Now, here’s something you don’t see every day…

Amid a growing backlash against the Federal Reserve, whose popularity has been plunging in public opinion polls since they started spending trillion of dollars to prop up the financial industry, a lone voice defends their practices and argues against any audits.

IMAGE

Don’t Punish Fed with Audit

Is the Federal Reserve hiding the identities of banks who received up to $2 trillion in loans in the last year? Representative Ron Paul (R:TX) and now Representative Barney Frank(D: MA) think the Fed should be audited to reveal the names of these foreign and domestic banks. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke opposes Paul’s audit bill, saying it would make it seem like the Fed was no longer setting interest rates independently of political oversight. This perception alone would increase inflation. However, the real threat is even worse than that.

The Federal Reserve has acted quickly and creatively to pull the economy back from the brink of a major depression. It did so because of its ability to act swiftly without going to Congress for approval. Secrecy was needed last year to allow banks to apply for liquidity from the Fed without fear they would be tagged as failing banks. Congressional auditing ability would seriously hamper the Fed’s ability to act at a time when this creatively and innovation is needed the most.

Well, that’s one school of thought.

There’s a completely different line of thinking that involves the central bank having been created by and for big banks in order to foist bank losses on the public while keeping the gains private.

Moreover, some object to the not-so-inconsequential matter of a nearly century long debasement of the currency, where America’s money has lost more than 90 percent of its value since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

And just what does Mrs. Amadeo think about money?

Her views are made abundantly clear at her website – World Money Watch.

Money is a mental concept. It is no longer based on anything tangible – not gold, not business values, and certainly not home values. Money has become an exchange of energy. As such, it provides a useful footprint that reflects the awareness level of the human race. Watching trends in the world’s money helps us track our evolution.

Well, that explains a lot.

Interestingly, there’s a section for comments on the About.com article.

After a brief survey, my favorite comment is the third one:

Pull your head out of your a$$

Of course we need to audit the Fed. All government activity should have accountability. It is almost treasonous not to hold the government accountable for their actions…

There are a total of 36 comments and, save for the one titled “I Love My Overlords” (which is believed to be facetious), none defend Ms. Amadeo or the Fed though a couple are critical of Ron Paul, figuring that Barney Frank has been brought on board to help Dr. Paul sell his forthcoming book titled “End the Fed“.

Tim Iacono is the author of the blog The Mess That Greenspan Made

Category: Markets

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

71 Responses to “Defending the Fed”

  1. John says:

    ” Secrecy was needed last year to allow banks to apply for liquidity from the Fed without fear they would be tagged as failing banks.”

    If it is feared that an entity would fail, then the entity is too big. Make the banks smaller so that failure does not cause a systemic problem! Then there won’t be an issue about whether the Fed should be audited or not.

  2. Onlooker from Troy says:

    Oh, this is just too easy.

    Nah, it’s not even worth the effort. I’ll go with “pull your head out of your a$$, as well. She’s a clueless dupe who just trusts her govt to do the right thing. Wouldn’t want to hold them accountable or have checks and balances. Are you sure this isn’t Cheney’s niece?

  3. ottnott says:

    One can’t expect much from someone who includes “The Secret” in the Building Wealth section of her reading list. And her Must See Movies list.

    I like this comment from her movie list:
    “Bladerunner
    Set in Los Angeles in 2019, it gives a good portrayal of what the
    world would look like if Asia were the dominant culture. And also, if
    human cloning were possible.”

  4. CTB says:

    I hope pay-for-content journalism pans out. There needs to be money to be made in journalism, otherwise we’ll have to suffer even more of this low-quality garbage.

  5. Whammer says:

    I know this is old news, but when was the last time Barney Frank and Ron Paul were on the same side of anything?

    Actually, now that I think of it, probably on several Iraq-related issues…..

  6. aitrader says:

    To the gal who defends the Fed’s secrecy – Are ya effin kiddin’ me?

    “Of course we need to audit the Fed…” – Well, duh!

    I think this debate will soon be over. The folks singing green shoots are in for a nasty surprise IMHO. I’d say November is where the unemployment, consumer debt, plunging BDI, protectionism (China right now, others soon), and energy prices will come to a head. If we get a repeat of last October 7th in the markets, folks will call for Bernanke’s head on a silver platter.

    Historians will probably look back with a shrug. Three times the US tried out a central bank. Three times! And the third time it was unaudited? Don’t those guys ever learn?

  7. Angryman1 says:

    The FED didn’t do what they did, because they fear for their survival, but for the financial empire of the Morgans, the destruction of debt deflation can bring down the house of cards with social unrest and collapse. That is what the Morgan’s learned in the 19th century and became the global power over the Rothschilds who lost out. Even then, it took decades before it got ironed out.

    Better the enemy you know than watching the Rothschilds creating private gold banks in Eastern Europe and rip away America’s money supply without our even knowing it.

  8. VennData says:

    Let’s get Arthur Anderson to do the audit. Then everything will be AOK.

    And when the auditors find that some of the assets the Fed “bought” aren’t going to pay off, then we can just get FASB to change the rules.

    While there’s no reason not to “audit” the Fed, it’s superfluous. The gov’t should be spending as little time as possible on this non-issue and get it over with since it which will accomplish nothing.

  9. Bruce in Tn says:

    Venn:

    Pull your head out of your A$$……

  10. Bruce in Tn says:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aNlkf5RZ.4_Q

    Mortgage Bankers Push for Federal Loan Guarantee

    Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) — Mortgage bankers are pushing Congress to expand the U.S. government’s support of the market by guaranteeing private-industry home-loan securities and replacing finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    ….If the audit had taken place already, this sort of taxpayer hell idea would not have see the light of day. Besides, isn’t the recession over?……

  11. Greg0658 says:

    LOL on this truthiness “Money has become an exchange of energy. As such, it provides a useful footprint that reflects the awareness level of the human race.”

    couldnt help but flash to “A Star is Born” with Kris’s character singing “watch closely now you’ll see a curious exchange of energy .. are you a figment of my imagination or I of yours .. watch closely now”

    awareness of the exchange .. yep .. paper pushers in charge .. got us by the #s

    On NewsHour last night a piece on the Congo and overlords pushing peasants for:
    “Tantalum from coltan is used in consumer electronics products such as cell phones”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltan

    ummm .. loss for words

  12. Greg0658 says:

    on second thought .. the story may have been from PBS – BBC on an HDsub-channel

  13. vasco7777 says:

    “Money has become an exchange of energy”

    Next time you want to buy a new home or a new car just tell them to debit your aura.

  14. JohnDoe says:

    I am surprised that so many people agree with auditing the FED. The FED is supposed to be independent and an audit would certainly undermine that. We should never hope to have monetary policy influenced by the chaps in congress. Financial markets would take and the American economy would be worse than it was a year ago if the FED were to be audited. Clearly there are problems with the FED but if the audit were to reveal these problems you must ask yourself, ‘how would they be dealt with?’ And the answer is CONGRESS. They would micro manage the FED and make decisions on money creation in a partisan way.
    It seems that most people who want the fed audited are also for the elimination of the central bank system. But lets get real that will never happen. Once a central bank system is established it is much too difficult to eliminate without wreaking havoc in financial markets.
    The bottom line is that clearly the fed has big problems on its balance sheet and plenty of wasteful spending, but we certainly don’t want these things politicized. And that is the most likely outcome of a fed audit that reveals some nasty things.

  15. davossherman@gmail.com says:

    The world is full of MORONS like Barney Frank and this delusional blogger. Schiff put this video up, here is another elected moron who doesn’t know that money is what blew up the economy.

    [video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbPZAMked0

  16. the bohemian says:

    “Secrecy was needed last year to allow banks to apply for liquidity from the Fed without fear they would be tagged as failing banks.”

    uh . . . duh . . .when a company runs out of money . . . kind of the end of the line isn’t it-

    and secrecy- wow- that’s scary stuff- and that someone can support that . . . a loss of words

  17. I wonder if that article will be on her resume when she applies at the NY Times?

    Money is a mental concept………..especially when you are obviously getting some to write articles like that

  18. beaufou says:

    @Common Man
    NY Times? nah, watch Friedman steal her reasoning and turn it into a humanitarian freedom concept.
    They already have their share of cretins.

  19. Cohen says:

    @JohnDoe

    Not politicized? You must be kidding.

    The Fed is either accountable or not accountable to the public. If it’s not accountable, they shouldn’t be dolling out billions to the banks and have any regulatory functions. There seems to be plenty on their plate just dealing with monetary policy, which they’ve managed to totally screw up as well.

  20. Marcus Aurelius says:

    I just called my bank and informed them that I deposited $1M in my account, via mental concept. They checked the vault, and I’m good to go. Lunch is on me (I’m thinking Mexican food).

  21. This lady proves my thesis about the “Moron Majority.” Her premise is we should have undemocratic entities operating without transparency to save time. OK. If we follow that logic, let’s just do away with the legislative and judicial branches of government and go the dictator route. It’s faster and much more efficient if we’re using Ms. Amadeo’s yardstick for a superior civilization.

    Ms. Amadeo further has no business holding herself out as a professional on this issue if she is happy to proclaim money the perfect substitute symbol for our “energy.” Clearly, this is absolutely incorrect. If money were a direct symbol of our energy [put into the economy], then there would be no issues with scams, counterfeiting, CDSs without collateral, etc. Further, unless we are devolving, there would be no rational explanation for our money losing 94% of its value since 1913 when the Fed was created.

    People like Ms. Amadeo should be spam-blocked from posting material on the internet …

  22. Marcus Aurelius says:

    JohnDoe Says:

    The bottom line is that clearly the fed has big problems on its balance sheet and plenty of wasteful spending, but we certainly don’t want these things politicized. And that is the most likely outcome of a fed audit that reveals some nasty things.
    ____________

    Your comment seems to imply that what the Fed does cannot hurt us if we don’t acknowledge it.

    The Fed is as political and partisan an organization as any. The difference is that they are extra-governmental. Power without oversight. Sounds like the corporate version of Dick Cheney. The “nasty things” that would be revealed would most likely include massive acts of criminality in the form of fraud, and surprise of surprises, you are the victim.

    Exactly WTF do you think representative government is for? Better yet, what do you think ANY government is for? Do you believe that the government is incapable of doing anything good, or right, or correctly?

    We should audit the Fed because while we might not own it, it’s our “money” they are mismanaging.

  23. franklin411 says:

    Oh gawd…I never thought I’d see Barry’s blog become a platform for the “Dr. Paul” tinfoil hat types. Wow. I guess when the cat’s away the mice will play, huh?

  24. TDL says:

    franklin411,
    That’s right, anyone who demands accountability of powerful institutions are “tinfoil” types. Also, why put Dr. Paul in quotes; are you implying that he is not a doctor?

    Regards,
    TDL

  25. franklin411 says:

    @TDL
    “Dr. Paul” is in quotes because people use the phrase “Dr. Paul” as a way to try cloak that lunatic in a veil of sanity.

  26. I-Man says:

    Troll.

  27. Mannwich says:

    @f411: You’re doing exactly what Bush kool-aide drinkers did to his detractors – dismissing them as “tin-foil hat” types. Do it at your peril. Your boy is going to be a one-termer at this rate. Mark it down.

  28. manhattanguy says:

    I support auditing and abolishing Fed. It’s a waste of resource and taxpayers money. Accomplishes nothing. Fed almost always fails to miss and predict the direction of economy (remember the denial about recession). Let markets control the interest/fed funds rates.

  29. TDL says:

    franklin411,
    Although I disagree, thanks for clearing that up.

    On another note, what does anyone expect from Ms. Amadeo when she holds “a Master’s Degree in Social Planning from the Graduate School of Social Work at Boston College.” She also has a M.S. from M.I.T.

    Regards,
    TDL

  30. call me ahab says:

    yes- agree- with what manhattanguy said-

    surprised MEH hasn’t posted-

    he is of the same mind

  31. dwkunkel says:

    The much overlooked principle is that every dollar of taxpayer money needs to be publicly accounted for.

  32. Onlooker from Troy says:

    JohnDoe

    There’s not an either/or choice here regarding auditing the Fed. We can audit it to get some transparency on all the games their playing with the balance sheet (many of which are very questionably legal) that puts the taxpayers at large risk with no representational input, without putting interest rate policy at risk of politicization. Is it tricky? No doubt. But that’s where we are right now when the Fed (with Treasury’s encouragement) starts to get “extremely creative” with the money supply and management of the economy. They can’t continue to act in such extreme ways that puts taxpayer money at risk (of default thru inflation if nothing else) while keeping the cloak of secrecy.

  33. franklin411 says:

    @manhattanguy
    Greenspan was converted to Objectivism by Ayn Rand in the 1950s, with whom he remained close until she died. In other words, he *was* letting the markets control interest rates and money supply.

    Look where that got us.

  34. Cohen says:

    @Franklin

    So you’re claiming that Greenspan did none of the following:

    1. Organize the LTCM bailout
    2. Drop interest rates to 1% after the tech bubble and leaving them there too long, which
    3. Was one of the main drivers of the housing and credit bubbles

    I’m sure others can add to the list.

  35. franklin420d says:

    Hey little bro – Isn’t congress supposed to be in charge of creating monies for the American people?

    If congress is “supposed” to be in charge then don’t they have every right in the world….. Ok every right in the United States to not ask for but demand and audit?

    So in the end what is wrong with an audit?

    So would it not stand to reason my, yours and everyone else’s congress person is selling us down the river by not demandind an audit?

    And also – what’s a fedora?

    Thanks Bro.

  36. Mannwich says:

    @Cohen: If you read Barry’s book, you’ll find that Greenie did A LOT more than that. He lowered interest rates almost EVERY time there was a whiff of trouble on Wall Street, hence the term “Greenspan put”. He basically did everything he could to support/manipulate asset prices and make the titans of Wall Street happy, at a significant cost to everyone and everything else. But, noooo, there wasn’t any “inflation” (because we don’t count energy, food, housing, and all other important necessities in the equation, conveniently enough) during this time. It was a time period of the “Great Moderation”, my ass.

  37. franklin411 says:

    @Cohen
    I’m aware of all that–in fact, this is part of my lecture today on the economic crisis!

    I’m not saying that Greenspan didn’t intervene in the markets regularly. In fact, that’s my whole point. There are few people more wacky and fanatical about free markets than objectivists, and Greenspan was a true believer. Yet he still intervened regularly.

    Whether you have a Fed or not, whether you have government regulation or not, whether you have corporations or not, whether you have unions or not, whether you have a stone age agrarian society or not–you will always have forces that intervene in markets to suit their own interests. Always.

    The only difference is that the Fed gives the public a chance to shape these interventions so they serve the common good. What is actually meant by “letting the markets set rates” is to diffuse the process so the general public has no input or say on the matter via their democratically elected representatives. “Letting the market set rates” is a cloak for commandeering the economic output of a nation for the profit of a few.

  38. leftback says:

    I bet this lady has an enormous pair of mortgages.

  39. manhattanguy says:

    @f411: if Greenspan really believed in Objectivism, he wouldn’t have let the LTCM bailout as Cohen pointed out. He would have let the free markets figure it out. Regardless, Big Ben is doing the same. He is getting orders from the likes of Blankefein. Now how long will they keep the rates at 1%? What bubble is this going to create in the future? In the end they create more problems than they address.

    Where do you stand with auditing the Fed?

  40. contrabandista13 says:

    I hate to get personal in these matters, however, this lady, if you want to refer to her as a lady, appears to be looking for a date. Her language translates into the following….

    “SWF,,,, Looking for TD (total douche bag), with HSUA (head stuck up ass), to take romantic walks down K Street. Wear your bib…..”

    BR (Best regards),

    Econolicious

  41. manhattanguy says:

    “What is actually meant by “letting the markets set rates” is to diffuse the process so the general public has no input or say on the matter via their democratically elected representatives”

    Are you saying the market is not a representation of democratic model?

  42. franklin411 says:

    @manhattan
    Yep, the market is not inherently democratic. Markets are full of forces that distort them: fraud, monopolies, barriers to entry, gender and racial discrimination, inherited wealth, geography, an luck, to name a few.

    The free market is just a theory. There has never been, and there never will be, a free market on the face of the earth. As long as men are men, they will try to distort the market for their own personal gain. Greenspan’s defense against people who claimed that he wasn’t being a good Objectivist was that compromises had to be made with the real world.

    The best we can hope for is an approximation of a free market. The game needs a referee to try to keep things straight–the government, and the Federal Reserve.

  43. manhattanguy says:

    @franklin

    I see.

    So you trust “democratically elected representatives” aka politicians to represent your interest better? That’s a joke right?

  44. franklin420d says:

    Hey Franklin411 it’s me again – and I think a smoked one to many bowls this morning and would appreciate a little light being shed.

    You just said:
    “The only difference is that the Fed gives the public a chance to shape these interventions so they serve the common good. ”

    Then you said:
    “What is actually meant by “letting the markets set rates” is to diffuse the process so the general public has no input or say on the matter via their democratically elected representatives”

    So the Fed is letting the public shape interventions?
    But in the end the public has no input?

    Which is it?

    And again in the end why do we care and or answer to the fed when it is actually congress’s job to set monies for us?

    Man no wonder I am always 420d.

    Anyway are you come over for the bbq this weekend? I was going to grill up some fedora.

  45. Cohen says:

    @mannwich

    I’ve read BN but I felt just a short list of items would make my point.

    @franklin411

    Please explain exactly how the Fed “gives the public a chance to shape these interventions so they serve the common good”. Thanks to its mismanagement of interest rates, the country is now in a position where higher rates would be an epic disaster because of the increase in debt service costs. ARM resets are a good microcosm of that imo. So yeah, pushing rates down to spur credit growth so we could buy crap was great for the people. Good work Fed.

  46. Mannwich says:

    @f411: I agree with you there, but one thing it doesn’t need is a crooked/biased/captured referee that makes things worse. That’s what we have now.

  47. Cohen says:

    @F411

    I’ll agree with you about one thing, there is no such thing as a free market, precisely because of the emotions of the people involved, which is why I think we need good regulation. However, what the Fed has done/is doing, imo, is not good regulation. It’s not even regulation. It’s simply an attempt to bring back the rip-roaring “good ol’ days” because that makes politicians popular,which gets the politicians money and Fed presidents reappointed.

  48. franklin420d says:

    Hey bro it’s me again.
    More questions Is free market a theory or concept?

    I kind of side with concept.

    Just as you and I are influenced by our surrounds, so will “free markets”.

    If I spend my time with a certain group of people I will tend to gravitate to their views – or perhaps I spend time with them because I already shared their view….. Bahhhhh in the end it don’t matter, because I am spend time with people I have commonality with – And that will influence my surroundings – Yes, No, Something in between?

    So if the Fed folks spend time with money folks, could it be fair to say they will influence each other for what they think is in their best interest?

    So it seems to me one of the referees is being paid under the table – Or are referees always unbaised and objecvtive?

    And again why do we care about the Fed when they should NEVER have been in charge of our monies, let alone set policees for it.

    Oh yea what time you want to start the bbq?

  49. franklin420d says:

    @manhattanguy – Yea like the referees, who stole the Super Bowl from the Seahawks :)

  50. comet52 says:

    I don’t see how congress is a better option for managing our finances than the Fed. You can argue all sorts of issues with the Fed, but money is going to engender control and abuse no matter who runs it. And the Fed has done a decent job managing this crisis imho. You could argue it could be managed differently, but by whom? Congress? I don’t think so. They’d have turned us into a banana republic by now. Managing the money supply is a job for experts and congressmen are anything but when it comes to money. Who is auditing congress, btw? They are the ones approving trillions in deficit spending, but they will audit and manage the Fed properly now. Thanks Ron Paul, great idea.

  51. patient renter says:

    @franklin

    Good god man, pay attention to what people do not what they say. Read this very very carefully: Greenspan WAS NOT a free marketer, a libertarian, an objectivist, or anything remotely resembling any of those things. I don’t care what he said, he wasn’t. Period.

    I hope your lecture doesn’t damage too many people.

  52. patient renter says:

    @franklin: BTW – You should read the lunatic (Ron Paul’s) new book on the Fed. It sounds like you might learn a thing or two about what the Fed (a private banking cartel) is and what it isn’t (Federal).

  53. Marcus Aurelius says:

    comet52:

    You sort of forgot about the Fed’s role in putting our collective asses in this sling in the first place. Experts? The Fed? Based on what metric or performance standard?

  54. Cohen says:

    @comet52

    You would think they’d know how to manage it perfectly as the they were the crisis’ chieft architect

  55. rjs0 says:

    actually its not so unusual for someone to defend the Fed…min penned an eloquent defense over three weeks ago:
    In Defense of the Federal Reserve – “If Congress has just enough leverage over the Fed so as to make the latter beholden to the former in some manner — the proposed audits would be enough to accomplish this — it could easily give the Fed grief for politically unpopular policies and limit its willingness to pursue them…and the introduction of the fickle mob into the equation would increase uncertainty about the direction of U.S. monetary policy…”

    http://minandshap.blogspot.com/2009/08/in-defense-of-federal-reserve.html

  56. Marcus Aurelius says:

    comet52 Says:

    “I don’t see how congress is a better option for managing our finances than the Fed.”
    ______

    If I’m not mistaken, Congress is the only constitutional option for managing our finances.

  57. franklin420d says:

    @Marcus – Thank you, that is what I have been trying to get my little bro franky411 to answer all morning.

    And if congress is the onlyentity responsible for creating monies, then it scares the crap out of me they are being barred from being able to audit the Fed. As I see it the Fed should have NO rights, but since they do doesn’t that make a mockery of our constitution?

  58. Thor says:

    I’m going to hate myself in the morning for this but what the hell . . . .

    @f411 “The only difference is that the Fed gives the public a chance to shape these interventions so they serve the common good”

    Is that a joke? Please tell me 1. How the fed gives the public a chance to shape anything and 2. if what you say is true what the f*** is wrong with auditing them?

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I am HORRIFIED that you have been entrusted with the education of our youth. I can just imagine you up there on your podium doing your best to to indoctrinate your students to your own warped sense of reality.

  59. Greg0658 says:

    Cohen posts “You would think they’d know how to manage it perfectly as the they were the crisis’ chieft architect”
    among others .. thanks for the opportunity to post .. the Mortgage Bankers Association presenting the “McG” idea ..
    me thinks they manufactured this house’g financial crisis to un-nationalize the governments role in their business ..
    people do that to protect their turf .. those survival instincts of any person or industry

  60. cvienne says:

    @Thor

    “I am HORRIFIED that you have been entrusted with the education of our youth.”

    Don’t worry Thor… In the end… about the kids…

    “It’s only teenage wasteland… THEY’RE ALL WASTED”
    (ode to Franky’s bigger bro)

  61. On another note, what does anyone expect from Ms. Amadeo when she holds “a Master’s Degree in Social Planning from the Graduate School of Social Work at Boston College.” She also has a M.S. from M.I.T.

    She needs to ask for her money back. I got more practical learning out of my degree in the School of Hard Knocks then she’ll ever get out of the money she (or more likely her parents) spent on her education

    And a question:

    If money is a mental concept does that make America virtually broke? :)

  62. franklin420d says:

    @cvienne and Thor – Rock on dudes….It’s not about free thinking anymore it’s about being told how.

    Hey me and little bro are going to have a kickass bbq this weekend you dudes going to join in?

    We will be smoking green shoots and shit…..

  63. cvienne says:

    @HTCMSI

    Re: Money a mental concept?

    In my mind, all it means is that since she spends her time “conceptualizing” about money and writing articles about it…

    SHE IS MENTAL!

  64. It is more like “contraceptualizing” if you ask me :mrgreen:

  65. Marc P says:

    Let’s re-write the lead-in to this piece to take out the euphemisms and make it accurate:

    The “Federal Reserve, whose popularity has been plunging in public opinion polls since they started spending trillion of dollars to prop up the financial industry…”

    This should read:

    The “Federal Reserve, whose popularity has been plunging in public opinion polls since it started printing trillions of taxpayer dollars to give to its own shareholders…”

  66. skysurfer says:

    @franklin411

    I get it about no truly free markets because men will always try to twist it to their advantage (until the markets come to a screeching halt because there is no trust…) But how in the hell do you come up with “The only difference is that the Fed gives the public a chance to shape these interventions so they serve the common good.” as if the Fed is an altruistic organization with only what is best for the little guy at heart. Especially when in the sentence before you admitted that “you will always have forces that intervene in markets to suit their own interests. Always.” You are kidding right?

    This whole bailout process hasn’t reeked of “forces that intervene in markets to suit their own interests”?

    What part of the public’s input was heeded when the majority of the public was against TARP, the “Stimulus” Bill or the Energy Bill or do you and all of the other ivory tower types just know what is best for us and we should all shut up and be grateful that Barry O and Ben B have our backs? Hell, most of our “representatives” didn’t know what was in the damn bills, except for the pork that caused them to vote for it.

    The only thing more dangerous than an out of control government is an out of control government in bed with Wall Street. The road to fascism is paved with good intentions. Unfortunately we are taking a four-lane highway to that destination.

  67. Marc P says:

    I have no problems with the concept of a Federal Reserve, so long as:

    It does not have the power to create money, but only the power to set certain interest rates and facilitate the flow of payment clearing between banks.

    It has no regulatory or oversight powers other than above.

    It is independent, meaning independent from the big banks.

    It is transparent, meaning reporting to the people. (Note this is different from reporting to and being subject to the whims of Congress).

    The concept of the big banks owning an entity that has the power to print money to give to those same big banks is brilliant from the banks point of view, but from the citizens’ POV…not so much.

  68. skysurfer says:

    @franlin411

    Before you go ape…my definition of fascism is just socialism on a national, not international, scale. I do not think we are heading down the road to Nazi Germany, so please don’t go there.

  69. Pat G. says:

    We need to find out where she’s getting her drugs… Then we can all be dopes too.

  70. @Marc P Says: September 3rd, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    Actually, the fed isn’t even the worst part of the fractional reserve system. The real chicanery starts when the dollars are borrowed from the fed and then multiplied ten times or more by the banking system itself. Compared to how the banking system corrupts the money supply, they make what the fed does look like child’s play