You’d think with all the wingnuts out there, aluminum would be doing better.
Clearly OIG head Coleman wasn’t going to tell Rep. Grayson exactly who was being lent to and by how much. “We do not comment on specifice investigations”. This does not mean that no one is minding the store or whatever presumption is being made. User do you conclude that the Fed or the OIG specifically doesn’t have tabs on the money leant through it’s various credit facilities? Because quite frankly I’m finding the Paul supporters quite often hold the presumption that it’s all evil you must presume wrong-doing and that money is the root of all evil. User can you make it clear where OIG is responsible to know where and to whom credit is being expanded to? Also, if the Fed balance sheet is available, does this not suffice? Coleman: “we do not audit Reserve Bank activities” She can probably Grayson how much they spent on coffee and hotel expense if he would want to know that.
AndrewP - you are missing the point here. The opponents of audit argued that there is enough oversight already. As you can see from Coleman’s answers they haven’t looked at details of the actual transactions undertaken. They conducted only high-level review of programs. Thus, there is plenty of opportunity to provide certain market participants with unfair advantage. For instance, if a major investment bank gets cheap financing in exchange for assets of dubious value and will use this financing to acquire healthy small banks that don’t have access to such program, well that is something that need’s to be checked, otherwise we end up with pure oligopoly - a market comprised of banks too big to fail. Also, some of these programs are based on non-recourse lending, thus, if you exchange tax payers’ cash for trash then tax payers will suffer the losses in the end (mild overcollateralization will not help) . Furthermore, you keep mentioning balance sheet. But one of the questions was about off-balance sheet operations (in the range of several $trillions). Clearly, these won’t be in balance sheet. And again, based on Coleman’s answers there is no review/investigation in this area. Also, why would you take balance sheet figures at face value? One of the core principles of financial statement analysis is to transform balance sheet based on all available information. This is information that can be gathered with the help of audit. I don’t assume all is evil but this crisis calls for a thorough review of what’s going on.
spierce Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bankin’ Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If more transparency is on the table I’m all in > > favor of it, but I would prefer abolishing the > > Federal Reserve and getting off of a fiat > currency > > all together. > > > > Spierce and Marcus Phoenix spit venom whenever > > anyone presents any opinions of the Austrian > > School so it was no surprise to see one of them > in > > here belittling TS, but why is everyone else in > > this thread so pro-Fed and anti-Ron Paul? I > would > > much rather have Ron Paul as Commander-In-Chief > > than Obama or McCain. > > yes, because a ex-gyno stuck in 18th century politics and economics is so much better. pathetic -coming from a turd class liberal arts degree holder. jeezus. the pro-fed nitwits are afraid the dollar might lose its value thru inflation if the audit happens. er…the dollar ,by the fed’s own stats, has lost 96% of its value since the fed began. the value of the dollar was pretty much constant for many decades prior to its creation when congress ran monetary policy.so the last people to lecture on maintaining low inflation should the guys at the fed. then there is the strawman about political interference .thats laughable. is anyone pretending there is no political interference?. that the likes of g’span and arthur burns(aka mr hedonic adjuster -the man who started the statistical manipulation of inflation data) were all well known for creating bubbles to please the president of the day. additionally -nobody in congress wants higher rates -clearly.also bernanke has promised that low rates are here to stay for a long time. so the strawman about rates jumping up because of the audit is an outright joke. who the fvk cares about a pitiable tarp fund.its peanuts compared to the off balance sheet dealings in the name of mmilf (!) or whatever acronym b’nake comes up with . extremely lazy analysis to suggest that a check of the balance sheet is good enough.havent you learnt ANYTHING in cfa fsa? Chi paul, er…the airbags and the flat tv are not because of the wonders of fiat money. it is because of innovation fostered by a relatively free market that existed for so many years.if fiat money and a central bank were the sole criterion, che guevara and gono of zimbabwe would be our ideals. do you really not get it that a capitalistic trade based society becomes prosperous because of productivty improvements ? the dollar’s value is not connected to productivity increases in the way it is related to the size of the monetary base. those who raise the bogey of deflation dont seem to notice that if there is a productivity improvement,prices of goods/services FALL. but no body postpones buying a pc just because it will be available cheaper next year. so prices falling is not necessarily caused by deflation. if the fed(by some miracle) starts shrinking the dollar monetary base -that would be true deflation and that can cause people to hold off purchases. but there is no chance of such a thing happening. it hasnt happened since the beginning of fiat money.
Bankin’, User and others: You’re pissing into the wind. Spierce and his ilk immediately reminded me of one of Rothbard’s bits of brilliance: “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” The Fed is an insidious institution. You know it and I know it. Even boobus Americanus is starting to pick up on the notion, as we are now seeing on our nightly news. The democratic state must by its very nature disintegrate into an ugly fascist nightmare. How fast we get there is contingent on the duration of time it takes the intelligent people (such as the people on this message board) to become disenfranchised with the heavenly stature accorded institutions such as the Fed and the state. Don’t count on that transformation happening anytime soon because these concepts have been driven into the minds of the public for a century. Just position your investments the way Mises would. You’ll outperform Spierce as sure as day follows night.
Some interesting bits in the OP: user654 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AUDIT THE FED - NOW! > > FROM THE HISTORY OF MONEY > (http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html) > > > “When a government is dependent upon bankers for > money, they and not the leaders of the government > control the situation, since the hand that gives > is above the hand that takes… Money has no > motherland; financiers are without patriotism and > without decency; their sole object is gain.” > Napoleon Bonaparte, 1815 And Napoleon Bonaparte’s sole object was (around 1815)??? > > > ON THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT: > > “This act establishes the most gigantic trust on > earth. When the President signs this bill, the > invisible government by the Monetary Power will be > legalised. > It is important that the Fed be independent of political manipulation, but at the same time be accountable for its activities. For example, a Fed governor sending of a bunch of fresh credit to college drinking buddies needs to be monitored, discovered, punished. Congress can impeach a Fed governor for something like this, though to my knowledge this has never been necessary. What is it exactly that needs to be audited publicly? Yes, transparency is better than its absence, but what are people most concerned over? (I’m asking genuinely). Is it that the Fed tipped off people about its plans and therefore made the playing field uneven? Is it that the Fed has taken more risk than is prudent and not adequately informed the public? Something else? > The people may not know it immediately, but the > day of reckoning is only a few years removed… > The worst legislative crime of the ages is > perpetrated by this banking bill.” > Rep. Charles Lindbergh (R-MN) > It certainly is more than a few years removed from when Charles Lindbergh might have said this. > > > “We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of > the most completely controlled governments in the > civilised world - no longer a government of free > opinion, no longer a government by… a vote of > the majority, but a government by the opinion and > duress of a small group of dominant men. > > Some of the biggest men in the United States, in > the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid > of something. They know that there is a power > somewhere so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so > interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they > had better not speak above their breath when they > speak in condemnation of it.” > Woodrow Wilson > > And this power is??? Presumably the OP wants to say the Fed. What exactly will the Fed do to you if you say something bad about it? Will it be better if I say something bad about the Russian central bank while in Russia? Or the Chinese central bank while in China? > > “The powers of financial capitalism had > far-reaching , nothing less than to create a world > system of financial control in private hands able > to dominate the political system of each country > and the economy of the world as a whole. > > This system was to be controlled in a feudalist > fashion by the central banks of the world acting > in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in > frequent meetings and conferences. > > The apex of the system was to be the Bank for > International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a > private bank owned and controlled by the world’s > central banks which were themselves private > corporations. > > Each central bank… Sought to dominate its > government by its ability to control treasury > loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to > influence the level of economic activity in the > country, and to influence cooperative politicians > by subsequent economic rewards in the business > world.” > Carroll Quigley, Professor, Georgetown University I don’t think the Fed governors have a unified enough plan to take over everything? In fact, the governorship system and districting system is designed to make this difficult.
Forum Lurker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > position your investments the way > Mises would. actually thats a very good advice.keynes and irving fisher went broke (keynes recovered, he was a great trader) in their investing lives. mises cashed out before 1929
bchadwick wrote: What is it exactly that needs to be audited publicly? Yes, transparency is better than its absence, but what are people most concerned over? (I’m asking genuinely). Is it that the Fed tipped off people about its plans and therefore made the playing field uneven? Is it that the Fed has taken more risk than is prudent and not adequately informed the public? Something else? ------- Off balance sheet activities of the Fed to start off. the inspector general of the Fed reserve recently admitted she had no clue about the 9 trillion dollar OBS transactions that the fed made.uh, you 'd have expected her to have some clue atleast. when the fed transcats with foreign central banks and commercial banks thru ‘swap lines’,the tax payer who is ultimately on the hook needs to know why the fed needs to pay the new zealand bank a sum worth 3000 usd per new zealnder. i dont think it is an invalid question or do you disagree? when the fed decides to lend directly to companies, the tax payer neds to know on what basis these business-like decisions were made via the mmilf and the varied other emergency measures… even assuming that letting lehman go down but saving bear was a honest mistake. note that these are not part of the fomc deliberations.they are separate and off the record.the HR1207 has no intention of interfering in the fomc meetings as bernanke would like to allege. he is independent to keep manipulating rates as he wishes. summary: the fed has indulged in a horrendous amount of OBS transactions.we need an audit to throw some sunshine on it. whats the big secret anyway. are they national secrets which only a bunch of nonelected folks ‘need to know’?. since when did the fed get to run national secusity