Should We Kill The Fed?

[SpidermanTuba]

Should We Kill the Fed? by Patrick J. Buchanan

And replace it with what exactly?

The free market and sound money.

I had no idea you could make money out of "sound" ? Please explain what this "sound money is" and how it differs from what we have now.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And replace it with what exactly?

The free market and sound money.

Buzz words for "a pure gold standard where our currency is completely controlled by unregulated private banks and currency supply is at the whim of a commodity"

Is that what he meant? Wow. I guess Kevin never heard of the horrors of deflation. Hope you don't have any loans, Kevin.

 

[Iriemon]

I think we figured out what you are talking about. If you are proposing a different system that what has been discussed in this thread you can let us know.

Boom and bust have existed regardless of the type of currency used. Its a function of greed and fear in free markets. I can't see how a pure gold standard replaces those incentives.

Kudos to both you and Sealy are warranted.

Do we need something LIKE a fed?

I think we do.

Do we want to grant the authority to manipulate the money supply to people who can take that franchise and make it serve ONLY them?

Obvious not.

Is the government just as capable of being venal and destroying ourr economy as the current crop of bankers have obviously done?

Damned right they are.

There is NO SYSTEM that one can devise that will do anything to stop corrupt people from acting selfishly in their own interests.

The ONLY advantage of giving government control over the money supply (as opposed to bankers) is that we get to CHOOSE our leaders in government.

Given the corruption of our government by monied interests, given the fact that they have created a shamocracy, the complaint that many of you have have when people like myself of Sealy demand that we take back that franchise that fractal banking gives to banks is NOT WITHOUT merit.

It is just as likely that a FED run by a government will screw up, as it is that a FED dominated by monied interest will screw up IF the government itself is corrupt.

Nevertheless, the GOLD STANDARD will not solve that problem because the GOLD standard is a system with an inherent flaw that apparently many of you fail to understand.

Ron Paul: I want to give you an update on H.R. 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve. We’re making great progress because a lot of you have helped encourage your member of Congress to co-sponsor the bill. We now have about 39 co-sponsors of the bill [44 as of 3/25/2009] and it’s been introduced in the Senate and we’re picking up a lot of momentum.

And to me, this is very, very important that we do this. The atmosphere in the Congress has definitely changed. It’s changed with their attitude about the Federal Reserve System, but overall there’s a tremendous push by the American people for the Congress to wake up and have more transparency.

They have heard about the stories of the Congress appropriating 700 billion dollars of TARP funds and nobody knowing where this money went, and it ends up paying huge bonuses to people who broke AIG… so the people are demanding more oversight and, fortunately, they’re putting the pressure on the Federal Reserve as well, and that’s why we’re getting so much support for this piece of legislation.

We still have a long way to go, because the special interests are very, very powerful and they don’t want this to happen and yet I think the momentum is in our direction.

In 1950 the law was changed and it exempted the Federal Reserve from any auditing procedures, and they have run wild since then. And what needs to be done is a certain portion of the code has to be repealed so that when we ask questions to the Federal Reserve, they have to answer these questions.

So, to me this is very, very encouraging and we have to keep the heat on. This has been a project of many groups around the country to get more co-sponsors, because ultimately the Congress will respond if there is enough pressure by the people.

Ron Paul: Audit the Federal Reserve! | Ron Paul .com

The Fed is audited every single year by both the GAO and a big 4 accounting firm like Deloitte.

But thanks for sharing Ron Paul's opinion and reminding us why 90-95% of us figured out early on he'd be dangerous to have in control of the government.

 

[Iriemon]

You can see from the start of this thread, anti-Fed people usually come from a misunderstanding of how the Fed operates (usually generated from watching a few conspirasts type videos out there I've seen) and they have a believe that the Fed is a private company, owned by evil bankers who use it to control the world. Then they think that if we return to a gold standard, which has been tried for centuries and abandoned again and again because of its failures as an adequate money system for a modern economy, will somehow eliminate evil bankers.

The Govt isn't perfect, neither is the Fed. But why someone would want to put our money supply in the hands of folks like Bernie Madoff and for profit bankers is puzzling to me.

I do not watch conspiracy theory videos, I do not for a second believe the Fed is a private company, and the gold standard has been abandoned throughout history because inflation allows the government to finance the welfare-warfare state.

The Federal Reserve only appears to be under government control. Who gave the Fed the authority to bail out Bear Stearns the first time? Congress didn't vote on it and the President said nothing. And for those who think the Fed is a non profit, just take a look at the debt. That's all their money. They love us doubling the debt.

Anyone who blows off Freedom to Fascism as a conspiracy theory dvd is a god damn fool.

The Fed is a quasi-public (government entity with private components) banking system

The system was designed out of a compromise between the competing philosophies of privatization and government regulation.[22] While planning the design of the system, some people wanted the system to have generally private aspects whereas others wanted more government involvement. The system that resulted ended up being a compromise between these two philosophies. In 2006 Donald L. Kohn, vice chairman of the Board of Governors, summarized the history of this compromise:[25]

Agrarian and progressive interests, led by William Jennings Bryan, favored a central bank under public, rather than banker, control. But the vast majority of the nation's bankers, concerned about government intervention in the banking business, opposed a central bank structure directed by political appointees.

The legislation that Congress ultimately adopted in 1913 reflected a hard-fought battle to balance these two competing views and created the hybrid public-private, centralized-decentralized structure that we have today.

In the current system, private banks are for-profit businesses but government regulation places restrictions on what they can do. The Federal Reserve System is the part of government that regulates the private banks. The balance between privatization and government involvement is also seen in the structure of the system. Private banks elect members of the board of directors at their regional Federal Reserve Bank while the members of the Board of Governors are selected by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. The private banks give input to the government officials about their economic situation and these government officials use this input in Federal Reserve policy decisions. In the end, private banking businesses are able to run a profitable business while the U.S. government, through the Federal Reserve System, oversees and regulates the activities of the private banks.


What an elaborate scam. When you look at all the facts, you can not escape that this is a very corrupt system without enough checks, balances and oversite.

Anyone who defends the status quo is a fucking fool. Iriemon, time to wake up.

1. I posted earlier in this thread the statute that sets out that "shareholders" of the Fed are national banks that by law have to (or state banks that apply to be a member) put a % of their capital in the Fed. For that they get "shares" they cannot trade, transfer or sell. They get a fixed 6% return and do not share in any "profit". They collectively have power to elect a minority of the board of regional banks, but have no governance at all in the FRB, where the real power lies, which are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

2. If you believe that both Bush and Obama and their administrations and all presidents before them and the Senate and the Fed is all one big conspiracy out to enrich the bankers, there's nothing I can say. I can't debate paranoid delusion.

3. If you don't answer the question I ask, there is nothing to debate. I'm not going to debate rants.

4. If you ever expect me to engage in a discussion with you again, refrain from to referring to my position as those of a "fucking fool". I don't engage with people who call me names like that.

Out.

 

[editec]

I do not watch conspiracy theory videos, I do not for a second believe the Fed is a private company, and the gold standard has been abandoned throughout history because inflation allows the government to finance the welfare-warfare state.

The Federal Reserve only appears to be under government control. Who gave the Fed the authority to bail out Bear Stearns the first time? Congress didn't vote on it and the President said nothing. And for those who think the Fed is a non profit, just take a look at the debt. That's all their money. They love us doubling the debt.

Anyone who blows off Freedom to Fascism as a conspiracy theory dvd is a god damn fool.

The Fed is a quasi-public (government entity with private components) banking system

The system was designed out of a compromise between the competing philosophies of privatization and government regulation.[22] While planning the design of the system, some people wanted the system to have generally private aspects whereas others wanted more government involvement. The system that resulted ended up being a compromise between these two philosophies. In 2006 Donald L. Kohn, vice chairman of the Board of Governors, summarized the history of this compromise:[25]

Agrarian and progressive interests, led by William Jennings Bryan, favored a central bank under public, rather than banker, control. But the vast majority of the nation's bankers, concerned about government intervention in the banking business, opposed a central bank structure directed by political appointees.

The legislation that Congress ultimately adopted in 1913 reflected a hard-fought battle to balance these two competing views and created the hybrid public-private, centralized-decentralized structure that we have today.

In the current system, private banks are for-profit businesses but government regulation places restrictions on what they can do. The Federal Reserve System is the part of government that regulates the private banks. The balance between privatization and government involvement is also seen in the structure of the system. Private banks elect members of the board of directors at their regional Federal Reserve Bank while the members of the Board of Governors are selected by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. The private banks give input to the government officials about their economic situation and these government officials use this input in Federal Reserve policy decisions. In the end, private banking businesses are able to run a profitable business while the U.S. government, through the Federal Reserve System, oversees and regulates the activities of the private banks.


What an elaborate scam. When you look at all the facts, you can not escape that this is a very corrupt system without enough checks, balances and oversite.

Anyone who defends the status quo is a fucking fool. Iriemon, time to wake up.

1. I posted earlier in this thread statutes that set out that "shareholders" of the Fed are national banks that by law have to (or state banks that apply to be a member) put a % of their capital in the Fed. For that they get shares they cannot trade, transfer or sell. They get a fixed 6% return and do not share in any "profit". They have no governance in the FRB, which is appointed by the president.

2. If you believe that Bush and Obama and their administrations and the Senate and the Fed is all one big conspiracy, there's nothing I can say. I can't debate paranoid delusion.

3. If you don't answer the question I ask, there is nothing to debate. I'm not going to debate rants.

4. If you ever expect me to engage in a discussion with you again, refrain to referring to my position as those of a "fucking fool". I don't engage with people who call me names like that.

Out.

They have no governance in the FRB, which is appointed by the president.

Please...don't make me laugh.

They come out of the banking industry (usually directly from the banks which OWN the FED) and when they return to private industry they go right back into those same banks.

Pretending that they're neutral players is naive.

If you doubt that look, at the vitas of the current governors of the various FED regional banks.

 

[Iriemon]

The Federal Reserve only appears to be under government control. Who gave the Fed the authority to bail out Bear Stearns the first time? Congress didn't vote on it and the President said nothing. And for those who think the Fed is a non profit, just take a look at the debt. That's all their money. They love us doubling the debt.

Anyone who blows off Freedom to Fascism as a conspiracy theory dvd is a god damn fool.

The Fed is a quasi-public (government entity with private components) banking system

The system was designed out of a compromise between the competing philosophies of privatization and government regulation.[22] While planning the design of the system, some people wanted the system to have generally private aspects whereas others wanted more government involvement. The system that resulted ended up being a compromise between these two philosophies. In 2006 Donald L. Kohn, vice chairman of the Board of Governors, summarized the history of this compromise:[25]

Agrarian and progressive interests, led by William Jennings Bryan, favored a central bank under public, rather than banker, control. But the vast majority of the nation's bankers, concerned about government intervention in the banking business, opposed a central bank structure directed by political appointees.

The legislation that Congress ultimately adopted in 1913 reflected a hard-fought battle to balance these two competing views and created the hybrid public-private, centralized-decentralized structure that we have today.

In the current system, private banks are for-profit businesses but government regulation places restrictions on what they can do. The Federal Reserve System is the part of government that regulates the private banks. The balance between privatization and government involvement is also seen in the structure of the system. Private banks elect members of the board of directors at their regional Federal Reserve Bank while the members of the Board of Governors are selected by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. The private banks give input to the government officials about their economic situation and these government officials use this input in Federal Reserve policy decisions. In the end, private banking businesses are able to run a profitable business while the U.S. government, through the Federal Reserve System, oversees and regulates the activities of the private banks.


What an elaborate scam. When you look at all the facts, you can not escape that this is a very corrupt system without enough checks, balances and oversite.

Anyone who defends the status quo is a fucking fool. Iriemon, time to wake up.

1. I posted earlier in this thread statutes that set out that "shareholders" of the Fed are national banks that by law have to (or state banks that apply to be a member) put a % of their capital in the Fed. For that they get shares they cannot trade, transfer or sell. They get a fixed 6% return and do not share in any "profit". They have no governance in the FRB, which is appointed by the president.

2. If you believe that Bush and Obama and their administrations and the Senate and the Fed is all one big conspiracy, there's nothing I can say. I can't debate paranoid delusion.

3. If you don't answer the question I ask, there is nothing to debate. I'm not going to debate rants.

4. If you ever expect me to engage in a discussion with you again, refrain to referring to my position as those of a "fucking fool". I don't engage with people who call me names like that.

Out.

They have no governance in the FRB, which is appointed by the president.

Please...don't make me laugh.

They come out of the banking industry (usually directly from the banks which OWN the FED) and when they return to private industry they go right back into those same banks.

Pretending that they're neutral players is naive.

If you doubt that look, at the vitas of the current governors of the various FED regional banks.

I didn't assert they were or were not neutral players, whatever that means. I personally would prefer to have folks that have a little knowledge of banking and the economy involved in the organization that controls the money supply.

The fact that bankers have input into the selection is no different than any other federal appointment.

What I do assert is that the "shareholders" of the Federal Reserve have no power to choose who is on the Federal Reserve Board.

If you contend otherwise, please cite authority whcih shows the Fed shareholders have power to appoint FRB members.

 

[sealybobo]

Kudos to both you and Sealy are warranted.

Do we need something LIKE a fed?

I think we do.

Do we want to grant the authority to manipulate the money supply to people who can take that franchise and make it serve ONLY them?

Obvious not.

Is the government just as capable of being venal and destroying ourr economy as the current crop of bankers have obviously done?

Damned right they are.

There is NO SYSTEM that one can devise that will do anything to stop corrupt people from acting selfishly in their own interests.

The ONLY advantage of giving government control over the money supply (as opposed to bankers) is that we get to CHOOSE our leaders in government.

Given the corruption of our government by monied interests, given the fact that they have created a shamocracy, the complaint that many of you have have when people like myself of Sealy demand that we take back that franchise that fractal banking gives to banks is NOT WITHOUT merit.

It is just as likely that a FED run by a government will screw up, as it is that a FED dominated by monied interest will screw up IF the government itself is corrupt.

Nevertheless, the GOLD STANDARD will not solve that problem because the GOLD standard is a system with an inherent flaw that apparently many of you fail to understand.

Ron Paul: I want to give you an update on H.R. 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve. We’re making great progress because a lot of you have helped encourage your member of Congress to co-sponsor the bill. We now have about 39 co-sponsors of the bill [44 as of 3/25/2009] and it’s been introduced in the Senate and we’re picking up a lot of momentum.

And to me, this is very, very important that we do this. The atmosphere in the Congress has definitely changed. It’s changed with their attitude about the Federal Reserve System, but overall there’s a tremendous push by the American people for the Congress to wake up and have more transparency.

They have heard about the stories of the Congress appropriating 700 billion dollars of TARP funds and nobody knowing where this money went, and it ends up paying huge bonuses to people who broke AIG… so the people are demanding more oversight and, fortunately, they’re putting the pressure on the Federal Reserve as well, and that’s why we’re getting so much support for this piece of legislation.

We still have a long way to go, because the special interests are very, very powerful and they don’t want this to happen and yet I think the momentum is in our direction.

In 1950 the law was changed and it exempted the Federal Reserve from any auditing procedures, and they have run wild since then. And what needs to be done is a certain portion of the code has to be repealed so that when we ask questions to the Federal Reserve, they have to answer these questions.

So, to me this is very, very encouraging and we have to keep the heat on. This has been a project of many groups around the country to get more co-sponsors, because ultimately the Congress will respond if there is enough pressure by the people.

Ron Paul: Audit the Federal Reserve! | Ron Paul .com

The Fed is audited every single year by both the GAO and a big 4 accounting firm like Deloitte.

But thanks for sharing Ron Paul's opinion and reminding us why 90-95% of us figured out early on he'd be dangerous to have in control of the government.

Hey idiot! Ron Paul was winning the debates when all of the sudden he wasn't invited to anymore debates. And the MASSES, didn't even notice.

So lets be honest. 95% of us are dumb. So you think because the masses are in the dark on this that proves your point? You may be a part of the masses, but that doesn't make you right. If they would wake up, there wouldn't be an income tax.

And by the way, you didn't figure anything out. The Corporate Media does your figuring for you. You are the under informed. Or ILL informed.

Henry Ford Quote: It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

The Fed is audited every year? Do you have one single link that backs that up?

Know why I'm so sure that I am right? Because I don't like the way the government handles this question. They get awfully nervous. Almost as if they don't want us to know something. If they were right, they wouldn't handle this topic the way they do.

If we are stupid, the government would LOVE to discuss this with us. But Aaron Russo interviewed former IRS directors on Freedom to Fascism and he spanked them. ONe of them got frustrated and in yiddish said to him, "there is nothing you can do about this".

Anti-Tax Group Makes 'Final Warning' to Federal Government -- 11/15/2002

 

[sealybobo]

1. I posted earlier in this thread statutes that set out that "shareholders" of the Fed are national banks that by law have to (or state banks that apply to be a member) put a % of their capital in the Fed. For that they get shares they cannot trade, transfer or sell. They get a fixed 6% return and do not share in any "profit". They have no governance in the FRB, which is appointed by the president.

2. If you believe that Bush and Obama and their administrations and the Senate and the Fed is all one big conspiracy, there's nothing I can say. I can't debate paranoid delusion.

3. If you don't answer the question I ask, there is nothing to debate. I'm not going to debate rants.

4. If you ever expect me to engage in a discussion with you again, refrain to referring to my position as those of a "fucking fool". I don't engage with people who call me names like that.

Out.

They have no governance in the FRB, which is appointed by the president.

Please...don't make me laugh.

They come out of the banking industry (usually directly from the banks which OWN the FED) and when they return to private industry they go right back into those same banks.

Pretending that they're neutral players is naive.

If you doubt that look, at the vitas of the current governors of the various FED regional banks.

I didn't assert they were or were not neutral players, whatever that means. I personally would prefer to have folks that have a little knowledge of banking and the economy involved in the organization that controls the money supply.

The fact that bankers have input into the selection is no different than any other federal appointment.

What I do assert is that the "shareholders" of the Federal Reserve have no power to choose who is on the Federal Reserve Board.

If you contend otherwise, please cite authority whcih shows the Fed shareholders have power to appoint FRB members.

I heard that the bankers that own the Federal Reserve pick who can sit on the board and then the government picks from that list.

For example, Obama is said to want Lawrence Summer. In December 1991, Summer worked at the World Bank. I know you probably think the World Bank's mission is to end poverty, but it is not. It is to own those poor countries. But thats another conspiracy itself.

Hey, i found an interesting story from last year: Most sweeping changes since Great Depression - Stocks & economy- msnbc.com

 

[Iriemon]

Ron Paul: I want to give you an update on H.R. 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve. We’re making great progress because a lot of you have helped encourage your member of Congress to co-sponsor the bill. We now have about 39 co-sponsors of the bill [44 as of 3/25/2009] and it’s been introduced in the Senate and we’re picking up a lot of momentum.

And to me, this is very, very important that we do this. The atmosphere in the Congress has definitely changed. It’s changed with their attitude about the Federal Reserve System, but overall there’s a tremendous push by the American people for the Congress to wake up and have more transparency.

They have heard about the stories of the Congress appropriating 700 billion dollars of TARP funds and nobody knowing where this money went, and it ends up paying huge bonuses to people who broke AIG… so the people are demanding more oversight and, fortunately, they’re putting the pressure on the Federal Reserve as well, and that’s why we’re getting so much support for this piece of legislation.

We still have a long way to go, because the special interests are very, very powerful and they don’t want this to happen and yet I think the momentum is in our direction.

In 1950 the law was changed and it exempted the Federal Reserve from any auditing procedures, and they have run wild since then. And what needs to be done is a certain portion of the code has to be repealed so that when we ask questions to the Federal Reserve, they have to answer these questions.

So, to me this is very, very encouraging and we have to keep the heat on. This has been a project of many groups around the country to get more co-sponsors, because ultimately the Congress will respond if there is enough pressure by the people.

Ron Paul: Audit the Federal Reserve! | Ron Paul .com

The Fed is audited every single year by both the GAO and a big 4 accounting firm like Deloitte.

But thanks for sharing Ron Paul's opinion and reminding us why 90-95% of us figured out early on he'd be dangerous to have in control of the government.

Hey idiot! Ron Paul was winning the debates when all of the sudden he wasn't invited to anymore debates. And the MASSES, didn't even notice.

So lets be honest. 95% of us are dumb. So you think because the masses are in the dark on this that proves your point? You may be a part of the masses, but that doesn't make you right. If they would wake up, there wouldn't be an income tax.

And by the way, you didn't figure anything out. The Corporate Media does your figuring for you. You are the under informed. Or ILL informed.

Henry Ford Quote: It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

The Fed is audited every year? Do you have one single link that backs that up?

Know why I'm so sure that I am right? Because I don't like the way the government handles this question. They get awfully nervous. Almost as if they don't want us to know something. If they were right, they wouldn't handle this topic the way they do.

If we are stupid, the government would LOVE to discuss this with us. But Aaron Russo interviewed former IRS directors on Freedom to Fascism and he spanked them. ONe of them got frustrated and in yiddish said to him, "there is nothing you can do about this".

Anti-Tax Group Makes 'Final Warning' to Federal Government -- 11/15/2002

If anyone other than Sealybobo is interested in seeing backup for my claim that the Fed is audited every year, let me know and I'll be happy to oblige.

 

[mash107]

The gold standard pretty much puts a stop to inflation. The only time prices go up is when more gold is put into the system.


The gold standard was right.

You gold bugs are idiots.

No offense dude but a gold standard insures continuous deflation in a thriving society.

The inevitable outcome of a gold standard (or silver standard, or diamond standard or any standard which confuses STUFF for money) is a very wealthy banking elite and an completely impoverished working class.

And that is why when nations were on gold standards few of them thrived UNLESS they suddenly found themselves with enormous amount so NEW gold to play with.

And even then, when Spain had a pefectly sound gold standard, inflation reared its ugly head when they suddenly got a LOT of it.

Study what happened to SPAIN's economy when they took over the new world and suddently found themselves with enormous amounts of gold in the treasury.

In the short run they were wealthy and powerful, but in the long run all that gold didn't help (because it did not encourage additional productivity), and their economy (and power) faded.

Neither money NOR gold is wealth

LABOR CREATES WEALTH.

Nothing else but labor creates wealth.

All money should ever represent is the aggregate ability of a society to create wealth.

The gold standard will replace the problem of fiat dollars with an even more deadly problem...DEFLATION.

Deflation is good for people, bad for banks and government. Why wouldn't you want things to cost less? That is how poor people benefit from capitalism. Inflation, which is a direct result of socialism/central banks, hurts poor people unjustifiably, while enriching those that have connections (the banks).

Deflation happened to the PC industry over the last two decades. In 1988, a 286 costed me $1500, now you can get a pretty good PC for $100 (in 1988 dollars). Are PC companies out of business? Absolutely not. Dell makes $billions per quarter.

And onto your second point, It's productivity that creates wealth, yes. But digging a hole one day and filling it up the next does absolutely nothing to create wealth (i.e. the entire stimulus package). On the contrary, it sucks wealth away from jobs that could've been created producing things.

 

[Vintij]

During times of recession government must spend more to counter act the rising unemployment levels. Its that simple. Party ideology is utterly counter productive because circumstances that arise from economic conditions make for great times for opportunistic politics, but bad times for real economic change. Milton Friedman, who was a staunch advocate of capitalism and deregulation in private sectors of the economy, advocated "government spending is essential during depressions to slow the rising rate of unemployment". Consequentialy, arguing over rhetoric like "government is too large" or "socialism is on the way" means absolutely nothing. Politicians play these stupid political games in front of the camera yet saliently vote for policy that disregards their alleged economic ideology. Everyone talks about the deficit as if they know anything about it. Think of it this way, the federal deficit is an emergency credit card; when you lose your job and cant afford to pay for food or car payments you charge it. This is the role of the deficit and this is what is happening now because nearly 10% of Americans are now out of the job. If this continues to grow the argument wont be the size of government or the balance of the federal deficit, it will be origins of skyrocketing poverty as it was in the 1930's.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

During times of recession government must spend more to counter act the rising unemployment levels. Its that simple. Party ideology is utterly counter productive because circumstances that arise from economic conditions make for great times for opportunistic politics, but bad times for real economic change. Milton Friedman, who was a staunch advocate of capitalism and deregulation in private sectors of the economy, advocated "government spending is essential during depressions to slow the rising rate of unemployment". Consequentialy, arguing over rhetoric like "government is too large" or "socialism is on the way" means absolutely nothing. Politicians play these stupid political games in front of the camera yet saliently vote for policy that disregards their alleged economic ideology. Everyone talks about the deficit as if they know anything about it. Think of it this way, the federal deficit is an emergency credit card; when you lose your job and cant afford to pay for food or car payments you charge it. This is the role of the deficit and this is what is happening now because nearly 10% of Americans are now out of the job. If this continues to grow the argument wont be the size of government or the balance of the federal deficit, it will be origins of skyrocketing poverty as it was in the 1930's.

Except government spending doesn't "counter act the rising unemployment levels." Any number of jobs that the government creates it also destroys so that there is no net gain in employment. Government simply diverts resources from where the market would dictate that it go into an area that the market never intended and thus leading to malinvestment.

 

[neurosport]

If anyone other than Sealybobo is interested in seeing backup for my claim that the Fed is audited every year, let me know and I'll be happy to oblige.

i would like to see it.

thanks.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Okay his first mistake.

No, the quantify of money is NOT irrelevant.

It is ONLY irrelevant if the amount of money and the amount of goods and services STAY THE SAME.

The quantity of money is irrelevant. The supply of money does not need to increase because the value of the money in circulation increases with increased productivity.

 

[Iriemon]

If anyone other than Sealybobo is interested in seeing backup for my claim that the Fed is audited every year, let me know and I'll be happy to oblige.

i would like to see it.

thanks.

All Federal Reserve Banks and branches are audited and examined regularly. The scope and frequency of audits are based on the specific risk factors in each Bank's operations.

Internal audits involve verification of assets, liabilities, and items held in custody.

Auditors evaluate the adequacy of internal controls and compliance with prescribed procedures. Major automated systems also are checked for security and effectiveness.

How the Federal Reserve is Audited - Fedpoints - Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.

Has the Federal Reserve ever been audited?

GOA audit report:

This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-836R
entitled 'Federal Reserve Banks: Area for Improvement in Information
Security Controls' which was released on May 13, 2008.

GAO-08-836R, Federal Reserve Banks: Areas for Improvement in Information Security Controls

GAO Issues Federal Reserve Bank Audit Report, Shows Information Security Controls Need Improvement. The Government Accountability Office issued its annual audit report in connection with its requirement to audit the financial statements of the Federal Reserve Banks on June 16.

GAO Issues Federal Reserve Bank Audit Report, Shows Information Security Controls Need Improvement

Fed's audited financial statements, 2006 by Deloitte:

Deloitte: Report of Independent Auditors

To the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
and the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Banks:

We have audited the accompanying combined statement of condition of the Federal Reserve Banks (the "Reserve Banks") as of December 31, 2006 and the related combined statements of income and changes in capital for the year then ended, which have been prepared in conformity with the accounting principles, policies, and practices established by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. These combined financial statements are the responsibility of the Reserve Banks' management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these combined financial statements based on our audit.

FRB: Annual Report 2007, Federal Reserve Banks Combined Financial Statements

 

[neurosport]

So Iriemon, how much gold ( as in tons of metal ) do they have ?

 

[Iriemon]

So Iriemon, how much gold ( as in tons of metal ) do they have ?

I had to do a little research, but I think the answer they own none.

 

[neurosport]

So Iriemon, how much gold ( as in tons of metal ) do they have ?

I had to do a little research, but I think the answer they own none.

so who owns the gold ?

 

[editec]

So Iriemon, how much gold ( as in tons of metal ) do they have ?

I had to do a little research, but I think the answer they own none.

so who owns the gold ?

All the fucking gold bugs who are demanding that we go onto the gold standard, who else?

 

[Iriemon]

I had to do a little research, but I think the answer they own none.

so who owns the gold ?

All the fucking gold bugs who are demanding that we go onto the gold standard, who else?

Hehheh