Quote:
Originally Posted by david austin  First: The off balance sheet (lack of) info isnt really all that new and groundbreaking. You can see discrepancies just by looking at their weekly and monthly balance sheets. One of the reasons the Fed is under 'more' fire than normal is the simple fact that when the tide is out its easier to see the surface. Much like the Madoff Ponzi scheme... It was only really when investors werent receiving there returns that more people started questioning what was going on. When things really starting hitting the fan during the summer and fall of last year more people starting raising their eyebrows. Numbers werent adding up and the reality started creeping through to the mainstream... who in turn started a grass roots backlash. |
A certain amount, ok, a lot of SEC ineptness had it's part in the whole Madoff thing not being brought to light earlier.
So, what's the whole story here? I've been wanting to have an in depth conversation on this for a long time because the shit is pretty interesting to me.
While the interview with Grayson alludes to the bill being simple compared to healthcare. I'm afraid what it deals with is a great deal more complex than the healthcare debate, and that's saying a lot. First off, it seems disingenuous for articles supporting the bill to say stuff like the Fed isn't accountable and hasn't been audited. It has been, and is continually audited, but I know you've mentioned a specific exception that makes up a substantial portion of the balance sheet. I can't remember exactly what it was, but it dealt with transfers to foreign central banks. So a big question I have, which I haven't been able to find a good answer to online, is why is direct oversight and auditing ability so important? Is this what the bills supporters are talking about when they say this is the "story of the millennium?" Another thing that throws up a red flag for me is supporters like to make the fed out to be this 4th branch of the government who goes around doing whatever the hell they please to whoever they want to...big bad bankers. Which again seems a bit disingenuous because congress is very much in control of the fed. The chairman has to report to them something like twice a year to make sure the decisions they're making are in keeping with its mandate. At anytime congress can vote to abolish the fed and that'd be it. It doesn't seem to be the rouge institution some people make it out to be. Not that you have, but this is just what I seem to pick up on in some other people.
I guess another set of questions I had concerns the general economic theory surrounding the 'devaluation' of the dollar, gold standard, etc. What makes the gold standard so awesome? I get that it's based on something more "tangible" than some paper and a promise, but in the end gold's only considered valuable because...it's shiny? Probably didn't state that as well as I would've liked to, but maybe you get my point. The whole devaluation thing I don't get either. What's the basis of comparison? It would seem since we have a floating currency, along with most of the rest of the world, that it's value would be compared to those currencies, would it not?
Dammit, I wrote a novel.