Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

JakilaTheHun (99.94)

Volcker Opposed to Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" Measure

Recs

28

November 20, 2009 – Comments (84)

Ron Paul does a lot of good stuff in Congress and I admit that I like him because he's one of the few people who seems to work "outside the system", or that is, does not seem to be controlled by his lobbyists.  I think any independent voice adds a lot to our political system and the sad truth is that we have very few left these days. 

That said, the "Audit the Fed" proposal has always struck me as bogus and a tad silly.  In reality, all it would do is further politicize the process which would make things even worse.  My view is reinforced today by the fact that former Fed Chair Paul Volcker has now gone on record as being very opposed to this:

Volcker and Greenspan Letter

Do you really want the nation's macroeconomic policies being determined by the wingnuts and idiot pundits that regularly dominate the airwaves?  Do you really want Fed rates to become highly politicized?  The people asking for this are setting themselves up for disaster. 

Volcker and Greenspan suggest that Congress consider alternatives that would allow oversight of the Fed, while not undermining its autonomy.  The "Audit the Fed" proposal really does not achieve this.  It needs to be re-worked.  

For that matter, if you ask me who do I trust more --- Congress or the Fed --- I say the Fed in a heartbeat.  It's not that I believe the Fed is beyond reproach.  It's that I have absolutely ZERO faith in Congress's ability to assess the merits of its actions.   Flawed as it may be, we're better having an appointed, but autonomous Fed, rather than a politicized one that makes policies based on the whims of public polling at any given moment.  

I also think that by "auditing the Fed", we actually might be setting it up to be *more influenced* by outside lobbying. Our Congress is bought and sold by special interests and they represent those interests (who pay their campaign bills) more than they do "the people" at this stage of American history.  It's a sad reality and I'd like to see us take steps to reform the process so it works better (a good start would be to break the two-party monopoly which makes it particularly easy for special interests to dominate), but in the meantime, we're stuck with a Congress that is mostly influenced by three factors:

(1) Public polling

(2) Special interests

(3) The media

I can gripe about the Fed's actions occasionally, but I'll take it over the three things listed above without a second thought. 

 

84 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 20, 2009 at 8:35 AM, russiangambit (29.33) wrote:

> Do you really want the nation's macroeconomic policies being determined by the wingnuts and idiot pundits that regularly dominate the airwaves?  Do you really want Fed rates to become highly politicized?

No, but I want to know what kind of junk FED put on its balance sheet for which taxpayers are ultimately responsible for, and at what price. FED refused to provide this info to Bloomberg even though it has been already a year. I want to know what markets FED is supporting. WHy hedge funds have to report their holding, but the FED doesn't. FED has much bigger effect on the market than any hedge fund.

FED should have no right to secrecy, because even though it is no formally a part of the government, practically it is. FED chairman is appointed by a president, not chosen by the governors, to me it means FAD allegiance is to the government, their independence is already a joke.

Report this comment
#2) On November 20, 2009 at 8:44 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

Not surprising.  The Guardians of the Temple, even if they disagree among themselves, are still going to protect the Temple. That's fairly natural behavior.

The Central Bank is not necessary. The market could set rates and has a much better track record than the Fed.  Technocrats are never the answer.

As for Volcker's complaints, Ron Paul addressed all of them quite clearly in End the Fed (as many of us have - see my blogs - many times.)

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#3) On November 20, 2009 at 8:55 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

whereaminow,

Actually, my big suspicion here is that Paul's "Audit the Fed" proposal is, in his own head, the first step towards eliminating the Fed.  I imagine that's what you believe in your head, as well.  Except, I think if you believe that, you are going to find yourself amazingly disappointed. 

The Fed is not going to disappear.  Instead, the Fed will simply become more politicized.  And by politicizing it, you actually have a lesser chance of eliminating since Congress will suddenly have a vested interest in preserving its power.

Report this comment
#4) On November 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, TMFBent (99.82) wrote:

You're right, Jakila. This is a fishing expedition being undertaken by a group of people who hope to politicize every function of the government. (And who would flunk their own audit, if they had a truthful one.)

It's also an appeal to the flat-earther kind of paranoia that has grown up around the amazing stimulus efforts. Some of these were necessary. Too many of them were poorly managed and ill-conceived (cash for clunkers, yet more home price subsidies).

I've railed against a lot of Fed decisions, but there's something worse than letting a few appointed knuckleheads have so much influence over fiscal policy, and it's letting all the elected knuckleheads have more influence over fiscal policy.

Sj

Report this comment
#5) On November 20, 2009 at 9:39 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

JakilaTheHun,

That is exactly what we believe. Kudos to you for your fancy investigative work.  The title of Ron Paul's book, I was afraid, would give it away.  (End the Fed), but then again you never know.

My god what would we do?  40 years of darkness!  Plagues!  Dogs and Cats living together! Mass hysteria!

Have you ever heard of Sartre's phrase Nothing Haunts Being?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#6) On November 20, 2009 at 9:47 AM, jasonXD (< 20) wrote:

I have no trust in congress. But at least I know what they do on a daily basis. The FED should not be trusted. What have they done to gain your trust? It would be like trusting the man in the car dangling candy in your face, solely because you know the guy in another car can't be trusted. I think we'll find in this audit, that the special interests have more influence over the federal reserve than we imagine.    Why wouldn't lobbyists be calling on the people with the most monetary influence?  The lobbying of the FED is just done outside the public eye, we are ignorant of it.

Report this comment
#7) On November 20, 2009 at 9:53 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

David,

I'll pose the question again since you decided to dodge it the first time (you're a champion politician, I'll give you that!) ---

How would this move be a 'first step towards ending the Fed' rather than the first step towards politicizing the Fed and making it a more entrenched entity? 

You've not addressed this.  You merely keep pumping The Glorious Lord and Saviour Ron Paul's holy book on ending the Fed.

Report this comment
#8) On November 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

Is Volker trying to preserve his job by taking a stand aganst Paul? Or does he have a established history of defending the Fed? Seriously, I want to know. I know very little about the man.

Report this comment
#9) On November 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

JakilaTheHun and  TMFBent,

This is the first step towards ending the Fed. I don't know that I've ever dodged it. I wrote a 7 part blog on money, and the last blog was titled End the Fed.  If I'm dodging it, I suck at dodging.

Question for you now, and for TMFBent,

If Congress is too stupid/politicized to handle monetary policy, what can it handle?  I suppose you don't support them handling Health Care then, right?  That's very important, isn't it?

So I get a clearer understanding of your philosophy, please list all of things that Congress is too stupid/political to handle, and then all of the things for which you think they are competent.  

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#10) On November 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Gemini846 (68.02) wrote:

It's all about opening people's eyes. Anti-slavery politicians in Britan brought up the debate year after year to have it shut down. After years of trying they appealed to something that made sense - maritime trade laws that affected a lot more than slavery.

This is no different. While your scenario may be true, putting congress back in control of the printing and distribution of money would potentially have the effect of being able to vote out people who are fiscally irresponsible. The fed can do what it wills with inflation right now and the people have no say.

Report this comment
#11) On November 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM, herIam (< 20) wrote:

So when Bernanke is grilled, he can just shrug and say that he is doing what Congress authorizes him to do. Congress created this mess and they truly are the only ones who can oversee it and hopefully end it.

If congress were in charge, it would indeed be politicized, but when the central bank attempted to increase the money supply, it would be acknowledged for the inflationary damage that it causes. It would be regarded in line with increasing the debt or raising taxes.

People are generally ignorant of money. Shedding light on the central banks operations may cause more people to understand what's really happening.

After all, inflation is essentially theft, isn't it?

Report this comment
#12) On November 20, 2009 at 10:11 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

Part I - The Incredible Shrinking Pie

Part II - Do Property Rights Matter

Part III -  Inflation

Part IV - Arguments for Fiat Money

Part V - Deflation

Part VI - Keynes

Part VII - End the Fed

Questions for Fed Supporters

More Questions for Fed Supporters

If that's dodging, well....

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#13) On November 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM, PeteysTired (< 20) wrote:

JakilaTheHun and TMFBent

Don't you want to know what the Federal Reserve is doing with our money?  Don't you want to know exactly who they are giving money to instead of a blanket statements like Foreign Central Banks?  Don't you want and seek knowledge?

To me transparency was the greatest platform Obama ran on.  Unfortunately, I am seeing less and less of it when it comes to our Gov't and that includes the Fed Reserve.

Report this comment
#14) On November 20, 2009 at 10:34 AM, bigpeach (26.65) wrote:

I'm with you Jakila. I'm no fan of the FED, but I'm less of a fan of Congress. It's unfortunate that our political climate has become one of choosing the lesser of two evils. The thought of Congress having even more influence over the money supply and economy than they already do makes me sick to my stomach.

Report this comment
#15) On November 20, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Schmacko (63.45) wrote:

whereaminow - you still didn't answer his question.  Everyone knows you don't want the fed to exist and that you hope this audit is a step in that direction.  His question is what leads you to believe that this is actually a step in that direction?

His alternative theory is that Congress will not use the audit as a step to ending the fed but as a step to increasing their own power... why do you think this alternative is less feasiblt than the ending of the fed?

Report this comment
#16) On November 20, 2009 at 10:38 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

I'm not reading your novel, David.  If you can't answer the question in a paragraph or two, you can't answer the question.

Why does this bill not politicize the Fed and how does it not more deeply entrench it?

You are still dodging.  You are not addressing the substance of the criticism. 

My argument is that by giving Congress power over the Fed, the process becomes more politicized and gives Congress more sway over monetary policy.  Since Congress is also the lawmaking apparatus of our government, this also means the entity that has the power to abolish the Fed will have a vested interest in seeing it continue.  

That is to suggest that your "abolish the Fed" bill you triumph, may be the very instrument that makes it nearly impossible to actually abolish the Fed. 

Report this comment
#17) On November 20, 2009 at 10:41 AM, russiangambit (29.33) wrote:

Again, why do you think it is only a question of FED vs. Congress? What about the trading/ investing angle?

If FED actively participates in the markets as it does now, why shouldn't it report its activites as any other hedge fund? FED is a hedge fund these days, and humangous one at that. Those who know FED moves can position themselves at the right side of the trade at the expense of everybody else.

Report this comment
#18) On November 20, 2009 at 10:50 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

Those who know FED moves can position themselves at the right side of the trade at the expense of everybody else.

That's actually one of the best arguments as to why the Fed shouldn't be audited. It merely benefits certain parties by releasing the information that would otherwise be held in private.  You're basically just giving Goldman Sachs another advantage.  After all, I'm willing to wager that information conveniently leaks out to certain parties after these audits before it is made public. 

Report this comment
#19) On November 20, 2009 at 10:51 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

JakilaTheHun,

You don't have to read my novel. It's a lot to absorb, I know.  It's much easier to be a jerk.

First off you asked two questions.  

Why does this bill not politicize the Fed?

Because the Fed is already politicized and has been since its inception.  I've answered this question. It's in my novels.  3 pages is a lot for a simple mind like yours so I can't expect you to wade through it. Sorry.

Have you read the bill? It's only three pages, and in fact the key point is only one line long.  It allows the GAO to audit the Fed, and demands to know the GAO's findings by the end of the Year 2010.  

how does it not more deeply entrench it?

Entrench it into what? You mean how does it give the Fed more power?  Well, if your kid is stealing the money out of your drawer, does ignoring it give him more or less power?   Brains are in short supply here.

So, have I sufficiently answered your questions?

Have I dodged them?

Do you feel any smarter? Good.  Now your turn to answer mine.

If Congress is too stupid/politicized to handle monetary policy, what can it handle?  I suppose you don't support them handling Health Care then, right?  That's very important, isn't it?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#20) On November 20, 2009 at 10:56 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

That's actually one of the best arguments as to why the Fed shouldn't be audited. It merely benefits certain parties by releasing the information that would otherwise be held in private.

Wait, what?  Did you really just write this?  

Keeping information private to only a few parties benefits everyone?  But making it public to all benefits a few?  

Let's think this one over just a bit before our brains start to bleed.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#21) On November 20, 2009 at 11:01 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

It's much easier to be a jerk.

You're very good at that, obviously.  You've always been a jerk in pretty much every encounter I've had with you.  Your second post in this thread is a great example of that.  I do find it odd, however, that you believe that my attempt to hold you accountable on the bill you support is 'being a jerk', but mindlessly insulting people who disagree with your views is not.

 

Have you read the bill? It's only three pages, and in fact the key point is only one line long.  It allows the GAO to audit the Fed, and demands to know the GAO's findings by the end of the Year 2010. 

Short and vague bills tend to be the ones that led to the most unintended consequences. There's no reason to address the rest of your argument on this because it merely consists of a bunch of insults.

 

Entrench it into what?

I've said this about a half-dozen times already, but I'll repeat it ...

It gives Congress more power over the Fed and politicizes the process.  Since the Fed will be on Congress's leash, Congress will then have a vested interest to maintain their newly granted power over monetary policy. 

I'm not arguing that this will become evident immediately.  Congress may very well sit back and do very little for a few years.  But I'm willing to wager that at some point, some shrewd Congresscritter remembers that "Audit the Fed" bill they passed back in 2009 and then realizes he can make a big stink over Fed policies to get his way.  And naturally, if this tactic helps him get his way, he's not going to want to eliminate his power to do so.

Hence, the Fed actually becomes more entrenched in the system because Congress will potentially have a leash around it.  And Congress isn't going to give up its power voluntarily. 

 

Report this comment
#22) On November 20, 2009 at 11:01 AM, tdoodler (24.77) wrote:

Do we really want Congress running our monetary policy?  They cant run our fiscal policy.

Report this comment
#23) On November 20, 2009 at 11:05 AM, eldemonio (98.67) wrote:

Maybe I am wrong, but auditing the FED is not the same as being in charge of the FED. 

If you truly believe that the FED's policy decisions are not influenced by political pressure, then you are naive. 

Policy decisions are heavily influenced by politics, we just don't know about it because the FED can do whatever they choose without oversight.

Report this comment
#24) On November 20, 2009 at 11:09 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

Wait, what?  Did you really just write this?  

Keeping information private to only a few parties benefits everyone?  But making it public to all benefits a few?  

Let's think this one over just a bit before our brains start to bleed.

 

Once again, you dodge the crux of my argument.  

The Fed decisions are kept secret to a few.  You may believe they go out and tell Goldman Sachs how to play this; I personally don't buy into that.  You know the reason why I don't buy into it?  Because the Fed is appointed and doesn't have to worry about elections; which means it doesn't have to court lobbyist dollars.  Since it doesn't court lobbyist dollars, it's actually adverse to their interests to give away Fed information to parties that would benefit from it.

On the other hand, if you audit the Fed, suddenly more people have access to the info.  How does the process unfold?  Well ... I won't pretend that I'm certain.  But I do know that more people will be sniffing around and will have access to that information.  And I do know that reports have to be created and it may take a month or two, at the very least, to create those reports.  In the meantime, there's this half-public information that might be floating around. 

I make no claim that this is how it will necessarily happen.  Rather, I raise it as a possibility, because things often happen differently than people expect them to.  And I see no real reason why the Fed information being held in strict confidentality means that people will benefit from it; whereas, having dozens of people poking around with access to it, but will take a while to release the info would automatically result in something more beneficial happening. 

Report this comment
#25) On November 20, 2009 at 11:10 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

Short and vague bills tend to be the ones that led to the most unintended consequences. There's no reason to address the rest of your argument on this because it merely consists of a bunch of insults.

But 900 page bills that nobody reads don't lead to any intended consequences, right?

Here's one not written by lobbyists and it's too vague? It can't be any more crystal clear.

Here it is. Don't be scared Jakila. It's gonna be ok.

It gives Congress more power over the Fed and politicizes the process.  Since the Fed will be on Congress's leash, Congress will then have a vested interest to maintain their newly granted power over monetary policy. 

I have a pocket copy of the Constitution right here.  It's also on the Internet

It says Congress has the power:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

So I really don't mind them having a vested interest. In fact, I want Congress to have a vested interest. They are elected officials. They are supposed to answer to the people.

Now, have I answered your questions yet? 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#26) On November 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

You may believe they go out and tell Goldman Sachs how to play this; I personally don't buy into that.

LOL!!!!!!!!! ROFL!!!!!!! Oh my god. Well, if that's the side you are on, I feel confident of victory.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#27) On November 20, 2009 at 11:12 AM, bigpeach (26.65) wrote:

whereaminow you are truly something else. Jakila has not in any way been a jerk to you. He has merely stated (correctly) that you dodged his question, until your comment #19 where you finally answered.

I suppose it's fine for you to say "3 pages is a lot for a simple mind like yours", that's not at all rude, while at the same time being overly sensitive to any criticism of yourself or comments. In this case, those criticisms were accurate and delivered civilly.

Your problem is you are incapable of having a polite disagreement. You for some reason take any disagreement with your beliefs personally. This is a trait typically seen in teenagers.

Report this comment
#28) On November 20, 2009 at 11:14 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

Let's break this down Barney style, like I used to do for the really slow Marines in my squad.

Freely Competitive Currency (no legal tender laws)

is better than

Metallic standard

is better than

Congressionally controlled paper with full audit

is better than

Federal Reserve paper with full audit

is better than

Federal Reserve paper with no audit

is better than 

Barter

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#29) On November 20, 2009 at 11:19 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

LOL!!!!!!!!! ROFL!!!!!!! Oh my god. Well, if that's the side you are on, I feel confident of victory.

I'm giving you a chance to make your case, David.  Why would Ben Bernanke call Goldman Sachs on the phone and reveal the Fed's secrets?  Why would that be in Bernanke's own self-interest?  

Then again, maybe you have Ben Bernanke confused with someone else.

Report this comment
#30) On November 20, 2009 at 11:20 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

bigpeach,

Thanks bigpeach. I have a long history with Jakila. He has ridiculed libertarians and myself for a long time. You only see what you want to see and it really doesn't matter to me.

Did I answer the question, for the 90th time?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#31) On November 20, 2009 at 11:23 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

Why would Ben Bernanke call Goldman Sachs on the phone and reveal the Fed's secrets?

Who gets the secrets now?  How do you know that he doesn't already do that?  How do you know that he doesn't give it to foreign banks, other governments, GS's competitors? How do you know anything if you don't know what they're doing?'

It's like I told a kid that what-if'd me to death once.  

"What if your grandmother had wheels?  She'd be a bicycle."

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#32) On November 20, 2009 at 11:23 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

But 900 page bills that nobody reads don't lead to any intended consequences, right?

This is why I rarely argue with you, David.  You're incapable of being intellectually honest. Did I ever claim that 900 page bills don't lead to unintended consequences?

No. 

In fact, I'd say that several hundred page bills written and passed in a matter of days (such as the PATRIOT Act) are mostly unknown to Congress.  Of course, that's less "unintended consequences" and more Congress choosing to remain ignorant about the "intended consequences."  But that doesn't change my point about vague bills having a lot of unintended consequences.


 

I have a pocket copy of the Constitution right here.  It's also on the Internet

My only response is this ...

Area Man Passionate Defender of What He Imagines Constitution to Be

Report this comment
#33) On November 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

Thanks bigpeach. I have a long history with Jakila. He has ridiculed libertarians and myself for a long time. You only see what you want to see and it really doesn't matter to me.

Did I answer the question, for the 90th time?

Maybe you have a "long hisotry" with me, but I have had none with you.  I think I've responded to maybe a whopping total of 2 or 3 of your and Dare's posts.  

I'm interested in logic and reason.  Not your personal grudges.   Not vague, ill-defined ideas about to create utopia. 

Report this comment
#34) On November 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

JakilaTheHun,

Now you're dodging my question.  Who's being dishonest?  You won't even read a single thing a libertarian writes?  Even a 3 page bill that apparently terrifies you.  How honest is that?

I asked this in comment #9, and you haven't answered. 

If Congress is too stupid/politicized to handle monetary policy, what can it handle?  I suppose you don't support them handling Health Care then, right?  That's very important, isn't it?

So I get a clearer understanding of your philosophy, please list all of things that Congress is too stupid/political to handle, and then all of the things for which you think they are competent. 

So, still waiting for an answer......

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#35) On November 20, 2009 at 11:30 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

Not vague, ill-defined ideas about to create utopia.

Never done that. Show me where I have promised utopia one time. Prove it. You made a claim. Cite it. Find it one place where I have promised a utopia. One time.

Put it down here. Where have I done it?

Who is dishonest? Please....

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#36) On November 20, 2009 at 11:34 AM, russiangambit (29.33) wrote:

> That's actually one of the best arguments as to why the Fed shouldn't be audited. It merely benefits certain parties by releasing the information that would otherwise be held in private.  You're basically just giving Goldman Sachs another advantage.  After all, I'm willing to wager that information conveniently leaks out to certain parties after these audits before it is made public

Are you serious? GS and other big banks are probably being consulted on these moves. The trades are executed via 3rd parties too. They are in the know. But the general population has to simply go with blind trust.

Report this comment
#37) On November 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM, bigpeach (26.65) wrote:

I'd stop responding to him if I were you Jakila. He has a persecution complex. Plain and simple. He also absolutely refuses to acknowlege any opinion that differs from his own. It doesn't really matter how strong your argument is. If he can't beat you in debate he'll just try to change the topic, as evidenced by his "question" to you, which is really more of a demand and has nothing to do with the subject of your blog.

But of course, I'm sure you already know this about him.

Report this comment
#38) On November 20, 2009 at 11:36 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

So I get a clearer understanding of your philosophy, please list all of things that Congress is too stupid/political to handle, and then all of the things for which you think they are competent. 

(A) You addressed it to TMF Bent, not me.

(B) That's hardly a rational demand.  It's like saying "list all numbers that are not divisible by 17."

I'm done with this discussion. 

If someone can make a good case in favor of the act, I'm willing to listen.  Otherwise, I'm wasting my time. 

Report this comment
#39) On November 20, 2009 at 11:41 AM, bigpeach (26.65) wrote:

That's hardly a rational demand.  It's like saying "list all numbers that are not divisible by 17

Yes, it's a classic debate trick used by dishonest debaters. Pose an impossible to answer question, thereby making yourself appear to have achieved a victory.

Report this comment
#40) On November 20, 2009 at 11:55 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

Can anyone help me with comment #8?

Report this comment
#41) On November 20, 2009 at 12:02 PM, kaskoosek (95.29) wrote:

I hate the FED and Congress.

 

It is quite hard to choose between shit and shit. 

Report this comment
#42) On November 20, 2009 at 12:05 PM, AvianFlu (34.22) wrote:

The situation is clear.

The Fed was created with the promise that it would end boom and bust cycles.

Not only has it ignominiously failed in that endeavor, but the cycles have become more violent and destructive.

Since the Fed is not doing the job it was hired to do we should abolish it.

Disclosure: My brother was an economist at the Fed.

Report this comment
#43) On November 20, 2009 at 12:10 PM, DaretothREdux (44.79) wrote:

I think I've responded to maybe a whopping total of 2 or 3 of your and Dare's posts.  

Cool. I got honorable mention! (exits stage left)

But seriously, I have to agree with Jakila here. Why would I want the Fed to be politicized? It's not like politicians are answerable to the people or can be voted out of office for bad policy making. It's much better that the President gets to appoint the Fed Chairman because that would never be a political decision. He would never appoint someone he thought would promote his economic or political agenda. I mean, it seems obvious to me that the Fed is better as a "private" and "secret" institution. They shouldn't be held accountable for anything. It doesn't matter in the least that they don't have to make a profit like other "private" banks since they are the ones creating the money.

Well...I think that about sums it up. Anyone know of a bank that doesn't report anything on its balance sheets or operating profit or losses that I can invest in? I figure it's the perfect investment if no one knows anything about them. Oh! Well not "no one," one other stipulation I want that bank to tell "some people" what they are doing with their clients money (I don't want to know who those people are though) and I definitely don't want them confusing the shareholders or myself with silly numbers relevant to their every day business.

Dare

Report this comment
#44) On November 20, 2009 at 12:11 PM, 100ozRound (29.43) wrote:

Cato - Volcker used to run the Fed....I'm sure he feels more than just a little bit loyal

Report this comment
#45) On November 20, 2009 at 12:16 PM, chk999 (99.98) wrote:

Volcker versus Ron Paul isn't much of a contest. Ron Paul never really got the "circle of competence" idea.

Report this comment
#46) On November 20, 2009 at 12:20 PM, AbstractMotion (55.49) wrote:

+1 rec from me.

 

I think this is what's most often overlooked.  Say the Fed vanished tomorrow where does that power go realistically?  Congress?  The treasury?  Big banks?  I mean realistically despite the way in which the Fed has mismanaged a variety of things does anyone in their right mind think any of these options are better ones?  I do think there's need for reform regarding the Fed's governance structure, but abolishing it would just hand the exact same power over to people who have demonstrated themselves to be even less able to control it.

Report this comment
#47) On November 20, 2009 at 12:25 PM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

JakilaTheHun,

Alright here it is again:

#9) On November 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM, whereaminow (95.45) wrote:

JakilaTheHun and  TMFBent,

This is the first step towards ending the Fed. I don't know that I've ever dodged it. I wrote a 7 part blog on money, and the last blog was titled End the Fed.  If I'm dodging it, I suck at dodging.

Question for you now, and for TMFBent,

If Congress is too stupid/politicized to handle monetary policy, what can it handle?  I suppose you don't support them handling Health Care then, right?  That's very important, isn't it?

=========================================

 

Reading comprehension is a skill. 

That you claim Libertarians pomote utopias shows that you have never once actually investigated a single libertarian idea.  It does nothing of the sort.  So you dismiss it, denigrate us, and yet don't investigate it.  The type of person that would do that is a pompous ass. Not saying that you are one, but that's what those people do.

bigpeach ,

I get in people's faces. I learned that in the Marines. Most people are cowards. It's fine.  But if you let them continue to hide beyond B.S. they will get away with anything.  I can't smack Jakila around over cyberspace, oh well. But I'm not going to let him spew bullshit unchecked either. If this offends your sensibilities, too bad.  And quit trying to paint yourself as an impartial observer.  You can't answer my question either.  

This is comment #47 of this post. STILL waiting for an answer to the question posted in comment #9!

And they accuse me of dodging! Ha!

David

 

 

Report this comment
#48) On November 20, 2009 at 12:28 PM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

chk999,

I love how you never bring anything to the table except a snide remark.  We all bow to you.

David in Qatar

Here's your circle of competence up your backside:

 

Next time you get invited to debate a Federal Reserve governor, let me know. 

Tool.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#49) On November 20, 2009 at 12:31 PM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

chk999,,

Aren't you the guy that always incorrectly references a Bagehot book that says something other than what you think it does?

Talk about circle of competence.  You might want to check it out from the library again.

David in Qatar

 

Report this comment
#50) On November 20, 2009 at 12:33 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

100ozRound, thank you. That seems to clear things up.

Report this comment
#51) On November 20, 2009 at 12:50 PM, FoolsGrad (99.95) wrote:

Few observations:

1. whereaminow is an idiot and possibly one of the biggest trolls on this board.

2. The spending made by Dept of Defense dwarves the sum spend by Fed. Yet, I see no one asking our Defense Dept to divulge all their projects and spending items? Why?

3. Why would anyone want to dilute an independent system? Do you want Congress to appoint judges?

4. whereaminow is an idiot.

5. no. really. he is.

Report this comment
#52) On November 20, 2009 at 1:23 PM, PeteysTired (< 20) wrote:

whereaminow

Please continue to fight the nearly impossible fight.  Your thoughts on money and the sources of your knowledge have been invaluable to me.  I am excited that we as a people are having this dialogue and that these discussions are exposed to so many people.  My hope is that more people learn about this important topic.

Hopefully, the US won't reach the day where the independent people who run the monetary policy will have devalued the currency to such a level where the materials used to make the currency are more valuable then the money itself....oh wait did I just see a zinc penny?

I will take your logic and sometimes acerbic tone over illogical thought processes anyday!

Thanks,

Report this comment
#53) On November 20, 2009 at 1:23 PM, DaretothREdux (44.79) wrote:

No one answered MY QUESTION!

I come to these boards looking for investment advice and all I can find is trolls trolling for trolls! Anyone? Please tell me a bank I can invest in that's not accountable to anyone?

Dare

Report this comment
#54) On November 20, 2009 at 2:07 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

#53 - Your piggy bank. Other than it I believe all bank in all nations are either controlled by the state, shareholders or both.

Report this comment
#55) On November 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM, DaretothREdux (44.79) wrote:

catoismymotor,

So your telling me that not only does the Federal Reserve not have to answer to the people or the government, but that no other bank is able to operate the same way?

Why is that? It's such a great business model you would think that other banks would see the light, conterfeit their own money hide their books from the public and lend to whoever the board of directors (accountable to no one) deemed worthy.

What do you say, you and I start our own bank? I'll bring the printing press, do you have a copy of Quicken?

No? Doesn't matter we will either find it on piratebay or not even bother to keep records....

Dare

Report this comment
#56) On November 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM, DaretothREdux (44.79) wrote:

catoismymotor,

So your telling me that not only does the Federal Reserve not have to answer to the people or the government, but that no other bank is able to operate the same way?

Why is that? It's such a great business model you would think that other banks would see the light, conterfeit their own money hide their books from the public and lend to whoever the board of directors (accountable to no one) deemed worthy.

What do you say, you and I start our own bank? I'll bring the printing press, do you have a copy of Quicken?

No? Doesn't matter we will either find it on piratebay or not even bother to keep records....

Dare

Report this comment
#57) On November 20, 2009 at 2:31 PM, russiangambit (29.33) wrote:

> The spending made by Dept of Defense dwarves the sum spend by Fed. Yet, I see no one asking our Defense Dept to divulge all their projects and spending items? Why?

At least that spending is put on the budget, and is open for debate. There is , of course, out of budget alloation forsecret stuff too. But at least an attempt is made.

And I always ask about defense spending, it is one of my pet peeves.

The situation is not even comparable, uness you say that whatever FED does affects national security.

Report this comment
#58) On November 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

Dare,

Please tell me a bank I can invest in that's not accountable to anyone?

The Home Bank of Dare has a nice ring to it. Hey, I'm with you. I don't like the way things operate either.

...no other bank is able to operate the same way? Why is that?

Because someone a long time ago thought it was a good idea and convinced someone else to make it law. For whom that idea is supposed to be good I would like to know.

What do you say, you and I start our own bank? I'll bring the printing press...

I was in banking. Me no likey. I found the ties cut off circulation to my brain and I hated ironing my clothes. I had an internship at a print shop in high school. I think I still have ink under my nails. At least that work was more forthright. Some group in Ithica, New York has done something interesting with an alternative currency. I know it is not exactly the same but I find the idea entertaining.

I think a government should not be able to do most of what it forbids it citizens from doing. That includes generating wealth out of thin air via a printing press.

I love your passion and conviction. Keep fighting the good fight.

Cato

 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#59) On November 20, 2009 at 5:40 PM, brocksamson (28.58) wrote:

FoolsGrad said:

"2. The spending made by Dept of Defense dwarves the sum spend by Fed. Yet, I see no one asking our Defense Dept to divulge all their projects and spending items? Why?"

This isn't remotely true if you understand how the central bank creates money.  The fractional reserve banking system creates 10 times the entry the Fed produces on the books under even the most conservative estimates.  Given that the large investment banks are more leveraged, it assuredly creates more.

Additionally, the fact of the matter is that the DoD is actually audited.  The Fed isn't.

Consider that the NY Fed has Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE, on their board. Isn't this a profound conflict of interest?

Or how about Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan, who sat on the NY Fed and essentially voted to give his own bank billions of dollars?

The CEO of Pepsi recently resigned from the NY Fed.  No doubt she felt that any advantages to be had from the position outweighed the risks of continuing to hold it.

The fact of the matter is the Fed is exceptionally political and not independent at all.

Report this comment
#60) On November 20, 2009 at 9:16 PM, jasonXD (< 20) wrote:

On 10/27/09 it was reported by Bloomberg news[21] that while acting as president of the New York Federal Reserve Tim Geithner arranged for Goldman Sachs, Société Générale, and Deutsche Bank to receive full payment on credit default swaps they had purchased rather than 40 cents on the dollar insurance giant AIG proposed. A Fed-run entity called Maiden Lane III was used to shunt these CDOs, which cost American tax payers at least $13 billion dollars at the time. It is currently estimated that due to a decline in value, the total costs for this bank favoritism case cost the American tax payers $35.6 billion total. To quote Bloomberg: "the deal contributed to the more than $14 billion that over 18 months was handed to Goldman Sachs, whose former chairman, Stephen Friedman, was chairman of the board of directors of the New York Fed when the decision was made."

Report this comment
#61) On November 20, 2009 at 9:18 PM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

FoolsGrad,

That's it? You can call me an idiot and a troll but you can't answer the question?

Here we are on comment #60 and JakilaTheHun has escaped out the back door without answering the question I posed in comment #9. How fitting! This is so much fun!

No dodging the question now Jakila. After all, how hypocritical would it be for you to accuse me of dodging questions continually and then do it yourself?! This is uproarious.

I'll pose the question again since you decided to dodge it the first time (you're a champion politician, I'll give you that!) --- JakilaTheHun

Boy these things can really come back to bite you huh?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#62) On November 21, 2009 at 5:41 AM, kaskoosek (95.29) wrote:

We need openness. Anyone who thinks that the FED is the know it all entity which should not be liable for any wrong doing should really check his head. 

 

Transparency is very important. The FED is conducting not just monetary policy, but also fiscal policy.

 

The track record of the FED couldn't  have been worse than it really is. The only role of the FED should have been to maintain a stable currency. They have created the current crisis, and to put salt on the wound they have bailed out the people who have participated in this calamity. 

 

To be honest, I don't think it can get any worse than this excluding a hyper inflationary scenario where the social fabric breaks down. And I do not think we are too far off, based on the current actions of BEN.

 

If their track record has been good, then I can understand some people defending the FED. It has been a train wreck.

Report this comment
#63) On November 21, 2009 at 6:04 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

Who doesn't love a good rout? This was a lot of fun.

For those who I think I only enjoy deprecating others, this post is inspired by my exchange with bigpeach and Jakila. It's called "David in Qatar is an Idiot..." by David in Qatar. Good fun all around. Hope to see you all for a beer one day. We can talk about why the Fed audit was vetoed by Obama and you can explain to me how that saved us from horrible freedom and trasparency.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#64) On November 21, 2009 at 7:11 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

FoolsGrad,

I've decided that I'm not done with you by a long shot. I refer back to my Global Warming post where you called me a habitual liar. That was fun.

So, you said about that no one asks the DoD to divulge all their spending. That has been shown to be wrong. Are you going to admit that you were wrong or are you going to continually duck the issue and just slander me as an idiot? (3 times in one post no less! Awesome!)

In fact, the DoD was ordered to start preparing audits in 1994, but as of today has yet to produce one, continually citing how horribly incompetent they are (and yet continually getting budget increases.)

Of course, I know this and you don't. Yet, you shot off at the hip without any knowledge and called me an idiot three times. (And a habitual liar right?)

So, where do we go from here big guy?

Do you want to keep going with this?

Here's the question again:

If Congress is too stupid/politicized to handle monetary policy, what can it handle? I suppose you don't support them handling Health Care then, right? That's very important, isn't it?

It's not that I don't like Liberals. They're cute and kinda stupid, but it's ok. I just want to show that there is no logic to their belief system. It's a muddled mess of incoherent nonsense. (Higher education apparently isn't what it used to be.)

It's really a simple question. Still waiting for one Liberal to answer it.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#65) On November 21, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Teacherman1 (47.01) wrote:

Who would you have audit them?

Don't care much for UltraLiberal or UltraConservative. Just my opinion, and don't care what you (whoever you may be) care about it, so save your fingers the time and effort. UltraAnything seldom gets anything right. Again, just my opinion, like everything else posted on this subject. 

Power to the middle.

Members of Congress seldom represent anything except their own relection efforts.

The Fed was created to be independent for a reason. I like it that way. Again, just my opinion, like your comments are just your opinion.

Feel free to share them with the world, but don't expect them to change anyone's mind, and don't get rude, crude or angry when they don't.

Good by.

Have a nice day. 

The above statements are just my opinions and worth exactly what I am charging for them. 

 

Report this comment
#66) On November 21, 2009 at 4:54 PM, scoobamang (< 20) wrote:

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Report this comment
#67) On November 22, 2009 at 4:09 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

Ron Paul is a wing nut in his own right. The Fed is already audited. 

Report this comment
#68) On November 22, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Tastylunch (29.35) wrote:

Not surprised Volcker is pro indie Fed. After all he did an above average job there. Unfortunately there are few people like him who seem to be immune from the outside world's social pressures (whether that be for better or worse, it is necessary in that posotio I think.). It had to take such tremendous strength to do what he did to whip inflation. But not vene Volcker would want to destroy thesource of his prestige and wealth if that was necesary. Chances are you aren't going to work forsomebody/something you think is evil/wrong.

I've always felt Greenspan and Bernanke wanted to be liked too much for their own good. I doubt either has the stones to fall on their sword and let economy take a hit if it needed to for longer term stability. 

For that matter, if you ask me who do I trust more --- Congress or the Fed --- I say the Fed in a heartbeat.  It's not that I believe the Fed is beyond reproach.  It's that I have absolutely ZERO faith in Congress's ability to assess the merits of its actions.

Boy isn't that sad. I reluctantly agree although I'm more like russiangambit and kaskoosek in that I trust neither... Congress has destroyed any credibility they have left I'm afraid. There's maybe a handful of people in there who do more than grandstand on CNN:(

and the Fed while they certainly seem smarter I've always distrusted something that has so much control over us with very little oversight.

So who are you going to with people you don't trust who are idiots or people you don't trust who are pretty smart? That is tough question for me to answer.

Abitare says it more harshly than I would, but I think his post today is reflective of both groups natures. They typically do not get laong as they have in recent years and have very different interests at heart.

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=298201&t=01007146184382914537

The corrupt private banking cartel the FED is at war with the Congress to keep itself outside and above the law.  The FED, which caused the first Depression with credit expansion and cheap money, has created another massive credit expansion and implosion and is in full damage control mode trying to stop the carnage. 

Congress is in self-preservation mode, by attacking the FED, they re-direct the blame for the current economy and also can shake down the FED for money for the district.

If the curtain is pulled back from the FED and the mostly corrupt and inept US Congress is put in charge of monetary issues, hyper-inflation will and a new currency must emerge.  IMO, Congress will spend, spend, spend to try and save their districts with out restraint.  Most / many in DC politics are useful idiots, whose job depends on signing the lobbyist written laws in order to get the funding for re-election.

If the FED survives, they will try for Japanese's style deflation (Ref comments by SF Fed Chairmen) at some in order to save the dollar, a Volkner type response will be needed and we will get higher interest rates and a severe Depression.  The FED will not want hyperinflation it will destroy their ill gotten wealth and private cartel / monopoly



I dunno how much you may interact with politicians Jakila, I get to hobnonb with our local and a few state leaders fairly regularly here in Ohio and let me tell you it's extremely depressing to try to have an intelligent discourse with just about any of these people. 

I think it just goes to show that our main problem comes from the legislature capture by lobbyists, cognitively and financially.There are always going to be challenges when you have generalists trying to write laws that apply to specialists. But there's got to be a better way than what we've seen.

And at least with politicians there is a little bit of recourse channel to address problems.

If someone really sinister got i charge of the FEd they'd be extremely difficult to stop, which is why i think improving congress might be more critical right now.

I don't think any problems there may be with the Fed (whether it truly is a big bank cartel like Abitare believes) is even realistically addressable until we improve Washington.

Report this comment
#69) On November 23, 2009 at 12:14 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

Tasty,

I largely agree with you.  Which is why I believe the "Audit the Fed" move really doesn't solve much of anything.  As you said, all it does is puts unaccountable "smart guys"  onto the leash of unaccountable idiots.  It's a power grab by Congress and it shouldn't surprise anyone that Ron Paul's bill is receiving massive "bi-partisan" support.  Congress is the absolute worst institution in all of Washington if you ask me.  

To me, the only real solution is to re-orient the entire political system, but I think the odds that it happens are quite slim, unfortunately.  What has to happen:

(1) The "duopoly" has to be broken up first.  Special interests are able to more easily control things when they only need to control one or two parties.  It's more difficult to control five or seven parties.   However, Federal law basically entrenches the Democrats and the Republicans, so they have little to fear from outside forces.

(2) Our system has evolved from a Constitutional Republic, with an emphasis on representative democracy *ONLY* on a localized level to a giant representative democratic system, where the masses vote on issues on a more grand scale.  The difference might seem minute, but it's anything but. 

Representative democracy works  with a well-educated populace on a small scale (e.g. New Hampshire).  It does not work on a giant scale (e.g. California, Texas, or the entire US).  The former type of rep democracy yields intelligent discourse on issues and the candidates can speak to voters directly; the latter type yields massive media wars that are run based on big $$$$ and is mostly focused on personal attacks and wedge issues.  

(3) Our jurisdictional system is incoherent and nonsensical.  The delineation of power is often unclear and ambiguous.  Oftentimes, you have severeal overlapping jurisdictions, as well, so that the average person could possibly understand what power belongs to one jurisdiction and what power belongs to another.   Yet, we vote on nearly every single office, so the voters can only make smart decisions if they do understand this, so things rarely work out. It's not uncommon for politicians to campaign on wedge issues these days that they technically have no control over.   This only results from the vast confusion of our system.  The end result from this type of system is that power will be slowly centralized into one individual --- that has been slowly happening over the past two centuries, as Presidential power has been increasing since about the 1860s onward.

Report this comment
#70) On November 23, 2009 at 12:41 AM, topsecret09 (37.90) wrote:

http://www.afn.org/~govern/mcfadden.html

Report this comment
#71) On November 23, 2009 at 2:22 AM, robstuck (< 20) wrote:

WHEREINAMINOW:

you bring some great points. i agree with you on many points. however, the one reason i think the fed is useful is due to the current world economic climate. A market could not function as a replacement to the fed for one big reason. Economic warfare. China has been artificially manipulating their currency as has many countries all over the world. China has been keeping their currency, (through low interest rates, as has Japan) to make their goods more affordable overseas. This has destroyed the ability of the United States to produce tanigible valuable goods which has in turn destroyed our country. Our current economy is that of leveraged consumerism, that is CREDIT. We prouduce credit and serives (paid for with credit). If we are going to do anything in the near future we need to take back the industrial production power of our courntry. Internal pricing mechanisms built into macroeconomics have been destroyed by countries all over the world. 

 In an ideal world, we could have no fed and depend on pure economics to set the value of a nations currency. In our case, minus china's purchases of us treasuries to prop up the dollar, we would see dollar devaluation, due to our deficits, which in turn send a message to the american people you must produce goods and cannot afford the LUXURY of importing goods and services and living above our means. 

 

Therefore, we need the fed in that a centralized politicized entity is needed to fight back against other world governments such as China's.

 

JAKILATHEHUN:

 Why would you not want to audit the fed?? it is common sense. They, like everyone else needs to be held accountable for their actions. Their decision to monetize the deficit and devalue the dollar in the hopes that it will make it easier to pay back our debtors is a LOSERS way to go about it. it is a POLITICAL decision to make things easier in the short term and put off the long term pain. something that our politicians have a history of doing. 

 

Ron paul makes a great comment. In every other instance people have said (most smart people) that a centralization of power is wrong, with regard to food and otherwise. why is money any different?

 

By making the fed accountable for their actions we would be able to see exactly what ben has been up to (no good) and demand more conservative fiscal and monetary actions from our government!

 

ROB IN ATLANTA 

Report this comment
#72) On November 23, 2009 at 2:58 AM, 1315623493 wrote:

Good response robstuck...

Abolishing the Federal Reserve is economic suicide. I'v said it before and I'll say it again. Such an ideal of getting rid of the evil Federal Reserve is no less idealistic than a classless society.  

Report this comment
#73) On November 23, 2009 at 3:41 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

BetapegLLC,

Tell that to Zimbabwe. See here.

"In February 2009 Zimbabwe was the only country in the world without debt. Nobody owed anyone anything. Following the abandonment of the Zimbabwe Dollar as the local currency all local debt was wiped out and the country started with a clean slate.

It is now a country without a functioning Central Bank and without a local currency that can be produced at will at the behest of politicians. Since February 2009 there has been no lender of last resort in Zimbabwe, causing banks to be ultra cautious in their lending policies. The US Dollar is the de facto currency in use although the Euro, GB Pound and South African Rand are accepted in local transactions.

Price controls and foreign exchange regulations have been abandoned. Zimbabwe literally joined the real world at the stroke of a pen. Money now flows in and out of the country without restriction. Super market shelves, bare in January, are now bursting with products".

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#74) On November 23, 2009 at 4:10 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

BetapegLLC / Financial Modeler,

I remember this quote:

As for this "libertarian revolution", i.e. Ron Paul Revolution, I and others will work to make sure such a "revolution" never gets off the ground, as it surely won't. The vast majority don't want a government that sits on its ass while the economy nose dives. These "teabaggers" would rail against the government for not doing anything while the economy tanks, and these "teabaggers" would rail against the government for doing something. Let's get to the heart of the "teabaggers". They're staunch ideological Republicans. There. No matter what the Democratic government did, they would be pissed off. If Obama walked on water, they would say he can't swim. It's nothing but partisanship. Nothing but complaining. No solutions other than laissez-faire capitalism which history has shown is a blantant failure. - Financial Modeler, er Betapeg

It still cracks me up everytime.

A "teabagger", for those who don't know, is someone who puts their scrotum sack in another person's mouth (or is it the other way around.) I just want to share that. The Left is always classy.

Anwyway, now that Ron Paul's bill has passed the committee stage, what is your next grand strategy to stop the libertarian revolution?

I hope your tactics are not limited to calling us names and repeating the same catch phrases. I expect more of a self proclaimed expert on finance.

And since I'm having too much fun for a Monday morning, why hasn't any Liberal answered my simple question?

If Congress is too stupid/politicized to handle monetary policy, what can it handle? I suppose you don't support them handling Health Care then, right? That's very important, isn't it?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#75) On November 23, 2009 at 4:46 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

Jakila,

"Maybe you have a "long hisotry" with me, but I have had none with you"

How is this statement from comment #33 consistent with comment #7 and comment #21 and comment #32? If there is a reasonable explanation, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I have to assume you are playing possum. No dice.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#76) On November 23, 2009 at 7:05 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

JakilaTheHun,

FWIW, I agree with everything you said in comment #69, outside of the audit, and your position is reasonable.

However, Congress' actions are out in the open and you can see and read about them every day (for the most part.) So you can see how corrupt and awful they are. You have voting records, YouTube'd debate videos, and on and on.

We haven't seen anything on the Fed yet. Most of what happens is behind close doors. We get the meeting minutes (weeks later) and some numbers on the Fed website and perhaps the obligatory opinion piece by another Fed payroll economist in the NYT.

I want you to pretend for just a moment that all you ever receivied from Congress was the minutes (weeks later) and overall spending numbers. No blogs. No YouTube videos. No CNN or Fox News. Just a little snippet here or there.

Now pretend that the Fed's positions is reversed as well, so everything is open to the public and followed closely by nearly every media outlet. Internal discussion between central bankers are all over YouTube within an hour. Bloggers break stories about backroom deals, etc.

Who would you find more reprehensible then? I don't think there is any way to know, and that is the problem. We have no idea if the Fed is as bad, much worse, or better than Congress.

An audit, while not my ideal solution (see my blogs or Hayek's essay on Choice in Currency), is preferable to not knowing just how bad it is.

Americans want to know. Americans deserve to know.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#77) On November 23, 2009 at 11:31 AM, BigFatBEAR (29.26) wrote:

Great post, Jakila. I didn't have a chance to read all of David in Qatar's thoughts on it, but I agree with your sentiments.

Report this comment
#78) On November 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

Whereaminow

Zimbabwe? Are you serious? Are you reading Dr. Faber? That's got to be the most ridiculous economic analogy I'v ever seen. Where do I start? First, the Zimbabwean central bank is nothing more than Mugabe's personal bank account. You think they are independent? Hell no. Second, The goods and services produced by Zimbabwe collapsed so even if they did not print another dollar, they'd still have hyper-inflation. There are far more reasons why the analogy is retarded but I'll end with the "prediction" that the USA is headed for Zimbabwean or Wiemar Republic inflation is utterly devoid of reason. It's nothing more than a rhetorical/sensationalist argument. Faber is probably trying to drive up the price of gold.

Report this comment
#79) On November 23, 2009 at 2:45 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

whereaminow,

"It still cracks me up everytime. A "teabagger", for those who don't know, is someone who puts their scrotum sack in another person's mouth (or is it the other way around.) I just want to share that. The Left is always classy."

The Left? Glenn Beck chose the name....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Anwyway, now that Ron Paul's bill has passed the committee stage, what is your next grand strategy to stop the libertarian revolution. I hope your tactics are not limited to calling us names and repeating the same catch phrases. I expect more of a self proclaimed expert on finance."

This is your revolution? LOL!! This is nothing close to 'Abolishing the Fed'. I'm not worried about this bill, even if it passes. The reason being I think the Fed's independence will be maintained. But again, this bill is hardly a 'libertarian revolution'. 

Names and repeating catch phrases? What? You don't like the sound of 'fundamentalist libertarianism'? What would you call it when people want to abolish central banks, and radically change the economic order? The fact of the matter is, I state my arguments with supported logic and fact, so no one can tell me I do nothing but use "names and catch phrases". 

---------------------------------------------------------------

"And since I'm having too much fun for a Monday morning, why hasn't any Liberal answered my simple question? If Congress is too stupid/politicized to handle monetary policy, what can it handle? I suppose you don't support them handling Health Care then, right? That's very important, isn't it?"

That's the first time I'v seen the question and I will gladly answer it.

Congress can handle legislating laws. Congress does not 'run' government agencies. You don't see Congressmen running the Department of Motor Vehicles do you? No. Additionally, with healthcare, with a government option or single-payer system, Congress would not be 'running' it. Congress makes laws, they don't manage the day-to-day operations of government agencies. 

Report this comment
#80) On November 23, 2009 at 4:10 PM, freunddoggy (98.94) wrote:

The FED isn't held accountable to anyone. Congresspeople are. Ron Paul is in Congress, and he's fighting for us. I trust Congress over the FED any day of the week.

Report this comment
#81) On November 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM, freunddoggy (98.94) wrote:

PS - I think God will audit the Fed in the afterlife. Can I get a hell yeah teacherman1 and Bravobevo???

Report this comment
#82) On November 24, 2009 at 3:40 AM, whereaminow (52.50) wrote:

BetapegLLC,

How do you look at yourself in the mirror?

And if Glenn Beck (reference missing again BetaPeg. How about actually refencing something you write) calls me a person that puts my scrotum sack in another person's mouth (or vice versa) I shouldn't mind when you call me that too?  

Nice response on Zimbabwe.  "It's Faber's lies! It's Faber's lies"   That was intelligent.

Please point to where it says in H.R. 1207 that Congress will run day-to-day operations of the Fed, or make any laws concerning the Fed's operations, or dictate the Fed's operations in any way.

Point it out please.  

I'll wait.......

Thanks,

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#83) On November 24, 2009 at 9:13 AM, 100ozRound (29.43) wrote:

Ron Paul on Squawk Box discussing audit the Fed










Report this comment
#84) On November 24, 2009 at 7:41 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

Whereaminow,

"How do you look at yourself in the mirror?"

I'm sure you don't even have a mirror to look at.

----------------------------------------------------------------- 

"And if Glenn Beck (reference missing again BetaPeg. How about actually refencing something you write) calls me a person that puts my scrotum sack in another person's mouth (or vice versa) I shouldn't mind when you call me that too?"

Slight correction. Glenn Beck didn't choose the name "teabagger", but the name is rampant on the news outlets. I didn't just make it up. Especially when one of their protests involved mailing tea bags to the White House. 

Your insinuation that I never reference anything is also bogus. 

------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nice response on Zimbabwe.  "It's Faber's lies! It's Faber's lies  That was intelligent."

Once again, my reasoning flies straight over your head, so you can conveniently claim I do nothing but ad hominem. That is NOT intelligent. Just because I don't mince words does not mean I haven't made a clear cut argument. Analogies of the United States to Zimbabwe are idiotic to say the least.

------------------------------------------------------------------ 

"Please point to where it says in H.R. 1207 that Congress will run day-to-day operations of the Fed, or make any laws concerning the Fed's operations, or dictate the Fed's operations in any way."

If you read my post correctly, I said they WOULD NOT, be running the day-to-day operations of the Fed, and that is why I DON'T have a problem with Ron Paul's bill, in addition to the clear statement that the Fed's independence on monetary policy would be maintained...  

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement