Bill Still's Money Masters

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent! Much higher savings levels, much less borrowing and much higher interest rates.
A sure fire way for the little guy to benefit.

Sorry, I missed this post before.

You have something against saving money for what you want? You think its better to pay 4-5% for a car loan for 3-4 years, or just save up a couple of years and buy it outright?

The little guy sure does benefit. My parents lived that way and prospered. Most of their friends and relatives did it that way too.

I guess you'd rather waste 150% more money on interest instead of waiting and buying a much better house. What a weirdo!

I guess you'd rather waste 150% more money on interest instead of waiting and buying a much better house. What a weirdo!

Yes, saving for 20 years to buy a house is a great idea.

Tell me again about the interest attached to the $20 in my wallet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Fed could have offset the decrease created by bank failures by engaging in bond purchases, but it did not.

See, the bank failures happened first. Yes, they also, later, tightened when they should have loosened.
You claimed that Bernanke said the Fed caused the Depression.
They certainly made it worse and longer, but they didn't cause the bank failures, they didn't stop the failures by buying bonds.

You should actually read the stuff I link. It would stop you from making a fool of yourself.

The first episode analyzed by Friedman and Schwartz was the deliberate tightening of monetary policy that began in the spring of 1928 and continued until the stock market crash of October 1929.

They were deliberately tightening even before the stack market crash and bank failures. Reading on...

This policy tightening occurred in conditions that we would not today normally consider conducive to tighter money: As Friedman and Schwartz noted, the business-cycle trough had only just been reached at the end of 1927 (the NBER's official trough date is November 1927), commodity prices were declining, and there was not the slightest hint of inflation. Why then did the Federal Reserve tighten in early 1928? A principal reason was the Board's ongoing concern about speculation on Wall Street. The Federal Reserve had long made the distinction between "productive" and "speculative" uses of credit, and the rising stock market and the associated increases in bank loans to brokers were thus a major concern.

And since there were margin loans of up to 90% of the stock's value, when the market crashed, the banks failed.

It's so funny how everything you seem to believe is contradicted by the facts, isn't it?

Do you support a balanced Federal budget and reducing the national debt?


You bet. The solution is not the Treasury printing and spending "interest free money".

Oh? Then what's your solution? Cutting spending and raising taxes? Or are you just for cutting spending?

Gee, since you know about the money multiplier, and government debt is the basis for all the money multiplying going on, what you you think happens when the government reduces debt? Can you say "money supply contraction", also known as deflation, also known as depression, which is exactly what the Fed did from 1928 to 1932.

The evidence is there, Toddster. All you need to do is see it.

By the way, issuing US Notes to pay off the national debt, then replacing it with commodity backed money and eliminating FRB would eliminate the debt and put the country of a stable course, with no more "business cycle".

And best of all, no more leeches sucking 1-10% of the productive labor simply because they're allowed to create the money supply.

What the hell is wrong with that scenario?

Oh? Then what's your solution? Cutting spending and raising taxes? Or are you just for cutting spending?

I'm for cutting spending. We're taxed enough.

Gee, since you know about the money multiplier, and government debt is the basis for all the money multiplying going on

LOL! When I borrow to buy a house, the money supply increases.

what you you think happens when the government reduces debt?

We don't become Greece?

Can you say "money supply contraction", also known as deflation, also known as depression, which is exactly what the Fed did from 1928 to 1932.

So we can't reduce government debt, ever, just because you're afraid the money supply will contract?
What if government debt shrinks and the money supply remains constant?
Or would that make you cry too?

By the way, issuing US Notes to pay off the national debt, then replacing it with commodity backed money and eliminating FRB would eliminate the debt

Damn are you dumb. Greatly inflate the money supply to pay off the debt. It works for Zimbabwe.
Commodity backed money? LOL! The government should buy billions (trillions?) worth of gold or silver and issue currency against it? And how do you eliminate FRB?
Your idea is to allow CDs and 100% loans against them. That's FRB, you silly git.
And where does the debt elimination happen? Spell it out.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whoop-de-effin-do! You posted a link to a dictionary! Well, it's a start.

And I would say your definition is right on. You're apparently deceived by FRB into thinking it's real money and not some accounting slight of hand.

You poor girl. The government says it's real money.
That means it isn't counterfeit. Durr.

Since when do you agree with everything the government says?

No, you moron, but the government gets to issue money. So government issued money isn't counterfeit. Get it yet?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

dear its obviously very very real if it will buy everything and the government does not print enough of it to devalue it!!

How does such a simple concept get you so confused?????

Gee Fairy Princess, where the hell did you get the idea that the government prints the money? 95-97% of money isn't printed, it's in the form of bank debt. And the government does print the physical cash, but it's sold to the Fed at cost (a few cents per piece of paper). So the Fed even gets the seniorage. You do know what that means, right?

Oh wait... I forgot you think supermarkets don't have fixed assets. You probably don't know. Google it.

So the Fed even gets the seniorage. You do know what that means, right?



Yes, it means the Fed gives that profit to the Treasury.

The Federal Reserve Board on Thursday announced preliminary unaudited results indicating that the Reserve Banks provided for payments of approximately $88.9 billion of their estimated 2012 net income to the U.S. Treasury. Under the Board's policy, the residual earnings of each Federal Reserve Bank are distributed to the U.S. Treasury, after providing for the costs of operations, payment of dividends, and the amount necessary to equate surplus with capital paid-in.

FRB: Press Release--Reserve Bank income and expense data and transfers to the Treasury for 2012--January 10, 2013

 

[joewp]

Excellent! Much higher savings levels, much less borrowing and much higher interest rates.
A sure fire way for the little guy to benefit.

Sorry, I missed this post before.

You have something against saving money for what you want? You think its better to pay 4-5% for a car loan for 3-4 years, or just save up a couple of years and buy it outright?

The little guy sure does benefit. My parents lived that way and prospered. Most of their friends and relatives did it that way too.

I guess you'd rather waste 150% more money on interest instead of waiting and buying a much better house. What a weirdo!

I guess you'd rather waste 150% more money on interest instead of waiting and buying a much better house. What a weirdo!

Yes, saving for 20 years to buy a house is a great idea.

Tell me again about the interest attached to the $20 in my wallet.

Oh, so you'd rather pay 250% of the cost of the house (which is already inflated by the banks creating the money for the loan) for 30 years rather than just paying cash? For what, immediate gratification? Are you that immature?

Why should I bother telling you about the interest on your $20 when I already have and you won't accept the facts? If I get a loan and pay you $20 for services rendered (mostly for entertainment from your lack of knowledge), you're denying that I'm paying interest on that $20? Why don't you stop posting for a while and think?

Oh, I know, it's hard to think. You'd rather pay the banks more than the cost of the house, so you can claim you "own" a house. How stupid is that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, I missed this post before.

You have something against saving money for what you want? You think its better to pay 4-5% for a car loan for 3-4 years, or just save up a couple of years and buy it outright?

The little guy sure does benefit. My parents lived that way and prospered. Most of their friends and relatives did it that way too.

I guess you'd rather waste 150% more money on interest instead of waiting and buying a much better house. What a weirdo!

I guess you'd rather waste 150% more money on interest instead of waiting and buying a much better house. What a weirdo!

Yes, saving for 20 years to buy a house is a great idea.

Tell me again about the interest attached to the $20 in my wallet.

Oh, so you'd rather pay 250% of the cost of the house (which is already inflated by the banks creating the money for the loan) for 30 years rather than just paying cash? For what, immediate gratification? Are you that immature?

Why should I bother telling you about the interest on your $20 when I already have and you won't accept the facts? If I get a loan and pay you $20 for services rendered (mostly for entertainment from your lack of knowledge), you're denying that I'm paying interest on that $20? Why don't you stop posting for a while and think?

Oh, I know, it's hard to think. You'd rather pay the banks more than the cost of the house, so you can claim you "own" a house. How stupid is that?

Oh, so you'd rather pay 250% of the cost of the house

When I borrow money, I expect to pay interest.
I don't whine about it.

for 30 years rather than just paying cash?

Feel free to save for 20 or 30 years before you buy a house.

Why should I bother telling you about the interest on your $20

Because your idiocy makes me laugh.

If I get a loan and pay you $20 for services rendered (mostly for entertainment from your lack of knowledge), you're denying that I'm paying interest on that $20?

You're paying interest on your loan, that doesn't mean the $20 you paid me has interest attached to it.

Yes, I deny you're paying interest on my $20.

 

[joewp]

The Fed could have offset the decrease created by bank failures by engaging in bond purchases, but it did not.

See, the bank failures happened first. Yes, they also, later, tightened when they should have loosened.
You claimed that Bernanke said the Fed caused the Depression.
They certainly made it worse and longer, but they didn't cause the bank failures, they didn't stop the failures by buying bonds.

You should actually read the stuff I link. It would stop you from making a fool of yourself.


They were deliberately tightening even before the stack market crash and bank failures. Reading on...


And since there were margin loans of up to 90% of the stock's value, when the market crashed, the banks failed.

It's so funny how everything you seem to believe is contradicted by the facts, isn't it?

Do you support a balanced Federal budget and reducing the national debt?


You bet. The solution is not the Treasury printing and spending "interest free money".

Oh? Then what's your solution? Cutting spending and raising taxes? Or are you just for cutting spending?

Gee, since you know about the money multiplier, and government debt is the basis for all the money multiplying going on, what you you think happens when the government reduces debt? Can you say "money supply contraction", also known as deflation, also known as depression, which is exactly what the Fed did from 1928 to 1932.

The evidence is there, Toddster. All you need to do is see it.

By the way, issuing US Notes to pay off the national debt, then replacing it with commodity backed money and eliminating FRB would eliminate the debt and put the country of a stable course, with no more "business cycle".

And best of all, no more leeches sucking 1-10% of the productive labor simply because they're allowed to create the money supply.

What the hell is wrong with that scenario?

Oh? Then what's your solution? Cutting spending and raising taxes? Or are you just for cutting spending?

I'm for cutting spending. We're taxed enough.

Gee, since you know about the money multiplier, and government debt is the basis for all the money multiplying going on

LOL! When I borrow to buy a house, the money supply increases.

Nice job revealing your lack of understanding of our money system.
Um, where do you think all the money comes from initially? Trees?
Nope, the Fed creates it from their "reserves", which the vast majority is Treasuries. You know, government debt. Although to be honest, over the last few years the Fed has been buying up all those crappy MBSs from the commercial banks, so they are becoming more of the basis for the base money supply than federal securities. How do I know that? Well, the Fed conveniently publishes their balance sheet daily. Here's today's : FRB: H.4.1 Release--Factors Affecting Reserve Balances--February 21, 2013

In either case, it's debt that is the basis for all the money in existence.

what you you think happens when the government reduces debt?

We don't become Greece?

You're funny. You don't even realize we already are Greece. They're calling this March 1st thing 'sequestration'. I call it 'austerity', same as Greece. If 'sequestration' happens, Federal salaries will be cut, same as Greece.

Can you say "money supply contraction", also known as deflation, also known as depression, which is exactly what the Fed did from 1928 to 1932.

So we can't reduce government debt, ever, just because you're afraid the money supply will contract?
What if government debt shrinks and the money supply remains constant?
Or would that make you cry too?

Nope, cause it can't happen. I won't bother to tell you why, since you wouldn't understand.

By the way, issuing US Notes to pay off the national debt, then replacing it with commodity backed money and eliminating FRB would eliminate the debt

Damn are you dumb. Greatly inflate the money supply to pay off the debt. It works for Zimbabwe.

What you fail to understand is that issuing debt free money isn't what Zimbabwe did. They issued more debt created money, which required more debt issued money, and so on. And they certainly didn't issue that money with an eye toward introducing commodity money.

Commodity backed money? LOL! The government should buy billions (trillions?) worth of gold or silver and issue currency against it?

How silly you are. You're using current fiat money "worth" to value a commodity, which carries an intrinsic value of its own, completely ignoring the monetary inflation the Fed has carried out. I thought I already posted how a silver dollar has retained its value relative to goods and service far better than FRNs over the last 40 years.
And if the government decided to issue new silver dollars, to be equivalent to today's FRNs, all you would have to do is reduce the silver content to 1/30th of what it was in 1960 to account the the inflation of FRNs since then.
We're just Zimbabwe in slow motion, but the motion is getting faster.

And how do you eliminate FRB?

Right now, by law (sort of, the Fed does it on their own, arbitrarily) banks can loan out between 90 and 100% of their deposits. Just change the law to say they have to keep 100% of demand deposits. Easy as that.

Your idea is to allow CDs and 100% loans against them. That's FRB, you silly git.

Obviously, you don't understand the difference between FRB and investment, do you? As I posted before, the money storage/clearing function would operate at 100% reserves. People who wanted a 'return' on their money would invest in those CDs hoping to get a decent return. However, if the borrower defaults on the loan, they lose their investment. Same as buying a corporate bond today. It's your money that you invest in the bond, and if the company goes under with insufficient assets to pay back all the creditors, you lose some of all of your money. That's the risk in the risk/reward paradigm. Or did you think the chance of gain doesn't come with the chance of loss?

And where does the debt elimination happen? Spell it out.

By eliminating the Fed and having the government issue debt-free money, just like Lincoln did. You have heard of Greenbacks, right?

Oh, and I accept your unspoken capitulation on the subject of whether the Fed actively contracted the money supply before and during the start of the Great Depression. Evidence and facts trump opinion very nicely, don't they?

 

[joewp]

You're paying interest on your loan, that doesn't mean the $20 you paid me has interest attached to it.

Yes, I deny you're paying interest on my $20.

Tell me, how is it you arrive at the conclusion that the $20 I borrowed at interest and paid you for goods or services rendered doesn't carry interest. I want to explain it to the bank so I can stop paying interest on it!

This should be fascinating, in a macabre, slowing down to look at an accident kind of way.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're paying interest on your loan, that doesn't mean the $20 you paid me has interest attached to it.

Yes, I deny you're paying interest on my $20.

Tell me, how is it you arrive at the conclusion that the $20 I borrowed at interest and paid you for goods or services rendered doesn't carry interest. I want to explain it to the bank so I can stop paying interest on it!

This should be fascinating, in a macabre, slowing down to look at an accident kind of way.

Tell me, how is it you arrive at the conclusion that the $20 I borrowed at interest and paid you for goods or services rendered doesn't carry interest.

I've got a $20 in my hand. I'm not paying anyone interest on it.
I'm not collecting interest on it from anyone.
I don't give a crap that you took out a $20 loan.
It wouldn't matter if you got the $20 for mowing Bernancke's lawn, the $20 does not have interest attached.
Damn, your idiocy is exhausting.

I want to explain it to the bank so I can stop paying interest on it!

Of course you owe interest on your loan, whether you still hold the $20 or you have spent it, moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can you say "money supply contraction", also known as deflation, also known as depression, which is exactly what the Fed did from 1928 to 1932.

So we can't reduce government debt, ever, just because you're afraid the money supply will contract?
What if government debt shrinks and the money supply remains constant?
Or would that make you cry too?

Nope, cause it can't happen. I won't bother to tell you why, since you wouldn't understand.

Sure it could. Current debt held by the public is $11.7 trillion.
Current Treasury holdings of the Fed are $1.7 trillion.
The government could stop spending money on stupid shit (hey, it's a hypothetical) and make the US a decent place to start a business. Hold spending steady for a dozen years and current debt held by the public could drop to $5 trillion while Treasury holdings of the Fed could remain at $1.7 trillion.

Now you try to show how that wasn't an example of government debt shrinking while the money supply remained constant.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now you try to show how that wasn't an example of government debt shrinking while the money supply remained constant.

debt is a result of fiscal policy while money supply is a result of monetary policy. They are largely unrelated.

THe Fed could double the money supply each year but this would not prevent the government from cutting its debt in half or making it 10 times more.

 

[joewp]

You're paying interest on your loan, that doesn't mean the $20 you paid me has interest attached to it.

Yes, I deny you're paying interest on my $20.

Tell me, how is it you arrive at the conclusion that the $20 I borrowed at interest and paid you for goods or services rendered doesn't carry interest. I want to explain it to the bank so I can stop paying interest on it!

This should be fascinating, in a macabre, slowing down to look at an accident kind of way.

Tell me, how is it you arrive at the conclusion that the $20 I borrowed at interest and paid you for goods or services rendered doesn't carry interest.

I've got a $20 in my hand. I'm not paying anyone interest on it.

Stop making stuff up. Nobody said you were paying interest on the $20. I said someone, somewhere is paying interest on it. In this case, we know who and where they are. Me and here.

I'm not collecting interest on it from anyone.

I think if I said so were collecting interest on it, I'd remember. Why are you bringing in this irrelevant crap?

I don't give a crap that you took out a $20 loan.
It wouldn't matter if you got the $20 for mowing Bernancke's lawn, the $20 does not have interest attached.
Damn, your idiocy is exhausting.

Sorry, I've explained it the best I could. Too bad you don't understand.

I want to explain it to the bank so I can stop paying interest on it!

Of course you owe interest on your loan, whether you still hold the $20 or you have spent it, moron.

I owe interest on the $20 I gave to you. Like I said, somebody, somewhere is paying interest on that $20.
I guess it's just a little too complex for some.

 

[joewp]

Can you say "money supply contraction", also known as deflation, also known as depression, which is exactly what the Fed did from 1928 to 1932.

So we can't reduce government debt, ever, just because you're afraid the money supply will contract?
What if government debt shrinks and the money supply remains constant?
Or would that make you cry too?

Nope, cause it can't happen. I won't bother to tell you why, since you wouldn't understand.

Sure it could. Current debt held by the public is $11.7 trillion.
Current Treasury holdings of the Fed are $1.7 trillion.
The government could stop spending money on stupid shit (hey, it's a hypothetical) and make the US a decent place to start a business. Hold spending steady for a dozen years and current debt held by the public could drop to $5 trillion while Treasury holdings of the Fed could remain at $1.7 trillion.

Now you try to show how that wasn't an example of government debt shrinking while the money supply remained constant.

I see your problem. You only can see the superficial consequences of your scenarios. Think about it for a minute. What the stupid shit really is is 10s or 100s of thousands of people across the country. They stop spending, the delis and restaurants near the job suffer and have to lay off workers or close, and it just cascades into its own recession.

I'll bet you don't even know the last time the national debt was $0.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell me, how is it you arrive at the conclusion that the $20 I borrowed at interest and paid you for goods or services rendered doesn't carry interest. I want to explain it to the bank so I can stop paying interest on it!

This should be fascinating, in a macabre, slowing down to look at an accident kind of way.

Tell me, how is it you arrive at the conclusion that the $20 I borrowed at interest and paid you for goods or services rendered doesn't carry interest.

I've got a $20 in my hand. I'm not paying anyone interest on it.

Stop making stuff up. Nobody said you were paying interest on the $20. I said someone, somewhere is paying interest on it. In this case, we know who and where they are. Me and here.

I think if I said so were collecting interest on it, I'd remember. Why are you bringing in this irrelevant crap?

I don't give a crap that you took out a $20 loan.
It wouldn't matter if you got the $20 for mowing Bernancke's lawn, the $20 does not have interest attached.
Damn, your idiocy is exhausting.

Sorry, I've explained it the best I could. Too bad you don't understand.

I want to explain it to the bank so I can stop paying interest on it!

Of course you owe interest on your loan, whether you still hold the $20 or you have spent it, moron.

I owe interest on the $20 I gave to you. Like I said, somebody, somewhere is paying interest on that $20.
I guess it's just a little too complex for some.

Stop making stuff up. Nobody said you were paying interest on the $20. I said someone, somewhere is paying interest on it.

I'm holding the $20. If someone is paying interest on it, why don't I receive that interest?

I think if I said so were collecting interest on it, I'd remember. Why are you bringing in this irrelevant crap?

It's your idiotic "interest attached" claim that is irrelevant. I keep showing why.

I owe interest on the $20 I gave to you.

No, you owe interest on your loan. Whether you still hold the $20 or not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can you say "money supply contraction", also known as deflation, also known as depression, which is exactly what the Fed did from 1928 to 1932.

So we can't reduce government debt, ever, just because you're afraid the money supply will contract?
What if government debt shrinks and the money supply remains constant?
Or would that make you cry too?

Nope, cause it can't happen. I won't bother to tell you why, since you wouldn't understand.

Sure it could. Current debt held by the public is $11.7 trillion.
Current Treasury holdings of the Fed are $1.7 trillion.
The government could stop spending money on stupid shit (hey, it's a hypothetical) and make the US a decent place to start a business. Hold spending steady for a dozen years and current debt held by the public could drop to $5 trillion while Treasury holdings of the Fed could remain at $1.7 trillion.

Now you try to show how that wasn't an example of government debt shrinking while the money supply remained constant.

I see your problem. You only can see the superficial consequences of your scenarios. Think about it for a minute. What the stupid shit really is is 10s or 100s of thousands of people across the country. They stop spending, the delis and restaurants near the job suffer and have to lay off workers or close, and it just cascades into its own recession.

I'll bet you don't even know the last time the national debt was $0.

I see your problem. You only can see the superficial consequences of your scenarios.

You mean the consequence of the debt shrinking while the money supply doesn't?
Yeah, that would be awful.

Think about it for a minute. What the stupid shit really is is 10s or 100s of thousands of people across the country. They stop spending, the delis and restaurants near the job suffer and have to lay off workers or close, and it just cascades into its own recession.

Yes, we must continue spending trillions extra every year, because of the delis.
I'll be sure to tell my kids their taxes will have to rise to pay for your idiocy.

I'll bet you don't even know the last time the national debt was $0.

That would be the day before the Federal government borrowed their first dollar.

Nope, cause it can't happen. I won't bother to tell you why,

Because it can....because you're stupid.

 

[Paulie]

Now you try to show how that wasn't an example of government debt shrinking while the money supply remained constant.

debt is a result of fiscal policy while money supply is a result of monetary policy. They are largely unrelated.

THe Fed could double the money supply each year but this would not prevent the government from cutting its debt in half or making it 10 times more.

The government would need the Fed to guarantee treasuries in the event that private buyers or foreign governments lost confidence.

When the Fed institutes a treasury buying program, it signals to private buyers that it's safe enough to purchase treasuries because worst case scenario the Fed will take them off their hands.

If it wasn't for the Fed, the Us treasury may have already lost any perceived value whatsoever. And that's not saying the Fed is good...it's saying the Us treasury note is bad.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now you try to show how that wasn't an example of government debt shrinking while the money supply remained constant.

debt is a result of fiscal policy while money supply is a result of monetary policy. They are largely unrelated.

THe Fed could double the money supply each year but this would not prevent the government from cutting its debt in half or making it 10 times more.

The government would need the Fed to guarantee treasuries in the event that private buyers or foreign governments lost confidence.

When the Fed institutes a treasury buying program, it signals to private buyers that it's safe enough to purchase treasuries because worst case scenario the Fed will take them off their hands.

If it wasn't for the Fed, the Us treasury may have already lost any perceived value whatsoever. And that's not saying the Fed is good...it's saying the Us treasury note is bad.

if the Fed did not print money to buy Obama's debt Obama could not issue so much debt for welfare payments and Americans would have to go back to work and end this recession!!

 

[Paulie]

debt is a result of fiscal policy while money supply is a result of monetary policy. They are largely unrelated.

THe Fed could double the money supply each year but this would not prevent the government from cutting its debt in half or making it 10 times more.

The government would need the Fed to guarantee treasuries in the event that private buyers or foreign governments lost confidence.

When the Fed institutes a treasury buying program, it signals to private buyers that it's safe enough to purchase treasuries because worst case scenario the Fed will take them off their hands.

If it wasn't for the Fed, the Us treasury may have already lost any perceived value whatsoever. And that's not saying the Fed is good...it's saying the Us treasury note is bad.

if the Fed did not print money to buy Obama's debt Obama could not issue so much debt for welfare payments and Americans would have to go back to work and end this recession!!

That's basically what I was saying. I prefer not to do it in such partisan tones though because that's not the way to get people to listen to your point. It's not like Bush and his republican congress weren't just as bad when they had the wheel. There's no point in singling any particular politician or party out.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There's no point in singling any particular politician or party out.

too stupid!!! Republicans have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson's first. Democrats killed them all. Newts passed the House and fell one vote short in the Senate.

Do you know what our debt would be today if Newts Republican BBA had passed??????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The government would need the Fed to guarantee treasuries in the event that private buyers or foreign governments lost confidence.When the Fed institutes a treasury buying program, it signals to private buyers that it's safe enough to purchase treasuries because worst case scenario the Fed will take them off their hands.

If it wasn't for the Fed, the Us treasury may have already lost any perceived value whatsoever. And that's not saying the Fed is good...it's saying the Us treasury note is bad.

What you describe should be illegal in a free society. What the libturds are doing is going around the democratic process and printing money that they could not raise through taxaction. Its merely an indirect libturd tax that they get away with because the American people are not smart enough to see it as a tax that they are paying.