[Toddsterpatriot]

You’re good at laughing, bad at explaining.

[JasonC]

They were told once that the Fed creates new money de novo when it lends (which is true), and they then imagined that it was just giving this new money to its insider banker friends for absolutely nothing, not as purchases of securities.

Next he will explain the same thing with ordinary banks, which also create new money (bank deposits) whenever they lend, and will then pretend that bank customers paying the bank with their own debts have given nothing in return for that money. You can tell, because mortgages aren't liabilities of their issuers, you see.

Every scrap of it is one entry accounting. They imagine their top line nominal investment returns unchanged and think any reduction in those is a theft from them, blissfully unware of how lethargic their top line would be without modern finance.

There is in fact a principled Austrian case against any net new issuance of fiduciary media, but these rubes do not know it, let alone know the first thing about what it wrong with that case. There is also an entirely sound case in favor of price stability as a monetary policy target, but it is pragmatic and not an absolutist justice claim ("pickpocket", "robbery", etc, etc). And it runs not through the Misesean wage fund theory mistake, but effects on price signaling and the efficiency of private, intertemporal planning.