The (((Federal Reserve))) loans the US money and then charges interest on money created out of thin air...

The (((Federal Reserve))) loans the US money and then charges interest on money created out of thin air. What would harm them more, paying off our debt or going into bankruptcy and never paying it off?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.fo/NWJrx
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

If we just dumped them and made our own money, what would be their course of action?

nuclear holocaust

Killing everyone involved would probably be the best thing to do.

Nah, produce a 20 trillion dollar penny and call it paid off. Then change the currency back to being produced by us for us. Back it up by land.

You will be jailed for laundering or not paying taxes on your new "money".
It's been tried before.

No, I mean the government as a whole.

isnt that what hitler did

there would be a huge (((depression))) where we'd end up needing a loan from (((someone else)))

Shhhhh. I'm building to that, user.

Why would there have to be a depression? Where would it come from if we had our own money and no debt?

>The (((Federal Reserve))) loans the US money and then charges interest on money created out of thin air.
This is not true. The treasury department prints the money.

The Fed is in reality a branch of the US government. The reason is has been separated from the treasury is to remove money from democratic decision making and give Rothchilds et al the power over money.

Milton Friendman and the MMT field support making the Fed a desk in the treasury:

Chekt

Paying our debt, as that would be the bad goy move

>Nah, produce a 20 trillion dollar penny and call it paid off
sometimes I forget how retarded most people that post on this board are

We will default like when we went off of the gold standard. Peter Schiff has been predicting it. The right guy is in power to navigate through it. Obama more than doubled the national debt. The payments alone won't be sustainable.

we almost did it just a few years ago.

our paper bills have a hard limit value of something like $1000, but our coins don't have that rule.

so we very heavily considered printing a 10-20 trillion dollar coin, as our currency's high value harms our trade prospects as of late anyway.

would sure suck for the rest of the world, especially china though.

read about the sumerian swindle. i've been meaning to make a redpill image of this for a while

archive.fo/NWJrx

peter schiff has been saying "any second now"
for at least the last 10 years

So what happens if we default on our debt? How would that impact your average citizen? Would it be possible to install a national bank or the American School of Economics, or would (((they))) prohibit that at all costs? Will we ever be free?

>it isn't retarded, the US government considered doing it!
really made me think

True. Sooner or later he will be right though. Unless we grow the GDP out of it, but that would mean at least 3.5 a year.

>borrow 1 trillion dollars into existence
>promise to pay it back, plus interest!
>pay back the 1 trillion you borrowed into existence
>still owe interest
>borrow money into existence (with interest) to pay back interest
>owe interest
see how that works with (((bankers?)))

I joked about this with libtards.
B-b-b-uh his bankruptcies! He can't manage anything!

Then he's fucking PERFECT to lead the US through the BIGGEST, the BEST bankruptcy in history.

Treasury Bonds. Congress has the power to absolutely butt fuck the Fed, and they HAVE to accept it. However the lily livered cowards in Congress won't even think of it, because it would require them to do their job as outlined in the constitution .

And charges interest on the loan, hence thin air. Didnt think that one through did ya?

I don't know. We borrow money from ourselves like Social Security, foreign governments like China. It won't be pretty. That's why precious metals, coins, RE are all a good hedge against inflation for your average blokes like ourselves.

the federal reserve "Writes a check" to the treasury. then the treasury prints bonds, the bonds are sold to the fed, and "Federal Reserve Notes" are made.
they swap I.O.U.s
and

The treasury department is not the FED you autist

>What would harm them more, paying off our debt or going into bankruptcy and never paying it off?
It's literally impossible to pay off the debt.
They print all the money, then charge interest when they loan out that money. That means that the amount of money owed is necessarily greater than the amount of money printed.

Let that sink in.

It is not possible to pay off our debts, and not just "there's no political will to do that" or something, but it is actually, mathematically, impossible.

Exactly!

the Treasury can issue Treasury bonds, and the Fed is required to accept them as equal to their bills, thus the treasury could force the Fed out of existence if congress were to do so by printing money and removing Fed notes from circulation.

it IS possible to do so politically, the same was you no longer see treasury bills in circulation, the same could be done to the bills the fed circulates but in reverse. The only difference would be red ink and a different seal on the bills for the common person.

The question then is who will buy 20 Trillion in T-bills?

the Fed is required to accept them in their founding charter.

If you don't understand the importance of a central bank, you're not supposed to post a thread about it.
SparkNotes:
>The FED controls monetary policy (not economic policy)
>The fed's tools are very limited
>Responsible debt holders with appreciating assets are the backbone of a free economy, and generation of capital through leverage (making money from debt) spurs economic growth.
T. Finance Guy

leveraging doesn't spur economic growth, just the illusion of it. Just like all those mumbo jumbo theories in the past about monetary velocity.

Yes it does. Let me explain. If you take out a loan to start a business you otherwise couldn't afford, then voila, you've used debt to grow the economy.

>paying off our debt

literally impossible. for every $1 in circulation, >$1 is owed on it. just one massive ponzi scheme

loans are not given without some form of collateral, or a means to re-coup losses. Using your example of a business loan, if the company fails and loses ever single dollar to it's name, it also can cause negative growth, as there are now more outlies than assets for the issuing bank. Given that both occur it is neither a net growth or a net loss, but like all real distributions it does not create a difference in and of itself in the long term.

Well, collateral is important but there are many loans that don't require collateral. Usually commercial loans do have collateral though. Your argument about no net gain or loss is nonsensical, though. If lenders called loans and forclosed on properties 50% of the time, your argument might make sense, but they don't. Leverage helps you build equity. Have you actually researched this stuff.

yes, 95% of business fail within 5 years.

depending on your source, maybe 1/3 survive 10 years. So I will go with the better end of the spectrum for your argument's sake. That is still a hell of a lot of businesses going broke.

We can do this now user, that is the crazy part!
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

This is why they killed JFK

For an even bigger perspective, there around 1.5 trillion dollars floating around in currency. The US is in debt around 20 trillion.

the reason the deficit has grown this way is because of the massive tax cuts that neo-cons and neoliberals put in place while worshipping the god of supply side economics. You can even see where it went off the rails -- mid 1970s.

Most businesses have collateral, as we discussed. Also, many businesses that fail don't have a loan on them or have paid down a large chunk of their loan before they fail. I still don't see where you're getting the "debt doesn't increase growth" argument from

...

this hope you are taking notes anons

>>Fed is in reality a branch of the US government

Sorry Finski the Fed is privately held corporation, has nothing to do with the US government.

Since the first federal reserve was just made by law, why can't they pass a law that creates a reserve federal reserve to pay back the first then the government keeps all the tax money instead of paying interest.

it debt always increased growth, there would be no lending limits based on a percentage for banks (non-central ones). The reality of leveraging is it multiplies both gains and losses. Currently with a generally growing economy it is not an issue, but toxic debt is in fact an issue hence the whole credit default swaps issue relating to the housing crisis of last decade.

>jokes on them! i was just pretending to be retarded.

You know why. Because anti-semitic.

>it debt always increased growth
You'll see in an earlier post, I said lending to responsible parties.
And yes, lending absolutely needs to be regulated. I hope you're starting to see that not all debt is bad debt