The Dangers of a Fed Audit

[Polk]

Well that's not what this bill does, and that certainly isn't what Ron Paul wants at all. He wants the market to take care of the things the Fed does, not just a different central planner.

Yeah, Paul wants it turned over to Congress.

No, he doesn't. He wants the market to handle it.

If creation of a central bank is unconstitutional, which you argue because you claim Congress can't just hand over their powers, handing those powers over to the open market would surely be so.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The market unfettered will never happen and would never work.

Its all an Idea and has NO basis in fact.

Its a fantasy.

Thinking that the government can make everything all better is a fantasy, but a fantasy that must be tried time and time again. And it fails time and time again.

Of, by and for the people.

Its the people trying to improve their lives.

Who the fuck told you anything was ever perfect?

Nothing is perfect and our founders never promised it would be.

Unfettered markets are a myth, they never have been unfettered and never will be.

Learn to discuss what fetters and how they will work instead of acting like a child and insisting the impossible be done.

They have never been unfettered because the government won't allow it. They're far too interested in keeping their power.

 

[Polk]

Yeah, Paul wants it turned over to Congress.

You mean like it says in the Constitution before we got fucked over?

Oh, repeal the 16th Amendment while we're at it

Nancy Pelosi, Chairperson of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee.

Has a nice ring, doesn't it?

Don't make me cringe.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah, Paul wants it turned over to Congress.

No, he doesn't. He wants the market to handle it.

If creation of a central bank is unconstitutional, which you argue because you claim Congress can't just hand over their powers, handing those powers over to the open market would surely be so.

Not even remotely, though I do believe the framers made a mistake in giving the Congress the powers it does constitutionally have over the economy. That being said, the Congress simply doing nothing and allowing the free market to do what it does best is not unconstitutional in the least.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah, Paul wants it turned over to Congress.

You mean like it says in the Constitution before we got fucked over?

Oh, repeal the 16th Amendment while we're at it

Nancy Pelosi, Chairperson of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee.

Has a nice ring, doesn't it?

Better than having people with no accountability to us, who lent TRILLIONS off book to people they won't even name!

The Fed is done.

 

[Truthmatters]

Thinking that the government can make everything all better is a fantasy, but a fantasy that must be tried time and time again. And it fails time and time again.

Of, by and for the people.

Its the people trying to improve their lives.

Who the fuck told you anything was ever perfect?

Nothing is perfect and our founders never promised it would be.

Unfettered markets are a myth, they never have been unfettered and never will be.

Learn to discuss what fetters and how they will work instead of acting like a child and insisting the impossible be done.

They have never been unfettered because the government won't allow it. They're far too interested in keeping their power.

Which government?

Look through history and find me a time when this theory of yours worked?

Not just in the US but anywhere or anytime?

There is NO evidence your theory works.

It is a fantasy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of, by and for the people.

Its the people trying to improve their lives.

Who the fuck told you anything was ever perfect?

Nothing is perfect and our founders never promised it would be.

Unfettered markets are a myth, they never have been unfettered and never will be.

Learn to discuss what fetters and how they will work instead of acting like a child and insisting the impossible be done.

They have never been unfettered because the government won't allow it. They're far too interested in keeping their power.

Which government?

Look through history and find me a time with this thoery of yours worked?

Not just in the US but anywhere or anytime?

There is NO evidence your theory works.

It is a fantasy.

There's no evidence that government works, and we have actual examples to prove it. Rome, Weimar Republic, the U.S. of the 1930's and today, Zimbabwe, etc...

 

[Truthmatters]

History is replete with examples of government working.

Lets take a look at the countries today that have weak or nonexsistant governments shall we?

How well is Afganistan doing???? Somalia????

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

History is replete with examples of government working.

Lets take a look at the countries today that have weak or nonexsistant governments shall we?

How well is Afganistan doing???? Somalia????

Afghanistan is currently under U.S. occupation, are you sure you'd like to use that as an example? Obviously it is not the free market causing Afghanistan's problems. Somalia is a bit different, it has groups trying to act as a government through force. Which is of course the only way any government acts.

 

[Toro]

Better than having people with no accountability to us, who lent TRILLIONS off book to people they won't even name!

The Fed is done.

They do have accountability to you. All members of the FOMC are appointed by the President and approved by Congress.

Now, if you think that there should be more transparency at the Fed, I don't disagree. All actions by the Fed should be made public at some point in time. However, if you support Ron Paul's bill, you are supporting Congress overseeing setting interest rates. This is Big Government that conservatives are supposed to oppose.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Better than having people with no accountability to us, who lent TRILLIONS off book to people they won't even name!

The Fed is done.

They do have accountability to you. All members of the FOMC are appointed by the President and approved by Congress.

Now, if you think that there should be more transparency at the Fed, I don't disagree. All actions by the Fed should be made public at some point in time. However, if you support Ron Paul's bill, you are supporting Congress overseeing setting interest rates. This is Big Government that conservatives are supposed to oppose.

Accountable? THEY REFUSE TO DISCLOSE THEIR OFF BALANCE SHEET LENDING OUT IN THE TRILLIONS!!!!

If it were Pelosi she'd be voted OUT next term

 

[Polk]

Better than having people with no accountability to us, who lent TRILLIONS off book to people they won't even name!

The Fed is done.

They do have accountability to you. All members of the FOMC are appointed by the President and approved by Congress.

Now, if you think that there should be more transparency at the Fed, I don't disagree. All actions by the Fed should be made public at some point in time. However, if you support Ron Paul's bill, you are supporting Congress overseeing setting interest rates. This is Big Government that conservatives are supposed to oppose.

This.

 

[Toro]

Accountable? THEY REFUSE TO DISCLOSE THEIR OFF BALANCE SHEET LENDING OUT IN THE TRILLIONS!!!!

If it were Pelosi she'd be voted OUT next term

That's not what I am arguing. That's not what I am opposing. Like I said, I don't disagree that the Fed should be more transparent.

What I am saying is that Ron Paul's bill is not just a bill to audit operations of the Fed, such as currency swaps to foreign central banks. It is a bill to audit the interest rate decisions of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee.

Up until 1978, Congress had this power. The reason why a law was passed - by Congress - to disallow Congressional audits of FOMC decisions was because the country was in the grips of high inflation, and government-interference in monetary policy contributed to high inflation. Now, if you think the 1970s was just hunky-dory, support this bill. It gets you closer to that time.

 

[Polk]

Accountable? THEY REFUSE TO DISCLOSE THEIR OFF BALANCE SHEET LENDING OUT IN THE TRILLIONS!!!!

If it were Pelosi she'd be voted OUT next term

That's not what I am arguing. That's not what I am opposing. Like I said, I don't disagree that the Fed should be more transparent.

What I am saying is that Ron Paul's bill is not just a bill to audit operations of the Fed, such as currency swaps to foreign central banks. It is a bill to audit the interest rate decisions of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee.

Up until 1978, Congress had this power. The reason why a law was passed - by Congress - to disallow Congressional audits of FOMC decisions was because the country was in the grips of high inflation, and government-interference in monetary policy contributed to high inflation. Now, if you think the 1970s was just hunky-dory, support this bill. It gets you closer to that time.

He's gonna run from that, because now you're hinting that the sacred right-wing myth of St. Reagan the Inflation-Slayer isn't true.

 

[Toro]

BTW, there is little doubt in my mind that the Fed prevented The Great Depression 2.0. They contributed mightily to the mess we are in, but had they not responded as they did, then the same people who are screaming about the Fed now would be screaming even louder about government incompetence causing The Great Depression 2.0.

 

[Paulie]

Because they are isolated from political pressures.

How is a person who is appointed by the POTUS (the fed chairman) "isolated" from political pressures?

There's no isolation from politics in government. To think otherwise is naive to say the least.

Because, once appointed, they can't be removed from the position. Same reason Supreme Court justices are isolated from political pressures.

The chairman can serve as little as four years. If they want to get reappointed and keep that cushy job, there most certainly IS political pressure.

Because after that four years is up, pressure from the electorate could very well make or break a reappointment.

Like I said, it's naive to think there's no political pressure.

 

[Polk]

How is a person who is appointed by the POTUS (the fed chairman) "isolated" from political pressures?

There's no isolation from politics in government. To think otherwise is naive to say the least.

Because, once appointed, they can't be removed from the position. Same reason Supreme Court justices are isolated from political pressures.

The chairman can serve as little as four years. If they want to get reappointed and keep that cushy job, there most certainly IS political pressure.

Because after that four years is up, pressure from the electorate could very well make or break a reappointment.

Like I said, it's naive to think there's no political pressure.

Sure, but that's much less pressure than being subject to recall at any time.

 

[Paulie]

Because, once appointed, they can't be removed from the position. Same reason Supreme Court justices are isolated from political pressures.

The chairman can serve as little as four years. If they want to get reappointed and keep that cushy job, there most certainly IS political pressure.

Because after that four years is up, pressure from the electorate could very well make or break a reappointment.

Like I said, it's naive to think there's no political pressure.

Sure, but that's much less pressure than being subject to recall at any time.

So then they aren't 'isolated' from political pressure. In reality there's a TON of pressure on them if they ever want to work in that town again after their 4 years is up. Especially if the president who appointed them is still in office at that time. The chairman has a lot of responsibility to NOT make the president look bad for appointing him.

And in retrospect, considering how scarce political impeachments are anyway, I highly doubt that the chairman position being an impeachable one would be a whole lot different than it is now.

 

[Polk]

Except that the idea that the Fed chair is a stepping stone to another job is silly. Can you name a Fed chair who later when on to another position? Not really, because it never happens. The only one I can think of is G. William Miller, and he was appointed as Treasury Secretary specifically so that if he accepted, he'd have to resign as Fed chair.

 

[Paulie]

I never said it was a stepping stone, when I said 'work in that town again' it was more of a cliche'.

I get the feeling you're really reaching to try and validate your position. The fact of the matter is there is constant pressure on the Fed chair. I'm not really sure how that's even refutable. They can serve up to 14 years, so if they want the other 10 they need to make the president happy, and also the electorate. There's times when the Fed chair's actions could make or break the sitting president's reelection, or his party's reelection bids during an important mid-term, like 2010 for instance. ESPECIALLY in these current times where more people are interested in the Fed than ever before.

You made an absolute statement that the chair is "isolated" and that's simply not the case.