The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation

[Cassandros]

A federal reserve note is aka a dollar bill. The actual currency. Voltaire was provably wrong, fiat currencies do in fact work, you can tell because you use one every day. Hyperinflation is a problem caused by policy decisions to print limitless amounts, that's something the federal reserve is there to stop, not do.

The fed is an institution created by a bill and overseen by congress. You stated it was a private institution and that is wrong. You seem to think it lends all the money the US government borrows and that is also wrong. It actually turns a profit and gives that money to the treasury. Do you understand that those things you thought were wrong? Are you capable of acknowledging them being wrong? Yet again we are in the situation where you believed a set of false facts, based opinions (not your own originally) on those false facts and now instead of rethinking when your foundations crumble you are just looking for something new to base the same conclusions on. Can you see the flaw in your thinking process here?

/facepalm

Here is a three minute crash course in reality.



Though, I bet you didn't watch the first video, and you likely won't watch the second.

When the federal reserve 'pays the Treasury' it is repaying the Treasury bonds that started the process. A process that actually puts much, MUCH more money into the money supply than it originally creates (which is evident if you can be bothered to watch the video). More money in supply, less buying power, and in the end--> Voltaire is right. The federal reserve is an impressive machine, lasting longer than other fiat currency machine by a good margin- but only a fool thinks it will last forever.

No, voltaire is still wrong. The US currency is stable. As are the vast majority of all other fiat currencies around the world, hyperinflation events are always easily explainable in terms of policy choices those governments made. You have more false statements for you to fail to acknowledge- when the federal reserve 'pays the treasury' it is not 'repaying treasury bonds'. It is giving its profits to the treasury. It turns a profit. The US does not have the longest lasting fiat currency, the UK does.

Here are some questions you dodged. I don't expect you to answer them this time either, but at least try to ask yourself why you cannot answer.
1) You stated the fed is private, it is not. Are you able to grasp this?
2) You stated repeatedly the fed loans all the money the government borrows, it simply doesn't. Are you able to grasp this?

1) The 9th circuit court disagrees with you.

"Examining the organization and function of the federal reserve bank, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the reserve banks are no federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."
Cite

2) I guess the semantic is "all the money". Sure, other outside sources do buy bonds and such.

The real bitch of it is, the portion that the fed does buy is multiplicative to the existing money supply; as explained in post 24.

[AnalHamster]

A federal reserve note is aka a dollar bill. The actual currency. Voltaire was provably wrong, fiat currencies do in fact work, you can tell because you use one every day. Hyperinflation is a problem caused by policy decisions to print limitless amounts, that's something the federal reserve is there to stop, not do.

The fed is an institution created by a bill and overseen by congress. You stated it was a private institution and that is wrong. You seem to think it lends all the money the US government borrows and that is also wrong. It actually turns a profit and gives that money to the treasury. Do you understand that those things you thought were wrong? Are you capable of acknowledging them being wrong? Yet again we are in the situation where you believed a set of false facts, based opinions (not your own originally) on those false facts and now instead of rethinking when your foundations crumble you are just looking for something new to base the same conclusions on. Can you see the flaw in your thinking process here?

/facepalm

Here is a three minute crash course in reality.



Though, I bet you didn't watch the first video, and you likely won't watch the second.

When the federal reserve 'pays the Treasury' it is repaying the Treasury bonds that started the process. A process that actually puts much, MUCH more money into the money supply than it originally creates (which is evident if you can be bothered to watch the video). More money in supply, less buying power, and in the end--> Voltaire is right. The federal reserve is an impressive machine, lasting longer than other fiat currency machine by a good margin- but only a fool thinks it will last forever.

No, voltaire is still wrong. The US currency is stable. As are the vast majority of all other fiat currencies around the world, hyperinflation events are always easily explainable in terms of policy choices those governments made. You have more false statements for you to fail to acknowledge- when the federal reserve 'pays the treasury' it is not 'repaying treasury bonds'. It is giving its profits to the treasury. It turns a profit. The US does not have the longest lasting fiat currency, the UK does.

Here are some questions you dodged. I don't expect you to answer them this time either, but at least try to ask yourself why you cannot answer.
1) You stated the fed is private, it is not. Are you able to grasp this?
2) You stated repeatedly the fed loans all the money the government borrows, it simply doesn't. Are you able to grasp this?

1) The 9th circuit court disagrees with you.

"Examining the organization and function of the federal reserve bank, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the reserve banks are no federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."
Cite

2) I guess the semantic is "all the money". Sure, other outside sources do buy bonds and such.

The real bitch of it is, the portion that the fed does buy is multiplicative to the existing money supply; as explained in post 24.

No, it doesn't. You cherry picked from a ruling you don't understand, and would have got confused over the distinction between the federal reserve banks and the federal reserve if you had even read the ruling, which you did not. The board of governors of the federal reserve is literally and explicitly a government agency. They are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. There are 12 federal reserve banks under that central authority and you have cherry picked from a ruling which says that those are not federal instrumentalities under the tort law being considered, ignoring another part of the same ruling noting they are for a different tort law. You are embarrassing yourself.

I think your basic confusion on q2 is that you thought quantitative easing is the same as normal operations, and I don't think you know what all those words mean. There is no semantic argument here, you claimed the fed lends all the money the government borrows, that is simply completely and utterly wrong. It does not. Treasuries issued by the treasury department are sold on the open market to whoever wants to buy them, which is predominantly foreign governments. The Fed lends to banks, which pay it back. Yet again, it makes a profit on its operations, and gives that profit to the treasury department. You fundamentally lack any understanding of this topic.

I won't bother keeping a tally of your additional incorrect statements and dodges since they tend to balloon and you skip over any that aren't shoved in your face repeatedly.

[Cassandros]

No, it doesn't. You cherry picked from a ruling you don't understand, and would have got confused over the distinction between the federal reserve banks and the federal reserve if you had even read the ruling, which you did not. The board of governors of the federal reserve is literally and explicitly a government agency. They are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate.

I think your basic confusion is that you thought quantitative easing is the same as normal operations, and I don't think you know what all those words mean. There is no semantic argument here, you claimed the fed lends all the money the government borrows, that is simply completely and utterly wrong. It does not. Treasuries issued by the treasury department are sold on the open market to whoever wants to buy them, which is predominantly foreign governments. The Fed lends to banks, which pay it back. Yet again, it makes a profit on its operations, and gives that profit to the treasury department. You fundamentally lack any understanding of this topic.

I won't bother keeping a tally of your additional incorrect statements and dodges since they tend to balloon and you skip over any that aren't shoved in your face repeatedly.

No amount of you insisting otherwise changes the truth: The federal reserve may be regulated by the Federal Government (via the board of governors), but it not a part of the Federal Government.

Fun fact: the board of governors didn't even exist till 1978.

[AnalHamster]

No, it doesn't. You cherry picked from a ruling you don't understand, and would have got confused over the distinction between the federal reserve banks and the federal reserve if you had even read the ruling, which you did not. The board of governors of the federal reserve is literally and explicitly a government agency. They are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate.

I think your basic confusion is that you thought quantitative easing is the same as normal operations, and I don't think you know what all those words mean. There is no semantic argument here, you claimed the fed lends all the money the government borrows, that is simply completely and utterly wrong. It does not. Treasuries issued by the treasury department are sold on the open market to whoever wants to buy them, which is predominantly foreign governments. The Fed lends to banks, which pay it back. Yet again, it makes a profit on its operations, and gives that profit to the treasury department. You fundamentally lack any understanding of this topic.

I won't bother keeping a tally of your additional incorrect statements and dodges since they tend to balloon and you skip over any that aren't shoved in your face repeatedly.

No amount of you insisting otherwise changes the truth: The federal reserve may be regulated by the Federal Government (via the board of governors), but it not a part of the Federal Government.

Fun fact: the board of governors didn't even exist till 1978.

Dude, you aren't saving face you're just looking retarded. The board of governors is the governing body of the federal reserve. Appointees are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. It is literally and explicitly a government agency. You plainly did not know how the federal reserve is structured or you would not have cherry picked from a ruling you did not read and cannot understand. I'm embarrassed for you at this point. The Federal Reserve Board, aka the board of governors was created when the federal reserve was by the federal reserve act in 1913. You just can't make a post without new bullshit can you? Fun fact: you said something false yet again and will now ignore it.

You didn't understand what the federal reserve is or does, you don't understand how the US government borrows money, and you are too stupid and or childish to admit it. It's just sad.

[Cassandros]

No, it doesn't. You cherry picked from a ruling you don't understand, and would have got confused over the distinction between the federal reserve banks and the federal reserve if you had even read the ruling, which you did not. The board of governors of the federal reserve is literally and explicitly a government agency. They are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate.

I think your basic confusion is that you thought quantitative easing is the same as normal operations, and I don't think you know what all those words mean. There is no semantic argument here, you claimed the fed lends all the money the government borrows, that is simply completely and utterly wrong. It does not. Treasuries issued by the treasury department are sold on the open market to whoever wants to buy them, which is predominantly foreign governments. The Fed lends to banks, which pay it back. Yet again, it makes a profit on its operations, and gives that profit to the treasury department. You fundamentally lack any understanding of this topic.

I won't bother keeping a tally of your additional incorrect statements and dodges since they tend to balloon and you skip over any that aren't shoved in your face repeatedly.

No amount of you insisting otherwise changes the truth: The federal reserve may be regulated by the Federal Government (via the board of governors), but it not a part of the Federal Government.

Fun fact: the board of governors didn't even exist till 1978.

Dude, you aren't saving face you're just looking retarded. The board of governors is the governing body of the federal reserve. Appointees are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. It is literally and explicitly a government agency. You plainly did not know how the federal reserve is structured or you would not have cherry picked from a ruling you did not read and cannot understand. I'm embarrassed for you at this point. The Federal Reserve Board, aka the board of governors was created when the federal reserve was by the federal reserve act in 1913. You just can't make a post without new bullshit can you? Fun fact: you said something false yet again and will now ignore it.

You didn't understand what the federal reserve is or does, you don't understand how the US government borrows money, and you are too stupid and or childish to admit it. It's just sad.

Ugh, got to start proof reading better. /blush

Fun fact (revised): the board of governors didn't even start formally giving Congress Monetary Policy Reports on its activities until 1978.

I have said as much on the selection confirmation process for the board; and maybe, since you like splitting hairs I will say this more refined, past this regulatory body of the federal reserve system ---the federal reserve banks are not part of the Federal Government.

The 9th reaffirms this.
"The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act."
Cite

[stymiegreen]

Ugh, got to start proof reading better. /blush

I don't think that will help. Lulz.

[AnalHamster]

No, it doesn't. You cherry picked from a ruling you don't understand, and would have got confused over the distinction between the federal reserve banks and the federal reserve if you had even read the ruling, which you did not. The board of governors of the federal reserve is literally and explicitly a government agency. They are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate.

I think your basic confusion is that you thought quantitative easing is the same as normal operations, and I don't think you know what all those words mean. There is no semantic argument here, you claimed the fed lends all the money the government borrows, that is simply completely and utterly wrong. It does not. Treasuries issued by the treasury department are sold on the open market to whoever wants to buy them, which is predominantly foreign governments. The Fed lends to banks, which pay it back. Yet again, it makes a profit on its operations, and gives that profit to the treasury department. You fundamentally lack any understanding of this topic.

I won't bother keeping a tally of your additional incorrect statements and dodges since they tend to balloon and you skip over any that aren't shoved in your face repeatedly.

No amount of you insisting otherwise changes the truth: The federal reserve may be regulated by the Federal Government (via the board of governors), but it not a part of the Federal Government.

Fun fact: the board of governors didn't even exist till 1978.

Dude, you aren't saving face you're just looking retarded. The board of governors is the governing body of the federal reserve. Appointees are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. It is literally and explicitly a government agency. You plainly did not know how the federal reserve is structured or you would not have cherry picked from a ruling you did not read and cannot understand. I'm embarrassed for you at this point. The Federal Reserve Board, aka the board of governors was created when the federal reserve was by the federal reserve act in 1913. You just can't make a post without new bullshit can you? Fun fact: you said something false yet again and will now ignore it.

You didn't understand what the federal reserve is or does, you don't understand how the US government borrows money, and you are too stupid and or childish to admit it. It's just sad.

Ugh, got to start proof reading better. /blush

Fun fact (revised): the board of governors didn't even start formally giving Congress Monetary Policy Reports on its activities until 1978.

I have said as much on the selection confirmation process for the board; and maybe, since you like splitting hairs I will say this more refined, past this regulatory body of the federal reserve system ---the federal reserve banks are not part of the Federal Government.

The 9th reaffirms this.
"The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act."
Cite

Splitting hairs? Yeah it's the same thing if the basic structure of the whole thing existed or not. Very convincing. You just meant to randomly tell me about a new reporting requirement. You tried this splitting hairs thing last time you showed absolutely fundamental misunderstanding of a topic too, seems to be your routine.


I have already covered your sad cherry picking attempt. Here same case:

Brinks DDC 1979 held that a Federal Reserve bank is a federal instrumentality for the purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 USC 451

Uh oh, I cherry picked the opposite conclusion from the same ruling, they are federal instrumentalities after all. Is it schrodinger's federal instrumentality? Why don't you just admit you had no idea what the federal reserve even is? This really is just sad. The federal reserve banks are considered part of the government for some purposes and not others, the board of governors that oversees the banks and you thought didn't exist until 1978 is simply a government agency and the part that does monetary policy. Yet again we are in the situation where you believed a set of false facts, based opinions (not your own originally) on those false facts and now instead of rethinking when your foundations crumble you are just looking for something new to base the same conclusions on. Can you see the flaw in your thinking process here?

[Cassandros]

Sorry for the delay in reply here. Been busy.

I have already covered your sad cherry picking attempt. Here same case:

Brinks DDC 1979 held that a Federal Reserve bank is a federal instrumentality for the purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 USC 451

Uh oh, I cherry picked the opposite conclusion from the same ruling, they are federal instrumentalities after all. Is it schrodinger's federal instrumentality? Why don't you just admit you had no idea what the federal reserve even is? This really is just sad. The federal reserve banks are considered part of the government for some purposes and not others, the board of governors that oversees the banks and you thought didn't exist until 1978 is simply a government agency and the part that does monetary policy. Yet again we are in the situation where you believed a set of false facts, based opinions (not your own originally) on those false facts and now instead of rethinking when your foundations crumble you are just looking for something new to base the same conclusions on. Can you see the flaw in your thinking process here?

So you are saying because they are to be held to minimum wage standard they are suddenly a federal agency... interesting.

Here is the whole part of the section:

Brink Inc v Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F Supp 116 (DDC 1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 USC 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the "important governmental function" test and concluded that the term "Federal Government" in the Service Contract Act must be liberally construed to effectuate the Act's humanitarian purposes of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government." id.288 Mich at 120, 283 NW 2d 667.

Such a liberal construction of the term "federal agency" for the purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without forum in which to seek remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.

For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purpose of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgement of the district court.

Yeah, your cite is lacking.

More fun facts:

From 1913 to 1978 the federal reserve only gave oral accounts of activity. It wasn't until 1978 that they given a mandate to "formally report on its activities to Congress", the same year Congress gave the GAO the ability to audit the federal reserve; an audit that some would say is far too shallow. Hence the The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 and 2015... both died though.

It is interesting to add: Bernanke said that if the FRTA passed, "financial markets, in particular, likely would see a grant of review authority in those areas to the GAO as a serious weakening of monetary policy independence." The fed creates and destroys billions daily, knowing this makes this quote sound almost like a threat. But, eh, maybe that is just me.

[AnalHamster]

Sorry for the delay in reply here. Been busy.

I have already covered your sad cherry picking attempt. Here same case:

Brinks DDC 1979 held that a Federal Reserve bank is a federal instrumentality for the purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 USC 451

Uh oh, I cherry picked the opposite conclusion from the same ruling, they are federal instrumentalities after all. Is it schrodinger's federal instrumentality? Why don't you just admit you had no idea what the federal reserve even is? This really is just sad. The federal reserve banks are considered part of the government for some purposes and not others, the board of governors that oversees the banks and you thought didn't exist until 1978 is simply a government agency and the part that does monetary policy. Yet again we are in the situation where you believed a set of false facts, based opinions (not your own originally) on those false facts and now instead of rethinking when your foundations crumble you are just looking for something new to base the same conclusions on. Can you see the flaw in your thinking process here?

So you are saying because they are to be held to minimum wage standard they are suddenly a federal agency... interesting.

Here is the whole part of the section:

Brink Inc v Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F Supp 116 (DDC 1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 USC 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the "important governmental function" test and concluded that the term "Federal Government" in the Service Contract Act must be liberally construed to effectuate the Act's humanitarian purposes of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government." id.288 Mich at 120, 283 NW 2d 667.

Such a liberal construction of the term "federal agency" for the purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without forum in which to seek remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.

For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purpose of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgement of the district court.

Yeah, your cite is lacking.

More fun facts:

From 1913 to 1978 the federal reserve only gave oral accounts of activity. It wasn't until 1978 that they given a mandate to "formally report on its activities to Congress", the same year Congress gave the GAO the ability to audit the federal reserve; an audit that some would say is far too shallow. Hence the The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 and 2015... both died though.

It is interesting to add: Bernanke said that if the FRTA passed, "financial markets, in particular, likely would see a grant of review authority in those areas to the GAO as a serious weakening of monetary policy independence." The fed creates and destroys billions daily, knowing this makes this quote sound almost like a threat. But, eh, maybe that is just me.

Busy? I assumed you were humiliated and self aware enough to understand how embarrassed you should be by this thorough ass kicking, but I guess you want some more. I did not say the federal reserve banks are a federal agency, unlike you I understand what they are. What I'm saying is what the court is saying, federal reserve banks, which you thought were the same thing as the federal reserve because you thought the federal reserve board didn't exist until 1978, are considered federal instrumentalities for some purposes and not for others. You claimed that because they are not under the federal tort claims act, that proves whatever it is you're trying to derp. The same case refers to other cases that says they are under various other acts, of which the federal services act is one. There is no reason to take one rather than the other to make a sweeping declaration about what the banks are, that is called cherry picking. Are you genuinely unable to understand that?

You have proven in this thread you didn't have even the most basic understanding of what the federal reserve is. You're just looking stupid.

[Cassandros]

Sorry for the delay in reply here. Been busy.

I have already covered your sad cherry picking attempt. Here same case:

Brinks DDC 1979 held that a Federal Reserve bank is a federal instrumentality for the purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 USC 451

Uh oh, I cherry picked the opposite conclusion from the same ruling, they are federal instrumentalities after all. Is it schrodinger's federal instrumentality? Why don't you just admit you had no idea what the federal reserve even is? This really is just sad. The federal reserve banks are considered part of the government for some purposes and not others, the board of governors that oversees the banks and you thought didn't exist until 1978 is simply a government agency and the part that does monetary policy. Yet again we are in the situation where you believed a set of false facts, based opinions (not your own originally) on those false facts and now instead of rethinking when your foundations crumble you are just looking for something new to base the same conclusions on. Can you see the flaw in your thinking process here?

So you are saying because they are to be held to minimum wage standard they are suddenly a federal agency... interesting.

Here is the whole part of the section:

Brink Inc v Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F Supp 116 (DDC 1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 USC 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the "important governmental function" test and concluded that the term "Federal Government" in the Service Contract Act must be liberally construed to effectuate the Act's humanitarian purposes of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government." id.288 Mich at 120, 283 NW 2d 667.

Such a liberal construction of the term "federal agency" for the purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without forum in which to seek remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.

For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purpose of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgement of the district court.

Yeah, your cite is lacking.

More fun facts:

From 1913 to 1978 the federal reserve only gave oral accounts of activity. It wasn't until 1978 that they given a mandate to "formally report on its activities to Congress", the same year Congress gave the GAO the ability to audit the federal reserve; an audit that some would say is far too shallow. Hence the The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 and 2015... both died though.

It is interesting to add: Bernanke said that if the FRTA passed, "financial markets, in particular, likely would see a grant of review authority in those areas to the GAO as a serious weakening of monetary policy independence." The fed creates and destroys billions daily, knowing this makes this quote sound almost like a threat. But, eh, maybe that is just me.

Busy? I assumed you were humiliated and self aware enough to understand how embarrassed you should be by this thorough ass kicking, but I guess you want some more. I did not say the federal reserve banks are a federal agency, unlike you I understand what they are. What I'm saying is what the court is saying, federal reserve banks, which you thought were the same thing as the federal reserve because you thought the federal reserve board didn't exist until 1978, are considered federal instrumentalities for some purposes and not for others. You claimed that because they are not under the federal tort claims act, that proves whatever it is you're trying to derp. The same case shows they are under various other acts, of which the federal services act is one. There is no reason to take one rather than the other to make a sweeping declaration about what the banks are, that is called cherry picking. Are you genuinely unable to understand that?

You have proven in this thread you didn't have even the most basic understanding of what the federal reserve is. You're just looking stupid.

You can assume what you want, chief. If that's what makes you happy.

I got some wires crossed, sure. I deserve some egg on my face for just shooting half-cocked and going off old memory. Fucking internet at my finger tips, there is no reason to not double check. But the meat of the issue remains.

The fed might have a an appointed board; but the banks, which are private, do the bail outs and make the loans

More importantly we have borrowed a LOT of money; as the fed raises rates things will only get worse.

Under current law, CBO projects that net interest costs will nearly triple over the next 10 years, soaring from $315 billion in 2018 to $914 billion in 2028 and totaling $6.9 trillion over the period.

Interest costs are expected to continue climbing beyond the next 10 years and are projected to be the third largest category in the federal budget by 2026 (after just Social Security and Medicare), the second largest category in 2046, and the single largest category by 2048.
Cite

Even though 'only' a little over 2 trillion is owed to the private federal reserve banks; the bottom line is simple and remains the same: we are borrowing ourselves into oblivion (and owing money to private industry is bullshit).

[AnalHamster]

You demonstrated fundamental ignorance of the topic, not crossed wires. You cannot polish this turd.

The federal reserve board sets monetary policy, not the banks. And remember I already explained to you how money is borrowed? You didn't know that either. It's still not borrowed from federal reserve banks, though they can buy securities as anyone else can and increased their holdings in the 08 crisis. Are you just hoping to hide your embarrassment by derping out the same things again?

[Cassandros]

You demonstrated fundamental ignorance of the topic, not crossed wires. You cannot polish this turd.

The federal reserve board sets monetary policy, not the banks. And remember I already explained to you how money is borrowed? You didn't know that either. It's still not borrowed from federal reserve banks, though they can buy securities as anyone else can and increased their holdings in the 08 crisis. Are you just hoping to hide your embarrassment by derping out the same things again?

Monetary policy = communications to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

The private banks are what conducts the actual business.

[AnalHamster]

You demonstrated fundamental ignorance of the topic, not crossed wires. You cannot polish this turd.

The federal reserve board sets monetary policy, not the banks. And remember I already explained to you how money is borrowed? You didn't know that either. It's still not borrowed from federal reserve banks, though they can buy securities as anyone else can and increased their holdings in the 08 crisis. Are you just hoping to hide your embarrassment by derping out the same things again?

Monetary policy = communications to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

The private banks are what conducts the actual business.

They conduct the actual transactions the policy decisions dictate, yes. The policy decisions are still being made by a government agency you claimed didn't exist. Are you really unaware of how thoroughly you are embarrassing yourself? You've been wrong on pretty much everything you've said but you just keep kicking yourself in the nuts. I'm genuinely embarrassed for you.

[Cassandros]

You demonstrated fundamental ignorance of the topic, not crossed wires. You cannot polish this turd.

The federal reserve board sets monetary policy, not the banks. And remember I already explained to you how money is borrowed? You didn't know that either. It's still not borrowed from federal reserve banks, though they can buy securities as anyone else can and increased their holdings in the 08 crisis. Are you just hoping to hide your embarrassment by derping out the same things again?

Monetary policy = communications to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

The private banks are what conducts the actual business.

Lending to other banks, yes, that is what they do. If directly instructed by a government agency they will also buy treasuries. That would be a monetary policy decision in which they are just following monetary policy decisions. They follow the instructions from the government agency that makes those decisions. Are you really unaware of how thoroughly you are embarrassing yourself?

How so?

Because you say so? Because one of your cheerleaders say so? Whatever.

Again, the root of this is the every growing debt. You get hung up on me making a mistake because that is your MO, I knew that coming into the discussion. Find any little sliver of inaccuracy and pounce- denounce- insult- berate- attack! For how much time you spend doing this shit I hope you at least get a paycheck for your time.

But, I don't give a fuck, honestly.

We owe the fed about as much as the UKs total National Debt. That is obscene. Our National Debt being at 21 Trillion and climbing at a trillion+ a year is even more obscene. As interest rates rise, those numbers will only increase ever faster... certainly you don't think a Country can borrow money indefinitely. There will be a breaking point.

[AnalHamster]

You demonstrated fundamental ignorance of the topic, not crossed wires. You cannot polish this turd.

The federal reserve board sets monetary policy, not the banks. And remember I already explained to you how money is borrowed? You didn't know that either. It's still not borrowed from federal reserve banks, though they can buy securities as anyone else can and increased their holdings in the 08 crisis. Are you just hoping to hide your embarrassment by derping out the same things again?

Monetary policy = communications to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

The private banks are what conducts the actual business.

Lending to other banks, yes, that is what they do. If directly instructed by a government agency they will also buy treasuries. That would be a monetary policy decision in which they are just following monetary policy decisions. They follow the instructions from the government agency that makes those decisions. Are you really unaware of how thoroughly you are embarrassing yourself?

How so?

Because you say so? Because one of your cheerleaders say so? Whatever.

Again, the root of this is the every growing debt. You get hung up on me making a mistake because that is your MO, I knew that coming into the discussion. Find any little sliver of inaccuracy and pounce- denounce- insult- berate- attack! For how much time you spend doing this shit I hope you at least get a paycheck for your time.

But, I don't give a fuck, honestly.

We owe the fed about as much as the UKs total National Debt. That is obscene. Our National Debt being at 21 Trillion and climbing at a trillion+ a year is even more obscene. As interest rates rise, those numbers will only increase ever faster... certainly you don't think a Country can borrow money indefinitely. There will be a breaking point.

We have clearly established you have no fucking clue what the fed is or does, yes? You were unaware the central authority, a government agency, even existed at all. The thing the central authority does is act as the central authority. It makes the policy decisions. That is the basic fact you are now attempting to deny, which just makes you look dumb. This is the basic fundamental structure of the agency you dimwit. The fucking existence of the governing body isn't a little sliver of inaccuracy, you are just exposed, humiliated and shown to be a ignorant idiot. Your inability to rethink your retarded theories in the light of being proven to fundamentally misunderstand the topic just makes you look stupid. I have explained to you repeatedly where money is actually borrowed from.

[Cassandros]

You demonstrated fundamental ignorance of the topic, not crossed wires. You cannot polish this turd.

The federal reserve board sets monetary policy, not the banks. And remember I already explained to you how money is borrowed? You didn't know that either. It's still not borrowed from federal reserve banks, though they can buy securities as anyone else can and increased their holdings in the 08 crisis. Are you just hoping to hide your embarrassment by derping out the same things again?

Monetary policy = communications to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

The private banks are what conducts the actual business.

Lending to other banks, yes, that is what they do. If directly instructed by a government agency they will also buy treasuries. That would be a monetary policy decision in which they are just following monetary policy decisions. They follow the instructions from the government agency that makes those decisions. Are you really unaware of how thoroughly you are embarrassing yourself?

How so?

Because you say so? Because one of your cheerleaders say so? Whatever.

Again, the root of this is the every growing debt. You get hung up on me making a mistake because that is your MO, I knew that coming into the discussion. Find any little sliver of inaccuracy and pounce- denounce- insult- berate- attack! For how much time you spend doing this shit I hope you at least get a paycheck for your time.

But, I don't give a fuck, honestly.

We owe the fed about as much as the UKs total National Debt. That is obscene. Our National Debt being at 21 Trillion and climbing at a trillion+ a year is even more obscene. As interest rates rise, those numbers will only increase ever faster... certainly you don't think a Country can borrow money indefinitely. There will be a breaking point.

We have clearly established you have no fucking clue what the fed is or does, yes? You were unaware the central authority, a government agency, even existed at all. The thing the central authority does is act as the central authority. It makes the policy decisions. That is the basic fact you are now attempting to deny, which just makes you look dumb. This is the basic fundamental structure of the agency you dimwit. The fucking existence of the governing body isn't a little sliver of inaccuracy, you are just exposed, humiliated and shown to be a ignorant idiot. Your inability to rethink your retarded theories in the light of being proven to fundamentally misunderstand the topic just makes you look stupid. I have explained to you repeatedly where money is actually borrowed from.

More insults, and no discussion on the meat of the issue. Classic.

What part of:

We owe the fed about as much as the UKs total National Debt. That is obscene. Our National Debt being at 21 Trillion and climbing at a trillion+ a year is even more obscene. As interest rates rise, those numbers will only increase ever faster... certainly you don't think a Country can borrow money indefinitely. There will be a breaking point.

Is wrong?

[AnalHamster]

You demonstrated fundamental ignorance of the topic, not crossed wires. You cannot polish this turd.

The federal reserve board sets monetary policy, not the banks. And remember I already explained to you how money is borrowed? You didn't know that either. It's still not borrowed from federal reserve banks, though they can buy securities as anyone else can and increased their holdings in the 08 crisis. Are you just hoping to hide your embarrassment by derping out the same things again?

Monetary policy = communications to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

The private banks are what conducts the actual business.

Lending to other banks, yes, that is what they do. If directly instructed by a government agency they will also buy treasuries. That would be a monetary policy decision in which they are just following monetary policy decisions. They follow the instructions from the government agency that makes those decisions. Are you really unaware of how thoroughly you are embarrassing yourself?

How so?

Because you say so? Because one of your cheerleaders say so? Whatever.

Again, the root of this is the every growing debt. You get hung up on me making a mistake because that is your MO, I knew that coming into the discussion. Find any little sliver of inaccuracy and pounce- denounce- insult- berate- attack! For how much time you spend doing this shit I hope you at least get a paycheck for your time.

But, I don't give a fuck, honestly.

We owe the fed about as much as the UKs total National Debt. That is obscene. Our National Debt being at 21 Trillion and climbing at a trillion+ a year is even more obscene. As interest rates rise, those numbers will only increase ever faster... certainly you don't think a Country can borrow money indefinitely. There will be a breaking point.

We have clearly established you have no fucking clue what the fed is or does, yes? You were unaware the central authority, a government agency, even existed at all. The thing the central authority does is act as the central authority. It makes the policy decisions. That is the basic fact you are now attempting to deny, which just makes you look dumb. This is the basic fundamental structure of the agency you dimwit. The fucking existence of the governing body isn't a little sliver of inaccuracy, you are just exposed, humiliated and shown to be a ignorant idiot. Your inability to rethink your retarded theories in the light of being proven to fundamentally misunderstand the topic just makes you look stupid. I have explained to you repeatedly where money is actually borrowed from.

More insults, and no discussion on the meat of the issue. Classic.

What part of:

We owe the fed about as much as the UKs total National Debt. That is obscene. Our National Debt being at 21 Trillion and climbing at a trillion+ a year is even more obscene. As interest rates rise, those numbers will only increase ever faster... certainly you don't think a Country can borrow money indefinitely. There will be a breaking point.

Is wrong?

I really don't see what there is to discuss with someone who doesn't know how money is borrowed, doesn't know what the fed is or does and is incapable of learning. The fed bought a lot of treasuries in 2008, but it bought up already existing treasuries on the open market. You don't understand what that means. Would you like me to tell you the difference between the treasury department borrowing money by issuing treasuries, and the fed increasing the money supply by buying them? It's really just more embarrassing for you that you think you can discuss this topic when you don't know, but humiliating you further will be entertaining.

It's kind of hard to simplify this enough for you to grasp, but treasuries bought buy the fed are simply a means to increase the money supply in a crisis. They are selling them off as appropriate to decrease the money supply in the recovery. While held by the fed interest is given back to the treasury. When they are sold the buyer owns the debt just as the buyer they bought them from did. It's a tool to control the money supply not a way for the government to loan itself money. You clearly can't understand any of that.

[stymiegreen]

You demonstrated fundamental ignorance of the topic, not crossed wires. You cannot polish this turd.

The federal reserve board sets monetary policy, not the banks. And remember I already explained to you how money is borrowed? You didn't know that either. It's still not borrowed from federal reserve banks, though they can buy securities as anyone else can and increased their holdings in the 08 crisis. Are you just hoping to hide your embarrassment by derping out the same things again?

Monetary policy = communications to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

The private banks are what conducts the actual business.

Lending to other banks, yes, that is what they do. If directly instructed by a government agency they will also buy treasuries. That would be a monetary policy decision in which they are just following monetary policy decisions. They follow the instructions from the government agency that makes those decisions. Are you really unaware of how thoroughly you are embarrassing yourself?

How so?

Because you say so? Because one of your cheerleaders say so? Whatever.

Again, the root of this is the every growing debt. You get hung up on me making a mistake because that is your MO, I knew that coming into the discussion. Find any little sliver of inaccuracy and pounce- denounce- insult- berate- attack! For how much time you spend doing this shit I hope you at least get a paycheck for your time.

But, I don't give a fuck, honestly.

We owe the fed about as much as the UKs total National Debt. That is obscene. Our National Debt being at 21 Trillion and climbing at a trillion+ a year is even more obscene. As interest rates rise, those numbers will only increase ever faster... certainly you don't think a Country can borrow money indefinitely. There will be a breaking point.

We have clearly established you have no fucking clue what the fed is or does, yes? You were unaware the central authority, a government agency, even existed at all. The thing the central authority does is act as the central authority. It makes the policy decisions. That is the basic fact you are now attempting to deny, which just makes you look dumb. This is the basic fundamental structure of the agency you dimwit. The fucking existence of the governing body isn't a little sliver of inaccuracy, you are just exposed, humiliated and shown to be a ignorant idiot. Your inability to rethink your retarded theories in the light of being proven to fundamentally misunderstand the topic just makes you look stupid. I have explained to you repeatedly where money is actually borrowed from.

More insults, and no discussion on the meat of the issue. Classic.

What part of:

We owe the fed about as much as the UKs total National Debt. That is obscene. Our National Debt being at 21 Trillion and climbing at a trillion+ a year is even more obscene. As interest rates rise, those numbers will only increase ever faster... certainly you don't think a Country can borrow money indefinitely. There will be a breaking point.

Is wrong?

You are hanging on to the most basic part of your argument...National Debt bad...as a basis for continuing discussion when you have already demonstrated that your understanding of what caused the debt was seriously flawed and erroneous. Don't highlight that nugget now after your ingoring of how flawed your previous premise was as an indication that you are just looking for a "frank discussion"> A frank discussion is only owed someone coming from a genuine premise. You have not demonstrated that even a little bit.

[Cassandros]

Would you like me to tell you the difference between the treasury department borrowing money by issuing treasuries, and the fed increasing the money supply by buying them?

Isn't this the exact process of how money is created now? The fed is monetizing the debt by buying treasury notes, bonds, etc.
Then the reserve banks get said 'money' and, since they only have to hold 10%, they can multiply the money supply 9x larger.
Then these banks can/do lend to smaller banks who have the same multiplicative powers.

I really don't see what there is to discuss with someone who doesn't know how money is borrowed, doesn't know what the fed is or does and is incapable of learning. The fed bought a lot of treasuries in 2008, but it bought up already existing treasuries on the open market. You don't understand what that means. Would you like me to tell you the difference between the treasury department borrowing money by issuing treasuries, and the fed increasing the money supply by buying them? It's really just more embarrassing for you that you think you can discuss this topic when you don't know, but humiliating you further will be entertaining.

It's kind of hard to simplify this enough for you to grasp, but treasuries bought buy the fed are simply a means to increase the money supply in a crisis. They are selling them off as appropriate to decrease the money supply in the recovery. While held by the fed interest is given back to the treasury. When they are sold the buyer owns the debt just as the buyer they bought them from did. It's a tool to control the money supply not a way for the government to loan itself money. You clearly can't understand any of that.

You are hanging on to the most basic part of your argument...National Debt bad...as a basis for continuing discussion when you have already demonstrated that your understanding of what caused the debt was seriously flawed and erroneous. Don't highlight that nugget now after your ingoring of how flawed your previous premise was as an indication that you are just looking for a "frank discussion"> A frank discussion is only owed someone coming from a genuine premise. You have not demonstrated that even a little bit.

So you both think adding to the National Debt at a rate of a trillion dollars a year, which will only go higher, faster, is ... ok?

More money in the supply is all win, amirite?

[AnalHamster]

Would you like me to tell you the difference between the treasury department borrowing money by issuing treasuries, and the fed increasing the money supply by buying them?

Isn't this the exact process of how money is created now? The fed is monetizing the debt by buying treasury notes, bonds, etc.
Then the reserve banks get said 'money' and, since they only have to hold 10%, they can multiply the money supply 9x larger.
Then these banks can/do lend to smaller banks who have the same multiplicative powers.

I really don't see what there is to discuss with someone who doesn't know how money is borrowed, doesn't know what the fed is or does and is incapable of learning. The fed bought a lot of treasuries in 2008, but it bought up already existing treasuries on the open market. You don't understand what that means. Would you like me to tell you the difference between the treasury department borrowing money by issuing treasuries, and the fed increasing the money supply by buying them? It's really just more embarrassing for you that you think you can discuss this topic when you don't know, but humiliating you further will be entertaining.

It's kind of hard to simplify this enough for you to grasp, but treasuries bought buy the fed are simply a means to increase the money supply in a crisis. They are selling them off as appropriate to decrease the money supply in the recovery. While held by the fed interest is given back to the treasury. When they are sold the buyer owns the debt just as the buyer they bought them from did. It's a tool to control the money supply not a way for the government to loan itself money. You clearly can't understand any of that.

You are hanging on to the most basic part of your argument...National Debt bad...as a basis for continuing discussion when you have already demonstrated that your understanding of what caused the debt was seriously flawed and erroneous. Don't highlight that nugget now after your ingoring of how flawed your previous premise was as an indication that you are just looking for a "frank discussion"> A frank discussion is only owed someone coming from a genuine premise. You have not demonstrated that even a little bit.

So you both think adding to the National Debt at a rate of a trillion dollars a year, which will only go higher, faster, is ... ok?

More money in the supply is all win, amirite?

Yes, it is one way in which the fed controls the money supply, as I just said. It is not a way in which the government borrows money, which is what you have been claiming because you know so embarrassingly little about the topic. The fed was monetising the debt in the exceptional circumstances created by the 08 crash, now it is slowly selling off its holdings, so the opposite of what you thought was happening. All banks have a mandated minimum reserve, they loan out or invest the rest to make money. That is how a bank works. It means they currently have to keep 10% of money they have on deposit while they put 90% of the money they have to work. If the fed wanted to increase the liquidity of the system it would lower the reserve rate so the banks can lend more money. The purpose of the reserve is to avoid bank runs.

No one has said the rate the debt is increasing is not a problem, though not as much of one as you think and not for the reasons you think. It has nothing to do with the fed, the fed is just what gets blamed by conspiracy nuts.

[Cassandros]

The fed was monetising the debt in the exceptional circumstances created by the 08 crash, now it is slowly selling off its holdings, so the opposite of what you thought was happening.

So, your saying that 2 trillion we owe the fed right now is from the 08 QE bailouts? I don't think that is right, I believe that is an additional couple trillion.



And there is a good chance as more bankruptcies from 'too big to fail businesses' happen and as more debt bubbles burst, those numbers will only increase.

[AnalHamster]

The fed was monetising the debt in the exceptional circumstances created by the 08 crash, now it is slowly selling off its holdings, so the opposite of what you thought was happening.

So, your saying that 2 trillion we owe the fed right now is from the 08 QE bailouts? I don't think that is right, I believe that is an additional couple trillion.



And there is a good chance as more bankruptcies from 'too big to fail businesses' happen and as more debt bubbles burst, those numbers will only increase.

More accurate data-
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TREAST


Yes most of it is a result of the crash and the highly successful measures taken to induce the recovery. You would know this if you had actually read the article you pulled that graph from. The fed is now reducing its holdings, currently 2.2 trn. While on the balance sheet of the fed interest on treasuries goes straight back to the treasury as would the principal on any that mature.

[Cassandros]

The fed was monetising the debt in the exceptional circumstances created by the 08 crash, now it is slowly selling off its holdings, so the opposite of what you thought was happening.

So, your saying that 2 trillion we owe the fed right now is from the 08 QE bailouts? I don't think that is right, I believe that is an additional couple trillion.



And there is a good chance as more bankruptcies from 'too big to fail businesses' happen and as more debt bubbles burst, those numbers will only increase.

More accurate data-
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TREAST


Yes most of it is a result of the crash and the highly successful measures taken to induce the recovery. You would know this if you had actually read the article you pulled that graph from. The fed is now reducing its holdings, currently 2.2 trn. While on the balance sheet of the fed interest on treasuries goes straight back to the treasury as would the principal on any that mature.

Something isn't adding up.

From your link:

The total face value of U.S. Treasury securities held by the Federal Reserve.

Pretty sure all the QE bailouts included mortgage bonds and agency debt (per my chart). Though it is interesting the additional 2 trillion from mortgage and agency bonds don't seem to be mentioned in many places.

Also, these numbers going down is under the assumption there isn't another giant crisis, a debt bubble bursting, or need for massive bailouts on 'too big to fail' businesses. Maybe I am pessimistic, but I don't see it. There is speculation that bubbles in auto, student loans, and even the stock market could all go boom in the not too distant future.

[AnalHamster]

The fed was monetising the debt in the exceptional circumstances created by the 08 crash, now it is slowly selling off its holdings, so the opposite of what you thought was happening.

So, your saying that 2 trillion we owe the fed right now is from the 08 QE bailouts? I don't think that is right, I believe that is an additional couple trillion.



And there is a good chance as more bankruptcies from 'too big to fail businesses' happen and as more debt bubbles burst, those numbers will only increase.

More accurate data-
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TREAST


Yes most of it is a result of the crash and the highly successful measures taken to induce the recovery. You would know this if you had actually read the article you pulled that graph from. The fed is now reducing its holdings, currently 2.2 trn. While on the balance sheet of the fed interest on treasuries goes straight back to the treasury as would the principal on any that mature.

Something isn't adding up.

From your link:

The total face value of U.S. Treasury securities held by the Federal Reserve.

Pretty sure all the QE bailouts included mortgage bonds and agency debt (per my chart). Though it is interesting the additional 2 trillion from mortgage and agency bonds don't seem to be mentioned in many places.

Also, these numbers going down is under the assumption there isn't another giant crisis, a debt bubble bursting, or need for massive bailouts on 'too big to fail' businesses. Maybe I am pessimistic, but I don't see it. There is speculation that bubbles in auto, student loans, and even the stock market could all go boom in the not too distant future.

We were talking about the public debt. I'm getting kinda bored with explaining things to you, there doesn't appear to be anything to discuss at this point. If you still haven't grasped why everything you thought about the fed was fundamentally wrong you aren't gonna.

[Cassandros]

The fed was monetising the debt in the exceptional circumstances created by the 08 crash, now it is slowly selling off its holdings, so the opposite of what you thought was happening.

So, your saying that 2 trillion we owe the fed right now is from the 08 QE bailouts? I don't think that is right, I believe that is an additional couple trillion.



And there is a good chance as more bankruptcies from 'too big to fail businesses' happen and as more debt bubbles burst, those numbers will only increase.

More accurate data-
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TREAST


Yes most of it is a result of the crash and the highly successful measures taken to induce the recovery. You would know this if you had actually read the article you pulled that graph from. The fed is now reducing its holdings, currently 2.2 trn. While on the balance sheet of the fed interest on treasuries goes straight back to the treasury as would the principal on any that mature.

Something isn't adding up.

From your link:

The total face value of U.S. Treasury securities held by the Federal Reserve.

Pretty sure all the QE bailouts included mortgage bonds and agency debt (per my chart). Though it is interesting the additional 2 trillion from mortgage and agency bonds don't seem to be mentioned in many places.

Also, these numbers going down is under the assumption there isn't another giant crisis, a debt bubble bursting, or need for massive bailouts on 'too big to fail' businesses. Maybe I am pessimistic, but I don't see it. There is speculation that bubbles in auto, student loans, and even the stock market could all go boom in the not too distant future.

We were talking about the public debt. I'm getting kinda bored with explaining things to you, there doesn't appear to be anything to discuss at this point. If you still haven't grasped why everything you thought about the fed was fundamentally wrong you aren't gonna.

Back to name calling, classic.

So Freddie, Fannie, and Ginnie are going to pay those mortgage/agency bonds?

Last I looked the Treasury Department was the one who was buying these. So, why is that not included in Public Debt?