House approves GOP legislation to increase Fed oversight

This whole section of the original post misunderstands what Janet Yellen was responding to[QUOTE]Interestingly enough, Janet Yellen seems to think if the Fed had to be transparent, the economy would be in shambles:

Quote:
Yellen said that if the Fed had been required to comply with a policy rule over the past seven years when its key rate has been at a record low near zero, the unemployment rate would have been "substantially more painful than it already was," and inflation would be even further from the Fed's 2 percent goal.

WTF? So if you had to tell what it is you were doing, the unemployment rate would be substantially more painful? Why would you not want to display the great work you've done in managing the economy?[/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with the "transparency" aspect of the bill. It's pegging inflation to a basket of goods formula she's objecting too. That part of the bill is all about limiting the FED's independence.

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Transparency is a fig leave in this case. Does the Patriot Act Make you a Patriot? Follow the link above and you can see what the FED has been debating for the last 5 years. Go on youtube and you'll see public speeches by members of the Fed. Including those that disagree with Janet Yellen. Yellen has promoted this discussions.

This is the old Ron Paul Audit the Fed bill. Actually he wants to End the Fed, but he knows that won't fly, so he tried Audit the Fed. That didn't work either as several Audits are currently in place. So the Audit the Fed bill is now renamed. Transparency, that's the ticket.

They don't like the moves the FED took in response to the Financial Crisis. Paul Ryan said it would lead to runaway inflation and a debased dollar. Governor Perry said the Fed chief shouldn't feel safe in Texas. They are trying to lock in policies that would prevent such responses.

Republicans used to be big fans of Monetarism of Milton Friedman, but this latest crop doesn't think he was radical enough.[/QUOTE]
How's this for [I]radical[/I]. I don't the United States should have a currency at all.

[QUOTE=ISHGoat]KevinNYC will avoid this thread like the plague[/QUOTE]
LOL.

Must have missed this the first time.

Just re-read the front page.

:banana: BAM BANANA! :banana: :banana:

[QUOTE=NumberSix]How's this for [I]radical[/I]. I don't the United States should have a currency at all.[/QUOTE]

That's pretty radical. So how would people procure goods and services?

[QUOTE=oarabbus]That's pretty radical. So how would people procure goods and services?[/QUOTE]
My preference would be banknotes issued by private banks that are backed by gold and silver.

[QUOTE=NumberSix]How's this for [I]radical[/I]. I don't the United States should have a currency at all.[/QUOTE]
I'll take this off your hands.

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Transparency is a fig leave in this case. Does the Patriot Act Make you a Patriot? Follow the link above and you can see what the FED has been debating for the last 5 years. Go on youtube and you'll see public speeches by members of the Fed. Including those that disagree with Janet Yellen. Yellen has promoted this discussions.

This is the old Ron Paul Audit the Fed bill. Actually he wants to End the Fed, but he knows that won't fly, so he tried Audit the Fed. That didn't work either as several Audits are currently in place. So the Audit the Fed bill is now renamed. Transparency, that's the ticket.

They don't like the moves the FED took in response to the Financial Crisis. Paul Ryan said it would lead to runaway inflation and a debased dollar. Governor Perry said the Fed chief shouldn't feel safe in Texas. They are trying to lock in policies that would prevent such responses.

Republicans used to be big fans of Monetarism of Milton Friedman, but this latest crop doesn't think he was radical enough.[/QUOTE]

The patriot act is the employer being transparent for the employee.

This bill is the other way around.

Our government works for us. At least, it was supposed to be that way anyway.

[QUOTE=UK2K]Kevin...

Find me one independent person on this planet.

You think the money of our country being handled by our government, but we don't get to know what they're doing.... is a good idea. Really....

I think being able to see exactly what they're doing prevents abuse, agree?[/QUOTE]
Independent doesn't mean in the middle in this case. It means without interference.

The Fed has two mandates employment and inflation defined as
"maximum employment AND
stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates."

So independence in this case the FED pursuing this goals with out the president or congress telling them how to do it.

Disagree on abuse. Because what abuse has occurred? B. there are already many controls, checks and audits in place. Did the GAO audits find any abuse? Did the Inspector General audits find any? What about the nongovernmental audits? Did Deloitte & Touche find anything?

[IMG]https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/01/Dollar-Index.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/01/01-personal-consumption-expenditures.w529.h352.png[/IMG]

This bill is being pushed by folks who, had we followed their advice, we would be much worse off. Several years ago Paul Ryan said the Fed was debasing the dollar and inflation would shoot up. Actually the dollar has gotten stronger and inflation lower than when he said and it's still under the FED's target number.

From the other thread. [QUOTE=UK2K]What Obama will veto, though, is the Fed Transparency Bill which requires "the Federal Reserve to explain publicly its monetary policy, specifically how it sets interests rates and the country’s money supply."

That, he will veto... cause he is our king. [/QUOTE]

Come on, man. Why you sinking to this nonsense?

Ever look this thing over? It's Article I, man.

[IMG]http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/images/charters_exhibit_zoom_images/constitution_1_of_4_630.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Independent doesn't mean in the middle in this case. It means without interference.
.......So independence in this case the FED pursuing this goals with out the president or congress telling them how to do it.[/QUOTE]

Here's a [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/16/heres-whats-wrong-with-rand-pauls-audit-the-fed-bill/"]more informed take[/URL]

[QUOTE]People who study economic policy often distinguish between policy goals and policy instruments. Goals are states of the world that policymakers want to bring about, but that they don’t directly control. Instruments are things that the government does control, however, and are used to bring around these goals. Full employment is a goal; the interest rate is an instrument.

Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, argues that [B]“central banks should have instrument independence, but not goal independence.”[/B] That is, the best accountability regime is for Congress to demand certain goals be reached — but then trust the regulators to use their instruments, within the law, to achieve these goals.

If you have ever sat through a Congressional hearing with Chairman Ben Bernanke, you’ll see that Congress usually does the exact opposite. They spend all their time complaining about instruments, about this or that purchase. But lawmakers rarely ask, “Why have you failed to bring about full employment?” Or: “Why are you missing your inflation target?”

[B]It’s clear, then, that many of the proponents of Federal Reserve transparency are simply looking for methods to [COLOR="Red"]advance a hard-money agenda[/COLOR] even though inflation is dangerously low. Instead of a “transparency act,” Paul’s bill will probably be a “harassment act” in practice.[/B]

Many people who support transparency in and of itself will think this is a good idea. However this bill could point transparency in the wrong direction, bringing every instrument change into question while leaving the important goal discussions on the sidelines.[/QUOTE]

The Fed is not remotely independent - come on now :lol

It is the subservient tool of the Executive, and gives that branch of government powers it was never intended to have. It is unconstitutional, it is illegal, and it is robbery.

Once again KevinNYC thinks 5 years is a long enough period of time to know whether a measure won't end up being disastrous (while being protected by 0% interest rates for God's sake!).

I mean, Christ, look how long it took for social security to end up in the dumps - doesn't mean people who said it would do so 60 years ago were wrong, just that they don't view history as myopically as people like you (next election is all that matters).

The Fed has no intention of raising interest rates (and if it does, it will be a quarter percent, which is nothing), because they know if they do, then the stock market will crash. The American economy has become dependent on 0% rates - you can't take away a half dozen years of that without heavy ramifications, and if you think you can, you're a fool, and will be proven one when it eventually happens.

At the moment the Fed is keeping the economy ticking over through misinformation and that alone, constantly hinting at a rate rise, while never intending to bring one into effect (this has been going on for years now). The supposed jobs numbers could not be better (even though the demographics are [I]awful[/I], with most jobs going to those over 55, and males between the ages of 25-55 actually losing jobs, not gaining them - this is also ignored by shills of your sort). So where is the rise? Why 6 years? There is no reason aside from the fact there has not even been a recovery, just another flood of cheap credit and printed money - big whoop.

edit: inflation is 'dangerously low' guys - food prices gotta go up, for your own damn good!!!

Things getting cheaper is not some kind of magical disaster you know Kevin, it is the natural result of improved productive methods, and a necessary precursor to economic realignment (i.e. getting rid of businesses that can't maintain profitability). But yeah, apparently we're all worse of if things simply stop going up by a magical 2% (using measurements that massively understimate inflation also, considering the natural trend in prices should be [I]downwards[/I] - hence how people get richer: not by having more paper, but by being able to buy more with the money they do have).

The type of deflation you are worried about has no relevance to small falls in prices; none at all.

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]It's a terrible, terrible idea and economists from the left and right would agree.

If you needed brain surgery which presidential candidate would you want operating on you? Trump? Clinton? I'm guessing it's probably Carson.

[B]The FED is independent by statue because it allows it to act independently without political interference[/B].[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing: that is a product of your childish little imagination. Take this maxim to mind and hold it to your bosom for the rest of your life: [I]there is no such thing as independence[/I] - everything that exists [I]depends[/I] on something else. And for you to think that an institution imbued with the power and ability to affect lives and livelihoods all over America, to make rich and make poor, through its decisions alone, could ever maintain even a semblance of independence, really shows what a poor, naive and fantasy-ridden sap you are.

Time to grow up Kev. If you want the country to be run by back-stairs influences, then you are going the exact right way about it.

Obama quote:

[QUOTE]Okay, not only do I have to persuade my own party, not only do I have to prevent the other party from blocking what the right thing to do is, but now I can anticipate this lawsuit, this lobbying taking place, and this federal agency that technically is independent, so I can’t tell them what to do. [I]I’ve got the Federal Reserve, and I’m hoping that they do the right thing[/I]—and by the way, since the economy now is global, I’ve got to make sure that the Europeans, the Asians, the Chinese, everybody is on board.”[/QUOTE]

Translation: i've got the Federal Reserve, and they'll do what i need them to do.

[QUOTE=Dresta]The Fed is not remotely independent - come on now :lol

It is the subservient tool of the Executive, and gives that branch of government powers it was never intended to have. It is unconstitutional, it is illegal, and it is robbery.[/QUOTE]
Nonsense upon nonsense upon nonsense, but a very good example of the mindset that started pushing this Bill. We hate the Fed, but that won't get a bill passed, let's accuse them of abuse and not being transparent.

Bernanke was head of the Fed under Bush and Obama. What changed when the administration changed? What actions did the Fed take under Bush that they wouldn't have taken under Obama?

Same question for Volcker under Carter and Reagan and Greenspan under Reagan, Bush I to Clinton and then Clinton to Bush.

Where's the political whipsaw effect we should be seeing.[QUOTE=Dresta]Once again KevinNYC thinks 5 years is a long enough period of time to know whether a measure won't end up being disastrous (while being protected by 0% interest rates for God's sake!).[/QUOTE]Translation: everything I predicted within a year's time in 2009 is still true. Same goes for the same predictions made in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and, by God I stand before you today and I make that same prediction! We are just 12 months from OUR DOOM!

A 2013 quote from a guy [URL="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/inflationphobia-part-iii/?_r=0"]who used to work for Ron Paul[/URL][QUOTE]Intellectually honest inflationphobes need to explain why they were wrong and stop crying wolf or else it will be reasonable to assume they are simply cranks and crackpots.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]edit: inflation is 'dangerously low' guys - food prices gotta go up, for your own damn good!!![/QUOTE]Funny, I always think of you as I WANT MY DEPRESSION AND I WANT IT NOW! kind of guy. And I would have had a flat our depression if it wasn't for that meddling Federal Bank of Reserve and that tricksy Ben Bernanke![QUOTE=Dresta]Things getting cheaper is not some kind of magical disaster you know Kevin, it is the natural result of improved productive methods, and a necessary precursor to economic realignment (i.e. getting rid of businesses that can't maintain profitability). But yeah, apparently we're all worse of if things simply stop going up by a magical 2% (using measurements that massively underestimate inflation also, considering the natural trend in prices should be downwards - hence how people get richer: not by having more paper, but by being able to buy more with the money they do have).

The type of deflation you are worried about has no relevance to small falls in prices; none at all.[/QUOTE]Again, this is simply you believing you know better than the central banks, thousands of mainstream economists, etc. You know why economists fear deflation. They are not worried just because some prices go down in some sectors, they are worried when there is[B] a general decline in prices [/B]because it can cause a vicious cycle that drags on the whole economy.

You're talking about getting value for your money, that's not deflation. For folks who don't know, economists fear deflation because people would hold to their money and the economy as a whole would suffer. People delay purchasing because they can buy more in a month or two months, now businesses have more stuff on their shelves, so they cut prices to move their stuff and they don't restock, so suppliers now see their revenue go down, so they lay people off or cut wages. Now these unemployed folks buy less things and pay less taxes. With folks buying less there's still less spending and we are back where we started.

You call me a shill, yet you claim things like the only jobs currently being gained are part time (false) or that there has been no recovery or the numbers only look OK because they are crooked. You seem the claim the FED policies are the THE REASON for the weak economy RATHER than the FED policies are a REACTION TO a weak economy. Given everything you cite about the unevenness and softness of the recovery.....and you lose credibility when you claim there has been none.....it sounds the FED is doing what it's supposed to do: try to insure full employment without letting inflation get out of control. Interest rates should be raised when inflation starts creeping into the economy due to low rates. And all the evidence you cite show why fears of inflation are misguided.

Would I prefer the economy and the wage gains of 1998? Hell yes.
Do I prefer this economy and the creeping recovery to 2008-2009. Hell yes.

[QUOTE=Dresta]There is no such thing: that is a product of your childish little imagination. Take this maxim to mind and hold it to your bosom for the rest of your life: [I]there is no such thing as independence[/I] - everything that exists [I]depends[/I] on something else. And for you to think that an institution imbued with the power and ability to affect lives and livelihoods all over America, to make rich and make poor, through its decisions alone, could ever maintain even a semblance of independence, really shows what a poor, naive and fantasy-ridden sap you are.[/QUOTE]Yeah, the Federal Reserve depends on the laws created by congress and signed by the President for what their mission. The FED is accountable to Congress for this mission, However, Congress OR the President doesn't get to dictate the decisions they use to pursue this mission. A fed governor is appointed by the Senate, but once they are on the board, they serve a 14 term may not be removed from office for their policy views.

So your tendentious definition above is apropos of bupkis.

Also the FED gets to decide who is rich or poor? Fantasyland.

You're a Niall Ferguson fan, aren't you?

The whole point of keeping the FED from political influence to focus on long-term macroeconomic goals, not short-term decisions.

None of this is to say the FED is above criticism or making a mistake, but it should be quite clear to everyone, that if the FED followed what Ron Paul or Paul Ryan or Rick Santelli or it's numerous other critics wanted during the financial crisis. It would have made things worse, probably much worse.

So, UK in answer to your original question, quite of a few of these folks arguing for reasonable transparency are END THE FED folks like Dresta.

TL/DR

In short, Janet Yellen should be kvelling.

You are wrong, Kevin, in conflating me with Niall Ferguson or Ron Paul, neither of whom i like (though i sure like them more than Paul Krugman or Hilary Clinton). So that gets rid of the bulk of your rebuttal. Otherwise:

I don't think the numbers (even the official statistics, which are continuously being revised downward) have been good at all really. What we have seen after 6 years of 0% interest rates and inordinate money-printing is pitiful, and when the next crash comes (and it will - we cannot export debt forever) we have no recourse, so it will be a disaster. Whoever is President after Obama is going to have a real hard time of it (sometimes i think that's his plan - keep things green till he's out of office) that's for sure. When taking into account the demographics of those numbers it's even worse: young men are the most important group to have employed, as they are the most troublesome, and they are losing rather than gaining jobs.

What have 'long term macroeconomic goals' to do with anything? They clearly haven't been looking long-term enough for a [I]long time[/I] - and Janet Yellen is simply Allan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke on steroids - fundamentally, they are the same, and they've all helped to perpetuate the same problems, which, while, sacrificing the well-being of the many, has sought to enrich the few, and encourage the reckless banking and speculative practices that have always been tied to the central bank.

The 'general decline in prices' and 'terrible spiral' argument again. Sorry, it's nonsense to believe prices staying the same, or (gosh), a slight decline in prices, would result in an inexorable downward spiral. That is alarmist rhetoric used to justify robbery. People don't put off purchasing to that extent - at least, the people that matter don't. You're just purposefully penalising the consumer to enrich bankers and bureaucrats: cheers.

I honestly don't know what i'd do - i really don't know enough to profess some kind of panacea, though there may actually not be any good solutions. I wouldn't 'end the FED' because i know that would be a disaster: an entire edifice has been built upon it - the American system. It would have to be more piecemeal change - but the cliff Yellen and co. are running America off may preclude that possibility. It can only end badly - you are deluding yourself to think otherwise.

Do i think introducing a national bank in the first place was a huge disaster? Yes. But i know you can't go back in time, despite the fact that many of our present problems (corruption, the dominance of finance, its influence on politics, and so on), stem from that terrible mistake.