Audit the Fed? What would that accomplish?

ServiceSoon said:
Are there any reasonable objections why there shouldn't be more transparency for the currency that affects the majority of people on the planet?

How long does it take to mitigate a failing bank? Perhaps the fed could release this information every quarter or biannually.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'm on board with more transparency, and waiting a certain amount of time might be appropriate. Although even when the bank has been stabilized, learning that it almost failed is a good way to convince people to start shifting around funds.

There are a lot of reforms that would make the Fed a much better institution. I'm simply arguing (and I think most here are of a similar mind) that those reforms shouldn't be motivated by nutty conspiracy nonsense.
 
ServiceSoon said:
How long does it take to mitigate a failing bank? Perhaps the fed could release this information every quarter or biannually.
Click to expand...

In terms of public opinon? Practically forever.

The Fed was set up in part to prevent exactly what Trane suggests would happen. People who learn that their bank "almost" failed would withdraw their money, which is another term for a bank run.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I would argue that learning that your bank "almost" failed is a good way to insure that it does.
Click to expand...

Is that a bad thing? Businesses fail all the time. If my bank is teetering on the edge, and needs support from the Fed, maybe the much sounder bank next door should get my business.
 
ServiceSoon said:
Are there any reasonable objections why there shouldn't be more transparency for the currency that affects the majority of people on the planet? Besides those mentioned by DrKitten.
Click to expand...

Why do we need more reasons? Those presented by DrKitten are pretty good ones for why you don't want your currency supply subject to populism.
 
Travis said:
Why do we need more reasons? Those presented by DrKitten are pretty good ones for why you don't want your currency supply subject to populism.
Click to expand...
You're only looking at one aspect of an enormous issue. IMHO more input is needed to make a decision. Drkitten said that the President or Congress could manipulate the currency during an election year (I've heard people say just this about gasoline prices). There are mechanisms in place that prevent this very thing from occurring. Based on what I know Congress has the power to intervene in any manner they see fit, and both Congress and the President must approve of the chairperson every so often. Yet this manipulation Drkitten was concerned with doesn't occur very often. It appears that this concern is valid, but hasn't been the case in the good ol' US yet. Drkitten's concerns seem more macro. I'd like to get down to the nuts and bolts.

Does anybody know what information an audit would make available to the public which isn't currently available? And would the availability of this information make Drkitten's concern more likely or easier to happen?
 
drkitten said:
Well,....

...snip...

The rather silly call for "transparency" is really just a call to put Congress back in control of the money supply with an overall goal of destroying the Fed. Paul is even fairly explicit about this, but for some reason, there are an awful lot of populists out there that want the United States to be a banana republic.....
Click to expand...

It's either that or some Randian dystopia where the stupid greedy masses who only "take take take" will be ruled by the intelligent, wealthy, hyperindividualist freedom nazis...or something.

I mean, who doesn't want to carry around gold to buy groceries?
 
ServiceSoon said:
Does anybody know what information an audit would make available to the public which isn't currently available? And would the availability of this information make Drkitten's concern more likely or easier to happen?
Click to expand...

The nuts keep yelling for an audit, but haven't made it clear what exactly they are looking for. Why? Because they literally are looking for evidence that the joohs are funneling money to the Illuminatti, but they know they will look like fools if that's the reason they give.
 
TraneWreck said:
I think a lot of the controversy stems from the Feds duty as "lender of last resort."

Remember that the Fed was created in the wake of destructive bank runs. That power to lend to struggling financial institutions was meant to stop the panic, thus the Fed doesn't have to reveal information about those loans.

It makes sense: if the Fed had to publicly report that an institution needed an emergency loan, that would contribute to panic instead of mitigating it.

But this is the source for a lot of the conspiracy theories, "OH MY GOD, WHO IS GETTING THAT MONEY? WE DON'T EVEN KNOW!!!!" And compared to the very public bailouts (Of which the government got most of its money back), it's a pittance.
Click to expand...

The Fed was created as the result of a conspiracy to foist a central bank on the United States on Jekyll Island, GA, just a few miles from where I live. I've been in the room where bankers representing 1/4 of the world's weath met in secret to discuss the plans. It is at the Jekyll Island Resort Club.

The ignorance surrounding this issue is astounding. The Fed was created presumably in response to the 1907 panic, which itself was the result of a combination of NY bankers calling in loans all at once, a failed takeover attempt on United Copper, and the inherently unstable fractional reserve system.

As far as the Fed/inflation sponsored bailouts being a "pittance", you couldn't be more wrong. The Fed is quite simply an institution that is able to create vast sums of money out-of-nothing (counterfeiting), and distribute them in secret to its friends. How in your right mind does this not represent a huge problem, and how is this even remotely democratic, or equitable?
 
Last edited:
Does anyone bother to point out that since the establishment of a central bank the economy has been a lot less volatile? Doesn't that seem to indicate it is doing it's job?
 
Travis said:
Does anyone bother to point out that since the establishment of a central bank the economy has been a lot less volatile? Doesn't that seem to indicate it is doing it's job?
Click to expand...

To be fair, it's difficult to separate that from the effects of modern technology, especially communications technology. (Capital and labor are more mobile, prices and wages more flexible, making it easier for the economy to adjust to shocks.)
 
Tippit said:
The Fed was created as the result of a conspiracy to foist a central bank on the United States on Jekyll Island, GA, just a few miles from where I live. I've been in the room where bankers representing 1/4 of the world's weath met in secret to discuss the plans. It is at the Jekyll Island Resort Club.
Click to expand...

I bet they were all joohs too!

Tippit said:
The ignorance surrounding this issue is astounding.
Click to expand...

:id:

Tippit said:
The Fed was created presumably in response to the 1907 panic, which itself was the result of a combination of NY bankers calling in loans all at once, a failed takeover attempt on United Copper, and the inherently unstable fractional reserve system.
Click to expand...

I bet those bankers were all joohs too.

Tippit said:
The Fed is quite simply an institution that is able to create vast sums of money out-of-nothing (counterfeiting),
Click to expand...

Which you are all too happy to accept for payment and spend for goods.

Tippit said:
...and distribute them in secret to its friends.
Click to expand...

More joohs.

Tippit said:
How in your right mind does this not represent a huge problem, and how is this even remotely democratic, or equitable?
Click to expand...

I'm a jooh. So it seems quite fair to me.
 
Tippit said:
The Fed was created as the result of a conspiracy to foist a central bank on the United States on Jekyll Island, GA, just a few miles from where I live. I've been in the room where bankers representing 1/4 of the world's weath met in secret to discuss the plans. It is at the Jekyll Island Resort Club.

The ignorance surrounding this issue is astounding. The Fed was created presumably in response to the 1907 panic, which itself was the result of a combination of NY bankers calling in loans all at once, a failed takeover attempt on United Copper, and the inherently unstable fractional reserve system.

As far as the Fed/inflation sponsored bailouts being a "pittance", you couldn't be more wrong. The Fed is quite simply an institution that is able to create vast sums of money out-of-nothing (counterfeiting), and distribute them in secret to its friends. How in your right mind does this not represent a huge problem, and how is this even remotely democratic, or equitable?
Click to expand...

The "Pittance" I referred to was the lending of last resort. I think the information you linked actually strengthens my argument. Here's what I wrote:

And compared to the very public bailouts (Of which the government got most of its money back), it's a pittance.
Click to expand...

The information on that page has $1.4 trillion, $528 billion of which has been spent, for "Government Lending." How much of that total stems from the confidential last resort lending?

Even if you assume every penny comes from that Fed duty, it would account for about 1/5th of the expense, and only a little over 1/10th of the projected cost.

But again, that page says nothing specific about the program I was referring to.
 
Travis said:
Does anyone bother to point out that since the establishment of a central bank the economy has been a lot less volatile? Doesn't that seem to indicate it is doing it's job?
Click to expand...

Except, it hasn't. The Fed caused and presided over the biggest depression in US history, and numerous recessions since. The only job it has done, is debase the dollar by some 97% since its inception. This of course amounts to a massive tax, which few people seem to understand. The tax also happens to be regressive, which means it burdens the poor more than the rich.
 
Tippit said:
Except, it hasn't.
Click to expand...

Except it has. At least in the US, on planet Earth.

Tippit said:
The Fed caused and presided over the biggest depression in US history, and numerous recessions since.
Click to expand...

Really? When did this happen?

Tippit said:
The only job it has done, is debase the dollar by some 97% since its inception. This of course amounts to a massive tax, which few people seem to understand. The tax also happens to be regressive, which means it burdens the poor more than the rich.
Click to expand...

Yes, the old "counterfeit" currency. We get it. We're still laughing, but we do get it.
 
Tippit said:
The Fed was created as the result of a conspiracy to foist a central bank on the United States on Jekyll Island, GA, just a few miles from where I live. I've been in the room where bankers representing 1/4 of the world's weath met in secret to discuss the plans. It is at the Jekyll Island Resort Club.
Click to expand...

That is 100% WRONG.

The plan that the bankers dreamt up on Jekyll Island WAS NOT THE FED. What they came up with, and wanted passed, was something called the Aldrich Plan. This is a plan that would have put the national currency in the hand of bankers, not the government. In essence, the Aldrich Plan would have given bankers exactly the power that the "audit the Fed" crowd are currently claiming they have.

This never got far, as the Republicans lost a ton of seats in Congress in the 1912 elections, resulting in a Democratic majority. The Democrats were not very happy with the plan, and it was subsequently dropped for what would become the Glass-Owens Act. Yes, some parts from the Aldrich Plan came in (such as a decentralized national bank), but what did pass was not what was proposed by Aldrich.

Quit it with the conspiracy theory ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom