You misunderstand. Those "trillions of dollars" you mention were created earlier via deficit spending into the private sector economy when the Fed covered net Treasury overdrafts in the Treasury's Reserve Account. Otherwise the The Private Sector could not have bought trillions of dollars worth of assets in the first place. All money originates with the Federal Government, and makes its first appearance in the private Sector Economy via Treasury spending.. If the Government were to tax back out of the economy as much as it spent into the economy there would be nothing left in the private sector economy for savings and investment. There must be deficits.
The Governments net money creation step occurs when the government deficit spends and the Federal Reserve covers a net Treasury overdraft. The amount of the net overdraft covered is the deficit. Usually the Treasury spends on goods and services, that it needs to operate, but of course it could spend on appreciating assets as well -- it could buy Greenland if only the Dames would cooperate! -- and an Asset like Greenland, it could presumably later sell. It is the net Treasury Reserve Account deficit covered by the Fed that we erroneously call "the National Debt," even though the money created to cover the deficit is not owed to anyone, because it was, in effect, "created out of thin air" as we like to say. Although there is a deficit, there really is no such thing as a real national debt.
The money the fed paid for the securities during the banking crisis could have been "created out of thin air" by the Fed. It is, sad to say, more abstract than I care to get into with you right now to explain to you why, when the Fed creates money to buy non wasting assets, such as securities, that are later sold and may produce income in the meantime, there is, generally speaking, no net increase in the deficit, and therefore in the amount of net outside money created and spent into the economy. In fact, these Fed purchases can result in a net decrease in the deficit. As a general rule, the only net creation of money, and therefore a net increase in the amount of outside money spent into the economy, occurs when at the end of the accounting period the Fed has covered a net overdraft in the Treasury's Reserve Account.
It is perfectly understandable that you should be confused by the result of consolidated Treasury-Fed transactions as they appear, when viewed in isolation from each another, to be something very different than what they actually are.* There are by now reams of excellent material available to you if you care to make a study of these transactions. You could start with Kelton's book, as it requires the least knowledge of economics of all the books and blogs that are out there.
You're probably wondering why, if I am right, all these others, such as yourself, could possibly be so wrong. I wonder the same thing. I have always thought it was because it is so difficult for us to wrap our brain around financial transactions that start with printing rather than borrowing. To her credit, Kelton is the first , so far as I'm aware, to delve into specific reasons for the misunderstandings, beyond our obvious difficulty grasping transactions that do not in anyway reflect our personal finances. . So even though her new book is short on Fed-Treasury operational detail, she does a nice job of dumbing things down to their essence. Read Kelton. Then get back to us.
___________________
*Sorry to say that your bull headed insistence, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the Federal Reserve Branch Banks, and therefore the Federal Reserve itself, is a privately held, for profit institution will make it virtually impossible for you to ever correctly grasp these somewhat complex transactions. It is the crediting of all Fed profits reduced by Fed expenses to the Treasury's Reserve Account that requires that government money transactions be viewed as consolidated Treasury-Fed operations before their aggregate effect can be understood.
Last edited: