People commonly say that the Fed itself prints money. It's true that the Fed is in charge of the money supply. But technically, the Treasury Department prints money on the Fed's behalf. Asking the Treasury Department to print cash isn't even necessary for the Fed to buy securities.

This again proves the theory I've held for 4 decades: No critic of the Austrian School or libertarianism has even the slightest familiarity with basic Austrian School or libertarian concepts such as:

1. Economic calculation and miscalculation;

2. The difference between laissez faire and crony capitalism much less the significance of crony capitalism in the creation of the progressive and Keynesian regulatory state;

3. Cantillon Effects;

4. The non-aggression principle;

5. The nature of voluntary exchange and catallactics; and

6. The difference between a free market in money, a "gold standard" and a "gold exchange standard" such as the US was on during the 1920s.

This article is just more proof that the anti-Austrian and anti-libertarian horde is profoundly ignorant, conformist and just plain dumb.

Fact 1: Of course the Fed does not "print" money. They whimsically "keystroke" it which is even more insidious.
Fact 2: Keystroking $1.8 Trillion in digital monopoly money and buying worthless MBS is "spending" as far as any sane person is concerned.
Fact 3: The massive price inflation in commodities, farmland, GM and AIG stock, and US Treasuries is undeniable.
Fact 4: The Fed has devalued the dollar 97% since 1913.
Fact 5: The period in which the U.S. was on anything resembling a "gold standard" was from 1870 to 1913. This was an era of expanding incomes and falling prices. Incomes doubled in the U.S. in the 1880s.
Fact 6: The long term change in M0 tracks very well with the overall price level.
Fact 7: Citing a "Fed economist" to defend the policies of the Fed is is not journalism by any definition.
Fact 8: Paul Ryan does not understand free market economics.
Fact 9: See Fact 5.
Fact 10: The Fed can no better set a near term "target inflation rate" than it could predict the Superbowl. Money printing does not effect consumer prices in any synchronous fashion. Humans are not curves on a graph despite the insistence of Ivy League economists. Their preferences are subjective, not quantitative, and constantly changing.
Fact 11: The Fed increased the Monetary Base from $800b to $2.6 Trillion. Most Fed apologists have no concept of how big our economy would have to be to absorb their balance sheet.

This writer clearly does not have a clear grasp of economics. The sad thing is it's misleading to the public who is trying to learn how the Federal Reserve operates.

HuffPo’s Myth #1: “The Fed actually prints money.”

She leads off with this? As if this is some big discovery that will refute the end-the-Fed people? When we talk about Fed money-printing, we are speaking in shorthand. We’re pretty certain someone like Ron Paul knows the Fed doesn’t actually print money. But he, along with pretty much the whole financial world, speaks of the Fed as printing money. You know why? Because it’s a teensy bit more convenient than saying, “We need the Fed to credit some banks’ accounts with increased balances, which it does by means of a computer, though if these balances are lent out and the borrowers prefer to use some of this lent money as cash, the Treasury will go ahead and print the cash.”

The Fed policy's first-order effect is to issue hundreds of billions in "free money" to banks; the second-order effect is to destroy the rule of law in the U.S.

Let's start with a few questions about the proper role of the Central State and Central Bank: why should they bail out private banks? The answer boils down to something like this: "If the private banks absorbed the losses that are rightly theirs in a capitalist system, they would implode. Since the State and Central Bank have enabled these private banks to infiltrate and dominate the nation's financial system, that system is now hostage to these private 'too big to fail' banks."

In other words, "capitalism" in America now means socializing losses and privatizing profits generated by State and Central Bank intervention. Imagine for a moment the "beauty" of this system for owners of private banks: in a truly socialized banking system, the taxpayers would absorb any losses, but the State would also benefit from any future bank-sector profits. In the U.S. system, the losses are socialized but the people draw no benefit; the profits flow to the top 1/10th of 1% private financiers.

This is the perfection of State-financier crony capitalism.

Read more: dinarvets.com.../topic/130690-the-worlds-largest-money-laundering-machine-the-federal-reserve/#ixzz28uCaiRkF

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
reply to post by crankyoldman

---

I agree with what you said, but I don't think there is anything "official" on the 100 year contract.

From what you're saying, it sounds like you're inferring that there is an unspoken agreement to devalue our currency over a 100 year period, which I wouldn't doubt considering how far it has fallen, but I have yet to find anything documented around the Fed that includes a 100 year time period.

I wish there was a 100 year charter, because if that were true, I think now would be the time the people would rise to put a stop to it. I'm afraid that the only other way is to get them to forfeit and close up or catch them breaking the law.

~Namaste