The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States ought to be abolished

"Your argument is false."It was more an honest question. How DOES Quantitative easing increase inflation when such money, we know, does not create aggregate demand? "And that also has major problems with running up the nations debt."What exactly are those problems? We've seen, in the case of Japan and Britain, that despite far larger debt/GDP ratios, they were and are still able to borrow at record low costs. In fact, despite our current debt/GDP ratio being over 100%, short-term borrowing costs for the United States Federal Government are negative. "So no, inflation is still a tax because the government receives the lost purchasing power of the people, and it is still happening."Once again, the overwhelming vast majority of our government's spending comes from either taxes or borrowing through the bond markets. Seigniorage can be calculated by taking the amount of money that the government borrows over a certain amount of time and reducing it by the inflation rate over that period of time. Inflation, because it has been incredibly low, and actually negative when you look at the period of 2009-2012, has not reduced real bond yields on treasury bills. "Inflation is a regressive tax."Once again, how? The simple fact is, with the exception of people who are living on pension funds and zero-interest cash, poor people and people on fixed incomes live on incomes which are indexed to inflation. The former groups comprise a tiny minority. The overwhelming majority of people in our nation are debtors, and unexpected inflation redistributes wealth to them from creditors. Because prices do not adjust in the short run, this gives money from people who have a low propensity to consume (they are savers, after all) to people who have a high propensity to consume (that's why they're in debt in the first place). This increases national income in the short run. "This started in Europe with their central banks hundreds of years ago." Why is it that opponents of Keynesian economics, like Austrians, and other heterodox economists and economic historians usually resort to data points which are hundreds, in the case of Ron Paul, thousands of years old? Economists and Econometricians use recent data (the last 40 years) in building their models and telling their stories because we actually have data on important macroeconomic variables from the very recent past. We have no data on the monetary base, real rates of interest, inflation rates, trade volumes, capital markets, etc. from the time of the Romans, so it's useless to actually use that data to build an economic model. "And about a 3-4% inflation rate helping the poor. I really don't know where you got this information. If you could cite resources, it would be very helpful. "http://www.amazon.com...Harvard Economist and former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush N. Gregory Mankiw explains, on pg. 106, that moderate inflation can help to reduce unemployment in the labour markets by making workers more likely to accept real wage cuts. If workers are in a field that is the only one to make use of their skills, and if said field is dying, then workers are less likely to quit their jobs. This increases national income and reduces unemployment, which, unarguably, hurts the poor more than the rich or middle class. "My main argument, is that the FED does more harm than good"We have not seen this demonstrated.