Let's take a deep breath, and step back. And please, stop it with the personal attacks and vitriol. There are 3 major themes of disagrement here: 1.) You d

Let's take a deep breath, and step back. And please, stop it with the personal attacks and vitriol. There are 3 major themes of disagrement here: 1.) You defend the Fed as noble. You view the Fed as it sells itself as an altruistic technocracy: to serve and protect the US economy through its dual mandate, and return all profits to taxpayers. I view the Fed as a private corporation, undemocratically appointed, and profit-seeking entity. The first two are facts of the Fed, the last is a truth about all entities which are the first two. -Reasonable people can disagree here 2.) Arguing about basically economics 101 stuff -This can be settled by looking at a textbook 3.) Your attacks and speculation with regard to my personal character, not on my arguments -This adds nothing of value and is simply unacceptable. Now, on to a few points about what you wrote: >Here from the Fed's own FAQ: When buying notes you are giving money in exchange for a promise that money will later be returned with interest. This is the essence of lending, and why even the very source you linked to says: >"The Fed lends money to banks" Further, the Fed is commonly known as "The Lender of Last resort." So 1.) what the Fed does is lending even if you call it investing or purchasing assets, whatever; 2.) Everyone knows the Fed does this, which is why it's stated as such in your sources, and basically everywhere; 3) I don't care if you call the Fed giving money to banks lending, investing, or an insurance policy, it doesn't matter for the sake of this disagreement. The issue is that the Fed expands the money supply and in this process props up the banks. Also, as I said in my last post, you would be behooved to check the references I gave you that describe the Fed's lending. This is just economics 101 reading. Additionally, the Fed's balance sheet ballooned to over 4 trillion recently becausd they bought non-traditional securities such as MBSs and "toxic assets." So you are also wrong about your point that it is only treasury notes. I just explained this all in my last post, actually! Why don't you address these facts in your argument, and read your own sources? >And no the Fed also does NOT print money. Everybody knows that the Fed is responsible for expanding the US money supply. However, the only thing you are right about in your post is that the printing press for physical dollars is technically in the treasury. It doesn't mean the treasury has any say or authority with the US money supply. > instead of sitting down and reading books or enrolling in a University level course? In fact I actually have an honors degree in econ from a good university. That fact doesn't matter, though. What matters is the arguments and facts themselves. Milton Friedman has a Nobel Prize, it doesn't mean he wasn't wrong about some things. You need to rely less on ad hominens and speculation, and more on adding to the conversation. You started this conversation with attacks on my credibility, and then posted misinformation. I gave you sources and explained why you were wrong, but then you did worse and became even less respectful me as a user here. I don't know why you are posting. These posts are not interesting, and add nothing to the conversation other than for me to defend against condescending personal attacks and you spreading misinformation. They are not worth reading.