[Conversation starter] Where do banks get the money they lend to people in the private sector?

[anotherlife]

Where do banks get the money to lend? I thought it was clarified by the 1913 fed bill and the 1930(?) fiat bill. The fed bill goes at 10 % so your signature on your loan papers creates 90 % of the money that you borrow, after the bank puts in that 10 %. The fiat bill states verbatum, that "it is really not necessary", to have a commodity base for your money. So the commodity that serves as the base for that 90 % of your money is your physical life and your dividable estate. That is why population exchanges and deportations were invented and loved at the end of ww2.

The fed bill goes at 10 % so your signature on your loan papers creates 90 % of the money that you borrow, after the bank puts in that 10 %.

Can you translate that into English?

Pretend a bank has a single $1000 deposit.
How much do you think they can lend out?

I think this means that they can lend out $10000 = 10 * $1000. The 10 % of the $10000 is the deposit, and the 90 % i.e. $9000 is the money that is created by your signature, to complete your loan ammount that you borrow in this example.

$9000 is the money that is created by your signature, to complete your loan ammount that you borrow in this example.

If your bank has $1000 in deposits and you loan me $10,000....your loan check is gonna bounce when I deposit it into another bank.

No, because the law says that that 90 % is backed by the fed reserve. Also, by the time you deposit, your loan is already sold off.

No, because the law says that that 90 % is backed by the fed reserve.

Can you show me this supposed law?

Also, by the time you deposit, your loan is already sold off.

Why would they sell it off? Who would buy it? Still waiting for my loan check to clear.........

I can't show you the actual text of the law, but I guess it could be googled. Bundled loan packages are always sold off, and sold again, rapidly. Everybody buys it, until it hits Lehan Brothers. So your cheque has cleared.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fed bill goes at 10 % so your signature on your loan papers creates 90 % of the money that you borrow, after the bank puts in that 10 %.

Can you translate that into English?

Pretend a bank has a single $1000 deposit.
How much do you think they can lend out?

I think this means that they can lend out $10000 = 10 * $1000. The 10 % of the $10000 is the deposit, and the 90 % i.e. $9000 is the money that is created by your signature, to complete your loan ammount that you borrow in this example.

$9000 is the money that is created by your signature, to complete your loan ammount that you borrow in this example.

If your bank has $1000 in deposits and you loan me $10,000....your loan check is gonna bounce when I deposit it into another bank.

No, because the law says that that 90 % is backed by the fed reserve. Also, by the time you deposit, your loan is already sold off.

No, because the law says that that 90 % is backed by the fed reserve.

Can you show me this supposed law?

Also, by the time you deposit, your loan is already sold off.

Why would they sell it off? Who would buy it? Still waiting for my loan check to clear.........

I can't show you the actual text of the law, but I guess it could be googled. Bundled loan packages are always sold off, and sold again, rapidly. Everybody buys it, until it hits Lehan Brothers. So your cheque has cleared.

I can't show you the actual text of the law,

Not surprising, since there is no such law.
Please, don't open a bank, you'd be jailed in less than a week.

 

[anotherlife]

I think this means that they can lend out $10000 = 10 * $1000. The 10 % of the $10000 is the deposit, and the 90 % i.e. $9000 is the money that is created by your signature, to complete your loan ammount that you borrow in this example.

$9000 is the money that is created by your signature, to complete your loan ammount that you borrow in this example.

If your bank has $1000 in deposits and you loan me $10,000....your loan check is gonna bounce when I deposit it into another bank.

No, because the law says that that 90 % is backed by the fed reserve. Also, by the time you deposit, your loan is already sold off.

No, because the law says that that 90 % is backed by the fed reserve.

Can you show me this supposed law?

Also, by the time you deposit, your loan is already sold off.

Why would they sell it off? Who would buy it? Still waiting for my loan check to clear.........

I can't show you the actual text of the law, but I guess it could be googled. Bundled loan packages are always sold off, and sold again, rapidly. Everybody buys it, until it hits Lehan Brothers. So your cheque has cleared.

I can't show you the actual text of the law,

Not surprising, since there is no such law.
Please, don't open a bank, you'd be jailed in less than a week.

This is how the mortgage bubble went down though. Also, the Lehman Brothers executives got bankrupted if not jailed. Your cheque will clear though because all this will be just eased down using inflation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

$9000 is the money that is created by your signature, to complete your loan ammount that you borrow in this example.

If your bank has $1000 in deposits and you loan me $10,000....your loan check is gonna bounce when I deposit it into another bank.

No, because the law says that that 90 % is backed by the fed reserve. Also, by the time you deposit, your loan is already sold off.

No, because the law says that that 90 % is backed by the fed reserve.

Can you show me this supposed law?

Also, by the time you deposit, your loan is already sold off.

Why would they sell it off? Who would buy it? Still waiting for my loan check to clear.........

I can't show you the actual text of the law, but I guess it could be googled. Bundled loan packages are always sold off, and sold again, rapidly. Everybody buys it, until it hits Lehan Brothers. So your cheque has cleared.

I can't show you the actual text of the law,

Not surprising, since there is no such law.
Please, don't open a bank, you'd be jailed in less than a week.

This is how the mortgage bubble went down though. Also, the Lehman Brothers executives got bankrupted if not jailed. Your cheque will clear though because all this will be just eased down using inflation.

You'll loan me 10 times the amount of your deposits, but my check will still clear because....inflation?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

You're making my point, thank you. All attempts at a central bank have failed. Yes, that includes the current version chartered in 1913 ( a very bad year for the US, formation of FR, Amendment 16&17 ratified).

So I am unclear on your position. Are in favor of a central bank, opposed to a central bank, or don't know what you think?

You're making my point, thank you.

Your point was the Founders warned us against a Central Bank.
And I pointed out that those same Founders, in 1791, created a Central Bank.
If that was your point, you're welcome.

All attempts at a central bank have failed.

How has the Federal Reserve failed? 104 years later, still here.

So I am unclear on your position

Just as you were unclear on the position of the Founders.

Are in favor of a central bank,

They're a useful, though imperfect, tool.

So you seem to think they didn't warn about a central bank because we have had central banks? I am very clear that some of our founders were vehemently opposed to a central bank, as is anyone who reads history-
Our founding fathers were against the federal reserve and central banking system.
Our founding fathers were against the federal reserve and central banking system
A central bank was established later, however, and had a 20 year run, when Andrew Jackson destroyed it in 1836. On his death bed he was asked what his greatest accomplishment in his life was he said “I KILLED THE BANK”
To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude." --Jefferson 1816

How has the Federal Reserve failed? Ask why it was created, and you'll discovery the answer. Again, you have to read history.

In 1913 when the Fed was founded, its principal function was to make sure the U.S. banking system could endure bank runs created by unforeseen financial shocks. The agency was to accomplish this task by loaning to its member banks when the banks needed more liquidity. These loans were to be paid in Federal Reserve Notes, a new banknote that the Fed was given the legal authority to issue.

However, as economist Milton Friedman and coauthor Anna Schwartz explain in "A Monetary History of the United States," just over a decade after its creation, the Fed actually created the panic it was founded to stop. Their policies, Friedman and Schwartz argue, spiraled what could have been an ordinary recession into the Great Depression.

Even Ben Bernanke, a member of the Fed's board of governors at the time and later the Fed chair, said in a 2002 speech, "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. 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."


In 1933 when the Great Depression officially ended, Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). It was tasked with offering government-funded deposit insurance to banks, essentially overlapping the purpose of the Fed.

With the FDIC providing insurance coverage up to a specified limit, the Fed was really only left with the task of catching the banking shocks the FDIC misses.

However, the Fed really shouldn't be choosing winners and losers in the banking world. It should not be saving some banks by claiming they are "too big to fail" while letting other massive banks go under (like Lehman Brothers, the fourth largest bank in the world in 2008).

Yea, they have been a booming success....SARCASM!

Look, I acknowledge the founders were pretty smart. But just because they liked or didn't like something 250 years ago doesn't make it good or bad.

The founders existed in a completely different time. With respect to economics, they couldn't have even begun to imagine the world we live in today, both with respect to things like globalization and the fact that our money is backed by nothing. Today we have a banking system, not a bunch of independent banks. Today the government has the power to create money.

Explain to us why today central banking is inherently bad without making an argument from authority.

Just curious, are you aware that when Jackson repaid the debt, the next year, the economy went into depre a sion? Just as a side note. Every year the government has run a significant sustained surplus (6 times), the economy has followed the next year by going into depression?

The government doesn't have the power to create money...directly. That power rest with the federal reserve. The government is enabled by the federal to spend whatever they wish and thus increase the deficit. Also, the dollar is not backed by nothing. It is backed by the economy of the US.

The founders were concerned with a large central bank because they felt it could/would create banks too big to fail. Sound familiar? Instead of a contained local problem among a few banks with their own notes, large central banks exposure can cause economic pandemics, just like 2008.

During Clinton's Presidency the government ran a surplus and never suffered a recession, so not sure where you got your numbers regarding government debt and recessions.

Here is an excellent article which might cause you to reconsider the worthiness of growing debt without corresponding economic growth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're making my point, thank you. All attempts at a central bank have failed. Yes, that includes the current version chartered in 1913 ( a very bad year for the US, formation of FR, Amendment 16&17 ratified).

So I am unclear on your position. Are in favor of a central bank, opposed to a central bank, or don't know what you think?

You're making my point, thank you.

Your point was the Founders warned us against a Central Bank.
And I pointed out that those same Founders, in 1791, created a Central Bank.
If that was your point, you're welcome.

All attempts at a central bank have failed.

How has the Federal Reserve failed? 104 years later, still here.

So I am unclear on your position

Just as you were unclear on the position of the Founders.

Are in favor of a central bank,

They're a useful, though imperfect, tool.

So you seem to think they didn't warn about a central bank because we have had central banks? I am very clear that some of our founders were vehemently opposed to a central bank, as is anyone who reads history-
Our founding fathers were against the federal reserve and central banking system.
Our founding fathers were against the federal reserve and central banking system
A central bank was established later, however, and had a 20 year run, when Andrew Jackson destroyed it in 1836. On his death bed he was asked what his greatest accomplishment in his life was he said “I KILLED THE BANK”
To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude." --Jefferson 1816

How has the Federal Reserve failed? Ask why it was created, and you'll discovery the answer. Again, you have to read history.

In 1913 when the Fed was founded, its principal function was to make sure the U.S. banking system could endure bank runs created by unforeseen financial shocks. The agency was to accomplish this task by loaning to its member banks when the banks needed more liquidity. These loans were to be paid in Federal Reserve Notes, a new banknote that the Fed was given the legal authority to issue.

However, as economist Milton Friedman and coauthor Anna Schwartz explain in "A Monetary History of the United States," just over a decade after its creation, the Fed actually created the panic it was founded to stop. Their policies, Friedman and Schwartz argue, spiraled what could have been an ordinary recession into the Great Depression.

Even Ben Bernanke, a member of the Fed's board of governors at the time and later the Fed chair, said in a 2002 speech, "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. 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."


In 1933 when the Great Depression officially ended, Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). It was tasked with offering government-funded deposit insurance to banks, essentially overlapping the purpose of the Fed.

With the FDIC providing insurance coverage up to a specified limit, the Fed was really only left with the task of catching the banking shocks the FDIC misses.

However, the Fed really shouldn't be choosing winners and losers in the banking world. It should not be saving some banks by claiming they are "too big to fail" while letting other massive banks go under (like Lehman Brothers, the fourth largest bank in the world in 2008).

Yea, they have been a booming success....SARCASM!

Look, I acknowledge the founders were pretty smart. But just because they liked or didn't like something 250 years ago doesn't make it good or bad.

The founders existed in a completely different time. With respect to economics, they couldn't have even begun to imagine the world we live in today, both with respect to things like globalization and the fact that our money is backed by nothing. Today we have a banking system, not a bunch of independent banks. Today the government has the power to create money.

Explain to us why today central banking is inherently bad without making an argument from authority.

Just curious, are you aware that when Jackson repaid the debt, the next year, the economy went into depre a sion? Just as a side note. Every year the government has run a significant sustained surplus (6 times), the economy has followed the next year by going into depression?

The government doesn't have the power to create money...directly. That power rest with the federal reserve. The government is enabled by the federal to spend whatever they wish and thus increase the deficit. Also, the dollar is not backed by nothing. It is backed by the economy of the US.

The founders were concerned with a large central bank because they felt it could/would create banks too big to fail. Sound familiar? Instead of a contained local problem among a few banks with their own notes, large central banks exposure can cause economic pandemics, just like 2008.

During Clinton's Presidency the government ran a surplus and never suffered a recession, so not sure where you got your numbers regarding government debt and recessions.

Here is an excellent article which might cause you to reconsider the worthiness of growing debt without corresponding economic growth.

The government doesn't have the power to create money...directly. That power rest with the federal reserve.

Most of our money supply is created by commercial banks.

 

[anotherlife]

No, because the law says that that 90 % is backed by the fed reserve. Also, by the time you deposit, your loan is already sold off.

No, because the law says that that 90 % is backed by the fed reserve.

Can you show me this supposed law?

Also, by the time you deposit, your loan is already sold off.

Why would they sell it off? Who would buy it? Still waiting for my loan check to clear.........

I can't show you the actual text of the law, but I guess it could be googled. Bundled loan packages are always sold off, and sold again, rapidly. Everybody buys it, until it hits Lehan Brothers. So your cheque has cleared.

I can't show you the actual text of the law,

Not surprising, since there is no such law.
Please, don't open a bank, you'd be jailed in less than a week.

This is how the mortgage bubble went down though. Also, the Lehman Brothers executives got bankrupted if not jailed. Your cheque will clear though because all this will be just eased down using inflation.

You'll loan me 10 times the amount of your deposits, but my check will still clear because....inflation?

Because the federal reserve prints the missing 90 %. That will make your cheque clear. And that is also called inflation, as printing money usually is. However when you pay me the interest after the loan, you pay that after the whole amount, not after 10 % of it, so if I charge you a 5 % APR then I brake even in about 2 years, and everything else you pay me as the interest after the 2nd year, is my pure profit, including also the principal you pay. You offset that inflationary 90 % by your personal work trying to catch up with it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, because the law says that that 90 % is backed by the fed reserve.

Can you show me this supposed law?

Also, by the time you deposit, your loan is already sold off.

Why would they sell it off? Who would buy it? Still waiting for my loan check to clear.........

I can't show you the actual text of the law, but I guess it could be googled. Bundled loan packages are always sold off, and sold again, rapidly. Everybody buys it, until it hits Lehan Brothers. So your cheque has cleared.

I can't show you the actual text of the law,

Not surprising, since there is no such law.
Please, don't open a bank, you'd be jailed in less than a week.

This is how the mortgage bubble went down though. Also, the Lehman Brothers executives got bankrupted if not jailed. Your cheque will clear though because all this will be just eased down using inflation.

You'll loan me 10 times the amount of your deposits, but my check will still clear because....inflation?

Because the federal reserve prints the missing 90 %. That will make your cheque clear. And that is also called inflation, as printing money usually is. However when you pay me the interest after the loan, you pay that after the whole amount, not after 10 % of it, so if I charge you a 5 % APR then I brake even in about 2 years, and everything else you pay me as the interest after the 2nd year, is my pure profit, including also the principal you pay. You offset that inflationary 90 % by your personal work trying to catch up with it.

Because the federal reserve prints the missing 90 %.

Your new bank opens. Takes a single $1000 deposit, loans me $10,000 and you think the Fed prints $9000 and hands it to your new bank? That's funny.

You have any backup for this claim?

However when you pay me the interest after the loan, you pay that after the whole amount, not after 10 % of it, so if I charge you a 5 % APR then I brake even in about 2 years

Hilarious!! How can any bank ever lose money or fail in this fantasy world you live in?

 

[Econ4Every1]

You're making my point, thank you. All attempts at a central bank have failed. Yes, that includes the current version chartered in 1913 ( a very bad year for the US, formation of FR, Amendment 16&17 ratified).

So I am unclear on your position. Are in favor of a central bank, opposed to a central bank, or don't know what you think?

You're making my point, thank you.

Your point was the Founders warned us against a Central Bank.
And I pointed out that those same Founders, in 1791, created a Central Bank.
If that was your point, you're welcome.

All attempts at a central bank have failed.

How has the Federal Reserve failed? 104 years later, still here.

So I am unclear on your position

Just as you were unclear on the position of the Founders.

Are in favor of a central bank,

They're a useful, though imperfect, tool.

So you seem to think they didn't warn about a central bank because we have had central banks? I am very clear that some of our founders were vehemently opposed to a central bank, as is anyone who reads history-
Our founding fathers were against the federal reserve and central banking system.
Our founding fathers were against the federal reserve and central banking system
A central bank was established later, however, and had a 20 year run, when Andrew Jackson destroyed it in 1836. On his death bed he was asked what his greatest accomplishment in his life was he said “I KILLED THE BANK”
To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude." --Jefferson 1816

How has the Federal Reserve failed? Ask why it was created, and you'll discovery the answer. Again, you have to read history.

In 1913 when the Fed was founded, its principal function was to make sure the U.S. banking system could endure bank runs created by unforeseen financial shocks. The agency was to accomplish this task by loaning to its member banks when the banks needed more liquidity. These loans were to be paid in Federal Reserve Notes, a new banknote that the Fed was given the legal authority to issue.

However, as economist Milton Friedman and coauthor Anna Schwartz explain in "A Monetary History of the United States," just over a decade after its creation, the Fed actually created the panic it was founded to stop. Their policies, Friedman and Schwartz argue, spiraled what could have been an ordinary recession into the Great Depression.

Even Ben Bernanke, a member of the Fed's board of governors at the time and later the Fed chair, said in a 2002 speech, "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. 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."


In 1933 when the Great Depression officially ended, Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). It was tasked with offering government-funded deposit insurance to banks, essentially overlapping the purpose of the Fed.

With the FDIC providing insurance coverage up to a specified limit, the Fed was really only left with the task of catching the banking shocks the FDIC misses.

However, the Fed really shouldn't be choosing winners and losers in the banking world. It should not be saving some banks by claiming they are "too big to fail" while letting other massive banks go under (like Lehman Brothers, the fourth largest bank in the world in 2008).

Yea, they have been a booming success....SARCASM!

Look, I acknowledge the founders were pretty smart. But just because they liked or didn't like something 250 years ago doesn't make it good or bad.

The founders existed in a completely different time. With respect to economics, they couldn't have even begun to imagine the world we live in today, both with respect to things like globalization and the fact that our money is backed by nothing. Today we have a banking system, not a bunch of independent banks. Today the government has the power to create money.

Explain to us why today central banking is inherently bad without making an argument from authority.

Just curious, are you aware that when Jackson repaid the debt, the next year, the economy went into depre a sion? Just as a side note. Every year the government has run a significant sustained surplus (6 times), the economy has followed the next year by going into depression?

The government doesn't have the power to create money...directly. That power rest with the federal reserve. The government is enabled by the federal to spend whatever they wish and thus increase the deficit. Also, the dollar is not backed by nothing. It is backed by the economy of the US.

The founders were concerned with a large central bank because they felt it could/would create banks too big to fail. Sound familiar? Instead of a contained local problem among a few banks with their own notes, large central banks exposure can cause economic pandemics, just like 2008.

During Clinton's Presidency the government ran a surplus and never suffered a recession, so not sure where you got your numbers regarding government debt and recessions.

Here is an excellent article which might cause you to reconsider the worthiness of growing debt without corresponding economic growth.

With respect to recessions/ depressions, here are the numbers:

1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001

Recessions tend to come on the heels of reductions in federal debt/money growth (See graph, below), while debt/money growth has increased when recessions were resolving. Taxes reduce debt/money growth. No government can tax itself into prosperity, but many government’s tax themselves into recession.

 

[anotherlife]

I can't show you the actual text of the law, but I guess it could be googled. Bundled loan packages are always sold off, and sold again, rapidly. Everybody buys it, until it hits Lehan Brothers. So your cheque has cleared.

I can't show you the actual text of the law,

Not surprising, since there is no such law.
Please, don't open a bank, you'd be jailed in less than a week.

This is how the mortgage bubble went down though. Also, the Lehman Brothers executives got bankrupted if not jailed. Your cheque will clear though because all this will be just eased down using inflation.

You'll loan me 10 times the amount of your deposits, but my check will still clear because....inflation?

Because the federal reserve prints the missing 90 %. That will make your cheque clear. And that is also called inflation, as printing money usually is. However when you pay me the interest after the loan, you pay that after the whole amount, not after 10 % of it, so if I charge you a 5 % APR then I brake even in about 2 years, and everything else you pay me as the interest after the 2nd year, is my pure profit, including also the principal you pay. You offset that inflationary 90 % by your personal work trying to catch up with it.

Because the federal reserve prints the missing 90 %.

Your new bank opens. Takes a single $1000 deposit, loans me $10,000 and you think the Fed prints $9000 and hands it to your new bank? That's funny.

You have any backup for this claim?

However when you pay me the interest after the loan, you pay that after the whole amount, not after 10 % of it, so if I charge you a 5 % APR then I brake even in about 2 years

Hilarious!! How can any bank ever lose money or fail in this fantasy world you live in?

They fail the same way as Lehman brothers or by over leveraging themselves. There may be a hundred other reasons too.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can't show you the actual text of the law,

Not surprising, since there is no such law.
Please, don't open a bank, you'd be jailed in less than a week.

This is how the mortgage bubble went down though. Also, the Lehman Brothers executives got bankrupted if not jailed. Your cheque will clear though because all this will be just eased down using inflation.

You'll loan me 10 times the amount of your deposits, but my check will still clear because....inflation?

Because the federal reserve prints the missing 90 %. That will make your cheque clear. And that is also called inflation, as printing money usually is. However when you pay me the interest after the loan, you pay that after the whole amount, not after 10 % of it, so if I charge you a 5 % APR then I brake even in about 2 years, and everything else you pay me as the interest after the 2nd year, is my pure profit, including also the principal you pay. You offset that inflationary 90 % by your personal work trying to catch up with it.

Because the federal reserve prints the missing 90 %.

Your new bank opens. Takes a single $1000 deposit, loans me $10,000 and you think the Fed prints $9000 and hands it to your new bank? That's funny.

You have any backup for this claim?

However when you pay me the interest after the loan, you pay that after the whole amount, not after 10 % of it, so if I charge you a 5 % APR then I brake even in about 2 years

Hilarious!! How can any bank ever lose money or fail in this fantasy world you live in?

They fail the same way as Lehman brothers or by over leveraging themselves. There may be a hundred other reasons too.

If they could loan $10 for every $1 they borrow, they'd never fail.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

You're making my point, thank you. All attempts at a central bank have failed. Yes, that includes the current version chartered in 1913 ( a very bad year for the US, formation of FR, Amendment 16&17 ratified).

So I am unclear on your position. Are in favor of a central bank, opposed to a central bank, or don't know what you think?

You're making my point, thank you.

Your point was the Founders warned us against a Central Bank.
And I pointed out that those same Founders, in 1791, created a Central Bank.
If that was your point, you're welcome.

All attempts at a central bank have failed.

How has the Federal Reserve failed? 104 years later, still here.

So I am unclear on your position

Just as you were unclear on the position of the Founders.

Are in favor of a central bank,

They're a useful, though imperfect, tool.

So you seem to think they didn't warn about a central bank because we have had central banks? I am very clear that some of our founders were vehemently opposed to a central bank, as is anyone who reads history-
Our founding fathers were against the federal reserve and central banking system.
Our founding fathers were against the federal reserve and central banking system
A central bank was established later, however, and had a 20 year run, when Andrew Jackson destroyed it in 1836. On his death bed he was asked what his greatest accomplishment in his life was he said “I KILLED THE BANK”
To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude." --Jefferson 1816

How has the Federal Reserve failed? Ask why it was created, and you'll discovery the answer. Again, you have to read history.

In 1913 when the Fed was founded, its principal function was to make sure the U.S. banking system could endure bank runs created by unforeseen financial shocks. The agency was to accomplish this task by loaning to its member banks when the banks needed more liquidity. These loans were to be paid in Federal Reserve Notes, a new banknote that the Fed was given the legal authority to issue.

However, as economist Milton Friedman and coauthor Anna Schwartz explain in "A Monetary History of the United States," just over a decade after its creation, the Fed actually created the panic it was founded to stop. Their policies, Friedman and Schwartz argue, spiraled what could have been an ordinary recession into the Great Depression.

Even Ben Bernanke, a member of the Fed's board of governors at the time and later the Fed chair, said in a 2002 speech, "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. 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."


In 1933 when the Great Depression officially ended, Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). It was tasked with offering government-funded deposit insurance to banks, essentially overlapping the purpose of the Fed.

With the FDIC providing insurance coverage up to a specified limit, the Fed was really only left with the task of catching the banking shocks the FDIC misses.

However, the Fed really shouldn't be choosing winners and losers in the banking world. It should not be saving some banks by claiming they are "too big to fail" while letting other massive banks go under (like Lehman Brothers, the fourth largest bank in the world in 2008).

Yea, they have been a booming success....SARCASM!

Look, I acknowledge the founders were pretty smart. But just because they liked or didn't like something 250 years ago doesn't make it good or bad.

The founders existed in a completely different time. With respect to economics, they couldn't have even begun to imagine the world we live in today, both with respect to things like globalization and the fact that our money is backed by nothing. Today we have a banking system, not a bunch of independent banks. Today the government has the power to create money.

Explain to us why today central banking is inherently bad without making an argument from authority.

Just curious, are you aware that when Jackson repaid the debt, the next year, the economy went into depre a sion? Just as a side note. Every year the government has run a significant sustained surplus (6 times), the economy has followed the next year by going into depression?

The government doesn't have the power to create money...directly. That power rest with the federal reserve. The government is enabled by the federal to spend whatever they wish and thus increase the deficit. Also, the dollar is not backed by nothing. It is backed by the economy of the US.

The founders were concerned with a large central bank because they felt it could/would create banks too big to fail. Sound familiar? Instead of a contained local problem among a few banks with their own notes, large central banks exposure can cause economic pandemics, just like 2008.

During Clinton's Presidency the government ran a surplus and never suffered a recession, so not sure where you got your numbers regarding government debt and recessions.

Here is an excellent article which might cause you to reconsider the worthiness of growing debt without corresponding economic growth.

The government doesn't have the power to create money...directly. That power rest with the federal reserve.

Most of our money supply is created by commercial banks.

Not sure if I agree with that considering over the last 8 years all the QE the Fed has engaged in. Once again, since Toddster is a lazy poster, he hasn't provided any links to support his statement. Perhaps in a non-QE environment that is accurate.
When The Fed Prints Money, What Impact Does It Have On You?
The Federal Reserve, the United States central bank, has “printed” more than $2 trillion since the global economic crisis began in 2008. This has more than tripled the size of its balance sheet. Before this spree of paper money creation began, the Fed held $950 billion in assets; now it holds nearly $3 trillion. Why did they do this and what impact has it had on you, the general public?

 

[Econ4Every1]

You're making my point, thank you.

Your point was the Founders warned us against a Central Bank.
And I pointed out that those same Founders, in 1791, created a Central Bank.
If that was your point, you're welcome.

All attempts at a central bank have failed.

How has the Federal Reserve failed? 104 years later, still here.

So I am unclear on your position

Just as you were unclear on the position of the Founders.

Are in favor of a central bank,

They're a useful, though imperfect, tool.

So you seem to think they didn't warn about a central bank because we have had central banks? I am very clear that some of our founders were vehemently opposed to a central bank, as is anyone who reads history-
Our founding fathers were against the federal reserve and central banking system.
Our founding fathers were against the federal reserve and central banking system
A central bank was established later, however, and had a 20 year run, when Andrew Jackson destroyed it in 1836. On his death bed he was asked what his greatest accomplishment in his life was he said “I KILLED THE BANK”
To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude." --Jefferson 1816

How has the Federal Reserve failed? Ask why it was created, and you'll discovery the answer. Again, you have to read history.

In 1913 when the Fed was founded, its principal function was to make sure the U.S. banking system could endure bank runs created by unforeseen financial shocks. The agency was to accomplish this task by loaning to its member banks when the banks needed more liquidity. These loans were to be paid in Federal Reserve Notes, a new banknote that the Fed was given the legal authority to issue.

However, as economist Milton Friedman and coauthor Anna Schwartz explain in "A Monetary History of the United States," just over a decade after its creation, the Fed actually created the panic it was founded to stop. Their policies, Friedman and Schwartz argue, spiraled what could have been an ordinary recession into the Great Depression.

Even Ben Bernanke, a member of the Fed's board of governors at the time and later the Fed chair, said in a 2002 speech, "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. 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."


In 1933 when the Great Depression officially ended, Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). It was tasked with offering government-funded deposit insurance to banks, essentially overlapping the purpose of the Fed.

With the FDIC providing insurance coverage up to a specified limit, the Fed was really only left with the task of catching the banking shocks the FDIC misses.

However, the Fed really shouldn't be choosing winners and losers in the banking world. It should not be saving some banks by claiming they are "too big to fail" while letting other massive banks go under (like Lehman Brothers, the fourth largest bank in the world in 2008).

Yea, they have been a booming success....SARCASM!

Look, I acknowledge the founders were pretty smart. But just because they liked or didn't like something 250 years ago doesn't make it good or bad.

The founders existed in a completely different time. With respect to economics, they couldn't have even begun to imagine the world we live in today, both with respect to things like globalization and the fact that our money is backed by nothing. Today we have a banking system, not a bunch of independent banks. Today the government has the power to create money.

Explain to us why today central banking is inherently bad without making an argument from authority.

Just curious, are you aware that when Jackson repaid the debt, the next year, the economy went into depre a sion? Just as a side note. Every year the government has run a significant sustained surplus (6 times), the economy has followed the next year by going into depression?

The government doesn't have the power to create money...directly. That power rest with the federal reserve. The government is enabled by the federal to spend whatever they wish and thus increase the deficit. Also, the dollar is not backed by nothing. It is backed by the economy of the US.

The founders were concerned with a large central bank because they felt it could/would create banks too big to fail. Sound familiar? Instead of a contained local problem among a few banks with their own notes, large central banks exposure can cause economic pandemics, just like 2008.

During Clinton's Presidency the government ran a surplus and never suffered a recession, so not sure where you got your numbers regarding government debt and recessions.

Here is an excellent article which might cause you to reconsider the worthiness of growing debt without corresponding economic growth.

The government doesn't have the power to create money...directly. That power rest with the federal reserve.

Most of our money supply is created by commercial banks.

Not sure if I agree with that considering over the last 8 years all the QE the Fed has engaged in. Once again, since Toddster is a lazy poster, he hasn't provided any links to support his statement. Perhaps in a non-QE environment that is accurate.
When The Fed Prints Money, What Impact Does It Have On You?
The Federal Reserve, the United States central bank, has “printed” more than $2 trillion since the global economic crisis began in 2008. This has more than tripled the size of its balance sheet. Before this spree of paper money creation began, the Fed held $950 billion in assets; now it holds nearly $3 trillion. Why did they do this and what impact has it had on you, the general public?

Actually, it's not.

The Fed doesn't simply create money.

1) The Fed acquires collateral in the form of US Treasuries (with the unusual exception of MBS' it bought as part of the housing meltdown or QE).

2) When the Board of Governors creates FRNs it SELLS them to the banks. The Banks must trade dollar reserves for physical dollars.

With respect to QE. It started out as a program to reduce the liabilities held by banks. When a banks liabilities exceed its assets it becomes insolvent. Given all the bad debt out there, many of the nations largest banks would have failed and potentially taken the global economic system with it.

So the Fed created reserves (out of thin air) and either purchased the negative equity from the banks. This simply changed the asset-to-liability ratio on the bank's books and kept them from becoming insolvent.

As far as the effect QE has on you. Well, it's pushed bank interest rates to near zero. Great if you're a borrower, but if you prefer the safety of US bonds over stocks, the return is terrible. The result has been that investors have turned to the stock market to make their money grow. This increases risk in the system.

I suspect that when the Fed unwinds QE slowly by selling the property it purchased back to private sector banks, this will begin to reduce the massive quantity of reserves and we'll see interest rates rise and people will begin to take their money out of the stock market and invest in bonds again.

Unless businesses can increase value in their companies via growth, I suspect the stock market will, in the aggregate enter a long period of minimal growth, IF rates rise and holding bonds becomes attractive again.

The other side of that is those that borrowed at a low rate (again thanks to QE) and invested leveraging borrowed money in the markets. As rates rise investors will deleverage, repay debts and sell off stock. If there is a glut of sellers, the price will fall....If they fall too fast that will create real issues, which is why I expect the Fed to move out of QE very slowly. It took 8 years to create and I suspect it will take about that long to unwind.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

So you seem to think they didn't warn about a central bank because we have had central banks? I am very clear that some of our founders were vehemently opposed to a central bank, as is anyone who reads history-
Our founding fathers were against the federal reserve and central banking system.
Our founding fathers were against the federal reserve and central banking system
A central bank was established later, however, and had a 20 year run, when Andrew Jackson destroyed it in 1836. On his death bed he was asked what his greatest accomplishment in his life was he said “I KILLED THE BANK”
To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude." --Jefferson 1816

How has the Federal Reserve failed? Ask why it was created, and you'll discovery the answer. Again, you have to read history.

In 1913 when the Fed was founded, its principal function was to make sure the U.S. banking system could endure bank runs created by unforeseen financial shocks. The agency was to accomplish this task by loaning to its member banks when the banks needed more liquidity. These loans were to be paid in Federal Reserve Notes, a new banknote that the Fed was given the legal authority to issue.

However, as economist Milton Friedman and coauthor Anna Schwartz explain in "A Monetary History of the United States," just over a decade after its creation, the Fed actually created the panic it was founded to stop. Their policies, Friedman and Schwartz argue, spiraled what could have been an ordinary recession into the Great Depression.

Even Ben Bernanke, a member of the Fed's board of governors at the time and later the Fed chair, said in a 2002 speech, "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. 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."


In 1933 when the Great Depression officially ended, Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). It was tasked with offering government-funded deposit insurance to banks, essentially overlapping the purpose of the Fed.

With the FDIC providing insurance coverage up to a specified limit, the Fed was really only left with the task of catching the banking shocks the FDIC misses.

However, the Fed really shouldn't be choosing winners and losers in the banking world. It should not be saving some banks by claiming they are "too big to fail" while letting other massive banks go under (like Lehman Brothers, the fourth largest bank in the world in 2008).

Yea, they have been a booming success....SARCASM!

Look, I acknowledge the founders were pretty smart. But just because they liked or didn't like something 250 years ago doesn't make it good or bad.

The founders existed in a completely different time. With respect to economics, they couldn't have even begun to imagine the world we live in today, both with respect to things like globalization and the fact that our money is backed by nothing. Today we have a banking system, not a bunch of independent banks. Today the government has the power to create money.

Explain to us why today central banking is inherently bad without making an argument from authority.

Just curious, are you aware that when Jackson repaid the debt, the next year, the economy went into depre a sion? Just as a side note. Every year the government has run a significant sustained surplus (6 times), the economy has followed the next year by going into depression?

The government doesn't have the power to create money...directly. That power rest with the federal reserve. The government is enabled by the federal to spend whatever they wish and thus increase the deficit. Also, the dollar is not backed by nothing. It is backed by the economy of the US.

The founders were concerned with a large central bank because they felt it could/would create banks too big to fail. Sound familiar? Instead of a contained local problem among a few banks with their own notes, large central banks exposure can cause economic pandemics, just like 2008.

During Clinton's Presidency the government ran a surplus and never suffered a recession, so not sure where you got your numbers regarding government debt and recessions.

Here is an excellent article which might cause you to reconsider the worthiness of growing debt without corresponding economic growth.

The government doesn't have the power to create money...directly. That power rest with the federal reserve.

Most of our money supply is created by commercial banks.

Not sure if I agree with that considering over the last 8 years all the QE the Fed has engaged in. Once again, since Toddster is a lazy poster, he hasn't provided any links to support his statement. Perhaps in a non-QE environment that is accurate.
When The Fed Prints Money, What Impact Does It Have On You?
The Federal Reserve, the United States central bank, has “printed” more than $2 trillion since the global economic crisis began in 2008. This has more than tripled the size of its balance sheet. Before this spree of paper money creation began, the Fed held $950 billion in assets; now it holds nearly $3 trillion. Why did they do this and what impact has it had on you, the general public?

Actually, it's not.

The Fed doesn't simply create money.

1) The Fed acquires collateral in the form of US Treasuries (with the unusual exception of MBS' it bought as part of the housing meltdown or QE).

2) When the Board of Governors creates FRNs it SELLS them to the banks. The Banks must trade dollar reserves for physical dollars.

With respect to QE. It started out as a program to reduce the liabilities held by banks. When a banks liabilities exceed its assets it becomes insolvent. Given all the bad debt out there, many of the nations largest banks would have failed and potentially taken the global economic system with it.

So the Fed created reserves (out of thin air) and either purchased the negative equity from the banks. This simply changed the asset-to-liability ratio on the bank's books and kept them from becoming insolvent.

As far as the effect QE has on you. Well, it's pushed bank interest rates to near zero. Great if you're a borrower, but if you prefer the safety of US bonds over stocks, the return is terrible. The result has been that investors have turned to the stock market to make their money grow. This increases risk in the system.

I suspect that when the Fed unwinds QE slowly by selling the property it purchased back to private sector banks, this will begin to reduce the massive quantity of reserves and we'll see interest rates rise and people will begin to take their money out of the stock market and invest in bonds again.

Unless businesses can increase value in their companies via growth, I suspect the stock market will, in the aggregate enter a long period of minimal growth, IF rates rise and holding bonds becomes attractive again.

The other side of that is those that borrowed at a low rate (again thanks to QE) and invested leveraging borrowed money in the markets. As rates rise investors will deleverage, repay debts and sell off stock. If there is a glut of sellers, the price will fall....If they fall too fast that will create real issues, which is why I expect the Fed to move out of QE very slowly. It took 8 years to create and I suspect it will take about that long to unwind.

I won't try and predict how long it will take the Fed to unwind out of QE, but I am confident, at some point in the process, the stock market and possibly the real estate market will suffer a jolt. You seem to have more confidence in the Feds ability to sail smoothly out of this QE mess without a harmful ripple effect across the economy. If we suddenly experience large and steady growth, things could be smooth. That is a big IF.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're making my point, thank you.

Your point was the Founders warned us against a Central Bank.
And I pointed out that those same Founders, in 1791, created a Central Bank.
If that was your point, you're welcome.

All attempts at a central bank have failed.

How has the Federal Reserve failed? 104 years later, still here.

So I am unclear on your position

Just as you were unclear on the position of the Founders.

Are in favor of a central bank,

They're a useful, though imperfect, tool.

So you seem to think they didn't warn about a central bank because we have had central banks? I am very clear that some of our founders were vehemently opposed to a central bank, as is anyone who reads history-
Our founding fathers were against the federal reserve and central banking system.
Our founding fathers were against the federal reserve and central banking system
A central bank was established later, however, and had a 20 year run, when Andrew Jackson destroyed it in 1836. On his death bed he was asked what his greatest accomplishment in his life was he said “I KILLED THE BANK”
To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude." --Jefferson 1816

How has the Federal Reserve failed? Ask why it was created, and you'll discovery the answer. Again, you have to read history.

In 1913 when the Fed was founded, its principal function was to make sure the U.S. banking system could endure bank runs created by unforeseen financial shocks. The agency was to accomplish this task by loaning to its member banks when the banks needed more liquidity. These loans were to be paid in Federal Reserve Notes, a new banknote that the Fed was given the legal authority to issue.

However, as economist Milton Friedman and coauthor Anna Schwartz explain in "A Monetary History of the United States," just over a decade after its creation, the Fed actually created the panic it was founded to stop. Their policies, Friedman and Schwartz argue, spiraled what could have been an ordinary recession into the Great Depression.

Even Ben Bernanke, a member of the Fed's board of governors at the time and later the Fed chair, said in a 2002 speech, "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. 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."


In 1933 when the Great Depression officially ended, Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). It was tasked with offering government-funded deposit insurance to banks, essentially overlapping the purpose of the Fed.

With the FDIC providing insurance coverage up to a specified limit, the Fed was really only left with the task of catching the banking shocks the FDIC misses.

However, the Fed really shouldn't be choosing winners and losers in the banking world. It should not be saving some banks by claiming they are "too big to fail" while letting other massive banks go under (like Lehman Brothers, the fourth largest bank in the world in 2008).

Yea, they have been a booming success....SARCASM!

Look, I acknowledge the founders were pretty smart. But just because they liked or didn't like something 250 years ago doesn't make it good or bad.

The founders existed in a completely different time. With respect to economics, they couldn't have even begun to imagine the world we live in today, both with respect to things like globalization and the fact that our money is backed by nothing. Today we have a banking system, not a bunch of independent banks. Today the government has the power to create money.

Explain to us why today central banking is inherently bad without making an argument from authority.

Just curious, are you aware that when Jackson repaid the debt, the next year, the economy went into depre a sion? Just as a side note. Every year the government has run a significant sustained surplus (6 times), the economy has followed the next year by going into depression?

The government doesn't have the power to create money...directly. That power rest with the federal reserve. The government is enabled by the federal to spend whatever they wish and thus increase the deficit. Also, the dollar is not backed by nothing. It is backed by the economy of the US.

The founders were concerned with a large central bank because they felt it could/would create banks too big to fail. Sound familiar? Instead of a contained local problem among a few banks with their own notes, large central banks exposure can cause economic pandemics, just like 2008.

During Clinton's Presidency the government ran a surplus and never suffered a recession, so not sure where you got your numbers regarding government debt and recessions.

Here is an excellent article which might cause you to reconsider the worthiness of growing debt without corresponding economic growth.

The government doesn't have the power to create money...directly. That power rest with the federal reserve.

Most of our money supply is created by commercial banks.

Not sure if I agree with that considering over the last 8 years all the QE the Fed has engaged in. Once again, since Toddster is a lazy poster, he hasn't provided any links to support his statement. Perhaps in a non-QE environment that is accurate.
When The Fed Prints Money, What Impact Does It Have On You?
The Federal Reserve, the United States central bank, has “printed” more than $2 trillion since the global economic crisis began in 2008. This has more than tripled the size of its balance sheet. Before this spree of paper money creation began, the Fed held $950 billion in assets; now it holds nearly $3 trillion. Why did they do this and what impact has it had on you, the general public?

Not sure if I agree with that

You'd have to understand what makes up our money supply.

he hasn't provided any links to support his statement.

You're right.
I assume people reading this thread have at least a rudimentary understanding of the topic.

The Federal Reserve, the United States central bank, has “printed” more than $2 trillion since the global economic crisis began in 2008.

QE ended in October 2014, M2 keeps ticking higher.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you seem to think they didn't warn about a central bank because we have had central banks? I am very clear that some of our founders were vehemently opposed to a central bank, as is anyone who reads history-
Our founding fathers were against the federal reserve and central banking system.
Our founding fathers were against the federal reserve and central banking system
A central bank was established later, however, and had a 20 year run, when Andrew Jackson destroyed it in 1836. On his death bed he was asked what his greatest accomplishment in his life was he said “I KILLED THE BANK”
To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude." --Jefferson 1816

How has the Federal Reserve failed? Ask why it was created, and you'll discovery the answer. Again, you have to read history.

In 1913 when the Fed was founded, its principal function was to make sure the U.S. banking system could endure bank runs created by unforeseen financial shocks. The agency was to accomplish this task by loaning to its member banks when the banks needed more liquidity. These loans were to be paid in Federal Reserve Notes, a new banknote that the Fed was given the legal authority to issue.

However, as economist Milton Friedman and coauthor Anna Schwartz explain in "A Monetary History of the United States," just over a decade after its creation, the Fed actually created the panic it was founded to stop. Their policies, Friedman and Schwartz argue, spiraled what could have been an ordinary recession into the Great Depression.

Even Ben Bernanke, a member of the Fed's board of governors at the time and later the Fed chair, said in a 2002 speech, "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. 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."


In 1933 when the Great Depression officially ended, Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). It was tasked with offering government-funded deposit insurance to banks, essentially overlapping the purpose of the Fed.

With the FDIC providing insurance coverage up to a specified limit, the Fed was really only left with the task of catching the banking shocks the FDIC misses.

However, the Fed really shouldn't be choosing winners and losers in the banking world. It should not be saving some banks by claiming they are "too big to fail" while letting other massive banks go under (like Lehman Brothers, the fourth largest bank in the world in 2008).

Yea, they have been a booming success....SARCASM!

Look, I acknowledge the founders were pretty smart. But just because they liked or didn't like something 250 years ago doesn't make it good or bad.

The founders existed in a completely different time. With respect to economics, they couldn't have even begun to imagine the world we live in today, both with respect to things like globalization and the fact that our money is backed by nothing. Today we have a banking system, not a bunch of independent banks. Today the government has the power to create money.

Explain to us why today central banking is inherently bad without making an argument from authority.

Just curious, are you aware that when Jackson repaid the debt, the next year, the economy went into depre a sion? Just as a side note. Every year the government has run a significant sustained surplus (6 times), the economy has followed the next year by going into depression?

The government doesn't have the power to create money...directly. That power rest with the federal reserve. The government is enabled by the federal to spend whatever they wish and thus increase the deficit. Also, the dollar is not backed by nothing. It is backed by the economy of the US.

The founders were concerned with a large central bank because they felt it could/would create banks too big to fail. Sound familiar? Instead of a contained local problem among a few banks with their own notes, large central banks exposure can cause economic pandemics, just like 2008.

During Clinton's Presidency the government ran a surplus and never suffered a recession, so not sure where you got your numbers regarding government debt and recessions.

Here is an excellent article which might cause you to reconsider the worthiness of growing debt without corresponding economic growth.

The government doesn't have the power to create money...directly. That power rest with the federal reserve.

Most of our money supply is created by commercial banks.

Not sure if I agree with that considering over the last 8 years all the QE the Fed has engaged in. Once again, since Toddster is a lazy poster, he hasn't provided any links to support his statement. Perhaps in a non-QE environment that is accurate.
When The Fed Prints Money, What Impact Does It Have On You?
The Federal Reserve, the United States central bank, has “printed” more than $2 trillion since the global economic crisis began in 2008. This has more than tripled the size of its balance sheet. Before this spree of paper money creation began, the Fed held $950 billion in assets; now it holds nearly $3 trillion. Why did they do this and what impact has it had on you, the general public?

Actually, it's not.

The Fed doesn't simply create money.

1) The Fed acquires collateral in the form of US Treasuries (with the unusual exception of MBS' it bought as part of the housing meltdown or QE).

2) When the Board of Governors creates FRNs it SELLS them to the banks. The Banks must trade dollar reserves for physical dollars.

With respect to QE. It started out as a program to reduce the liabilities held by banks. When a banks liabilities exceed its assets it becomes insolvent. Given all the bad debt out there, many of the nations largest banks would have failed and potentially taken the global economic system with it.

So the Fed created reserves (out of thin air) and either purchased the negative equity from the banks. This simply changed the asset-to-liability ratio on the bank's books and kept them from becoming insolvent.

As far as the effect QE has on you. Well, it's pushed bank interest rates to near zero. Great if you're a borrower, but if you prefer the safety of US bonds over stocks, the return is terrible. The result has been that investors have turned to the stock market to make their money grow. This increases risk in the system.

I suspect that when the Fed unwinds QE slowly by selling the property it purchased back to private sector banks, this will begin to reduce the massive quantity of reserves and we'll see interest rates rise and people will begin to take their money out of the stock market and invest in bonds again.

Unless businesses can increase value in their companies via growth, I suspect the stock market will, in the aggregate enter a long period of minimal growth, IF rates rise and holding bonds becomes attractive again.

The other side of that is those that borrowed at a low rate (again thanks to QE) and invested leveraging borrowed money in the markets. As rates rise investors will deleverage, repay debts and sell off stock. If there is a glut of sellers, the price will fall....If they fall too fast that will create real issues, which is why I expect the Fed to move out of QE very slowly. It took 8 years to create and I suspect it will take about that long to unwind.

With respect to QE. It started out as a program to reduce the liabilities held by banks.

Interesting claim. How does the Fed purchase of a Treasury or MBS reduce bank liabilities?

Given all the bad debt out there, many of the nations largest banks would have failed and potentially taken the global economic system with it.

The Fed didn't buy any bad debt.

So the Fed created reserves (out of thin air) and either purchased the negative equity from the banks.

What is "negative equity"?

 

[Econ4Every1]

Look, I acknowledge the founders were pretty smart. But just because they liked or didn't like something 250 years ago doesn't make it good or bad.

The founders existed in a completely different time. With respect to economics, they couldn't have even begun to imagine the world we live in today, both with respect to things like globalization and the fact that our money is backed by nothing. Today we have a banking system, not a bunch of independent banks. Today the government has the power to create money.

Explain to us why today central banking is inherently bad without making an argument from authority.

Just curious, are you aware that when Jackson repaid the debt, the next year, the economy went into depre a sion? Just as a side note. Every year the government has run a significant sustained surplus (6 times), the economy has followed the next year by going into depression?

The government doesn't have the power to create money...directly. That power rest with the federal reserve. The government is enabled by the federal to spend whatever they wish and thus increase the deficit. Also, the dollar is not backed by nothing. It is backed by the economy of the US.

The founders were concerned with a large central bank because they felt it could/would create banks too big to fail. Sound familiar? Instead of a contained local problem among a few banks with their own notes, large central banks exposure can cause economic pandemics, just like 2008.

During Clinton's Presidency the government ran a surplus and never suffered a recession, so not sure where you got your numbers regarding government debt and recessions.

Here is an excellent article which might cause you to reconsider the worthiness of growing debt without corresponding economic growth.

The government doesn't have the power to create money...directly. That power rest with the federal reserve.

Most of our money supply is created by commercial banks.

Not sure if I agree with that considering over the last 8 years all the QE the Fed has engaged in. Once again, since Toddster is a lazy poster, he hasn't provided any links to support his statement. Perhaps in a non-QE environment that is accurate.
When The Fed Prints Money, What Impact Does It Have On You?
The Federal Reserve, the United States central bank, has “printed” more than $2 trillion since the global economic crisis began in 2008. This has more than tripled the size of its balance sheet. Before this spree of paper money creation began, the Fed held $950 billion in assets; now it holds nearly $3 trillion. Why did they do this and what impact has it had on you, the general public?

Actually, it's not.

The Fed doesn't simply create money.

1) The Fed acquires collateral in the form of US Treasuries (with the unusual exception of MBS' it bought as part of the housing meltdown or QE).

2) When the Board of Governors creates FRNs it SELLS them to the banks. The Banks must trade dollar reserves for physical dollars.

With respect to QE. It started out as a program to reduce the liabilities held by banks. When a banks liabilities exceed its assets it becomes insolvent. Given all the bad debt out there, many of the nations largest banks would have failed and potentially taken the global economic system with it.

So the Fed created reserves (out of thin air) and either purchased the negative equity from the banks. This simply changed the asset-to-liability ratio on the bank's books and kept them from becoming insolvent.

As far as the effect QE has on you. Well, it's pushed bank interest rates to near zero. Great if you're a borrower, but if you prefer the safety of US bonds over stocks, the return is terrible. The result has been that investors have turned to the stock market to make their money grow. This increases risk in the system.

I suspect that when the Fed unwinds QE slowly by selling the property it purchased back to private sector banks, this will begin to reduce the massive quantity of reserves and we'll see interest rates rise and people will begin to take their money out of the stock market and invest in bonds again.

Unless businesses can increase value in their companies via growth, I suspect the stock market will, in the aggregate enter a long period of minimal growth, IF rates rise and holding bonds becomes attractive again.

The other side of that is those that borrowed at a low rate (again thanks to QE) and invested leveraging borrowed money in the markets. As rates rise investors will deleverage, repay debts and sell off stock. If there is a glut of sellers, the price will fall....If they fall too fast that will create real issues, which is why I expect the Fed to move out of QE very slowly. It took 8 years to create and I suspect it will take about that long to unwind.

I won't try and predict how long it will take the Fed to unwind out of QE, but I am confident, at some point in the process, the stock market and possibly the real estate market will suffer a jolt. You seem to have more confidence in the Feds ability to sail smoothly out of this QE mess without a harmful ripple effect across the economy. If we suddenly experience large and steady growth, things could be smooth. That is a big IF.

I agree that unwinding QE will be hard. The problem, imo, is that the way the economy is handled in general (independent of the effects of QE) will have a HUGE impact. The next recession (which will likely come before QE is unwound) will stymy the process and the Fed will have limited policy opinions.

I don't expect large growth as long as conservatives are in power trying to cut debt and limit spending. It's an accounting fact, you cannot cut spending and grow an economy. That's like trying to drain your tub and expecting it to fill up. It's just not possible, made even less possible by the current distribution of income and wealth.

 

[Econ4Every1]

Interesting claim. How does the Fed purchase of a Treasury or MBS reduce bank liabilities?

Because the fed didn't just buy US treasuries with money created via QE:

Under "Assets" see the $1.769 trillion in Mortage backed securities?

When the Fed purchased them they were worth less than banks we're liable for. In other words a $300k mortgage on a property now worth $200k. When the borrower defaulted on this particular mortgage the bank's asset for $300k was not worth $300k, it was now worth $200k. If the balance on the loan was more than $200k (let's say $250k, because the borrower made a few years of payments) then the bank was out $250k.

The Fed swoops in and adds $250k in reserves to the bank's account and removes the mortgage from the bank's ledger. The net is the bank has removed the negative equity of $50k and transferred it to the Fed. The bank's assets increase by $50k.

Of course, banks did this as part of MBS's (not individual mortgages) that were worth 1's 10's or 100's of millions, so the numbers would have been much larger, but everything else is the same.

The Fed didn't buy any bad debt.

It purchased MBS' for more than they were worth at the time they purchased them.

What is "negative equity"?

Negative equity is when the value of an asset falls below the outstanding balance on the loan used to purchase that asset. Negative equity is calculated simply by taking the value of the asset less the balance on the outstanding loan. - Investopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Interesting claim. How does the Fed purchase of a Treasury or MBS reduce bank liabilities?

Because the fed didn't just buy US treasuries with money created via QE:

Under "Assets" see the $1.769 trillion in Mortage backed securities?

When the Fed purchased them they were worth less than banks we're liable for. In other words a $300k mortgage on a property now worth $200k. When the borrower defaulted on this particular mortgage the bank's asset for $300k was not worth $300k, it was now worth $200k. If the balance on the loan was more than $200k (let's say $250k, because the borrower made a few years of payments) then the bank was out $250k.

The Fed swoops in and adds $250k in reserves to the bank's account and removes the mortgage from the bank's ledger. The net is the bank has removed the negative equity of $50k and transferred it to the Fed. The bank's assets increase by $50k.

Of course, banks did this as part of MBS's (not individual mortgages) that were worth 1's 10's or 100's of millions, so the numbers would have been much larger, but everything else is the same.

The Fed didn't buy any bad debt.

It purchased MBS' for then they were worth at the time.

So the Fed created reserves (out of thin air) and either purchased the negative equity from the banks.

What is "negative equity"?

Negative equity is when the value of an asset falls below the outstanding balance on the loan used to purchase that asset. Negative equity is calculated simply by taking the value of the asset less the balance on the outstanding loan. - Investopedia

Because the fed didn't just buy US treasuries with money created via QE:

I said, "How does the Fed purchase of a Treasury or MBS reduce bank liabilities?"

When the Fed purchased them they were worth less than banks we're liable for.

Can you prove it?

In other words a $300k mortgage on a property now worth $200k. When the borrower defaulted on this particular mortgage the bank's asset for $300k was not worth $300k, it was now worth $200k.

But the Fed only bought guaranteed MBS.

It purchased MBS' for [more] then they were worth at the time.

Link?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Interesting claim. How does the Fed purchase of a Treasury or MBS reduce bank liabilities?

Because the fed didn't just buy US treasuries with money created via QE:

Under "Assets" see the $1.769 trillion in Mortage backed securities?

When the Fed purchased them they were worth less than banks we're liable for. In other words a $300k mortgage on a property now worth $200k. When the borrower defaulted on this particular mortgage the bank's asset for $300k was not worth $300k, it was now worth $200k. If the balance on the loan was more than $200k (let's say $250k, because the borrower made a few years of payments) then the bank was out $250k.

The Fed swoops in and adds $250k in reserves to the bank's account and removes the mortgage from the bank's ledger. The net is the bank has removed the negative equity of $50k and transferred it to the Fed. The bank's assets increase by $50k.

Of course, banks did this as part of MBS's (not individual mortgages) that were worth 1's 10's or 100's of millions, so the numbers would have been much larger, but everything else is the same.

The Fed didn't buy any bad debt.

It purchased MBS' for more than they were worth at the time they purchased them.

What is "negative equity"?

Negative equity is when the value of an asset falls below the outstanding balance on the loan used to purchase that asset. Negative equity is calculated simply by taking the value of the asset less the balance on the outstanding loan. - Investopedia

You are much more patient with Toodles than I can muster, but I fear he may be trolling on this thread a bit, so don't get sucked in to deep.