Credit Growth Drives Economic Growth, Until it Doesn’t

[Lafayette]

COULD NOT CARE LESS

So long as Keynesians do not include a cost/benefit analysis of what the government crowds out when it gets the money to spend, they will continue to only be scoring one side of the ledger.

Your cost-benefit is a spurious alternative notion when the Employment-to-population ratio is down to 58.5% and the nation's unemployment rate is at 10%. The worst post-war economic situations in which the US ever found itself.

Who, pray tell, needs cost-benefit when there is no cost? The Fed prints money, and the government spends it. Lo and behold, people get back to work, earn incomes and spend it! (Wow! Miraculous!) The resulting increase in tax-revenues pay for the stimulus and reduces the debt - unless a succeeding PotUS continues to not balance-the-budget.

A VIVID INFO-GRAPHIC

If the US has an historically high Debt, why not seek the answer to "Why?" by looking at the extravagant cost of the Gulf War? Nobody ever think of that. Or, how about looking at the origins of a runaway national debt in this infographic here:

Who was PotUS when the debt started climbing drastically in 1980s and why did it do so? (Because Reckless Ronnie diminished drastically upper-income taxation!) What happened to the debt during the Clinton years of 1993/2001? (The debt was reduced.) What happened to the debt during the Dubya Iraqi War-years up to 2008? (The debt skyrocketed once again.)

And so who are, in fact, the real debt-culprits?

MY POINT?

You are insinuating that in such a dire situation, a "cost-benefit analysis" is required - as if there were some accounting alternative that was better. (Quantitative Easing proved there was none.)

The stimulus-spending solution has worked many a time throughout history in recessions, all around the world; and as recently in the US in 2009/10 when the solution stopped (slam dunk!) the Unemployment rate from skyrocketing beyond 10%.

And conservatives in America remain desperate for an excuse as to why Stimulus-Spending is not necessary. Face it, they've got an innate problem with BigGovernment and no substantiation for their dislike worth mentioning.

They are knee-jerking at the altar of "do nothing" because "doing something" would entail increasing Income Taxation at the Upper-Income levels where they are presently flat-taxed at a measly 30%.

We are already in the Best of All Possible Worlds? Wakey, wakey! In fact, 50 million Americans are incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold.

And the Replicants could not care less ... !

Both men are/were pretty thin skinned, but Trump is in no way an intellectual match for Hamilton, who is commonly underrated as merely a particularly prickly Federalist.

Ah ha! Finally something we can agree about! Will wonders never cease ...
______________________________

 

[Absentglare]

He thinks we can endlessly print ourselves wealthy without incurring ruinous inflation. So, we could boost GDP by (for example) increasing government expenditure by 50%, borrowing the money from the Fed, printing more debt to pay off that debt, printing off more debt to pay off THAT debt, ad nauseum. Free wealth, forever, because inflation isn't tied to the size of the monetary stock, but mysterious "other" factors that conveniently explain why every nation to try this idiocy goes bankrupt.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Goes bankrupt ...? Saying something like that demonstrates that you have very little understanding of how countries that issue their own fiat currency operate.

It is impossible for the US to be unable to meet its debt obligations, our debt is held in US dollars and the state has an unlimited ability to create US dollars. We can literally only go "bankrupt" if we choose to.

Further, you seem to not understand inflation. Inflation and purchasing power are two different things. Even if printing money results in inflation (which is absolutely hasn't in recent history), as long as incomes match pace with inflation, purchasing power is unchanged.

It isn't "free" wealth. That's a hyperbolic strawman. Dollars are tokens that help distribute a societies resources. Printing dollars can mobilize idle resources, creating economic growth in the process. What economists claim is that it is foolish to refuse guaranteed economic growth (every dollar of government spending that goes to the domestic private sector goes straight into GDP) simply because of unjustified hysteria about hyperinflation.

 

[cpwill]

Your cost-benefit is a spurious alternative notion when the Employment-to-population ratio is down to 58.5% and the nation's unemployment rate is at 10%.

:shrug: calling something "spurious" doesn't actually address the point.

Who, pray tell, needs cost-benefit when there is no cost? The Fed prints money, and the government spends it

You think that there is no cost associated with taking on interest-bearing debt and increasing the monetary stock to do so?

When you dilute the power of the dollar, you reduce the ability of private dollars to purchase or invest. When you sign up for debt at interest, you are increasing your future debt burden. All those are costs.

Lo and behold, people get back to work, earn incomes and spend it! (Wow! Miraculous!) The resulting increase in tax-revenues pay for the stimulus and reduces the debt - unless a succeeding PotUS continues to not balance-the-budget.

See, this is precisely what I was talking about - you assume that the value doesn't occur unless the government spends it. Everything that government spends it first takes from somewhere, and when you fail to account for that cost, you are inaccurately scoring the program.

And, of course, the "Stimulus" and "Recovery Summer", and all of that crap didn't give us any of that crap, and certainly didn't reduce the debt.

If the US has an historically high Debt, why not seek the answer to "Why?" by looking at the extravagant cost of the Gulf War? Nobody ever think of that.

People have tried to make that argument. The problem is that it is mathematically laughable. Defense spending is, if anything, still bouncing along at post-war lows:




What is driving our federal spending (and our debt) isn't Defense Spending, but our social welfare spending, in particular our old-age entitlement programs

You are insinuating that in such a dire situation, a "cost-benefit analysis" is required - as if there were some accounting alternative that was better.

Cost benefit analysis is what analysts owe to policy makers - honest assessments of likely futures based both on likely positive and negative drivers. Whether or not we are in the middle of an economic decline or an economic boom is irrelevant - policy should still be formulated on an honest basis that recognizes trade-offs.

The stimulus-spending solution has worked many a time throughout history in recessions, all around the world; and as recently in the US in 2009/10 when the solution stopped (slam dunk!) the Unemployment rate from skyrocketing beyond 10%.

The CBO does not fully concur that the Stimulus was a benefit, pointing out that it is a long-term harm. That's even assuming that you got a multiplier effect off of the initial spending.

However, the idea that it was the stimulus that stopped (slam dunk) the Unemployment rate from skyrocketing beyond 10% is simply post-facto justification. The way to assess the strength of a hypothesis is not to attempt to fit facts around if after an experiment, but to see if its' predictions before the experiment hold up.

There the Stimulus performs less well:



It seems that the hypothesis' predictions were, in fact, rather woefully off, which is why they had to later grab whatever the worst of the official-adjusted unemployment was, and simply claim that well-otherwise-it-would-have-been-worse. Which is to say, their belief in their hypothesis is immune to testing or evidence.

We are already in the Best of All Possible Worlds? Wakey, wakey! In fact, 50 million Americans are incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold.

I think you meant to say "have an income that - all other factors nonexistent - would place them below the Federal Poverty Line". There are about 46 million Americans (about 14.8%) who are in that category. It's worth noting, however, that that measurement doesn't include things like SNAP (food stamps), housing subsidies, the Earned Income Tax Credit (a significant source of income for poor families), etc.

And the Replicants could not care less ... !

:shrug: Assuming you meant "Republicans", that is false. In fact, Republicans are the only ones that I see proposing meaningful social welfare reforms designed to get those people back up above the poverty line from earned income. Democrats seem to think that you can help poor people by making it more difficult to hire them.

 

[Lafayette]

.... it can collapse as soon as other people feel that the US is not being responsible in how it handles it's currency.

It would take a great catastrophe for an economy of 305 million people, run by idiots, to accomplish that fact. Which, admittedly, is not Mission Impossible in the US.

We have elections every four years. It is difficult to imagine what any one PotUS, even with the control of both Chambers of Congress, could ruin an economy to such an extent.

So, what can go wrong. What has gone wrong? This:


When will enough of the rip-off be enough? Never, for as long as our warped upper-income flat-rate taxation is not trashed and replaced with a progressive tax.

The US is country that is inherently unfair in the manner in which it inadequately taxes income to generate unacceptable Wealth Unfairness. Explain why to your kids ...
_________________________________

 

[Lafayette]

The CBO does not fully concur that the Stimulus was a benefit, pointing out that it is a long-term harm.

Your interpretation of what the CBO says is insufficient.

The fact of the matter is shown here: History, BLS Unemployment Percentage

What happened in 2010 to turn-around the unemployment rate from 10%, if not the ARRA Spending Bill ($831B) of 2009?

And here: History, Employment-to-population Ratio:

If ARRA spending did not begin the descent downward in the E-to-p Ratio, then what did? The Grace of God? A miracle!?!

And if the Replicants did not refuse all further stimulus-spending after taking control of the HofR in 2010, why did the unemployment rate stagnate for another four, long years until 2014?

Answer the questions ... !

 

[Lafayette]

When you dilute the power of the dollar, you reduce the ability of private dollars to purchase or invest. When you sign up for debt at interest, you are increasing your future debt burden. All those are costs.

That depends upon the economic circumstance of the moment.

You saying that Stimulus Spending in a full-blown recession should not be undertaken because the future debt-burden will be impossible to rectify?

Pah-thetic reasoning and purely academic. The government has both the duty and the right to act ...
____________________________

 

[cpwill]

Your interpretation of what the CBO says is insufficient.

:lol: the CBO says that the Stimulus long-term effects are net harmful.

A: "That Doesn't Matter!!!"

:roll:

The fact of the matter is shown here: History, BLS Unemployment Percentage

And here: History, Employment-to-population Ratio:

Take a look at these two charts in the context of each other, and that will go far towards answering your question.

Basically, you are asking why the answer to a fraction kept growing while the denominator kept shrinking. Well.... duh?

If long term economic prospects are bleak to the point where labor force participation is rapidly dropping (your second chart), then naturally the remaining "unemployment percentage" of those actively seeking work v those working is going to decrease (your second chart).

What happened in 2010 to turn-around the unemployment rate from 10%, if not the ARRA Spending Bill (close to a trillion dollars) of 2009?
If ARRA spending did not begin the descent downward in the E-to-p Ratio, then what did? The Grace of God? A miracle!?!

And if the Replicants did not refuse all further stimulus-spending after taking control of the HofR in 2010, why did the unemployment rate stagnate for another four, long years until 2014?

Answer the questions ... !

Economic recovery, stifled, choked and fitful. The Stimulus was supposed to pull us out of the recession - but the recession ended in June of 2009, well before we spent that $900 Billion.

Now, did the spending create jobs? Sorta. It created jobs to fill the spending requirements - but at extraordinary cost, running between $170,000 to $400,000 per job. Meaning that, when you account for the fact that the government cannot spend what it does not get from elsewhere, there was likely actually a net loss of jobs from what we would have seen had government spending stayed at baseline, and that $170-400K stayed out in the market (where it could have made 4-8 jobs instead).

So, instead of pulling us out of recovery, it helped to tamp down on recovery. Well done.

 

[cpwill]

That depends upon the economic circumstance of the moment.

No. Those are costs. Whether those costs are acceptable or not depends on the circumstances (economic and otherwise) of the moment, but those costs remain, and honest analysis of the efficacy of a program needs to include them.

You saying that Stimulus Spending in a full-blown recession should not be undertaken because the future debt-burden will be impossible to rectify?

That is correct. I am saying that we should adopt instead the only approach to have taken an economic crash like the one in 2008/2009 and 1929 and turn it around rapidly - the approach that we took to combat the recession of 1921.

If we wanted to be wise, then we would have immediately drastically simplified our tax and regulatory code (keeping effective rates either at parity or somewhat lower) while also cutting federal spending. This would have caused the recession to be short and sharp, rather than drawn out and ever-painful.

Pah-thetic reasoning and purely academic. The government has both the duty and the right to act ...

No, it doesn't. It has the duty to protect our liberties. That's the limit of its duty. Nor is "acting" synonymous with "spend a whole lot of money, as fast and with as little oversight as you can!".

 

[ludin]

As long as Walmart takes the US dollar, the US dollar will have value. I can't see Walmart refusing to accept the US dollar any time soon, especially since their cash registers don't hold chickens and their credit card machine doesn't accept haircuts. And as long as my mortgage payment is denominated in US dollars, I will still have a need for them, so I will continue to trade my production in exchange for dollars.

Oh, but I get it. You are talking about "when the **** hits the fan". I'm not sure when that will be, or what would cause it. Maybe if a huge comet is headed towards the earth?

why can't you actually discuss everything that I said instead of chopping my post in half and distorting it to say something else?
walmart will stop taking dollars when it feels that those dollars aren't worth anything because the government has mishandled the currency.

people in general will stop doing it. all it takes is following the MMT theory of money and you will see the dollar tank into the hole.
which is why we don't follow the mmt theory of money neither does anyone else.

the ones that have tried to print their way back into prosperity have seen massive inflation and even worse economic down turn.

 

[ludin]

It would take a great catastrophe for an economy of 305 million people, run by idiots, to accomplish that fact. Which, admittedly, is not Mission Impossible in the US.

We have elections every four years. It is difficult to imagine what any one PotUS, even with the control of both Chambers of Congress, could ruin an economy to such an extent.

Congress and the president have nothing to do with it really. the treasury and the Federal reserve would be the ones responsible.

When will enough of the rip-off be enough? Never, for as long as our warped upper-income flat-rate taxation is not trashed and replaced with a progressive tax.

so an unsourced graph of something. ok what? the bottom 40% of the country didn't bother to do something to improve their financial situation?
we have a progressive tax system in fact that top 1% that you are crying about pays 37% of the income tax. that bottom 40% either pays nothing
or gets more back than what they paid. so what are you complaining about again?

in fact the top 50% of wage earners which is an AGI of about 33k or so pay 98% of the income tax.

The US is country that is inherently unfair in the manner in which it inadequately taxes income to generate unacceptable Wealth Unfairness. Explain why to your kids ...
_________________________________

no I explain to my kids that the harder they work the more they will make. I explain to my kids that the more they make
the more someone will try and take it from them because other deem it isn't fair.

I teach my kids that they need to think about what they want to be and make sure that they get a degree or job in something
that makes money. they are still young so I have to explain it in different terms.

if they followed you I tell my daughter that all the hard work to get that A doesn't matter. why? it isn't fair that she got an A
for all the studying that she did. someone else didn't get an A so we have to take her A away and give her a C so that the person
that got the D or F can get a C as well.

she then realizes that isn't fair. kids understand things much better than some adults do.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

That is correct. I am saying that we should adopt instead the only approach to have taken an economic crash like the one in 2008/2009 and 1929 and turn it around rapidly - the approach that we took to combat the recession of 1921.

You mean we should have run a large trade surplus in 2008/2009 to get us out of our recession, like we did in 1921?

 

[Lafayette]

FALSE, FALSE, FALSE

Congress and the president have nothing to do with it really. the treasury and the Federal reserve would be the ones responsible.

Nope, that aint necessarily so. You keep trying to make that point. And it is false, false, false.

All spending-bills issue from the HofR and are sent to the Senate. (Why? Nobody knows, it is a an historical reference.) Regardless, all a political party need do is be as dense-as-a-brick to stop any stimulus spending in either Chamber of Congress - and the dirty-deed is done. Which the Replicants DID from 2010 onward.

Where were you during that period of time? Namely -
*From the NYT: House Passes Stimulus Plan With No G.O.P. Votes
*And from Time Magazine: The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama

Excerpt from the latter:

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, "The New New Deal": The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.” The excerpt includes a special bonus nugget of Mitt Romney dissing the Tea Party.

we have a progressive tax system in fact that top 1% that you are crying about pays 37% of the income tax. that bottom 40% either pays nothing
or gets more back than what they paid. so what are you complaining about again?

When somebody can call our present tax system "progressive" against the advice of economists, they must be obtuse. They are "graduated", not "progressive". Look up the difference.

That's enough. Over and out.

Moving right along ...

 

[Lafayette]

Well.... duh?.

It is useless debating with a brick-wall.

Moving right along ...

 

[Lafayette]

kids understand things much better than some adults do.

Come off your high-horse.

Look in the mirror - see the "kid" around here ...

 

[Gimmesometruth]

That is correct. I am saying that we should adopt instead the only approach to have taken an economic crash like the one in 2008/2009 and 1929 and turn it around rapidly - the approach that we took to combat the recession of 1921.

What caused the post '21 "expansion"...was the massive increase in credit, that fueled not one, but 3 bubbles.....all which caused the 1929 crash.

Good grief.

http://www.bis.org/publ/work137.pdf

 

[Gimmesometruth]

No expansion has been driven by credit.

Good grief, the post 1921 expansion WAS driven by credit!

I can't believe this nonsense!

It directly paralleled the post 2001 "expansion".

 

[ludin]

Nope, that aint necessarily so. You keep trying to make that point. And it is false, false, false.

then you really don't know how our money system works. The Federal reserve makes a request to the treasury if needed.
The treasury fulfills that request it is then up to the federal reserve to manage how the money is dispersed.

All spending-bills issue from the HofR and are sent to the Senate. (Why? Nobody knows, it is a an historical reference.) Regardless, all a political party need do is be as dense-as-a-brick to stop any stimulus spending in either Chamber of Congress - and the dirty-deed is done. Which the Replicants DID from 2010 onward.

That is only on money that is spent by the government. which is only half the equation. The Federal reserve doesn't need a bill from congress to request money.
the rest of it has nothing to do with the topic.

When somebody can call our present tax system "progressive" against the advice of economists, they must be obtuse. Look up the difference.

When someone can't see that our tax system is progressive (ie the more you make the more you pay) with the bottom rate being 0
and our top rate is now what 35 39% something like that. IE that is progressive. to say that it isn't is to be obtuse.

That's enough. Over and out.

glad you finally admitted that you have had enough. I get tired of going over basic concepts.

 

[ludin]

Come off your high-horse.

Look in the mirror - see the "kid" around here ...

the fact that you don't understand basic concepts of our money system is bad enough.
the fact that you have to hack a post apart in a poor attempt to actually make a argument
makes it even worse for you.

even the simple example that I gave you can't honestly address.
instead you have to restort to ad hominems etc ...

when my kid realizes that it isn't fair that I take away her A because someone else didn't study she understands.
she realizes that she deserved an A because she studied that it isn't her fault someone else didn't.
she worked for the A she deserves the A.

do you disagree or is it not fair?

 

[Lafayette]

The Table 1 infographic above is not referenced and can be found here: Wealth, Income, and Power by G. William Domhoff - scroll down to "Exactly how rich are the Top 1%?".

Professors Domhoff, Piketty and Saez have made the most contribution to identifying and sizing the gross Income Disparity that exists on earth - it is not only a US phenomenon. Piketty and Saez have created a World Top Incomes Database containing proof-positive analysis that Income Disparity is a global phenomenon afflicting the entire planet.
____________________________

 

[Lafayette]

Money by very definition is wealth..

Look up the meaning of words before emphatically insisting upon a meaning!

Much "wealth" is held in ... well, Picasso paintings, which have a money market-value. Money is one measure of financial wealth; but there can exist wealth without money. For instance gold-diggers who had gold but were penniless until they "sold" it.

Or, there is something we call a "wealth of knowledge", wherein "wealth" is simply a repository. Dictionary meaning of "wealth".

There are thus both fundamental definitions of the meaning of "wealth".
____________________________

 

[Lafayette]

The Federal reserve doesn't need a bill from congress to request money.
the rest of it has nothing to do with the topic.

I don't recall intimating that it did need authorization from Congress.

From the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, this excerpt:

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership."

Congress can shut down the FRB-system any time it wants. Moreover, there is serious discussion afoot regarding how "top heavy" it is with banking professionals from within the 20 Banking Districts. (Meaning the number who are actually from banks that they supervise and likely to which they will return - or other banks within the system).

For which reason they may not be totally "independent of the system".

 

[Lafayette]

The Federal reserve doesn't need a bill from congress to request money.
the rest of it has nothing to do with the topic.

I don't recall intimating that it did need authorization from Congress.

From the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, this excerpt:

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership."

Congress can shut down the FRB-system any time it wants. Moreover, there is serious discussion afoot regarding how "top heavy" it is with banking professionals from within the 20 Banking Districts. (Meaning the number who are actually from banks that they supervise and likely to which they will return - or other banks within the system).

For which reason they may not be totally "independent of the system".

 

[Lafayette]

MEANING, WE THE SHEEPLE

The Federal reserve doesn't need a bill from congress to request money.
the rest of it has nothing to do with the topic.

I don't recall intimating that the FRB needed authorization from Congress for any market-functioning. Nonetheless, it does have an "informative role" versus Congress.

From the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, this excerpt:

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership."

Congress can shut down the FRB-system any time it wants, which is unlikely.

Moreover, there is serious discussion afoot regarding how "top heavy" it is with banking professionals from within the 20 Banking Districts thus affecting its "neutrality" as regards the management of money-markets. Meaning the management who are actually from banks that they supervise and likely to which they will return or other banks within the Commercial and Investment bank-system.

Which can breed internecine lack of collaboration or co-option at times, which is best for bankers and not necessarily those providing the base-funds upon which rests the banking-system. Meaning we, the sheeple.

For which reason presently they may not be totally "independent of the system".

I am not saying that any one party is responsible for the Financial Mess we, the sheeple, have undergone. But, financially we, the sheeple, are much more financially "well-off" from its main consequence - namely the Great Recession.

An excellent but very longgg WikiPedia review of what happened in Banking here, "Government Policy and the SubPrime Mortgage Crisis". (NB: It is not for idle reading.)

__________________________

 

[ludin]

MEANING, WE THE SHEEPLE

yes you are. your post did nothing to counter or address anything I said in comment to you.
why can you not keep a consistent argument? you are constantly dodging and posting irrelevant argument to
back peddle what you said previously.

 

[Lafayette]

MEANING, WE THE SHEEPLE

The Federal reserve doesn't need a bill from congress to request money.
the rest of it has nothing to do with the topic.

I don't recall intimating that the FRB needed authorization from Congress for any market-functioning. Nonetheless, it does have an "informative role" versus Congress.

From the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, this excerpt:

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership."

Congress can shut down the FRB-system any time it wants, which is unlikely.

Moreover, there is serious discussion afoot regarding how "top heavy" it is with banking professionals from within the 20 Banking Districts thus affecting its "neutrality" as regards the management of money-markets. Meaning the management who are actually from banks that they supervise and likely to which they will return or other banks within the Commercial and Investment bank-system.

Which can breed internecine lack of collaboration or co-option at times, which is best for bankers and not necessarily those providing the base-funds upon which rests the banking-system. Meaning we, the sheeple.

For which reason presently they may not be totally "independent of the system".

I am not saying that any one party is responsible for the Financial Mess we, the sheeple, have undergone. But, financially we, the sheeple, are much less financially "well-off" from its main consequence - namely the Great Recession.

An excellent but very longgg WikiPedia review of what happened in Banking here, "Government Policy and the SubPrime Mortgage Crisis". (NB: It is not for idle reading.)

__________________________