This post reads more like the conspiratorial rantings of a junior college freshman “just asking questions” than someone deeply informed about monetary policy.
Not only does the author posit misleading, unsubstantiated theories about the Fed, but they make no serious attempt to research the theories in question even where obvious answers are available.
It is a series of hypotheticals with no basis in reality. It simply asserts the theories are true, then warns against the hypothetical outcomes. Does the Fed directly monetize debt? (Well, there is no evidence.) BUT if we assume it does, then that solves the problem. Are Member Banks using their legal dividends for spooky purposes? Perhaps for things I personally think are bad? Alas, there is no evidence. But don’t let reality get in the way of a good time. Why might institutions hold Treasuries with negative real yields? Could it be safety, liquidity, or regulatory purposes? Should I do an iota of research or ask someone in finance? Haha imagine? God forbid the answer isn’t alluring.
“These are not easy questions to answer.” True. Especially if you have no interest in honestly answering them.
The Fed is audited annually. The balance sheet is public. The Chair reports to Congress multiple times annually as well. At least Ron Paul was entertaining. This ain’t it.
No evidence of direct debt monetization? They’ve objectively engaged in this activity before, as I stipulate in the article, and provide historical documentation to prove so.
Just curious, do you LIKE that the Fed just gives money to bankers, for them to just use whoever they please?
Polymarket explicitly gave you permission to publish a rebuttal to my article. I hope you’ll take them up on the opportunity. To be clear, I HOPE you’re right - I hope NONE of this is happening. But the Fed has objectively engaged in direct debt monetization before. The Fed also objectively pays dividends to the banking cartel, which owns the Fed.
The only thing I think you can possibly say ISN’T true here, is that the Fed is buying government debt at a markup, which is CERTAINLY possible, and dare I say, likely.
Why not publish a rebuttal, and disprove the claims?
What “upsets” me is lazy, uncharitable thinking. I’m not an expert in Fed policy. Far from it.
“Just curious, do you LIKE that the Fed just gives money to bankers, for them to just use whoever they please?”
This is a strawman framed in the most uncharitable way possible. The reader is led to believe the Fed prints money and simply gives it to bankers. We both know that isn’t true. There are quite good non-nefarious reasons that a dividend is paid to Member banks. You failed to even mention even one.
The Fed buys treasuries in open market operations. No idea where this unsubstantiated markup idea comes from. Why would it pay above market rates? Luckily, again - no evidence. Simply asserted than assumed. You then move to defend these claims by resorting to the fact that some of it happened once 80 years ago.
Using words with pejorative meanings like “cartel” does not lend credibility to your arguments.
Wouldn’t it be scary if the Government was incarcerating the Japanese in America in 2025 without cause? You laugh, but it’s certainly possible. Don’t forget, they already did it once!
You are relying on the credulity of others to push a narrative.
I’m not an expert in Fed policy either, but I have common sense.
I never claimed the Fed “just prints money and gives it to bankers.” Seems like you’re the one straw-manning, Mr. Projection. I said something very specific: The Fed pays dividends to member banks, and what they do with that money, is not only inflationary by nature, but it is also used for purposes the American people would more-than-likely find objectionable.
“No evidence for markups.” Okay, again, please, rebut this with your own piece, which Polymarket commented on, without you asking, and TOLD YOU they’d publish a rebuttal if you wrote one. I’d jump at such an opportunity.
Pejorative? The word “cartel,” definitively, is a perfectly accurate representation of what the current banking system is. From Google: “cartel - an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition.” How does that NOT describe the current banking system?
Japanese? What about the people that are currently being incarcerated without trial and have been for decades, in Guantanamo Bay? Do those people NOT COUNT because their ethnicity isn’t Japanese? Your point is moot here, for this reason.
Again, it seems like the only thing you actually disagree with me on, correct me if I’m wrong, is that the Fed is buying debt at a markup. Fair enough; so publish an article about it here in The Oracle. I don’t know how compelling it would be - it sounds like your only argument against it is nO eViDeNcE - but who knows, maybe you’ll make it interesting.
The pattern is clear: whatever institutional forces shaped economic policy under past administrations persist under the current one. Direct debt monetization by the Fed undeniably propped up the U.S. economy during the pandemic, to the detriment of other nations, reinforcing an economic order designed to serve elite interests at the expense of everyone else. This isn't a partisan issue—it's class warfare, and it's been waged consistently regardless of which party holds power.
The idea that Trump would seriously audit the Fed is laughable, not because it wouldn’t expose corruption, but because any meaningful audit would implicate too many people, across too many sectors, and across both parties. The system is designed to protect itself. If there were real accountability, the wealth extraction machine that props up the global elite would be at risk, and that is simply not an option for those in control.
Epstein remains one of the clearest data points in all of this. The fact that his network intersected finance, media, intelligence, and politics across party lines is evidence enough that the mechanisms of power are not divided by ideology but by access and allegiance. The same is true here. The Fed is not going to be meaningfully audited because the beneficiaries of its actions are the same people who ensure that meaningful audits never happen.
This is further proof that the international community must act. The only viable response is targeted sanctions—not against abstract institutions, but against the individuals driving systemic collapse. That means CEOs, the executives and boards who sustain them, and the political and media elites who empower them. The U.S. is currently the most visible example of this rot, but the same dynamics exist globally, and any effort to hold these figures accountable must extend beyond just American leadership.
If accountability is to exist, it won’t come from within the system—it will have to be imposed upon it.
This post reads more like the conspiratorial rantings of a junior college freshman “just asking questions” than someone deeply informed about monetary policy.
Not only does the author posit misleading, unsubstantiated theories about the Fed, but they make no serious attempt to research the theories in question even where obvious answers are available.
It is a series of hypotheticals with no basis in reality. It simply asserts the theories are true, then warns against the hypothetical outcomes. Does the Fed directly monetize debt? (Well, there is no evidence.) BUT if we assume it does, then that solves the problem. Are Member Banks using their legal dividends for spooky purposes? Perhaps for things I personally think are bad? Alas, there is no evidence. But don’t let reality get in the way of a good time. Why might institutions hold Treasuries with negative real yields? Could it be safety, liquidity, or regulatory purposes? Should I do an iota of research or ask someone in finance? Haha imagine? God forbid the answer isn’t alluring.
“These are not easy questions to answer.” True. Especially if you have no interest in honestly answering them.
The Fed is audited annually. The balance sheet is public. The Chair reports to Congress multiple times annually as well. At least Ron Paul was entertaining. This ain’t it.
If you want to publish a rebuttal dms open
I certainly didn’t mean to upset you.
No evidence of direct debt monetization? They’ve objectively engaged in this activity before, as I stipulate in the article, and provide historical documentation to prove so.
Just curious, do you LIKE that the Fed just gives money to bankers, for them to just use whoever they please?
Polymarket explicitly gave you permission to publish a rebuttal to my article. I hope you’ll take them up on the opportunity. To be clear, I HOPE you’re right - I hope NONE of this is happening. But the Fed has objectively engaged in direct debt monetization before. The Fed also objectively pays dividends to the banking cartel, which owns the Fed.
The only thing I think you can possibly say ISN’T true here, is that the Fed is buying government debt at a markup, which is CERTAINLY possible, and dare I say, likely.
Why not publish a rebuttal, and disprove the claims?
What “upsets” me is lazy, uncharitable thinking. I’m not an expert in Fed policy. Far from it.
“Just curious, do you LIKE that the Fed just gives money to bankers, for them to just use whoever they please?”
This is a strawman framed in the most uncharitable way possible. The reader is led to believe the Fed prints money and simply gives it to bankers. We both know that isn’t true. There are quite good non-nefarious reasons that a dividend is paid to Member banks. You failed to even mention even one.
The Fed buys treasuries in open market operations. No idea where this unsubstantiated markup idea comes from. Why would it pay above market rates? Luckily, again - no evidence. Simply asserted than assumed. You then move to defend these claims by resorting to the fact that some of it happened once 80 years ago.
Using words with pejorative meanings like “cartel” does not lend credibility to your arguments.
Wouldn’t it be scary if the Government was incarcerating the Japanese in America in 2025 without cause? You laugh, but it’s certainly possible. Don’t forget, they already did it once!
You are relying on the credulity of others to push a narrative.
I’m not an expert in Fed policy either, but I have common sense.
I never claimed the Fed “just prints money and gives it to bankers.” Seems like you’re the one straw-manning, Mr. Projection. I said something very specific: The Fed pays dividends to member banks, and what they do with that money, is not only inflationary by nature, but it is also used for purposes the American people would more-than-likely find objectionable.
“No evidence for markups.” Okay, again, please, rebut this with your own piece, which Polymarket commented on, without you asking, and TOLD YOU they’d publish a rebuttal if you wrote one. I’d jump at such an opportunity.
Pejorative? The word “cartel,” definitively, is a perfectly accurate representation of what the current banking system is. From Google: “cartel - an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition.” How does that NOT describe the current banking system?
Japanese? What about the people that are currently being incarcerated without trial and have been for decades, in Guantanamo Bay? Do those people NOT COUNT because their ethnicity isn’t Japanese? Your point is moot here, for this reason.
Again, it seems like the only thing you actually disagree with me on, correct me if I’m wrong, is that the Fed is buying debt at a markup. Fair enough; so publish an article about it here in The Oracle. I don’t know how compelling it would be - it sounds like your only argument against it is nO eViDeNcE - but who knows, maybe you’ll make it interesting.
The pattern is clear: whatever institutional forces shaped economic policy under past administrations persist under the current one. Direct debt monetization by the Fed undeniably propped up the U.S. economy during the pandemic, to the detriment of other nations, reinforcing an economic order designed to serve elite interests at the expense of everyone else. This isn't a partisan issue—it's class warfare, and it's been waged consistently regardless of which party holds power.
The idea that Trump would seriously audit the Fed is laughable, not because it wouldn’t expose corruption, but because any meaningful audit would implicate too many people, across too many sectors, and across both parties. The system is designed to protect itself. If there were real accountability, the wealth extraction machine that props up the global elite would be at risk, and that is simply not an option for those in control.
Epstein remains one of the clearest data points in all of this. The fact that his network intersected finance, media, intelligence, and politics across party lines is evidence enough that the mechanisms of power are not divided by ideology but by access and allegiance. The same is true here. The Fed is not going to be meaningfully audited because the beneficiaries of its actions are the same people who ensure that meaningful audits never happen.
This is further proof that the international community must act. The only viable response is targeted sanctions—not against abstract institutions, but against the individuals driving systemic collapse. That means CEOs, the executives and boards who sustain them, and the political and media elites who empower them. The U.S. is currently the most visible example of this rot, but the same dynamics exist globally, and any effort to hold these figures accountable must extend beyond just American leadership.
If accountability is to exist, it won’t come from within the system—it will have to be imposed upon it.
The Fed might be the biggest scam in history