Why is the United States note no longer printed?

According to the treaury dept.'s website, the U.S. note & Federal Reserve note have the SAME value.

There MUST be SOME reason WHY Federal Reserve notes are preferred over U.S. notes. What is it? Is there some BENEFIT that the Federal Reserve note provides that the U.S. note does not?

Too simple a question. One thing is historical truth: before we had a Federal Reserve system, the financial sector of the US was in such insane tumult all the time, the actual survival of the country was often in doubt. So, though I can find flaws in any element of the US government and it's non governmental tools, I oppose the people who want to blindly do away with them.

I have not come across anyone anywhere, who strongly opposes the existence of the Federal reserve, who EITHER actually understood it's real functions, OR who wasn't a paranoid basket case nut job.

They do occasionally find some deluded people who are fans of so-called free-market capitalism, who are willing to at least pretend to eagerly join in, in exchange for support for doing away with various other intelligent laws.

Can't wait for the Federal Reserve to start shrinking the size of its balance sheet, thus, return their Treasury's to the market......I'll be laughing at the "free money" believers.

Here's a hint;


Rates rise on US Treasury bills to highest since late 2008

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2017/Rates-on-US-Treasury-bills-at-weekly-auction-to-highest-levels-in-more-than-8-years/id-4c7eb26e8d5a45bfb4d1c67950b147a1

According to a study of 775 fiat currencies by DollarDaze.org, there is no historical precedence for a fiat currency that has succeeded in holding its value. Twenty percent failed through hyperinflation, 21% were destroyed by war, 12% destroyed by independence, 24% were monetarily reformed, and 23% are still in circulation approaching one of the other outcomes.




The average life expectancy for a fiat currency is 27 years, with the shortest life span being one month. Founded in 1694, the British pound Sterling is the oldest fiat currency in existence. At a ripe old age of 317 years it must be considered a highly successful fiat currency. However, success is relative. The British pound was defined as 12 ounces of silver, so it's worth less than 1/200 or 0.5% of its original value. In other words, the most successful long standing currency in existence has lost 99.5% of its value.

Given the undeniable track record of currencies, it is clear that on a long enough timeline the survival rate of all fiat currencies drops to zero.

I guess you aren't willing to do even simple investigation yourself, and want to pretend that wild stories are true, because you wont do any work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note

That's a link to a RELATIVELY short description of a LOT of the nonsense that the United States went through before we finally decided to go with what we have now. It includes the answer to your "simple" questions, though of course, your questions would be better described as OVER simplifications.

Read up. It supports what I already told you.

Here ya go dipshit. Now kiss my a** punk.


http://archive.is/CDnLu

When you have precious metal coinage as money, which is what the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to do, each piece of money has an intrinsic value of its own in the precious metals it contains. When you use paper money instead, you run into peculiar problems. For one, if the paper money is backed by precious metals and is being used as a stand in for actual precious metal coins, then you have to make sure you don’t have more bills in circulation than you have precious metals to back them up, and so a periodic inventory of bills in circulation is required. If you do have more in circulation than backing, then you are partially insolvent, although that fact may not be discovered for a while. And even if you have fiat bills that are backed by nothing of intrinsic value, you have to make sure you have just enough in circulation to take care of purchases of goods and services otherwise it can cause inflation or deflation. It’s a balancing act that requires continual vigilance. It sets you up for boom and burst cycles. And that is exactly what we have witnessed over the roughly past century of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve actually wants inflation, because inflation is a hidden tax on everyone who holds FED bills. There's a story to be told here from the Clinton administration, but I won't get into it here, except to say that during that time the idea was floated to print FED notes that would automatically devalue themselves each year, but that idea went over like a lead balloon.

Lud, you say: “We no longer have the bank panics and boom and bust cycles, with a depression every twenty years or so that we once had”

Lud, you are under the impression that we have had no boom and bust cycles since the establishment of the Federal Reserve, but that is false. In fact, we were in a very severe depression under President Obama (where were you during those days, didn't you notice the continual increase in the cost of food for example, and weren't you aware of the huge bailout of Central banks at the expense of taxpayers?). Under President Trump business and consumer confidence has skyrocketed and things are looking better.

But be warned that our fiat monetary system and credit economy is still just smoke and mirrors, a house of cards just waiting to collapse. The FED has been pumping trillions of dollars into the stock market over the past several years to inflate stock prices to artificial levels in an effort to make the economy look better than it really is (The FED can afford to do this, since they can print unlimited amounts of money with no backing). The fundamentals do NOT support the prices of stock today, they are artificially high. And that’s a bubble, and bubbles, as they invariably do, burst. Incidentally, although he don't hear much about this right now, a bubble is forming once again in the housing market, because of housing loans to those who do not have the income to buy homes.

Note: the FED no longer even has to print paper money, it just creates trillions by issuing credit electronically, without having to print paper.

Lud, the FED has done far more harm than good to our economy, and I will get to that shortly. You will be horrified.

Louie

That's an archive of a bullshit site that no longer exists. Probably because the financial "wizard" that created it couldn't afford to keep it live.

There is no organization called dollardaze moron!

testsignup,

I'm not against central banking, but in reference to "containing systemic risk", which is a written responsibility of the Federal Reserve, and according to wookie, also a political responsibility, I say both have been weak at containing the following crisis, thus, they can't be trusted.

savings and loan
dot.com bubble
subprime mortgage

Not anymore a**hole.

WEb sites come and go.

Doesn't matter where it came from as there are other sites with same info. Moron.

Savings and Loans was a way to try and run a bank without any regulation or government support.

They were strictly out there on their own and left to their own devices.

But what happens when you don't have regulations?

For those who question this, I just point to the collapse of the Savings and Loans and use them as my best example!

free market system.....lure customers with rates at below the Fed's overnight.

cost to the taxpayers; $140 billion compounded since 1991

free market system.....lure customers with rates at below the Fed's overnight.

cost to the taxpayers; $140 billion compounded since 1991

The only thing compounded here is your ignorance. This statement is so full of bullshit, it will take years of education to see how stupid it is.

I repeat, low rates and long term mortgage loans killed them during a period when the feds kept raising their overnight rate. There were other factors, but that's the main one.

Many economists think that the amount owed by the government to the Federal Reserve should not be counted as part of the national debt. In their view that is just one branch of government owing money to another branch, similar to the Buick Division owing money to the Chevrolet Division. What do y'all think about that?

Raise the debt ceiling limit

It's the easiest and convenient way.

If they cut spending or raise taxes, politicians might lose their seats.

Thanks for bringing that up

I've been saying for years that the Fed will eventually reduce their balance sheet, thus, return their treasury's to the market "at a spike higher".

According to my calculations, "at a spike higher" may equate to an extra $40 billion in annual interest payments, til the end of time.