Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 01/16/2026 8:28:46 AM PST by Kaiser8408a
A good Federal Reserve don’t. Print money, that is.
The Federal Reserve prints a lot of money (M2). Unfortunately, it largely benefits elites (the top 1%). The bottom 50% get some benefits, but the gains in net worth largely benefits the elite class.
This sounds like a legal Somali daycare scheme. Perhaps The Fed should be renamed “The Federal Quality Learing Center.”
Yes, Somalis have daycare centers in Columbus Ohio. Thanks Governor Dewine for doing absolutely nothing to reign in their fraud. /sarc
(Excerpt) Read more at confoundedinterest.net ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
It’s true. Printing money is just a tax experienced in the form of inflation.
If you have stocks or houses or other assets, they adjust in dollar price, so you are not affected.
Those on salaries or fixed incomes (even if they eventually adjust) inevitably lag. Further, the asset rich do not spend nearly as much on expenses as the middle and lower classes in a percentage of income or wealth. There’s only so just CB food a person eats, even if the rich may eat better food.
So, yes, deficit spending manly nails the average Joe and below.
As for childcare, mom A might work 3 days one week and 4 days the following week, mom B might work 3 days one week and 3 days the following week.
The two moms would switch childminding.
If the moms work 10 hours a day, they’d average 35 hours a week.
Excuses for failure to thrive economically never lack popularity. Yet the same basic percentage of people go from “rags to riches” anyway.
Usually when I talk to people about this (mostly fellow conservatives), I tell them to play the game and invest. Yes, we should try to get the govt to stop the money printing. But until we win that argument, invest to at least keep up with inflation.
“Good Feds Don’t”. Ala Good Girls Don’t by The Knack. Not much of a hit. How many people would know this? I was a radio DJ for 25 years from 1978-2003 so I get it.
OHIO: “Yes, Somalis have daycare centers in Columbus Ohio. Thanks Governor DeWine for doing absolutely nothing to reign in their fraud.”
Not to preach but the US Federal Reserve was established in 1913 and is owned by the European Banking Cartel families. They structured it to make it appear to serve the US Treasury Dept. when in reality it serves the Banking Cartels. It’s convoluted how it works but basically the US Treasury prints, at taxpayer expense, American money that is owned by the Federal Reserve Bank and the Bank then lends the money to the US Treasury. The US Treasury pays the Fed Reserve interest on all of the money it borrows, thus the Banking Cartels, the owners of the Federal Reserve, are being paid BILLIONS simply for doing nothing. In a nut shell, that’s how it works. One can only imagine the incalculable wealth of the Banking Cartel Families, they’ve been in the money lending business for over two hundred years.
I don’t disagree with you, but I don’t see how that is relevant to what I posted.
It is all from the compounding affect of inflation.
With inflation those at the bottom 50% of incomes are less able to put much of a percentage of their money into things - assets, savings, investments, ect - where their net assets can grow (because a larger portion of heir income must be spent for immediate needs), while those at the top 1% of income have the greatest percentage of their income which they are able to put into assets with value that will grow.
Keep compounding the affect of that year over year as inflation eats away at the income needed for spending necessities of the bottom 50%, and as it grows the market value (inflated) of assets held by the top 1%, and you get the “explosion” of the wealth difference between the bottom 50% and the top 1%.
You know the economic ignorance of “Liberals” who claim the most to be “most concerned” about “the poor” yet conduct the most economically inflationary government policies of all.
I think what is ignored with regard to inflation is the inflationary affect of the fractional banking system we have. In our fractional banking system banks are not required to “hold” 100% of the money you deposit. They are allowed to only hold(keep) a fraction of your deposit while they lend out the rest. Prior to March 2020 our fractional banking system was already bad enough, in my view. If you deposited $100 they were only required to hold onto $10 of it and lend out $90 of it. As of March 2020 they became allowed to lend out 100% of your deposits. M2 money supply jumped way up in 2020 - helping create the “pandemic” inflation, which was then compounded by the treasury money printing for all the new borrowing needed for Biden’s spending binge.
Yeah, I do a mix of the USA and foreign stocks (heavily weighted USA), oil (by way of royalties), land and cattle and farming (nuts, literally, been pretty amazing), water, and then luxury investment properties in low property tax high desirable locations (which I enjoy as they appreciate).
They all generally go up or (not as much, so far) down at different times.
Done well.
“Clearly this author doesn’t understand how monetary policy works or the Fed’s part in it. . . .It doesn’t “print” money (that’s Treasury’s responsibility)”
Only in name.
Qualitative easing is, for all practical purposes “printing money”. It’s an IOU from the government to itself.
Please define what action you’re calling “printing money.” The article refers to M2 money supply. That excludes literally printed money (notes and coins in vaults or in circulation), but I know “printing money” isn’t literal.
Where it differs from M1 money supply is it includes small “time deposits”, on the other hand it still excludes large “time deposits,” so it would therefore seem that by referencing M2 instead of M3 or M1, that the fault is with time deposits that are exclusively small?
If the author means savings such as traveler’s checks, OCDs, and savings deposits, well, the way the federal government TRADITIONALLY controls this is by setting target rates. I’d argue that a longterm, stable rate would prevent mischief in elections which would itself be beneficial to well, everybody.
BUT typically when the fed acts to constrict this money supply, it’s acting to slow the economy. But when it slows the economy in this way, the people hurt first are: small-business owners, farmers, people vulnerable to unemployment (primarily the working class), ARM holders, people with credit-card debt. It’s like trying to make the big guys feel pain by crushing their hands in a vice, but the fed has ignored that in modern finance, the big guys’ hands are padded with the scrota of the little guys: they won’t feel the pain at all until the little guys are blacking out in pain and rendered infertile.
The Federal government also gets hurt in the short term because a higher interest rate means higher expenses on the debt, whereas a lower interest rate means higher inflation, which devalues the debt, which is great if you owe the money, but sucks if you’re holding government bonds.
Where I would agree that interest rates should be higher is that I disagreed with the strategy, used exclusively when Democrats are in power, of keeping interest rates below the rate of inflation. This would tend to heat up the economy when Democrats are in power, but require raising the rates (done when Republicans are in power) which the federal reserve always does absolutely hamfistedly.
They are zero for fourteen at trying to “soft landing” the plane without crashing it.
Per Chatgtp:
FACT vs. FICTION
1. “The Fed prints money (M2).”
Mostly fiction.
Physical currency is printed by the U.S. Treasury.
The Federal Reserve creates bank reserves and influences broader money measures (M1/M2) primarily through asset purchases, lending facilities, and interest-rate policy.
Saying the Fed “prints money” is shorthand, not technically precise.
2. “Money creation disproportionately benefits elites.”
Largely factual, with nuance.
Asset prices (stocks, real estate) tend to rise first from monetary easing.
Higher-wealth households hold more assets, so they benefit more.
Lower-income households benefit indirectly (employment, credit access) but less in net-worth terms.
3. “Inflation is a tax on workers and fixed-income earners.”
Generally true.
Inflation erodes purchasing power.
Wages and benefits usually adjust after prices rise.
Asset holders are better protected.
4. “Deficit spending mainly hurts the middle and lower classes.”
Partly true.
If deficit spending is inflationary, it disproportionately harms those without inflation-hedging assets.
Outcomes depend on how spending is structured and financed.
5. “Fractional reserve banking lets banks lend 100% of deposits.”
Misleading.
Reserve requirements were set to zero in 2020, but banks are still constrained by capital requirements, liquidity rules, and credit risk.
Banks cannot lend unlimited amounts.
6. “The Fed is owned by banking cartels and extracts interest for profit.”
Fiction.
Federal Reserve Banks are quasi-public institutions; member banks hold shares but do not control policy.
Fed profits (after expenses and limited dividends) are returned to the U.S. Treasury.
7. Claims about Somali daycare fraud and state inaction.
Unsubstantiated and inappropriate.
Fraud, if present, must be addressed via audits and enforcement.
Broad ethnic generalizations are not evidence.
Chatgtp advice:
Core coping and thriving strategies
Convert income into assets as early as possible
Maximize tax-advantaged accounts (401(k), IRA, HSA).
Prioritize diversified equity exposure over excess cash holdings.
Use inflation defensively
Fixed-rate debt (especially mortgages) becomes cheaper in real terms over time.
Avoid variable-rate consumer debt.
Invest automatically, not tactically
Dollar-cost averaging reduces timing risk and emotional errors.
Broad index funds outperform most alternatives net of effort and cost.
Protect earnings power
Continuous skill upgrading and job mobility matter more than portfolio optimization.
Dual-income resilience and optional side income materially reduce downside risk.
Control lifestyle inflation
Keep housing, vehicles, and recurring expenses below what lenders say you can afford.
Savings rate matters more than gross income growth.
Maintain liquidity and optionality
Adequate emergency reserves prevent forced asset sales during downturns.
Insurance is risk transfer, not an investment—use it selectively.
Bottom line:
Middle-class families thrive by owning productive assets, minimizing inflation drag on cash, and keeping spending structurally below income. The system rewards participation; opting out is what proves most costly over time.
Likely it's associated w/deflation vs inflation.
A "poor" person has little if any savings and little if any debt - i.e, they can't afford much of a mortgage so probably rent. They probably also have a relatively low value vehicle, if any, and as such their debt mostly being in the form of credit card which will be capped.
So in a deflationary event, such a person has "struck gold", in a sense because whatever money they do get has increased value. One who saves in cash accounts does well too, as the more poor tend to be.
Conversely, the more leveraged you are, with a big mortgage and car payment, as the wealthier folks tend to be, the more you are screwed by deflation. When you consider business leverage on top of that, it creates problems for business owners and stock owners, as the businesses underlying those stocks are mostly heavily leveraged businesses as well.
In my quasi-retired income, once per month I log into our Roth IRAs and invest that month's investment amount into whichever mutual fund has the lowest balance that day (buy low). In retirement it'll be (and for my mother it already is) a simple matter of logging in, calculating the total balance, getting 1/3rd of 1% of that, and withdrawing that amount from whichever mutual fund has the highest balance (sell high). 1/3rd of 1% monthly = 4% annually (a common withdrawal strategy for retirement).
It's amazing what that simple strategy does to both improve returns and provide steady income, over simple dollar cast averaging.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.