What are you smoking? You nor ANYONE other than the fed or mint can create money, Now where does the interest to pay the loans come from?
Figure it out smart guy.
If you mean that we're starting with central bank money, the bank lends it out. People are paid, they buy things, the multiplier works, the buying and multiplying continues. When the asset created with the loan is earning a profit, interest payments are made.
I wasn't aware that the US SS system was considered an entity. But I guess in a way you are correct about that and just a bit more than 100% wrong about
It is true, 100% true, that fact that you deny it being true just says you are dismissive of anything that does not fit your preconceived notions. Cognitive dissonance.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29880401/page/16
I'm not just aimlessly sparring with you. I welcome you to prove your case. Whenever I write a post, I'm genuinely thinking the issue through, not just spitting out an ideological retort. I researched it myself; I spent an hour building the Excel spreadsheet in order to confirm it to myself; I considered whatever evidence was provided and sought to confirm or deny it. If you can identify the logical, mathematical, or factual reality, I have no choice but to embrace it.
Unfortunately, whatever excellent cases people could make about having a better monetary system, it tends to fall back on a few key themes: all the numbers are rigged, the banking cabal controls everything, and everyone is trying to screw you--you silly ignorant fool--over. When you deny all data, presume conspiracy based on the slightest slivers of possibility, and are thoroughly convinced that those evil fat cat bankers are inevitably out to fuck you, what meaningful discussion can be had? We might as well be arguing 9/11 truth.
If more people here would spend 10 minutes looking at a piece of data and considering it instead of immediately dismissing it on realizing that it's incompatible with preexisting belief, we might actually see some substantive points raised. I have no dog in any fight; I don't care if the Fed is evil, but you need to prove it, damn it. You cannot just rely on naked assertions and misleading tidbits drawn out of amateur monographs.
I'm curious, if you had cancer, would you choose conventional treatment or G. Edward Griffin's quack cure?
At the
close of business on Jan. 2, the Federal Reserve had owned $1.661 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities. By the
close of business on Feb. 6, it owned $1.7172 trillion—an increase of $51.1 billion for the calendar year.
Thus, the Federal Reserve’s purchases of U.S. government debt in this calendar year have exceeded the Treasury’s net debt issues by about $3.9 billion.
........
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fed-has-bought-more-us-gov-t-debt-year-treasury-has-issued
Oops more than 100%.
Is the Fed actually buying treasuries at the auctions, or are they just buying them off of bank balance sheets? It seems unclear (one article says the Fed bought more treasuries than the treasury issued in a period, implying they're coming off bank balance sheets; then that they'll be in short supply--but at the auction or in the market afterward?). I think it matters. If they are buying treasuries at the auctions, then yes, you could certainly say that the Fed is funding the federal deficit, since the Fed is crediting the treasury with new money. But if they're buying the things off bank balance sheets, they're not enabling the borrowing, just trading treasuries for cash.
But even if we say the Fed is funding the federal government's deficit, why does it matter? The Fed doesn't need to be in that role--your articles say treasuries were hugely oversubscribed. The Fed is buying treasuries in order to influence interest rates, not as a buyer of last resort in the falling deck of cards. Indeed, without the Fed's purchases, interest rates on those treasuries would be higher, so you would expect there to be even more foreign and private demand for them. While they own a chunk of the debt, they aren't actually enabling the borrowing to take place, since there would be lots of other buyers anyway.
Of course, your claim: "
The Fed funds 80% of all government spending." For this to be true, the Fed would have to buy $3 trillion in treasuries every year. They own about half that much right now after several years.
Budget? There is no budget. we have not had a budget for years and years now. LOL don't you pay attention to whats going on around you?
If you owe more per year than you take in (Taxes) then all your money is going to pay for the debt, not the expenses. Simple 3rd grade economics.
The fact that Congress hasn't actually passed a budget doesn't mean that there aren't appropriations bills or that the government isn't running on a budget. It is. If you don't want to call the federal spending in 2013 the "2013 budget," fine, but that's not going to change the fact that the money will be spent.
This was your exact claim: "
Taxes fund 0% of government spending." If government spending is $3.8 trillion and receipts are $3.1 trillion, taxes fund 81.5% of government spending and debt only funds 18.5% of government spending.
I do not have it reversed, you are unable to read.
You really need to stop saying that when it was you who were unable to read.
"
But then, in 2011, they shot straight back up — and now they’re (deposits) at a record high of $1.13 trillion, with JP Morgan having failed to lend out more than $400 billion of that amount." This sentence says that JPMorgan hasn't lend out $400 billion of the $1.13 trillion, which must mean that they have lent out $1.13 trillion - $400 billion.
The link has the numbers for both JPM and DB, you just failed to see it.
Can you unwind derivative exposure at a whim? or do you have to let the contracts expire?
If you see that you are losing at poker in a high stakes game in Vegas, they let you call a time out and switch your cards with ones from the deck around until something you like comes up right?
Don't you think the fact that they're holding derivatives worth a face value of $70 trillion with only $20 billion at risk suggests that they're already holding all of the cards?
