Talk:Federal Reserve

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon conspiracy.svg

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.


The Fed haters don't seem to understand their own propaganda.[edit]

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[edit]

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"). Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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)


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

Rational Wiki doesn't seem to understand fractional reserve banking[edit]

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.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Which part of this article are you objecting to, exactly? Also, there's an article on fractional-reserve banking, which might be more relevant. (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 •TCE 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. (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Needs cite[edit]

  • 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).

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)

More problems[edit]

  • ...the Fed provided $3.3 trillion in liquidity and $9 trillion in short-term loans...

Seeing the Fed's balance sheet totals $2.8 trillion [1][2], 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)

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)


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[edit]

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.”:
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: [3])Crank (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The Fed causing the Great Depression as a 'conspiracy theory'[edit]

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. (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[edit]

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. (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Legal tender[edit]

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". Original language from article 7 was

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


2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 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. (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

World Bank beign founded[edit]

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[edit]

"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.
"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)
  1. is not the NYT, its archive, or anything but... nevermind.
  2. Your stopwatch is not a procedural oddity. It's Congress actually doing things in a timely manner.
  3. 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:
2. I don't understand
3. Not everyone had announced pairs. In addition to that (from, "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." [citation needed] because we all know 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)
  1. Much better.
  2. Timing is not a procedural error, oddity, or loophole. It is exactly what it says on the tin: timing.
  3. 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.)
  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.
PacWalker 03:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, I'm glad you knew to invoke {{fact}} on your 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 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, 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 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. </snark> 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 " 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)


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.— Unsigned, by: same old crank / talk / contribs

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--Miekal 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. --Miekal 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. --Miekal 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--Miekal 05:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
And survey says... No surprises here. PacWalker 10:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The Truth about the Fed[edit]

I am leaving now. I hope that those who see this will not succumb to the bias of this article. 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 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. — Unsigned, by: An editor who is too damn tired of this shit / talk / contribs
"true" or True? — Unsigned, by: guess who? / talk / contribs

Proposed changes to the article[edit]

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) --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.
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
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 (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[edit]

"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[edit]

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

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. (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?[edit]

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[edit]

Pretty sane discussion, actually. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)