Democracy is at risk

[Richard-H]

Many of these voting laws are an over reaction to start with.

Agreed. But our democracy is no where near at stake

But but but the government was almost overthrown on Jan 6th in the greatest threat to democracy since that attack on Pearl Harbor.

Civil War...

Meh, lets just divide the country and Dems can do whatever they want on their side of the border. Dems need us we don't need Dems we'll live happily ever after without Dems and the slime left.

If it weren't for the blue states you would be hurting and if it weren't for the Fed gov.

The federal government fucks us up the ass every day.

Speak for yourself buddy, I’m walking just fine. Go get yourself some lube

You're deluding yourself. We would all be much richer if we didn't have to turn over 50% of our income to one branch of government or another.

Any if you didn't pay taxes who would print the money that you love so much?

Banks, like they did a century ago.

Well 330 million people would never be rich with a few million floating around the economy.

Another woke idiot proves he's an economic moron.

Do you actually believe the amount of money the Federal Reserver creates determines how many cars and houses get produced?

First, It's the Treasury dept. that creates money, not the Federal Reserve.

Secondly, the creation of money is just the issuance of authority to activate resources.

When the government creates trillions for an infrastructure bill, it's activating millions of American by creating jobs for them. It purchasing millions of dollars of goods as materials for the infrastructure, creating millions of dollars of profits for contractors who in turn create jobs and invest in other enterprises.

Ultimately, as more resources get activated, more people can purchase houses and cars...markets are created and then yes, more houses and cars get built to meet the market demand.

It's called 'consumer economics', which has always worked well, as opposed to 'supply-side economics' which has always been a total failure.

Not quite that simple.
The treasury department does the actual printing of currency, but it is controlled by the federal reserve bank, which in theory is mostly private.
{...
The U.S. Federal Reserve controls the supply of money in the U.S., and when it expands that supply it is often described as "printing money." The job of actually printing currency bills belongs to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, but the Fed determines exactly how many new bills are printed each year.
...}
The Federal Reserve Bank is controlled by private bank board of directors.
{...
The Federal Reserve System is composed of several layers. It is governed by the presidentially appointed board of governors or Federal Reserve Board (FRB). Twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, located in cities throughout the nation, regulate and oversee privately owned commercial banks.[16][17][18] Nationally chartered commercial banks are required to hold stock in, and can elect some of the board members of, the Federal Reserve Bank of their region. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) sets monetary policy. It consists of all seven members of the board of governors and the twelve regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents, though only five bank presidents vote at a time (the president of the New York Fed and four others who rotate through one-year voting terms). There are also various advisory councils. Thus, the Federal Reserve System has both public and private components.[list 2] It has a structure unique among central banks, and is also unusual in that the United States Department of the Treasury, an entity outside of the central bank, prints the currency used.[23]
...}

Any way, what you are talking about is called "quantitative easing", which essentially means printing more currency.
And while that does work a bit to stimulate the whole economy, that only works for a short time.
That is because when you print more money, then each bill become worth less and less.
Which then leads to inflation, where sellers compensate for the bill value decrease by increasing prices.
Which then slows and stagnates the economy if you do it too much.
The correct way to do it is to only temporarily inject more currency, but then pull it back out as soon as possible.
Increasing the national debt has the same effect, and requires the same solution of paying it back as soon as possible.

Wrong:

​

Federal Reserve Note - Wikipedia​

​

Federal Reserve Notes, also United States banknotes, are the currently issued banknotes of the United States dollar.[1] The United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing produces the notes under the authority of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913[2] and issues them to the Federal Reserve Banks at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.[2] The Reserve Banks then circulate the notes to their member banks,[3] at which point they become liabilities of the Reserve Banks[4] and obligations of the United States.[2]​

Your both wrong. You're talking about printing dollars. Most money is never printed. It's created on a computer in the U.S. Treasury.

I heard an interview on NPR where they discussed the creation of the 2008 bailouts & stimulus money. Someone at the U.S. treasury just types in a number and hits the enter key.

In those cases it's created at the order of Congress, not the Federal Reserve.

Opinion | Just Use ‘the Computer’ at the Fed to Give People More Money (Published 2020)

Congress has all the firepower it needs. It just needs to send spending instructions to the Federal Reserve, as it always does.

www.nytimes.com

 

[bripat9643]

Many of these voting laws are an over reaction to start with.

Agreed. But our democracy is no where near at stake

But but but the government was almost overthrown on Jan 6th in the greatest threat to democracy since that attack on Pearl Harbor.

Civil War...

Meh, lets just divide the country and Dems can do whatever they want on their side of the border. Dems need us we don't need Dems we'll live happily ever after without Dems and the slime left.

If it weren't for the blue states you would be hurting and if it weren't for the Fed gov.

The federal government fucks us up the ass every day.

Speak for yourself buddy, I’m walking just fine. Go get yourself some lube

You're deluding yourself. We would all be much richer if we didn't have to turn over 50% of our income to one branch of government or another.

Any if you didn't pay taxes who would print the money that you love so much?

Banks, like they did a century ago.

Well 330 million people would never be rich with a few million floating around the economy.

Another woke idiot proves he's an economic moron.

Do you actually believe the amount of money the Federal Reserver creates determines how many cars and houses get produced?

First, It's the Treasury dept. that creates money, not the Federal Reserve.

Secondly, the creation of money is just the issuance of authority to activate resources.

When the government creates trillions for an infrastructure bill, it's activating millions of American by creating jobs for them. It purchasing millions of dollars of goods as materials for the infrastructure, creating millions of dollars of profits for contractors who in turn create jobs and invest in other enterprises.

Ultimately, as more resources get activated, more people can purchase houses and cars...markets are created and then yes, more houses and cars get built to meet the market demand.

It's called 'consumer economics', which has always worked well, as opposed to 'supply-side economics' which has always been a total failure.

Not quite that simple.
The treasury department does the actual printing of currency, but it is controlled by the federal reserve bank, which in theory is mostly private.
{...
The U.S. Federal Reserve controls the supply of money in the U.S., and when it expands that supply it is often described as "printing money." The job of actually printing currency bills belongs to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, but the Fed determines exactly how many new bills are printed each year.
...}
The Federal Reserve Bank is controlled by private bank board of directors.
{...
The Federal Reserve System is composed of several layers. It is governed by the presidentially appointed board of governors or Federal Reserve Board (FRB). Twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, located in cities throughout the nation, regulate and oversee privately owned commercial banks.[16][17][18] Nationally chartered commercial banks are required to hold stock in, and can elect some of the board members of, the Federal Reserve Bank of their region. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) sets monetary policy. It consists of all seven members of the board of governors and the twelve regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents, though only five bank presidents vote at a time (the president of the New York Fed and four others who rotate through one-year voting terms). There are also various advisory councils. Thus, the Federal Reserve System has both public and private components.[list 2] It has a structure unique among central banks, and is also unusual in that the United States Department of the Treasury, an entity outside of the central bank, prints the currency used.[23]
...}

Any way, what you are talking about is called "quantitative easing", which essentially means printing more currency.
And while that does work a bit to stimulate the whole economy, that only works for a short time.
That is because when you print more money, then each bill become worth less and less.
Which then leads to inflation, where sellers compensate for the bill value decrease by increasing prices.
Which then slows and stagnates the economy if you do it too much.
The correct way to do it is to only temporarily inject more currency, but then pull it back out as soon as possible.
Increasing the national debt has the same effect, and requires the same solution of paying it back as soon as possible.

Wrong:

​

Federal Reserve Note - Wikipedia​

​

Federal Reserve Notes, also United States banknotes, are the currently issued banknotes of the United States dollar.[1] The United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing produces the notes under the authority of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913[2] and issues them to the Federal Reserve Banks at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.[2] The Reserve Banks then circulate the notes to their member banks,[3] at which point they become liabilities of the Reserve Banks[4] and obligations of the United States.[2]​

Your both wrong. You're talking about printing dollars. Most money is never printed. It's created on a computer in the U.S. Treasury.

I heard an interview on NPR where they discussed the creation of the 2008 bailouts & stimulus money. Someone at the U.S. treasury just types in a number and hits the enter key.

In those cases it's created at the order of Congress, not the Federal Reserve.

Opinion | Just Use ‘the Computer’ at the Fed to Give People More Money (Published 2020)

Congress has all the firepower it needs. It just needs to send spending instructions to the Federal Reserve, as it always does.

www.nytimes.com

Where did I bring up the subject of who prints the dollars?

Here's the question that got this idiotic sub thread started:

"Do you actually believe the amount of money the Federal Reserve creates determines how many cars and houses get produced?"​

 

[Richard-H]

Many of these voting laws are an over reaction to start with.

Agreed. But our democracy is no where near at stake

But but but the government was almost overthrown on Jan 6th in the greatest threat to democracy since that attack on Pearl Harbor.

Civil War...

Meh, lets just divide the country and Dems can do whatever they want on their side of the border. Dems need us we don't need Dems we'll live happily ever after without Dems and the slime left.

If it weren't for the blue states you would be hurting and if it weren't for the Fed gov.

The federal government fucks us up the ass every day.

Speak for yourself buddy, I’m walking just fine. Go get yourself some lube

You're deluding yourself. We would all be much richer if we didn't have to turn over 50% of our income to one branch of government or another.

Any if you didn't pay taxes who would print the money that you love so much?

Banks, like they did a century ago.

Well 330 million people would never be rich with a few million floating around the economy.

Another woke idiot proves he's an economic moron.

Do you actually believe the amount of money the Federal Reserver creates determines how many cars and houses get produced?

First, It's the Treasury dept. that creates money, not the Federal Reserve.

Secondly, the creation of money is just the issuance of authority to activate resources.

When the government creates trillions for an infrastructure bill, it's activating millions of American by creating jobs for them. It purchasing millions of dollars of goods as materials for the infrastructure, creating millions of dollars of profits for contractors who in turn create jobs and invest in other enterprises.

Ultimately, as more resources get activated, more people can purchase houses and cars...markets are created and then yes, more houses and cars get built to meet the market demand.

It's called 'consumer economics', which has always worked well, as opposed to 'supply-side economics' which has always been a total failure.

Not quite that simple.
The treasury department does the actual printing of currency, but it is controlled by the federal reserve bank, which in theory is mostly private.
{...
The U.S. Federal Reserve controls the supply of money in the U.S., and when it expands that supply it is often described as "printing money." The job of actually printing currency bills belongs to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, but the Fed determines exactly how many new bills are printed each year.
...}
The Federal Reserve Bank is controlled by private bank board of directors.
{...
The Federal Reserve System is composed of several layers. It is governed by the presidentially appointed board of governors or Federal Reserve Board (FRB). Twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, located in cities throughout the nation, regulate and oversee privately owned commercial banks.[16][17][18] Nationally chartered commercial banks are required to hold stock in, and can elect some of the board members of, the Federal Reserve Bank of their region. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) sets monetary policy. It consists of all seven members of the board of governors and the twelve regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents, though only five bank presidents vote at a time (the president of the New York Fed and four others who rotate through one-year voting terms). There are also various advisory councils. Thus, the Federal Reserve System has both public and private components.[list 2] It has a structure unique among central banks, and is also unusual in that the United States Department of the Treasury, an entity outside of the central bank, prints the currency used.[23]
...}

Any way, what you are talking about is called "quantitative easing", which essentially means printing more currency.
And while that does work a bit to stimulate the whole economy, that only works for a short time.
That is because when you print more money, then each bill become worth less and less.
Which then leads to inflation, where sellers compensate for the bill value decrease by increasing prices.
Which then slows and stagnates the economy if you do it too much.
The correct way to do it is to only temporarily inject more currency, but then pull it back out as soon as possible.
Increasing the national debt has the same effect, and requires the same solution of paying it back as soon as possible.

Wrong:

​

Federal Reserve Note - Wikipedia​

​

Federal Reserve Notes, also United States banknotes, are the currently issued banknotes of the United States dollar.[1] The United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing produces the notes under the authority of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913[2] and issues them to the Federal Reserve Banks at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.[2] The Reserve Banks then circulate the notes to their member banks,[3] at which point they become liabilities of the Reserve Banks[4] and obligations of the United States.[2]​

Your both wrong. You're talking about printing dollars. Most money is never printed. It's created on a computer in the U.S. Treasury.

I heard an interview on NPR where they discussed the creation of the 2008 bailouts & stimulus money. Someone at the U.S. treasury just types in a number and hits the enter key.

In those cases it's created at the order of Congress, not the Federal Reserve.

Opinion | Just Use ‘the Computer’ at the Fed to Give People More Money (Published 2020)

Congress has all the firepower it needs. It just needs to send spending instructions to the Federal Reserve, as it always does.

www.nytimes.com

Where did I bring up the subject of who prints the dollars?

Here's the question that got this idiotic sub thread started:

"Do you actually believe the amount of money the Federal Reserve creates determines how many cars and houses get produced?"​

I answered that.

 

[MarcATL]

It’s so funny to see what “crisis” the partisans and media pick next. Now the voting laws are threatening our democracy!!!! Haha. Chill out people. Fine to discuss the voting process, but this hyperbolic end of the world scenario that both sides are painting is nothing more than a marketing tactic. They do it with every topic. Don’t play their game. It’s getting old

What is a democracy and/or the essence of it?

 

[bripat9643]

Many of these voting laws are an over reaction to start with.

Agreed. But our democracy is no where near at stake

But but but the government was almost overthrown on Jan 6th in the greatest threat to democracy since that attack on Pearl Harbor.

Civil War...

Meh, lets just divide the country and Dems can do whatever they want on their side of the border. Dems need us we don't need Dems we'll live happily ever after without Dems and the slime left.

If it weren't for the blue states you would be hurting and if it weren't for the Fed gov.

The federal government fucks us up the ass every day.

Speak for yourself buddy, I’m walking just fine. Go get yourself some lube

You're deluding yourself. We would all be much richer if we didn't have to turn over 50% of our income to one branch of government or another.

Any if you didn't pay taxes who would print the money that you love so much?

Banks, like they did a century ago.

Well 330 million people would never be rich with a few million floating around the economy.

Another woke idiot proves he's an economic moron.

Do you actually believe the amount of money the Federal Reserver creates determines how many cars and houses get produced?

First, It's the Treasury dept. that creates money, not the Federal Reserve.

Secondly, the creation of money is just the issuance of authority to activate resources.

When the government creates trillions for an infrastructure bill, it's activating millions of American by creating jobs for them. It purchasing millions of dollars of goods as materials for the infrastructure, creating millions of dollars of profits for contractors who in turn create jobs and invest in other enterprises.

Ultimately, as more resources get activated, more people can purchase houses and cars...markets are created and then yes, more houses and cars get built to meet the market demand.

It's called 'consumer economics', which has always worked well, as opposed to 'supply-side economics' which has always been a total failure.

Not quite that simple.
The treasury department does the actual printing of currency, but it is controlled by the federal reserve bank, which in theory is mostly private.
{...
The U.S. Federal Reserve controls the supply of money in the U.S., and when it expands that supply it is often described as "printing money." The job of actually printing currency bills belongs to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, but the Fed determines exactly how many new bills are printed each year.
...}
The Federal Reserve Bank is controlled by private bank board of directors.
{...
The Federal Reserve System is composed of several layers. It is governed by the presidentially appointed board of governors or Federal Reserve Board (FRB). Twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, located in cities throughout the nation, regulate and oversee privately owned commercial banks.[16][17][18] Nationally chartered commercial banks are required to hold stock in, and can elect some of the board members of, the Federal Reserve Bank of their region. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) sets monetary policy. It consists of all seven members of the board of governors and the twelve regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents, though only five bank presidents vote at a time (the president of the New York Fed and four others who rotate through one-year voting terms). There are also various advisory councils. Thus, the Federal Reserve System has both public and private components.[list 2] It has a structure unique among central banks, and is also unusual in that the United States Department of the Treasury, an entity outside of the central bank, prints the currency used.[23]
...}

Any way, what you are talking about is called "quantitative easing", which essentially means printing more currency.
And while that does work a bit to stimulate the whole economy, that only works for a short time.
That is because when you print more money, then each bill become worth less and less.
Which then leads to inflation, where sellers compensate for the bill value decrease by increasing prices.
Which then slows and stagnates the economy if you do it too much.
The correct way to do it is to only temporarily inject more currency, but then pull it back out as soon as possible.
Increasing the national debt has the same effect, and requires the same solution of paying it back as soon as possible.

Wrong:

​

Federal Reserve Note - Wikipedia​

​

Federal Reserve Notes, also United States banknotes, are the currently issued banknotes of the United States dollar.[1] The United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing produces the notes under the authority of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913[2] and issues them to the Federal Reserve Banks at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.[2] The Reserve Banks then circulate the notes to their member banks,[3] at which point they become liabilities of the Reserve Banks[4] and obligations of the United States.[2]​

Your both wrong. You're talking about printing dollars. Most money is never printed. It's created on a computer in the U.S. Treasury.

I heard an interview on NPR where they discussed the creation of the 2008 bailouts & stimulus money. Someone at the U.S. treasury just types in a number and hits the enter key.

In those cases it's created at the order of Congress, not the Federal Reserve.

Opinion | Just Use ‘the Computer’ at the Fed to Give People More Money (Published 2020)

Congress has all the firepower it needs. It just needs to send spending instructions to the Federal Reserve, as it always does.

www.nytimes.com

Where did I bring up the subject of who prints the dollars?

Here's the question that got this idiotic sub thread started:

"Do you actually believe the amount of money the Federal Reserve creates determines how many cars and houses get produced?"​

I answered that.

Your answer was stupid. It's been proven to be wrong countless times.

 

[bendog]

It’s so funny to see what “crisis” the partisans and media pick next. Now the voting laws are threatening our democracy!!!! Haha. Chill out people. Fine to discuss the voting process, but this hyperbolic end of the world scenario that both sides are painting is nothing more than a marketing tactic. They do it with every topic. Don’t play their game. It’s getting old

I do believe though that the gop is infected with a strain of overturning elections they lose. As seen recently in Miss. Even most republicans in the legislature were shocked the Sup Ct would simply rule there will not be anymore citizen intiatives on legislation. That probaby the most extreme, but I think Ark or Mo was close behind.

It may stem from their becomming a permanet less than 50% party or the browning of America as gopers tend to be older. But it is real. And it's different from just old gerrymandering.

 

[Richard-H]

Many of these voting laws are an over reaction to start with.

Agreed. But our democracy is no where near at stake

But but but the government was almost overthrown on Jan 6th in the greatest threat to democracy since that attack on Pearl Harbor.

Civil War...

Meh, lets just divide the country and Dems can do whatever they want on their side of the border. Dems need us we don't need Dems we'll live happily ever after without Dems and the slime left.

If it weren't for the blue states you would be hurting and if it weren't for the Fed gov.

The federal government fucks us up the ass every day.

Speak for yourself buddy, I’m walking just fine. Go get yourself some lube

You're deluding yourself. We would all be much richer if we didn't have to turn over 50% of our income to one branch of government or another.

Any if you didn't pay taxes who would print the money that you love so much?

Banks, like they did a century ago.

Well 330 million people would never be rich with a few million floating around the economy.

Another woke idiot proves he's an economic moron.

Do you actually believe the amount of money the Federal Reserver creates determines how many cars and houses get produced?

First, It's the Treasury dept. that creates money, not the Federal Reserve.

Secondly, the creation of money is just the issuance of authority to activate resources.

When the government creates trillions for an infrastructure bill, it's activating millions of American by creating jobs for them. It purchasing millions of dollars of goods as materials for the infrastructure, creating millions of dollars of profits for contractors who in turn create jobs and invest in other enterprises.

Ultimately, as more resources get activated, more people can purchase houses and cars...markets are created and then yes, more houses and cars get built to meet the market demand.

It's called 'consumer economics', which has always worked well, as opposed to 'supply-side economics' which has always been a total failure.

Not quite that simple.
The treasury department does the actual printing of currency, but it is controlled by the federal reserve bank, which in theory is mostly private.
{...
The U.S. Federal Reserve controls the supply of money in the U.S., and when it expands that supply it is often described as "printing money." The job of actually printing currency bills belongs to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, but the Fed determines exactly how many new bills are printed each year.
...}
The Federal Reserve Bank is controlled by private bank board of directors.
{...
The Federal Reserve System is composed of several layers. It is governed by the presidentially appointed board of governors or Federal Reserve Board (FRB). Twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, located in cities throughout the nation, regulate and oversee privately owned commercial banks.[16][17][18] Nationally chartered commercial banks are required to hold stock in, and can elect some of the board members of, the Federal Reserve Bank of their region. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) sets monetary policy. It consists of all seven members of the board of governors and the twelve regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents, though only five bank presidents vote at a time (the president of the New York Fed and four others who rotate through one-year voting terms). There are also various advisory councils. Thus, the Federal Reserve System has both public and private components.[list 2] It has a structure unique among central banks, and is also unusual in that the United States Department of the Treasury, an entity outside of the central bank, prints the currency used.[23]
...}

Any way, what you are talking about is called "quantitative easing", which essentially means printing more currency.
And while that does work a bit to stimulate the whole economy, that only works for a short time.
That is because when you print more money, then each bill become worth less and less.
Which then leads to inflation, where sellers compensate for the bill value decrease by increasing prices.
Which then slows and stagnates the economy if you do it too much.
The correct way to do it is to only temporarily inject more currency, but then pull it back out as soon as possible.
Increasing the national debt has the same effect, and requires the same solution of paying it back as soon as possible.

Wrong:

​

Federal Reserve Note - Wikipedia​

​

Federal Reserve Notes, also United States banknotes, are the currently issued banknotes of the United States dollar.[1] The United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing produces the notes under the authority of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913[2] and issues them to the Federal Reserve Banks at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.[2] The Reserve Banks then circulate the notes to their member banks,[3] at which point they become liabilities of the Reserve Banks[4] and obligations of the United States.[2]​

Your both wrong. You're talking about printing dollars. Most money is never printed. It's created on a computer in the U.S. Treasury.

I heard an interview on NPR where they discussed the creation of the 2008 bailouts & stimulus money. Someone at the U.S. treasury just types in a number and hits the enter key.

In those cases it's created at the order of Congress, not the Federal Reserve.

Opinion | Just Use ‘the Computer’ at the Fed to Give People More Money (Published 2020)

Congress has all the firepower it needs. It just needs to send spending instructions to the Federal Reserve, as it always does.

www.nytimes.com

Where did I bring up the subject of who prints the dollars?

Here's the question that got this idiotic sub thread started:

"Do you actually believe the amount of money the Federal Reserve creates determines how many cars and houses get produced?"​

I answered that.

Your answer was stupid. It's been proven to be wrong countless times.

So you can't just say that you don't believe 'Consumer economics' work?

What proof do you have?

At times you really sound like a six year old!

 

[bripat9643]

Many of these voting laws are an over reaction to start with.

Agreed. But our democracy is no where near at stake

But but but the government was almost overthrown on Jan 6th in the greatest threat to democracy since that attack on Pearl Harbor.

Civil War...

Meh, lets just divide the country and Dems can do whatever they want on their side of the border. Dems need us we don't need Dems we'll live happily ever after without Dems and the slime left.

If it weren't for the blue states you would be hurting and if it weren't for the Fed gov.

The federal government fucks us up the ass every day.

Speak for yourself buddy, I’m walking just fine. Go get yourself some lube

You're deluding yourself. We would all be much richer if we didn't have to turn over 50% of our income to one branch of government or another.

Any if you didn't pay taxes who would print the money that you love so much?

Banks, like they did a century ago.

Well 330 million people would never be rich with a few million floating around the economy.

Another woke idiot proves he's an economic moron.

Do you actually believe the amount of money the Federal Reserver creates determines how many cars and houses get produced?

First, It's the Treasury dept. that creates money, not the Federal Reserve.

Secondly, the creation of money is just the issuance of authority to activate resources.

When the government creates trillions for an infrastructure bill, it's activating millions of American by creating jobs for them. It purchasing millions of dollars of goods as materials for the infrastructure, creating millions of dollars of profits for contractors who in turn create jobs and invest in other enterprises.

Ultimately, as more resources get activated, more people can purchase houses and cars...markets are created and then yes, more houses and cars get built to meet the market demand.

It's called 'consumer economics', which has always worked well, as opposed to 'supply-side economics' which has always been a total failure.

Not quite that simple.
The treasury department does the actual printing of currency, but it is controlled by the federal reserve bank, which in theory is mostly private.
{...
The U.S. Federal Reserve controls the supply of money in the U.S., and when it expands that supply it is often described as "printing money." The job of actually printing currency bills belongs to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, but the Fed determines exactly how many new bills are printed each year.
...}
The Federal Reserve Bank is controlled by private bank board of directors.
{...
The Federal Reserve System is composed of several layers. It is governed by the presidentially appointed board of governors or Federal Reserve Board (FRB). Twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, located in cities throughout the nation, regulate and oversee privately owned commercial banks.[16][17][18] Nationally chartered commercial banks are required to hold stock in, and can elect some of the board members of, the Federal Reserve Bank of their region. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) sets monetary policy. It consists of all seven members of the board of governors and the twelve regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents, though only five bank presidents vote at a time (the president of the New York Fed and four others who rotate through one-year voting terms). There are also various advisory councils. Thus, the Federal Reserve System has both public and private components.[list 2] It has a structure unique among central banks, and is also unusual in that the United States Department of the Treasury, an entity outside of the central bank, prints the currency used.[23]
...}

Any way, what you are talking about is called "quantitative easing", which essentially means printing more currency.
And while that does work a bit to stimulate the whole economy, that only works for a short time.
That is because when you print more money, then each bill become worth less and less.
Which then leads to inflation, where sellers compensate for the bill value decrease by increasing prices.
Which then slows and stagnates the economy if you do it too much.
The correct way to do it is to only temporarily inject more currency, but then pull it back out as soon as possible.
Increasing the national debt has the same effect, and requires the same solution of paying it back as soon as possible.

Wrong:

​

Federal Reserve Note - Wikipedia​

​

Federal Reserve Notes, also United States banknotes, are the currently issued banknotes of the United States dollar.[1] The United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing produces the notes under the authority of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913[2] and issues them to the Federal Reserve Banks at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.[2] The Reserve Banks then circulate the notes to their member banks,[3] at which point they become liabilities of the Reserve Banks[4] and obligations of the United States.[2]​

Your both wrong. You're talking about printing dollars. Most money is never printed. It's created on a computer in the U.S. Treasury.

I heard an interview on NPR where they discussed the creation of the 2008 bailouts & stimulus money. Someone at the U.S. treasury just types in a number and hits the enter key.

In those cases it's created at the order of Congress, not the Federal Reserve.

Opinion | Just Use ‘the Computer’ at the Fed to Give People More Money (Published 2020)

Congress has all the firepower it needs. It just needs to send spending instructions to the Federal Reserve, as it always does.

www.nytimes.com

Where did I bring up the subject of who prints the dollars?

Here's the question that got this idiotic sub thread started:

"Do you actually believe the amount of money the Federal Reserve creates determines how many cars and houses get produced?"​

I answered that.

Your answer was stupid. It's been proven to be wrong countless times.

So you can't just say that you don't believe 'Consumer economics' work?

What proof do you have?

At times you really sound like a six year old!

There is only one kind of economics, turd. Printing money does not improve our standard of living. There are only so many goods and services that an economy can produce in any given unit of time, and there is no possible mechanism for the mere creation of worthless scraps of paper to increase that number.

 

[Slade3200]

I ag

Just saying "don't do it," is not going to end it. We need to reorganize the government to properly deliberate issues. The three-part separation theory is improperly deployed and cannot handle the sophistication and diversity that the society has evolved to.

Very interesting point. What do you recommend?

I recommend that we begin figuring out the rules for deliberating issues here at USMB.

If not, then here at US4CC.net

I think campaign financing is a major player in the corruption. I’d start there

No. I highly recommend you start by recognizing a better separation schematic of the government. The checks and balances theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in the separation schematic, then the balance of power is skewed and the checks on power are inaccurate.

Just because the guardians of the Constitution say that there are checks and balances, that does not mean they work correctly.

What do you think isn’t working correctly?

The entire government is a jalopy - it only works, because it is too big to fail. The principles described in the preamble are good, but the operations fail to achieve those goals, because it is a jalopy. You have heard politicians describe the Congress as "broken," they just don't know how to fix it. And it just goes on, and on.

It is quite possible that the Democrats are intent on breaking it completely, because that then will cause the commencement for reordering the government.

Congress is broken because those running it are more concerned with PR and fundraising than actually getting stuff done. That’s why our system is broken

Those are the symptoms of the diluting of the sovereignty of the legislative branch. It has been a slow erosion. The legislators/representatives have been corrupted by the outside forces that the checks and balances failed to guard.

Corruption comes from the millions of dollars needed to be raised to win elections

No, it does not.

Yes, it does.

No, it does not and claiming it so is asinine.

Do you think that North Korea is corrupt? Russia? China? Mexico?

None of those systems are corrupt because large sums of money are required to gain political power. They are corrupt because power is centralized with few or one person. Corruption DOES NOT come from money in politics, it comes from the consolidation of power.

Are you under the impression that there is only a singular cause of corruption in politics? If you don’t think money plays a large part then you are a fool

There is a singular cause, yes. That is the consolidation of power. It is not foolish to claim so by a mile. Money plays a part in our system but remoting it DOES NOT ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING ISSUE. IOW, remove the money and the corruption will simply use another rout. Period.

You can get there in MANY different ways but each way starts at the exact same place - a place where there is massive gains made by controlling a single or few people. Removing money entirely out of politics does nothing to address the source of corruption. I seen the EXACT same problems in the pentagon when I was in the service and those generals were not paid one red cent.... while they were in positions of power. Companies simply bought the generals with future jobs that require no work but oddly pay millions. Same can be done with pols. Block that by law and other means will be found as they ALWAYS are and history proves that over and over and over and over....

Consolidate the power and it is guaranteed that those that stand to gain billions WILL find a way to exploit that consolidation. Demanding otherwise by claiming the corruption here is different is missing the forest for the trees. There is a reason that the founders were focused on checks and balances and not focused on monetary gain. Where they made a major mistake is thinking that the legislative branch would 'jealously' guard their power. They do not because with that power comes a modicum of responsibility. Much easier for them to give all that work to the executive branch which, headed by a single person, absolutely guards its power jealously.

I agree that power is the influencer but there is not power without money in many cases. Whether it is funds for a campaign or political/business connections or media favors etc. we are talking about the same stuff. But if we want to get better people elected we need to make winning elections obtainable for those who don’t want to play that game.

 

[Slade3200]

It’s so funny to see what “crisis” the partisans and media pick next. Now the voting laws are threatening our democracy!!!! Haha. Chill out people. Fine to discuss the voting process, but this hyperbolic end of the world scenario that both sides are painting is nothing more than a marketing tactic. They do it with every topic. Don’t play their game. It’s getting old

What is a democracy and/or the essence of it?

Confidence in free and fair elections. I do agree that it is under threat and being politicized by the right. I just think it as also being overblown by the media

 

[FA_Q2]

How

Many of these voting laws are an over reaction to start with.

Agreed. But our democracy is no where near at stake

But but but the government was almost overthrown on Jan 6th in the greatest threat to democracy since that attack on Pearl Harbor.

Civil War...

Meh, lets just divide the country and Dems can do whatever they want on their side of the border. Dems need us we don't need Dems we'll live happily ever after without Dems and the slime left.

If it weren't for the blue states you would be hurting and if it weren't for the Fed gov.

The federal government fucks us up the ass every day.

Speak for yourself buddy, I’m walking just fine. Go get yourself some lube

You're deluding yourself. We would all be much richer if we didn't have to turn over 50% of our income to one branch of government or another.

Any if you didn't pay taxes who would print the money that you love so much?

Banks, like they did a century ago.

How'd that work out?

There's a reason why people CHOSE to use federal currency.

Banks or anyone else can write their own notes...there's nothing to stop them or you.

Give it a shot a see how it works out!

Or use an existing currency detached from governments like Bitcoin.

None of them work remotely as well as a federally backed currency and the reasons are blatantly obvious.

Bitcoin isn't real money. However prior to 1913, Banks printed their own currencies backed by gold.

It's not 'real' money?

WTF is real money? ALL money, by definition, is simply a placeholder for value. The dollar or even gold used as currency is no more 'real' than Bitcoin is. Such things only hold value because people impart that value to it and there is noting, even gold, that has held value in all societies.

No, bitcoin is only as valuable as what the current desire of investors in it make it.

That has constant wide swings, and there is nothing tangible involved.
For example, bitcoin could go under tomorrow and it would then forever be worth zero.

That is true with ALL money to include federal currency. The day the nation crashes (usually even before that) US currency will be worthless.

This is also true with gold, if the US goes under it will not be gold that has worth, it will be food, fuel and arms.

But the whole point of a gold standard or fiat federal currency, is a pledge to never go under and always redeem some intrinsic value, based at least partly on gold. Obviously even that could fail, such as aliens attacking Ft. Knox, destroying the federal government, and stealing all the gold, but highly unlikely.

Or, you know, rather than aliens you could just say that the it will fail when the nation does which is going to happen. That is a fact, nothing lasts forever. All nations fail at some point.

I use bitcoin, but only for short terms, because it allows untraceable transactions.
But it is not good for long range investments because there is no way to predict future long range value.

Of course, one of the blatantly obvious reasons that I was referring to when I said none of those monetary systems works as well as federally backed monetary systems as they are not universal.

All that is utterly irrelevant to the point I made, there are already monetary systems out there that are not under the control of any government and that essentially print themselves. Bitcoin is no more or less a currency system than the US dollar is but there will never be a system that is as effective as money backed by a government unless one somehow is universally accepted across the planet. I do not see that happening anytime soon or even at all.

 

[FA_Q2]

I ag

Just saying "don't do it," is not going to end it. We need to reorganize the government to properly deliberate issues. The three-part separation theory is improperly deployed and cannot handle the sophistication and diversity that the society has evolved to.

Very interesting point. What do you recommend?

I recommend that we begin figuring out the rules for deliberating issues here at USMB.

If not, then here at US4CC.net

I think campaign financing is a major player in the corruption. I’d start there

No. I highly recommend you start by recognizing a better separation schematic of the government. The checks and balances theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in the separation schematic, then the balance of power is skewed and the checks on power are inaccurate.

Just because the guardians of the Constitution say that there are checks and balances, that does not mean they work correctly.

What do you think isn’t working correctly?

The entire government is a jalopy - it only works, because it is too big to fail. The principles described in the preamble are good, but the operations fail to achieve those goals, because it is a jalopy. You have heard politicians describe the Congress as "broken," they just don't know how to fix it. And it just goes on, and on.

It is quite possible that the Democrats are intent on breaking it completely, because that then will cause the commencement for reordering the government.

Congress is broken because those running it are more concerned with PR and fundraising than actually getting stuff done. That’s why our system is broken

Those are the symptoms of the diluting of the sovereignty of the legislative branch. It has been a slow erosion. The legislators/representatives have been corrupted by the outside forces that the checks and balances failed to guard.

Corruption comes from the millions of dollars needed to be raised to win elections

No, it does not.

Yes, it does.

No, it does not and claiming it so is asinine.

Do you think that North Korea is corrupt? Russia? China? Mexico?

None of those systems are corrupt because large sums of money are required to gain political power. They are corrupt because power is centralized with few or one person. Corruption DOES NOT come from money in politics, it comes from the consolidation of power.

Are you under the impression that there is only a singular cause of corruption in politics? If you don’t think money plays a large part then you are a fool

There is a singular cause, yes. That is the consolidation of power. It is not foolish to claim so by a mile. Money plays a part in our system but remoting it DOES NOT ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING ISSUE. IOW, remove the money and the corruption will simply use another rout. Period.

You can get there in MANY different ways but each way starts at the exact same place - a place where there is massive gains made by controlling a single or few people. Removing money entirely out of politics does nothing to address the source of corruption. I seen the EXACT same problems in the pentagon when I was in the service and those generals were not paid one red cent.... while they were in positions of power. Companies simply bought the generals with future jobs that require no work but oddly pay millions. Same can be done with pols. Block that by law and other means will be found as they ALWAYS are and history proves that over and over and over and over....

Consolidate the power and it is guaranteed that those that stand to gain billions WILL find a way to exploit that consolidation. Demanding otherwise by claiming the corruption here is different is missing the forest for the trees. There is a reason that the founders were focused on checks and balances and not focused on monetary gain. Where they made a major mistake is thinking that the legislative branch would 'jealously' guard their power. They do not because with that power comes a modicum of responsibility. Much easier for them to give all that work to the executive branch which, headed by a single person, absolutely guards its power jealously.

I agree that power is the influencer but there is not power without money in many cases. Whether it is funds for a campaign or political/business connections or media favors etc. we are talking about the same stuff. But if we want to get better people elected we need to make winning elections obtainable for those who don’t want to play that game.

Power is not the 'influencer,' It is the source. Money is the influencer.

Get rid of the money and power will find a new influencer. Want honest leadership then you need a viable system of checks and balances that does not allow power to consolidate and puts those power in direct opposition. It matters not how 'obtainable' office is. I do not see any less corruption in other nations where it is FAR cheaper to be elected than it is here.

Yes I think that the monied interests in our government are a problem BUT you address that problem by removing the ability for politicians to serve the monied interests. Without that, those powerful interests will find another way. Every time.

 

[bripat9643]

How

Many of these voting laws are an over reaction to start with.

Agreed. But our democracy is no where near at stake

But but but the government was almost overthrown on Jan 6th in the greatest threat to democracy since that attack on Pearl Harbor.

Civil War...

Meh, lets just divide the country and Dems can do whatever they want on their side of the border. Dems need us we don't need Dems we'll live happily ever after without Dems and the slime left.

If it weren't for the blue states you would be hurting and if it weren't for the Fed gov.

The federal government fucks us up the ass every day.

Speak for yourself buddy, I’m walking just fine. Go get yourself some lube

You're deluding yourself. We would all be much richer if we didn't have to turn over 50% of our income to one branch of government or another.

Any if you didn't pay taxes who would print the money that you love so much?

Banks, like they did a century ago.

How'd that work out?

There's a reason why people CHOSE to use federal currency.

Banks or anyone else can write their own notes...there's nothing to stop them or you.

Give it a shot a see how it works out!

Or use an existing currency detached from governments like Bitcoin.

None of them work remotely as well as a federally backed currency and the reasons are blatantly obvious.

Bitcoin isn't real money. However prior to 1913, Banks printed their own currencies backed by gold.

It's not 'real' money?

WTF is real money? ALL money, by definition, is simply a placeholder for value. The dollar or even gold used as currency is no more 'real' than Bitcoin is. Such things only hold value because people impart that value to it and there is noting, even gold, that has held value in all societies.

No, bitcoin is only as valuable as what the current desire of investors in it make it.

That has constant wide swings, and there is nothing tangible involved.
For example, bitcoin could go under tomorrow and it would then forever be worth zero.

That is true with ALL money to include federal currency. The day the nation crashes (usually even before that) US currency will be worthless.

This is also true with gold, if the US goes under it will not be gold that has worth, it will be food, fuel and arms.

But the whole point of a gold standard or fiat federal currency, is a pledge to never go under and always redeem some intrinsic value, based at least partly on gold. Obviously even that could fail, such as aliens attacking Ft. Knox, destroying the federal government, and stealing all the gold, but highly unlikely.

Or, you know, rather than aliens you could just say that the it will fail when the nation does which is going to happen. That is a fact, nothing lasts forever. All nations fail at some point.

I use bitcoin, but only for short terms, because it allows untraceable transactions.
But it is not good for long range investments because there is no way to predict future long range value.

Of course, one of the blatantly obvious reasons that I was referring to when I said none of those monetary systems works as well as federally backed monetary systems as they are not universal.

All that is utterly irrelevant to the point I made, there are already monetary systems out there that are not under the control of any government and that essentially print themselves. Bitcoin is no more or less a currency system than the US dollar is but there will never be a system that is as effective as money backed by a government unless one somehow is universally accepted across the planet. I do not see that happening anytime soon or even at all.

You're wrong about gold. It will always have worth.

 

[Moonglow]

How

Many of these voting laws are an over reaction to start with.

Agreed. But our democracy is no where near at stake

But but but the government was almost overthrown on Jan 6th in the greatest threat to democracy since that attack on Pearl Harbor.

Civil War...

Meh, lets just divide the country and Dems can do whatever they want on their side of the border. Dems need us we don't need Dems we'll live happily ever after without Dems and the slime left.

If it weren't for the blue states you would be hurting and if it weren't for the Fed gov.

The federal government fucks us up the ass every day.

Speak for yourself buddy, I’m walking just fine. Go get yourself some lube

You're deluding yourself. We would all be much richer if we didn't have to turn over 50% of our income to one branch of government or another.

Any if you didn't pay taxes who would print the money that you love so much?

Banks, like they did a century ago.

How'd that work out?

There's a reason why people CHOSE to use federal currency.

Banks or anyone else can write their own notes...there's nothing to stop them or you.

Give it a shot a see how it works out!

Or use an existing currency detached from governments like Bitcoin.

None of them work remotely as well as a federally backed currency and the reasons are blatantly obvious.

Bitcoin isn't real money. However prior to 1913, Banks printed their own currencies backed by gold.

It's not 'real' money?

WTF is real money? ALL money, by definition, is simply a placeholder for value. The dollar or even gold used as currency is no more 'real' than Bitcoin is. Such things only hold value because people impart that value to it and there is noting, even gold, that has held value in all societies.

No, bitcoin is only as valuable as what the current desire of investors in it make it.

That has constant wide swings, and there is nothing tangible involved.
For example, bitcoin could go under tomorrow and it would then forever be worth zero.

That is true with ALL money to include federal currency. The day the nation crashes (usually even before that) US currency will be worthless.

This is also true with gold, if the US goes under it will not be gold that has worth, it will be food, fuel and arms.

But the whole point of a gold standard or fiat federal currency, is a pledge to never go under and always redeem some intrinsic value, based at least partly on gold. Obviously even that could fail, such as aliens attacking Ft. Knox, destroying the federal government, and stealing all the gold, but highly unlikely.

Or, you know, rather than aliens you could just say that the it will fail when the nation does which is going to happen. That is a fact, nothing lasts forever. All nations fail at some point.

I use bitcoin, but only for short terms, because it allows untraceable transactions.
But it is not good for long range investments because there is no way to predict future long range value.

Of course, one of the blatantly obvious reasons that I was referring to when I said none of those monetary systems works as well as federally backed monetary systems as they are not universal.

All that is utterly irrelevant to the point I made, there are already monetary systems out there that are not under the control of any government and that essentially print themselves. Bitcoin is no more or less a currency system than the US dollar is but there will never be a system that is as effective as money backed by a government unless one somehow is universally accepted across the planet. I do not see that happening anytime soon or even at all.

You're wrong about gold. It will always have worth.

Not when there is no food.

 

[bripat9643]

How

Many of these voting laws are an over reaction to start with.

Agreed. But our democracy is no where near at stake

But but but the government was almost overthrown on Jan 6th in the greatest threat to democracy since that attack on Pearl Harbor.

Civil War...

Meh, lets just divide the country and Dems can do whatever they want on their side of the border. Dems need us we don't need Dems we'll live happily ever after without Dems and the slime left.

If it weren't for the blue states you would be hurting and if it weren't for the Fed gov.

The federal government fucks us up the ass every day.

Speak for yourself buddy, I’m walking just fine. Go get yourself some lube

You're deluding yourself. We would all be much richer if we didn't have to turn over 50% of our income to one branch of government or another.

Any if you didn't pay taxes who would print the money that you love so much?

Banks, like they did a century ago.

How'd that work out?

There's a reason why people CHOSE to use federal currency.

Banks or anyone else can write their own notes...there's nothing to stop them or you.

Give it a shot a see how it works out!

Or use an existing currency detached from governments like Bitcoin.

None of them work remotely as well as a federally backed currency and the reasons are blatantly obvious.

Bitcoin isn't real money. However prior to 1913, Banks printed their own currencies backed by gold.

It's not 'real' money?

WTF is real money? ALL money, by definition, is simply a placeholder for value. The dollar or even gold used as currency is no more 'real' than Bitcoin is. Such things only hold value because people impart that value to it and there is noting, even gold, that has held value in all societies.

No, bitcoin is only as valuable as what the current desire of investors in it make it.

That has constant wide swings, and there is nothing tangible involved.
For example, bitcoin could go under tomorrow and it would then forever be worth zero.

That is true with ALL money to include federal currency. The day the nation crashes (usually even before that) US currency will be worthless.

This is also true with gold, if the US goes under it will not be gold that has worth, it will be food, fuel and arms.

But the whole point of a gold standard or fiat federal currency, is a pledge to never go under and always redeem some intrinsic value, based at least partly on gold. Obviously even that could fail, such as aliens attacking Ft. Knox, destroying the federal government, and stealing all the gold, but highly unlikely.

Or, you know, rather than aliens you could just say that the it will fail when the nation does which is going to happen. That is a fact, nothing lasts forever. All nations fail at some point.

I use bitcoin, but only for short terms, because it allows untraceable transactions.
But it is not good for long range investments because there is no way to predict future long range value.

Of course, one of the blatantly obvious reasons that I was referring to when I said none of those monetary systems works as well as federally backed monetary systems as they are not universal.

All that is utterly irrelevant to the point I made, there are already monetary systems out there that are not under the control of any government and that essentially print themselves. Bitcoin is no more or less a currency system than the US dollar is but there will never be a system that is as effective as money backed by a government unless one somehow is universally accepted across the planet. I do not see that happening anytime soon or even at all.

You're wrong about gold. It will always have worth.

Not when there is no food.

Yep, even then.

 

[Richard-H]

Many of these voting laws are an over reaction to start with.

Agreed. But our democracy is no where near at stake

But but but the government was almost overthrown on Jan 6th in the greatest threat to democracy since that attack on Pearl Harbor.

Civil War...

Meh, lets just divide the country and Dems can do whatever they want on their side of the border. Dems need us we don't need Dems we'll live happily ever after without Dems and the slime left.

If it weren't for the blue states you would be hurting and if it weren't for the Fed gov.

The federal government fucks us up the ass every day.

Speak for yourself buddy, I’m walking just fine. Go get yourself some lube

You're deluding yourself. We would all be much richer if we didn't have to turn over 50% of our income to one branch of government or another.

Any if you didn't pay taxes who would print the money that you love so much?

Banks, like they did a century ago.

Well 330 million people would never be rich with a few million floating around the economy.

Another woke idiot proves he's an economic moron.

Do you actually believe the amount of money the Federal Reserver creates determines how many cars and houses get produced?

First, It's the Treasury dept. that creates money, not the Federal Reserve.

Secondly, the creation of money is just the issuance of authority to activate resources.

When the government creates trillions for an infrastructure bill, it's activating millions of American by creating jobs for them. It purchasing millions of dollars of goods as materials for the infrastructure, creating millions of dollars of profits for contractors who in turn create jobs and invest in other enterprises.

Ultimately, as more resources get activated, more people can purchase houses and cars...markets are created and then yes, more houses and cars get built to meet the market demand.

It's called 'consumer economics', which has always worked well, as opposed to 'supply-side economics' which has always been a total failure.

Not quite that simple.
The treasury department does the actual printing of currency, but it is controlled by the federal reserve bank, which in theory is mostly private.
{...
The U.S. Federal Reserve controls the supply of money in the U.S., and when it expands that supply it is often described as "printing money." The job of actually printing currency bills belongs to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, but the Fed determines exactly how many new bills are printed each year.
...}
The Federal Reserve Bank is controlled by private bank board of directors.
{...
The Federal Reserve System is composed of several layers. It is governed by the presidentially appointed board of governors or Federal Reserve Board (FRB). Twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, located in cities throughout the nation, regulate and oversee privately owned commercial banks.[16][17][18] Nationally chartered commercial banks are required to hold stock in, and can elect some of the board members of, the Federal Reserve Bank of their region. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) sets monetary policy. It consists of all seven members of the board of governors and the twelve regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents, though only five bank presidents vote at a time (the president of the New York Fed and four others who rotate through one-year voting terms). There are also various advisory councils. Thus, the Federal Reserve System has both public and private components.[list 2] It has a structure unique among central banks, and is also unusual in that the United States Department of the Treasury, an entity outside of the central bank, prints the currency used.[23]
...}

Any way, what you are talking about is called "quantitative easing", which essentially means printing more currency.
And while that does work a bit to stimulate the whole economy, that only works for a short time.
That is because when you print more money, then each bill become worth less and less.
Which then leads to inflation, where sellers compensate for the bill value decrease by increasing prices.
Which then slows and stagnates the economy if you do it too much.
The correct way to do it is to only temporarily inject more currency, but then pull it back out as soon as possible.
Increasing the national debt has the same effect, and requires the same solution of paying it back as soon as possible.

Wrong:

​

Federal Reserve Note - Wikipedia​

​

Federal Reserve Notes, also United States banknotes, are the currently issued banknotes of the United States dollar.[1] The United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing produces the notes under the authority of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913[2] and issues them to the Federal Reserve Banks at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.[2] The Reserve Banks then circulate the notes to their member banks,[3] at which point they become liabilities of the Reserve Banks[4] and obligations of the United States.[2]​

Your both wrong. You're talking about printing dollars. Most money is never printed. It's created on a computer in the U.S. Treasury.

I heard an interview on NPR where they discussed the creation of the 2008 bailouts & stimulus money. Someone at the U.S. treasury just types in a number and hits the enter key.

In those cases it's created at the order of Congress, not the Federal Reserve.

Opinion | Just Use ‘the Computer’ at the Fed to Give People More Money (Published 2020)

Congress has all the firepower it needs. It just needs to send spending instructions to the Federal Reserve, as it always does.

www.nytimes.com

Where did I bring up the subject of who prints the dollars?

Here's the question that got this idiotic sub thread started:

"Do you actually believe the amount of money the Federal Reserve creates determines how many cars and houses get produced?"​

I answered that.

Your answer was stupid. It's been proven to be wrong countless times.

So you can't just say that you don't believe 'Consumer economics' work?

What proof do you have?

At times you really sound like a six year old!

There is only one kind of economics, turd. Printing money does not improve our standard of living. There are only so many goods and services that an economy can produce in any given unit of time, and there is no possible mechanism for the mere creation of worthless scraps of paper to increase that number.

First, you continue to confuse 'printing' money with 'creating' money. Most money exists on computers only. Printed money is only a small portion of the money that exists.

Second, unless all economic resources are currently activated (which they are not), the government's creation of additional money creates the authority to activate resources. That in turn increases production which creates real wealth.

You are correct to say that there is a limit to the goods and services that any society can produce, but we are a long way from that limit.