Serious question about Auditing the Fed.

[PredFan]

If we audited the fed, that means we would have to audit the gold at Fort Knox.....now that is never going to happen. IMO, with the results that we would get from this audit would greatly weaken our standing in the world.

Not sure what you mean by that. You mean count the gold? Why would we not know that already?

I never considered how it would affect our standing in the world. Are you of the belief that there are shenannigans going on at the Fed?

 

[PredFan]

The Fed is already audited.

What those who want to "audit the Fed" really want is to audit the decisions of the FOMC. This is a terrible idea because it will increase political interference in monetary policy. Why in God's name do we want Congress meddling in the Fed's affairs?

This is exactly what I was referring to in my second point of my OP.

 

[PredFan]

So the reason we shouldn't audit them is that they have been doing things that would cause us to lose faith in them? This sounds like doublethink to me.

For me, it's about WHO will be doing the auditing.

 

[PredFan]

1. Do you think the Federal Reserve needs to be audited and why?
2. Do you think that the Fed and Bernanke are doing a good job with it?
3. Are you not concerned about who will do the auditing?

Thanks in advance.

1.Yes. Congress gave their Constitutionally mandated control of the money supply to Mafia Bankers in 1913. Congress should take it back or at least audit it. I guarantee you they have two sets of books.
2. No.
3. Absolutely! Just look at what happened with the 9/11 Investigation. Non Mafia Connected Bankers need to do the auditing, that means no one in the Federal Reserve System.

IMO, even more scary would be the politicians in Congress.

 

[occupied]

Gold is not in a bubble, the dollar is.

Are you in for a shock, I really hope you do not have too much invested in it or are not too enamored of the shiny yellow metal to know when to dump it off on a bigger more frightened fool.

 

[PredFan]

1. Do you think the Federal Reserve needs to be audited and why?
2. Do you think that the Fed and Bernanke are doing a good job with it?
3. Are you not concerned about who will do the auditing?

1. It is too late. The feds market actor status since 2008, in particular by selling short maturities and buying long maturities, known as "Operation Twist", as analyzed by Goldman Sachs, shows that the long end of the curve results in negative yields. It is now about the "Flow" of the purchases that matters, not the stock itself. Think of it as the snake eating its tail. While for many years I was in favor of a full audit and dismantling of the federal reserve fiat money scheme, it is now passed the point of no return. We'll have to play along until it breaks. Which is a mathematical inevitability.

2. LOL! The current chairman of the federal reserve, known in financial and right side-up economist circles as Helicopter Ben, is about as clueless as one could ever get on sane monetary policy. Deflation is the devil!!! He's a fucking complete moron. But the fed was built to do what it is doing, which is destroying the dollar, by design.

3. I could give a rats ass who does what now. The whole system is coming to a chaotic end. You can see it all over the world at this point. The bigger question will be how will it come crashing down and will we repeat this fiat ponzi scheme for the benefits of governments and their protected friends again, or will people wake up and realize that printed money backed by nothing does not create wealth, it destroys it.

Thanks.

 

[8537]

I'm not an economist, so I don't understand most of what I have heard about this issue. I am a Libertarian and it has been a part of the LP platform for quite a while. Either to abolish the Fed outright or to regularly audit it. In the cases of issues that I'm a little sketchy on, I default to those whom I believe are in the know.

So my question is actually multiple questions. I am asking not only Libertarians but Conservatives and Liberals as well. Anyone who knows what it's about or thinks they do.

1. Do you think the Federal Reserve needs to be audited and why?
2. Do you think that the Fed and Bernanke are doing a good job with it?
3. Are you not concerned about who will do the auditing?

Thanks in advance.

I believe the Fed should end and now. The reason is that I do not believe in central price controls. No central planners should control the price of anything, including the price of money (interest rates). They cannot determine the rates that would be established in a free market and they, for their own good, force inflation on the people, the most regressive tax of all.

For example, from the founding of the country until the creation of the Fed in 1913, inflation/deflation was market based. As a result, some products increased in price, others decreased but overall, a widget that cost $100 in 1795 cost about $100 in 1908. After the creation of the Fed, the price of all goods and services has skyrocketed. That widget that cost $100 in 1915 now costs what? A HELL of lot more than $100. That's regressive, non-market based inflation that hurts the poor most of all.

Further, the Fed acts as the ATM for Congress and their pet projects, be they welfare or war related. If a politician's proposal is so damn wonderful, he aught to be able to justify how to pay for it now, not put if off on future generations, which the Fed allows. The endless printing of money for their buddies in Congress is another reason to end the Fed.

For those that support the Fed I ask "What other items should have their price centrally controlled by unelected bureaucrats?" Cars? Computers? Milk? What?

Well, it's true that the price of a widget was about the same in 1908 as it was in 1795 - but it's also true that we had a wide range of bank runs, financial panics, long bouts of deflation, currency manipulations, wildcat currencies, runs on gold supplies etc....during that period as well.

Price stability is not the singular factor that determines a nation's well being.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Gold is not in a bubble, the dollar is.

Are you in for a shock, I really hope you do not have too much invested in it or are not too enamored of the shiny yellow metal to know when to dump it off on a bigger more frightened fool.

No, Im not in for a shock. Gold is not in a bubble. Gold prices move based on currencies. Cheap money? Gold prices soar. Stabling currency inflation? Prices steady and perhaps drop.

There are other factors, but these are key indicators. As QE3 approaches and the echo chamber gets louder, watch teh price of gold soar again.

I really dont think you're market savvy enough, based on your posts here, to be giving out any market advice.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm not an economist, so I don't understand most of what I have heard about this issue. I am a Libertarian and it has been a part of the LP platform for quite a while. Either to abolish the Fed outright or to regularly audit it. In the cases of issues that I'm a little sketchy on, I default to those whom I believe are in the know.

So my question is actually multiple questions. I am asking not only Libertarians but Conservatives and Liberals as well. Anyone who knows what it's about or thinks they do.

1. Do you think the Federal Reserve needs to be audited and why?
2. Do you think that the Fed and Bernanke are doing a good job with it?
3. Are you not concerned about who will do the auditing?

Thanks in advance.

I believe the Fed should end and now. The reason is that I do not believe in central price controls. No central planners should control the price of anything, including the price of money (interest rates). They cannot determine the rates that would be established in a free market and they, for their own good, force inflation on the people, the most regressive tax of all.

For example, from the founding of the country until the creation of the Fed in 1913, inflation/deflation was market based. As a result, some products increased in price, others decreased but overall, a widget that cost $100 in 1795 cost about $100 in 1908. After the creation of the Fed, the price of all goods and services has skyrocketed. That widget that cost $100 in 1915 now costs what? A HELL of lot more than $100. That's regressive, non-market based inflation that hurts the poor most of all.

Further, the Fed acts as the ATM for Congress and their pet projects, be they welfare or war related. If a politician's proposal is so damn wonderful, he aught to be able to justify how to pay for it now, not put if off on future generations, which the Fed allows. The endless printing of money for their buddies in Congress is another reason to end the Fed.

For those that support the Fed I ask "What other items should have their price centrally controlled by unelected bureaucrats?" Cars? Computers? Milk? What?

Well, it's true that the price of a widget was about the same in 1908 as it was in 1795 - but it's also true that we had a wide range of bank runs, financial panics, long bouts of deflation, currency manipulations, wildcat currencies, runs on gold supplies etc....during that period as well.
Price stability is not the singular factor that determines a nation's well being.

Most of those were due to government intervention into the markets also. There is no such thing as perfection in markets. There will be down turns and such. These are natural phenom.

However, it is no coincidence that the age of perpetual war and central banking are happening in tandem.

 

[8537]

I believe the Fed should end and now. The reason is that I do not believe in central price controls. No central planners should control the price of anything, including the price of money (interest rates). They cannot determine the rates that would be established in a free market and they, for their own good, force inflation on the people, the most regressive tax of all.

For example, from the founding of the country until the creation of the Fed in 1913, inflation/deflation was market based. As a result, some products increased in price, others decreased but overall, a widget that cost $100 in 1795 cost about $100 in 1908. After the creation of the Fed, the price of all goods and services has skyrocketed. That widget that cost $100 in 1915 now costs what? A HELL of lot more than $100. That's regressive, non-market based inflation that hurts the poor most of all.

Further, the Fed acts as the ATM for Congress and their pet projects, be they welfare or war related. If a politician's proposal is so damn wonderful, he aught to be able to justify how to pay for it now, not put if off on future generations, which the Fed allows. The endless printing of money for their buddies in Congress is another reason to end the Fed.

For those that support the Fed I ask "What other items should have their price centrally controlled by unelected bureaucrats?" Cars? Computers? Milk? What?

Well, it's true that the price of a widget was about the same in 1908 as it was in 1795 - but it's also true that we had a wide range of bank runs, financial panics, long bouts of deflation, currency manipulations, wildcat currencies, runs on gold supplies etc....during that period as well.
Price stability is not the singular factor that determines a nation's well being.

Most of those were due to government intervention into the markets also. There is no such thing as perfection in markets. There will be down turns and such. These are natural phenom.

How did government interference cause wildcat banks? How did government interference cause farms in the west to collapse for lack of short-term capital? Which government intervention caused three separate, severe panics in a 25 year stretch? And how did government interference cause sustained deflation? Did the Suffolk system create panics in the Boston area?

It's easy to dismiss everything as "Well, that's when the government interfered!" Much harder to actually support the claim with fact.

And a serious question: Why would you want a monetary system based on digging a mineral out of the ground in one part of the world (committing vast resources towards a system to create a unit of exchange) so that you can turn around and bury deep underground in another part of the world?

 

[eflatminor]

I'm not an economist, so I don't understand most of what I have heard about this issue. I am a Libertarian and it has been a part of the LP platform for quite a while. Either to abolish the Fed outright or to regularly audit it. In the cases of issues that I'm a little sketchy on, I default to those whom I believe are in the know.

So my question is actually multiple questions. I am asking not only Libertarians but Conservatives and Liberals as well. Anyone who knows what it's about or thinks they do.

1. Do you think the Federal Reserve needs to be audited and why?
2. Do you think that the Fed and Bernanke are doing a good job with it?
3. Are you not concerned about who will do the auditing?

Thanks in advance.

I believe the Fed should end and now. The reason is that I do not believe in central price controls. No central planners should control the price of anything, including the price of money (interest rates). They cannot determine the rates that would be established in a free market and they, for their own good, force inflation on the people, the most regressive tax of all.

For example, from the founding of the country until the creation of the Fed in 1913, inflation/deflation was market based. As a result, some products increased in price, others decreased but overall, a widget that cost $100 in 1795 cost about $100 in 1908. After the creation of the Fed, the price of all goods and services has skyrocketed. That widget that cost $100 in 1915 now costs what? A HELL of lot more than $100. That's regressive, non-market based inflation that hurts the poor most of all.

Further, the Fed acts as the ATM for Congress and their pet projects, be they welfare or war related. If a politician's proposal is so damn wonderful, he aught to be able to justify how to pay for it now, not put if off on future generations, which the Fed allows. The endless printing of money for their buddies in Congress is another reason to end the Fed.

For those that support the Fed I ask "What other items should have their price centrally controlled by unelected bureaucrats?" Cars? Computers? Milk? What?

Well, it's true that the price of a widget was about the same in 1908 as it was in 1795 - but it's also true that we had a wide range of bank runs, financial panics, long bouts of deflation, currency manipulations, wildcat currencies, runs on gold supplies etc....during that period as well.

Price stability is not the singular factor that determines a nation's well being.

You're correct that the market for money was not free of risk prior to the Fed, but that's true of any market. More importantly, risk remains post Fed...AND we've added the damaging effects of constant inflation and crippling debt on top of those risks. We've had financial panics, HUGE and prolonged boom-bust cycles, and currency manipulation with the Fed in charge. True we've had fewer bank runs but I'd argue that's due to the FDIC and the dominance of just a few gigantic banks that control the lion's share of capital. Why run on a bank when taxpayers have your deposit's back and the bank is so large, it's "too big to fail"?

We could avoid bank runs today without the Fed and without the FDIC...but that's another topic.

Runs on gold supplies came about when government tried to manipulate gold or the price of gold. If the market set the price of gold and money was tied to that, it would not matter how much gold was in the market, just how much that gold was worth. Honestly though, it need not be gold. Any tangible asset whose value is market determined will do.

Bottom line, the Fed's promise of stability and continuous economic growth is a fallacy. They cause cycles of boom and bust to be far deeper and longer than would be the case without them. They allow politicians easy cash and therefore, terrible debt. They hurt the poor with constant unrelenting inflation. Whatever good they do, it's FAR outweighed by the damage they cause in the long run. This is my opinion anyway.

Again, central price controls suck...always. Can anyone name another market whose prices should be centrally controlled?

 

[8537]

AN important note before i continue: My time is limited so I'm giving quick answers. It's a difficult topic my intent is not to say "I'm right, you're wrong". Simply to spark interesting discussion. Please don't mistake brief quips for disrespect - none is meant.

I believe the Fed should end and now. The reason is that I do not believe in central price controls. No central planners should control the price of anything, including the price of money (interest rates). They cannot determine the rates that would be established in a free market and they, for their own good, force inflation on the people, the most regressive tax of all.

For example, from the founding of the country until the creation of the Fed in 1913, inflation/deflation was market based. As a result, some products increased in price, others decreased but overall, a widget that cost $100 in 1795 cost about $100 in 1908. After the creation of the Fed, the price of all goods and services has skyrocketed. That widget that cost $100 in 1915 now costs what? A HELL of lot more than $100. That's regressive, non-market based inflation that hurts the poor most of all.

Further, the Fed acts as the ATM for Congress and their pet projects, be they welfare or war related. If a politician's proposal is so damn wonderful, he aught to be able to justify how to pay for it now, not put if off on future generations, which the Fed allows. The endless printing of money for their buddies in Congress is another reason to end the Fed.

For those that support the Fed I ask "What other items should have their price centrally controlled by unelected bureaucrats?" Cars? Computers? Milk? What?

Well, it's true that the price of a widget was about the same in 1908 as it was in 1795 - but it's also true that we had a wide range of bank runs, financial panics, long bouts of deflation, currency manipulations, wildcat currencies, runs on gold supplies etc....during that period as well.

Price stability is not the singular factor that determines a nation's well being.

You're correct that the market for money was not free of risk prior to the Fed, but that's true of any market. More importantly, risk remains post Fed...AND we've added the damaging effects of constant inflation and crippling debt on top of those risks. We've had financial panics, HUGE and prolonged boom-bust cycles, and currency manipulation with the Fed in charge. True we've had fewer bank runs but I'd argue that's due to the FDIC and the dominance of just a few gigantic banks that control the lion's share of capital. Why run on a bank when taxpayers have your deposit's back and the bank is so large, it's "too big to fail"?

We've had fewer bank runs, fewer and less catastrophic panics, more price stability and a reduction in the depths of economic contractions.

Bottom line, the Fed's promise of stability and continuous economic growth is a fallacy.

The Fed didn't / doesn't promise continuous economic growth.

They cause cycles of boom and bust to be far deeper and longer than would be the case without them.

Except they were far deeper before the Fed gained significant monetary authority shortly before WW2.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, it's true that the price of a widget was about the same in 1908 as it was in 1795 - but it's also true that we had a wide range of bank runs, financial panics, long bouts of deflation, currency manipulations, wildcat currencies, runs on gold supplies etc....during that period as well.
Price stability is not the singular factor that determines a nation's well being.

Most of those were due to government intervention into the markets also. There is no such thing as perfection in markets. There will be down turns and such. These are natural phenom.

How did government interference cause wildcat banks? How did government interference cause farms in the west to collapse for lack of short-term capital? Which government intervention caused three separate, severe panics in a 25 year stretch? And how did government interference cause sustained deflation? Did the Suffolk system create panics in the Boston area?

It's easy to dismiss everything as "Well, that's when the government interfered!" Much harder to actually support the claim with fact.

And a serious question: Why would you want a monetary system based on digging a mineral out of the ground in one part of the world (committing vast resources towards a system to create a unit of exchange) so that you can turn around and bury deep underground in another part of the world?

Government, on the state level during the free banking era fostered wildcat currencies and banking through regulations (not that I'm against free banking). Which is why I said "free banking and currency competition would quickly lead people to cozy up to a gold standard."

Which 3 severe panics in 25 years are you referring to exactly? and we can assess them on a case by case basis.

Deflation? Are we referring to the great sag? As it turns out, the price dips were around 2% and while this was bad in industrialized nations like Britain, it was a sustained GROWTH for the USA. The deflation of prices, materials and labor is not a bad thing, it's actually a good thing. It is noted as being part of the second industrial revolution. This is not a bad thing at all and was a natural run of course in industrialization.

You'll have to clue me in on the suffolk system and Boston panics. Im not familiar.

 

[eflatminor]

AN important note before i continue: My time is limited so I'm giving quick answers. It's a difficult topic my intent is not to say "I'm right, you're wrong". Simply to spark interesting discussion. Please don't mistake brief quips for disrespect - none is meant.

Well, it's true that the price of a widget was about the same in 1908 as it was in 1795 - but it's also true that we had a wide range of bank runs, financial panics, long bouts of deflation, currency manipulations, wildcat currencies, runs on gold supplies etc....during that period as well.

Price stability is not the singular factor that determines a nation's well being.

You're correct that the market for money was not free of risk prior to the Fed, but that's true of any market. More importantly, risk remains post Fed...AND we've added the damaging effects of constant inflation and crippling debt on top of those risks. We've had financial panics, HUGE and prolonged boom-bust cycles, and currency manipulation with the Fed in charge. True we've had fewer bank runs but I'd argue that's due to the FDIC and the dominance of just a few gigantic banks that control the lion's share of capital. Why run on a bank when taxpayers have your deposit's back and the bank is so large, it's "too big to fail"?

We've had fewer bank runs, fewer and less catastrophic panics, more price stability and a reduction in the depths of economic contractions.

Bottom line, the Fed's promise of stability and continuous economic growth is a fallacy.

The Fed didn't / doesn't promise continuous economic growth.

They cause cycles of boom and bust to be far deeper and longer than would be the case without them.

Except they were far deeper before the Fed gained significant monetary authority shortly before WW2.

I appreciate your candor and professionalism. However, my reading of history differs. The financial downturns post Fed have been fewer in number, which we'd expect by 'kicking the can down the road' but more severe and prolonged, such as the "Great" Depression. Certainly, political actions, spending and tax policies influence the severity of downturns, but it's the Fed that makes bad decisions possible.

I argue we could have never seen the housing boom without the Fed. No boom, no bust. After the bust, it was our ability to print money that lead to the Keynesian approach...spend our way out of it. It hasn't and it won't work. I argue that if we had cut spending, cut taxes and removed impediments to growth (heavy regulation), we would have been out of this downturn years ago. That's exactly what happened in the downturn of 1920. A year later, the roaring twenties...despite the Fed!

I will say you're probably technically correct that the Fed never promised continuous economic growth but that sure as HECK as been their MO. $16 trillion of debt later...we're still growing!

Whichever economy was less volatile, pre or post Fed, I just can't overlook the constant inflation, the devaluation of the dollar and the deficit spending made possible by the Fed. Can't do it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Whichever economy was less volatile, pre or post Fed, I just can't overlook the constant inflation, the devaluation of the dollar and the deficit spending made possible by the Fed. Can't do it.

It's hard to ignore the confiscation of stored wealth by the very people who claim to be protecting it.

 

[Jackson]

So the reason we shouldn't audit them is that they have been doing things that would cause us to lose faith in them? This sounds like doublethink to me.

No one really wants to face what a precarious house of cards the global financial system is, how much it is built on sand and scornful of stability and especially how many vast fortunes were built from elaborate con jobs.

We can only ignore it for so long before it all comes tumbling down on it's own. It would be much better to know exactly what they are doing so we can devise a plan to counteract it. It may not be too late to resolve this crisis.

Presently we have our heads in the sand. I agree, it will come tumbling down and we might as well know now. We should have done this decades ago. But before the audit, let me take all my money out and get a new hollow mattress.

 

[8537]

Most of those were due to government intervention into the markets also. There is no such thing as perfection in markets. There will be down turns and such. These are natural phenom.

How did government interference cause wildcat banks? How did government interference cause farms in the west to collapse for lack of short-term capital? Which government intervention caused three separate, severe panics in a 25 year stretch? And how did government interference cause sustained deflation? Did the Suffolk system create panics in the Boston area?

It's easy to dismiss everything as "Well, that's when the government interfered!" Much harder to actually support the claim with fact.

And a serious question: Why would you want a monetary system based on digging a mineral out of the ground in one part of the world (committing vast resources towards a system to create a unit of exchange) so that you can turn around and bury deep underground in another part of the world?

Government, on the state level during the free banking era fostered wildcat currencies and banking through regulations (not that I'm against free banking). Which is why I said "free banking and currency competition would quickly lead people to cozy up to a gold standard."

I honestly don't see how states like Michigan and Missouri "fostered" wildcat currencies. In most cases they didn't have state backing or state sponsorship as I understand it, and they weren't state charters. What regulations encouraged them?

Which 3 severe panics in 25 years are you referring to exactly? and we can assess them on a case by case basis.

1873, 1884 and 1893. But prior to the international gold standard there were two severe panics in the time after the war of 1812 and before the Civil war...I don't recall the exact dates.

Deflation? Are we referring to the great sag? As it turns out, the price dips were around 2% and while this was bad in industrialized nations like Britain, it was a sustained GROWTH for the USA. The deflation of prices, materials and labor is not a bad thing, it's actually a good thing. It is noted as being part of the second industrial revolution. This is not a bad thing at all and was a natural run of course in industrialization.

A sustained deflation is a serious restraint on investment.

You'll have to clue me in on the suffolk system and Boston panics. Im not familiar.

The Suffolk system was one of the earliest examples of an organic "Central bank" - a bank in Suffolk county (boston) produced a currency and its use became widespread throughout the immediate trade region - which at that time was Western Mass, part of NH etc...I believe it was the 1740'sish, but I'd have to review for the exact time frame. At any rate, pre-Revolution.

The Suffolk currency managed to drive a couple other local currencies out of circulation and suffered some of the same issues with agricultural needs that would later become an issue with hard currency in the US in the 1890's.

 

[8537]

AN important note before i continue: My time is limited so I'm giving quick answers. It's a difficult topic my intent is not to say "I'm right, you're wrong". Simply to spark interesting discussion. Please don't mistake brief quips for disrespect - none is meant.

You're correct that the market for money was not free of risk prior to the Fed, but that's true of any market. More importantly, risk remains post Fed...AND we've added the damaging effects of constant inflation and crippling debt on top of those risks. We've had financial panics, HUGE and prolonged boom-bust cycles, and currency manipulation with the Fed in charge. True we've had fewer bank runs but I'd argue that's due to the FDIC and the dominance of just a few gigantic banks that control the lion's share of capital. Why run on a bank when taxpayers have your deposit's back and the bank is so large, it's "too big to fail"?

We've had fewer bank runs, fewer and less catastrophic panics, more price stability and a reduction in the depths of economic contractions.


The Fed didn't / doesn't promise continuous economic growth.

They cause cycles of boom and bust to be far deeper and longer than would be the case without them.

Except they were far deeper before the Fed gained significant monetary authority shortly before WW2.

I appreciate your candor and professionalism. However, my reading of history differs. The financial downturns post Fed have been fewer in number, which we'd expect by 'kicking the can down the road' but more severe and prolonged, such as the "Great" Depression. Certainly, political actions, spending and tax policies influence the severity of downturns, but it's the Fed that makes bad decisions possible.

I argue we could have never seen the housing boom without the Fed. No boom, no bust. After the bust, it was our ability to print money that lead to the Keynesian approach...spend our way out of it. It hasn't and it won't work. I argue that if we had cut spending, cut taxes and removed impediments to growth (heavy regulation), we would have been out of this downturn years ago. That's exactly what happened in the downturn of 1920. A year later, the roaring twenties...despite the Fed!

I will say you're probably technically correct that the Fed never promised continuous economic growth but that sure as HECK as been their MO. $16 trillion of debt later...we're still growing!

Whichever economy was less volatile, pre or post Fed, I just can't overlook the constant inflation, the devaluation of the dollar and the deficit spending made possible by the Fed. Can't do it.

I have to run for now, but I look forward to returning to an interesting discussion when I have some time. Enjoy.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

1873, 1884 and 1893.

Ah, "then crime of 73". This one is easy. The German empire stopped minting silver thalers, which created a price suppression on silver, and the mining industries, in the western nations. including the US. Which led to the coinage act of 1873. Which essentially moved us off silver and to an exclusive gold standard. It was the direct results of government interventions that caused this to happen. Both foreign and domestic.

I'll do the other two when i have more time. Marked for later....

 

[g5000]

I'm not an economist, so I don't understand most of what I have heard about this issue. I am a Libertarian and it has been a part of the LP platform for quite a while. Either to abolish the Fed outright or to regularly audit it. In the cases of issues that I'm a little sketchy on, I default to those whom I believe are in the know.

So my question is actually multiple questions. I am asking not only Libertarians but Conservatives and Liberals as well. Anyone who knows what it's about or thinks they do.

1. Do you think the Federal Reserve needs to be audited and why?

As others have pointed out, the Fed is already audited. Those who have fantasies that a deeper audit would collapse the world are living in a delusion. Every banker on the planet already knows what's going on. The only people in the dark are the average citizens, and they are too lazy and too ignorant to understand what is going on. Any special sauce audit would only provoke largescale yawns.

2. Do you think that the Fed and Bernanke are doing a good job with it?

Congress has completely abdicated its role of enacting legislation which provides a level playing field and which gets the economy going again. Congress is aiding and abetting a massive redistribution of wealth from the common man's pocket into the pockets of Wall Street, up to and including the allowing of outright criminals to rip us all off unimpeded and with police protection.

When the shit hit the fan, the entire "recovery" was placed on the shoulders of the Fed. So is it surprising the Fed has set new precedents?

Any concepts of "good" or "bad" as far as what kind of job the Fed is doing are moot. Congress created a vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum. So the Fed has filled it.

It all comes back to your incompetent elected officials.

3. Are you not concerned about who will do the auditing?

Not really. The audit will be a political football for a couple days, and will be conspiracy fodder...forever.



As for the gold standard, those nations which got off the gold standard during the Great Depression recovered the soonest. And financial crises have been farther apart and shallower ever since. This is undeniable fact.


As for investing, I made a small fortune off gold bugs early last year. More money than I ever made in such a short period.

Their hero Peter Schiff lost his ass on gold.


This latest financial crisis was caused by rampant fraud, unregulated derivatives, and massive overleveraging. Every bit of which is still occuring.

The crash had very little to do with the Fed. The Fed's role was keeping interest rates too low for too long. But that is a very minor part in the Big Picture. With or without the Fed, we would have had the crash. Without the Fed, the depth of the crash would have been much, much, much worse.