Explain to me why the Federal Reserve is bad in simple words.

Explain to me why the Federal Reserve is bad in simple words.

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    garden gnomes

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Usury

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Ya that’s what he said

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Is it bad I knew the answer before I clicked the thread?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Is it bad I knew the answer before I clicked the thread?
        It's almost sad how garden gnomes have been forcibly evicted from more nations than n-words

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          n-words are the way they are because the garden gnomes turned them that way, thus, the garden gnomes have tenure in fucking things up. Be wise fren.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >who?
        >what?
        >how?
        >why?
        the answer is always the same

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      > Everything I don't like is caused by the garden gnomes

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Oh thanks fren

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Explain to me why the Federal Reserve is bad in simple words.
      The Federal Reserve is bad because it is a private institution that controls the money supply and interest rates in the United States. This gives the Federal Reserve a lot of power over the economy, and it can use this power to manipulate the economy for its own benefit. This is not good for the American people because it can lead to inflation, recession, and other economic problems.

      Kek

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Explain to me why the Federal Reserve is bad in simple words.
    The Federal Reserve is bad because it is a private institution that controls the money supply and interest rates in the United States. This gives the Federal Reserve a lot of power over the economy, and it can use this power to manipulate the economy for its own benefit. This is not good for the American people because it can lead to inflation, recession, and other economic problems.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >The Federal Reserve is bad because it is a private institution that controls the money supply and interest rates in the United States
      Who should do this then theoretically? The House/Senate?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The market. But step back and ask, why is a private group in charge of the money system?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          How would the market print money? How would that even work?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            It wouldn't work. That guy is completely full of shit, he's literally proposing the barter system. There's a reason governments have issued currency for 3000 years.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Private banks have existed throughout history. Paper money came from receipts for gold and silver held in banks. Dumbass

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Not an example of the so-called "market" issuing currency. In these cases the state ALWAYS was issuing that gold or silver currency. Which the banks then reissued as paper money. The basic unit of exchange still came from the government, as it always has and must in a civilized society.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              he's not saying that the treasury cant print money. he's just saying the federal reserve shouldnt have so much control over the monetary supply itself.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            In the past, banks used to issue their own currency and backed it by gold and silver. It "worked" but was highly limited since different regions preferred different currency and thus you would have to hand the currency to another bank who would then send it to your original bank and get gold and then give you cash. It's very inefficient and this system did not last long. The state can't use this system for proper money supply manipulation either which decreases the state's ability to react to economic emergencies, natural disasters, and war, etc.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      They are resposible for the huge exogenuos shocks in what we perceive as business cycles. They are responsible for illusory market conditions and distorted prices that economic actors base desicions on. To put it simply they're drug dealers of easy credit and government fueling ponzi. The end results is overdose or Jordan Peterson levels of withdrawal.

      This is the midwit answer that tries to portray a quasi-governmental body as some market entity. Even nationalized central banks are disasterous (Argentina) because they are effectively central planners of one half of every exchange.

      [deleted post]

      Free banking in Scotland with a clearing house system actually worked and liquidated garden gnomes before the UK got onboard with the PEELs act.

      That and sound money not monopolized by the state.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >That and sound money not monopolized by the state.

        I don't think this works outside an environment where people are literally handing gold and silver coins around. Merchants just can't be trusted with certain things, and monetary policy is one of them.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          The point is for there to be a restraint on the state or anybody to control money which was the idea with the original bitcoin. You can only get sneaky garden gnome tricks magnified a thousandfold if there is a means to get away with inflation with impunity. That being said there is a place for fractional reserve banking to avoid currency shortages, when there is disequilibrium between the market rate and natural rate of interest, but you need a clearing house system to smoke out insolvent banks and preventing a contagion of debt between banks

          The Fed is a private corporation that gets first shot at all of the money it creates. Why should the federal government have to borrow its own money from some garden gnome-run bank? Either the government should print its own money and this should be the legal tender, or there should be no legal tender and should be allowed to create money.

          >the government should print its own money and this should be the legal tender
          Yeah that's exactly what we need. Ultimate economic suicide

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >the original bitcoin
            Which lasted for about a week before it became an easy money meme. Now that it's crashing the techbros who were posting the same sort of thing you're posting here now are crying for bailouts, CBDCs, and regulations so line go up forever. That's just how merchants are, and as long as they're given a say that's the direction they'll always try to push policy. The financial industry basically rules the world now, or at least the West, and look at how they've remade it to suit themselves. Giving them the power to directly print money and therefore manipulate currency like you're suggesting would be a catastrophe.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >Giving them the power to directly print money and therefore manipulate currency like you're suggesting would be a catastrophe.
              My position is decentralization of currency and debt issuance in a system with negative feedback mechanisms inspired by examples from history. If that will ever happen or what it will entirely look like is a process not up to any architect.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      You're an idiot. The federal reserve is an arm of the government. If they were actually independent USA would have gone defunct long ago because they'd have no way to rack up 30+ trillions of debt and 120+ trillions in unfunded liabilities.

      If the federal reserve has power over the economy, then not only is it not private it's LITERALLY the actual government.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        STFU u drumpf supportur

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >The federal reserve is an arm of the government.

        No they aren't. The Fed is controlled by a board of directors from all over the world. Brits and Germans and garden gnomes and Saudis control the Fed, and by proxy the US economy.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          The Federal Reserve Bank Act established the Fed, the board members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

          Take your meds.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            When was Charles Mitchell or Nathan Rothschild appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              You're gonna have to give me more detail man, I'm not a mind reader. Make a point that I can actually respond to.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The Federal Reserve has twelve branches. Each branch has shareholders like any other company. These shareholders control the Federal Reserve, and they aren't elected and don't have to be US citizens. Charles Mitchell or Nathan Rothschild are two of the most infamous Fed shareholders.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                "Some observers mistakenly consider the Federal Reserve to be a private entity because the Reserve Banks are organized similarly to private corporations. For instance, each of the 12 Reserve Banks operates within its own particular geographic area, or District, of the United States, and each is separately incorporated and has its own board of directors. Commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System hold stock in their District's Reserve Bank. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. In fact, the Reserve Banks are required by law to transfer net earnings to the U.S. Treasury, after providing for all necessary expenses of the Reserve Banks, legally required dividend payments, and maintaining a limited balance in a surplus fund."

                https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Surely you aren't naive enough to believe this. What do you expect the Federal Reserve's official website to say? Of course they will deny being owned by foreign bankers.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                No foreign banks are involved.

                If you read the article, they were being paid to print currency for Thailand, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, India, Brazil, and Poland, but made duplicates for themselves (china). Then they "loaned" the fake money to each country with the future infrastructure as collateral. Either way the loans turn out there is secretly way more money in the countries' economies than known. 313 billion is probably half of what they actually printed.

                Your source is a pile of crap, so give me some credit. And honestly, other countries really need to get their shit together if counterfeiting is that much of a problem. The Chinese even counterfeit their own currency. What can I say, this doesn't look like a conspiracy, just looks like criminals doing what they do.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                It was a reuters article originally, can't find it now but I read the reuters one because that's a "reputable source".

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                That's right ignore the study you wanted from Romer and post your bluepills instead. You cannot run anymore. You must feast on this poopy dick.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.jstor.org/stable/1813353

                Repent

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The Federal Reserve Act established the Fed and the board members are appointed by the President. It is not private. 94% of the excess profits it makes goes to the US Treasury, the remaining 4% goes to maintenance.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      > This is not good for the American people because it can lead to inflation, recession, and other economic problems.
      That happened even worse before the central bank.
      That's why they created the central bank in the first place. The economy would boom and bust out of control, banks would fail all the time and people would lose their life savings.
      They needed to create a lender of last resort that could absorb shocks to the economy and provide liquidity and prevent bank runs.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Jekyll Island book tells about early attempts at fair regulation. They'd have a guy ride out to each bank, and look at the barrel of reserve gold sitting there all shiny. He'd say OK and go sign some papers, meanwhile a guy fills a bag with all the gold, revealing it to actually be 3/4 full of rocks, and he'd hop on a horse and rush to the next bank the auditor was headed to, and "fill the barrell". Then on to the next town, etc.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Here are a few oneliners for you:
    - The FED creates a command economy.
    - The only difference between the FED and the CCP is that one gives the money to banks and the other to manufacturers
    - Buying bad financial assets enable bad economic actors like letting off politicians enables pedophilia
    - Investing in any financial instruments must be a risk, otherwise it’s robbery

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      - It’s stagnation, not stimulus.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The FED is the cigarette creating cancer where there should be corporations.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      - If banks can’t be trusted with their customers’ currency, why should they be trusted with the country’s currency?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      - Why should a country release capital to a bank which can’t retain the capital given to them by its countrymen?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      > - The FED creates a command economy.

      No, a command economy is when the US seizes pretty much all private property, making it public.

      > - The only difference between the FED and the CCP is that one gives the money to banks and the other to manufacturers

      It's not given. The Fed can make print money either by giving loans (overnight) to banks as the lender of last resort, they must be paid back. Or the Fed can buy assets, mostly bonds, on the secondary open market to increase the money supply, or sell such assets and decrease the money supply. No one is just given money.

      > - Buying bad financial assets enable bad economic actors like letting off politicians enables pedophilia

      That doesn't even make sense. Some assets the Fed owns is somewhat questionable, but most is good and all will eventually pay themselves back to the Fed.

      > - Investing in any financial instruments must be a risk, otherwise it’s robbery

      Buying US bonds and either selling them at break even or waiting for them to mature has pretty much the lowest risk possible. The US, as a whole, would have to suffer a catastrophe for this to matter.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Money backed by nothing

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Money is backed by its ability to purchase something. The US has a very large, diverse economy that is well protected by a strong democracy, military liberal ethic, etc. and that makes USD very attractive. The Fed also does a comparatively good job at maintaining currency and inflation value compared to other fiat and compared to commodities.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >The Fed also does a comparatively good job at maintaining currency and inflation value compared to other fiat and compared to commodities.
        Obama's own fed biased economic advisor did a major study on the history of the Federal Reserve and found it failed in fulfilling its three mandates.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          > Obama's own fed biased economic advisor did a major study on the history of the Federal Reserve and found it failed in fulfilling its three mandates.

          Do you want to provide a source?

          Yeah dude 500k houses is fucking lovely. Save 15 years and you are no closer to buying a house than when you started. Nothing wrong with that there. Totally not a scam. Also 20% more for food, higher rents, insane gas prices. Fucking lovely. Marvelous. Watching billionaires rake in all that printed money via the stock market and the wealth gap widrn to levels not ever fucking seen? Priceless! Yeah sure tastes like democracy.

          The Fed will raise rates to bring down inflation just as they have every single time the market began to inflation out of control. Powell's been unusually slow but he'll eventually get to it. The last rate hike was 0.75%, this established a a 0.25% increase higher than previous commitments. It's also not the Fed's fault bubbles and what not happen, it's not designed to handle such brazen stupidity.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Oh sure they will. You mean next year when they measure inflation against this year? Hold prices at theit current inflated levels into next year voila no more inflation. It's fucking magic but people can't afford to eat.

            We aren'tat stupid.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              I'm not sure what you are even talking about? There are three major indexes for inflation, one of them is a base year index which will show the persistent inflation. realistically, inflation isn't that high historically speaking, but it's just happening too fast and that is breaking businesses.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            No spoon feeding for you. You should know this one. It's not hard to find.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              You made a claim, now back it up. Don't cry when someone asks for a source.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Suck my cock leaf. Don't lecture people about the FED when you can't even figure out something this simple

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Just provide a source to back your claim, simple as.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >It's also not the Fed's fault bubbles and what not happen
            >it's not designed to handle such brazen stupidity.
            Stopping past brazen stupidity was the exact argument for creating it, of course they're supposed to be aware of it and mitigating it. And yet ever 15 years or so it all happens again and again. It's a scam.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              It was not deigned for that. It can cool over inflation and prevent deeper deflation. It can't stop specific bubbles, war, natural disaster, etc.

              You're reading into their powers way too much. The Fed is basically a generalist, a blunt instrument.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Sure, now put that blunt instrument in the hands of politicians and bankers and such, it's can be blunt but skillfully used. It's a tax politicians never have to get the voters to accept, and anyway there's no way to stop it growing.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                There's no indication that the Fed has broken away from is statutory mandate.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I don't have a source, but the initial mandates have been dramatically changed over the years. Anon had a list in a thread a few weeks back. But that's misleading, because it's a separate issue. The fed is also a tool of world enslavement, world Bank and IMF are the NWO tools.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                > The fed is also a tool of world enslavement, world Bank and IMF are the NWO tools.

                Okay, schizo, take your meds.

                No one is gonna enslave you through a loan. Lmao.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >No one is gonna enslave you through a loan
                I described above how China is doing exactly that with belt and road initiative countries. IMF AND World Bank loans for instance have stripped Greece of all sovereignty, constantly having them refinance, and each time with more catches ("if you want the money you accept 1 million refugees" etc). Weimar Germany was funded on Wall Street and fed money, used as a bludgeon against the German people. Yes indeed a loan can enslave you. In fact, it already has, that's what everyone is trying to tell you.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                > I described above how China is doing exactly that with belt and road initiative countries.

                Lol. That's a been a debunked myth for a long time now. It's just a bunch of Chinese investors speculating on companies, they do far more speculation inside China than they do outside.

                > MF AND World Bank loans for instance have stripped Greece of all sovereignty

                Greek people don't pay taxes and the Greek state creates absurdly expensive social welfare programs. Greece hid their financial data from the EU causing a crisis when they debt became known. Somehow it's the IMF's fault.

                > constantly having them refinance

                Because Greece is a debt whore and now Germany and friends have to bail them out somehow or the whole EU is put at risk.

                > and each time with more catches

                The only catches were debt restriction and austerity measures (cut the gibs).

                > Weimar Germany

                They printed their own currency to pay off the war debt.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Not the best source but china admits to 313 billion in counterfeiting other currencies, June 15, the real article was posted on LULZ a day or two ago
                https://lulz.com/it-has-only-just-begun-faykyyan/

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, well, China has a shit ton of crime. I'm surprised it's only 313 billion, I would have thought it would be many times that. I guess they're too busy making fentanyl.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                If you read the article, they were being paid to print currency for Thailand, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, India, Brazil, and Poland, but made duplicates for themselves (china). Then they "loaned" the fake money to each country with the future infrastructure as collateral. Either way the loans turn out there is secretly way more money in the countries' economies than known. 313 billion is probably half of what they actually printed.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah dude 500k houses is fucking lovely. Save 15 years and you are no closer to buying a house than when you started. Nothing wrong with that there. Totally not a scam. Also 20% more for food, higher rents, insane gas prices. Fucking lovely. Marvelous. Watching billionaires rake in all that printed money via the stock market and the wealth gap widrn to levels not ever fucking seen? Priceless! Yeah sure tastes like democracy.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          It smells like a bot to me running damage control for an entity that has completely lost control with no tools to fall back on now. They've just resorted to blaming the coming depression and ensuing inflation on Russia, Covid, and supply chains. Meanwhile they'll forget about the repo crisis of 2019 just sweep that under the rug.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I agree. It's like land standardized gibberish. For those of us that have been around the block we can eat these posts alive.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    what are the red dots and black squares?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Black squares are the regional Federal reserve banks and the red dots are sub banks within the region. KC is a federal bank but the one in Omaha is directed by KC

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Controls the entire US economy
    >Has absolutely no oversight at all

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It does have oversight, just independent control. You can look up exactly how much the Fed owns and what assets it owns. Because everything is bought in the secondary market it's also very easy to track.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The fed has never had an audit. You’re wrong about being able to look at their books.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL

          https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/audited-annual-financial-statements.htm

          "The Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve Banks, and the LLCs are all subject to several levels of audit and review. The Reserve Banks' and LLCs’ financial statements are audited annually by an independent public accounting firm retained by the Board of Governors. To ensure auditor independence, the Board requires that the external auditor be independent in all matters relating to the audit. Specifically, the external auditor may not perform services for the Reserve Banks, the LLCs, or affiliates that would place it in a position of auditing its own work, making management decisions on behalf of the Reserve Banks or the LLCs, or in any other way impairing its audit independence. In addition, the Reserve Banks and LLCs are subject to oversight by the Board.

          The Board of Governors' financial statements are audited annually by an independent public accounting firm retained by the Board's Office of Inspector General. The Office of Inspector General also conducts audits, reviews, and investigations relating to the Board's programs and operations as well as of Board functions delegated to the Reserve Banks and the LLCs."

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I was walking around the Chicago Loop this weekend and the Federal Reserve building had a huge rainbow flag draped across the front. KEK!

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Explain to me why the Federal Reserve is bad in simple words.

    garden gnomes.

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Feds loan money to US to pay for stuff
    US taxpayers pay back loans, not for the stuff directly
    >Compound interest
    So something that costs $100mil, paid via fed loan, ends up costing like $200mil
    $100mil for loan +100mil for interest while paying it off.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Dude, you're fucking clueless. The actions of the Fed *lower* the interest rate for government bonds. If the government was paying back loans to private lenders we'd actually be paying MORE.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >print one billion dollars
    >government spends dollars
    >prices rise for goods and services which were purchased
    >average citizen now has to pay more for those goods and services

    By continually increasing the money supply, you devalue savings that the citizenry spent countless years accumulating. It is theft.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The Fed aims to control inflation at about 2% and they have actually been undershooting, inflation has been under 2% for a long time.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah look at how they calculate it. Get back to us. We are at 17% inflation as calculated in the 70s and early 80s. There is no defense in there being inflation at all. We should see falling prices reflecting increased productivity and more efficient processes. So instead of prices falling say 3% we get a 5 or 6% increase. The amount the FED steals this way every year is astronomical.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Can you provide a rationale for why we should use the out-of-date calculation method which had a tendency to double count items?

          Whether the economy should see increasing inflation or deflation is debatable. I would prefer deflation. But most would prefer inflation because inflation helps speculation and economic growth. If we had a persistently low deflationary economy then only the most powerful of companies would actually excel, the rest would suffer significantly. By making credit more available it helps to raise the tide for everyone and gives a bit more lenience for companies to eventually become successful. The downside to this, however, is speculation and zombie companies.

          So pick your poison.

          Inflation: Many will do well but bubbles and debt can get excess.

          Deflation: Only a small handful of elite companies will do well, the economy stagnates in terms of abundant production and experimental companies, but is relatively stable.

          I'm not saying one is better than the other, just be aware of the consequences. If you want to see a deflationary economy look at Japan.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Nope. Don't confuse dollars with actual capital. When you print dollars you don't print more houses, cars, glass windows, cement, or labor hours. That is the problem. But when you do print money the economy behaves as if you did. And it causes massive problems with lack of capital and destroys healthy parts of the economy replacing it with bad investments.

            Capital in the economy can't be printed. It can only be organized and utilzed differently. Price discovery and price feed back allows market participants to ultimately organize the economy to produce what everyone wants to the greatest extent.

            There is no reason capital cannot be organized in a deflationary environment. In fact the signals would be cleaner and less muddied. More efficient allocation occurs. With inflation and printed money you are constantly forced to liquidate bad investments at a greater rate. Wasting time and capital and leaving people much poorer.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Capital can be organized in both inflationary and deflationary economies. It's just that the characteristics of each economy we be very different.

              > Don't confuse dollars with actual capital.

              Capital is measured in money, each loan derived seeks to help an entity purchase capital in exchange for interest payments.

              > But when you do print money the economy behaves as if you did.

              Because it did, the money printed goes to purchasing capital.

              > And it causes massive problems with lack of capital and destroys healthy parts of the economy replacing it with bad investments.

              Yes, I mentioned this, bubbles and speculation form. Malinvestment is one of the characteristics of an inflationary economy.

              > There is no reason capital cannot be organized in a deflationary environment.

              I never said it couldn't.

              > In fact the signals would be cleaner and less muddied.

              Yes, albeit competition and business risk would be higher since companies can not rely on as much easy money to keep them aloft.

              > More efficient allocation occurs.

              Yes, but at the same time, you also get less allocation which means the economy slows to a crawl.

              A deflationary economy is an economy that would essentially look like an economy that has banned loans because the amount of loans given would be dramatically reduced.

              > With inflation and printed money you are constantly forced to liquidate bad investments at a greater rate.

              Not constantly, only when shit goes wrong (bubbles, speculation, or economic disturbance that disrupts overvaluation).

              > Wasting time and capital and leaving people much poorer.

              It depends. Inflationary economies, if they are properly recognized and properly adjust for risk, will typically end up with greater wealth since more risky companies were able to afford their development and end up being extremely profitable companies.

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Explain to me why the Federal Reserve is bad in simple words.
    Because the Federal Reserve branches earns profits every year, which are payed out to foreign investment banks who hold the majority of the shares. Two of the banks with the largest shares being RM Rothschild & Sons of London, and Rothschild Bank of Berlin. Two other big holders being Warburg and Lehman Bros.

    tl;dr
    garden gnomes

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      94% of excess profits the Fed makes goes to the US Treasury, the remaining 6% goes to maintenance.

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >garden gnomes make infinite magic shekels from nothing
    >garden gnomes loan magic shekels to other garden gnomes
    >other garden gnomes buy tangible assets like land and factories
    >everyone else (you and me) gets inflation on wages and products while other garden gnomes have their tangible assets appreciate
    garden gnomes get all the real wealth while everyone else gets poorer. "You will own nothing and be happy."

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Do garden gnomes even pay interest on loans? In one of their bibles, I think the torah? It's said that only goyim pays interest and to give interest to another garden gnome isn't permitted.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Do garden gnomes even pay interest on loans?
        You think the garden gnomes in Washington DC are the same garden gnomes who read the torah. Think Italians and mafia, but garden gnomes and kosher nostra. Interest doesn't matter, because whoever has access to "credit" gets tangible assets while everyone else gets lower wages and higher prices.

        Blackrock is doing this right now. They are getting hundreds of billions of dollars from the Federal Reserve to buy up all real estate and making it more expensive for everyone else. Here's the best part: IF the housing market crashes Blackrock will default on it's loans and YOU will have to pay to bail them out, but if they make profit THEY get to keep it (after paying the Fed their small vigorish).

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    garden gnomes own the fed, garden gnomes own you, you will eat bugs

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It allows the government to get free money. This results in the government making stupid decisions.

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Super simple. They loan our money to us and charge us interest.
    The treasury is supposed to issue the currency with gold and silver backing. Debt free.

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    [deleted post]

    Solutions are a bit lengthier than the catchy oneliners. Do you actually want to know?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, I'll do my own research.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Here’s a brief history and oversimplification to help:

        (1/3)
        > Recessions and depressions are a loss of perceived, sometimes real, wealth.
        > Wealth is an arbitrary aggregation of abstract and concrete things that are valued in relation to a predominant monetary unit.
        > Recessions/depressions indicate certain market participants, usually due to unintelligent or unfair play, have been misallocated a certain amount of control over the economic activity.
        > As a result, this perceived or real wealth is lost, taking with it certain groups economic command of productivity.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          (2/3)
          > However, it offers new opportunities for other individuals to command a greater piece of the economic productivity of a nation by offering something that has a higher perceived value than its cost.
          > Unfortunately,organic reallocations of economic control take more time than artificial stimulus.
          > This can make necessities such as food, shelter, and luxuries more difficult for individuals to acquire if their economic value was previously calculated by the command of individuals who now are losing their control.
          > This can be dangerous for everyone, particularly individuals perceived to have caused this displeasurable loss in quality of life..
          > Those without strong principles who are probable to lose command of a sizable part of the economic labor/commodities might seek to maintain power through the manipulation or forceful seizure of another groups economical capital
          > This temporarily works due to the immediate euphoria involved in artificially abating the pain from the natural reallocation of both the unfit economic overseer and their laborers receive

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          (2/3)
          > However, it offers new opportunities for other individuals to command a greater piece of the economic productivity of a nation by offering something that has a higher perceived value than its cost.
          > Unfortunately,organic reallocations of economic control take more time than artificial stimulus.
          > This can make necessities such as food, shelter, and luxuries more difficult for individuals to acquire if their economic value was previously calculated by the command of individuals who now are losing their control.
          > This can be dangerous for everyone, particularly individuals perceived to have caused this displeasurable loss in quality of life..
          > Those without strong principles who are probable to lose command of a sizable part of the economic labor/commodities might seek to maintain power through the manipulation or forceful seizure of another groups economical capital
          > This temporarily works due to the immediate euphoria involved in artificially abating the pain from the natural reallocation of both the unfit economic overseer and their laborers receive

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            (3/3)
            > Typically this will create a positive feedback loop that reduces the real economic output of said nation.
            > As this feedback loop is allowed to persist, negative qualities, such as degenerate and violent behavior, will become more apparent across the broader society as it is used to appease groups of people disgruntled by their declining quality of life.
            > Due to control of economic activity being relative to the total capital of a nation, the decline will likely not stop until enough violence is displayed or all economic activity has been seized into the hand of the unfit economic overseers
            > To avoid this fate, a society must consider three things.

            1. Avoid any permanent centralization of economic control by creating collectives in your community
            2. Speak openly against and abuse any cheap appeasements used to subside the symptoms of a systemic problem
            3. Broadly distribute the knowledge and means to commit collective violence

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >Broadly distribute the knowledge and means to commit collective violence
              This. This is the real solution. The tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants. It's an unsettling thought, but human nature requires strife to succeed.

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    [deleted post]

    yeah except they also made the recipe for the cake and made us give away our sugar to bake it.

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    infinite money

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The American public pays hundreds of billions in interest to service debt that was created out of thin air. Who are we paying and why?

  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    They control the economy and they're garden gnomes.
    Literally simple as.

  21. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The Federal Reserve uses loans to create the money supply. They charge interest on these loans. This effect cascades through the private banks until a significant amount of interest is demanded on the backs of ordinary people. The money to pay this interest literally cannot exist, since the money was created through the original loan, so the lower classes are forced into eternal debt slavery.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >They charge interest on these loans. This effect cascades through the private banks until a significant amount of interest is demanded on the backs of ordinary people.
      So you're demanding they loan money interest free? You realize that would cause inflation to skyrocket WAY above our current level? People in this thread are so clueless about basic economics, it's embarrassing.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The fed is not just another bank, it creates the money supply. Where does the interest go? Why does it exist? The inflation is a result of the fed creating the necessary money to pay this interest, since it doesn't exist. Then they charge interest on that loan. It is a never ending cycle of increasing the money supply, which is why inflation has been increasing constantly since the fed was deregulated in 1971.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Where does the interest go? Why does it exist?
          It exists because if it didn't exist, we would actually have 'free money' and the value of the dollar would collapse. I'd think anti-fed people more than anyone would agree this would be bad.

          >The inflation is a result of the fed creating the necessary money to pay this interest, since it doesn't exist.
          This is completely backwards. Taken as a whole the fed doesn't create money for interest, it is PAID money for interest. IE the interest on fed loans is a kind of sponge that prevents excess money supply and limits inflation.

          >inflation has been increasing constantly since the fed was deregulated in 1971.
          The value of the dollar has been much more steady since 1971 than before it.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You are full of fucking shit

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >So you're demanding they loan money interest free?
        He's demanding they lend real wealth, rather than the current system where they "lend" people imaginary wealth conjured up out of nothing and get real wealth (goods and labor) in return.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Exactly. Money that is backed by real labor or goods. Printed money has a false valuation. It is untethered completely from labor or goods. Once it hits the economy it distorts the entire economy until it is absorbed and allocated against the pool of labor and goods.

          In that process currently existing dollars are devalued. And the people robbed while the banks and ultra rich attain real assets, goods, and services for free. These people need to be fucking shot.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          The Fed doesn't "get" anything. Interest income they make is simply offset by the loans they give out. You make it sound like there's some shadowy garden gnome in charge of the Fed who uses their interest income to buy a yacht or something LMAO.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            It's the people getting the loans at damn near zero % interest at times. The FED is the enabler for politically connected theft.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Anyone can take out a loan at the market rate any time they want. How is that "theft?"

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >ultra rich don't get preferential lending rates
                that's naive

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Preferential interest rates for the ultra rich would disappear if we got rid of the fed
                Even more naive

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                It wouldn't be tied to macroeconomic funny money policy ran officially by a government entity though.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                When shit goes wrong, you'll bail them out.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                It's theft when you expand the money supply to do it and don't pay a market interest rate to do it. In any given money system the value of the money should rise when production and capital levels rise. Money is simply a tool for measurement, it needs to be consistent. That way when capital is abundant money will reflect that in how much it can purchase, when the economy is on the rocks money buys less. You print money it distorts everything. And distorts it in favor of whoever gets that money first. Lent or not. One asshole can acquire printed money and buy 10k$ houses on the cheap. That extra money gets into the economy and pushes prices up. Additionally more money is printed and they can sell for more than they paid returning the loan in full and keeping the difference.

                It's robbery.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >One asshole can acquire printed money and buy 10k$ houses on the cheap.
                What you're missing is that anyone can take out a loan. YOU can be that "one asshole." Of course the final interest rate will depend on creditworthiness, just as it would without the fed. But the fed's effect on interest rates affects everyone, so it can hardly be considered 'theft.'

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                And by everyone, don't forget that other countries have to use our dollar to buy their oil, which means we outsource our inflation to them and literally steal from them, as well as us (and we don't see their inflation). It will all come back one day.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Oh you can take out a losm...through the bank who gets the money first. They get it at near zero% interest and lend it to you for over three. Then that house YOUR house is counted as collateral, the bank owns that house not you.

                The banks acquire real estate this way and corporations get loans in the trillions to buy real estate to flip. Knowing full damn well the FED will print more money to push prices up so they can be unloaded.

                Meanwhile working stiffs see the prices of houses go through the fucking roof and even if they can get a loan they will be slaving the rest of their lives to pay for it. And then when the FED stops printing the whole charade collapses and it's like a game of hot potato with poor fuckers holding toxic mortgage debt. But dont worry if you are a fucking bank. You get bailed out while working stiffs get kicked to the streets.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                If your complaint is that banks loan out money at a higher rate than they receive it, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Fed. It has to do with the fact that mortgages are obviously not 100% reliable investments.

                >Knowing full damn well the FED will print more money to push prices up so they can be unloaded.
                Again, you're totally backwards. Inflation BENEFITS holders of dollar denominated debt, and HURTS the lenders. This should be fairly intuitive: when the value of the dollar goes down, any debt you have measured in dollars goes down in value as well. So the fed is HELPING homeowners, and HURTING banks, in your own example. This is fairly accurate btw.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >It has to do with the fact that mortgages are obviously not 100% reliable investments
                Dis bro thinks banks actually hold the mortgages. Back to grade school sonny

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                This statement, while true, is also completely irrelevant to what I posted.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                No you're just too deep in banker jizz to see how it applies to everything the bank does

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Cept you are fucking forgetting banks are debtors. Debtors to the FED. And people still need to buy houses. You act like it's cool 20 somethings trying to get a home have zero chance at a house.

                Corporations and banks abuse the system almost exclusively. And you are also fucking over savers. You don't know the difference between real fucking capital and fiduciary capital. That's your fucking problem.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                garden gnome detected

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Ridiculous. Defending banks and printing is the garden gnome thing to do. I guess that's you.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >You act like it's cool 20 somethings trying to get a home have zero chance at a house.
                No, I don't think it's 'cool.' Which is why I'm grateful that the fed, which by your own admission lowers interest rates, exists to make that purchase a bit easier and more realistic.

                >And you are also fucking over savers.
                IE, the rich. Poor and middle class people are almost always gonna have dollar-denominated debts greater than dollar-denominated savings. And therefore directly benefit.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Nazi Germany didn't benefit in the long term from inflation... prove me wrong.
                Key words: "long term"

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >the rich
                >savers
                Someone already covered this, they're not savers, they're owners of real things like profit producing property, they know to convert the fake dollars into ownership of real assets, often taken from the people who believed in the system and saved cash.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >they're not savers, they're owners of real things like profit producing property
                They almost certainly own dollar-denominated loans to lower-income people, either through bonds or investments in banks. They will therefore be directly hurt, and the poor directly helped, by low interest rates.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >to buy a yacht or something
            You're thinking WAY too small fren. If their ambition was just to live it up that would still be garden gnomery, but it would be a really boring and honestly not too bad kind of garden gnomery. That sort of thing will happen regardless of who's in charge and how they justify it, and a large modern economy can satisfy even the most degenerate wants of a small elite and not really even notice it. This system in particular is bad because it leads to and enables pic related, and a modern system of serfdom. Lots of people have pointed this out, the earliest I know of being Hilaire Belloc in his "the servile state" back in 1912.

            Everyone hear how China just admitted to illicitly printing $313 billion dollars (so probably much more)? For some reason retarded nations like Poland were paying the Chinese to print their (polish) currencies for them; there were like 12 countries involved, it's a brick and road initiative thing. So, yeah, China printed the currencies for them, but secretly printed a second batch for themselves, then gave the second batch to the countries as infrastructure loans. So secretly inflated their partners money supplies, leveraged fake money and if/when the countries default on loans, China now owns that infrastructure, bought with fake cash.

            Merchants are bad enough, imagine letting a literal foreign government handle your money supply lmao

            A century ago China would have had to curbstomp those countries in a war and force it on them at gunpoint to get them to do that shit, now they've convinced themselves it's a good idea. The absolute state.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        I demand they abolish the Federal Reserve and Wall Street.

  22. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Cantillon effect
    Austrian business cycle theory
    Short-run/Long-run phillips curve
    All fiat currencies eventually collapse

    Etc etc etc

  23. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Explain to me why the Federal Reserve is bad in simple words.

    Its legalized counterfeiting and a stealth tax on the people that's passed without the vote of elected officials.

  24. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Until we can do and prover we can handle better, and I don't know if we can, it's not.

    Good on the Roths and everyone else who built the machine, it's quite something.

  25. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    money as defined by the constitution is ONLY silver or gold
    FUCK YOU

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >money as defined by the constitution is ONLY silver or gold
      Wrong.
      The Constitution prohibits STATES from issuing their own money except silver or gold. It lays no such restriction of the federal government.

  26. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It encourages inflation.

  27. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >create money out of thin air.
    >loan it to the Treasury with interest.
    >use the IRS to collect income tax as payment on the interest.
    >keep printing money to keep the velocity high causing massive inflation.
    >increase/decrease the rate of interest to control massive inflation.
    >?????
    >profit

  28. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    1) print money
    2) give it to banks and politically connected individuals and corporations
    3) they take this money buy houses and normal price levels
    4) print more money buy these same houses giving hefty return to orginal purchasers from step 3
    5) repeat process, produce nothing, inflate housing prices
    6) honest working class can't afford houses or now must work 10 times longer and harder to repay debt owed to FED
    7) banks and corporations produce nothing, abuse system, turn working class into their slaves

  29. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine giving control of your own money to a bunch of random dudes lol

  30. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Along with what others have said, it's a global entity, US Fed directly guarantees IMF and world bank loans which are used to hamstring and eventually control sovereign nations; also by loaning money to shitty 3rd world despots who are definitely going to squander the money and genocide their people, the bank then can go to the fed and say "too big to fail/genocide crisis and the fed will buy up the shitty loan and put the tab on the American taxpayer. The fed is evil.

  31. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    garden gnomes, n-words, trannies

  32. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >in simple words.

  33. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I'm so sick of the fucking fed and greedy banks and corporations. It's fucking theft they are ruining the lives of millions of Americans

  34. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The Fed can front run the entire stock market by telling (((certain parties))) when, and by how much, it will raise interest rates.

  35. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The Fed is a private corporation that gets first shot at all of the money it creates. Why should the federal government have to borrow its own money from some garden gnome-run bank? Either the government should print its own money and this should be the legal tender, or there should be no legal tender and should be allowed to create money.

  36. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Explain to me why the Federal Reserve is bad in simple words.
    No nations bank should be a privately owned business. What is hard to understand about that?

  37. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone hear how China just admitted to illicitly printing $313 billion dollars (so probably much more)? For some reason retarded nations like Poland were paying the Chinese to print their (polish) currencies for them; there were like 12 countries involved, it's a brick and road initiative thing. So, yeah, China printed the currencies for them, but secretly printed a second batch for themselves, then gave the second batch to the countries as infrastructure loans. So secretly inflated their partners money supplies, leveraged fake money and if/when the countries default on loans, China now owns that infrastructure, bought with fake cash.

  38. 1 week ago
    The Bobinator

    In short, literally garden gnomes. History lesson.

    During WWI the US emptied tons of gold out of Europe selling them arms, munitions, and equipment. The federal reserve was a European and gnomish conspiracy created post WWI to cause a deflationary depression in order to extract the gold back out of the US and convert it into a vassal state. This is the reason Roosevelt confiscated gold. Remember in 1933 the US Government declared bankruptcy. The same game was tried on Germany and was one of the reasons Hitler went with a one Reischstag per one hour worked policy after giving French and Brittish bankers the middle finger, which got the infrastructure of germany running like a swiss watch in short order. This all culminated in WWII.

    Post WWII the US actually had all of the worlds gold and proposed turning the worlds oceans into one big shipping lane using it's military. The US Felt if it exported propserity that would generate peace. European Royalty feared being the vassal state of America and Communist Russia was the target of Guns and Butter, so both began on psyops in the US. This culminated on foreign influence operations in the 60's and 70's that produced intentional stagflation in order to again, wrest the gold from the US Economy. You can't have international trade without something to trade, and gold was the only thing that'd work. Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard in retaliation and the dollar has been desirable ever since then due to the dependancy of the US Economy. This culminated in the 1980's crash and the S&L crisis of the late 80's and early 90's where compromised, over-levered banks with uptside down texas ratio's all crashed. Look at what Bill black, one of the lead prosecutors of the time, had to say.

    • 1 week ago
      The Bobinator

      After the S&L Crisis the Federal reserve began on it's 2% interest rate target, which allows companies to take out tremendous leverage in order to engage in hostile takeover of US Corps and equity piracy. They built up China to engage in wage arbitrage in the US, then the computer revolution allowed them to expand their intelligence networks while at the same time, per Ben Bagdikian's media monopoly, buy up and start concentrating US investment capital and US corps. The US government has taken a "OK we can try this experiment" approach. After the USSR Fell the same garden gnomes rebranded themselves globalists, or as Bannon calls them the Donor party, or as Sowell calls them the Intelligencia or Annointed ones. Basically this is a class of really smart people who confuse their genius and virtuosity with expertise and competence and so create innumerable problems and fuckups for everyone which is why they are so damn incompetent.

      2008 we had the housing market crash. Any idiot could've told you that grading debt was a bad idea but we had written that into law and it resulted in mass automated, computerized MBS fraud that went largely unprosecuted. Like notary publics forged tens of thousands of documents for Merril Lynch and BOA in Florida trying to seize property already owned lock stock and barrel because they had been trading MBS instruments using literal excel spreadhseets. The Fed's way of handling that was to allow banks that were upside down to repay depositors by depressing interest rates on money market accounts instead of flushing the bad debt out of the system which caused an entire generation to not make decent money on anything and end up speculating in tech (which is never a sure thing and is always speculative).

      • 1 week ago
        The Bobinator

        All of this culminated in the lower 50th percentile of income bracket and people from single parent families being absolutely fucked as far as ever having kids, getting married, or having a normal life. They were cosigned to working 3 mcjobs making shit wages with no savings. Literal wage slavery. So some fun statistics.

        In the US The fertility rate is 1.7 and falling; 2.1 is replacement and when the USSR Collapsed it was down to 1.3. US Census did a study on the impact of fertility rates on retirement security back in 09' and discovered there were 3 demographics in the group of men over 45 never married no children. First demographic of 5% of all men over that age were men who since 1956, which is when they started collecting the statistics, never had kids. Priests, felons, sailors, soldiers missing limbs, invalids, retards, etc. Another 5% of men had fallen into this category which were men with an 80th percentile income or higher. Dating sites, birth control, social media and educating women so they can have a decent takehome pay had created a concentrated pressure of thottery towards men with well above average incomes to the degree those women had so abused that group of men they had decided never to have kids or get married. The remanining 1% was an emerging category of said wage slaves. The rate was growing at about 1% year over year. Today if you had a newborn male child, due to that growth rate, they have a 1 in 2 shot at procreating. The US being turned into a vassal state is suicidal for the population and it's a European, Russian, and Chinese wet fucking dream that the united states balkanize and begin infighting because we have so many ridiculous advantages it isn't even funny.

        All of this culminated in the america first movement, MAGA, and Trumpism.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Good post, have a (you)

        • 1 week ago
          The Bobinator

          Per Zeihan's book The End of the World is Just the Beginning, the US has, over the last 8 presidential elections, elected presidents and congressmen who are charged with being disinterested in the world at large as is the US System. To Europeans, their past is their history; to Americans, it's European baggage.

          Furthermore, Globalism has resulted in multiple countries attempting to engage in mercantilism, using government subsidies to take over foreign industries and depress wages and the net impact of that has been a reduction of income in most economies, except for the upper 23rds of people in the US economy who are still reproducing. This has created a demographics imbalance where most countries are upside down. By 2050 there will be half as many Chinese, Russians, SORKS, Brazilians, Germans, Brittish, Italians, Spanish, Middle easterners, etc JUST DUE TO THE AGE of the demographics! As you can imagine, this is ringing some alarm bells in those countries. The reason Russia is invading Ukraine is this is part of a strategy to take defensible land gaps and hold them. The reason China wants Taiwan is to break out of the first island chain and maintain their export economy. However Mercantilism has made globalization extremely fragile, and as a consequence of that, over the next decade starting later this year, we're going to lose about 2-3 billion people over the next 5 or so years just to famine. World War III will be various countries going into a state of resource wars and trying to build hegemonies with the US having 10x the military strength of everyone else combined.

          • 1 week ago
            The Bobinator

            Ultimately the US is now in a place where increasingly radical leftist and conservative populism has taken root and the country is beginning to finally view foreigners as a bunch of neanderthal fuckwits with tons of historical baggage that should have never been allowed to industrialize as all that lead to is them going after the US's throat rather than focusing on civics development. The US is going to not only be disinterested in foreign affaris, but is also going to view involving it's military in conflicts to prevent certain countries, say China, from industrializing as necissary or to extract reparations from those countries for their fuckery. If that plays out, the US will end up doubling it's military expenditures from 5% of GDP to 10%. Brittan will lose it's financial center for good, Germany may yet be turned into energy-slaves to the US, China is likely to be told it's billions of bonds are useless and to have it's access to the wider oceans in trade for paying de-industrializing tarrifs to the US. We are at an odd point where 40 years of Anti-China Rhetoric has been met with 80% of the US population believing Covid-19 was a Chinese virus out of Wuhan and they are asking themselves why the fuck did we ever let china Industrialize? The bottom 25ths of society by income bracket is saying "See? Told you so!" and the middle 15th is going "Well shit" and the upper crust is drinking heavily hoping the masses don't come for them in the night.

            Countries will be encouraged of course to go through the pain of adopting a US-style constitution and as they pay the pain of going down that path and proove themselves they will turn from being a restricted country to an ally. But they have to put the control of their society squarely in the bottom workers and adopt things that mimic or look interesting to the US.

            • 1 week ago
              The Bobinator

              Throughout all of this the Fed has been an instrument of foreign capture and of the US Economy and of Mercantilism affecting mostly the bottom 25ths of society; the single mother families, traumatized kids, orphans, immigrants, and the like, preventing them from ever having any kind of capital formation or a reasonable shot at an education. The reason we have such high inflation right now is due to the fact the incumbent party wants to prevent an economic crash on their watch and play politics but their party has become the most onerous party in US History. To give you an idea, Biden's disapproval rating, nationally, when reasonably collected and calculated is lower than Southerner's view of Lincoln's prior to the civil war (which is a mistake we won't be making a 2nd time). Even the corporate press and their skewed methods of collecting polls can't paint lipstick on the pigs ass.

              We need a central bank to bind regional and local banks together. We will still have a fed in 10 or 20 years. But once the Populists are done with our current central banking system, it is going to look radically different based on the lessons learned over the past 100 years, and I expect the US to make good use of foreigner's capital. Over the past 30 or so years about 1.2Tyr of capital has flowed into the united states. In a 20T economy there's only about 10T of profit that might be reinvested into STEM, growth and infrastructure. Much of the gambit of foreign mercantilism has been to print up money and compete with domestic US Capital. If the garden gnomes don't intentionally crash the worlds economy out of spite, you will see the US set up a system to deliver maximum ROI to citizenry and minimum ROI to foreigners who as of current are desperate as hell to get their money out of their upside down demographically fucked hellholes before they go hardcore authoritarian socialist and take it all.

              So, I've typed enough for this evening. Hopefully you have all enjoyed it.

  39. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The fact that they're technically not part of the government but simultaneously also is is kinda concerning.

  40. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The federal reserve makes the money.
    It gives the money to the federal government.
    Who gives it to black rock.
    Who uses it to buy property.
    This raises the cost of rent and housing.
    The more dollars they print, the less each dollar is worth.
    They print a huge amount of dollars to give to blackrock and other friends of theirs.
    Now gas is 6 dollars a gallon and the price of captain crunch has doubled.
    They are blaming it on the Russians, unironically.
    This is why they are bad.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Who uses it to buy property
      And also corporate debt

  41. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The Fed is a legalized banking cartel. It legalized bank collusion in interest rate setting. They mandate rates to the market rather than letting the market set appropriate rates of interest of savings and loans. The Fed pushing trillions of dollars into the markets props up the investments of banks and those of similar ideology. The Fed also charges the country interest on new money printed via notes and bonds. Banks use money from the Fed imdirectly for speculation, and further set up markets to inevitably fail through centrally owned garbage financial instruments, from which only the banks profit. Through a myriad of methods they predominantly hurt the middle class and kick the poor while their down.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Through a myriad of methods they predominantly hurt the middle class and kick the poor while their down.
      Pure Wall Street propaganda. The Fed's loans push interest rates down, which benefits people with fewer assets (poor + middle class) and hurts the ultra-wealthy. The Fed represents a huge boon for lower-income people.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >interest rates down
        >prices way up
        >helps the poor

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Easy money fuels job creation and higher wages. This is econ 101 my friend. The drawback is, of course, inflation, which primarily hurts those with large amounts of stored wealth ( ie, the rich).

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >hurts them the most
            Sure, if you ignore the baseline where basic needs have to be met, or the problem of wealth accumulation being impossible without a surplus for the individual. Very wealthy individuals and firms can afford to lose millions and still be fine. Fuck 'em.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            This is simple bullshit. It shows the seeds for an inflationary or deflationary collapse. The people getting jobs will see everything they value, like homes further and further out of reach.

            We have seen cycle of cycle of boom and bust and the people get destroyed on the bust while the ultra rich get richer during the boom.

            It's been said before if that printed money was going into the hands of the working class first, corporstions, the politically powerful, and the government would declare war on the FED. There is a reason it's printed the way it is and who gets that money.

            Trying counterfitting in your basement. Tell them you are just trying to help the local economy by creating a bull market. See how they take it.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >Trying counterfitting in your basement. Tell them you are just trying to help the local economy by creating a bull market.
              Kek, actually pretty based

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >It shows the seeds for an inflationary or deflationary collapse
              Yes, if the money supply is drastically increased or decreased, it can cause something like this. Which is exactly why we need a responsible party to match money supply to demand, and not leave it up to some volatile commodity, or randos in their basement.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Which is exactly why we need a responsible party to match money supply to demand
                Literally advocating for communism

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                We need to not increase the money supply. Relatively speaking not at all. There is zero benefit in increasing the money supply. Goods and services should get cheaper every year as productivity increases.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >We need to not increase the money supply. Relatively speaking not at all. There is zero benefit in increasing the money supply.
                Inflation would, however, make it easier for our allies to pay off their debts...

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah see I don't give a fuck. They can spend less. You know it, I know it. Every dollar printed will defraud market participants that exact valuation over a period of time. The people getting fucked are anyone who produces honest labor. It's simply a process for those who do no work to steal from those that do.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Productive lending is non-inflationary.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Hang the grifters and set the money supply to increase at the same rate as population growth. Simple as

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              The vast majority of money is not printed. Most money is created when banks extend lines of credit. To complain about printing money obscures what banks actually do and the trick question of where credit comes from.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                How do you create money that doesn't exist???
                Dumb question. I'm an American and we have been printing money that doesn't exist since... what? Since we stopped using gold to back our currency?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                When a bank extends you a loan, there is no corresponding decrease in any of the banks accounts, not even at a ratio that the money multiplier of fractional reserve would imply. Richard Werner has done empirical studies on this.

                Most money in the economy exists in the form of loans which come into exist ex nihilo. They are created by a keystroke. The bank is betting that you or your investment is productive enough to pay them back. Government treasury minting currency is a small fraction of the money, in the form of credit, circulating in the economy. This is what banks have always done; this is what the charter of the Bank of London centuries ago says that banks do. Sometime around the 1930s we started lying about what it is banks actually do, and the nature of credit.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The main thing is that the amount of money in the system does not fluctuate a great deal. In any system there is a velocity of money. It's the rate at which money exchanges hands and individual subjective valuations for individual transactions establish market prices for goods.

                So if there is a shortage of wheat for instance then this will be reflected in a new valuation that will work it's way through the economy at money velocity. In short it takes time for physically changes in capital to price in. But it's important it does so that more money (capital) flow back into wheat production to encourage more wheat production and push prices back down. This is healthy.

                Now if you dump a shit ton of printed money into the system it takes a while for money velocity to price it in. What will eventually happen is an overall price increase to equilibrium with the previous relative price ratio. But before this happens it distorts and sends false signals. The entire economy thinks it has more capital than it does. Missallocation occurs in the market area where printed money is flowing. In the end once money velocity attempts to bring about equilibrium we have a market crash in those areas where printed money pushed priced too high and created overstimulation. This is why China has huge ghost cities. The FED tried to continusly print more money to keep feeding the system to stop the crash. This only makes missallocation more severe and the ultimate crash much greater. At some point prices rise generally and you risk hyperinflation and abandonment of the currency. Or you stop printing and let it crash. This is where we are now.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Productive investment is non-inflationary, non-productive investment (such as real estate bubbles, or NFTs) is inflationary. In an ideal world, we would have a lot of small banks with small loans that could go under, and people would be somewhat fucked but not egregiously. Instead, we've created a system of megabanks that can be easily paralyzed and then bailed out at public expense or the economy will no longer function, since they cannot lend.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Well before the FED they had bank runs. Which were just targeting dishonest banks expanding the money supply via fraud. These bankers should have been arrested and shot for fraud but at least bad banks were being liquidated. All the FED did was allow these banks to fraud even bigger with much greater consequences for the economy.

                It's important bad investments get revealed and liquidated quickly when they are smaller. Unviable buisiness models need to die quickly. That way we don't waste capital and man power on them. With the FED printing like it does companies like Twitter stay afloat despite economically being non viable. And since they are divorced from market consequences they are extremely political and abusive. In a real market Twitter wouldnt last a month like that.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Well before the FED they had bank runs.
                I agree. Bank runs are healthy in a system with lots of small banks.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Well before the FED they had bank runs. Which were just targeting dishonest banks expanding the money supply via fraud. These bankers should have been arrested and shot for fraud but at least bad banks were being liquidated. All the FED did was allow these banks to fraud even bigger with much greater consequences for the economy.

                It's important bad investments get revealed and liquidated quickly when they are smaller. Unviable buisiness models need to die quickly. That way we don't waste capital and man power on them. With the FED printing like it does companies like Twitter stay afloat despite economically being non viable. And since they are divorced from market consequences they are extremely political and abusive. In a real market Twitter wouldnt last a month like that.

                To elaborate, small banks lend to small businesses. However, they do need significant scrutiny in how they lend or else you end up with another Savings & Loans Crisis.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.vice.com/en/article/93a53v/china-covid-health-code-protest-henan

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Inflation works in a relative manner where the first recipients, generally through the primary debt market, get to spend it at the cost of you before they themselves are affected by that inflation. You also think nominal terms with no regards for a broader theoretical framework, so your understanding is rudimentary.
            >inflation, which primarily hurts those with large amounts of stored wealth ( ie, the rich).
            It inflates their assets they don't keep it in cash under a mattress. You're just trolling at this point.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The Fed is a legalized banking cartel. It legalized bank collusion in interest rate setting. They mandate rates to the market rather than letting the market set appropriate rates of interest of savings and loans. The Fed pushing trillions of dollars into the markets props up the investments of banks and those of similar ideology. The Fed also charges the country interest on new money printed via notes and bonds. Banks use money from the Fed imdirectly for speculation, and further set up markets to inevitably fail through centrally owned garbage financial instruments, from which only the banks profit. Through a myriad of methods they predominantly hurt the middle class and kick the poor while their down.

        No. Cleetus and Jamaael aren't getting a 3.9% business loan, they utilize 18.9% payday lenders and get their car repossessed. The don't bother to save because bank accounts pay 0.03% interest. Banks pay 0.03% interest because they receive like $400 billion each from the Fed. Meanwhile the banks pay their Execs $65 Million per year, and hold about 10% of all housing with specific market up to 35% share. Real people could be living in these houses, instead our country has Millions of homeless and hundreds of thousands of vacant homes. Banks are actively creating homelessness because it makes the trickle of homes they do sell more valuable; while they make double the money on MBS.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Banks will overcharge unreliable loans to be people like Cleetus with or without the Fed. Any rational lender is gonna do that with an unreliable investment.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            [...]

            No. Cleetus and Jamaael aren't getting a 3.9% business loan, they utilize 18.9% payday lenders and get their car repossessed. The don't bother to save because bank accounts pay 0.03% interest. Banks pay 0.03% interest because they receive like $400 billion each from the Fed. Meanwhile the banks pay their Execs $65 Million per year, and hold about 10% of all housing with specific market up to 35% share. Real people could be living in these houses, instead our country has Millions of homeless and hundreds of thousands of vacant homes. Banks are actively creating homelessness because it makes the trickle of homes they do sell more valuable; while they make double the money on MBS.

            Lazy take, low savings rates are an adverse incentive and you ignore that principle of my argument.

            By your own comment, the poor don't recognize any benefits of the Fed. Not saying poor people should get free shit, but the Fed is keeping them poor by devaluing their few moneys, punishing them for savings, and putting their tax dollars to pay interest on bank lending for deficit spending.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >By your own comment, the poor don't recognize any benefits of the Fed.
              Of course they benefit. If the bank gets money for .3% from the fed, it'll charge Cleetus, say, 10.3%. If the fed money supply doesn't exist, and it's forced to get money at e.g. 4%, it'll have to charge Cleetus 14% for the same profit. Cleetus sees his interest rate reduced, just not all the way down to zero.

              Not to mention, if Cleetus has any long-term debts (which he probably does), their value will decrease with inflation, again directly benefiting him.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              I'm not ((You))ing the bank golem again. issue number 1 of the Fed is the cartel prevents competion. Banks would have always taken on more risky loans for more money because the loan is secured with a physical asset. Banks wouldn't charge 14% for a home without the Fed, because to grow their business, competing banks would offer a lower rate. Joker shill acting like he doesn't understand the principles of a free market. We don't have a free market BECAUSE THE FED IS A CARTEL. The Fed is every conceivable downside of the banks, with power a d freedom to make markets for themselves and their narcissistic/ repatious friends

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          But you didn't think about how big numbers change more than small numbers when conditions change, nor did you ignore basic needs or the fact that wealth accumulation requires excess capital. Isn't it the rich who stand to lose the most when economic conditions are unfavorable? Won't somebody please think of the 1% and their suffering?

  42. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >It exists because if it didn't exist, we would actually have 'free money' and the value of the dollar would collapse.
    Only if more money is continously created, which wouldn't be happening if the fed wasn't abusing its power. Also wouldn't happen if it's backed by a commodity.
    >Taken as a whole the fed doesn't create money for interest, it is PAID money for interest.
    It is paid with money that it creates.
    >the interest on fed loans is a kind of sponge that prevents excess money supply and limits inflation.
    This effect is dwarfed by the increase in inflation from the introduction of more money to feed the cycle.

    >The value of the dollar has been much more steady since 1971 than before it.
    Lol

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Only if more money is continously created, which wouldn't be happening if the fed wasn't abusing its power.
      It's a mathematical function, it always HAS to go up. Like we just printed like 13 trillion, and a few years ago it was only a quarter of that. Nothing is real.
      >when we had the "coin shortage", that was our financial sector melting down secretly

  43. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    No one ever reads The Creature From Jekyll Island. Just the end of chapter summaries alone will break your mind.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      That book glows, it runs cover for the garden gnome.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It was one of the first books I ever read when I got into the truth movement. You can read that book alone without reading anything else and be redpilled on garden gnomes and the garden gnomenited states. After reading that book you will understand that America is a proxy of the old nobility. (The hidden hand etc)

  44. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The owners of the Fed print money to give to themselves and their friends. To hedge inflation, it then steals massive amounts of money from the public in various forms of taxation. It is simply a wealth redistribution scheme where money is stolen from the public, and while being created out of thin air for the masters.

  45. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It's keeping postponing the death of capitalism

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It has nothing to do with capitalism. It's socialism for the state and ultra rich.its perverse, dishonest, and is always seen is corrupt centralized systems like communism and socialism.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        you're a retard. You have no idea what socialism is. The job of the government is to keep the rich people rich and the poor people poor. the federal reserve regulates markets slightly.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >flag

      You literally just want to formalize the Servile state instead of obscuring it with liberal pilpul like we do now. Why would anyone take you seriously in a conversation like this?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It has nothing to do with capitalism. It's socialism for the state and ultra rich.its perverse, dishonest, and is always seen is corrupt centralized systems like communism and socialism.

      >You don't understand socialism!!!
      You are not nearly as smart as you think, and your shitty ideology is even more transparent than you are. A unctioning economy needs the free market to exist. If the state is the only authority defining value, the entire system immediately becomes a tool for the benefit of those in power. Get the fuck out of this thread and go back to your discord echo chamber.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >needs the free market to exist
        Our government has mandated that we must accept fiat dollars, that is not a free market and historically is a sign of shenanigans. FDIC and SEC and other regulatory "controls" are also actually weapons.

  46. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Private banks own it. It does not get audited.

    Private banks owned by 1% of the 1%.

  47. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Oh, and you are born a debtor into this system.

  48. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Usury

  49. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Explain to me why the Federal Reserve is bad in simple words.
    There was no income tax until the Fed was created, and income tax was implemented to pay for the interest due by their schemes.

  50. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Check purchase power of the $ since 1913 when the Fed Reserve started. There’s your answer

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The government should mint its own currency. Having the Federal Reserve enriches garden gnomes at everyone else's expense. Further the Fed Chair outright lies constantly and the fake "mystery" of the economic effect of Fed policy is nothing but pilpol to hide the reality that there is no upright justification for the system.

      The federal reserve makes the money.
      It gives the money to the federal government.
      Who gives it to black rock.
      Who uses it to buy property.
      This raises the cost of rent and housing.
      The more dollars they print, the less each dollar is worth.
      They print a huge amount of dollars to give to blackrock and other friends of theirs.
      Now gas is 6 dollars a gallon and the price of captain crunch has doubled.
      They are blaming it on the Russians, unironically.
      This is why they are bad.

      The 12 federal reserve banks are private banks. The private banks are contracted to print money for the United States out of thin air that they loan back to the United States gov at interest, only to then be backed by DEBT.

      Truly raped and pillaged.

      blessed

  51. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Explain to me why the Federal Reserve is bad in simple words.
    Money done did finna be root of all evil. (Insert more bix nood here)
    U no trust beeg gubmint! Gubmint bad! Police bad! Laws bad! We want do what ebba weez wants!
    Is that simple enough for you? I tried to imitate African-American Vernacular English as well as I could...

  52. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Because it pretends that it engages in fractional reserve banking, to justify austerity and interest rate hikes that fuck over the ordinary American, while actually engaging in credit creation to enrich the financial class.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Would like a century of 0% or negative rates just to be completely divorced from economic reality?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        That chart literally shows the opposite of what you are saying.
        Unless you fucked up and forgot to add labels to it KEK KEK KEK

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          You don't know what I'm saying anymore than you know how money is created.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't know what I'm saying anymore than you know how money is created.
            I know it is made out of thin air and used as a means to barter goods
            I learned that from Karl Marx's Das Kapital
            Death to capitalism!!

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          You need to lay off Adderal I think bro

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The overall arc of the Fed is to crush the small banks which lend to small businesses into a more easily wrangled set of a half-dozen megabanks.

        Good central banks would be the 50s-70s Bank of Japan (and the Asian Tigers which followed its blueprint) and Federal German central bank. Germany has a robust set of world-class small businesses which form the backbone of its economy, which exist because Germany has many more small banks willing to finance them.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Also Sweden I think has a bank that does no interest loaning.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Low interest rates are actually bad for small banks.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Fuck your concern for the bank, I care about the community garden gnome.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Then you're a retard. The death of the community bank in America is a proximate cause to why small-town hardware stores and corner stores have been replaced by national chains like Home Depot and Dollar General.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                When Jackson kled the second US Bank, he did it by secretly removing all gov funds and putting them in smaller regional banks for this very reason. And was called a traitor giving his friends government funds.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Good central banks would be the 50s-70s Bank of Japan
          under the bretton woods systems where it was keeping exchange rate stability by coordinating with the FED by inflating the yen and bringing about recession after recession. You don't see larger context. You don't see what it all leads up to. It's like someone saying "well central banking worked during the boom periods like in the 90s." I don't think you understand the fundamental problem with central banking you just a have small business fetish you have a need to celebrate.

  53. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    [deleted post]

    You need a central bank. However, small businesses need small banks. Large banks don't like lending to small businesses. Fed policy over the last century has been to systematically crush small banks and consolidate them into a consortium of a handful of large banks.

  54. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Depegged us from the gold standard so they can peg us in the ass.

  55. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    And during covid, the Fed lowered the reserve limits on our banks to basically zero, so essentially they are also creating $9 in loans for every $1 in real sitting deposits as an example. Bank run incoming!

  56. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    fake money

  57. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Fake money printed out if thin air that people blindly put their faith in as real currency.

  58. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    garden gnomes print money out of thin air to buy up the country's assets.

  59. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >I am the federal reserve and I control the money supply. the money supply is currently 5 dollars in total. I loan 2.50 to one person, and 2.50 to another person. Both people have to pay me back 2.50 plus 10 cents of interest! Both think this is reasonable and fair. Person A. works hard and gets 3$, he pays back 2.50, plus the interest, and keeps the profit. But oh no, Person B could only make 2$, and no matter how hard he tries he cant find another 50cents to pay back the loan or the 10 cents for the interest because it doesnt exist. Gosh golly gee, now I get to take his real property as payment for the loan he literally couldnt ever pay back because the money he owed me doesnt exist because i never let it exist since i control the money supply:^)

    it's the oldest swindle in the book, and it's why you don't let a private bank control your money supply. The amount of money in circulation is not capable of paying back the debt within the system, its a mathmatical impossiblity. In this manner, bankers exchange non-existent wealth for physical assets, such as grandma's house or the family' farm. The person taking out the loan is none the wiser and everyone who successfully pays back their loan simply assumes the person who failed to pay was irresponsible or incompetent. In this manner banking institutions passively accumulate wealth and power while sitting around doing nothing. They are a parasite on the system.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Your example has nothing to do with the fed except insofar it has to do with loans in general. It seems you want to abolish banking altogether.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >It seems you want to abolish banking altogether.
        That's a good idea.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >oey gevault he wants to abolish de banks, dis antisemetism will not stand!

        lol lmao.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        It has everything to do with the fed and fiat. If we could turn a fiat dollar in and get a silver coin for it, cool. Once fiat went into use all other previous dollars ceased to exist, only the new out-of-nowhere vapor money. If you want to pay your loan off, you inherently have to borrow a little more than last time to pay the old debt off.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        No he is correct. If you dump an extra million dollars into an economy and print no more and that money is a loan the person taking the loan can never repay it. Because that money will distribute into the economy pushing up prices for things that investor needs to acquire. You make a business plan and you calculate costs against current prices. Your money is inflationary. You will have competition for the things you need to buy. Costs will be too great and you will bankrupt.

        The ultimate problem is that price equilibrium must always be reached and it's relative. Like: a car is worth 1/4 a house, a doctor worth 2 salesmen, a shirt worth 1/2 a shoe and so on. If capital structures are not altered these ratios always remain the same. So your one million will be distributed pushing up prices but ultimately returning to the natural ratio. The distortions that the one million causes will wreck people temporarily. Say you compete against a farmer for hay, now he pays more and so do you. He does without something else instead.

        But what is certain is existing capital will not be sufficient. The only way the FED keeps thus from collapsing is continually pumping money into the system never allowing market price discovery to take place. It creates massive capital missallocations and buds up prices constantly with people having less than they should have as a result. The minute you stop printing it all collapses.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          This is why that bitch Yellen keeps yelling about wage spirals upwards. They fear wage equilibrium.

  60. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I don't understand how it works and anything that I don't understand is bad. If you disagree with me, it's because you're a chump and you're being taken for a fucking ride. You may think I'm being ironic, but I'm dead serious.

  61. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    They print money (inflate it) and then give away the profit of that printing to banks (garden gnomes). You get nothing and lose everything. Your money used to be tied to the value of gold in united state reserves, but that doesn't apply anymore since now the federal reserve (garden gnomes) can just print it.

  62. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Usura contra naturam.

  63. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    First thing Napoleon's people would do against a country he was gonna invade was flood it with fake currency. Inflation, starvation, all kinds of societal upheaval would occur, sometimes he'd arrive a welcome hero and not a conqueror. Control of the money supply is pure power.

  64. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Can you provide a rationale for why we should use the out-of-date calculation method which had a tendency to double count items?
    If anyone is interested as to why the way inflation is calculated keeps changing it's to lessen cost of living adjustment increases to social security recipients. It's not the only reason but it's one of the main ones keeping boomer ponzi from becoming completely insolvent.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      That doesn't make any sense. Social security and other welfare funds are primarily funded as unfunded liabilities. The amount "paid" in is not actually used, these funds are funded with debt. To say these funds can't pay out because of inflation would be like saying the government can't take on debt when it easily can. Heck, why risk lowering payments and risk constituencies getting angry at the fund not properly tracking inflation when you could just cut a few frivolous programs and direct the funds back, etc?

      It just doesn't make sense.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/8/social-securitys-unfunded-obligations-getting-wors/

        100-200 trillion in unfunded liabilities based on what is being included.

        >these funds are funded with debt
        DUDE MORE INFLATION WITH INFLATION AT 40 YEAR HIGHS AND AUSTERITY LMAO!

        >you could just cut a few frivolous programs and direct the funds back
        nice accounting

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          So, you just agreed with everything I said. No inflation index was ever corruptly manipulated to lower social security and other welfare system payments. And honestly, that is the stupidest god damn argument ever because the people who receive such payments are major constituents and have strong representation and reach in law and the community as a whole. Trying to swindle this group in such a profoundly obvious way would be political suicide.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            No I did not n-word leaf.

            https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/05/23/the-cpi-revisited-and-its-failure-to-reflect-true-inflation/

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Is that really your source? It looks like some high school kid with barely any tech literacy made it. That is not a serious source for talking about CPI analytics.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Run run away leaf before I catch and rape your asshole with this 40 year economist

                https://www.thecarsonreport.com/post/missing-prices-half-of-the-cpi-is-based-on-imputed-prices

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Some literally who on a shit website talks about not much, with no citations, doesn't even provide any studies for rigorous analytics. Honestly, you are embarrassing.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                projection

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >I have spent over 40 years researching in the field of economics, focusing mainly on financial markets and policy analysis. For 16 years I served as the Chief Economist & Director of Global Economic Research for Alliance Bernstein, an investment management firm, where I was responsible for economic and interesting rate forecasting, while also being a member of investment policy committees in fixed income and the equity divisions. Prior to that, I held Chief Economist positions on the sell side of Wall Street - Chemical Bank (which is now part of JP Morgan), Dean Witter (now part of Morgan Stanley), Deutsche Bank, and UBS. I started my professional career as a staff economist at the Department of Commerce, and later worked as an industry analyst at the General Motors Corporation.
                Given my experience on the buy and sell-sides of Wall Street, government, and private industry, I have a unique background to offer my opinion and analysis on a wide range of topics involving the economy, markets and public policy. I have decided to share my research and opinion on this blog; please feel free to contact me if you want to discuss any of my research discussed on this platform
                You are a literal who compared to him

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                A literally who. There are many thousands of people with his credentials which do NOT say what he says. but most importantly your article is shit, it provides no rigorous studies or citations to an independent researchers.

                Plenty of people with credentials like him have made terrible mistakes. Hell, the Fed board members have his credentials, that's seven against one, so why does his opinion matter?

                > You are a literal who compared to him

                Warren Buffet has almost no credentials compared to him and yet understand the economy and investing far far better than him. What now, homosexual? Just provide actual studies.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Eat my poopy

                https://www.jstor.org/stable/1813353

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Limited access, old as fuck writing, no indication of data analysis. What is a reasonable person supposed to take from this?

                From the same author, she states that the Fed actually did a decent job.

                "Given that the time period is short, it is hard
                to test statistically whether the Federal Reserve of the 1950’s was blessed with good sense or good luck."

                She admits further on that studying the Fed is very difficult since the Fed does not operate in a vacuum. You may also notice that the bulk of her work she does to analyze the Fed is narrative driven... the least empirical method of analysis.

                https://eml.berkeley.edu//~dromer/papers/aer_v92.pdf

                Here's her wiki, she is not, at all, against the Fed, her over all literature largely supports the Fed.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Romer

                > In before muh wikipederino

                I don't care, just look at the references and independently verify, she was your source and it's definitely not panning out.

                Hell, the Fed itself is more harsh on itself than she is when they analyze their own actions because they view each recession as a learning experience. I remember reading an article from a board member where they stated that the Fed in the past was the principle cause of the Great Depression because they raised rates too fast. Of course they weren't the cause of the length or depth of the crash, just the initiation. The length and depth was caused by things such as the international trade wars sparked by the Smoot-Hawley Act.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You're doing everything in your power to not bad mouth the fed. Post nose. But if you want to do this all night by all means

                https://www.fte.org/wp-content/uploads/WhiteSelginLastrapesFed1.pdf

                >Limited access
                yeah get filtered pleb bitch no access to scholarly journals for you.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The conclusion of your linked study cracks me up:
                > The Fed failed to follow its mandate
                > But recent research shows it didn't fail

                Well, which is it, n-words?

                This is a study that barely goes into analytical detail, completely ignores economic confounded and even uses confounders as "proof" the Fed failed.

                Like they say the Fed failed to keep inflation down in the 1970's... what the fuck was the Fed supposed to do? The 1970's inflation was being caused by Saudi Arabia price gouging the USA. How the fuck is that the Fed's fault. They keep doing that shit over and over.

                This study is such a lame piece of crap. It would be like someone saying a stock is bad because sometimes it goes down.

                The main point of the study wasn't even to do rigorous study, its main point was to theorise alternatives.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Available research does not support the view that the Federal Reserve System has lived up to its original promise. Early in
                its career, it presided over both the most severe inflation and the most severe (demand-induced) deflations in post-Civil War
                US history. Since then, it has tended to err on the side of inflation, allowing the purchasing power of the US dollar to deteriorate considerably. That deterioration has not been compensated for, to any substantial degree, by enhanced stability of
                real output. Although some early studies suggested otherwise, recent work suggests that there has been no substantial overall improvement in the volatility of real output since the end of World War II compared to before World War I. Although a
                genuine improvement did occur during the sub-period known as the ‘‘Great Moderation,’’ that improvement, besides having
                been temporary, appears to have been due mainly to factors other than improved monetary policy. Finally, the Fed cannot be
                credited with having reduced the frequency of banking panics or with having wielded its last-resort lending powers responsibly. In short, the Federal Reserve System, as presently constituted, is no more worthy of being regarded as the last word in
                monetary management than the National Currency System it replaced almost a century ago.
                >The Fed’s record suggests that its problems go well beyond those of having lacked good administrators, and that the only
                real hope for a better monetary system lies in regime change. What sort of change is a question beyond the scope of this
                paper, which has only indicated some possibilities. We hope that it will also encourage further research exploring those
                alternatives’ capacity to contribute to a genuinely improved monetary system.
                Lie more please

                >This is a study that barely goes into analytical detail
                In other words it doesn't suck off the fed so it's not analytical please do not pay attention to the analysis of the visual data either

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You can quote as much as you want, they don't actually back up their research with empirical data and blame the Fed for inflation not even caused by the Fed. It's absurd.

                Again, how is it the Fed's fault that Saudi Arabia price gouged the USA?

                You can hate the Fed as much as you like, but at least do it with empirically supported data and logic. Way too many poor quality studies get pumped out, you have to be mindful or you're no better than the rubes that believe the stock "tips" peddled by Jim Cramer.

                > In other words it doesn't suck off the fed so it's not analytical please do not pay attention to the analysis of the visual data either

                It has to be good data that actually factors for confounding variables. They even use Saudi Arabia price gouging as proof that the Fed can't control inflation.

                The Fed's not a God, it's role works best within normal economic operation. After every recession, unemployment goes down, prices and interest rates stabilise. These things get out of wack when a crisis happens and a new recession starts which causes the Fed to react.

                They shit on the Fed for causing 1970's inflation (which they didn't, the Saudi's did) but ignore the deflationary actions of Paul Volcker who managed to restore the economy.

                This study is crap.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >what the fed was supposed to do
                I'M GETTING THIS FROM THE THE FED SITE THAT MENTION VOLCKER GETTING INFLATION UNDER CONTROL WHICH YOU JUST ADMITTED. WHY ARE YOU SHIT TALKING THIS WHEN YOU LINK THE FED TO DEFINE THE FED. Please fire this glowie

                https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2012/10/01/the-great-inflation-a-historical-overview-and-lessons-learned/

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                "Certain economists attribute the Great Inflation primarily to monetary policy mistakes rather than other purported causes, such as high oil prices and defense spending during the Vietnam War. In the 1960s, Fed officials—and prominent economists—generally believed expansionary monetary policy could propel the economy toward full employment. In other words, they believed that elevated levels of inflation brought about by expansionary monetary policy would be tolerable as long as the policy spurred economic growth and brought unemployment down to its natural rate. Underlying this policy was the Phillips curve, which suggests that a trade-off exists between inflation and unemployment. Because some policymakers believed unemployment was above its natural rate at that time, they were more inclined to allow inflation to rise and move the economy toward its potential output. However, the natural rate was often underestimated: Economist Athanasios Orphanides (2002) found that the Fed may have overcommitted to its expansionary monetary policy stance because it was constantly aiming for—but never able to achieve—an "optimal" 4 percent unemployment rate."

                Inflation was allowed to rise, at this same time an oil gouging was happening. They thought unemployment could be brought down (part of their mandate) and helped expand the economy but it translated to additional (in addition to oil crisis) prices. This later caused Volcker to step in.

                If you look at FRED data you will see that inflation always starts BEFORE the Fed lowers rates. The Fed is a largely reactionary institution.

                And like I said already, the Fed learns from past recessions. The Fed is not actually designed to react to extreme scenarios.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                > Ultimately, however, monetary policy bears responsibility for the broad contour of what happened to actual and expected inflation during this period because the Federal Reserve was insufficiently focused on returning inflation to a predictable, low level following the shocks to food and energy prices and other disturbances.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You're done. You're finished leaf. It doesn't get anymore conclusive than this. Go perform your mandatory rimming duty of Trudeau

                You're not an arbiter of anything, Ancapistan flag.

                Your own sources mention oil and what not, and your sources can't properly factor out energy anyways, so it's a bit of silly statement to make. It makes sense on a purely CPI measure, but not when you consider the factor inputs.

                It's like saying "We stopped counting the prices of units of energy, but not the additional cost of things that must rise due to energy prices."

                Pic related. The Fed tries to track inflation by raise rates, notice how the inflation goes up as they raise rates, almost as if a broader economic event is happening outside of the Fed's control until the Fed finally realises and steps on the breaks much harder. the Fed is a reactionary institution and have learned (hopefully) how to counter oil price gouging and what not.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >While economists debate the relative importance of the factors that motivated and perpetuated inflation for more than a decade, there is little debate about its source. The origins of the Great Inflation were policies that allowed for an excessive growth in the supply of money—Federal Reserve policies.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Then why did raising rates not stop inflation in its tracks? Clearly there is a broader factor at play.

                Also, if this link is your source
                https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm

                You do understand this is Janet Yellen right? She was ousted very fast. And for good reason honestly, she has shown, on multiple occasions to have sub par economic literacy. Like I said before though, I don't care about credentials, if your sources can't explain the data then something is missing.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You're done. You're finished leaf. It doesn't get anymore conclusive than this. Go perform your mandatory rimming duty of Trudeau

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Like they say the Fed failed to keep inflation down in the 1970's... what the fuck was the Fed supposed to do? The 1970's inflation was being caused by Saudi Arabia price gouging the USA. How the fuck is that the Fed's fault. They keep doing that shit over and over.
                Holy shit what a little weasel leaf you are

                https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/1970s-great-inflation.asp

                >It's the 1970s. The stock market is a mess. It has lost nearly 50% of its value over a 20-month period. For close to a decade few people want anything to do with stocks.1 Economic growth is weak, which results in rising unemployment that eventually reaches double digits.
                >The easy money policies of the American central bank were meant to generate full employment by the early 1970s. Unfortunately, they also resulted in high inflation.45

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Your article tries to hand wave away oil prices but oil prices were a major factor, it wasn't until about 1981 where Paul Volcker stepped in and raised rates to stop it.

                Even on Wikipedia, the very first listed cause "oil crisis."

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%931975_recession

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >The Federal Reserve has not always been successful in fulfilling the price stability element of its mandate. The dashed red line in figure 1 plots the four-quarter percent change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures (PCE)--the measure of inflation that the Fed's policymaking body, the Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC, uses to define its longer-run inflation goal.1 Starting in the mid-1960s, inflation began to move higher. Large jumps in food and energy prices played a role in this upward move, but they were not the whole story, for, as illustrated here, inflation was already moving up before the food and energy shocks hit in the 1970s and the early 1980s.2 And if we look at core inflation, the solid black line, which excludes food and energy prices, we see that it too starts to move higher in the mid-1960s and rises to very elevated levels during the 1970s, which strongly suggests that something more than the energy and food price shocks must have been at work
                You're an absolute fag who disagrees with the fed's own findings. You're disagreeing with an article full of official fed citation and BLS you absolute garbage shill.

                https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm

                >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%931975_recession
                Fuck off idiot with you HUUUUR YOU NO ANALYSIS and you give me Wikipedia instead.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Status quo shill
                >Credentialism

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I don't care about credentials, but I do like rigorous analytical sources from independent studies. I hold everyone to the same standards of research as I do when I buy a stock. If you can't provide some studies then I'm not buying your snake oil.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Mate credentialism is gay as fuck unless you're doing it to troll. Since you're clearly not and you genuinely hold the absolute and most pure mainstream opinions about finance, you should be gassed.

  65. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    All the downsides of a national bank, none of the good sides

  66. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    [deleted post]

    What do you think.

  67. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Inflation.

  68. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    known to public and unknown to public members. banks and institutions control global money policy. these banks collaborate with insider info. infinite liquidity is the goal. self regulatory organization (SRO). private company. federal reserve's pet: Boston Consulting Group (BCG) for nearly everything. this same company is hired all over the world and they influence politics, school systems, economy. banks own the whole system and they steer it. but keep voting goy im sure the DNC+RNC really decide by vote count!

  69. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    how do i explain a complicated subject in simple words

  70. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
  71. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The government should mint its own currency. Having the Federal Reserve enriches garden gnomes at everyone else's expense. Further the Fed Chair outright lies constantly and the fake "mystery" of the economic effect of Fed policy is nothing but pilpol to hide the reality that there is no upright justification for the system.

  72. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It's a private entity that has more power than your actual government to determine your country's economic policy. Private entities only care about filling their pockets and they cannot be held accountable in any realistic way.

  73. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    when they add dollars to the system they dont multiply everyones account by the same multiplier. They give money to insitutions. This lowers the value of what you have worked for. So in order to combat this you must leverage debt at all times so you can benefit from the money printing but this erodes your autonomy and causes you to work for them.

    im not sure but this is close.

  74. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Research by Christina Romer, who served as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama, shows that increased stability in the post-World War II period is merely “a figment of the data” and that “traditional estimates of prewar GNP exaggerate the size of cycles.” She also finds that postwar employment stability “is an artifact of improvements in data collection procedure.”

    >A number of studies have built on Romer’s research. Joseph Davis finds that the Fed has not reduced the frequency or duration of industrial fluctuations. George Selgin, William Lastrapes, and Lawrence White conclude that the Fed has failed to achieve its stated goals of reducing monetary and financial instability. In my own research, I find that economic volatility did not improve under the Fed until the Great Moderation of the 1980s, while rates of economic growth and price inflation were both better on the pre-Fed gold standard.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      > No citation.
      > A number of studies (unnamed)

  75. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It works for profit, meaning every dollar they print have to be payed back to them with interest, paid with additional dollars they must print, that they demand interest on, that must be paid with… additional dollars they print.

    It’s a fucking debt well that can only grow deeper, it will eventually re-posses all property in the states as collateral and leave people with owning nothing. Being happy about is optional.

  76. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    They launder all of the money for every criminal cartel on the planet

  77. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Fed officials—and prominent economists—generally believed expansionary monetary policy could propel the economy toward full employment. In other words, they believed that elevated levels of inflation brought about by expansionary monetary policy would be tolerable as long as the policy spurred economic growth and brought unemployment down to its natural rate. Underlying this policy was the Phillips curve, which suggests that a trade-off exists between inflation and unemployment. Because some policymakers believed unemployment was above its natural rate at that time, they were more inclined to allow inflation to rise and move the economy toward its potential output. However, the natural rate was often underestimated: Economist Athanasios Orphanides (2002) found that the Fed may have overcommitted to its expansionary monetary policy stance because it was constantly aiming for—but never able to achieve—an "optimal" 4 percent unemployment rate.
    >Phillip's curve
    They fucking admit it was them and the justified under the same justification they always use. Die glowie die.

  78. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The 12 federal reserve banks are private banks. The private banks are contracted to print money for the United States out of thin air that they loan back to the United States gov at interest, only to then be backed by DEBT.

    Truly raped and pillaged.

  79. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It enslaves the population via a currency they have zero levers of control over, that is backed by nothing more than debt on itself and the threat of violence for non-compliance.
    Their goal is locking the population in an eternal treadmill where they are convinced that debt is value.
    This is exported globally.
    In service of the US Corporation, a wholly seperate entity from the United States of America, that uses tacit association to exact its own furthering.
    It is colloquially named "The Beast", Novus Ordo Seclorum.

  80. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >But the Volcker Fed continued to press the fight against high inflation with a combination of higher interest rates and even SLOWER RESERVE GROWTH. The economy entered recession again in July 1981, and this proved to be more severe and protracted, lasting until November 1982. Unemployment peaked at nearly 11 percent, but inflation continued to move lower and by recession’s end, year-over-year inflation was back under 5 percent. In time, as the Fed’s commitment to low inflation gained credibility, unemployment retreated and the economy entered a period of sustained growth and stability. The Great Inflation was over.
    >By this time, macroeconomic theory had undergone a transformation, in large part informed by the economic lessons of the era. The important role public expectations play in the interplay between economic policy and economic performance became de rigueur in macroeconomic models. The importance of time-consistent policy choices—policies that do not sacrifice longer-term prosperity for short-term gains—and policy credibility became widely appreciated as necessary for good macroeconomic results.
    The fucking FED disagrees with you. Janet Yellen disagrees with you. It's time to retire.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Don't care about Janet Yellen, she's a fool.

      And the Fed didn't even disagree with me, the whole block of text you just quoted just says what Paul Volcker did to lower inflation. You can't find a source that doesn't credit the impact of the oil crisis and you can't find a source that properly factors out energy (not just removing energy from the CPI, you have to factor out the entire input of energy costs to all other items in the CPI).

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Just for reference, by the way, the oil embargo started around 1973, it caused inflation in multiple countries, not just the USA. The Fed raised rates in anticipation and raised it even further to keep track. But they couldn't kill and it caused stagflation. Paul Volcker stepped in and aggressively jacked rates which killed inflation in 1980's. After this the US created the Strategic Oil Reserve. It would certainly look weird to create this highly expensive reserve if oil wasn't a major factor, would it not?

      Again, look at the data

      [...]

      You're not an arbiter of anything, Ancapistan flag.

      Your own sources mention oil and what not, and your sources can't properly factor out energy anyways, so it's a bit of silly statement to make. It makes sense on a purely CPI measure, but not when you consider the factor inputs.

      It's like saying "We stopped counting the prices of units of energy, but not the additional cost of things that must rise due to energy prices."

      Pic related. The Fed tries to track inflation by raise rates, notice how the inflation goes up as they raise rates, almost as if a broader economic event is happening outside of the Fed's control until the Fed finally realises and steps on the breaks much harder. the Fed is a reactionary institution and have learned (hopefully) how to counter oil price gouging and what not.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >it caused inflation in multiple countries
        Bretton Woods inflationary coordination

  81. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/25483469
    >An influential paper by Clarida, Galí, and Gertler (2000) has attributed the great inflation of the 1970s to the violation of the Taylor principle in the conduct of U.S. monetary policy (weak, indeterminacy inducing response to expected inflation).

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      > Muh models
      > too weak of a reaction to expected inflation

      I.e. you study points out how inflation was already happening and the Fed reacted to it too weakly. The Fed didn't actually cause it. The early 1970's inflation had well over a dozen major causes. The much larger 1970's inflation was oil.

  82. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >MUH OIL MUH SUPPLY SHOCKS
    During WWII, the world's industrial nations agreed to create a global monetary system and hoped to create further economic stability and global trade. Forty four nations sat down at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire on July 1944 and agreed on the system that linked gold to the dollar. After nearly 20 years, the system began to backfire, many nations began pursuing monetary policies that provided a more favorable outcome. Along with that the US faced another problem, as global trade grew, the demand for US dollar reserves grew as well. Eventually, the supply of dollar reserves exceeded the United State's stock of gold and it meant the US could not maintain complete conversions. As inflation grew higher the value of the dollar lowered and in the summer of 1971, Nixon halted the exchange of dollar for gold and for the next two years there were several attempts to fix the system that caused a serious economic problem.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >it caused inflation in multiple countries
      Bretton Woods inflationary coordination

      Oh, look, not the Fed's fault. And inflation was caused by increased trade, another of the dozen or so causes of inflation in the early 1970's.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The Federal Reserve shifted its stance in the mid-1960s away from monetary orthodoxy in response to the growing influence of Keynesian economics in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, with its emphasis on the primary objective of full employment and the belief that the Fed could manage the Phillips Curve trade-off between inflation and unemployment (Meltzer 2010).

        Increasing US monetary growth led to rising inflation, which spread to the rest of the world through growing US balance of payments deficits. This led to growing balance of payments surpluses in Germany and other countries. The German monetary authorities (and other surplus countries) attempted to sterilise the inflows but were eventually unsuccessful, leading to growing inflationary pressure (Darby et al. 1983).

        After the devaluation of sterling in November 1967, pressure mounted against the dollar via the London gold market. In the face of this pressure, the Gold Pool was disbanded on 17 March 1968 and a two-tier arrangement put in its place. In the following three years, the US put considerable pressure on other monetary authorities to refrain from converting their dollars into gold.

        The decision to suspend gold convertibility by President Richard Nixon on 15 August 1971 was triggered by French and British intentions to convert dollars into gold in early August. The US decision to suspend gold convertibility ended a key aspect of the Bretton Woods system. The remaining part of the System, the adjustable peg disappeared by March 1973.

        A key reason for Bretton Woods’ collapse was the inflationary monetary policy that was inappropriate for the key currency country of the system. The Bretton Woods system was based on rules, the most important of which was to follow monetary and fiscal policies consistent with the official peg. The US violated this rule after 1965 (Bordo 1993).

        You're dumb

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          The Fed is not in control of the gold standard. The means of monetary expansion conducted during the gold standard, shortly before 1971 took the form of the government redefining gold certification. The Treasury would buy gold from international markets and print new money certificates, etc.

          Explain, please, how in the world the Fed is the cause of this when the Fed only started using fiat in 1973.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Looknat this guy he just can't bring himself to crticize the fed he even through the fed people under ths bus.

  83. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Unlike hex.com, only the federal reserve can print inflation and behind closed doors they give that to themselves and their friends, whilst we all get diluted. Whereas hex.com allows everyone to print their own inflation in a transparent way on the blockchain for everone to see and verify.

  84. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Lets do this:

    Explain to me what's Federal about the Federal Reserve?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The Federal Reserve Act.

  85. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    As explained above, foreign central banks had to monetize these inflows and allow inflation in order to maintain the fixed peg with the dollar (to prevent appreciation of the foreign exchange value of their currencies). Theindustrialized countries of the G-10 negotiated at the Smithsonianin Washington, DC, in December 1971. In return for eliminating the surcharge the United States had imposed on imports, other countries agreed to an effective devaluation of the dollar of about 10 percent. However, the Fed undermined the effect of the devaluation by continuing to lower interest rates in pursuit of the domestic policy objective of full employment. Instead of the anticipated return flow of dollars to the United States, dollars continued to flow out and foreign central banks had to continue monetizing the dollars presented to them.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly, before 1973 it's a bit of a stretch to say this is entirely the Fed. There's clearly trade pressures involved as well and clear gold certificate manipulation by the Treasury. Furthermore, your description of money flowing OUT of the US should cause deflation, not inflation.

      And again, you shitty study also says the Fed was at fault for the inflation that happened after 1975 as well, which was caused by the Saudi's.

      https://www.fte.org/wp-content/uploads/WhiteSelginLastrapesFed1.pdf

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      With a dollar standard, the price levels of the other countries in the Bretton Woods system had to move in line with the price level in the United States. Given the overall expansionary and inflationary monetary policy in the United States that started in 1964, foreign countries had to inflate along with the United States. Apart from France, the United States successfully pressured other countries not to present dollars to the US Treasury for payment in gold. Other countries then held on to the dollars they accumulated from US payments deficits. When presented to the central banks of those countries for their own currency, those dollars pushed up their bank reserves and money stock. Inflation in these countries then increased along with US inflation.

      I don't know what to say, that is a messed up system that doesn't even remotely resemble the fiat Federal Reserve system that we are talking about. The gold standard is gone.

  86. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    With a dollar standard, the price levels of the other countries in the Bretton Woods system had to move in line with the price level in the United States. Given the overall expansionary and inflationary monetary policy in the United States that started in 1964, foreign countries had to inflate along with the United States. Apart from France, the United States successfully pressured other countries not to present dollars to the US Treasury for payment in gold. Other countries then held on to the dollars they accumulated from US payments deficits. When presented to the central banks of those countries for their own currency, those dollars pushed up their bank reserves and money stock. Inflation in these countries then increased along with US inflation.

Your email address will not be published.