Ron Paul Winning Converts

[Iriemon]

I'm under no delusion that they will vote against their interest. I was referring to a time in the future after the majority of them are deceased or locked up in an old folks home.

We will be back in the era of 70% top tax rates well before then.

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States" — Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)

"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." — Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913

"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." — Congressman Charles A.
Lindbergh Sr. , 1913

"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board as ministers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money" -- Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1923

"The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny..." — Congressman
Wright Patman, Congressional Record, Sept 30, 1941

"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it". — Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa)

"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen.
There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the
International bankers — Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Rep. Pa)

"Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government's institutions.
They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers" — Congressional Record 12595-12603 — Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency (12 years) June 10, 1932

"I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs....I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices in doing something terrible and unforgivable to our wonderful country. Deep down in our heart, we know that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected." — John Danforth (R-Mo)

"These 12 corporations together cover the whole country and monopolize and use for private
gain every dollar of the public currency..." — Mr. Crozier of Cincinnati, before Senate Banking and Currency Committee - 1913

"The [Federal Reserve Act] as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the
currency... I do not like to think that any law can be passed that will make it possible to submerge the gold standard in a flood of irredeemable paper currency." — Henry Cabot Lodge Sr., 1913

This is the 2000s. Why are these opinions from the '10s and '30s particulalry relevant today?

 

[Iriemon]

"When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in out account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money." — Putting it simply, Boston Federal Reserve Bank

True that is how the Fed expands the money supply to prevent deflation or to mitigate a recession.

"Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities, intrinsically, a 'dollar' bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries." — Modern Money Mechanics Workbook, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1975

True. Money is simply a means to facilitate exchange of goods a products.

"The Federal Reserve system pays the U.S. Treasury 020.60 per thousand notes --a little over 2 cents each-- without regard to the face value of the note. Federal Reserve Notes, incidentally, are the only type of currency now produced for circulation. They are printed exclusively by the Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the $20.60 per thousand price reflects the Bureau's full cost of production. Federal Reserve Notes are printed in 01, 02, 05, 10, 20, 50, and 100 dollar denominations only; notes of 500, 1000, 5000, and 10,000 denominations were last printed in 1945." —Donald J. Winn, Assistant to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system

True. The Treasury operates a printing press on behalf of the Fed, but otherwise has no control of the money supply. That is the function of the Fed. That is why the currency says "Federal Reserve Note" and not "US Treasury Note".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From General Law

"The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the U.C.C. (Uniform
Commercial Code)" — The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966

Oh good lord. Do you know what the Uniform Commercial Code is?

 

[Iriemon]

"We are completely dependant on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system.... It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon." — Robert H. Hamphill, Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank

I had to pull this one separate.

It had no date on it. Didn't that make you suspicious? Respectfully, do you investigate at all when you read this kind of blather, or just accept it face value because you found it on a website?

This statement was made in 1934! 75 years ago!

What do you think he meant be "very soon"? Within a couple centuries?

Do you really think a statement from 1934 that "civilization is going to collapse" "very soon" if we don't correct the defects in the Federal Reserve System is evidence of the fault with the Fed?

 

[Paulie]

Sure, but your insinuation that the gold standard platform would somehow hurt the GOP's chances in '12 was kind of ridiculous since the amount of people who actually understand monetary policy is not nearly enough to sway a national vote.

Like I said, all that really matters to the electorate at large is who's wearing what designer, and what kind of dog they'll be getting.

Is there enough gold in the world to support the amount of money needed to run the economy?

Sure. Gold is a medium of exchange, just like dollars. Nothing is instrinsically worth x amount of gold, except maybe jewelry.

The problem with gold is that you cannot inflate it to match population and economic growth, or times when the supply falls because of hording, like we are experiencing now.

I think one of my biggest discrepancies with this argument is that not all "growth" is real. Much of it in recent times has been false, in that it was predicated on over-inflation of the money supply and then subsequently extinguished due to various corrections. Just becuase the money supply is increasing, and asset values are rising, doesn't mean it's real growth.

Real growth simply MUST involve a certain level of saving. Just borrowing and spending the new money that is constantly being created is not growth. Too many people are way too financially irresponsible to make a system of consumption successful for the long term.

I'm willing to bet that if even HALF of the people negatively affected by this recession had built a decent savings instead of wasting their incomes on unnecessary crap like big screen TV's, expensive cars they didn't really need, and what have you, the economy would be in a better position right now and may very well have faired much better than it has.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Very true the man seemed like the only R candidate that could energize the youth of America. However, most youthful voters know little about candidates. I think they like him because of his strong opposition against the war.

the paulies kept telling us that. but the truth is that Obama energized the youth vote, not Paul.

paul's all hype. and his desciples keep telling us how popular he is, but the guy never moved off of square one.

And it really troubles me that anyone thinks he knows anything about the Constitution. As a legal analyst, he should have stuck to medicine.

And even if I didn't feel that way, I'd still say the guy is a hypocrite.

He's soooooooooo for term limits that he spent how many years in congress?

and he's soooooooooooooooooooo against earmarks that he constantly took them for his district... saying "well, if everyone else does it......"

And let's not even start on his naivete in both economics and international affairs.

Naivete in economics? Being the only candidate to say that a recession was coming is being naive?

 

[jillian]

Very true the man seemed like the only R candidate that could energize the youth of America. However, most youthful voters know little about candidates. I think they like him because of his strong opposition against the war.

the paulies kept telling us that. but the truth is that Obama energized the youth vote, not Paul.

paul's all hype. and his desciples keep telling us how popular he is, but the guy never moved off of square one.

And it really troubles me that anyone thinks he knows anything about the Constitution. As a legal analyst, he should have stuck to medicine.

And even if I didn't feel that way, I'd still say the guy is a hypocrite.

He's soooooooooo for term limits that he spent how many years in congress?

and he's soooooooooooooooooooo against earmarks that he constantly took them for his district... saying "well, if everyone else does it......"

And let's not even start on his naivete in both economics and international affairs.

Naivete in economics? Being the only candidate to say that a recession was coming is being naive?

as I said above, big difference between being able to diagnose a problem and being able to fix it.

a lot of us said the last admin was bankrupting us ... i can tell you that i alone said that bush was the only president to cut taxes during wartime at least a dozen times. i'm certainly not an economist. nor am i a seer. but saying bad stuff was going to happen wasn't exactly a huge leap.

it's his solutions that are naive.

and laissez faire economics has already been shown to be a failure. once again, i'd direct you to Upton Sinclair's The Jungle... or even Oliver Twist, for the type of society you're talking about.

I'm afraid I want nothing to do with that type of world.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

the paulies kept telling us that. but the truth is that Obama energized the youth vote, not Paul.

paul's all hype. and his desciples keep telling us how popular he is, but the guy never moved off of square one.

And it really troubles me that anyone thinks he knows anything about the Constitution. As a legal analyst, he should have stuck to medicine.

And even if I didn't feel that way, I'd still say the guy is a hypocrite.

He's soooooooooo for term limits that he spent how many years in congress?

and he's soooooooooooooooooooo against earmarks that he constantly took them for his district... saying "well, if everyone else does it......"

And let's not even start on his naivete in both economics and international affairs.

Naivete in economics? Being the only candidate to say that a recession was coming is being naive?

as I said above, big difference between being able to diagnose a problem and being able to fix it.

a lot of us said the last admin was bankrupting us ... i can tell you that i alone said that bush was the only president to cut taxes during wartime at least a dozen times. i'm certainly not an economist. nor am i a seer. but saying bad stuff was going to happen wasn't exactly a huge leap.

it's his solutions that are naive.

and laissez faire economics has already been shown to be a failure. once again, i'd direct you to Upton Sinclair's The Jungle... or even Oliver Twist, for the type of society you're talking about.

I'm afraid I want nothing to do with that type of world.

Laissez-faire economics hasn't been used so I'm not sure how it's been shown to be a failure. However, if you want to use fiction novels as a basis to reject Ron Paul's economics, may I point you in the direction of Atlas Shrugged?

 

[sealybobo]

He was rejected by the repubs because his ideas are wacky.

And truly, I resent what he tells people the constitution means when he doesn't have a clue... not a single ounce of constitutional knowledge.

he might "think for himself", but he took his earmarks and stayed in his government job....

and, frankly, i think xenophobia and isolationism are dangerous.

it's one thing to define a problem, it's another to have a clue about how to solve it.

My buddy is a big ron paul fan. He's reading your post. He says to look up the difference between isolationism and non interventionism.

He's the state coordinator for Campaign for Liberty, which is where I get my updates on Ron Paul

PS. You should support HR 1207. If he is right about one thing, its this issue.

I see no harm in taking the Federal Reserve away from the bankers and putting it back in government control. We can still appoint bankers to run it, FOR US, minus the interest that we pay these bankers on the national debt of course. Or, as HR 1207 wants, just bring accountability and transparency to the Federal Reserve, which has helped to reduce the value of our dollar by 95% since its creation in 1913.

I refuse to believe that transparency would be bad. Everytime we want to fix something that is broken, the corporations/bankers/wallstreet tell us how any changes to the status quo would bring doom.

And then their policies caused actual doom.

And then they don't even accept responsibility.

 

[garyd]

Bankers don't make policy the resapond to it. We have lobbyists largely because Washington chose in the 1930's to become increasing involved in regulating the economy.

 

[Iriemon]

the paulies kept telling us that. but the truth is that Obama energized the youth vote, not Paul.

paul's all hype. and his desciples keep telling us how popular he is, but the guy never moved off of square one.

And it really troubles me that anyone thinks he knows anything about the Constitution. As a legal analyst, he should have stuck to medicine.

And even if I didn't feel that way, I'd still say the guy is a hypocrite.

He's soooooooooo for term limits that he spent how many years in congress?

and he's soooooooooooooooooooo against earmarks that he constantly took them for his district... saying "well, if everyone else does it......"

And let's not even start on his naivete in both economics and international affairs.

Naivete in economics? Being the only candidate to say that a recession was coming is being naive?

as I said above, big difference between being able to diagnose a problem and being able to fix it.

a lot of us said the last admin was bankrupting us ... i can tell you that i alone said that bush was the only president to cut taxes during wartime at least a dozen times. i'm certainly not an economist. nor am i a seer. but saying bad stuff was going to happen wasn't exactly a huge leap.

it's his solutions that are naive.

and laissez faire economics has already been shown to be a failure. once again, i'd direct you to Upton Sinclair's The Jungle... or even Oliver Twist, for the type of society you're talking about.

I'm afraid I want nothing to do with that type of world.

As an example, from what I understand, Paul says he'd eliminate income an payroll taxes and corporate taxes.

But not one of his supporters have been able to say what he'd do to generate revenue for the federal government.

Simplistic solutions that have a populist appeal but no substance behind them.

 

[Iriemon]

He was rejected by the repubs because his ideas are wacky.

And truly, I resent what he tells people the constitution means when he doesn't have a clue... not a single ounce of constitutional knowledge.

he might "think for himself", but he took his earmarks and stayed in his government job....

and, frankly, i think xenophobia and isolationism are dangerous.

it's one thing to define a problem, it's another to have a clue about how to solve it.

My buddy is a big ron paul fan. He's reading your post. He says to look up the difference between isolationism and non interventionism.

He's the state coordinator for Campaign for Liberty, which is where I get my updates on Ron Paul

PS. You should support HR 1207. If he is right about one thing, its this issue.

I see no harm in taking the Federal Reserve away from the bankers and putting it back in government control. We can still appoint bankers to run it, FOR US, minus the interest that we pay these bankers on the national debt of course. Or, as HR 1207 wants, just bring accountability and transparency to the Federal Reserve, which has helped to reduce the value of our dollar by 95% since its creation in 1913.

I refuse to believe that transparency would be bad. Everytime we want to fix something that is broken, the corporations/bankers/wallstreet tell us how any changes to the status quo would bring doom.

And then their policies caused actual doom.

And then they don't even accept responsibility.

Sealy, when you brought up HR1207 earlier in the thread, I asked you this:

As far as I can tell, the major reason for the bill is to force Fed deliberations on money policy to be public. I'm not sure that is a good idea, because the ramification of statements made in deliberation could have very adverse effects, and so the effect of make deliberations public would prevent board members from franking expressing their views.

For example, if the board meets and a prominent member says, "Oh my god the economy is doomed we gotta cut intereset rates or we are heading for a depression" that statement would probably cause the markets to crash.

What do you think? Do you think all government deliberations should be public?

You didn't respond to it then, but I'd be interested in what you (or others) think.

Thanks.

 

[justabubba]

He was rejected by the repubs because his ideas are wacky.

And truly, I resent what he tells people the constitution means when he doesn't have a clue... not a single ounce of constitutional knowledge.

he might "think for himself", but he took his earmarks and stayed in his government job....

and, frankly, i think xenophobia and isolationism are dangerous.

it's one thing to define a problem, it's another to have a clue about how to solve it.

My buddy is a big ron paul fan. He's reading your post. He says to look up the difference between isolationism and non interventionism.

He's the state coordinator for Campaign for Liberty, which is where I get my updates on Ron Paul

PS. You should support HR 1207. If he is right about one thing, its this issue.

I see no harm in taking the Federal Reserve away from the bankers and putting it back in government control. We can still appoint bankers to run it, FOR US, minus the interest that we pay these bankers on the national debt of course. Or, as HR 1207 wants, just bring accountability and transparency to the Federal Reserve, which has helped to reduce the value of our dollar by 95% since its creation in 1913.

I refuse to believe that transparency would be bad. Everytime we want to fix something that is broken, the corporations/bankers/wallstreet tell us how any changes to the status quo would bring doom.

And then their policies caused actual doom.

And then they don't even accept responsibility.

Sealy, when you brought up HR1207 earlier in the thread, I asked you this:

As far as I can tell, the major reason for the bill is to force Fed deliberations on money policy to be public. I'm not sure that is a good idea, because the ramification of statements made in deliberation could have very adverse effects, and so the effect of make deliberations public would prevent board members from franking expressing their views.

For example, if the board meets and a prominent member says, "Oh my god the economy is doomed we gotta cut intereset rates or we are heading for a depression" that statement would probably cause the markets to crash.

What do you think? Do you think all government deliberations should be public?

You didn't respond to it then, but I'd be interested in what you (or others) think.

Thanks.

here is the summary:

2/26/2009--Introduced.
Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 - Repeals the authority of the Comptroller General to carry out an onsite examination of an open insured bank or bank holding company only if the appropriate federal regulatory agency has consented in writing. (Retains the authority of the Comptroller General to audit a federal agency.)
Directs the Comptroller General to complete, before the end of 2010, an audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and of the federal reserve banks, followed by a detailed report to Congress.

in reading the entire text i failed to identify the disclosure requirements which you (appropriately) feared would reveal the internal deliberations. i agree that immediate disclosure could cause more market turmoil than it prevents. but for the meeting minutes to be publicly available within 12 months would not seem upsetting while transparency would be enhanced

Dr. Paul is a rare statesman, rather than politician. few seem to appreciate the difference. while i agree with most of his views, i find his desire to move to a gold standard more than a bit anachronistic
many who support a return to the gold standard don't seem to have an appreciation of the way the french taught us the bretton woods system is unworkable. allowing the comptroller to release its audit of the fed should eliminate the source of much misinformation. so while i support Dr. Paul's measure, it is because i believe the results will undermine his advocacy for an elimination of the fed
and if he is right and i am wrong, such information would allow me to see the basis of my erroneous monetary beliefs

 

[Iriemon]

My buddy is a big ron paul fan. He's reading your post. He says to look up the difference between isolationism and non interventionism.

He's the state coordinator for Campaign for Liberty, which is where I get my updates on Ron Paul

PS. You should support HR 1207. If he is right about one thing, its this issue.

I see no harm in taking the Federal Reserve away from the bankers and putting it back in government control. We can still appoint bankers to run it, FOR US, minus the interest that we pay these bankers on the national debt of course. Or, as HR 1207 wants, just bring accountability and transparency to the Federal Reserve, which has helped to reduce the value of our dollar by 95% since its creation in 1913.

I refuse to believe that transparency would be bad. Everytime we want to fix something that is broken, the corporations/bankers/wallstreet tell us how any changes to the status quo would bring doom.

And then their policies caused actual doom.

And then they don't even accept responsibility.

Sealy, when you brought up HR1207 earlier in the thread, I asked you this:

As far as I can tell, the major reason for the bill is to force Fed deliberations on money policy to be public. I'm not sure that is a good idea, because the ramification of statements made in deliberation could have very adverse effects, and so the effect of make deliberations public would prevent board members from franking expressing their views.

For example, if the board meets and a prominent member says, "Oh my god the economy is doomed we gotta cut intereset rates or we are heading for a depression" that statement would probably cause the markets to crash.

What do you think? Do you think all government deliberations should be public?

You didn't respond to it then, but I'd be interested in what you (or others) think.

Thanks.

here is the summary:

2/26/2009--Introduced.
Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 - Repeals the authority of the Comptroller General to carry out an onsite examination of an open insured bank or bank holding company only if the appropriate federal regulatory agency has consented in writing. (Retains the authority of the Comptroller General to audit a federal agency.)
Directs the Comptroller General to complete, before the end of 2010, an audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and of the federal reserve banks, followed by a detailed report to Congress.

in reading the entire text i failed to identify the disclosure requirements which you (appropriately) feared would reveal the internal deliberations. i agree that immediate disclosure could cause more market turmoil than it prevents. but for the meeting minutes to be publicly available within 12 months would not seem upsetting while transparency would be enhanced

Dr. Paul is a rare statesman, rather than politician. few seem to appreciate the difference. while i agree with most of his views, i find his desire to move to a gold standard more than a bit anachronistic
many who support a return to the gold standard don't seem to have an appreciation of the way the french taught us the bretton woods system is unworkable. allowing the comptroller to release its audit of the fed should eliminate the source of much misinformation. so while i support Dr. Paul's measure, it is because i believe the results will undermine his advocacy for an elimination of the fed
and if he is right and i am wrong, such information would allow me to see the basis of my erroneous monetary beliefs

I could be confusing two different bills. Do you have a cite to the full text this one?

If all this does is call for an audit of the Fed, it is merely politicians' grandstanding.

The Fed is audited every year by the GAO and a big 4 firm like Deloitte or Pricewaterhouse

 

[justabubba]

I could be confusing two different bills. Do you have a cite to the full text this one?

If all this does is call for an audit of the Fed, it is merely politicians' grandstanding.

The Fed is audited every year by the GAO and a big 4 firm like Deloitte or Pricewaterhouse

until i have 15 posts i am unauthorized to offer a cite

google HR 1207 and it will provide the full text as well as the posted summary

 

[Iriemon]

I could be confusing two different bills. Do you have a cite to the full text this one?

If all this does is call for an audit of the Fed, it is merely politicians' grandstanding.

The Fed is audited every year by the GAO and a big 4 firm like Deloitte or Pricewaterhouse

until i have 15 posts i am unauthorized to offer a cite

google HR 1207 and it will provide the full text as well as the posted summary

I did that and got the following.

Which I still don't see why we need it given the Fed is audited every year by the GAO and a big 4 accounting firm.

PS you can post a url, just take the "www." off the front and I think the rest of the link will stick.

+++

A BILL

To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009”.

SEC. 2. Audit reform and transparency for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

(a) In general.—Subsection (b) of section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking all after “shall audit an agency” and inserting a period.

(b) Audit.—Section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

“(e) Audit and report of the Federal Reserve System.—

“(1) In general.—The audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) shall be completed before the end of 2010.

“(2) Report.—

“(A) Required.—A report on the audit referred to in paragraph (1) shall be submitted by the Comptroller General to the Congress before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which such audit is completed and made available to the Speaker of the House, the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee and each subcommittee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and any other Member of Congress who requests it.

“(B) Contents.—The report under subparagraph (A) shall include a detailed description of the findings and conclusion of the Comptroller General with respect to the audit that is the subject of the report, together with such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate.”.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

H.R. 1207 will change the way the Fed is audited, in that it will allow the GAO to get more information from the Fed.

(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.

US CODE: Title 31,714. Audit of Financial Institutions Examination Council, Federal Reserve Board, Federal reserve banks, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Comptroller of the Currency

H.R. 1207 would change the law so that the Fed would be audited on all of this information.

 

[sealybobo]

H.R. 1207 will change the way the Fed is audited, in that it will allow the GAO to get more information from the Fed.

(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.

US CODE: Title 31,714. Audit of Financial Institutions Examination Council, Federal Reserve Board, Federal reserve banks, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Comptroller of the Currency

H.R. 1207 would change the law so that the Fed would be audited on all of this information.

Pay attention to all the reasons the Fed defenders give for this being a bad idea.

Yesterday someone said, "do you really think its a good idea that the public knows everything..." as if we can't handle the truth.

I think the Daily Show even made fun of the Bank stress tests. They won't release the results for fear that we might take our money out of the two banks that didn't do so well on the test.

I think they should tell us and let the "free market" decide what to do.

 

[sealybobo]

Sealy, when you brought up HR1207 earlier in the thread, I asked you this:

As far as I can tell, the major reason for the bill is to force Fed deliberations on money policy to be public. I'm not sure that is a good idea, because the ramification of statements made in deliberation could have very adverse effects, and so the effect of make deliberations public would prevent board members from franking expressing their views.

For example, if the board meets and a prominent member says, "Oh my god the economy is doomed we gotta cut intereset rates or we are heading for a depression" that statement would probably cause the markets to crash.

What do you think? Do you think all government deliberations should be public?

You didn't respond to it then, but I'd be interested in what you (or others) think.

Thanks.

here is the summary:

2/26/2009--Introduced.
Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 - Repeals the authority of the Comptroller General to carry out an onsite examination of an open insured bank or bank holding company only if the appropriate federal regulatory agency has consented in writing. (Retains the authority of the Comptroller General to audit a federal agency.)
Directs the Comptroller General to complete, before the end of 2010, an audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and of the federal reserve banks, followed by a detailed report to Congress.

in reading the entire text i failed to identify the disclosure requirements which you (appropriately) feared would reveal the internal deliberations. i agree that immediate disclosure could cause more market turmoil than it prevents. but for the meeting minutes to be publicly available within 12 months would not seem upsetting while transparency would be enhanced

Dr. Paul is a rare statesman, rather than politician. few seem to appreciate the difference. while i agree with most of his views, i find his desire to move to a gold standard more than a bit anachronistic
many who support a return to the gold standard don't seem to have an appreciation of the way the french taught us the bretton woods system is unworkable. allowing the comptroller to release its audit of the fed should eliminate the source of much misinformation. so while i support Dr. Paul's measure, it is because i believe the results will undermine his advocacy for an elimination of the fed
and if he is right and i am wrong, such information would allow me to see the basis of my erroneous monetary beliefs

I could be confusing two different bills. Do you have a cite to the full text this one?

If all this does is call for an audit of the Fed, it is merely politicians' grandstanding.

The Fed is audited every year by the GAO and a big 4 firm like Deloitte or Pricewaterhouse

Its probably not a COMPLETE audit.

 

[sealybobo]

Bankers don't make policy the resapond to it. We have lobbyists largely because Washington chose in the 1930's to become increasing involved in regulating the economy.

Because of the Great Depression and what caused it?

 

[Iriemon]

H.R. 1207 will change the way the Fed is audited, in that it will allow the GAO to get more information from the Fed.

(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.

US CODE: Title 31,714. Audit of Financial Institutions Examination Council, Federal Reserve Board, Federal reserve banks, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Comptroller of the Currency

H.R. 1207 would change the law so that the Fed would be audited on all of this information.

Pay attention to all the reasons the Fed defenders give for this being a bad idea.

Yesterday someone said, "do you really think its a good idea that the public knows everything..." as if we can't handle the truth.

I think the Daily Show even made fun of the Bank stress tests. They won't release the results for fear that we might take our money out of the two banks that didn't do so well on the test.

I think they should tell us and let the "free market" decide what to do.

Yeah, that was me; and thanks to Kevin for pointing out what I had thought all along -- the real purpose of this bill is not to audit the Fed, but to force deliberations on things like money policy into the public domain.

Now then, my original question is back on the table:

As far as I can tell, the major reason for the bill is to force Fed deliberations on money policy to be public. I'm not sure that is a good idea, because the ramification of statements made in deliberation could have very adverse effects, and so the effect of make deliberations public would prevent board members from franking expressing their views.

For example, if the board meets and a prominent member says, "Oh my god the economy is doomed we gotta cut intereset rates or we are heading for a depression" that statement would probably cause the markets to crash.

What do you think? Do you think all government deliberations should be public?

If you think the Fed deliberations should be public, despite the chilling effect that could have; do you think all Govt deliberations should be public? If not why should the Fed be different?