Good old Captain Ahab is at it... trying to prove that Goldman Sachs is the great leader of the Cabal to run the world from it's "StarChamber" or "Skull and bones" or "Secret chamber of the N'th degree of masonry"
WASHINGTON--In a warning shot at the Federal Reserve about its disclosure practices, the Senate on Thursday called on the central bank to reveal the names of institutions that receive its loans and what they're doing with the money.
Fed officials have begun a review to find ways to increase central-bank disclosure. They have been resistant to naming the firms that get Fed loans, for fear that such public disclosure could stigmatize troubled institutions and make it harder for them to do business.
Even better is the nonsense that Ron Paul is up to with his HR 1207... Shouldn't it be named "Ron Paul is a Crazy Gold bug, and Misunderstands Economics"... with the help of that crazy Michelle BACHMANN. I live in a conservative area... but how you crazy people elect these super crazy defects...I swear there needs to be some forced education in Money and Economics, every member should have to take just to be in congress.
From this story
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas introduced HR 1207, which would deliver answers to the American people about how our money is being used. HR 1207, which is currently in the House Financial Services Committee
With these limitations gone, the Fed's discount window operations, funding facilities, open market operations, and agreements with foreign central banks and governments would all finally be open to congressional oversight.Thanks MR Paul, then we can know what banks are borrowing and we traders in the stock market can drive the prices to Zero.... Next up, you should get the FDIC to disclose the distressed bank list..... Moron.
I've suggested it before... there will never be transparency... and those calling for it just want an second by second record of the entire balance sheet of every company in the world....
and what is the point of a Shell game if the Shells are See through.
10 comments:
The Federal Reserve is privately owned and has more power over our economy than Congress. Why shouldn't they have to report to Congress? It hasn't been audited since its inception!
Sorry, but I don't think you can make an argument that introducing transparency will harm anything. The reason for the original provision blocking audits was to prevent politics from affecting the way the Fed was run. It fails to recognize that politics and the will of the people should be influencing the Federal Reserve's actions. The purpose of the government and its institutions is to protect its citizens. A lack of transparency in any government institution hints there is something to hide and is redolent of despotism.
For a nation that trumpets itself as the "land of the free," our government has an enormous amount of unrestrained power, and we can't even find out how they're using it.
The reserve is a fully accountable to the Federal government. Congress at any moment could get rid of it or make any change they want.If it weren't how could Your hero Ron Paul create a law and make a change. If they were a private institution.
Congress is filled with some of the stupidest people in the country. If you think that they are going to be better to run Monetary policy, you are so crazy. Those people can't fill potholes.
Transparancy is a Joke, once you peal one layer,Just like an onion you will only want to peal the next, constantly hoping to come up with some "proof" that proves your paranoid fears.
I'd hate to jump on you with about 50 straw man arguments, that apply with the like minded thinkers of the Religion you seem to be subscribing to. But this whole cult of "Money as Debt", is so full of Pathetic logical Fallacies. and complete misunderstandings, it's almost impossible to know where to start.
Like Where the fuck do you get the idea of "Land of the Free", Where does that come from A SONG?
The deceleration of independence says:
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Liberty is not Freedom.
I could go on and on tearing this crazy Libertarian Bullshit apart, and point out that about half of it is just plain old xenophobia.
I would suggest that you stop getting your information from Gunshows and coinshows maybe conspiracy videos and web pages.
Take some time to learn about economics and maybe Government.. the constitution, Dec. of Independents.
and maybe ask yourself... is this want it says, or am I hearing what I want to believe.
The fed is quasi- private. They have the sole power to print money and create credit. Jackson on one hand bemoans that the govt has unrestrained power, but the fed is not the govt. These are private banks that are making the rules-- that's as libertarian as you can get.
The lack of transparency is designed to lend stability to the financial markets by avoiding stigma to receiving banks. Eric says that banks viewed as insolvent would see their stock price drop precipitously, more importantly they would see their DEPOSITS drop precipitously. We played that game before: 1907 as only the most recent example. It's not a pleasant world that Paul wants us to embrace.
I can emotionally understand Ron Paul's argument, but it's no way to run a global economy. Folks like Jackson and Paul and John Galt and Ayn Rand are free to not accept the currency provided by the fed reserve. In essence it's the federal reserve's money. You can accept trinkets and baubles for your labor. That's what the free market allows.
So far, though, the rest of the world seems much more confident in the US dollar versus other currencies during this crisis. Jimmy Rogers and Marc Faber seem to think this will change very soon, and that's what makes a market... for every buyer, there is a seller.
I can make plenty of valid arguments for Austrian economics. I keep trying to find a good post that talks about how spain found silver and gold to be inflationary, but have yet to find a good study of it.
but a much less leveraged Fiat currency, we could see a much more stable economy. But Credit is a must!.
LOL,
I keep trying to create a club for people who think that 2 words mean the same thing...
I say if that is true we have about 100,000 useless words in or vocabulary we should just get rid of, I guess in the spirit of transparency we should get rid of them. At one point there professor Orwell, you will provide me a list of 2000 simple words we can use and which meaning they have.
LISTEN TO YOURSELF:
LIBERTY AND FREEDOM are the same thing!, and me saying they are not. and I'm being preposterous. The problem is you don't realize there is a difference.
YOU MAY HAVE LIBERTY, but you are not FREE, you are not free to kill, you are not free to rape... you are not FREE. You have the liberty to kill, but not the freedom.
You may currently have the liberty to kill somebody, but you are not free to do so. There will be consequences....
see how this reads: "you may have freedom to kill somebody, but you are not free to do so."
Let me explain it again unless you are missing the point. You may have the Liberty to post your opinion here but you don't have the freedom. If you were free, I couldn't take it away. I can also allow you the liberty to post, but not the freedom for it to be seen.
Now I quote ORWELL "Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."
And to misunderstand how important it is that there is no disclosure of discount borrowers to the window, to Keep assholes like me from shorting any stock to Zero, that gets reported as borrowing from it... What is the point of having it if it destroys the company. Let alone the tons of Creditors that loan money to the bank if there is a short term need by the bank to borrow.
Beyond that this is all just a ton of Bullshit Paranoia about how "The Man" is keeping these people down. When really it's a bunch of delusional bullshit that Keeps them there. And not a "Jewish Banking Conspiracy", by the Medichi or the Rothchilds or whoever the new Illuminati of the month is.
THIS IS THE STUFF KEEPING THEM DOWN! Their insistence that there is some big Bogyman or GOD trying to help or hurt you. EMPOWER YOURSELF... Take a little control of your life.
Stop blaming the Reserve or the Illuminati or congress or your boss or whoever from reaching your full potential, you will never change the system. The secret is to work within THE REALITY OF THE SYSTEM, as opposed to fighting it.
Let me also add this, I'm smart enough not to run around to Ron Paul websites waisting my time trying to convince them that they are wrong, I am aware enough to know that IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, AND i'd be crazy to try.
Jackson, I would let you run the Treasury and reserve before I would let CONGRESS, I'm not sure if you have listened to the hearings, but those people barely have 101 POLYSCI or ECON101 educations. HELL CONGRESS STILL DEBATES EVOLUTION FOR SHIT SAKES HOW THE HELL DO YOU THINK THEY CAN MANAGE MONETARY POLICY.
I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH TRANSPARENCY CONGRESS HAS!
Just for fun I'm going to take away your freedom to post here, but not your liberty.... JUST FOR FUN!
SEE!!! you have the Liberty, and yet.... NOT THE FREEDOM
Language is imprecise and vague. Liberty and freedom are synonymous because their meanings are so close, so intertwined, that in most scenarios they mean the same thing. The true meaning of a word depends on its context.
When I referenced the Star-Spangled Banner, clearly I wasn't claiming America thinks of itself as an anarchy. Only an anarchy would ensure total freedom. No, I, along with Francis Scott Key, was referring to freedom from oppressive government. The context dictates the meaning.
I do not entertain the wild fanatical conspiracy theories you're flaunting around and never have. I simply question the efficiency, honesty and morality of the Federal Reserve System, as plenty have done before me. Criticism of the Federal Reserve dates back to its inception. Some, like McFadden, thought it brought about the Great Depression. Should we just flippantly disregard these allegations? Doesn't every idea deserve equal consideration?
There is no reason to assume the merit of our government. There is also no reason to assume its wickedness. There is always reason to question it. That is all this bill is looking to do.
That bill is just so misguided. I absolutely believe that it's all well intentioned, but still misguided.
There are so many things that the reserve knows that the market can't know. Banks are a confidence game, and even the slightest whiff of anything strange can cause a collapse in confidence.
Somehow, Jackson's freedom was abbreviated and his post got deleted or something, so I will attempt to reinstate it.
I said:"Jackson on one hand bemoans that the govt has unrestrained power, but the fed is not the govt. These are private banks that are making the rules-- that's as libertarian as you can get."
Jackson replied: "I can't believe what I'm reading. The Federal Reserve most definitely is a quasi-public institution, which is part of its inherent vileness, but that does not make it separate from the government. Its Board of Governors are presidentially appointed. It's a central banking system. As an institution that controls the United States currency, it is obviously within the scope of the government. Claiming that a government institution shrouded in secrecy and determining the value of the United States currency is libertarian is a gross perversion of libertarian values.
You can claim Ron Paul is ignorant because he doesn't accept the Keynesian school of economics all you want. In any case, economics is a social science and as such doesn't have the definitiveness that's characteristic of so many other fields. He is not ignorant for accepting the Austrian school, only possibly misguided. In any case, none of us definitively know."
1. I never said Ron Paul was ignorant.
2. The federal reserve is as private as a group of banks can get in the current economic model.
3.The dollar is not the "US currency", but rather a "Federal Reserve Note" (look at a dollar bill if you don't believe me.) Citizens and taxpayers do not control the US dollar, the banks do. You can choose not to accept it as payment if you choose, that's part of that "liberty" thing. If a plumber or hairdresser accepted only gold nuggets, they probably would not have many customers though. There was a time when different banks had their own currencies.
4. I would not call economics a "science" even a social science; it does not bear the necessary attributes to qualify, and that is part of the problem we get into when we try to give the study of economics the illusion that is is based on provable theorems of scientific rigor. It is not. Thus, we have such practical institutions as the quasi- public, quasi- private federal reserve controlling the currency. Personally, I would not want to be paid in any currency controlled by Maxine Waters and Michelle Bachmann; I'll take my chances with Bernanke Bucks.
5. Why is pinning a currency's value to gold better than pinning it to the full faith and credit of a federal govt? Both are amenable to devaluation, it's just that the former is not in our control in any way. If the Russians flood the market with gold, or a new gold vein is found in South Africa, this could theoretically devalue a gold-based currency immediately.
Post a Comment