Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

XMFSinchiruna (27.16)

Why do people keep believing this guy??

Recs

48

June 17, 2009 – Comments (26)

He's either the dumbest Fed chairman in history, or the least honest. Neither title is saying much.

I recall as a youngster being astounded at the gravitas afforded to every word out of Greenspan's mouth like he was some kind of wizard. I also recall during my teens learning that the Fed was not a federal agency at all, but a consortium of anonymous private member banks charged with shaping the fiscal policy that drives the business of those member institutions.

Now we stand at an extremely important crossroads, where the Fed has ballooned in scale to unearthly proportions, and our leaders contemplate handing over MORE regulatory authority to this private corporation that answers to the bankers rather than the American people.

Wake up, Fools ... the Fed is not your friend. This failed reflation strategy is no joke.

Audit the Fed:

Zeitgeist - Federal Reserve, Part 1:

follow links from there for other parts

And this from the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

 

 

26 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 17, 2009 at 1:04 PM, kdakota630 (29.84) wrote:

And President Obama just today is announcing sweeping new regulatory reforms for the banks, including granting much more power to the Federal Reserve.

Report this comment
#2) On June 17, 2009 at 1:08 PM, binve (< 20) wrote:

Sinch, as always great post man! Did you get a chance to check out my latest (mammoth) gold post? post. Thanks man :)

Report this comment
#3) On June 17, 2009 at 1:12 PM, kdakota630 (29.84) wrote:

1988 Flashback - Ron Paul on Who Owns The Federal Reserve System Category: News and Politics

Report this comment
#4) On June 17, 2009 at 1:29 PM, FreundInvesting (29.62) wrote:

you actually watched greenspan when you a pre-teen? I didn't even know that the federal reserve existed (at least, the details of its existance) until my 20's!

Report this comment
#5) On June 17, 2009 at 1:44 PM, FreundInvesting (29.62) wrote:

when you were a**

Report this comment
#6) On June 17, 2009 at 1:48 PM, SnapDave (67.91) wrote:

Careful, you're sounding a little like the folks who, in the last few years, put themselves in the ridiculous position of accusing Bush of being a moron one minute and of knowing exactly what he was doing in carrying out devious plans on behalf of the rich elite the next.  The Fed was created, in part, to protect against the large scale collapse of banks - and with good reason.  I don't buy that they are run by the banks.  But even that is preferable to being run by politicians.  The Fed is, in fact, a government agency, not a corporation, run by hard working people doing their best.  As with all humans they are fallible.  Moreover, there is no textbook on what to do next.  Things aren't exactly turning out how Helicopter Ben had imagined now that he finds himself personally dealing with a depression. 

Report this comment
#7) On June 17, 2009 at 1:49 PM, 4everlost (29.82) wrote:

Sinchy,

Much of the material you have links to have conspiracy-theory tones in them.  I was surprised by that.  I haven't decided whether our situation is pure stupidity or if there really is some cartel made of greedy, power-hungry folks that seek a one world government (or whatever name).  It just seems far-fetched that there is this plot that has been in place for a century or so.  I just don't know whether to believe in the plot or that our leaders are financially ignorant.

Report this comment
#8) On June 17, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Option1307 (30.26) wrote:

 The Fed is, in fact, a government agency, not a corporation, run by hard working people doing their best.

Umm, what?

Call it whatever you wish to, but doesn't the fact that we cannot even see their books bother you the least bit? It sure makes me wonder.

Report this comment
#9) On June 17, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Melaschasm (53.94) wrote:

To help understand Bernanke, you should know that he is a student of the Great Depression, and believes one of the biggest mistakes made during the Great Depression was restrictive monetary policy. 

Because Bernanke appears to fear that we face a similar situation, I tend to believe his statements that he will make sure the USA does not experience a deflationary spiral during his watch.  The best way to make sure we do not experience deflation is to print enough money to generate inflation.  Bernanke's actions seem to support the idea that he will print as much money as it takes to avoid deflation.  That is why I am expecting increased inflation, and a W recession as the Fed slams on the breaks when inflation starts growing quickly.

Report this comment
#10) On June 17, 2009 at 3:11 PM, XMFSinchiruna (27.16) wrote:

binve

I'm so glad you pointed me to your blog post ... I almost missed the best blog post on gold thie site has ever seen!! Phenomenal job!

kdakota630

Thanks for the Ron Paul flashback! :)

FreundInvesting

Yup ... I was that kind of kid ... especially from about 12 I was a voracious reader of world news as well as historical texts ... fascinated by the plight of mankind. That's what led to my career in Anthropology.

SnapDave

If it makes you more comfortable to lump me into convenient groupings of 'types' of people than to debate the issue on the merits of the arguments, I completely understand ... I suppose it's human nature to some extent.

Bush IS a moron, in the sense that he is woefully under-educated and lacking in any real intellectual curiosity. Like all humans, he had gifts, including the gift of swagger that made him a political force. He may have even learned a thing or two while in the oval office, but compared to anyone who sat at that desk before him ... he was a moron. In my opinion, he was never the man calling the shots. Again, if it makes you more comfortable to brush off that view by considering it some kind of conspiracy theory, then be my guest.

The Fed is, in fact, a government agency, not a corporation, run by hard working people doing their best.

Sorry, but this is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of public record. The Fed is a private, for-profit corporation.

I don't buy that they are run by the banks.  But even that is preferable to being run by politicians.

I sure hope you're in the minority on that one. Politicians have displayed their corrupt ways for all to see in recent years, but at least structurally/theoretically they still answer to the people in that we have the ability to replace them. The fact that you would prefer the nation's money supply be run by bankers rather than accountable public servants is in my view a scary reminder of the disappearing understanding among Americans of what it means to live in a democracy.

Please check your facts with respect to the Fed, and please take some time to consider the words of America's founding fathers on the topic.

4everlost

Hey, I have an idea. How about concentrating less on the "tones" in the videos and concentrating more on the facts. :) I did not mention plots nor conspiracy theories, but rather sought to introduce Fools to the facts about the Fed and the money supply. That being said, this isn't exactly the first generation of Americans to wake up to the realities of secretive authority exerted upon the people by the banking establishment.

George Washington:

"Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice."

Thomas Jefferson:

"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies."

I guess this nation was founded by a bunch of conspiracy theorists ... :)

Finally: I just don't know whether to believe in the plot or that our leaders are financially ignorant.I just don't think that's an either / or statement. :P

 

Report this comment
#11) On June 17, 2009 at 4:03 PM, jatt22 (40.27) wrote:

great post an very good info .+ rec!

Report this comment
#12) On June 17, 2009 at 4:20 PM, binve (< 20) wrote:

Sinch: Wow! I really appreciate that! I don't think I can accept that based on all of your work, but I appreciate it nonetheless :) Thank you my man :)

Report this comment
#13) On June 17, 2009 at 4:51 PM, russiangambit (29.46) wrote:

I don't understand how could FED be a regulator of anything if it is not accountable to anybody?

Actually, the situation seems very similar to Supremem Court writing laws, which it actually sort of does through the power of precedent.

And who thinks this country is a democracy?

Report this comment
#14) On June 17, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Tastylunch (29.48) wrote:

I'll vote for dumbest, well most naive really I guess.

Bernanke strikes me as earnestly honest... well by FEd chairmen standards anyway.

Report this comment
#15) On June 17, 2009 at 6:22 PM, tonylogan1 (28.32) wrote:

I love looking back at the old prices... Buy Gold, Sell the Natural Gas... lol

Report this comment
#16) On June 17, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Jimmy2008 (< 20) wrote:

I like gold/silver and miner stocks. We can hold gold and silver, but miner stocks offer leverage. WIth current uncertainty of broker failure, there can be lots of counterparty risks with miner stocks. What is your suggestion as to how much physical PM and how much miner stocks (for people in US)?

Iran seems in trouble. Israel is in trouble. From geopolitical aspect, I will keep oil for more time.

Report this comment
#17) On June 17, 2009 at 11:10 PM, XMFSinchiruna (27.16) wrote:

Jimmy2008

That would depend on a given investor's situation. I'm afraid I can't offer a cookie-cutter answer to that one. I agree that it's most unfortunate the extent to which miners have utilized derivatives to hedge everything from fuel costs to by-product prices, and that leaves many of them susceptible to further failure in these derivatives markets. That's about all I can say ... the allocation between physical, physical proxies, miners, and royalties is a very personal decision for each investor to make.

Tastylunch

Really?  :)  Have you seen JGus' post? :)

 

Report this comment
#18) On June 17, 2009 at 11:49 PM, SnapDave (67.91) wrote:

Sinch,
I'm not trying to group you.  I wouldn't have bothered to make the comment if I thought you weren't better than that (but if you start refering to yourself in the third person I might change my mind).  Bush was indeed flawed, as I believe is anyone capable of getting elected president.  But, that wasn't my point.  The point was to, ah,  point out the unthinking froth of hatred toward him as a caution. 

You can say there are characteristics of a corporation but if you look at it objectively it acts more like a government agency.  What corporation has their head and board chosen by the government?  (Ok maybe GM)  The people from top to botton going to work there every day act very much like government employees.  To say they are screwing it up is fine.  To say their basic charter and goals are fundamentally flawed is fine (to come up with a better system is harder).  Sorry, but you do sound a bit conspiratorial even if you see that as simply facts.  Easy to do if you go down the road of dehumanizing them.  I may not be a central banking scholar but the fact is, at this stage in history, central banking isn't an exact or precisely known science.  The late 1800's saw horrible deflation.  Some of the Fed's current roles were filled (far from ideally) by JP Morgan himself who wasn't going to live forever.  Out of this context came US central banking.  In recent decades we've had highly intelligent, honest Fed chairman make some terrible choices along with the many good ones.  That this doesn't live up to our childhood ideals is only natural.  To sit in their seat and be perfect isn't so easy.  I'm rambling a bit but hopefully you get some of my points. 

I should have been more clear about banks vs. politicians.  I certainly don't want the Fed under the thumb of banks - but I think you know that.  I also think their independence from the President and the Congress is mostly a good thing.  Do you really have that much faith in our politicians?  I certainly don't and I don't think your characterization of politians' corruption as something that's only recent holds any water.  A look at Authur Burns shows what a politicized Fed can do. 

Report this comment
#19) On June 18, 2009 at 12:05 AM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@TMFSinchiruna,
He's either the dumbest Fed chairman in history, or the least honest.
He has a high regard for monetarist orthodoxy. So you could say that he has a somewhat rigid intellect and a quasi-dogmatic point of view.

Wake up, Fools ... the Fed is not your friend. This failed reflation strategy is no joke
Have you checked that site (educate-yourself.org)? It broke my BS detector. Is there a single bit of information that is backed up by facts on that site?

I guess this nation was founded by a bunch of conspiracy theorists ... :)
Some historians opine just that (1, 2). Conspiracy is a recurrent meme in American politics.

@4everlost,
Much of the material you have links to have conspiracy-theory tones in them.  I was surprised by that.  I haven't decided whether our situation is pure stupidity or if there really is some cartel made of greedy, power-hungry folks that seek a one world government (or whatever name).  It just seems far-fetched that there is this plot that has been in place for a century or so
Spot on. Conspiracy theories stick in the mind of the least-educated, the cynical, etc (3)

1- http://boston1775.blogspot.com/2006/07/conspiracy-theories-of-revolution.html
2- http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html
3- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptic-agenticity

Report this comment
#20) On June 18, 2009 at 4:27 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Go get em Sinchy!!!!

WHILE ALL OTHERS HACK AT THE BRANCES, YOU STRIKE THE ROOT!

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#21) On June 18, 2009 at 8:52 AM, XMFSinchiruna (27.16) wrote:

lucas1985

Thank you for this most useful phrase: monetarist orthodoxy. :P Oh man ... it's nice to start my day with a good hardy laugh.With that said, you have deftly skirted the cause for the accusations against him ... according to his own words on public record, he either failed to foresee the housing bubble's potential impacts even when they were obvious to a Fool like me, or he was witholding crucial information from the American public in an attempt to influence those impacts in a well-orchestrated con game. Pick your poison ... no other rational interpretations remain, and neither is much of an endorsement of the man. 

Have you checked that site (educate-yourself.org)? It broke my BS detector. Is there a single bit of information that is backed up by facts on that site?

I was not endorsing the site, and I know nothing about the site. I came across the article in question while preparing the blog post, however, and did appreciate that every statement in there was carefully referenced. I know enough about the Fed to be able to scan for accuracy in a brief moment, and the article looked solid to me. I would sure like to see people responding to the specific information contained therein, though, rather than seeking to attack the credibility of the messenger.

Conspiracy theories stick in the mind of the least-educated, the cynical, etc.

Right ... cause they NEVER contain even an ounce of truth, and we should never think critically about them. It's so much easier to just right-off the people that believe hold certain opinions than it is to address the arguments on the merits. Give me a break!

The final word:

It's equally irrational to believe in 'conspiracy theories' without conducting ample research and basing one's conclusions upon verifiable facts and a preponderance of the evidence, as it is to side-step every topic that has been labeled a 'conspiracy theory' by dismissively denigrating the presenters of well-reasoned arguments without countering those arguments solely on the merits. For this reason, the phrase 'conspiracy theory' has become as counterproductive in our society as the word 'bubble' has become in the world of investing.

The bankers (writ large) are not to be trusted ... one would think that the financial meltdown of the past year would have made that plainly obvious ... yet again.

Report this comment
#22) On June 18, 2009 at 12:34 PM, guiron (27.55) wrote:

Right ... cause they NEVER contain even an ounce of truth, and we should never think critically about them. It's so much easier to just right-off the people that believe hold certain opinions than it is to address the arguments on the merits. Give me a break!

While it may be true that conspiracy theorists and assorted cranks can be correct, it is often bad source material because it detracts from the material itself; indeed, look at the discussion that follows. Whether or not you think it doesn't matter, it really does. It lacks credulity, and you're only going to be communicating effectively to people who already agree with you or the material sources. Imagine if a news outlet used such rationalizations for their sources.

Report this comment
#23) On June 18, 2009 at 3:06 PM, XMFSinchiruna (27.16) wrote:

guiron

With all due respect, that's bologne. If I were to write an article that's well-researched and argued rationally upon a solid foundation of sourced published material, then my article would be the same whether it's published on the Fed's own website or a forum for less commonly tolerated speech.

My point is that truth can come from anywhere, and to remain open-minded individuals we should be prepared to consider arguments on the merits alone rather than making convenient presumptions about the implications of the argument's location.

I have not fully vetted the specific article that prompted this tangent, so I'm not endorsing that content entirely. I'm just tired of people dismissing ideas because they're not mainstream ... it happens WAY too often these days. 

Report this comment
#24) On June 18, 2009 at 3:58 PM, tonylogan1 (28.32) wrote:

If only there was an "ignore" function... david and sinch's time would not have been wasted...

Report this comment
#25) On July 22, 2009 at 10:15 AM, XMFSinchiruna (27.16) wrote:

A nice little video on the Fed:

Report this comment
#26) On July 22, 2009 at 10:26 AM, outoffocus (23.53) wrote:

I recall as a youngster being astounded at the gravitas afforded to every word out of Greenspan's mouth like he was some kind of wizard.

I remember that as well. It was so bad that if Greenspan sneezed the market would drop 100 pts. Kinda like how Steve Jobs is to Apple.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement