Talk:Federal Reserve

	This Conspiracy theories related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Proposed changes to the article

Ok, I have been freed of these false allegations. Now, referring to the below paragraph:

"Some monetary conspirators claim that the Fed creates money out of nothing and 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. The way this works, however, is not quite the same as your regular commercial bank. The interest on debt held by the Fed actually goes to two places: One, the Fed pays itself out of this interest to cover its own operating costs, and two, the rest of the interest is rebated to the Treasury.[16]"

The above is a common argument regurgitated amongst people who don't really understand how the Fed works.

Excluding my addition would be a suppression of evidence:

"This misses the point that all the money is based on the debt incurred from the money creating process. The main problem with the Fed, regarding this, comes not from money being created out nothing from the government, but money being created out of nothing by commercial banks for loans to the private sector. In other words, this debt money is pyramided via fractional reserve lending, which is at interest, furthering the process of debt-money creation."

According to G. Edward Griffin:

"After all of those expenses are paid, what is left over is rebated to the Treasury, as Flaherty says. There is no secret about this, and you will find an explanation of it in my book. Technically, there is no “profit” on this money. However, remember that creating money for the government is only one of the functions of the Fed. The real bonanza comes, not from money created out of nothing for the government, but from money created out of nothing by the commercial banks for loans to the private sector. That’s where the real action is. This is the famous slight-of-hand trick."

--FedTruther (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Random quote mined from God knows where? Nice. Quote mining can also make all Muslims into atheists: there is no God but God → there is no God... PacWalker 02:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Obligatory failure to translate corrected 03:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Another red herring. You have a habit of reverting to logical fallacies when you can't provide adequate opposition.--FedTruther (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you source your quote, FT? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_fed09.htm --FedTruther (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

G. Edvard Griffith is a random Bircher author, not any sort of authority. PacWalker 02:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Dead link. PacWalker 02:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ad hominem I see. Anything else?

Fixed. The "--" was stuck to the end of it.--FedTruther (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

To quote myself, "G. Edvard Griffith is a random Bircher author, not any sort of authority." PacWalker 03:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

NOT ad hominem: for a random quote to be meaningful, it comes with an assertion of the speaker's credentials etc. Otherwise it's random Joe's words. PacWalker 03:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not random Joe's words if you actually analyze what he says and understand how the banking system works.

And whether or not he is a "random Bircher author" is another discussion which is not entirely relevant to this.--FedTruther (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"What he said matters only if you have the special knowledge i possess therefor it is true"--Miekal 03:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not "special knowledge" because it can be easily obtainable.--FedTruther (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Present this magical analysis of yours. PacWalker 03:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that adding an author to this quote adds no authority. Explain it in your own words. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding an author to this quote may remove authority. He's a well known anti fed conspiracy theorist (and chemtrail believer, AIDS denialist, 9/11 and JFK truther and cancer quack but those aren't relevant) WatcherIntheDark (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It was not my intent to add authority to the quote, rather I wanted people to observe the content of his claims (which is pretty much what I said anyways). I'll write my analysis here tomorrow because I need to get to something else at the moment.--FedTruther (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll be looking forward to it. PacWalker 03:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If the quote you gave us isn't authoritative and the person is only authoritative if we already agree with your POV, why did you give us the quote? --Miekal 03:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

To present my POV in alternate words. It doesn't matter if you don't think he is "authoritative" that is irrelevant to my purpose of posting the quote.--FedTruther (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes but having a crazy person we don't consider authoritative (and whom you refuse to justify as authoritative) isn't going to actually help the case you're making. Unless you think numbers makes you any more correct, which still wouldn't help you here. --Miekal 03:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

We may have read your post as describing it as suppressed evidence, which frankly it sure seems to. PacWalker 03:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ FedLiar, you just got unbinned. Enough with the reverse scientific method already; you are wrong. Get over it. Why are you so obsessed with this article? What, did the Fed murder your parents in front of you? CorruptUser (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lol, wrong about what?

Miekal, it doesn't matter because what he says has been established as fact. It doesn't matter though, lets move on to my analysis.

PacWalker, I don't know what you're talking about. Not including my addition would be a suppression of evidence.

As for my analysis: The current text that I want to add stuff to only addresses one claim that is commonly copy and pasted across conspiracy sites. It's really for the most part a non-issue and misses the point entirely.

When the government borrows money from the Fed it trickles down to the level of commercial banks where, due to fractional reserve banking, it perpetuates the process of debt-money creation.

When the money is deposited into a commercial bank, banks are required to keep a certain percentage of money in "reserve." (This reserve ratio is completely arbitrary and can be altered by the Fed when there is a need for more money, for example it they could increase it to 20-to-1, 50-to-1 or whatever). The remaining amount is classified as "excess" reserves and the equivalent can be loaned out. The actual money that was deposited is not loaned out, (else it would be a double claim against the same money) so the bankers create brand new money out of thin air for the purpose of lending. With "old money", the banks pay out interest and perform services for the privilege of using it. With the "new money" however, which cost the bankers nothing to make, they collect interest upon. When the loan comes back into the bank as a deposit the process repeats itself yet again, and it repeats again and again until a certain point. The only thing "magical" here, PacWalker, is that the bankers are creating money out of nothing.

From https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/house/1947hr_directpurchgov.pdf

Conversation between Congressman Wright Patman and Marriner S. Eccles (a former chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve)

Mr. PATMAN. The stock is less than $140,000,000 and you do several hundred billions dollars' worth of business a year sometimes, and furthermore, when you actually hold and claim now over $2,000,000,000 in Government securities which you claim you bought. How did you get the money to buy those $2,000, 000,000 of Government securities?

Mr. ECCLES. We created it.

Mr. PATMAN. Out of what?

Mr. ECCLES. Out of the right to issue credit, money.

Mr. PATMAN. And there is nothing behind it, is there, except the Government's

credit?

Mr. ECCLES. We have the Government bonds.

Mr. PATMAN. That's right, the Government's credit.

Mr. ECCLES. That is what your money system is.

From https://archive.org/details/NationalEconomyAndTheBankingSystemOfTheUnitedStates (PAGE 102)

Robert H. Hemphill, former credit manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta:

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 properous: If not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent monetary system. When one gets a complete grasp upon the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible-but there it is. It (the banking problem) is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it is widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.

Our entire monetary system is based upon debt, if all debts were repaid then the money supply would quite simply vanish into bank vaults and computer chips.

--FedTruther (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

So the government is incapable of issuing money except as a loan? It could not hand Joe the Carpenter a dollar? What of the execution of gov't contracts? How are those payments loans? PacWalker 07:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Note also that Hemphill's predictions of collapse were made 80 years ago and have not yet come to pass. So reliable. PacWalker 08:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No, they can issue money that is not a loan. I don't know where you are drawing your conclusion from. About the predictions of collapse, that's not really a point I'm trying to make here. Everything that I have said is essentially true and fully supports the addition that I want to make to the page.--FedTruther (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Fed can simply print money to create it. But this generally causes a greater supply, which causes a bunch of other things which eventually leads to inflation. But by combining the issuing of money with a promise to destroy said money at a later date, this allows the creation of money without as much inflation. The core of your problem is that you don't understand what money even is. So money is created, and there's twice as much of it. Oh noes! But if the money created stabilizes and stimulates the economy so that there is twice as much economy, it's a gain while no one loses. You seem to be under the impression the economy would double anyway, and a guy that sold 1 burger today can just sit on his money and use it to buy 2 burgers next year. Sorry, fuck you guy that wants a free burger, that's not how the world works.CorruptUser (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Neither is this HowTheWorldWorks (sorry, couldn't help myself there). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. Your reason for the "creation of money without as much inflation" is incorrect, I would suggest re-reading what I said in my post above. The (debt-)money supply is continuously expanding not just because of the creation of new money by the Fed but also due to fractional reserve banking when that money reaches the level of commercial banks.

I don't see the logical connection between selling one burger and then buying 2 next year with that money, I have no idea what you're talking about here.--FedTruther (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This sentence

"The act would have required a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the twelve regional banks, with particular attention to the valuation of its securities, by the Comptroller General as opposed to an independent party, as is the current arrangement"

This sentence sort of fudges the truth (typical PacWalker edit) by making it seem like it's already "fully" audited by an independent party when it is in fact not. That is why I have attempted to change it a little bit.--FedTruther (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

you aren't going to endure yourself here with comments like you make--Miekal 00:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It's "endear." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm at work on my phone. Its a miracle anything resembling coherant words make it through. --Miekal 01:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Coherent." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Swype already has trouble knowing that when i start in the letter A, i don't mean the Letter X. --Miekal 04:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait, I typically fudge the truth in my edits? Hmm. I'd say my typical edit is the kind that accompanies the summary "der grammer" or similar, but all right. I haven't kept count or anything. PacWalker 03:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree with my reason for editing this sentence? If so, please explain why. Otherwise I will be inclined to make an edit to it.^{— Unsigned, by: FedTruther / talk / contribs}

The present version is more informative, as it adds (correctly) that the fed is already audited, and by organizations independent of the executive, information which your version willfully ignores in order to promote BoyPaul's new project. PacWalker 07:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, people obviously disagree; threatening to go revert some more if someone doesn't answer in your idea of a timely fashion is less than appreciated. PacWalker 07:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't threatening to revert some more in a less than timely fashion.

The audits are not done solely by the Comptroller general and they are also limited because monetary policy decisions aren't released. Your version of it makes it seem as if it's already fully audited and improperly states how it is audited.

To disambiguate the sentence and add more detail I would like to word it something like this:

"The act would have required a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the twelve regional banks by a non-independent party. Although the Fed is already subject to audit on many levels, they are limited particularly because the monetary policy decisions aren't included in them."--FedTruther (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Miekal, this is not the "same contentious edit." I have changed my wording to describe the extent at which it is already audited so I cannot be accused of willfully ignoring details. You are right that no one has agreed upon it, but no one has disagreed upon it either after extensive wait so your argument doesn't hold much water. If you disagree, I surely hope you can explain why instead of blocking the page.

Does anyone disagree with my proposed edit to this sentence? There are some obvious problems with it in its current state as I have explained above and I am trying to make it reflect the actual reality of the situation.--FedTruther (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

YES we all disagree. Now go do something else. CorruptUser (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Why WOULD a review of monetary policy decisions be an expected part of an audit? I'm not saying it's a bad idea (although I suspect it would curtail the power of the Fed to make decisions in a relatively apolitical manner), but I'm saying it's not implicit in the term audit, which generally doesn't include judgments on broad policy choices like that, and so your claimed dilemma is nonexistent. Also: pages can be protected. Users can be blocked. Catch the difference? PacWalker 19:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

PacWalker, "monetary policy operations" includes the examination of the discount window and open market operations, agreements with foreign governments and FOMC directives. These are critical operatives of the Fed and Americans should know how and why the Fed expands the money supply and sets the interest rates. The Audit the Fed bill will reveal what was purchased, when it was acquired, and why it was acquired and not just the balance sheets after important decisions and transactions have occurred.

In fact, in 2010, a provision in the Dodd-Frank bill allowed Congress to authorize a one-time audit of the Federal Reserve's activities during the financial crisis. The audit revealed, between 2007 and 2010, that the Federal Reserve had secretly loaned more than $16 trillion dollars to bail out foreign central banks and politically influential private companies at near-zero interest rates. A full audit would probably show similar cases of the Fed acting to benefit political and economic elites. There have been numerous conflicts of interest throughout Fed history.

In any case, this obviously is not "not implicit in the term audit." The monetary policy operations are the central focus of this bill (and this has been mentioned many times in media) and it would be a suppression of evidence to exclude this information. Merely stating that it is "already audited" and implying that the only major difference is an audit from a non-independent party is entirely inaccurate. --FedTruther (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I await your response PacWalker--FedTruther (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's a response for you. I have a minor in economics, and major and masters in fields related to finance. You clearly have never had any education on the subject at all. We have given you plenty of attention, and we've already explained why you are wrong. We are tired of dealing with your bullshit, and you do NOT get to say "waaah you just haven't listened to ENOUGH of my banal arguments!" No. If you want an education on why you are wrong when YOU won't listen to any of us, we are going to start charging you $10k per semester. CorruptUser (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No one has been able to explain why I am wrong. If you don't agree then let me know what you're referring to.--FedTruther (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Education credentials are not relevant to the actual discussion at hand. For the most part your arguments have just been about attacking me as a person or my "incorrect" reasoning (without explaining why) rather than what I'm actually talking about. These are typical denialist tactics.

Now, as for this sentence, there are mountains of evidence to explain why it is wrong in it's current form. My proposed version of it is factually correct.-FedTruther (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Want a more serious response? Read anywhere else on this damn page, then go the fuck away. PacWalker 13:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to discuss this issue in a reasonable and constructive manner but rather I am met with unmerited opposition.

You don't prove anything with aggression or talking about unrelated things. If you still continue with this baseless reasoning it wouldn't be difficult to assume that you are suppressing this information to hide the true intent of this bill.--FedTruther (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Is that a tone argument? CorruptUser (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently I have to collapse every damn joke I make around here for him to get the point. PacWalker 13:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not a tone argument. I was pointing out his lack of substance for an actual argument.--FedTruther (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, substance would be lacking... if I had just collapsed this entire section. Don't worry, though, it's still out here in the open, even if I have no desire to repeat it all over AGAIN. PacWalker 14:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to add one sentence but it keeps getting removed. It is not fair to say that they "failed miserably" while purposefully removing important details. Two of the bills were blocked by the majority leader while there was a lot of support for them in the Senate.--FedTruther (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it keeps getting removed because it's wrong with over a page of people explaining why for the last month in basic easy to follow logic. Repeatedly adding it in the hope someone doesn't catch it seems very dishonest. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

See it in action

If anyone wants to actually see the United States Federal Government funding itself, they can go here:

https://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/index.html

Updated every 2 or 3 days. Values are in thousands of millions, in other words, billions. Table III-A will likely be the most interesting one to many people. So far this fiscal year the US government has funded itself to the tune of almost 46 trillion dollars, or over 3x annual GDP. The national debt isn't also 46 trillion dollars because this is money created by the government to fund itself, so the liabilities have been returned to the source. In fact, they never really left in the first place. The current national debt stands at 18 trillion dollars. Where is it? Well part of it is in your bank account, another part in mine. That's what your money is: a government liability out in the wild doing work, allowing commerce to function. When you pay federal taxes you're simply returning that liability to its creator. 24.20.65.149 (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't quite get how bonds work do you? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with auditing the Fed?

Seriously, it's just that simple a question. Do you think it's magically the only section of the government with no corruption? Because that would be silly. I don't know about you, but when it comes down to it, I'd err on the side of "more oversight" and not "less oversight". Generally, less oversight tends to let corruption fester and grow. It's like your antivirus. Sure, you probably don't have a virus, but I'd bet you run a complete scan every now and then to be on the safe side. You check these things, because you understand it's better to be safe than sorry, even if you think you're likely safe. It's the same reason why you make sure your door is locked, or make sure you have your keys, or make sure the stove is off. Screw the conspiracy theories, it's just logical to audit the Fed for the simple reason that it's better to be safe than sorry. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

/r/AskLibertarians discusses part of this article

Pretty sane discussion, actually. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)