posted
So Ron Paul's HR 1207 has 170 co-sponsors so far, and there's S 604 over in the Senate to match it.
I know that most of the folks here on Hatrack are die-hard "the government has to control us" people, but I was wondering if anyone had any good arguments against the Fed being accountable.
I was amused to read in this article that there've actually been people claiming that holding the Fed accountable would be interfering in a free market. I'm not like Ron Paul. I wouldn't have been able to respond to that with anything but a belly-laugh.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I know that most of the folks here on Hatrack are die-hard "the government has to control us" people, but I was wondering if anyone had any good arguments against the Fed being accountable.
Oh no, the government should only control us as long as they do so in a way that is completely in line with the things *I* want, which essentially means that I'm controlling us. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm all about enforcing more accountability with the Fed (and FDIC), but I don't really see any reasoning for the specific bill in your link. It's really just some more bat-poo insane ranting.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it's okay with you that the people who control our money supply and interest rates are immune to being queried about it by Congress? And... wanting them to be accountable is "bat-poo insane ranting"?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I can tell, they are already being audited. The bill in question amends a previously passed piece of legislation that set up audits of the Fed.
As for bat-poo insane ranting:
quote:It took less than two decades for the Federal Reserve to bring on the Great Depression of the 1930’s. It has also inflated away the value of our currency by over 96 percent since its inception. It has invisibly stolen from the poor and given to the rich through this controlled inflation, and now openly stolen through recent bank bailouts. It has predictably exacerbated the very problems it was meant to solve.
What you linked isn't a support of this particular bill. It's just "The Fed is bad!!!"
Sort of like how you didn't respond to what I said, but instead used a canned response of how I must not like accountable.
If you want to influence people towards what you believe instead of away from it, I'm suggesting the things that you say should be less obviously dogmatic and crazy.
The amendments to the existing legislation suggested may be useful and something I'd put pressure on my representatives to support, but because you, Lisa, and Rep Paul support it in the way you do, it makes me less likely to consider it valid.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: From what I can tell, they are already being audited. The bill in question amends a previously passed piece of legislation that set up audits of the Fed.
That says that auditing is only permissible if the Fed gives permission in writing, and even then, it stipulates that basically everything that an audit would be for is off limits.
For those who don't want to click through, the original says this:
quote:(b) Under regulations of the Comptroller General, the Comptroller General shall audit an agency, but may carry out an onsite examination of an open insured bank or bank holding company only if the appropriate agency has consented in writing. Audits of the Federal Reserve Board and Federal reserve banks may not include— (1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization; (2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations; (3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or (4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to clauses (1)–(3) of this subsection.
quote:(b) Under regulations of the Comptroller General, the Comptroller General shall audit an agency.
In addition, it'd require such an audit, rather than simply permit it, and require a report on it to Congress.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, and there's an argument for why the current standards of auditing are insufficient and should be changed.
It's almost as if that information should have been presented from the start, instead of something that makes you look dogmatic and crazy.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It only looks that way to you because you have a chip on your shoulder the size of Texas when it comes to anything having to do with Ron Paul.
The example you gave of what you considered nuts was this:
quote:It took less than two decades for the Federal Reserve to bring on the Great Depression of the 1930’s. It has also inflated away the value of our currency by over 96 percent since its inception. It has invisibly stolen from the poor and given to the rich through this controlled inflation, and now openly stolen through recent bank bailouts. It has predictably exacerbated the very problems it was meant to solve.
I don't see what's crazy about that. It's a fact that Fed "adjustments" of the interest rate took under two decades to crash our economy and set off the Depression. It's a fact that today's dollar is worth 4 cents of a 1913 dollar. And it's a fact that all of the manipulation has enriched the rich at the expense of the rest of us. So what's the crazy part? Saying so?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm somewhat bemused that Lisa wants the group with influence over the money supply more controlled by politicians, since the entire reason that was set up was, many major financial crises were directly attributable (and still are today, in quite a few countries) to the government mucking with the money supply. And if you think the Fed has inflated the money supply a lot, you should take a look at some of those other crises. You can see many of them filed under hyperinflation.
And, of course, the US gov't can always take more direct control if it really feels it necessary. Any bill passed can be altered by another bill.
I also note that the current and proposed language both acknowledge the Federal Reserve Board is a federal agency Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I know you don't. You didn't see what was crazy about insisting that Ron Paul was going to be the Republican nominee and win the 2008 presidential election even after he lost the primary to John McCain. But it was and this is.
I don't expect to change your perceptions there. But think of it another way. What you initially posted and the statements of Ron Paul you linked to was not going to change people minds or influence the undecided and uninformed. The actual argument you made for the bill might.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This isn't as bad as your advocacy for other, nuttier things like "we should abolish copyright!" but it is advice for 'reform' as predictably bad as would come from any 'reformers' who actually intend to destroy the fed.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's a fact that Fed "adjustments" of the interest rate took under two decades to crash our economy and set off the Depression.
It is a fact that the Great Depression occurred roughly two decades after the establishment of the Fed, yes. It is a fact that the government response to the Depression was less than brilliant. But this causal link that you so casually throw about is, at the very least, not an agreed-upon fact.
quote:It's a fact that today's dollar is worth 4 cents of a 1913 dollar.
It's a fact for goods like bread, meat, and potatoes; it is not a fact for goods like cars, iPods, and computers. And in either case the fact-ness does not establish that it is a problem, which is what you are trying to argue.
That aside, the actual amendment looks not too unreasonable to me, the only caveat being that I'm not convinced of the usefulness of having a accountability to a public that doesn't actually know anything about economics.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: [QB] It only looks that way to you because you have a chip on your shoulder the size of Texas when it comes to anything having to do with Ron Paul.
No, that chip is on YOUR shoulder, and it relates to anyone who disagrees with you on these issues.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
