Lunatic Ron Paul to Oversee the Fed

[drkitten]

I'll stick my dunces economic head round the door and ask a question I've longed to ask but have been too ashamed:

What does the Fed do?

Controls the fiscal policy, most notably the money supply and the fundamental interest rates, of the United States.

In its own words:

The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. Over the years, its role in banking and the economy has expanded.
Today, the Federal Reserve's duties fall into four general areas:

• conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates
• supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers
• maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets
• providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payments system

 

[drkitten]

And most of the senators on the Armed Services committee aren't senior staff officers in the U.S. military.

Most of the senators on the Intelligence Oversight committee aren't spies or even espionage agency administrators, and never have been.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you actually have no idea at all what the point is, of having citizens elect representatives to oversee the activities of its government?

There's a difference between electing representatives and electing idiots. There's no reason that a typical MD can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has. There's no reason a taxi driver can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has. There's no reason a goat can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has.

For that matter, there might not be any reason that Ron Paul himself couldn't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul currently has. Or a book on the life cycle of zebra mussels. The bar is not set high.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Controls the fiscal policy, most notably the money supply and the fundamental interest rates, of the United States.

In its own words:

So it's like the Bank of England?

 

[theprestige]

The trouble with this is the trouble with Ron Paul... which is that, nutter that he is, he already "knows" what he is going to find.

Well, yes. That was my whole point. Ron Paul is not some special kind of super-nutter. He's a bog-standard nutter of the usual type. Everything you've said about him I already assumed was given, under the heading "crackpot" ("nutter", if you prefer). Again: If the Fed can't survive the scrutiny of Rand Paul, it should probably be dismantled anyway.

Please note that I don't mean that Paul can't find evidence that convinces himself. As you point out, that's bound to happen anyway. What I mean is, Paul is probably not going to find evidence that convinces a majority of the committee, let alone a majority of the Legislature. But if he does, then the Fed is probably ripe for dismantling anyway.

There's a difference between electing representatives and electing idiots. There's no reason that a typical MD can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has. There's no reason a taxi driver can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has. There's no reason a goat can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has.

This is all true enough, but has nothing at all to do with whether or not Paul's qualifications as an MD indicate a fitness for this committee post, since fitness for the post is based not on professional qualifications, job experience, or book-learning, or even a demonstrated lack of idiocy.

I was responding specifically to the point raised by No True Scotsman. What point are you trying to make (other than that Paul is an idiot, which has been stipulated already)?

 

[drkitten]

So it's like the Bank of England?

... or any other central bank.

 

[Chaos]

Well, yes. That was my whole point. Ron Paul is not some special kind of super-nutter. He's a bog-standard nutter of the usual type. Everything you've said about him I already assumed was given, under the heading "crackpot" ("nutter", if you prefer). Again: If the Fed can't survive the scrutiny of Rand Paul, it should probably be dismantled anyway.

Please note that I don't mean that Paul can't find evidence that convinces himself. As you point out, that's bound to happen anyway. What I mean is, Paul is probably not going to find evidence that convinces a majority of the committee, let alone a majority of the Legislature. But if he does, then the Fed is probably ripe for dismantling anyway.

Sure. He isn´t going to find evidence. With a rational politician, or a moderately nutty one, that would be the end of it. But with Ron Paul, it won´t. He´ll keep searching and searching and searching, at taxpayer expense. He cannot stop, because he knows what´s "really" going on and needs to find the evidence. He won´t be satisfied with any evidence contrary to his beliefs, any more than the typical Truther would ever be satisfied with any "independent investigation of 9/11" that only reveals what happened, not what the truther believes.

 

[drkitten]

Please note that I don't mean that Paul can't find evidence that convinces himself. As you point out, that's bound to happen anyway. What I mean is, Paul is probably not going to find evidence that convinces a majority of the committee, let alone a majority of the Legislature. But if he does, then the Fed is probably ripe for dismantling anyway.

Well, you have more confidence in his integrity than I have, if you think he's above active fabrication of evidence to "prove" what he already knows. Or if you think that the rest of the committee isn't simply going to follow his lead on this because they think it would get them headlines.

But beyond that,.... how much time will Paul choose to waste on this particular non-issue, and how much other important issues of monetary policy will be neglected or outright dismissed because of Paul's anti-Fed attitude?

 

[The True Scotsman]

And most of the senators on the Armed Services committee aren't senior staff officers in the U.S. military.

Most of the senators on the Intelligence Oversight committee aren't spies or even espionage agency administrators, and never have been.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you actually have no idea at all what the point is, of having citizens elect representatives to oversee the activities of its government?

One of the main purpose of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is to “review and study on a continuing basis the operation of Government activities at all levels with a view to determining their economy and efficiency.” If given the choice, I would not put a medical doctor with strong economic bias and a tendency towards conspiracy theories on a committee that reviews the efficiency of the Fed's monetary policies.

 

[theprestige]

Well, you have more confidence in his integrity than I have, if you think he's above active fabrication of evidence to "prove" what he already knows. Or if you think that the rest of the committee isn't simply going to follow his lead on this because they think it would get them headlines.

Again, I assumed that was all included under the heading of "crackpot". As for other committee members following his lead, if their primary goal is headlines, what's stopping them from taking the lead? At the very least, why haven't they followed his lead substantially already?

But beyond that,.... how much time will Paul choose to waste on this particular non-issue, and how much other important issues of monetary policy will be neglected or outright dismissed because of Paul's anti-Fed attitude?

You mean how much time and money do politicians waste on silly shenanigans in general, and how much better of the world would be if politicians (not to mention the rest of us) were much more honorable and competent people?

I don't really have an answer to that question, except to suggest you poop into one hand, and wish into the other, and see which one fills up first.

Also, you have much more confidence in the integrity of government in general than I have, if you think the priority should be for government get better organized and do more stuff.

 

[theprestige]

One of the main purpose of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is to “review and study on a continuing basis the operation of Government activities at all levels with a view to determining their economy and efficiency.” If given the choice, I would not put a medical doctor with strong economic bias and a tendency towards conspiracy theories on a committee that reviews the efficiency of the Fed's monetary policies.

Please note that the House Committee--like all House Committees--was invented and named by members of the House themselves, politicians all, not out of any desire to provide expert oversight, but rather to make themselves more important.

The whole point of the system is for the people to govern themselves. With predictable results, as this particular example demonstrates quite nicely.

 

[drkitten]

You mean how much time and money do politicians waste on silly shenanigans in general, and how much better of the world would be if politicians (not to mention the rest of us) were much more honorable and competent people?

No, that's not what I mean.

It doesn't really matter if Congress decides to take two days to decide whether or not to declare November 32 to be National Pancake Day. No one except perhaps IHOP will actually be affected by that decision. But when we're talking about fiscal policy, we're talking about real decisions that have real consequences for real people. Bernanke needs support in the legislature for some of his fiscal decisions; just as a simple example, the money he's spending to buy bonds under QE2 is Congressionally authorized spending. I'm fairly confident that Paul will not and would not authorize any further spending irrespective of circumstances, even if breadlines for the unemployed were stretching around the Capitol building itself.

 

[theprestige]

I'm fairly confident that Paul will not and would not authorize any further spending irrespective of circumstances, even if breadlines for the unemployed were stretching around the Capitol building itself.

It's a good thing that's not a decision Paul gets to make on his own, then, isn't it?

Not only does the committee chairmanship not give him that authority, but such authority as it does give him can be stripped away at will by his party leadership--and would be, the moment it became politically expedient to do so.

In the space of a few hours, you've gone from Ron Paul reducing the productivity of the government--as if he's unique in that respect, and as if a productive government is universally agreed to be a feature and not a bug--to Ron Paul singlehandedly causing mass starvation in America by refusing to authorize government spending.

This is not a realistic scenario.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ron Paul an MD? Does he have any qualifications to discuss economic issues?

He sure does. He lea... nevermind someone already got it.

Yes, he read all about it in his John Birch Society literature.

 

[The True Scotsman]

Please note that the House Committee--like all House Committees--was invented and named by members of the House themselves, politicians all, not out of any desire to provide expert oversight, but rather to make themselves more important.

The whole point of the system is for the people to govern themselves. With predictable results, as this particular example demonstrates quite nicely.

Very well. Fair enough.

 

[Puppycow]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ron Paul an MD? Does he have any qualifications to discuss economic issues?

He's an MD who believes in homeopathy, which should give you a clue about his sanity.

 

[Puppycow]

Controls the fiscal policy, most notably the money supply and the fundamental interest rates, of the United States.

In its own words:

The Fed controls monetary policy, not fiscal policy. The congress and president control fiscal policy.

Yes, it is the central bank.

 

[angrysoba]

So it's like the Bank of England?

Yes, but the Federal Reserve is still a private bank unlike the Bank of England, which was nationalised after WWII. It's a magnet for conspiracy theorists some of whom even believe the Federal Reserve board of directors ordered JFK to be bumped off.

People like Ron Paul argue that the Federal Reserve has no business having any role in policy-making and say it is unconstitutional for them to have that power. They are also concerned that it has never been audited (although I think that a partial audit has been granted in the wake of the financial crisis).

I think that some of Ron Paul's claims are legitimate even if I don't endorse any of his other political views and even if he is supported by a very foul-smelling entourage of conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Yes, but the Federal Reserve is still a private bank unlike the Bank of England, which was nationalised after WWII.

The Fed is a quasi government institution. The Board of Governors is an indepdent government agency and the member banks that belong to the Fed are private.

People like Ron Paul argue that the Federal Reserve has no business having any role in policy-making and say it is unconstitutional for them to have that power. They are also concerned that it has never been audited (although I think that a partial audit has been granted in the wake of the financial crisis).

The Fed is regularly audited by the Government Accountability Office. Monetary policy is excepted from audits to ensure the Fed's independence from political meddling. It goes to the very fabric of what a central bank does and how it works.

I think that some of Ron Paul's claims are legitimate

And you'd be wrong.

 

[JihadJane]

He's an MD who believes in homeopathy, which should give you a clue about his sanity.

Your post gives me a clue about your understanding of what insanity is.

The Fed is currently waging a global currency war and helping to transform the US into a banana republic.

 

[Rockingham AH Deist]

Their appears to be an assumption that their is nothing corrupt occurring at the Fed.

Question: Would we know if their was?

If yes, how? If no, then we can be pretty damn sure corrupt practices are occurring because power and secrecy combined always lead to corruption.