[QUOTE]WASHINGTON (AP)
Printable View
[QUOTE]WASHINGTON (AP)
It's been obvious that the Fed has been trying to manipulate the psychology of the market by constantly talking about raising interest rates when it really had no intention of doing so. Incredibly, this has been going on for years with little protest. That's what happens when you are a country guided by central planners. They have fooled the people in spectacular fashion, which have allowed the continual plundering of savings through their policies. It's criminal. It really is. Ironically, the people who support such policies are also the ones drowning in debt.
Furthermore, you have to be the most gullible of types if you really believe the Fed operates independently of politics. It's a common argument you will only see from college textbooks and politicians, but any sensible person with at least a basic knowledge of economics and some observational skill can easily debunk. Taking it further, that because of this independence, there is an argument that more transparency can actually hurt it? Ridiculous. It's just hilarious that somehow every citizen should have to forfeit their rights to privacy for national security, yet the most powerful economic entity in this country (actually, in the world) doesn't need strict transparency because of... Independence??? Lolllllllllllllllllllllll
[QUOTE=falc39]It's been obvious that the Fed has been trying to manipulate the psychology of the market by constantly talking about raising interest rates when it really had no intention of doing so. Incredibly, this has been going on for years with little protest. That's what happens when you are a country guided by central planners. They have fooled the people in spectacular fashion, which have allowed the continual plundering of savings through their policies. It's criminal. It really is. Ironically, the people who support such policies are also the ones drowning in debt.
Furthermore, you have to be the most gullible of types if you really believe the Fed operates independently of politics. It's a common argument you will only see from college textbooks and politicians, but any sensible person with at least a basic knowledge of economics and some observational skill can easily debunk. Taking it further, that because of this independence, there is an argument that more transparency can actually hurt it? Ridiculous. It's just hilarious that somehow every citizen should have to forfeit their rights to privacy for national security, yet the most powerful economic entity in this country (actually, in the world) doesn't need strict transparency because of... Independence??? Lolllllllllllllllllllllll[/QUOTE]Couldn't agree more.
People also forget the current Fed set-up completely annihilates the supposed balancing of powers - the Fed allows the Executive to bypass the legislature to take money from the population as it pleases, without legislation or law - it allows the President to rob his subjects, much like a despotic king would. It makes the President into a despot, and gives him more power than George III ever wielded.
Not to mention the banking interest, and how intertwined it is with the so-called 'independent' Fed (lol). It is a mire of corruption and abuse, and any congressional oversight would be an improvement for sure, which is why they're opposing it. Its board is filled with Harvard men and people who have worked in finance and banking - they care not a whit about the interests of the American people, only of themselves and their connections.
KevinNYC will avoid this thread like the plague
The United States needs to start having its mind on its money, and it's money on its mind.
[QUOTE=NumberSix]The United States needs to start having its mind on its money, and it's money on its mind.[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding??
I think poop swastikas are a [I]little[/I] more important than "the economy"
:ohwell:
[Img]http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a2/a25b452724592bcd62ffcb0245557373d63f6337d3b995eba18c55d52454b621.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=UK2K]Ok, a bill that would force the Fed to be more transparent. Who doesn't agree that is needed? Apparently, our friends on the left think it's a bad idea:[/QUOTE]
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.
The FED is independent by statue because it allows it to act independently without political interference.
[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]
If it were more transparent then political interference would be easily identified and easier to root out, no?
Im not an expert on the fed and dont pretend to be, but transparency rarely seems like a bad thing.
[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.
The FED is independent by statue because it allows it to act independently without political interference.[/QUOTE]
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=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.
The FED is independent by statue because it allows it to act independently without political interference.[/QUOTE]
Generic opinion which is not true.
Totally unrelated rherorical question.
Circular reference.
[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]
If Obama/Democrats take a position, Kev will ALWAYS take that same position.
Long established fact of ISH.
[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]
That's not remotely the argument for why the fed claims everything it does needs to be done in secrecy. Their claim is that the information being available to the public would influence markets too much.
This bill IS about reducing the political independence of the FED. There's been a giant campaign to "AUDIT THE FED" for several years. The folks who pushed this campaign knew their audience didn't know that the the FED already undergoes several types of audits every year.
You want transparency? [URL="http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomccalendars.htm"]Knock yourself out.[/URL] Here's the notes from every Federal Open Market Committee meeting since 2010
There more know about the FED decision making and who is dissenting within the FED then there has ever been.
The idea of tying inflation to some basket of commodities is a stupid-quasi gold standard approach and would have lousy, lousy policy over the last several years. Lousy policy as in higher unemployment.
The Speaker of House is an idiot on monetary policy and consistently wrong about inflation for oh most of the last decade and he gets his ideas from shitty novels. This is an actual ****ing quote.
[QUOTE]I always go back to, you know, Francisco d
[QUOTE=Akrazotile]If it were more transparent then political interference would be easily identified and easier to root out, no?
Im not an expert on the fed and dont pretend to be, but transparency rarely seems like a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
Is this about the Fed not raising the interest rate?
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Again, this is simply you believing you know better than the central banks, thousands of mainstream economists, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Nope, no one is claiming they know better than the Federal Reserve. The problem is with the power it yields combined with the very little transparency (and FOMC minutes mean nothing and are often misleading). The way it operates, they are the ones that act like they know better than everyone else (the market), when history shows that they are just as bad, if not worse, when it comes to needed economic foresight:
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102602255.html"]Bernanke: There's No Housing Bubble to Go Bust[/URL]
[URL="http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/07/new-fed-chair-didnt-see-housing-bubble-coming/"]Nor could the current Fed Chair Yellen see it either[/URL]
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]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.
[/QUOTE]
Wrong, wrong, wrong. That is at best only partially true. People cannot hold onto their money and not buy food, or not buy gas. Or not buy any of the daily things that they need to survive. Rent, healthcare, etc. And when people delay buying and save, they tend to invest the money in what would be a myriad of options that are no longer feasible anymore (like CD's). They may have only two mandates, but by being able to set interest rates, the Fed has enormous power over individuals and their spending/saving habits, as well as a countless number of unforeseen abilities (like enabling bubbles and speculative behavior that a normal market would not allow).
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]
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.[/QUOTE]
You are doing yourself no favors accusing people of being part of some Libertarian conspiracy theory, which you do over and over in your posting. More complete auditing and asking for more transparency does not equal END THE FED. I've never seen you name-throw so much. Cut the crap :no:
There are a lot of legitimate concerns when groups like millennials (who really see no recovery in sight) are having to suffer the consequences of Fed easy money policy. Furthermore, given the history of mistakes made by the fed in creating bubbles and encouraging speculative behavior, is it really surprising that there are calls for more transparency of the most powerful economic entity in the world?
[QUOTE=Dresta][B]Do i think introducing a national bank in the first place was a huge disaster?[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]
I think this is why I thought you were an END THE FED type. Is it safe to say you're a hard-money type?
So huge disaster? Compared to what? The 1800's were recessions tended to go deeper and last longer.
We've seen six years of low rates because interests can't go negative and the crisis we are recovering from was that severe -- interest rates would have had to go deeply negative. We are in a global system with a large pool of capital looking for a place to get safe returns. If there was a safe place that had a 6% return, the money would find it and banks would have to change their low rates to compete for that capital. But folks aren't finding those opportunities and that is due to the overall business environment and not the Federal Reserve. Rates are not artificially low. If the Treasury or your local savings bank didn't find customers at the current rates, they would have to raise them.
Given that raising rates too early would lead to MORE unemployment I don't get why your argument about demographics and young men and unemployment is an argument against the Fed's policies.
[QUOTE]That is alarmist rhetoric used to justify robbery. [/QUOTE]Yeah, your posts have been so devoid of alarmist rhetoric, except for the occasional [I]wearerunningoffacliffandheadingfordisaster!thiscanonlyendbadly![/I] rhetoric.
[QUOTE=falc39]when history shows that they are just as bad, if not worse, when it comes to needed economic foresight:
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102602255.html"]Bernanke: There's No Housing Bubble to Go Bust[/URL]
[URL="http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/07/new-fed-chair-didnt-see-housing-bubble-coming/"]Nor could the current Fed Chair Yellen see it either[/URL]
[/QUOTE] Yellen got it more right than Bernanke. (That's not a quote from from Bernanke by the way. That the headline.) [URL="http://www.frbsf.org/our-district/press/presidents-speeches/yellen-speeches/2005/october/update-on-the-us-economy/"]In 2005, she said this[/URL]
[QUOTE]Certainly, analyses do indicate that house prices are abnormally high
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]I think this is why I thought you were an END THE FED type. [B]Is it safe to say you're a hard-money type?[/B]
So huge disaster? Compared to what? The 1800's were recessions tended to go deeper and last longer.
We've seen six years of low rates because interests can't go negative and the crisis we are recovering from was that severe -- interest rates would have had to go deeply negative. We are in a global system with a large pool of capital looking for a place to get safe returns. If there was a safe place that had a 6% return, the money would find it and banks would have to change their low rates to compete for that capital. But folks aren't finding those opportunities and that is due to the overall business environment and not the Federal Reserve. Rates are not artificially low. If the Treasury or your local savings bank didn't find customers at the current rates, they would have to raise them.
Given that raising rates too early would lead to MORE unemployment I don't get why your argument about demographics and young men and unemployment is an argument against the Fed's policies.
Yeah, your posts have been so devoid of alarmist rhetoric, except for the occasional [I]wearerunningoffacliffandheadingfordisaster!thiscanonlyendbadly![/I] rhetoric.[/QUOTE]Sure, in an ideal world, it is far preferable to catering to bankers and monied men, and having politicians controlled by the world of finance. Not having a national bank is inordinately superior to the degraded corruption of our existing institutions. But i know full well (unlike you, Yellen and your God Obama) that politics is the art of the possible, and the purporting of pain-free solutions is a quite evident lie and effort to mislead the populace. Difficult choices are ahead, and there aren't any pleasant solutions - that is not alarmism, that is reality. If you can't see a correlation between being a creditor nation and being a growing world power, and between being a debtor nation and a decaying power, then you are blind to pretty much all of world history. There is nothing new about these doctrines either: they are ancient fallacies dressed up in a new garb, and all the evidence of history attests to it ending badly.
You are a walking contradiction: one minute the crises of the early 1800s (and there was a national bank for a good portion of this period) were ones that 'go deeper and last longer' and then he says the last recession we had was soooo bad that it required an unprecedented 6 years of 0% interest rates - but yeah, none of these problems have anything to do with the Fed (right at the centre of all the problems), rather it's explained away as vague appeals to the 'overall business environment' (care to explain what this is, and just how the policies of the Federal reserve manage not to impact on this 'environment'?). There were banking problems prior to Madison's rechartering, sure, but they were localised, and certainly didn't put the nation under the tramping foot of the financial industry, and create this monstrous alliance between banking and government that continues to plague the nation. The chartering of that bank was akin to getting rid of all the rats in a house by burning said house down - it was foolish, unconstitutional, and completely unnecessary. The economic problems of the Jefferson and Madison administrations, moreover, have far more to do with Jefferson's foolish embargo, and Madison's equally foolish war with England - once again, the destruction wrought by war being used to centralise Federal power. After Jackson got rid of the bank, there was only one long recession before the Civil War (and many periods of boom and growth) - the downturn of the late 30s and early 40s was brought on by the increase in banking without capital, and speculation - contractions are both necessary and desired to limit malinvestment and check confidence - human beings, by nature, being overly optimistic and confident in their own ability and enterprise. The rest of the 1800s is so skewed by the most disastrous war in US history that a like-to-like comparison between the second half of that century and this one, makes no sense at all. The idea that the economy is faltering because people don't want enough stuff, is frankly ludicrous - consumerism is predominant, and people want more things, they simply can't [I]afford[/I]. You know why? Because demand doesn't drive wealth... Nor is economic growth the be-all and end-all - i would exchange a fair amount of American wealth if it made politics serious again, and not simply a play thing for the wealthy, and a circus show for the masses. Though i suppose we differ on this point as well, in that you apparently think economic wealth is the be-all and end-all of life - i, on the other hand do not, and consider many things far more important once a certain point has been reached (that we reached long ago).
Again, you appeal to authority, despite there being many economists (yes, even in the mainstream), who balk at what Yellen & co. have been doing. Criticism of the Fed is not limited to the Austrians, and never was. I fundamentally disagree with and think fallacious the philosophical basis on which macroeconomics is built (as any skeptic must) - but of course economists are going to be supportive of such economics, because it provides a great demand for [I]more economists[/I]. Everyone has an economist these days; and no politicians is ever short an 'economic expert' when it comes to justifying something they want to do; Keynes provided a basis for economics that was convenient for both economists and politicians, and that is the biggest reason why it has prospered so. Not to mention the way it is taught: you are never prompted to even question the fundamental assumptions that underlie their theories, so an economist starts his education taking a large number of basless assumptions for granted - this is why there is such a mass of ignorance in economcs, and also why people have no respect for them (e.g. Keynesians predicting that housing prices were going to keep rising literally weeks before the crash - Ben Bernanke thought things were going swell when the crisis [I]had already started[/I] - so sorry if i don't accept the opinions of these men as gospel).
The idea that Economics is a distinct science that can be separated and studied independently (in the abstract), and aside from all the other disciplines that affect human interactions is false regardless: there are innumerable non-economic factors which cannot be properly separated from any study of human activity. The world of macroeconomic abstraction simply doesn't exist or pertain to reality (i.e. how things actually happen and affect real people in the [I]real[/I] world): it is no more than a fancy, and is built on a foundation of air. An Economist who is deficient in training in every other respect really has no place in discerning 'long-term macroeconomic goals' - because there are so many non-economic factors, and long-term historical, cultural and political trends to take into account.
The study of anything related to human activity can never be exact due to the nature of the human being, and this is the pretence of economists today. You talk about the mainstream economists of today as if conventional wisdom has never been wrong, and also ignore that the economic theorising of today would be rejected by just about every economist prior to the 1930s (when economists started to become more heavily involved in politics). Marshall would be horrified at the modern mutilation of the discipline of Economics, because he knew mathematics could be of only tangential importance to the subject if it were to remain capable of dealing with the [I]practical realities of the world[/I] (rather than the models and abstractions that exist only in the minds of those who create them).
As for Yellen and San Francisco: looks like her former protectorate is doing fine and dandy:
[IMG]http://wolfstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/US-San-Francisco-California-median-home-sales-prices-1971-2015-05.png[/IMG]
Nope, no problem there alright, no problem at all - if GDP is going up then it's allll gravy. Praise the all-wise and all-knowing economists, they will micromanage our way to prosperity, praise be had :bowdown: .
[QUOTE=Dresta]Sure, in an ideal world, it is far preferable to catering to bankers and monied men, and having politicians controlled by the world of finance. Not having a national bank is inordinately superior to the degraded corruption of our existing institutions. But i know full well (unlike you, Yellen and your God Obama) that politics is the art of the possible, and the purporting of pain-free solutions is a quite evident lie and effort to mislead the populace. Difficult choices are ahead, and there aren't any pleasant solutions - that is not alarmism, that is reality. If you can't see a correlation between being a creditor nation and being a growing world power, and between being a debtor nation and a decaying power, then you are blind to pretty much all of world history. There is nothing new about these doctrines either: they are ancient fallacies dressed up in a new garb, and all the evidence of history attests to it ending badly.
You are a walking contradiction: one minute the crises of the early 1800s (and there was a national bank for a good portion of this period) were ones that 'go deeper and last longer' and then he says the last recession we had was soooo bad that it required an unprecedented 6 years of 0% interest rates - but yeah, none of these problems have anything to do with the Fed (right at the centre of all the problems), rather it's explained away as vague appeals to the 'overall business environment' (care to explain what this is, and just how the policies of the Federal reserve manage not to impact on this 'environment'?). There were banking problems prior to Madison's rechartering, sure, but they were localised, and certainly didn't put the nation under the tramping foot of the financial industry, and create this monstrous alliance between banking and government that continues to plague the nation. The chartering of that bank was akin to getting rid of all the rats in a house by burning said house down - it was foolish, unconstitutional, and completely unnecessary. The economic problems of the Jefferson and Madison administrations, moreover, have far more to do with Jefferson's foolish embargo, and Madison's equally foolish war with England - once again, the destruction wrought by war being used to centralise Federal power. After Jackson got rid of the bank, there was only one long recession before the Civil War (and many periods of boom and growth) - the downturn of the late 30s and early 40s was brought on by the increase in banking without capital, and speculation - contractions are both necessary and desired to limit malinvestment and check confidence - human beings, by nature, being overly optimistic and confident in their own ability and enterprise. The rest of the 1800s is so skewed by the most disastrous war in US history that a like-to-like comparison between the second half of that century and this one, makes no sense at all. The idea that the economy is faltering because people don't want enough stuff, is frankly ludicrous - consumerism is predominant, and people want more things, they simply can't [I]afford[/I]. You know why? Because demand doesn't drive wealth... Nor is economic growth the be-all and end-all - i would exchange a fair amount of American wealth if it made politics serious again, and not simply a play thing for the wealthy, and a circus show for the masses. Though i suppose we differ on this point as well, in that you apparently think economic wealth is the be-all and end-all of life - i, on the other hand do not, and consider many things far more important once a certain point has been reached (that we reached long ago).
Again, you appeal to authority, despite there being many economists (yes, even in the mainstream), who balk at what Yellen & co. have been doing. Criticism of the Fed is not limited to the Austrians, and never was. I fundamentally disagree with and think fallacious the philosophical basis on which macroeconomics is built (as any skeptic must) - but of course economists are going to be supportive of such economics, because it provides a great demand for [I]more economists[/I]. Everyone has an economist these days; and no politicians is ever short an 'economic expert' when it comes to justifying something they want to do; Keynes provided a basis for economics that was convenient for both economists and politicians, and that is the biggest reason why it has prospered so. Not to mention the way it is taught: you are never prompted to even question the fundamental assumptions that underlie their theories, so an economist starts his education taking a large number of basless assumptions for granted - this is why there is such a mass of ignorance in economcs, and also why people have no respect for them (e.g. Keynesians predicting that housing prices were going to keep rising literally weeks before the crash - Ben Bernanke thought things were going swell when the crisis [I]had already started[/I] - so sorry if i don't accept the opinions of these men as gospel).
The idea that Economics is a distinct science that can be separated and studied independently (in the abstract), and aside from all the other disciplines that affect human interactions is false regardless: there are innumerable non-economic factors which cannot be properly separated from any study of human activity. The world of macroeconomic abstraction simply doesn't exist or pertain to reality (i.e. how things actually happen and affect real people in the [I]real[/I] world): it is no more than a fancy, and is built on a foundation of air. An Economist who is deficient in training in every other respect really has no place in discerning 'long-term macroeconomic goals' - because there are so many non-economic factors, and long-term historical, cultural and political trends to take into account.
The study of anything related to human activity can never be exact due to the nature of the human being, and this is the pretence of economists today. You talk about the mainstream economists of today as if conventional wisdom has never been wrong, and also ignore that the economic theorising of today would be rejected by just about every economist prior to the 1930s (when economists started to become more heavily involved in politics). Marshall would be horrified at the modern mutilation of the discipline of Economics, because he knew mathematics could be of only tangential importance to the subject if it were to remain capable of dealing with the [I]practical realities of the world[/I] (rather than the models and abstractions that exist only in the minds of those who create them).
As for Yellen and San Francisco: looks like her former protectorate is doing fine and dandy:
[IMG]http://wolfstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/US-San-Francisco-California-median-home-sales-prices-1971-2015-05.png[/IMG]
Nope, no problem there alright, no problem at all - if GDP is going up then it's allll gravy. Praise the all-wise and all-knowing economists, they will micromanage our way to prosperity, praise be had :bowdown: .[/QUOTE]
How's that dissertation coming along?
Look Kevin, the basic principle of democracy and of its ever being a success, is to have an informed and intelligent electorate. Do you not realise that political centralisation is completely incompatible with this? With the complexity of the Federal government, its tax-code, and the multiplicity of bureaucracies it has spawned, no moderately informed person can understand the machinations of their government. Hence why localism (and as much devolution of power as possible) is an absolute necessity in democracies, and all the ideas you further are utterly at odds with the founding republican values of the United States. These are the only values compatible with democratic republicanism, and the absolute foundation of the American civil order (hatred of offensive war, jealousy of the State governments towards the General Government - see 'general' - twas never intended to apply to particulars, as this was the domain of the states; concern about the influence of the Executive over the coordinate branches of government [Marbury vs. Madison has been made entirely defunct, and was before FDR even]; a loathing of public debt [again centralises power, disenfranchises the populace, empowers politicians and wealthy elites], taxes and excises; tenderness for the liberty of the citizens, and intense jealously of the patronage of the President. These are the founding principles of the American Republic, and it's funny how one can't even profess them, without being lumped with a bunch of people tagged as 'extremists' or some other slander.
You're just a shill for centralised power and the domination of government by financial elites - your sort always has been - you use your professed egalitarianism to hide your true elitism. That was the problem with the bank in the first place: it was a huge centralisation of power, and permanently wedded banking and finance to politics, with disastrous and irreparable consequences for any idea of integrity or honesty in politics - it thus being divorced from the concept of duty and having become simply another career-path, another means for gain.
The disgusting spectacle that is currently United States politics is a direct consequence of the policies and decisions that you think were good ideas, and you don't even realise it. Your views are completely illogical and riddled through with irreconcilable contradictions. You really need a better understanding of the contiguity of political decisions (and the law of unintended consequences) if you want your aims and desires to be at all realised; as of now, your methods lead directly to the things you profess to dislike, and which you mock.
[QUOTE=Dresta]Look Kevin, the basic principle of democracy and of its ever being a success, is to have an informed and intelligent electorate. Do you not realise that political centralisation is completely incompatible with this? With the complexity of the Federal government, its tax-code, and the multiplicity of bureaucracies it has spawned, no moderately informed person can understand the machinations of their government. Hence why localism (and as much devolution of power as possible) is an absolute necessity in democracies, and all the ideas you further are utterly at odds with the founding republican values of the United States. These are the only values compatible with democratic republicanism, and the absolute foundation of the American civil order (hatred of offensive war, jealousy of the State governments towards the General Government - see 'general' - twas never intended to apply to particulars, as this was the domain of the states; concern about the influence of the Executive over the coordinate branches of government [Marbury vs. Madison has been made entirely defunct, and was before FDR even]; a loathing of public debt [again centralises power, disenfranchises the populace, empowers politicians and wealthy elites], taxes and excises; tenderness for the liberty of the citizens, and intense jealously of the patronage of the President. These are the founding principles of the American Republic, and it's funny how one can't even profess them, without being lumped with a bunch of people tagged as 'extremists' or some other slander.
You're just a shill for centralised power and the domination of government by financial elites - your sort always has been - you use your professed egalitarianism to hide your true elitism. That was the problem with the bank in the first place: it was a huge centralisation of power, and permanently wedded banking and finance to politics, with disastrous and irreparable consequences for any idea of integrity or honesty in politics - it thus being divorced from the concept of duty and having become simply another career-path, another means for gain.
The disgusting spectacle that is currently United States politics is a direct consequence of the policies and decisions that you think were good ideas, and you don't even realise it. Your views are completely illogical and riddled through with irreconcilable contradictions. You really need a better understanding of the contiguity of political decisions (and the law of unintended consequences) if you want your aims and desires to be at all realised; as of now, your methods lead directly to the things you profess to dislike, and which you mock.[/QUOTE]
Dude, you're just procrastinating.
[QUOTE=Dresta]Look Kevin, the basic principle of democracy and of its ever being a success, is to have an informed and intelligent electorate. Do you not realise that political centralisation is completely incompatible with this? With the complexity of the Federal government, its tax-code, and the multiplicity of bureaucracies it has spawned, no moderately informed person can understand the machinations of their government. Hence why localism (and as much devolution of power as possible) is an absolute necessity in democracies, and all the ideas you further are utterly at odds with the founding republican values of the United States. These are the only values compatible with democratic republicanism, and the absolute foundation of the American civil order (hatred of offensive war, jealousy of the State governments towards the General Government - see 'general' - twas never intended to apply to particulars, as this was the domain of the states; concern about the influence of the Executive over the coordinate branches of government [Marbury vs. Madison has been made entirely defunct, and was before FDR even]; a loathing of public debt [again centralises power, disenfranchises the populace, empowers politicians and wealthy elites], taxes and excises; tenderness for the liberty of the citizens, and intense jealously of the patronage of the President. These are the founding principles of the American Republic, and it's funny how one can't even profess them, without being lumped with a bunch of people tagged as 'extremists' or some other slander.
You're just a shill for centralised power and the domination of government by financial elites - your sort always has been - you use your professed egalitarianism to hide your true elitism. That was the problem with the bank in the first place: it was a huge centralisation of power, and permanently wedded banking and finance to politics, with disastrous and irreparable consequences for any idea of integrity or honesty in politics - it thus being divorced from the concept of duty and having become simply another career-path, another means for gain.
The disgusting spectacle that is currently United States politics is a direct consequence of the policies and decisions that you think were good ideas, and you don't even realise it. Your views are completely illogical and riddled through with irreconcilable contradictions. You really need a better understanding of the contiguity of political decisions (and the law of unintended consequences) if you want your aims and desires to be at all realised; as of now, your methods lead directly to the things you profess to dislike, and which you mock.[/QUOTE]
Really impressed with some of your replies here. There is really no need for me to continue due to how elegant and fleshed out they are.
I still find it funny that another audit will jeopardize the independence of the federal reserve. It's not like congress will be given the powers to set interest rates and do open market operations. But given the rhetoric, you would be misled to think that extra transparency would eventually lead to the whole economy collapsing. It is rubbish to think that an institution so powerful could be so vulnerable.