First of all, they don't teach any of that in history class.
Secondly, the Federal Reserve doesn't make money, Congress does. Congress spending more than what it's budget can pay for requires the Federal Reserve to print money. The Federal Reserve can't print money on it's own, it has to get approval from Congress to do so.
Uh huh. Bankers have never, ever used their control of the issuance of money, of usury, to control politicians, political parties, or governments...ever. Bankers are too honest for that.
Uh huh. Governments have never, ever, used their control over the issuance of money, interest rates, to control the finance in order to profit themselves and fit their ambitions... ever. Politicians, Dictators, Kings, and all other political leaders are too honest for that.
I never argued that governments aren't corrupt. You do know that two things can be true at once? However, truth and reality are hierarchical and discriminatory, meaning that some things hold more weight than others, depending on circumstance. I only pointed out who (and what) causes inflation, and that the vast, vast majority of the devaluation of the dollar (i.e. inflation) occurred after the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. Before that, the dollar was largely stable, when the issuance of money was in the hands of the federal government, and not in the hands of a privately controlled bank (the Fed).
There are more examples of bankers taking control of nations via usury, money lending, and printing money. It happened multiple times in European history, and currently.
No, you didn't point out who or what causes inflation. You just asserted your ideological demand of what you think is happening, not how it actually works.
That's why you said "Before that, the dollar was largely stable", no it wasn't. It collapsed several times. It collapsed every time the US government tried to pull some scheme to print money. Instead of the government blaming itself for devaluing the currency and making the currency fundamentally unappealing, they claimed that the government needed more power to stabilize the currency.
After the Continental Dollar was debased during the revolution, the Constitutional framers intentionally required that US currency had to be gold and silver. But that means that it faces price shocks every once in a while, and the government can't weaponize it for war. The Federalists immediately set-up trying to destroy that system and they (and many other policies) were undone by the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans.
Later on the Whigs in congress tried to invent the Bank of The United States to manipulate the currency and were rebuked by Andrew Jackson's Democrats and it nearly started a civil war.
After that Lincoln debased the currency in the Civil War (and so did the Confederates with their currency), because it was the only perceived way to pay for it. As a result the south was economically devastated as much from it's currency devaluation as it was the war, and the north actually struggled badly economically for several years until the inflation stopped with the rise of Gilded Age and trying to re-link the currency back to Gold/Silver.
After years of progress, Progressives get in to undo it all and parasitize it. So although they didn't debase the currency, they established the Fed and the Income Tax. The purpose of the federal reserve is to stabilize the monetary system. And to be clear: it does do that. That's why we have had nearly 100 years with only inflation, and maybe 5 of those years with deflation. Deflation is the thing that the literal Fabian Socialists who founded the Federal Reserve, the State Department, the Income Tax, popular representation in the Senate, and Women's Suffrage wanted to achieve, because they wanted to have permanent inflation which they could doll out to themselves.
Bankers typically don't control nations with interest rates, money lending, and printing money. Typically because the government doesn't allow them to. If bankers look like they are having more money than the government, they get killed. This is what happened to the Knights Templar. They weren't heretics, the King of France just didn't want to pay back his loans, and the pope promised to look the other way because he wanted to lend money to France.
Fractional reserve banking is a great way to make money capital available to people who want to invest.
Social Security, Medicare, and employer "health insurance" all deprive banks of savings, which deprives the people of earning interest from successful businesses.
A fraction is a rational number, which are part of the Real numbers.
If my bank tells the Federal Reserve "I have $100M in savings" and the Fed tells then, "okay, now you can loan out $200M!", that is not a fraction. That is an imaginary number.
Imaginary reserve banking causes inflation.
Only government has the power to legitimize imaginary reserve banking.
Who are the shareholders of the Federal Reserve? "Twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks ... Nationally chartered commercial banks are required to hold stock in, and can elect some board members of, the Federal Reserve Bank of their region." But the Federal Reserve Board of Governors can overrule the regional banks. Two are presidential appointees, the rest are appointed by the President with Senate approval.
It's not a private bank, it's a government bank with private bank participation.
Borrowing money that can't be paid for causes inflation because money is made to pay for the spending explicitly.
Yes I know
Yes, because Socialists believe that saving money is "hoarding"
ok
that's not an imaginary number because it's not multiplied by the square-root of negative one. The fraction in fractional reserve is the "fraction of the principle that must be kept instead of lended out." And yes, 1/1 is still a fraction
No, it is not an imaginary number, like i. i is a number subject to rigorous mathematics. The $200M is literally an imaginary number, as in, "made up out of nothing."
Borrowing real money does not create inflation. It creates only a risk for the lender, who may not get his or her money back, against a possible future profit.
Creating fiat dollars for banks to lend out always creates inflation.
AFAIK The Fed is solely in control of monetary policy and money supply and doesn't have to listen to Congress. Congress can only sell bonds on the market. Not making a value judgement about banks vs gov, but indirectly corporate borrowers and the Fed could cause inflation without Congress.
I am but a simple ape, so I must assume you know more than me about our money printing system, but I know we are far from constitutionally assigned roles at this point. I just don't think Congress has much control over that right now -- except obvs they should not spend more money than they have or else the Fed has to print more. On that we agree.
First of all, they don't teach any of that in history class.
Secondly, the Federal Reserve doesn't make money, Congress does. Congress spending more than what it's budget can pay for requires the Federal Reserve to print money. The Federal Reserve can't print money on it's own, it has to get approval from Congress to do so.
Uh huh. Bankers have never, ever used their control of the issuance of money, of usury, to control politicians, political parties, or governments...ever. Bankers are too honest for that.
Uh huh. Governments have never, ever, used their control over the issuance of money, interest rates, to control the finance in order to profit themselves and fit their ambitions... ever. Politicians, Dictators, Kings, and all other political leaders are too honest for that.
I never argued that governments aren't corrupt. You do know that two things can be true at once? However, truth and reality are hierarchical and discriminatory, meaning that some things hold more weight than others, depending on circumstance. I only pointed out who (and what) causes inflation, and that the vast, vast majority of the devaluation of the dollar (i.e. inflation) occurred after the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. Before that, the dollar was largely stable, when the issuance of money was in the hands of the federal government, and not in the hands of a privately controlled bank (the Fed).
There are more examples of bankers taking control of nations via usury, money lending, and printing money. It happened multiple times in European history, and currently.
No, you didn't point out who or what causes inflation. You just asserted your ideological demand of what you think is happening, not how it actually works.
That's why you said "Before that, the dollar was largely stable", no it wasn't. It collapsed several times. It collapsed every time the US government tried to pull some scheme to print money. Instead of the government blaming itself for devaluing the currency and making the currency fundamentally unappealing, they claimed that the government needed more power to stabilize the currency.
After the Continental Dollar was debased during the revolution, the Constitutional framers intentionally required that US currency had to be gold and silver. But that means that it faces price shocks every once in a while, and the government can't weaponize it for war. The Federalists immediately set-up trying to destroy that system and they (and many other policies) were undone by the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans.
Later on the Whigs in congress tried to invent the Bank of The United States to manipulate the currency and were rebuked by Andrew Jackson's Democrats and it nearly started a civil war.
After that Lincoln debased the currency in the Civil War (and so did the Confederates with their currency), because it was the only perceived way to pay for it. As a result the south was economically devastated as much from it's currency devaluation as it was the war, and the north actually struggled badly economically for several years until the inflation stopped with the rise of Gilded Age and trying to re-link the currency back to Gold/Silver.
After years of progress, Progressives get in to undo it all and parasitize it. So although they didn't debase the currency, they established the Fed and the Income Tax. The purpose of the federal reserve is to stabilize the monetary system. And to be clear: it does do that. That's why we have had nearly 100 years with only inflation, and maybe 5 of those years with deflation. Deflation is the thing that the literal Fabian Socialists who founded the Federal Reserve, the State Department, the Income Tax, popular representation in the Senate, and Women's Suffrage wanted to achieve, because they wanted to have permanent inflation which they could doll out to themselves.
Bankers typically don't control nations with interest rates, money lending, and printing money. Typically because the government doesn't allow them to. If bankers look like they are having more money than the government, they get killed. This is what happened to the Knights Templar. They weren't heretics, the King of France just didn't want to pay back his loans, and the pope promised to look the other way because he wanted to lend money to France.
You're trying to argue with someone pushing an agenda, instead of wanting to talk about facts. It's a mistake we all make every now and then.
Shut up you Jewish loving fagot
It's not a private bank, it's a government bank with private bank participation.
Borrowing real money can never cause inflation.
No, it is not an imaginary number, like i. i is a number subject to rigorous mathematics. The $200M is literally an imaginary number, as in, "made up out of nothing."
Don't 1 and 5 contradict one another? I mean it sounds like borrowers can create inflation, in our current f'ed up system.
Borrowing real money does not create inflation. It creates only a risk for the lender, who may not get his or her money back, against a possible future profit.
Creating fiat dollars for banks to lend out always creates inflation.
AFAIK The Fed is solely in control of monetary policy and money supply and doesn't have to listen to Congress. Congress can only sell bonds on the market. Not making a value judgement about banks vs gov, but indirectly corporate borrowers and the Fed could cause inflation without Congress.
Only with the emergency measures they gave themselves in response to the GFC. Most of their history they never did make their own money.
I am but a simple ape, so I must assume you know more than me about our money printing system, but I know we are far from constitutionally assigned roles at this point. I just don't think Congress has much control over that right now -- except obvs they should not spend more money than they have or else the Fed has to print more. On that we agree.