Posted on 07/27/2009 6:32:08 PM PDT by expat_panama
The Transparency Act of 2009 (H.R. 1207), a bill originated by Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican, that mandates Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits of the Federal Reserve, has the support of more than half the members of the House of Representatives. In one sense, it's almost comical. The insinuation that Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is against openness is like saying Popeye is against spinach.
Long before he came to Washington, Mr. Bernanke argued for greater Fed transparency in the belief that it would help stabilize markets and that the public has a right to know. At the Fed, he advanced the publication of the minutes of monetary-policy meetings, made available more frequent Fed economic forecasts and added to public information on the Fed's balance sheet and lending programs. He has long been in favor of the Fed announcing a numerical inflation target to reduce uncertainty in financial markets.
Yet it's understandable that in the worst recession of the postwar era, Congress wants to know more about what's happening inside the Fed, especially in light of the big-bucks innovative programs newly created by Mr. Bernanke and his colleagues to ease the financial crisis. Unfortunately, many in Congress aren't making the distinction between optimum transparency and excessive transparency, or what some economists have labeled dangerous meddling.
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Actually, there are a number of meanings and your post can be taken a number of ways. Looking at what sinister and evil mean to others shows how that word may not have been what you meant. Then again, my complaining about your ability to communicate opens the door to your complaints about my attempts at humor.
I take it all back.
Any luck proving your claim?
Is he popping it too quickly or too slowly or just right? And IIRC, he said he'd buy 10 years to keep the yield down, but the yields are rising. How can that be?
Market rates on 10 years should reflect expected inflation within 10 years plus risk of default whether partial or full. The US is lurching into socialism raising the risk of default due to reduced economic activity. The risk of inflation within 10 years is extremely high due to the QE itself because QE is inflationary. The fact that the current QE is failing to keep rates down is a sign that more QE (inflation) will be needed.
If inflation is inevitable it is simply better to get it over with because the anticipation of inflation causes serious market excesses (e.g. last year's oil bubble) that are far worse for the economy than the one time hit.
But the Fed was buying as yields were rising.
That's the way markets work, the sellers at that point in time were throwing in the towel believing that the Fed was doing its last purchase. But then the market levels off or stutters, the credit market tightens, things look a little more dicey; so then the speculators pile back into the 10 years knowing that the Fed will soon be back.
So Bernanke doesn't have absolute power over 10 year yields? Good to know.
That's the way markets work, the sellers at that point in time were throwing in the towel believing that the Fed was doing its last purchase.
Bernanke announcing he'd buy 10 years to keep the yield down was a signal the Fed stopped purchasing?
I think we've discovered that just because the Fed tries to do something doesn't mean they'll be successful.
I fear this Democrat Congress getting control of monetary policy.
I see. So if the fed were to be truly fully audited, a complete and thorough rectal exam, if you will, certain frauds will be exposed, so inflammatory in fact, congress would have no choice but to resume control of monetary policy. In this case, if it were done soon, a Democrat Congress would have control of monetary policy.
By golly, I think we agree. Since I share your fear. But not enough to cause me to argue against auditing the fed. Not that you have necessarily , mind you. But your temperament seems, at least to me, to reflect what I would call a genuine anti-audit slant. Again, perhaps that's just me.
Nonetheless, I understand your fear, and it is warranted. However, we cannot, and should not, postpone the audit until a more politically favorable or convenient time.
Audit now!
I think we've discovered a balance between the market's expectations of the Fed's willingness to do QE and the Fed's actual willingness and power to do it. We are nowhere near the point that the Fed is running out of QE ammo, so it boils down to willingness. IOW how much is the Fed willing to let 10 year rates rise at this point in the recovery versus the inflation needed to keep them low? Or to preclude inflation, when would the Fed think it suitable to sell their long bond portfolio? It boils down to the markets guessing at the Fed's perceptions of the markets (somewhat circularly).
I admit one thing though, if the Fed is going to do this (which I strongly disagree with), it absolutely must be independent to avoid total chaos in the markets.
I see. So if the fed were to be truly fully audited, a complete and thorough rectal exam, if you will, certain frauds will be exposed, so inflammatory in fact, congress would have no choice but to resume control of monetary policy.
No. I think that showing Congress everything the Fed bought, sold and lent would expose no fraud. I do fear that Ron Paul and idiots on the other side of the aisle will say things like, "On July 1st you bought $30 billion of the 10 Year Treasury bonds, we think you should have bought $40 billion".
Audit now!
LOL! Even Ron Paul said he didn't care about what an audit will show.
Yes, the Fed's power is limited. I'm glad you finally understand.
I'm glad I understand too. The Fed could not have created a TBill bubble because their power is limited. The current low rates are mostly an expression of market doubts about recovery along with some influence from the Fed's QE. Oops, did I say doubts about recovery? I meant silly speculation by people who think the Fed has more power than it really has. No wait! That's a bubble! It's the market expressing the fact that 3.64% is a mighty fine rate to get for the next 10 years from such a fiscally responsible country as ours. Yeah, that's the ticket!
There's no real point when all it takes to prove it is to go to google and type "Fed buying treasuries". You've already demonstrated that you're unwilling to educate yourself, so I see no point in feeding what is obviously a troll.
There's no real point when all it takes to prove it is to go to google and type "Fed buying treasuries".
That wasn't your claim. Try again?
No doubt; people make up additional meanings to words all the time. My usage happens to be the meaning you'll find in a dictionary that the word has had for hundreds of years.
Looking at what sinister and evil mean to others shows how that word may not have been what you meant.
I used the word sinister because that is exactly the meaning I intended. From the first definition in your link "threatening or portending evil, harm, or trouble; ominous".
Then again, my complaining about your ability to communicate opens the door to your complaints about my attempts at humor.
When I use a word intending the meaning expressed in a dictionary, and you claim some other unrelated meaning ("satanic"), I would suggest to you that I am not the one lacking in communications skills. But perhaps I simply lack an appropriate appreciation of your non sequitur humor; if you or someone else found your post funny, then I suppose it served its purpose and I'm glad I could contribute to making your day a bit brighter.
At the Fed, he stopped publishing M3. The only logical reasons for doing that are all sinister.
The first part was obviously false, since Bernanke was not Chairman and only served as a member of the Board of Governors, so the decision was not his alone.
In the second part you commit a false dilemma by insisting there is no other possible cause except for the sinister.
Somehow you are still arguing that the reader should know which meaning you are using for "sinister". Why? Because you weren't wrong all around in your post? Do you really believe that the only "logical" reason to cease publishing M3 is "sinister"? That there is absolutely no other logical choice?
If the only logical option is evil, why would this preclude a satanic quality? After all, Satan would have us choose evil over good 10 out of 10 times.
Um, did you listen to the other end of the conversation?
She (the woman from the fed) admitted the whole thing.
I listened to the entire thing.
She (the woman from the fed) admitted the whole thing.
She admitted she didn't know what the assclown was talking about. That's because he was pulling numbers out of his ass.
The Fed didn't lose track of $9 trillion. The Fed didn't have anything to do with $9 trillion. If you get a real source, we can try again. If Grayson is your only source, you have bigger problems than I can help you with.
I see. So if the fed were to be truly fully audited, a complete and thorough rectal exam, if you will, certain frauds will be exposed, so inflammatory in fact, congress would have no choice but to resume control of monetary policy.
No. I think that showing Congress everything the Fed bought, sold and lent would expose no fraud. I do fear that Ron Paul and idiots on the other side of the aisle will say things like, "On July 1st you bought $30 billion of the 10 Year Treasury bonds, we think you should have bought $40 billion".
Well now we have doublespeak. Perhaps you can explain why congress would resume monetary policy with no fraud found and everything in order at the fed? Was your original fear claim (democrat control) a ruse to conceal your actual fear of Ron Paul?
Under fed control of monetary policy, today we have nearly 600k receiving unemployment benefits. We have a stalled economy. Obama has seized control of auto manufacturers, insurance companies, banks, and investment firms. He now seeks total control of our healthcare. We have a govt backed bogus clunker program. All of these vehicles must be destroyed. Many of them are completely road worthy.
Added to all of the above, we have trillions of dollars of debt being created to "stimulate" the economy which is NOT working.
Meantime, you fear Ron Paul? Seems to me your fears and your priortities are a tadbit misguided considering the current crisis we are facing. The question I have, is why?
I just saw a poll that showed the public thought the Fed was doing a worse job than the IRS. Do you think Congress might offer to take over the Fed's duties to "do a better job"?
Was your original fear claim (democrat control) a ruse to conceal your actual fear of Ron Paul?
I fear idiots on both sides of the aisle. That includes Ron Paul and the entire Democrat leadership.
Under fed control of monetary policy, today we have nearly 600k receiving unemployment benefits.
The Fed doesn't control the money supply. And you should check your unemployment numbers.
We have a stalled economy. Obama has seized control of auto manufacturers, insurance companies, banks, and investment firms. He now seeks total control of our healthcare.
Just to help him out, why don't we give the Democrat Congress control of Fed policy? Great idea! Not.
Meantime, you fear Ron Paul?
It's true. I fear idiots in positions of power.
I don't think it is the Constitutional duty of the fed nor the Congress to "pimp" taxpayer money into our economy.
I fear idiots on both sides of the aisle. That includes Ron Paul and the entire Democrat leadership.
Do you think Ron Paul would "pimp" taxpayer money into our economy?
The Fed doesn't control the money supply.
Is this a pathetic attempt at a word game? Akin to what "is" means?
What do you mean by "pimp". FYI, the Fed doesn't use taxpayer money.
Do you think Ron Paul would "pimp" taxpayer money into our economy?
Not unless we're talking about shrimp subsidies.
Is this a pathetic attempt at a word game?
No, it's a futile attempt to teach you about the Fed.
So you are serious? This is not a word play like the meaning of "is?"
No, it's a futile attempt to teach you about the Fed.
I see, this is one of those teaching moments Obama speaks about. Fine. Please explain ole wise one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.