The U.S. economy is a fraud based on the Federal Reserve System of fiat money and legal-tender laws.

If I were your economics professor, I would be very embarrassed by your misrepresentation of the monetary system above. And if I were your parents, I'd ask for a refund. Banks DO create money. Literally no one who knows anything about the banking system -- whether they be left, right, or center -- disputes this because it is fact. Loans are NOT backed 100% by deposit. This is just an utter fallacy. That's why what we have is called "fractional reserve banking." You think your bank has currency reserves to match all of its outstanding loans? That's truly laughable. They are required to keep on hand just 10% of the money they've lent. The other currency is created out of thin air, or it doesn't exist at all, except as entries in the books. I find it quite hilarious that because you are a "double major" in economics and business, you automatically think you know more about the subject than me. What hubris! Our personal knowledge is not the subject here, but I had a degree in business/finance, a Series 7 Stockbroker's license, and I've been cited by the Wall Street Journal and have several articles published in business magazines. You contend that I don't know what I'm talking about when your assertions about the nature of money creation would get you laughed out of any respectable economics class. This is not a matter of opinion we are arguing at this point. Fractional-reserve banking DOES exist. If you are a Keynesian, neo-classicist, Marxist, monetarist, or Austrian, it still exists, and it still empowers the banking system to create money out of thin air (or more accurately out of debt). You saying it doesn't is like saying the sky is not blue, it is in fact plaid; or there is no sky at all, it's just a conspiracy theory. Let me explain it to you as literally any economics textbook would: I deposit $100. The bank can lend $90. The next bank can use that $90 to lend $81. The next bank can use that $81 to lend $72.90. The next bank can use that $72.90 to lend $65.61... Etc. Eventually, the $100 in deposits can result in as much as $1,000 in new money via loans. This is how money is created. This is not up for debate; it is fact. In your imaginary world, how does new money enter the marketplace? Magic? Next: All money represents debt. If all debts were repaid, there would be no more currency in circulation. It would be in bank vaults and central-bank coffers. This is obvious when you realize that all money arises from debt. The only way to pay back the debt is to spend the money that was created from the debt, or to create more money (which creates more debt). You are 100% wrong in your contention that I'm "mistaken." Of course, it is impossible for all debts to be repaid, and thus, the nation and its people will forever be in debt, so long as fiat-money central planning continues to exist. That's why it is quite hilarious when personal-finance gurus tell everyone to be "debt-free" -- it's impossible for everyone, or even a large number of people, to be debt free. As for gold and silver vs. fiat money: "Modern economics" does not allow us to use fiat money without penalty. "Every country in the world" uses fiat money because the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank essentially prohibit the use of REAL money, because fiat money systems cannot stand side by side with REAL money. REAL money arises naturally in the marketplace as the most commonly accepted means of exchange. Traditionally, this has been gold and silver. This is why the U.S. has laws against competing currencies. Every economic transaction of FRNs is thus based on government force and fraud. "Modern economics" cannot refute sound economic laws that are not changed by "modernity." What you call "modern economics" is more accurately called Keynesian central planning, and it has been refuted by empirical evidence -- see the stagflation of the 1970s. Your assertion that the Fed is not a "legalized cartel" is absurd, and again, NO ONE would seriously make this argument, not even pro-Fed economists. American Heritage Dictionary defines a cartel as, "A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members." The Federal Reserve System was conceived by the leaders of the U.S.'s major banks in order to regulate production and pricing (interest rates) of money. It is given legal status by Congress via the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Thus, it is literally a "legalized cartel." As for "creating stability" -- the Federal Reserve has not presided over stability. It caused the Great Depression via its inflation of the money supply in the twenties followed by severe contraction in the late 20s and 30s, and it has ushered in unprecedented inflation ever since. A dollar in 1913 now has just $0.04 of purchasing power. Fact. You call that "stability"? Why do we need central planners to attain "stability"? All we need is the rule of law. Instability in the monetary system prior to 1913 mostly arose from government policies (such as printing fiat greenbacks, switching to gold, and then introducing silver, etc.) and bailouts of dishonest banks who practiced fractional-reserve banking without a Fed to prop them up when their fraud was realized. In a free banking system, banks would be allowed to fail -- and then they would learn not to play games. The officers of banks who stole people's money (which the Fed does every time it inflates) would be held accountable to fullest extent of the law. No more funny business. Finally, you misunderstand what the Federal Reserve even is when you say that "other banks" are banks' first line of defense. Well, the banks are part of the Federal Reserve System! What do they call the rate that banks charge each other on short-term loans? The federal funds rate! It is set by the market, but it is targeted through fascist central-planning policy decisions by the Fed's FOMC. And of course, it is directly based on the Fed's own dictated Discount Window Rate, at which member banks can borrow directly from the Fed (who creates the money out of thin air, if need be) to lend to banks to make sure they can ALWAYS make their reserve requirements. Reserve requirements are thus, a joke. The REAL reserve requirement should be 100%, which it would need to be (or very close to that) under a system of REAL money.