User talk:Alextoader

This is my talk page...

Discussion of Federal Reserve System

Dear editor: Welcome to Wikipedia. I received your message on my user page regarding discusisons about the Federal Reserve System. Actually, this talk page is a place where you can discuss topics with other editors. Famspear (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Famspear.

I will make an very simplified example of what i understand by the fact that fed lends printed money.

If there are 1000 objects in the world and $1000 then each object will worth $1.

If government needs more money it can print more money - so it can introduce another $1000.

This is what happens in all the countries in the world except US.

In US - gov does not introduce itself the money - it takes them from fed which give to the gov $1000 - but which the gov have to pay them back with interests. say it has to pay back 1200.

The point here is that the fed does not have the 1000 - they... invent them.

And that is not an issue (i know this is how banks work - they can lend money up to 10% of what they have (or smth)) - the issue and the criticism for the fed is that lending gov is unnecessarily - gov can introduce their own money without needing to pay them back. This is what govs all over the world do and is a huge lost for the citizens of us and a huge free gain for the banks.

Pls let me know if is this simplified scenario correct?

Dear Alextoader: I copied your comments from your user page to this talk page. I think this will work better if we use your talk page for this. Also, when you finish a comment, you can add your signature by typing four "tilde" characters, like this: ~~~~. Using those four tilde symbols will automatically put your own signature there. Famspear (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question: That's not precisely how the creation of money is done. I will have to get back to this later, because I'm working on something else right now. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Famspear, i cant wait to hear how is done. If you could extend the example i made - it will be fantastic and maybe the only way i could understand it. Pls focus your explicaiton around why US gov needs to borrow invented money instead of doing it itself. This is what i think is happening and is very wrong in US.Alextoader (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Alex, This, "If there are 1000 objects in the world and $1000 then each object will worth $1." is not correct. Consider 999 bowls of sand and one bowl of food. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO - i am sure you understood my q to Famspear - the q is not about why money exist or smth else but is a very specific question - is it necessary for the US gov to pay back the money it prints? Rest of the world prints them for free.

If this is true then is the biggest scam in the world. Think about ow many billions they printed and gov have to pay them back. Why? Why not just print them as the rest of the world does it. Bankers talk a complicated language as Famspear does so nobody understands what they do. But this is a very simple question which i hope Famspear will find the time to answer in a very simple way. Alextoader (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Alextoader: The U.S. government is not obligated to "pay back the money it prints." Think about it. Once a Federal Reserve note is issued, it is evidence of a debt owed by the applicable Federal Reserve bank to the person holding the note.

Example: Let's say that you have two neighbors, we'll call them Bob and Joe. Suppose Bob loans $100 to Joe. To "evidence" that debt, Joe signs a piece of paper called a promissory note, that says that Joe promises to pay Bob (or whoever happens to own the note if Bob later sells it) the sum of $100. Now, Bob decides he doesn't want to keep that note, and you decide you'd like to have the note. So, you buy the note from Bob.

Now you are the person holding the $100 note. That note is now evidence that Joe owes $100 to you. In legal parlance, we say that you are the holder of the note. You are the creditor, and Joe is the debtor.

Federal Reserve notes are somewhat similar. Let's say that you have a one hundred dollar bill (a Federal Reserve note). That note is is evidence that the applicable Federal Reserve bank owes you $100. Now, the original loan -- the loan that was made where the Federal Reserve bank borrowed the money -- wasn't with you. You aren't the one who loaned the money to the Fed. The loan was with someone else. But after the loan was made, the one hundred dollar bill changed hands many times, and eventually it came to you. You now own that bill. So, the Federal Reserve bank now owes YOU.

This is not a perfect analogy, though. If you take the $100 down to the Federal Reserve bank and ask that the loan be paid off, you will simply be given --- another set of Federal Reserve notes, totalling $100!

Also, when Federal Reserve banks issued Federal Reserve notes, what the banks are sometimes doing is buying government-issued securities from non-governmental entities, such as brokers. But, let's pretend that your Aunt Sally is one of those non-governmental entities. Let's say that your Aunt Sally owns a $10,000 Treasury bill that she purchased as an investment. If your Aunt Sally decides to sell that bill to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, the Federal Reserve bank could take that bill and, in exchange, issue $10,000 in Federal Reserve notes to your Aunt Sally. Now, of course, the difference is that if Aunt Sally later asks the Federal Reserve bank to "pay off" the debt that the bank owes to her, all she will get is.... you guess it..... another $10,000 in Federal Reserve notes!

But, Aunt Sally can use the $10,000 in Federal Reserve notes to pay rent, to buy groceries, gasoline, etc. That's because people in the USA accept those Federal Reserve notes as money.

This is a greatly over-simplified explanation of only part of the picture. The government itself doesn't have to "pay back" the Federal Reserve notes that Aunt Sally has.

Now, the U.S. government does own some Federal Reserve notes, but that's another explanation. Famspear (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Alex: I think part of the answer lies in understanding how a Federal Reserve note comes into existence.

Let's suppose that you are sitting at home, and you use your computer and printer to type a very official looking promissory note. It says "I, Alex, promise to pay to whoever holds this note, on demand, the sum of $100." Now, you sign the note, and you lay it down on your kitchen table.

At that point, do you legally owe anyone the one hundred dollars? No. You still hold the note. In legal parlance, we say that the note is "unissued." In general, you cannot legally owe a debt to yourself. You are ..... well, you are just "you."

But now, suppose you go to your friend Mark, and you borrow a hundred dollars. And you give to Mark that $100 note that you had on the kitchen table, as evidence that Mark is the creditor and you are the debtor. Mark then sells that note to Judy.

Under the law, you now owe Judy (not Mark) the sum of $100.

In this example, the $100 promissory note that Judy now owns is analogous to a $100 Federal Reserve note held by a private individual. And, in this example, YOU are analogous to a Federal Reserve bank. You are the debtor. Famspear (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It gets much more complicated. Most of what we consider to be money is not really actual Federal Reserve notes. Most of what we consider to be money is not currency. Most of what we consider to be money is not legal tender.

Most of what we consider to be money is what we call a bank account. Your checking acount is money -- but it's not currency, or legal tender, or Federal Reserve notes.

Let's suppose you have a $100 Federal Reserve note, and you decide to go to Wells Fargo Bank and open a new checking account. When you do that, you cease to be the owner of that one hundred dollar bill. Wells Fargo Bank itself becomes the new owner of that actual object. That one hundred dollar bill goes into the Wells Fargo vault. What you receive in exchange is a sort of intangible asset called a demand deposit account, or a checking account. That checking account is MONEY. It's not currency, and it's not legal tender, and it's not the $100 bill that you handed to the bank teller when you opened the account. It's just a bank account. On the bank's books, IT IS A LIABILITY OWED BY THE BANK TO YOU. You are the creditor, and the bank is the debtor. That's how it's shown on the bank's audited financial statements, and that's the legal reality.

Now, let's look at a different scenario. Let's suppose you want to borrow $100,000 from the bank. The bank agrees, and the bank opens a new checking account for you -- for $100,000. On the bank's books, the bank debits an asset account called "loans receivable from Alex" for $100,000, and the bank credits a liability account called "checking account-Alex" for $100,000. The bank has CREATED $100,000 OF MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR. That is how banking works. It's perfectly legal. There is nothing "secret" or nefarious about it. That's the way it works, and that's the way the bank shows the result of that transaction on its audited financial statements. Notice that in this transaction, NO FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES were involved. No currency. No legal tender. Famspear (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I find all this complicated but i think we can avoid it if you will be so kind to answer very shortly the following 2 q:

1. Is it true that Fed gives money to the US gov?

2. Is it true that gov has to pay them back? Alextoader (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Alextoader: The explanations I gave are really the over-simplified explanations.

What exactly do you mean by question 1? Are you asking whether the Federal Reserve BANKS loan physical dollar bills (ones, fives, tens, twenties, etc.) to the U.S. government? Famspear (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

By 1. Is it true that Fed gives money to the US gov? I am trying to avoid discussing the form in which fed is giving money to the gov. The question still remains - does fed gives money to the gov in any way? Thanks. Alextoader (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Alextoader: I will ask you pretty much the same question: Do you think the Federal Reserve System "gives money" to the United States government and, if so, exactly how do you think that happens? Famspear (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Famspear - if you are not answering my questions - is there any reason for us to continue? Also your intentions are questionable. Please answer the 2 questions - they are simple questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextoader (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but you don't get to make the rules. I answered your first question. Now it's your turn to answer my question. If you want help, you are going to have to co-operate. Famspear (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont understand what you want from me or why you want smth. I would appreciate if somebody will clarify some questions i have. I am not even sure you understood what i want to find out. Did you? And do you want to help me clarify it?
All the governments issue their own money when they want to introduce them. From what i understand, US dont have this - gov can only borrow.
And that is not all - i didnt understood how the fed is giving money to the gov. Is the fed giving money to the gov under general banking conditions (like they need to have 10% of that money) or is a different way of giving money - they give them without having the 10%?
Because if the fed is doing what in the rest of the world the governemtns are doing for free - but in US the money need to be payed back - then this is wrong.
When world wide governments need to issue 100 billioins - they issue them and gov has them. In US fed gives this 100 billions to gov and the q - is the gov going to pay them back? Because it is unnecesarily. Or is there a logic in it? Or are things not working like this?
From what i see so far - i think there are small chances that i find the aswers from you...
I will asnwer any q you want.
I have no idea how fed is giving money to gov to answer your q.Alextoader (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Alextoader: I don't "want" anything from you. You are the one asking the questions. I simply turned your second question around and asked the same question of you.

I don't know what you mean by "smth". That is not a word in English.

You keep implying that the fed "gives money" to the government or the government "gives money" to the fed. The material doesn't make sense. If you can't explain what you are talking about, I can't help you. Now you are saying you have "no idea how fed is giving money to gov". If that's the case, then why are you asking these questions? I suspect that you have been reading nonsense materials on the internet.

If you want to learn how the Federal Reserve System works, then you may want to consider taking a college course in banking. The materials you have been reading are not helping you.

I have explained some of the very basics of how banking works. You have indicated that the explanation is too complicated for you. If that's the case, then I don't know whether I or anyone else at Wikipedia can help you understand banking.

The material you are posting belongs here on this talk page, but not in the talk page for the article on Criticism of the Federal Reserve. You have now posted the material (or some variation of it) at least TWICE on the talk page for the article.

You cannot use syllogisms to develop your own material for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. That would be considered prohibited Original Research.

You cannot use syllogisms in Wikipedia to discover or demonstrate any truth about the Federal Reserve System. Famspear (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I didnt read any conspiracy theories if you reffer to that. I accidentally found that US gov cannot issue free money but it needs to take them from fed (who is issueing them for free) and then give it back which is a nonsense. I am not 100% sure that this is the case and as i suspected you make no attempt to clarify it. I will find reliable sources and continue my research.

About "You cannot use syllogisms in Wikipedia to discover or demonstrate any truth about the Federal Reserve System." - i would like to hear a second opinion if you dont mind. Actually a few more - not just from your friends. I find this hard to believe. Alextoader (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And please dont mix up the 2 criticisms - the fact that the private institutions that participate in fed - they will follow their private interests against citizens interests, and they are the majority of organizations in fed. and that is a valid criticism for fed and needs nothing but logic to accept it.

The fact that US gov cannot issue free money, that is a second thing on which i need to find out more. Alextoader (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Alex: I'm not the one who needs to "clarify" anything. You're the one asking the questions -- and you're the one posting nonsense about "free money" and "giving back" money. Your questions make no sense. Look, we see the kind of gibberish you're posting here about once every week or two.

You find it "hard to believe" that you're not allowed to post your own research and your own views in a Wikipedia article? Really? Are you serious? Well guess what? Wikipedia is not going to change the rules for you. I think you should seriously consider studying the rules of Wikipedia -- especially the rule on No Original Research. You as a Wikipedia editor cannot use your own "syllogisms" to develop a theory about how the Federal Reserve System works and then use the result of your "syllogisms" to post your material in a Wikipedia article. It's not allowed. See [1]. For other basic rules, see: [2] and [3] and [4]. Yours, Famspear (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Famspear, I dont think that "private institutions that participate in fed - will follow their private interests against citizens interests" can be called original research.

I am calling it an obvious fact which is visible for everyone. It is so true that can even be explained as a syllogism. But is not required to be explained. Making a syllogism for it is just an exercise. That phrase is just an obvios fact. So i am contesting that this phrase is original research. I say is just a truth and i am waiting for other editors to participate as i am very surprised you cannot see it thus i question your motives and intentions.

Cant we take a truth from our world and make a page on wikipedia? Cant i make a page about something obvious for everyone? Cant i make a page for the fact that earth orbits around the sun or the night followes the day? Alextoader (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, using what you claim are "obvious facts" that are "visible to everyone" that are "so true" that they can supposedly be "explained as a syllogism" would be an example of prohibited original research.

Claiming that something is "just a truth" will get you nowhere. And questioning my motives and intentions is a violation -- on your part -- of another Wikipedia rule, which is Assume Good Faith on the part of your fellow editors. It is a violation of the rules for you to question the motives and intentions of others when you disagree with them here in Wikipedia.

No, in Wikipedia, you cannot "make a page about something obvious for everyone" -- not as a Wikipedia article, or as part of a Wikipedia article. You must follow the rules. I have provided you with the links to the basic rules: Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research.

If you are planning on claiming that what you have been writing about the Federal Reserve System is something that should be in a Wikipedia article because it is an "obvious fact" or is "visible to everyone" or is "so true" that it can be "explained as a syllogism", that would be precisely the kind of thing that that the rules are intended to prevent. Famspear (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Dear Alextoader: Another editor closed out some material you posted on an article talk page, so I copied and pasted your material here. This is really a better place for it:

[begin quote of Alex's material:]

I am not making a criticism to a bank (not sure where you saw that).

It is wrong to have private institutions governing themselves in a matter of public interest.

It would be like road companies would have a body outside government that would decide alone what roads needs to be build using citizens money. Would they build roads for the citizens or for their private interest?

It would be like legal system would have a body outside government that would decide which people needs to be in jail and for how long and do all this using public money.

Democracy means that the power belong to the poeple - they decide torugh government which they choose trough voting. Fed is outside democracy.

Pls tell me which of the following phrases needs to be referenced in order to appear in wikipedia?

1. Is it questionable that private interests governing themselves will govern in their own (declared) interest? (hint - no).

2. It is questionable that fed is made out of private institutions? (any will suffice but we have no more or no less as they are) (hint - no).

3. Therfore is it questionable that the private institutions that participate to build the fed (no more or no leess) will govern for their own (declared) interest? (hint - no).

4. Is it a criticism to the regulatory body in the banking and financial system of a country to be made out of (any - no more or no less) private institutions that will try to govern for their own private interest? (hint - yes)

The above is like:

a. does 2+2=4?

b. does 4+4=8?

c. then is it true that if we have 8 is larger than 4?

Do we need a refference to make a wikipedia page that says that 8 is greater than 4? No.

Please do not deviate and say which of the 1,2,3,4 are false because they are not and if nobody can prove they are then this should be in the article as an obvious fact that it is.

[end of Alex's quote]

Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The only 2 valid criticism are removed from there so nobody see them. That page is made out of pure crap - which is not removed. But we will get to that later if there is no reasonable progress here.Alextoader (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the material was't removed from the talk page for Criticism of the Federal Reserve. Another editor simply put the material into what is called a "collapsed soapbox." That was done because that talk page is not the proper place for that material anyway. You have now double-posted it on the article talk page, so I removed your second posting.

The explanation I gave you is the simplified version of how banking works. I would suggest that you stop reading whatever materials you have been reading and focus on learning about how banking really works, if that's what you're interested in.

I would also urge you, before you do anything else, to read the Wikipedia rules and guidelines before trying to edit. Famspear (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning

You may not use article talk pages to WP:SOAPBOX your point of view and if you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing WP. Please study WP policy with respect to editing articles and talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)