Ben Bernanke on the record

[zerojunkie]

If anyone missed it, Ben Bernanke did a televised open forum for Jim Lehrer's show on PBS. Lays it down pretty well.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/sh...l?s=news01pa98


And just to stir the pot nicely. I think Ron Paul's efforts to "audit" the fed is about as stupid as some of his foreign policy ideas.

[SeedfulMusic]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

And just to stir the pot nicely. I think Ron Paul's efforts to "audit" the fed is about as stupid as some of his foreign policy ideas.

Are you kidding? Why would an Audit of a instituition who regulates what YOUR money is worth, and the comfort of how you live your life, be a stupid idea?

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by SeedfulMusic

Are you kidding? Why would an Audit of a instituition who regulates what YOUR money is worth, and the comfort of how you live your life, be a stupid idea?

You're not aware that the Fed is already audited by congress? The bill is a to exert congressional oversight/control on the day-to-day operation of the Fed. Which every piece of research done on the subject will say is a bad idea. That means when the Fed decides an interest rate change is required then it has to go to congress to get approval. You must have a great deal of faith in congress to think they'll move at the speed required.

[johnny861]

I haven't been following this one too closely. I guess my question is, if it is already being audited by Congress, why is there a push by Paul and whoever else supports the idea to have the Fed audited by Congress? (Aside from the daily aspect, unless that's purely the only reason)

[molecule]

can't someone else besides congress audit the fed? they seem to me to be the last people that should be doing that.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by johnny861

I haven't been following this one too closely. I guess my question is, if it is already being audited by Congress, why is there a push by Paul and whoever else supports the idea to have the Fed audited by Congress? (Aside from the daily aspect, unless that's purely the only reason)

Because RP is a fucking whack job. He's been more than vocal about his desire to see the Fed abolished. This looks simply like a thinly veiled means to an end. As I understand him, he's bitching that the GAO can't audit certain things. Most of them relate to domestic monetary policy, and are audited by commercial accounting firms. Which i believe only leaves the matter of foreign monetary policy and transactions that go unaudited. It seems a bit ironic to pitch such a fit about this when the whole reason this bill has all the support it does is because of the perceived mismanagement of the Fed's domestic response to the financial crisis.

Originally Posted by molecule

can't someone else besides congress audit the fed? they seem to me to be the last people that should be doing that.

It's audited by private accounting firms as well as the GAO.

[SeedfulMusic]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

He's been more than vocal about his desire to see the Fed abolished. As I understand him, he's bitching that the GAO can't audit certain things.

I'm still failing to understand the issue? This seems like a NECESSARY, and long OVER-DUE concern. Ron Paul is the ONLY member of congress that I trust at this point.

Can you imagine the freedom we would find if we didnt have to worry about a PRIVATE instituition telling us our worth?

[david austin]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

You're not aware that the Fed is already audited by congress? The bill is a to exert congressional oversight/control on the day-to-day operation of the Fed.

Yes and no. The GAO cannot audit a MAJOR part of the Fed balance sheet which include foreign currency purchases, currency swaps, and ANY agreement set forth between a foreign bank or government. One of Pauls central arguments is that nobody outside of the Fed curtain has any say in how our money is spent on the global market place.

[see Grayson asking Ben where 500B went last year to 2 banks in Europe that he 'cant remember']

Did I mention that this is by far the largest portion of the Feds balance sheet? As in the Trillions.

Which every piece of research done on the subject will say is a bad idea. That means when the Fed decides an interest rate change is required then it has to go to congress to get approval. You must have a great deal of faith in congress to think they'll move at the speed required.

This is also yes and no. Pauls bill is asking for more oversight which would include ability to debate our home monetary plans such as interest rates. In my opinion on most if not all occasions this would rarely be touched by Congress.... Simply because most of the people in Congress dont really know what they are doing. If this became an issue there would be absolutely no reason why there couldnt be another amendment to cover this portion of oversight. I would guess that there would be an article adressing this point if the bill did come close to passing.

The big picture here is that the Fed has a balance sheet in the Trillions and growing every week. The Fed would even fail their own and most lax/optimistic 'stress tests'. They have the ability to hide massive auction purchases through foreign swaps and they have the ability to push and pull the dollar on a daily basis as a prop for the market. They have the ability to do this all in secrecy.

Congress does NOT have the true ability to audit the Fed.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by david austin

Yes and no. The GAO cannot audit a MAJOR part of the Fed balance sheet which include foreign currency purchases, currency swaps, and ANY agreement set forth between a foreign bank or government. One of Pauls central arguments is that nobody outside of the Fed curtain has any say in how our money is spent on the global market place.

[see Grayson asking Ben where 500B went last year to 2 banks in Europe that he 'cant remember']

Did I mention that this is by far the largest portion of the Feds balance sheet? As in the Trillions.


This is also yes and no. Pauls bill is asking for more oversight which would include ability to debate our home monetary plans such as interest rates. In my opinion on most if not all occasions this would rarely be touched by Congress.... Simply because most of the people in Congress dont really know what they are doing. If this became an issue there would be absolutely no reason why there couldnt be another amendment to cover this portion of oversight. I would guess that there would be an article adressing this point if the bill did come close to passing.

The big picture here is that the Fed has a balance sheet in the Trillions and growing every week. The Fed would even fail their own and most lax/optimistic 'stress tests'. They have the ability to hide massive auction purchases through foreign swaps and they have the ability to push and pull the dollar on a daily basis as a prop for the market. They have the ability to do this all in secrecy.

Congress does NOT have the true ability to audit the Fed.

So when has not knowing something stopped congress from acting?

Bernanke said he's not against changing the laws to allow the GAO the information it needs regarding foreign policy/trades. He seems much more concerned with losing procedural autonomy than having his foreign transactions audited. I can't really say I blame him. Not particularly because of how well I think the Fed has done in recent years, but more so because how poorly I think congress will mismanage the new ability to audit policy. You tell me, if RP was annointed king of America tomorrow. Would abolishing the Fed, and presumably returning to a gold standard not mean disaster?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by david austin

Yes and no. The GAO cannot audit a MAJOR part of the Fed balance sheet which include foreign currency purchases, currency swaps, and ANY agreement set forth between a foreign bank or government. One of Pauls central arguments is that nobody outside of the Fed curtain has any say in how our money is spent on the global market place.

[see Grayson asking Ben where 500B went last year to 2 banks in Europe that he 'cant remember']

Did I mention that this is by far the largest portion of the Feds balance sheet? As in the Trillions.


This is also yes and no. Pauls bill is asking for more oversight which would include ability to debate our home monetary plans such as interest rates. In my opinion on most if not all occasions this would rarely be touched by Congress.... Simply because most of the people in Congress dont really know what they are doing. If this became an issue there would be absolutely no reason why there couldnt be another amendment to cover this portion of oversight. I would guess that there would be an article adressing this point if the bill did come close to passing.

The big picture here is that the Fed has a balance sheet in the Trillions and growing every week. The Fed would even fail their own and most lax/optimistic 'stress tests'. They have the ability to hide massive auction purchases through foreign swaps and they have the ability to push and pull the dollar on a daily basis as a prop for the market. They have the ability to do this all in secrecy.

Congress does NOT have the true ability to audit the Fed.

blah blah blah - what the fuck do you know anyway?



man that was fun to say

[SeedfulMusic]

Originally Posted by PETA

blah blah blah - what the fuck do you know anyway?

Im beginning to wonder the same about you.

[SeedfulMusic]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

You tell me, if RP was annointed king of America tomorrow. Would abolishing the Fed, and presumably returning to a gold standard not mean disaster?

I dont see how so. Except for all the massively (fake) wealthy people losing their worth, there is nothing else wrong with this scenario. Agreed that it would create chaos in its first moments... BUT once sorted out, this would be far more beneficial than our current monetary system.

And whos to say that going back to a gold standard is the answer any how? What about the barter system, you know, the way things were done for 1000's of years? Or what if in that scenario you had no goods to trade, but services in exchange of goods? What if you went to work everyday, and instead of coming home to pay your bills, your home, food, water, electricity, were all part of a community chipping in together through team work, compassion, and care for one another.

This is undoubtedly possible... its just not logical to assume that people with great wealth would ever want to share that wealth with those less fortunate. And there my friends lies the greatest problem. The monetary system does not encourage the well-being of human beings... it only supports those who are willing to sell their souls for the physical, flesh drivin desires around them.

This whole debate puts us back in the religion realm of things once we see this point of good and evil. And unfortunately, I'm just not ready to make a judgement call on religion at this point in my life.

[C-fer]

Originally Posted by SeedfulMusic

And whos to say that going back to a gold standard is the answer any how? What about the barter system, you know, the way things were done for 1000's of years? Or what if in that scenario you had no goods to trade, but services in exchange of goods? What if you went to work everyday, and instead of coming home to pay your bills, your home, food, water, electricity, were all part of a community chipping in together through team work, compassion, and care for one another.

While I almost support this, in the modern world it's pretty flawed. Do you have credit cards? Kiss them good bye in the barter system.
Do you really contribute enough to society to support your lifestyle, car, house, etc? I'm guessing not.

Welfare? Hah. More like throw all the bums into a pit and let them fight it out.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by SeedfulMusic

Im beginning to wonder the same about you.

Well, at least we know you're quick to take a buzz cut from the sarcasm plane.