S.A. of which I have already spent a lot of time on research of its history and influence. I am interested to find if there is any similarity or connection with Thailand's own central bank in terns of ownership and control, especially with the claim that the Rothschilds indirectly own and control the central banks of the world.

[aurelius]

The BOT is a juristic person which is a state agency, and is neither a government

agency nor state enterprise under the law on budgetary procedure and other laws.

http://www.bot.or.th...Law_E01_Bot.pdf

Since that comes straight from the Bank of Thailand themselves, it cannot be relied upon, just as when the Federal Reserve themself says that it "is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution":

How is it that the very Act which enables the Bank of Thailand cannot be relied upon, precisely?

[who]

.

---- a few minor corrections: ----

Is Thailand's central bank, the Bank of Thailand, a private for-profit institution like the Federal Reserve of the U.S.A.? ---- The U.S. Federal Reserve is not a "for-profit institution"

The Federal Reserve is owned by shareholders who are international commercial banks ---- The FRB is owned by it's members who need not be "international" nor "commercial" such as Chase Manhattan, J.P. Morgan and Citibank, and these banks are in turn largely owned by a few of the ultra-wealthy ---- The large banks that you list are "largely owned" not by individuals but by pension funds etc. such as the Rothchilds (who are said to be ---- said by whom ---- worth around 100T USD) and Rockefellers (who are said ---- by whom said? ---- to be worth around 10T USD). The government of the U.S.A., since 1913, has basically allowed a commercial bank to profit ---- how do they profit ---- from creating (out of nothing) and issuing the country's currency ("Federal Reserve notes"). ---- obviously, only the Federal Reserve issues "Federal Reserve Notes ----

Other than the few minor errors your post was excellent ----

.

[Pedzie]

The info given is totally correct whatever Wikiwonker says

Yes the info given is defo correct.

The US reserve bank is privately owned, the whole system is CORRUPT..

Americans really need to wake up and smell the coffee as to what is really happening.

The US has been hi-jacked by wall street and the military industrial complex and has been for a few decades at least.

And...there is no law that requires US citizens to pay income tax.

I challenge any person who reads this to show a document that requires US citizens to pay income tax (shouldn't be that hard huh)

[endure]

The info given is totally correct whatever Wikiwonker says

When will the Jews be implicated?

What a couple of wanke_rs, OP and his clone.

The Federal reserve of the USA is a private bank and private banks exist to make profit.

In England the Bank of England has special privilege over every other type of business in that the shareholders identity,s are kept secret by law, all other businesses have to register there details at Company's house.

The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946 and is wholly owned by Her Majesty's Government.

[Pedzie]

The info given is totally correct whatever Wikiwonker says

When will the Jews be implicated?

What a couple of wanke_rs, OP and his clone.

The Federal reserve of the USA is a private bank and private banks exist to make profit.

In England the Bank of England has special privilege over every other type of business in that the shareholders identity,s are kept secret by law, all other businesses have to register there details at Company's house.

The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946 and is wholly owned by Her Majesty's Government.

And Her Majesty is part of the globalist elite, most of whom can trace their orgins back to Germany!

Edited September 18, 2011 by Pedzie

[endure]

You appear to be confusing Her Majesty with Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government is put in place and regularly turfed back out again by the British electorate. The marker for tinfoil hats is considerably smaller per capita in the UK than it is across The Pond.

Naughty naughty! Editing your post to change its meaning after having read mine.

Your original post said that Her Majesty's GOVERNMENT was part of the global elite etc. etc.

Edited September 18, 2011 by endure

[Pedzie]

You appear to be confusing Her Majesty with Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government is put in place and regularly turfed back out again by the British electorate. The marker for tinfoil hats is considerably smaller per capita in the UK than it is across The Pond.

Naughty naughty! Editing your post to change its meaning after having read mine.

Your original post said that Her Majesty's GOVERNMENT was part of the global elite etc. etc.

How dare me to make a mistake whilst typing

Her Majesty is the GOVERNMENT, It doesn't matter if It's Labour or Tory, the end result is still the same...

UK Prime ministers like US Presidents are selected not elected.

Look at the fiasco with George W Bush's election win, the Florida count and recount etc. And his brother Jeb just happened to be the governor of Florida at the time ?

These people have been bought to serve out the agenda of the globalist elite.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Pedzie

[endure]

You appear to be confusing Her Majesty with Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government is put in place and regularly turfed back out again by the British electorate. The marker for tinfoil hats is considerably smaller per capita in the UK than it is across The Pond.

Naughty naughty! Editing your post to change its meaning after having read mine.

Your original post said that Her Majesty's GOVERNMENT was part of the global elite etc. etc.

How dare me to make a mistake whilst typing

Her Majesty is the GOVERNMENT, It doesn't matter if It's Labour or Tory, the end result is still the same...

You've just proved that you know absolutely nothing about the way that government works in the UK.

[hyperdimension]

The U.S. Federal Reserve is not a "for-profit institution"

A tax-exempt 6% dividend to shareholders is profit, and it does not go back to the treasury. The existence of this dividend clearly makes it a for-profit institution. This 6% is basically usury.

The Federal Reserve is owned by shareholders who are international commercial banks ---- The FRB is owned by it's members who need not be "international" nor "commercial"

OK not all of the member banks are "international" nor may they be "commercial", but definitely the big ones like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase are both international and commercial. The member banks, who are shareholders of the Federal Reserve, are definitely private and for-profit:

A member bank is a private institution and owns stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank. All nationally chartered banks hold stock in one of the Federal Reserve Banks.

Source: Federal Reserve System

An institution whose shareholders are private banks makes it a private institution.

The large banks that you list are "largely owned" not by individuals but by pension funds etc.

Large banks are owned by shareholders, many of whom are other financial institutions such as investment banks and fund managers. e.g. JP Morgan Asset Management is one of the largest shareholders of Goldman Sachs (source: Goldman Sachs Group Inc Ownership). My use of the word "largely" was just referring to the fact the ultra-wealthy do invest in these large banks but not necessarily directly - it may be via other institutions / trusts / nominees.

Edited September 19, 2011 by hyperdimension

[hyperdimension]

such as the Rothchilds (who are said to be ---- said by whom ---- worth around 100T USD) and Rockefellers (who are said ---- by whom said? ---- to be worth around 10T USD).

I came across these values on this page: Rothschilds & Rockefellers - Trillionaires Of The World.

There are various other values thrown around. This page states the Rothschilds' net worth as 400B USD: Rothschilds Net Worth.

Jewish Wealth states that Sir Evelyn De Rothschild is worth 1.5T USD.

Wikipedia's List of wealthiest historical figures states:

The wealth of the Rothschild family at its height during the mid-19th century has been estimated in today's terms in the hundreds of billions, or even in the trillions, of dollars.

The page The Rothschilds, LBMA, and Gold estimates how much the Rothschilds could be be worth today based on a net worth of 6B USD in 1850 (from The Rothschilds: A Family Portrait by Frederic Morton (1962)) and compound interest:

Accounting for the Rothschild Wealth and Influence

Morton (1962) noted that the Rothschild wealth was estimated at over $6 billion US in 1850. Not a significant amount in today's dollars; however, consider the potential future value compounded over 147 years!

Taking $6 billion (and assuming no erosion of the wealth base) and compounding that figure at various returns on investment (a conservative range of 4% to 8%) would suggest the following net worth of the Rothschild family enterprise:

$1.9 trillion US (@ 4%)

$7.8 trillion US (@ 5%)

$31.5 trillion US (@ 6%)

$125,189.1 trillion US (@ 7%)

$491,409.0 trillion US (@ 8%)

obviously, only the Federal Reserve issues "Federal Reserve Notes ----

A private institution has the monopoly over issuing the sole currency of the entire U.S.A. and earns profit from it. It is quite insidious.

But what I wanted to find, which is the topic of this thread, is whether there are any similarities and connections with The Bank of Thailand. I have already shown evidence that the Rockefellers are involved in the Federal Reserve of the U.S.A., and that they have operated in Thailand since at least the 1960s and 1970s, and that their connection with the Bank of Thailand was via Puey Ungpakorn.

Edited September 19, 2011 by hyperdimension

[hyperdimension]

The Bank of Thailand's own official history states that foreigners attempted to set up a central bank in Thailand, but the Thais suspected that the foreigners were doing it in their own interests, and so the first attempt failed. I'm thinking that the foreigners later succeeded in pushing for a central bank, possibly after sweetening the deal in whatever ways they could for various parties and individuals. This part of the Bank of Thailand's History of the Bank of Thailand page clearly shows that foreigners were involved in the creation of the central bank of Thailand:

On 16 December 1938, Lieutenant-General Luang Pibulsonggram was appointed Prime Minister, who in turn appointed Pridi Banomyong as Minister of Finance. Once he assumed this role, Pridi Banomyong revived again the idea to establish a central bank. He made Prince Vivat, the Director-General of the Customs Department, Adviser to the Ministry of Finance, a position hitherto held by foreigners. It was during that time when Pridi Banomyong tried to explain to these foreign advisers of the need and intentions of the government. Ultimately, these advisers cooperated well in assisting the drafting the central banking act, which could be considered the first step towards central banking in the country.

Some question then would be: Who were those "foreign advisers"? and "In what ways do they gain from and control the central bank of Thailand"?

Edited September 19, 2011 by hyperdimension

[jamora]

The FED and the BoT are in theory run the same way, as independent state agencies. However, minor differences are that the BoT is not as independent as the FED, although both are independent. Also t-bills in Thailand can only be sold to commercial domestic banks, whereas the FED can sell to individual private investors.

Also, the Thai government cannot fire the governor of the BoT, but the parliament can with a certain majority (which I cant remember, but it is very high). The BoT's main responsibility, is to attempt to keep inflation under control, and for them, it comes before GDP growth or anything else. And they do not make any profit!

[Pedzie]

You appear to be confusing Her Majesty with Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government is put in place and regularly turfed back out again by the British electorate. The marker for tinfoil hats is considerably smaller per capita in the UK than it is across The Pond.

Naughty naughty! Editing your post to change its meaning after having read mine.

Your original post said that Her Majesty's GOVERNMENT was part of the global elite etc. etc.

How dare me to make a mistake whilst typing

Her Majesty is the GOVERNMENT, It doesn't matter if It's Labour or Tory, the end result is still the same...

You've just proved that you know absolutely nothing about the way that government works in the UK.

You have just proved that you are part of 95% of the population who believes everything you are told from the government and the controlled media

[hyperdimension]

The FED and the BoT are in theory run the same way, as independent state agencies. However, minor differences are that the BoT is not as independent as the FED, although both are independent. Also t-bills in Thailand can only be sold to commercial domestic banks, whereas the FED can sell to individual private investors.

Also, the Thai government cannot fire the governor of the BoT, but the parliament can with a certain majority (which I cant remember, but it is very high). The BoT's main responsibility, is to attempt to keep inflation under control, and for them, it comes before GDP growth or anything else. And they do not make any profit!

Thanks, that is interesting information. I gather that your use of the phrase "in theory" implies that things are different in reality. The Federal Reserve is not a government agency. If the evidence of this hasn't been sufficient so far, here is more:

Court Rules Federal Reserve is Privately Owned:

the court ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency

Federal Reserve Bank employees are not on the government payroll:

Are Federal Reserve Bank employees considered government employees?

No. Employees of the Federal Reserve Banks are not government employees. They are paid as part of the expenses of their employing Reserve Bank.

(Source: The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond FAQs)

The Bank of Thailand themselves claim that they are a "state agency". Should we be skeptical of this, given the fact that the Federal Reserve claims similarly yet the evidence disproves it?

And they do not make any profit!

So does this mean that 100% of the profit that the Bank of Thailand makes (such as interest profit from treasury bonds) goes back to the Thai government's treasury? (As opposed to a scheme like in the Federal Reserve in which shareholders take a cut for themselves via the 6% dividend)?

Edited September 20, 2011 by hyperdimension

[jamora]

The FED and the BoT are in theory run the same way, as independent state agencies. However, minor differences are that the BoT is not as independent as the FED, although both are independent. Also t-bills in Thailand can only be sold to commercial domestic banks, whereas the FED can sell to individual private investors.

Also, the Thai government cannot fire the governor of the BoT, but the parliament can with a certain majority (which I cant remember, but it is very high). The BoT's main responsibility, is to attempt to keep inflation under control, and for them, it comes before GDP growth or anything else. And they do not make any profit!

The Bank of Thailand themselves claim that they are a "state agency". Should we be skeptical of this, given the fact that the Federal Reserve claims similarly yet the evidence disproves it?

And they do not make any profit!

So does this mean that 100% of the profit that the Bank of Thailand makes (such as interest profit from treasury bonds) goes back to the Thai government's treasury? (As opposed to a scheme like in the Federal Reserve in which shareholders take a cut for themselves via the 6% dividend)?

I am not sure how the FED actually works, but in theory, FED stocks does not really give ownership the same way as corporate stocks. They are more a way to ensure that national banks back up the FED, hence why national banks are forced to buy FED stocks.

The BoT adds profits to the treasury, which they in return use to back the Thai baht, carry out various monetary policies etc. I have a teacher working for the BoT, and she i often on the MPC (Monetary Policy Committee) as a rotating member. I'll see her next Saturday, and I'll try to ask her about profits and ownership.

[buddy]

The info given is totally correct whatever Wikiwonker says

When will the Jews be implicated?

What a couple of wanke_rs, OP and his clone.

The Federal reserve of the USA is a private bank and private banks exist to make profit.

In England the Bank of England has special privilege over every other type of business in that the shareholders identity,s are kept secret by law, all other businesses have to register there details at Company's house.

The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946 and is wholly owned by Her Majesty's Government.

Wrong!

The Bank of England act of 1946, which "nationalised" the bank, said act still had private shareholders and used the new act to tighten the identity of whoever held shares in it previously to 1946 (it was a secret then and it is a secret now).

After 1946 the identity's of the share holders were then protected by government guarantee.

Just ask a simple question?

Why does the BoE need a law to conceal the identity of its shareholders (that do exist)?

[Pakboong]

Of interest, at least to me, was that in the year 2000 there were only 10 countries who did not operate a central bank based upon the Rothschild model. Thailand was not one of them. Now there are only 7, Iraq, Afganistan, and recently Libya have seen the light and now have a Rothschild model central bank. You can pretty much guess who the remaining 7 are.

[marquess]

Of interest, at least to me, was that in the year 2000 there were only 10 countries who did not operate a central bank based upon the Rothschild model. Thailand was not one of them. Now there are only 7, Iraq, Afganistan, and recently Libya have seen the light and now have a Rothschild model central bank. You can pretty much guess who the remaining 7 are.

Was Libya on that list? Those damned central banks take away the power of elected governments to govern, as they can't control the money supply. And as Baron Nathaniel Rothschild once put, I don't care who make the policies just let me control the money supply.

[seandulac]

I've answered this question several times for people from other countries. The answer can be easily derived, but before I tell you how it is important to understand what a central bank is, and how money works. There are no greater lies and establishment myth than those of banking. In fact I would extend that great Twain quote to say, "There are lies, dam_n lies, and statistics - but none greater than money"

A central bank has the role of creating money. Money creation is a black-listed topic which is no longer taught in any US school, or in any western school for that matter. That is why people have such a difficult time trying to understand topics of national and international finance.

A central bank is there to create money. This is done by many tactics, but ultimately the central bank is granted the authority to create fiat currency. A fiat currency is one where there are no innate value tied to it. For example you could have a certain amount of silver on deposit for every US dollar - that would not be fiat. What we have today is almost entirely fiat, and that means the central banks can create it by simple decree. The central bank is supposed to increase the money supply in proportion to the growth of the economy that the money supply services. When they don't create enough, the economy doesn't have enough to go around and you get inflation. When they create too much, the economy if flooded with money and you get deflation. The central bank then can create cycles of inflation and deflation by adjusting the amount of money in the economy.

Here is where the fraud comes in. This is the big pink elephant in the room, and the reality the worlds bankers and those societies that profit from banking don't want people to understand. When the central bank is held in private hands, and is not controlled by national interest - the owner of the central bank will attempt to claim the creation of money is really a loan. As unbelievable as it sounds that is how it works. The central bank will create a million dollars by typing it into the computer. The million dollars was not transferred from someplace, they just type in a number into an account in the central bank. They then treat that million dollars as a loan with interest - and they claim the country or economy that gets the million dollars will owe that million back at some point, and they will even charge interest on this 'loan'. So they are allowed to create money from thin air, introduce that money into the economy, then claim the people in that economy OWE that money back to them with interest.

When the central bank is a public institution owned by the people of the economy or country - then the money gets created in public interest as the economy grows. The money creation in this case not a loan and no private interest is expecting the money back. In other words there is no such thing as "national debt" when the bank is public. There is only national debt when the central bank is private.

So the easy way to know if a country owns it's central bank or if the bank is owned by private bankers is to ask, "is there national debt?". If the answer is yes - then the central bank is private. Public central banks can't have debt as they can print more money when they need it.

[jbaldwin]

Ok. The capital required to set up to Federal Reserve was provided by private shareholders. In exchange they get a fixed dividend of 6% pa. All profits in excess of this are retained within the Federal Reserve. In 2010 around $70 billion of surplus profits were transferred to the US Treasury. The Governers of the Fed are appointed by the president.

The Bank of England was Nationalisd in 1946. 100% of shares are owned by HM Treasury.

[Khun Jean]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD14Ak02.html

[Naam]

So the easy way to know if a country owns it's central bank or if the bank is owned by private bankers is to ask, "is there national debt?". If the answer is yes - then the central bank is private. Public central banks can't have debt as they can print more money when they need it.

if that was the case then virtually each and every central bank with very few exceptions on this planet would be private. of course a central bank does not have any debt. central banks do not borrow.

"national debt" ist the debt of the central bank's country! countries borrow, sometimes even from their own central bank. moreover, the lion share of national debt is in most cases debt denominated in foreign currency (the U.S. being one of the exceptions). a central bank can only print/issue domestic currency.

next fairy tale please!

[seandulac]

So the easy way to know if a country owns it's central bank or if the bank is owned by private bankers is to ask, "is there national debt?". If the answer is yes - then the central bank is private. Public central banks can't have debt as they can print more money when they need it.

if that was the case then virtually each and every central bank with very few exceptions on this planet would be private. of course a central bank does not have any debt. central banks do not borrow.

It is true that there are very few public central banks left. I think it was Iceland that recently removed the private ownership of theirs and look what the international bankers did to them.

As for the rest of your comments I won't bother answering you as you are clearly uneducated on modern money mechanics.

[Naam]

So the easy way to know if a country owns it's central bank or if the bank is owned by private bankers is to ask, "is there national debt?". If the answer is yes - then the central bank is private. Public central banks can't have debt as they can print more money when they need it.

if that was the case then virtually each and every central bank with very few exceptions on this planet would be private. of course a central bank does not have any debt. central banks do not borrow.

It is true that there are very few public central banks left. I think it was Iceland that recently removed the private ownership of theirs and look what the international bankers did to them.

As for the rest of your comments I won't bother answering you as you are clearly uneducated on modern money mechanics.

i appreciate your wise decision! because if you'd go own publishing rubbish your ridiculous theories about "central banks and national debt" i'd switch to a higher gear and, believe me, you wouldn't like that