Talk:Federal Reserve/Archive1

The Fed haters don't seem to understand their own propaganda.
They throw out some arbitrary figure about how much "value" the dollar has lost since the start of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, like "97 percent." I guess that means if you had a time machine and could travel back to 1912, you could go into a Best Buy and purchase an iPad for one $20 gold coin and get change in return.

But more to the point, the claim implies that the dollar has already "collapsed." What happened to the economic devastation that should have caused? Advancedatheist (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, depends on what "collapsed" means. If it's depreciation in value, then it should increase exports and decrease imports. Foreign investment would drop (from low interests), but would it be large enough to really do anything? How large would be the benefits of more exports? Really, the result is unknown by pure speculation from a loss in value of the dollar. More importantly, inflation is normal and usually unavoidable, and the dollar clearly hasn't "collapsed." Even the normal 3% a year adds up (loss of about 96% of value from 1913). Even the made-up claim of a 97% loss of value isn't really that bad-it's great, especially when you consider that catastrophic inflation losses that kind of value in a few years, not a century. Comparison of purchasing power from almost a hundred years ago to induce fear is either trickery to take advantage of ignorance.Z3100x (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Monetary Policy
I don't think the Fed actually asks for money to be created, it primarily sells bonds. The mint is to replace the old bills, not massively print money. I've only leaned basic Macroeconomics though, so if someone knows I'm wrong and please tell me and show me an outside reference. Otherwise I will change the section describing the fed in a day or so.Z3100x (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Federal Reserve executes monetary policy, part of which involves printing the money (hence the name, "Federal Reserve Notes"). 06:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Printing money" these days is usually done by marking up accounts via those newfangled personal computer things. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They still make too many pennies, though.  06:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But in any event, the Federal Reserve is responsible for printing the money and otherwise controlling the money supply. The Treasury used to do it, but they leave it wholly up to the Fed now. 07:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up. But I still doubt printing money as a modern method of changing the money supply. I looked into the wp article. Commercial banks need to pay the reserve banks for the printed money. It's not free, and thus is not actually able to increase the money supply, well, unless the banks borrow massively from the fed. This is unlikely to happen since the fed is the "lender of last resort," and any banks doing this might be seem as close to collapse, possibly causing bank runs and bank failures. On the other hand, open-market operations (buying/selling bonds) dominate monetary policy, and is the most important tool for it; we never even mentioned printing money as a viable way to increase money supply in my Macro class. Historically, there are instances of which the government printed money as direct injections of currency, especially during wartime. This is unlikely to happen again unless things get really desperate, considering the insane inflation that follows (think the German Mark's drop in value during WWII). At any rate, I think I should add open market operations to the article without changing anything else, but thanks for the info on the reserve notes.Z3100x (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

USPS
Tempted to delete all whining about it unless someone can footnote. The USPS is an amazing organization. 06:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Rational Wiki doesn't seem to understand fractional reserve banking
The main concept of fractional reserve banking and fiat money is that private banks, such as the Bank of America, Bank of England can simply print more money and as much as they like to pump in to the economy to keep the system flowing. The problem with doing that is that it causes hyper inflation and depresses the value of the currency. Much like pyramid selling or multi level marketing, eventually the pyramid collapses or the bubble bursts and your lunged in to a recession.

The people at the top are the winners because its all those who are the supports to the monetary system that lose. The effects of this were seen in the bust phase of the sub prime markets that took out other world banks because unscrupulous wall street traders sold on toxic debts knowing that they were swapping out their bad investments to recover what was their losses and this brought down world banks and caused some countries banking systems to go in to melt down or obliterate some like the Icelandic banks that bore the brunt of this type of trading.

Still today, world banks are not fully recovered and the knock on effect of this in the world economy is still being felt by the pillars that support the banking system, the people. The results being businesses going under because the markets dried up, banks recovering loans to cover their debts and other economic factors have cause much misery and unemployment because the 1% in wall street didn't want to lose a couple of billion out of the trillions they already have.

Greed is what drives fractional reserve banking and the fiat money system. It would pay rational wiki to bone up on simple economics rather than venture down the road of conspiracy avenue because wall street has cut down the trees to print money with them.
 * Which part of this article are you objecting to, exactly? Also, there's an article on fractional-reserve banking, which might be more relevant. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your argument about hyperinflation isn't true. There are several mechanisms available to central banks to avoid inflation. THere's an excellent blog post debunking your argument here. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the fact the US drains out so much of it's output to foreign creditors for crude oil imports and interest payments on federal borrowing itself is anti-inflationary (on its domestic economy, at least). nobsCorporations are people, too 02:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually there are only two ways to prevent high inflation (and hyperinflation. Numero Uno is "Don't Print too much money" and Numero Dos is, "If you do print too much money, take action to prevent that money from getting into general circulation". Notice that the US money supply has grown stupendously over the past decade but that the Fed has taken action to keep that money from getting into circulation. Excess reserves at the Fed are currently over 3 trillion, which just happens to be about how much it has printed over the past decade. As a result "Velocity of Money" has dropped to levels never before recorded.71.174.133.100 (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Needs cite
Not to hurt anybody's feelings, but there probably cannot be found any credible source for this statement. In fact, the way the money supply is increased is clearly explained in the very next sentence. Further, the Fed does not mint coin -- that comes from the Treasury. That statement should be removed, if there are no objections. TY. nobsCorporations are people, too 22:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When one of the banks determines that the cash supply is too low in its area it will place an order with the Treasury Department to print/mint more bills or coins (or, more often, digitally mark up accounts these days).

More problems
Seeing the Fed's balance sheet totals $2.8 trillion, how is it possible to provided $3.3 trillion in liquidity and $9 trillion in short-term loans? Unless someone wants to read the sources in mainspace and provide a better and further explanation on what primia facia looks like conspiratorial crap, I propose it be removed. It looks bad. nobsCorporations are people, too 01:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ...the Fed provided $3.3 trillion in liquidity and $9 trillion in short-term loans...
 * Ok, Bloomberg estimates the Fed lent 7.77 trillion from March 2007 to 2008; the Nation (cited in this article) says $9 trillion; a report from the Levy Institute at Bard College says $29 trillion from 2007 to 2009, equal to about 50% of world GDP at the time. This may be more a function of facilitating intraday liquidity flows than direct lending by the Fed. Are there any volunteers who wanna help slogging through this data and help write a better narrative? The way this mainspace data is presented really does looks like the paranoid ravings of a Bernie Sanders or Ron Paul.  nobsCorporations are people, too 01:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

inaccurities
The so-called "backdoor bailout" and Maiden Lane I & II claims in this article are poorly researched and inaccurate. There is no relationship between the two. Maiden Lane I & II (a form of Special Purpose Vehicle or SPV) bailouts amounted to slightly more than $27 billion. The claim of a "backdoor bailout" of $9 trillion ($10 trillion actually, over nearly two years), was almost exclusively to foreign central banks, the EU Central Bank receiving approximately 80%, according to my sources and research. I will make the changes. nobsCorporations are people, too 17:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hijacking by Monetary Cranks
Recently several sections were changed by two unregistered users in an attempt to promote the claim "the Fed lends money to the government at interest, thereby stealing "the people's" money and selling us into debt slavery or some similar nefarious scheme to take over the US government." by saying this is accurate and presenting red herrings.Nchriste (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On March 18, 2014, the anthropologist and historian of debt David Graeber published an article in the UK Guardian entitled “The truth is out: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it”. He noted that the conventional view, which is the basis of most debate on these issues, is that people deposit their money in banks, which banks lend out (they can expand lending via the fractional reserve process, but this is dependent on central bank reserves), and that purportedly central banks are diligent in regulating the supply of money so as to prevent inflation. He noted that this view is false, that instead:
 * “What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."
 * In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.
 * What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.”: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity


 * This issue has been brought up in the past. Professor Irving Fisher (1867 - 1947), was an extremely eminent economist, and the forward to his text 100% Money, from the former Atlanta Federal Reserve Credit Manager, Robert Hemphill, reads as follows:
 * “If all bank loans were paid, no one would have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of currency or coin in circulation.
 * This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent monetary system.
 * When one gets a complete grasp upon this picture, the tragic absurdity of our helpless position is almost incredible–but there it is.” (Fisher, Irving. 100% Money: Designed to keep checking banks 100% liquid; to prevent inflation and deflation; largely to cure or prevent depressions; and to wipe out much of the national debt. New Haven; The City Printing Company. 1945 edition. p.xxii: )Crank (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The Fed causing the Great Depression as a 'conspiracy theory'
I'm sorry, but presenting the idea that the Great Depression was at least partially caused by the actions of the Federal Reserve as a loony conspiracy theory is just outright dishonest. Since Milton Friedman (probably the second most respected economist of the 20th century) argued that its deflationary policy caused the depression to go on as long as it did, the idea's been almost mainstream. Hell, Ben Bernanke himself, as in the chairman of the actual Federal Reserve, said in 2008: 'I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.'. So, I think if the chairman of the institution of the proposed conspirators admits that said institution caused the great depression, I don't think it's fair to call it a conspiracy, nor is it fair to lump the idea in with crazy illuminati ron paul conspiracies about Rothschilds. So move it under a different heading, I would suggest. 150.203.222.105 (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree but with the caveat that the criticism by Milton Friedman et. al. is that the Fed did too little not that the Fed is an inherently dangerously inflationary institution that must be shut down because ... and that the federal reserve didn't deliberately create the depression which is the conspiratorial view so I think this could be remedied by adding the word "deliberately" Nchriste (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought the footnote made that clear, but adding "deliberately" works. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate Criticism of the Fed
Can someone add a section of legitimate, non-conspiracy criticism for the Fed, such as how the Federal Reserve Act was changed 26 times at the state level in order for it to pass? While the article focuses on the wingnuts, there are some genuine arguments against the Federal Reserve. 71.119.33.211 (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Legal tender
Here is something for the "usefull idiots controlling this article". During the Constitutional Convention the power to issue (EMIT) "bills of credit" was stripped from the US Constitution. "Bill of credit" is just another name for paper money. If you bother to look you can find that power in the pre convention draft. You can't find it in the version that came out of the convention because that power was stripped from that document. The constitutioon bars the states from making anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender. The 10th Amendment states that any power "not prohibited" to the states is exclusivelly theirs. i.e it is not shared with the US governemnt established by the Constitution.

So The power to print paper money was stripped from the Constitution, and making gold and silver coin legal tended inside a state is exclusivelly a power of the states. As Thomas Jefferson stated "I deny that the US government has any power to make anything a legal tender".

http://www.usconstitution.net/draft_aug6.html Original language from article 7 was

To borrow money, and emit bills on the credit of the United States;

FINAL AND CURRENT LANGUAGE IS (NOW ARTICLE 8)

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; 21:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

As an aside: The power to issue bills of credit was also included in the Articles of Confederation and was used to issue the Revolutionary War era "Continentals" of "Not worth a Continental" fame. The Founding Fathers has gone through one hyperinflation and were disinclined to experience another. One member of the convention stated that if the power to issue paper money was retained in the US Constitution then he would prefer it be never enacted. 71.174.133.100 (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

World Bank beign founded
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/07/16/five-nations-forming-world-bank-new-new-world-order/

Really, how are you going to explain this? Nations are starting to form a world bank now! How do you explain this?--InsomniaManiac (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're 70 years late.--TiaC (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This line
"Although the vote would have passed eventually, it being slipped through the way that it was circumvented the possibility of challenges and debate."

I'm looking at the procedural history, and I don't see anything extraordinary. Can I get an explanation? PacWalker 01:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Several influential Congressmen who opposed the Federal Reserve had already departed for the holiday.
 * From http://www.whale.to/b/m_ch_3.html
 * "The New York Times reported on the front page, Monday, December 22, 1913 in headlines: MONEY BILL MAY BE LAW TODAY--CONFEREES HAD ADJUSTED NEARLY ALL DIFFERENCES AT 1:30 THIS MORNING--NO DEPOSIT GUARANTEES--SENATE YIELDS ON THIS POINT BUT PUTS THROUGH MANY OTHER CHANGES 'With almost unprecedented speed, the conference to adjust the House and Senate differences on the Currency Bill practically completed its labours early this morning. On Saturday the Conferees did little more than dispose of the preliminaries, leaving forty essential differences to be thrashed out Sunday. . . . No other legislation of importance will be taken up in either House of Congress this week. Members of both houses are already preparing to leave Washington.'"
 * "'Unprecedented speed', says The New York Times. One sees the fine hand of Paul Warburg in this final strategy. Some of the bill’s most vocal critics had already left Washington. It was a long-standing political courtesy that important legislation would not be acted upon during the week before Christmas, but this tradition was rudely shattered in order to perpetrate the Federal Reserve Act on the American people."--FedTruther (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * whale.to is not the NYT, its archive, or anything but... nevermind.
 * Your stopwatch is not a procedural oddity. It's Congress actually doing things in a timely manner.
 * As to people not in Washington at the time, please do read right above your addition.
 * PacWalker 03:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, you claim there was no possibility of debate or challenge. What the hell are these differences your !source mentions then? PacWalker 03:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. Full article from NYT Archive: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9802EFD6103FE633A25751C2A9649D946296D6CF
 * 2. I don't understand
 * 3. Not everyone had announced pairs. In addition to that (from whale.to), "More than forty important differences in the House and Senate versions remained to be settled, and the opponents of the bill in both houses of Congress were led to believe that many weeks would yet elapse before the Conference bill would be ready for consideration. The Congressmen prepared to leave Washington for the annual Christmas recess, assured that the Conference bill would not be brought up until the following year." because we all know whale.to does not count... PacWalker 04:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 4. "In a single day, they ironed out all forty of the disputed passages in the bill and quickly brought it to a vote." <--- This is seen in the NYT article. The bill was rushed before Christmas for the greatest chance of it passing. I don't see any other reason given the available evidence. --FedTruther (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better.
 * Timing is not a procedural error, oddity, or loophole. It is exactly what it says on the tin: timing.
 * Suppose everyone absent/not voting without an announced pair voted against. It would still have passed. (Whoa, was that already in the article? Far out, dude.)
 * Congress never has any other reason for passing bills when they do? Nothing at all to ever do with the nation they legislate for and its conditions? Also, my point is that the existence of differences indicates that there must have been challenges, debate, or amendments.
 * PacWalker 03:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm glad you knew to invoke on your whale.to quote. PacWalker 04:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2. I disagree. Where is the tin: timing?
 * 3. Yea, it would have passed. That's what I wrote "Although the vote would have passed eventually, it being slipped through the way that it was circumvented the possibility of challenges and debate."
 * 4. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was obviously rushed. It was done right before Christmas, with 40 disputed passages fixed in the same day and then quickly brought to vote. It is also not tradition for Congressmen to pass important legislature at such a time.
 * As for the existence of differences, your right, there has been. They still had a motive to pass the amended bill with minimized challenges/debate.--FedTruther (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I changed the text for now. Is that better?--FedTruther (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2. I'm going to presume that's a bad joke.
 * 3. Still bull, because there were obviously disagreements voiced: how the hell did "circumventing debate" lead to two divergent versions of the bill emerging?
 * 4. If Congress did not wish to do business on any given day, barring perhaps the first day of each session (?) (too lazy to read the Constitution on this one; it is here irrelevant), they could elect to not do so. Obviously, they did not; please stop alleging that passing a bill while Congress is sitting normally is out of order.
 * Alleging some secretive motive to prove ??? isn't even wrong.
 * No; your source supports exactly none of your claim that "oh, conspiraky!!one!" PacWalker 04:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 3. What are you talking about? I'm referring to the passage of the amended bill here. I'm not speaking about "circumventing debate" happening before that day.
 * 4. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was obviously rushed. It was done right before Christmas, with 40 disputed passages fixed in the same day and then quickly brought to vote.
 * It's not quite relevant to discuss what the secret motive is right now.
 * Yes, the NYT article does support my claims. See 4.
 * Also you don't need to include the whale.to stuff in the article. That website is referring to a book and that information is also posted in multiple places. In any case, my claim is derived from the evidence in the NYT article.--FedTruther (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not even. Is any part of my edit other than factual? No. Is the claim that Congress working perfectly well within its normal procedures is out of order factual? Again, no. Until God comes and changes either of those facts, your shit has no place here. PacWalker 05:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Because the Federal Reserve Act was rushed in the manner that I have described (and there is evidence of such behavior) on a day that some influential Congressmen were not present, it is possible that it was done to minimize challenge and debate. You got angry because I didn't agree with you and started an undo rampage. It wasn't within their "typical" procedures to pass the bill on such a day, but even if we disregard that my logic still makes sense. --FedTruther (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At RationalWiki, we try to have evidence before making such claims. This seems like an event where it would be best to use Hanlon's Razor until there is concrete evidence in your favor. CombustibleLemon (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice straw man edit--FedTruther (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To the more sensible folks reading the claim that I started an undo rampage, http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Reserve&action=history PacWalker 05:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So do you want to continue this discussion so we can better understand each other? I contributed a bit to that article and I have tried to compromise with you by rewording my statement. I don't see what is wrong with it in my most recent version of it. --FedTruther (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on your edits to the page, I can see that you obviously don't understand how the banking system works(there are other problems as well which I'm not going to bother bringing up right now). When the page is no longer protected I'm going to undo all of your edits. If you have a problem with something I would rather you discuss it here in a reasonable manner. Thanks.--FedTruther (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have more than worn out the "wait, discuss my nonsense more!" card. Kindly shuffle back over to whalefail.ILLUMINAZICONFIRMED or whatever the hell it's called. PacWalker 07:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Really, nonsense? So far you have just been attacking my arguments by providing fallacious reasoning or facts which have little to do with what I was originally talking about.--FedTruther (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Although the vote would have passed eventually, it being slipped through the way that it was circumvented the possibility of challenges and debate."
 * This? No, I'm fairly sure I have addressed this, thanks. PacWalker 08:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I might even be so very insanely bold as to say I've addressed this more than once. PacWalker 08:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that it was not addressed, you just used poor reasoning--FedTruther (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are my responses to your arguments:
 * FedTruther: "4. In a single day, they ironed out all forty of the disputed passages in the bill and quickly brought it to a vote." <--- This is seen in the NYT article. The bill was rushed before Christmas for the greatest chance of it passing. I don't see any other reason given the available evidence.?
 * PacWalker: "4. Congress never has any other reason for passing bills when they do? Nothing at all to ever do with the nation they legislate for and its conditions? Also, my point is that the existence of differences indicates that there must have been challenges, debate, or amendments."
 * 1. To address your first sentence, given the circumstance (shortly before Christmas when many Congressmen were absent) and the speed at which they worked (amended 40 disputes in less then a day and then quickly passed the bill), it is apparent that they were simply not "passing bills when they do."
 * 2. Yes, there were challenges, debates, or amendments. As I stated twice, and as it was implied, I'm not talking about them but the final passage of the amended bill.


 * FedTruther: "The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was obviously rushed. It was done right before Christmas, with 40 disputed passages fixed in the same day and then quickly brought to vote. It is also not tradition for Congressmen to pass important legislature at such a time."
 * PacWalker: "If Congress did not wish to do business on any given day, barring perhaps the first day of each session (?) (too lazy to read the Constitution on this one; it is here irrelevant), they could elect to not do so. Obviously, they did not; please stop alleging that passing a bill while Congress is sitting normally is out of order."
 * 1. Your first sentence has nothing to do with my argument.
 * 2. They aren't sitting "normally" in the sense that many would imagine; many of the Congressman were gone for Christmas
 * 3. Not traditionally passing important bills on those sort of days doesn't mean that they don't want to do any kind of business.
 * 4. I didn't say that passing an important bill on such a day is "out of order" in the way that I am interpreting you say it. Rather I said it was not traditional (standard).


 * PacWalker: "Not even. Is any part of my edit other than factual? No. Is the claim that Congress working perfectly well within its normal procedures is out of order factual? Again, no. Until God comes and changes either of those facts, your shit has no place here."
 * Your claims are factual, Congress was indeed working within its normal(lawful, to be more accurate) procedures. I never said that they weren't, so this is a non-argument.


 * Your edit on the article: "Although the vote would have passed even had everyone been present, some whale.to denizens claim that legislating on one of the last days of the session circumvented the possibility of challenges and debate.[20][21] Why Congress would meet on days it thought off-limits when the two houses could, each with the consent of the other, choose to adjourn is beyond them."
 * Suppressed evidence. Nothing more to say to this.--FedTruther (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here, for absolutely no debate whatsoever (yes, it is over rather silly points)
 * p. 564, § Changes Submitted for a contemporary report on the amendments that made that final version so different, see especially last paragraph


 * Obviously, all these massive changes circumvented any further debate that definitely did not occur. See? Right there in the Congressional Record. PacWalker 10:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not -ANY- further debate was circumvented, and the changes themselves did not circumvent debate. Yet again there are critical errors in your logic and you also haven't told me anything new.--FedTruther (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And you are removing content without providing reasons AND restoring a silly typo. I guess that counts for bonus points? PacWalker 22:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are crucial errors, identify them, and quickly. Spouting the same old conspiracy theory will not cut it. PacWalker 22:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And lest they go anywhere in whatever the hell you come up with this time, let me plant your goalposts down here again.
 * "Although the vote would have passed eventually, it being slipped through the way that it was circumvented the possibility of challenges and debate."
 * PacWalker 22:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have removed content without providing reasons. You are excluding that you did the same, I am simply undoing the damage.
 * During our discussion yesterday I changed it for more clarification, read the article. "Although the vote would have passed eventually, it is possible that it being slipped through in such a manner was to minimize challenges and debate"--FedTruther (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec with below) If debate happened, both before and after the conference that you complain of, debate was obviously not circumvented. The vote would have passed then and there even had all absentees w/o pairs suddenly shown up and voted nay. That leaves as truth in that statement the following: The vote would have passed. Having said that way too damn many times already, I don't understand what the hell you're objecting to, but senselessly removing content and restoring your nonsensical blackwash just won't fly here. PacWalker 22:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "And lest they go anywhere in whatever the hell you come up with this time..." The only one "coming up" with things is you, reverting to fallacious reasoning. I have thus far been able to reasonably defend my points.--FedTruther (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not debating whether or not the vote would have eventually passed, this is apparent in my edit and I have said this clearly. I am saying that "...it is possible that it being slipped through in such a manner was to minimize challenges and debate"--FedTruther (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, new idea: have a fucking field day. Rewrite ALL the things!!! I'll go do some shit on other articles and watch what other, calmer people do with your... whatever the hell you call this. PacWalker 22:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And look, I was right: the answer WAS a mop to the face! PacWalker 02:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In it's current form, the line is irrelevant, totally misrepresents the matter and draws the wrong conclusion. Because of this I would suggest the removal of it.--FedTruther (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

WatcherInTheDark

 * A lot of stuff was added to the page when it was protected without "competent reasons"
 * The Ron Paul paragraph, which I have previously deleted with provided reasons, was added back. It is misleading because the views of one singular Ron Paul follower does not justify the views of all/most of them. In addition to that, the cited source doesn't have anything to do with Ron Paul. It's just Paul-bashing nonsense.
 * As for the deletion of the "missing the point" paragraph, PacWalker doesn't understand how it works so his his deletion is not justified.
 * The re-wording of my sentence about the passage of the Federal Reserve Act before Christmas was already refuted on this page see #The_line --FedTruther (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "As for the deletion of the "missing the point" paragraph, PacWalker doesn't understand how it works so his his deletion is not justified." Bullshit ad hominem is best ad hominem!
 * You STILL call that a "refutation"? I trust our readers will scroll up, read, and laugh. PacWalker 02:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to restore the paragraph you deleted. Refer to the below quotes and go learn about the banking system:
 * "If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar or coin of currency in circulation." - Robert Hemphill, the Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta.
 * "That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn’t be any money." - Mariner S. Eccles, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve
 * If you haven't noticed I removed the interest part of the deleted paragraph to make it more clear. Also refer to the citation that was next to the paragraph.
 * I've been placed in the vandal bin. I need to get out of this before I can have extensive discussions here and make more edits. All you statist wonks assume conspiracy and then believe that I'm wrong without understanding how it really works. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I prefer not to be grouped as such. I am a speaker of Truth.

What exactly are you trying to prove? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * May we take RC as indicating a response to this query? PacWalker 05:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for PacWalker to object to my argument--FedTruther (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * אני עשיתי כך A dirty statist 05:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC) (אני אוהב את תרגומים אוטומטיים)
 * I have decided to return, I will not let the Truth be distorted. I'm going to make a slew of edits once the article becomes available again.
 * PacWalker, if you can't defend your POV in our discussion at #This_line I will add my text back. I might just reword the whole paragraph to remove controversy instead.
 * PacWalker, if you can't defend your POV to deleting the paragraph about Fed debt I will add my text back
 * If no one can 100% object to without a shadow of doubt object against every single argument against the Fed (including motive behind 2008 bailouts, Goldman Sachs scandal, etc.) then I will remove the word "falsely" in the sentence "Some criticism arises from a conspiratorial worldview that falsely attributes malicious motives to the Fed instead of incompetence or bad luck."
 * And Miekel, if you block the page for a lengthy time again without justifiable means then I will submit a complaint. --FedTruther (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yah, a "Slew" of edits is more than you deserve. I think "one every so often" sounds better-- Mie kal  03:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not a vandal and I don't see anything wrong here. I have outlined what I will edit (for now) and have allowed people to debate it. If they are not able to provide sufficient reasoning to disregard my edits, then I will make the changes. --FedTruther (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Planning to edit war over the article because your brand of bullshit isn't being accepted makes you a vandal. -- Mie kal  04:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not "planning an edit war." Do you hate free speech or what? Are you just angered because I am going against your statist agenda?--FedTruther (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You know the edits you are going to make are going to cause an edit war. You know we view your viewpoint as stupid bullshit. And yet you plan to keep adding it back in while announcing "nobody can prove me wrong!". That's an edit war and essentially vandalism. There's no reason you can't do it all in one easy to revert edit instead of a bunch. -- Mie kal  04:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * [EC] You weren't planning an "edit war", but you were planning a "slew of edits", which equates to an edit war. Do you support the fascist tendencies Hitler? Are you just angered because I am attacking your favorite boy band, One Direction? Can you say, "irrelevant and misleading questions"? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 04:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that I have no intentions of causing an edit war. If I do, then someone can place me in the vandal bin when that happens.
 * I plan to have extensive discussions here before making edits to the page. Now, please, can someone remove me from this vandal bin?--FedTruther (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I somehow doubt that-- Mie kal  05:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And survey says... No surprises here. PacWalker 10:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You're wrong. I'm the speaker of Truth. Prove me wrong. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 04:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I challenge everyone to prove that Truth is a proper noun!!!one!1!@! PacWalker 04:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've talked to Truth, he says he's quite proper. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 04:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red herring I see. Typical tactic.--FedTruther (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For our joke-challenged readers (above): I sometimes insert a wee bit of levity into things. PacWalker 04:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Truth about the Fed
I am leaving now. I hope that those who see this will not succumb to the bias of this article.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:FedTruther#Censored_on_RationalWiki Goodbye--FedTruther (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Readers are advised that, as with essentially all FedTruther has said, this was a lie: see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FedTruther and compare timestamps. An actual speaker of Truth 07:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This was not a lie. I said I will leave, but I did not say that I wouldn't come back. I came back to ensure that my message of Truth was not collapsed or altered.
 * Everything that I have said is true.--FedTruther (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "leaving" "taking a very short coffee break" see the difference here? Bye.
 * "true" or True?