Yesterday Senater Bernie Sanders agreed to a deal that essentially ended the Audit the Fed amendment. His "compromise" is what the Administration and banking interests want: they'll allow the TARP and TALF to be audited, but no transparency of the FOMC, discount window operations or agreements with foreign central banks. Overall a bad day for economic freedom.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704370704575228164133105390.html?mod=WSJ_business_EconomyNewsBucket
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-05-06/ron-paul-full-transparency-is-the-only-acceptable-option/

There's word that Senator Vitter or Senator Demint will reintroduce the original Audit the Fed amendment sometime tonight. Let's hope they have the spine to stand up to the Fed.

Thoughts?

Your thoughts? Per the rules.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Your thoughts? Per the rules.

I think these constitute his thoughts.

"...Overall a bad day for economic freedom....There's word that Senator Vitter or Senator Demint will reintroduce the original Audit the Fed amendment sometime tonight. Let's hope they have the spine to stand up to the Fed."

On the surface, this seems like a very bad thing. But, in trying to keep an open mind, can anyone tell me why the Federal Reserve should not be subject to a public audit? I am genuinely curious.

According to Alan Greenspan it would cause too much speculation/panic/termoil/whatever you want to call it by people who don't know as much about what's going on as those in the loop...

derek bomar wrote: According to Alan Greenspan it would cause too much speculation/panic/termoil/whatever you want to call it by people who don't know as much about what's going on as those in the loop...

Thanks, Derek. But considering the distrust that many Americans have with the Fed, the only way I see it causing a problem is if real problems are uncovered. I don't like Greenspan's argument at all.

Ironic that the possible audit of that evil capitalist institution was halted by the vote of the only senator honest enough to wear the term "socialist" as a badge of honor.

derek bomar wrote: According to Alan Greenspan it would cause too much speculation/panic/termoil/whatever you want to call it by people who don't know as much about what's going on as those in the loop...

Spoken like a true elitist.

Although Mr. Rothbard would get rid of the FED, if we're going to have one, this might be why it should be left alone.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."~Murray Rothbard, Making Economic Sense, 1995.

Elitist? Maybe. But, just like the elites in our society in other disciplines ought to be compensated for their superior skill an knowledge with larger wages, perhaps, if we are going to have a FED, the elite economic minds running it ought to be left to do their job as they wish free from the whims of a rancorous and cranky public.

BCBulldog wrote:

derek bomar wrote: According to Alan Greenspan it would cause too much speculation/panic/termoil/whatever you want to call it by people who don't know as much about what's going on as those in the loop...

Thanks, Derek. But considering the distrust that many Americans have with the Fed, the only way I see it causing a problem is if real problems are uncovered. I don't like Greenspan's argument at all.

Could you imagine the panic by average consumers if they woke up int he morning and saw the headline "Auditors relesae Unqualified Opinion on the Fed"

BoatShoes wrote: Although Mr. Rothbard would get rid of the FED, if we're going to have one, this might be why it should be left alone.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."~Murray Rothbard, Making Economic Sense, 1995.

Elitist? Maybe. But, just like the elites in our society in other disciplines ought to be compensated for their superior skill an knowledge with larger wages, perhaps, if we are going to have a FED, the elite economic minds running it ought to be left to do their job as they wish free from the whims of a rancorous and cranky public.

LJ wrote:

BCBulldog wrote:

derek bomar wrote: According to Alan Greenspan it would cause too much speculation/panic/termoil/whatever you want to call it by people who don't know as much about what's going on as those in the loop...

Thanks, Derek. But considering the distrust that many Americans have with the Fed, the only way I see it causing a problem is if real problems are uncovered. I don't like Greenspan's argument at all.

Could you imagine the panic by average consumers if they woke up int he morning and saw the headline "Auditors relesae Unqualified Opinion on the Fed"

I would hope they wouldn't send a couple of interns from Accenture to do the job. You cannnot tell me that there is nobody outside of the Fed qualified to audit them.

BCBulldog wrote:

BoatShoes wrote: Although Mr. Rothbard would get rid of the FED, if we're going to have one, this might be why it should be left alone.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."~Murray Rothbard, Making Economic Sense, 1995.

Elitist? Maybe. But, just like the elites in our society in other disciplines ought to be compensated for their superior skill an knowledge with larger wages, perhaps, if we are going to have a FED, the elite economic minds running it ought to be left to do their job as they wish free from the whims of a rancorous and cranky public.

LJ wrote:

BCBulldog wrote:

derek bomar wrote: According to Alan Greenspan it would cause too much speculation/panic/termoil/whatever you want to call it by people who don't know as much about what's going on as those in the loop...

Thanks, Derek. But considering the distrust that many Americans have with the Fed, the only way I see it causing a problem is if real problems are uncovered. I don't like Greenspan's argument at all.

Could you imagine the panic by average consumers if they woke up int he morning and saw the headline "Auditors relesae Unqualified Opinion on the Fed"

I would hope they wouldn't send a couple of interns from Accenture to do the job. You cannnot tell me that there is nobody outside of the Fed qualified to audit them.

Huh? See, you don't even know what "Unqualified opinion" means.

Auditor's opinion of a financial statement, given without any reservations. Such an opinion basically states that the auditor feels the company followed all accounting rules appropriately and that the financial reports are an accurate representation of the company's financial condition. opposite of qualified opinion.

LJ wrote:

BCBulldog wrote:

BoatShoes wrote: Although Mr. Rothbard would get rid of the FED, if we're going to have one, this might be why it should be left alone.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."~Murray Rothbard, Making Economic Sense, 1995.

Elitist? Maybe. But, just like the elites in our society in other disciplines ought to be compensated for their superior skill an knowledge with larger wages, perhaps, if we are going to have a FED, the elite economic minds running it ought to be left to do their job as they wish free from the whims of a rancorous and cranky public.

LJ wrote:

BCBulldog wrote:

derek bomar wrote: According to Alan Greenspan it would cause too much speculation/panic/termoil/whatever you want to call it by people who don't know as much about what's going on as those in the loop...

Thanks, Derek. But considering the distrust that many Americans have with the Fed, the only way I see it causing a problem is if real problems are uncovered. I don't like Greenspan's argument at all.

Could you imagine the panic by average consumers if they woke up int he morning and saw the headline "Auditors relesae Unqualified Opinion on the Fed"

I would hope they wouldn't send a couple of interns from Accenture to do the job. You cannnot tell me that there is nobody outside of the Fed qualified to audit them.

Huh? See, you don't even know what "Unqualified opinion" means.

Auditor's opinion of a financial statement, given without any reservations. Such an opinion basically states that the auditor feels the company followed all accounting rules appropriately and that the financial reports are an accurate representation of the company's financial condition. opposite of qualified opinion.

Which is why I won't be doing the audit either. So, please explain to me how the release of an "Unqualified Opinion" would be a bad thing as I believe that is what you were implying.

BCBulldog wrote:

LJ wrote:

BCBulldog wrote:

BoatShoes wrote: Although Mr. Rothbard would get rid of the FED, if we're going to have one, this might be why it should be left alone.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."~Murray Rothbard, Making Economic Sense, 1995.

Elitist? Maybe. But, just like the elites in our society in other disciplines ought to be compensated for their superior skill an knowledge with larger wages, perhaps, if we are going to have a FED, the elite economic minds running it ought to be left to do their job as they wish free from the whims of a rancorous and cranky public.

LJ wrote:

BCBulldog wrote:

derek bomar wrote: According to Alan Greenspan it would cause too much speculation/panic/termoil/whatever you want to call it by people who don't know as much about what's going on as those in the loop...

Thanks, Derek. But considering the distrust that many Americans have with the Fed, the only way I see it causing a problem is if real problems are uncovered. I don't like Greenspan's argument at all.

Could you imagine the panic by average consumers if they woke up int he morning and saw the headline "Auditors relesae Unqualified Opinion on the Fed"

I would hope they wouldn't send a couple of interns from Accenture to do the job. You cannnot tell me that there is nobody outside of the Fed qualified to audit them.

Huh? See, you don't even know what "Unqualified opinion" means.

Auditor's opinion of a financial statement, given without any reservations. Such an opinion basically states that the auditor feels the company followed all accounting rules appropriately and that the financial reports are an accurate representation of the company's financial condition. opposite of qualified opinion.

Which is why I won't be doing the audit either. So, please explain to me how the release of an "Unqualified Opinion" would be a bad thing as I believe that is what you were implying.

Actually you proved my point just fine. See, you thought that an unqualified opinion was a bad thing, or at least not a good thing. It would be great if they got an unqualified opinion (no need to put it in quotations, that is the actual name) but how many Americans would know that? How many would understand that? I'm not saying that more transparency in the fed is a bad thing, nor am I saying that something like this doesn't need to happen. The point is that a lot of the people crying for this would read the results and go "huh?!"

LJ wrote:Actually you proved my point just fine. See, you thought that an unqualified opinion was a bad thing, or at least not a good thing. It would be great if they got an unqualified opinion (no need to put it in quotations, that is the actual name) but how many Americans would know that? How many would understand that? I'm not saying that more transparency in the fed is a bad thing, nor am I saying that something like this doesn't need to happen. The point is that a lot of the people crying for this would read the results and go "huh?!"

And yet, with an explanation, a simple commoner, like me, now understands what only the elite knew before. Sure, if people just read the headline and not the actual story, then there could definitely be confusion. But the first line of the story would clearly indicate that the audit results were positive. You have far too little faith in a person's ability to understand something that is not within their field of expertise.

BTW, thanks for the snarky punctuation correction.

My opinion...

I recognize the Fed can be used for some good things (adding liquidity in times of dire need), but they have not been. It's too much power for 1 organization to have to artificially adjust interest rates, print/counterfeit money out of thin air (to monetize federal government debts), and ship money off to other foreign central banks when they need bailed out (we are going to pay a lot of money to Greece through the IMF, if Bernanke hasn't already given them money). Something with this much power needs to be audited. The original Paul-Grayson Amendment would still wait 6 months to receive the documents from the Fed. Also, our current federal government expansion is all because of the Fed's power to monetize the debt and print money when Congress asks them to. That is how you fund wars.

They are also corrupt. Look at all Greenspan knew before the housing bubble popped in 2008. He knew what was going to happen in 2004 and did nothing to stop it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/greenspan-wanted-housing_n_560965.html

bigmanbt wrote: My opinion...

I recognize the Fed can be used for some good things (adding liquidity in times of dire need), but they have not been. It's too much power for 1 organization to have to artificially adjust interest rates, print/counterfeit money out of thin air (to monetize federal government debts), and ship money off to other foreign central banks when they need bailed out (we are going to pay a lot of money to Greece through the IMF, if Bernanke hasn't already given them money). Something with this much power needs to be audited. The original Paul-Grayson Amendment would still wait 6 months to receive the documents from the Fed. Also, our current federal government expansion is all because of the Fed's power to monetize the debt and print money when Congress asks them to. That is how you fund wars.

They are also corrupt. Look at all Greenspan knew before the housing bubble popped in 2008. He knew what was going to happen in 2004 and did nothing to stop it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/greenspan-wanted-housing_n_560965.html

Nothing the size of the Fed could be audit ready in 6 months. Damn near impossible.

bigmanbt wrote: My opinion...

I recognize the Fed can be used for some good things (adding liquidity in times of dire need), but they have not been. It's too much power for 1 organization to have to artificially adjust interest rates, print/counterfeit money out of thin air (to monetize federal government debts), and ship money off to other foreign central banks when they need bailed out (we are going to pay a lot of money to Greece through the IMF, if Bernanke hasn't already given them money). Something with this much power needs to be audited. The original Paul-Grayson Amendment would still wait 6 months to receive the documents from the Fed. Also, our current federal government expansion is all because of the Fed's power to monetize the debt and print money when Congress asks them to. That is how you fund wars.

They are also corrupt. Look at all Greenspan knew before the housing bubble popped in 2008. He knew what was going to happen in 2004 and did nothing to stop it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/greenspan-wanted-housing_n_560965.html

I saw Greenspan testifying on CSpan recently and to paraphrase him, he stated that the general public has a short memory because they were calling for more subprime lending and had the Fed tried to nip it in the bud they would've called for his head.

I may be characterizing it wrong...perhaps others saw what I'm talking about?

I think the Fed should be audited. However it would be very expensive and the audit team would have to be there year round. Just think, the audit team on say Pepsi would have 15-20 people on it with most of them there for 9 to 10 months out of the year auditing it. The Fed would be a huge undertaking, and I doubt there paperwork is that up to standards.

iclfan2 wrote: I think the Fed should be audited. However it would be very expensive and the audit team would have to be there year round. Just think, the audit team on say Pepsi would have 15-20 people on it with most of them there for 9 to 10 months out of the year auditing it. The Fed would be a huge undertaking, and I doubt there paperwork is that up to standards.

It took over 3 years to finish the first audit on NAVSUP