and the federal reserve doesn't (literally) print the money...

At their discretion they can buy an asset and the person they bought from now has money that didnt previously exist

This is what is being referred to as printing, but yes its just an unlimited asset issuance function in the currency class of a program

Yes, but every bank can create money through lending, you don't need a to be a government agency to do that. The Fed just has less limits because it can just add arbitrary amounts of currency to its balance sheets.

Banks in theory have consequences for lending more than is reasonably available to them. The Fed really can create money out of thin air. That's a big difference.

As long as they satisfy their capital requirements, banks can lend as they please. They tend not to make really bad loans because directors are legally beholden to shareholders to ensure management is appropriately managing risk. The Fed doesn't tend to print trillions of dollars for no particular reason because it is legally beholden to its dual mandate. It's not that different. Yes the Fed can create "reserve currency" and banks can only create "commercial currency" but the distinction is a technical one and doesn't have a whole lot of macroeconomic impact.

The Fed has mandate that has nothing to do with the motivation of the banks. That's a huge difference - they create money for entirely different reasons. And yes, the Fed has an enormous macroeconomic impact obviously.

I don't think you actually responded to anything that I said, so I'm not sure how to reply. Did you just sort all of the words in my comment and pick some at random to respond to?

I know they're considered "independent", that said they're still a central authority created by Congress to control the money supply whose members are presidentially appointed, with a .gov domain name to boot.

Fed Board of Governors are appointed and a part of the government. The actual Fed banks themselves are owned by commercial banks.

But do they report to the government?

For demand control reasons. Money printing can only control supply. The alternative is central bank becoming the basic income supplier, with no abilities to control demand.

The states, which have a central bank, a taxing buro and a government-owned lottery together, do have the necessary instruments to distribute UBI with a suitable demand control mechanism, with just a re-legistlation and re-organisation. US lacks the last one, hence lacks the instrument to do the demand control without debt control nand excessive taxing.

Because we understand that this is a ridiculous conspiracy theory, and also (apropos of nothing) "multinational" isn't a dirty word?

Hint: one of OP's sources is Glenn Beck. Also Rant Paul.

You could easily disprove this yourself. Just check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#Legal_status_o...

> However, holding stock in a Federal Reserve bank is not like owning stock in a publicly traded company. These stocks cannot be sold or traded, and member banks do not control the Federal Reserve Bank as a result of owning this stock.

> the "ownership" of the Reserve Banks by the commercial banks is symbolic; they do not exercise the proprietary control associated with the concept of ownership nor share, beyond the statutory dividend, in Reserve Bank "profits."

Buy some Treasury Bonds, and you're also privately profiting from public debt. that's how it works. You need someone to take the other side to have any debt, and there is only one government.

Other than that: you have wilfully ignored the quotes, in what is obviously a bad faith attempt at trolling.

Please don't cross into incivility, regardless of how bad you think other comments are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html