Yes, it does. Congress can ask for *anything* it wants from the Fed. It controls the Fed's charter. The laws prohibit the GAO from getting everything, otherwise, it is FULLY audited, including the balance sheet, which is what you guys carp about continuously. The proposed law will give the GAO the authority to fully audit the Fed, something which Congress can already do.
The full public audit of the Fed would be not only ridiculously needless, but also economically and geopolitically dangerous. It'd be akin to asking for full public audits of the FBI/CIA/NSA, among others. I'm sure your anarchist moronic brain would love that, but we do have enemies and, provided Congress has the ability to call those agencies out, and has on occassion when they step out of line, I am fine. After all, Congress represents the People, thus the will of the people is head through Congress and oversight for the People is gained through Congress.
Your hero is playing a political shell game.
Educate yourself.
http://www.publiceye.org/consp...laherty/flaherty6.html
The Fed member banks do own it. However, only politically appointed governors control the Fed policy (FOMC). Often times the best watchdogs are the industry players themselves. After all, isn't that what a "free market" is about? All you're doing here is allowing the industry to look after itself, while providing the government power to ultimately control it and gain oversight into it.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
:laugh: at your contradicting statements.
Regardless, your statement is false. The law would need to be changed in order for Congress to have the GAO fully audit the Fed.
The restrictions of the audit are laid out in your own link.
And from your link...
This is utter nonsense. In fact, the complete opposite has been, and is now, the case.
banks are forced to buy shares of the fed, its not like owning a share of microsoft, these banks have no say in the matters of the fed.
yes it does
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
I think it has already been shown here that it does not.
LK's link includes the legal limitations of the GAO's auditing of the Fed.
So, in one sense, you and LK are correct, Congress CAN fully audit the Fed, but ONLY if they decide to change the existing law.
Yet, ironically, the same people saying Congress can fully audit the Fed seem to oppose the very changing of the law that would allow it.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
:thumbsup: It is about time. With this type of oversight, we could have avoided or at the very least forseen the financial crisis that we are now experiencing. :thumbsdown: to the boom/bust cycle and 'too big to fail' corporations.
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
I thought the Obama administration was going to be the most transparent presidency ever? Why then, would you give power to a private company requiring a act of congress to open its books.
Those are both publicly held companies and their financial documentation is open, to the public, and available on their web site.
Those are both publicly held companies and their financial documentation is open, to the public, and available on their web site.
Are you fucking dense? I already said the GAO doesn't have the power to do a full audit. The GAO is *****NOT***** CONGRESS!
While the GAO is an arm of Congress, it is not Congress specifically. If Congress were to call the Fed to have a full audit, they can do it any time they want, they just can't have the GAO do it under the auspices of the normal GAO audits.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Just because a company is publicly traded or that they put documentation up for public viewing does not in any way apply that they are held accountable for their actions. Hell, Haliburton/KBR should be a prime example of this.
People here need to read "The Creature from Jeykll Island"
http://www.amazon.com/Creature...-Reserve/dp/0912986212
After reading that book you will either (A) shit your pants about the Federal Reserve -OR- (B) believe that the author of the book lied about everything in the book.
I am solidly in the A camp myself.
http://www.amazon.com/Creature...-Reserve/dp/0912986212
After reading that book you will either (A) shit your pants about the Federal Reserve -OR- (B) believe that the author of the book lied about everything in the book.
I am solidly in the A camp myself.
The author lied about a huge majority of the book. He took small kernels of truth and wrapped them with malice, lies, half-truths, and outright stupidity.
The link I posted earlier refutes the vast majority of the book.
I'm sorry but i don't see anything in your link above that adequately refutes or disproves anything in Jekyll Island. Not every last ounce of detail in the book is correct or factual to be sure... the author does make some conjectures. The author even gets a tad sensational here and there.
But the history and cloak surrounding the establishment of central banking here in the US and in Europe is there for sure and for damn sure central banking makes no sense as it pertains to benefiting John Q taxpayer or promoting economic stability. Central banking has been a major fiasco and it really only benefits a select few of elite rich at the cost of rest of us.
Also... you realize at this point, if the Fed reserve is the monster it is aledged to be, that have congress and the treasury being able to "audit" the fed is like the mob "being able" (and no one else) to serve as prosecution, judge and jury on their own criminal trials.
Many experts warned the senate banking committee about the dire straits the mortgage and security sectors were heading toward way back in 2003-04... the shit was on Cspan for christ sake! Only a fool or a bought and paid for man wouldn't have acted on the information at hand back then.
I don't see why anyone would support giving more power to the Fed, which caused the housing bubble in the first place and every solution it has is to print more money and give it to the banks.
That website has dozens of separate pages that refute almost all of the author's points, one by one.
So what if it is shrouded? A lot of things are shrouded from the people, as they should be, as long as the people's representatives can gain access. Central banking has not been a major fiasco, it has actually aided in stability, as has been shown by many studies.
Your analogy is bullshit and really, as typed, doesn't even make sense.
Wow, so fucking what? I said the same thing in 2003. The Fed wasn't the one who could control the mortgage industry, so blaming them is pointless.
You're just as bad as bamacre in your promotion of this idiotic idea the Fed was solely (or even majorly) responsible for the credit crisis. Low borrowing costs for overnight paper wasn't the cause of the problem. Lax standards for underwriting, leverage, poor accounting standards, and lack of regulation of financial institutions are far more to blame than rates. All of that crammed down risk spreads for all financial products, increasing the need for volume. The Fed cannot influence long-term borrowing costs (as you can see now), nor can they cause a compression of risk-spreads, that's all lead by the market.
Look at it this way. If you have low interest rates but high lending standards, you get no problems, or at least limited ones. If you have low interest rates AND low lending standards, you have a problem. If you have high interest rates but low lending standards, you have a problem. Without low lending standards (both at the bank and federal regulatory level) you have problems, regardless of interest rates.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
Sorry, LK, the truth is coming out.
And, again, no one is saying the Fed is "solely" to blame for this mess. You just like to use this straw man argument because it's easy to point out other factors.
But it is the primary cause of this mess.
LOL, but the whole point of artificially low interest rates is to increasing lending. Hence, people borrow when they otherwise wouldn't, and banks lend when they otherwise wouldn't. It's like adding more members to a basketball team past the already limit of 12, anyone added isn't going to be as good as the 12 you already have.
Not if the low interest rates are real, i.e., set by the market. Of course, if this were the case, lending standards wouldn't be low in the first place.
This is kind of a dumb scenario. If interest rates were high, people wouldn't have been as likely to borrow, thus less likely to buy a home. So house prices wouldn't have gone through the roof, and we wouldn't have had a housing bubble.
And if we were actually practicing capitalism, lending standards would be better set by banks. But when you take out the risk factor, create the moral hazard, proclaim businesses "too big to fail," yeah, it's a problem.
1) At this point it is simply their research views and conclusions against that of Jekyll Island. That doesn't prove or disprove jack shit. And I'd say that most of the information on the site does little of anything is contradict much of anything in the book.
2) My analogy is simplistic, yes, but to the point. Most of the senate banking committee and god knows who else is in the Fed's pocket. The Treasury is in the Feds pocket. Simple enough?
3) Name one actual benefit that has arisen from central banking that would not be available under a gold standard or the treasury system.
4) The Fed and other central banking interests control the senate banking committee... so who failed to act on Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC again? This isn't complicated.
5) Look at the aftermath... who is getting richer out of this and who getting more control? With every financial crisis in the US we hand over more control to the Fed. Europe is doing the same thing. Central banks the world over are gonna come out of this with more money, more public debt in their hands, and more power to control their economies.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter