Credit Where Credit is Due: a shout out thread for Things Trump Did Right

[Swammerdami]

@bilby -- The Law of Supply and Demand applies whether or not the Supply and/or Demand is "rational" or "natural."

With this new insight, see if you care to revise your remarks.

 

[Swammerdami]

Milwaukee mother deported to Laos, a country she has never been to

‘The United States sent me back to die,’ Ma Yang, a mother of five, said

www.independent.co.uk

Another brilliant success of Trump's crusade against immigrants. MAGA!! Go USA!!!
Any MAGAts willing to comment? @RVonse ?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Stranded NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore, Suni Williams leave ISS, begin trip home | Fox Business

Stranded NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams are on their way back home after the SpaceX capsule sent to rescue them undocked from the International Space Station early Tuesday morning.

www.foxbusiness.com

Trump and Musk save stranded astronauts using exact plan devised during Biden administration.

(Except delayed because of SpaceX needing to finish crew capsule first, also which happened during Biden administration: https://blogs.nasa.gov/crew-10/2024/12/17/nasa-adjusts-crew-10-launch-date/)

 

[laughing dog]

Actually the Federal Reserve orders the amount of currency to be printed and the Treasury prints it.

And those banknotes sit in FedRes vaults, as meaningless as the Traveller's Cheques which B of A has printed but has not yet sold to a customer.

Except for sending them away for incineration when they look too soiled or torn to circulate, the ONLY thing FedRes Banks EVER do with those banknotes is to sell them to Member Banks at 100.0% of face value.

They sit in vaults until they don’t - just like all currency. But why do you feel this rebuts the fact the US gov’t can print money?

 

[thebeave]

Stranded NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore, Suni Williams leave ISS, begin trip home | Fox Business

Stranded NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams are on their way back home after the SpaceX capsule sent to rescue them undocked from the International Space Station early Tuesday morning.

www.foxbusiness.com

Trump and Musk save stranded astronauts using exact plan devised during Biden administration.

(Except delayed because of SpaceX needing to finish crew capsule first, also which happened during Biden administration: https://blogs.nasa.gov/crew-10/2024/12/17/nasa-adjusts-crew-10-launch-date/)

Given that Musk's Spacex is instrumental in the astronauts' return, I'd be curious if there are people secretly hoping that the capsule burns up on re-entry, so as to put a big black eye on Musk and Spacex. Granted it wouldn't be as satisfying as Musk himself getting roasted on the way home from space, but maybe its the next best thing??

That said, I will be glad to see them make the journey home safely.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Stranded NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore, Suni Williams leave ISS, begin trip home | Fox Business

Stranded NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams are on their way back home after the SpaceX capsule sent to rescue them undocked from the International Space Station early Tuesday morning.

www.foxbusiness.com

Trump and Musk save stranded astronauts using exact plan devised during Biden administration.

(Except delayed because of SpaceX needing to finish crew capsule first, also which happened during Biden administration: https://blogs.nasa.gov/crew-10/2024/12/17/nasa-adjusts-crew-10-launch-date/)

Given that Musk's Spacex is instrumental in the astronauts' return, I'd be curious if there are people secretly hoping that the capsule burns up on re-entry, so as to put a big black eye on Musk and Spacex. Granted it wouldn't be as satisfying as Musk himself getting roasted on the way home from space, but maybe its the next best thing??

That said, I will be glad to see them make the journey home safely.

I wonder if the people I disagree with are immoral monsters and wish that these astronauts died during re-entry. Just sayin'.

 

[Elixir]

I wonder if the people I disagree with are immoral monsters and wish that these astronauts died during re-entry. Just sayin'.

To give Musk a black eye?
Why kill our highly trained and skilled personnel? What’s wrong with the good old fashioned way of giving someone a black eye eye?

 

[bilby]

To give Musk a black eye?
...
What’s wrong with the good old fashioned way of giving someone a black eye eye?

There's a very long queue.

 

[Swammerdami]

Actually the Federal Reserve orders the amount of currency to be printed and the Treasury prints it.

And those banknotes sit in FedRes vaults, as meaningless as the Traveller's Cheques which B of A has printed but has not yet sold to a customer.

Except for sending them away for incineration when they look too soiled or torn to circulate, the ONLY thing FedRes Banks EVER do with those banknotes is to sell them to Member Banks at 100.0% of face value.

They sit in vaults until they don’t - just like all currency. But why do you feel this rebuts the fact the US gov’t can print money?

If Kinko's prints your book at your request, does that make them the author? Does the print-shop get the revenue from book sales?? The Bureau of Engraving and Printing plays a role just like Kinko's. It prints the banknotes FedRes requests and delivers them to FedRes. Period.

And after delivery, they still aren't "money," as I already tried to explain. The simplest way to understand this, as I explained already, is that they have the same status as Bank of America Traveller's Cheques which have not been purchased by a customer. Instead of tourists buying the Cheques, it is Member Banks which buy the FedRes Notes at face value.

And just as the tourist might write a check for $500 to buy his Traveller's Cheques, so the Member Bank can pay for its banknotes with a check or wire transfer.

I've just rewritten, with slightly more detail, what you already quoted. PLEASE tell us what is unclear. For starters, do you agree that Kinko's does NOT author a book when you ask them to print your manuscript?

Go ahead and view FedRes as a branch of USG if that floats your boat. It doesn't matter. FedRes NEVER issues "fiat money." It trades $X worth of banknotes for $X worth of money the Member Bank already had.

I can't be sure whether you really do not understand money creation, or are just playing some semantic game. Please phrase any response so I'll at least know the answer to that.

 

[Swammerdami]

And after delivery, they still aren't "money," as I already tried to explain. The simplest way to understand this, as I explained already, is that they have the same status as Bank of America Traveller's Cheques which have not been purchased by a customer. Instead of tourists buying the Cheques, it is Member Banks which buy the FedRes Notes at face value.

To be even more clear, Money is not created at any step of this process. Printing the banknotes did NOT create money, anymore than printing blank Traveller's Cheques does. Selling $X of banknotes to a Member Bank in return for $X of the Bank's checking-account money did NOT create money:

* The Member Bank has exactly as much cash as before; it's just turned a check on a demand deposit into banknotes, much as an ordinary bank customer might.
* The Fed Res books are also almost unchanged. Assuming the Member Bank paid for the banknotes by writing a check on its account with FedRes, then the FedRes liabilities are reduced by that amount. BUT the FedRes liabilities INCREASE by the same amount since FedRes banknotes no longer sitting unused in FedRes vaults are claims (liabilities) against FedRes.

Yes it IS confusing. HOW is money created then???

But let's learn how to crawl before we try to walk. Tell me what part of the above is unclear.

HINT: The USG often DOES play a major role in money creation. But that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the FedRes banknotes nor with "fiat money."

 

[laughing dog]

Actually the Federal Reserve orders the amount of currency to be printed and the Treasury prints it.

And those banknotes sit in FedRes vaults, as meaningless as the Traveller's Cheques which B of A has printed but has not yet sold to a customer.

Except for sending them away for incineration when they look too soiled or torn to circulate, the ONLY thing FedRes Banks EVER do with those banknotes is to sell them to Member Banks at 100.0% of face value.

They sit in vaults until they don’t - just like all currency. But why do you feel this rebuts the fact the US gov’t can print money?

If Kinko's prints your book at your request, does that make them the author? Does the print-shop get the revenue from book sales?? The Bureau of Engraving and Printing plays a role just like Kinko's. It prints the banknotes FedRes requests and delivers them to FedRes. Period.

And after delivery, they still aren't "money," as I already tried to explain. The simplest way to understand this, as I explained already, is that they have the same status as Bank of America Traveller's Cheques which have not been purchased by a customer. Instead of tourists buying the Cheques, it is Member Banks which buy the FedRes Notes at face value.

And just as the tourist might write a check for $500 to buy his Traveller's Cheques, so the Member Bank can pay for its banknotes with a check or wire transfer.

I've just rewritten, with slightly more detail, what you already quoted. PLEASE tell us what is unclear. For starters, do you agree that Kinko's does NOT author a book when you ask them to print your manuscript?

Go ahead and view FedRes as a branch of USG if that floats your boat. It doesn't matter. FedRes NEVER issues "fiat money." It trades $X worth of banknotes for $X worth of money the Member Bank already had.

I can't be sure whether you really do not understand money creation, or are just playing some semantic game. Please phrase any response so I'll at least know the answer to that.

The Federal Reserve is a semi-autonomous branch of the US gov't. It remits its profits to the Treasury. It was created by Congress, and it can be altered or eliminated by Congress. If you are going to argue, at least get your facts straight.

When the Fed trades one asset (currency) for another asset from a bank, why do you assume that the asset from the bank asset is in the form of money? And why would you assume that a semif-autonomous branch of the US gov't whose mission includes keeping the US financial system from imploding would necessarily idly stand by and let the Federal government go bankrupt? And why would you assume that the US gov't could not simply change the rules/laws in order to print money in the case of bankruptcy?

This entire discussion arose of whether the US gov't can go bankrupt. Bankruptcy occurs when a debtor is UNABLE to pay their creditors, not when they are UNWILLING to pay their creditors. Since the US gov't has the ability to pay its creditors because it can tax or print money, it cannot literally go bankrupt.

 

[bilby]

The Fed Reserve has to borrow money in order to create it, it can't create it from nothing.

Unless, of course, it borrows that money from itself. Say, by purchasing US Government bonds. A process called 'Quantitative Easing', because if you are creating money ex-nihilo, it's nice to have a euphemism to hide behind, as well as a few shells to spin around the table so that the rubes don't cotton on to the trickery.

As a consequence, the Fed Reserve can issue any amount of money necessary to pay any debt the US might ever be asked to pay - As long as that debt is denominated in US Dollars. Indeed, the bonds purchased in QE are the debt in question.

 

[Derec]

Milwaukee mother deported to Laos, a country she has never been to

‘The United States sent me back to die,’ Ma Yang, a mother of five, said

www.independent.co.uk

Another brilliant success of Trump's crusade against immigrants. MAGA!! Go USA!!!
Any MAGAts willing to comment? @RVonse ?

Not a "MAGAt", but I will comment.

Yang was born in Thailand and was a legal permanent US resident until she pleaded guilty to marijuana-related charges and served more than 2 years in prison. She took the plea deal after her attorney incorrectly stated it wouldn’t affect her legal permanent residency, which was later revoked, the Journal Sentinel reports.
After her sentence, Yang was taken to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Minnesota. There, a new attorney told her to sign a document that allowed her to leave but required her to agree that a deportation order would be entered against her, according to the Journal Sentinel.

So, she pled guilty to a felony, and her permanent residency was revoked.
But note how vague Independent describes her crime. They think they are slick. Write "marijuana-related charges" and most people will think that she was caught with a joint or a dime bag or something. Not that she was part of an interstate drug running operation.

'Operation Legend' nets 26 people in connection to violent drug trafficking organization

At the news conference, AG Barr announced charges against 26 defendants who allegedly operated a violent drug trafficking organization in Milwaukee, with ties to the Northern and Central Districts of California.
[...]
The DOJ said on Sept. 22, federal, state, and local law enforcement officers executed arrest and search warrants related to the operation. Twenty-one of the defendants are now in custody. Law enforcement officers also executed over two dozen search warrants in Wisconsin and California, resulting in the recovery of at least 33 firearms, including a stolen Milwaukee Police Department firearm and a firearm with an obliterated serial number.
As part of the operation, law enforcement also recovered over 700 grams of heroin from one location, as well as additional heroin, cocaine, and marijuana from other locations. Law enforcement also recovered approximately $170,000 in U.S. currency.
[...]
16. Ma Yang, 32, Milwaukee, WI

Now you've read the rest of the story.

 

[laughing dog]

Why would any of that justify deportation to a country where she has never been?

 

[Derec]

Why would any of that justify deportation to a country where she has never been?

You'd have to ask ICE. The article says that she was born in Thailand, not that she is a Thai citizen, so she may well hold Laotian citizenship.

The whole thing reminds me of this case. The Iraqi in question was likewise diabetic.
Iraqi man dies after Trump administration deports him

Hopefully Laos takes better case of their diabetics than Iraq does.

 

[Swammerdami]

First, some elementary background.

Throughout history, experiments with fiat money have almost always resulted in disaster. Kublai Khan required that all gold and silver in his Kingdom be sold to him in return for paper money, and people were happy to do so. The Khan's money was happily accepted throughout his realm. Yet before long severe inflation rendered that paper useful only as kindling.

The first "central bank" in Europe was founded by  Johan Palmstruch in 1657. But within 11 years imprudent loans meant that the paper money his bank issued could no longer be redeemed for specie; the Swedish government took over the bank's assets and liabilities.

One rare example of fiat money's success was Abraham Lincoln's introduction of the "greenback" in 1862 to finance the Civil War. (This was a weird two-tier system; IIUC greenbacks could not be used to pay import tariffs!). In 1864, with the U.S. Army making little progress greenbacks ("United States Notes") were worth only 39¢ on the dollar. But -- Success! -- after 1878 all those greenbacks were freely convertible to gold at the statutory price of $20.67 per Troy ounce.

BUT it is relevant to note that Lincoln did NOT issue the greenbacks unilaterally. It was Congress that authorized them with the Legal Tender Act of 1862.

Is it possible that Donald J. Trump will ask Congress for permission to introduce fiat money? You betcha!
Is it possible that Donald J. Trump, regarding himself as a King, will introduce fiat money without Congressional permission? You betcha! He may even use the "platinum coin trick" bandied about in 2011 when Republicans were trying to sabotage the U.S. Treasury.

Capische? For the purpose of this discussion, what is relevant is to understand that the U.S. does NOT currently issue "fiat money" and would need to change the rules to do so. One reason the platinum coin trick was never adopted is that converting the U.S. to a fiat currency might severely damage global confidence in the Dollar.

The U.S. no longer promises to trade paper money for gold at $20.67 per ounce, nor at any other price. If that fact entitles you to label money created by the banking system as "fiat money", have at it! I just thought some of you might enjoy using words more precisely.

Actually the Federal Reserve orders the amount of currency to be printed and the Treasury prints it.

And those banknotes sit in FedRes vaults, as meaningless as the Traveller's Cheques which B of A has printed but has not yet sold to a customer.

Except for sending them away for incineration when they look too soiled or torn to circulate, the ONLY thing FedRes Banks EVER do with those banknotes is to sell them to Member Banks at 100.0% of face value.

They sit in vaults until they don’t - just like all currency. But why do you feel this rebuts the fact the US gov’t can print money?

If Kinko's prints your book at your request, does that make them the author? Does the print-shop get the revenue from book sales?? The Bureau of Engraving and Printing plays a role just like Kinko's. It prints the banknotes FedRes requests and delivers them to FedRes. Period.

And after delivery, they still aren't "money," as I already tried to explain. The simplest way to understand this, as I explained already, is that they have the same status as Bank of America Traveller's Cheques which have not been purchased by a customer. Instead of tourists buying the Cheques, it is Member Banks which buy the FedRes Notes at face value.

And just as the tourist might write a check for $500 to buy his Traveller's Cheques, so the Member Bank can pay for its banknotes with a check or wire transfer.

I've just rewritten, with slightly more detail, what you already quoted. PLEASE tell us what is unclear. For starters, do you agree that Kinko's does NOT author a book when you ask them to print your manuscript?

Go ahead and view FedRes as a branch of USG if that floats your boat. It doesn't matter. FedRes NEVER issues "fiat money." It trades $X worth of banknotes for $X worth of money the Member Bank already had.

I can't be sure whether you really do not understand money creation, or are just playing some semantic game. Please phrase any response so I'll at least know the answer to that.

The Federal Reserve is a semi-autonomous branch of the US gov't. It remits its profits to the Treasury.

AFTER paying dividends to the Member Banks which nominally own the Fed, as you know, but go on.

It was created by Congress, and it can be altered or eliminated by Congress.

Obviously. It sounds like you DO know a little.
And since we need to state the obvious, let us all acknowledge here and now that the FedRes often does buy large quantities of U.S. Treasury debt.

If you are going to argue, at least get your facts straight.

SHOW us ONE sentence I got wrong. Be specific.

When the Fed trades one asset (currency) for another asset from a bank, why do you assume that the asset from the bank asset is in the form of money?

Because it almost always IS.
The FedRes does have a role as "lender of last result" but it VERY seldom uses that role. Like the Tirpitz which allowed German U-boats to operate in the North Sea even though it never left its (Norwegian) port, the ABILITY of FedRes to buy financial assets is usually enough to provide confidence. During the 2008 crisis, banks like JPM were coerced into doing much of the bail-out, although FedRes and Treasury did buy some assets. (Even that may have been slightly illegal since FedRes is authorized to buy only SOUND assets.)

FedRes and Treasury often spend great effort during crises to cajole private financial institutions into buying troubled assets. But except for the 2008 intervention, in what other cases has the FedRes actually bought troubled assets itself?

And why would you assume that a semif-autonomous branch of the US gov't whose mission includes keeping the US financial system from imploding would necessarily idly stand by and let the Federal government go bankrupt?

WHERE did I make that assumption?? Be specific.

I DO point out (see above) that changing the rules or converting U.S. currency to a fiat money system is likely to erode faith in the Dollar. I think this may be what RVonse is concerned about, though of course his distinction between "real" and "fake" money is laughable.

And why would you assume that the US gov't could not simply change the rules/laws in order to print money in the case of bankruptcy?

WHERE did I make that assumption?? Be specific.

... those banknotes sit in FedRes vaults, as meaningless as the Traveller's Cheques which B of A has printed but has not yet sold to a customer.

Except for sending them away for incineration when they look too soiled or torn to circulate, the ONLY thing FedRes Banks EVER do with those banknotes is to sell them to Member Banks at 100.0% of face value.

They sit in vaults until they don’t - just like all currency. But why do you feel this rebuts the fact the US gov’t can print money?

Still confused. It is the FedRes that issues FedRes banknotes. This is true whether the banknotes are physically printed by Kinko's or whatever. And those banknotes enter circulation only when sold at face value to Member Banks.

Yes, Congress "can" change the rules -- as it did for Lincoln in 1862 for example. Or, Trump "could" seize the BPE plates and start printing his own Benjamins in Mar-a-Lago. What's your point?

 

[Swammerdami]

Why does all this matter? Bank-created money has been around for centuries and has led to financial stability. When England's government felt the need for paper money in the late 17th century, it did NOT just start printing paper money. Instead it encouraged the English people to form a private joint-stock company, called the  Bank of England and that PRIVATE institution printed banknotes and lent them to the English government.

Weird?? !! I think so. And obviously the distinction between "fiat" and "bank-created" money can become somewhat blurry.

But the insistence that the U.S. is still "printing greenbacks" denies the facts, and denies the history of banking. Let's FIGHT ignorance, not indulge in it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Hopefully Laos takes better case of their diabetics than Iraq does.

exactly! Because there is no reason why America should care if she dies. She once committed a crime here!

 

[laughing dog]

First, some elementary background.

Throughout history, experiments with fiat money have almost always resulted in disaster. Kublai Khan required that all gold and silver in his Kingdom be sold to him in return for paper money, and people were happy to do so. The Khan's money was happily accepted throughout his realm. Yet before long severe inflation rendered that paper useful only as kindling.

The first "central bank" in Europe was founded by  Johan Palmstruch in 1657. But within 11 years imprudent loans meant that the paper money his bank issued could no longer be redeemed for specie; the Swedish government took over the bank's assets and liabilities.

One rare example of fiat money's success was Abraham Lincoln's introduction of the "greenback" in 1862 to finance the Civil War. (This was a weird two-tier system; IIUC greenbacks could not be used to pay import tariffs!). In 1864, with the U.S. Army making little progress greenbacks ("United States Notes") were worth only 39¢ on the dollar. But -- Success! -- after 1878 all those greenbacks were freely convertible to gold at the statutory price of $20.67 per Troy ounce.

BUT it is relevant to note that Lincoln did NOT issue the greenbacks unilaterally. It was Congress that authorized them with the Legal Tender Act of 1862.

Is it possible that Donald J. Trump will ask Congress for permission to introduce fiat money? You betcha!
Is it possible that Donald J. Trump, regarding himself as a King, will introduce fiat money without Congressional permission? You betcha! He may even use the "platinum coin trick" bandied about in 2011 when Republicans were trying to sabotage the U.S. Treasury.

Capische? For the purpose of this discussion, what is relevant is to understand that the U.S. does NOT currently issue "fiat money" and would need to change the rules to do so. One reason the platinum coin trick was never adopted is that converting the U.S. to a fiat currency might severely damage global confidence in the Dollar.

The U.S. no longer promises to trade paper money for gold at $20.67 per ounce, nor at any other price. If that fact entitles you to label money created by the banking system as "fiat money", have at it! I just thought some of you might enjoy using words more precisely.

Actually the Federal Reserve orders the amount of currency to be printed and the Treasury prints it.

And those banknotes sit in FedRes vaults, as meaningless as the Traveller's Cheques which B of A has printed but has not yet sold to a customer.

Except for sending them away for incineration when they look too soiled or torn to circulate, the ONLY thing FedRes Banks EVER do with those banknotes is to sell them to Member Banks at 100.0% of face value.

They sit in vaults until they don’t - just like all currency. But why do you feel this rebuts the fact the US gov’t can print money?

If Kinko's prints your book at your request, does that make them the author? Does the print-shop get the revenue from book sales?? The Bureau of Engraving and Printing plays a role just like Kinko's. It prints the banknotes FedRes requests and delivers them to FedRes. Period.

And after delivery, they still aren't "money," as I already tried to explain. The simplest way to understand this, as I explained already, is that they have the same status as Bank of America Traveller's Cheques which have not been purchased by a customer. Instead of tourists buying the Cheques, it is Member Banks which buy the FedRes Notes at face value.

And just as the tourist might write a check for $500 to buy his Traveller's Cheques, so the Member Bank can pay for its banknotes with a check or wire transfer.

I've just rewritten, with slightly more detail, what you already quoted. PLEASE tell us what is unclear. For starters, do you agree that Kinko's does NOT author a book when you ask them to print your manuscript?

Go ahead and view FedRes as a branch of USG if that floats your boat. It doesn't matter. FedRes NEVER issues "fiat money." It trades $X worth of banknotes for $X worth of money the Member Bank already had.

I can't be sure whether you really do not understand money creation, or are just playing some semantic game. Please phrase any response so I'll at least know the answer to that.

The Federal Reserve is a semi-autonomous branch of the US gov't. It remits its profits to the Treasury.

AFTER paying dividends to the Member Banks which nominally own the Fed, as you know, but go on.

It was created by Congress, and it can be altered or eliminated by Congress.

Obviously. It sounds like you DO know a little.
And since we need to state the obvious, let us all acknowledge here and now that the FedRes often does buy large quantities of U.S. Treasury debt.

If you are going to argue, at least get your facts straight.

SHOW us ONE sentence I got wrong. Be specific.

Go ahead and view FedRes as a branch of USG if that floats your boat. It doesn't matter.

FedRes NEVER issues "fiat money."

When the Fed trades one asset (currency) for another asset from a bank, why do you assume that the asset from the bank asset is in the form of money?

Because it almost always IS.
The FedRes does have a role as "lender of last result" but it VERY seldom uses that role.

US gov't on the brink of default is a time for the FRS to act in that role.

As to the rest of your post, if you think the US monetary system is not an example of fiat money, you have no idea what fiat money is.

 

[laughing dog]

Throughout history, experiments with fiat money have almost always resulted in disaster. Kublai Khan required that all gold and silver in his Kingdom be sold to him in return for paper money, and people were happy to do so. The Khan's money was happily accepted throughout his realm. Yet before long severe inflation rendered that paper useful only as kindling.
The first "central bank" in Europe was founded by  Johan Palmstruch in 1657. But within 11 years imprudent loans meant that the paper money his bank issued could no longer be redeemed for specie; the Swedish government took over the bank's assets and liabilities.
One rare example of fiat money's success was Abraham Lincoln's introduction of the "greenback" in 1862 to finance the Civil War. (This was a weird two-tier system; IIUC greenbacks could not be used to pay import tariffs!). In 1864, with the U.S. Army making little progress greenbacks ("United States Notes") were worth only 39¢ on the dollar. But -- Success! -- after 1878 all those greenbacks were freely convertible to gold at the statutory price of $20.67 per Troy ounce.
BUT it is relevant to note that Lincoln did NOT issue the greenbacks unilaterally. It was Congress that authorized them with the Legal Tender Act of 1862.
Is it possible that Donald J. Trump will ask Congress for permission to introduce fiat money? You betcha!
Is it possible that Donald J. Trump, regarding himself as a King, will introduce fiat money without Congressional permission? You betcha! He may even use the "platinum coin trick" bandied about in 2011 when Republicans were trying to sabotage the U.S. Treasury. [/'quote] Cool history bro.

Pointless, but still cool .

Capische? For the purpose of this discussion, what is relevant is to understand that the U.S. does NOT currently issue "fiat money" and would need to change the rules to do so.

First, facts, now fantasy. Of course the US issues fiat money. The FRS is part of the US gov as a semi-autonomous entity. The Federal Reserve notes are not backed by commodities. In this point in history, bank money still relies on fiat money.

If you are going to argue, at least get your facts straight.

SHOW us ONE sentence I got wrong. Be specific.

Here's two:
Go ahead and view FedRes as a branch of USG if that floats your boat. It doesn't matter.
FedRes NEVER issues "fiat money."

When the Fed trades one asset (currency) for another asset from a bank, why do you assume that the asset from the bank asset is in the form of money?

Because it almost always IS.

Except when it isn't which rebuts your claim.

The FedRes does have a role as "lender of last result" but it VERY seldom uses that role.

US gov't on the brink of default is a time for the FRS to act in that role.