bascule Posted March 3, 2009 Author Share Posted March 3, 2009 Here's a fun question for our friends across the pond... how many of you from the UK think the Bank of England should be abolished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Do you have another "theory" as to where else besides credit peasants got enough money to stop being peasants and start being landowners themselves? No, credit is important. I already mentioned De Soto's theory about property rights creating the opportunity for leveraging to build credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 Wow, Ron Paul proposes another bill that makes a lot more sense! Federal Reserve Transparency Act Yes, now, rather than abolishing the Federal Reserve, he wants to audit it. First, zuh? The Federal Reserve isn't being audited already? Insane! Yes, let's audit it! At least before we abolish it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Will they have any power to act on the results of said audit, or is this just a data gathering exercise and nothing more? If they will have power to act, that's where it gets pretty dicey in a hurry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Wow, Ron Paul proposes another bill that makes a lot more sense! Federal Reserve Transparency Act Yes, now, rather than abolishing the Federal Reserve, he wants to audit it. First, zuh? The Federal Reserve isn't being audited already? Insane! Yes, let's audit it! At least before we abolish it You're making a big assumption there, but even if it's true, why is that insane? Implicit with the phrase "who watches the watchers" is the very logical follow-up question, "who is qualified to watch them?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 You're making a big assumption there, but even if it's true, why is that insane? Implicit with the phrase "who watches the watchers" is the very logical follow-up question, "who is qualified to watch them?" to play the devil's advocate for a second here, keeping the Fed independent helps keep monetary policy out of the hands of the special interest groups (that we know about!) Assuming, for a moment, that the only problems with the Fed is the potential for corruption, what would be worse, corruption of policy by trying to satisfy what the voters think they want or by rent seeking for private interests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 How much did they pay you to say that? HOW MUCH?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 How much did they pay you to say that? HOW MUCH?! We're all rent seekers, now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 You're making a big assumption there I freely admit I have no idea to what degree the Federal Reserve is presently audited. but even if it's true, why is that insane? I generally hope we can trust their accounting, but if the central bank of this country isn't being audited I think that's a problem. Getting the information out there in the open is the best way to spot problems, especially with this whole crazy Internet thing. Implicit with the phrase "who watches the watchers" is the very logical follow-up question, "who is qualified to watch them?" I don't know who should be delegated to the task of auditing them, beyond some agency representing the stakeholders (i.e. the US government) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 (edited) Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke this evening granted an interview to 60 Minutes. This is unprecedented, as no chairman has done an interview while still in office. He's got an awesome personal history, and could very well have been your neighbor Al in the house next door, not some snooty prep kid with a pampered life and silver spoon. He took a few minutes to describe why the Fed was founded, and some more minutes to describe what they're doing and why right now to prevent another depression. His explanations were plain and his knowledge impressive. It makes me question the bill proposed in the OP as myopic and trying to act in isolation, a "spherical cow" with no legs and no milk, as it were. Watch for yourself. Two parts: PART 1 - http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4866969n PART 2 - http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4866987n Edited March 16, 2009 by iNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I have a hunch that in the future when we look back on this period it's going to be clear that while the stimulus actions were murky and indeterminate at best, the banking actions (ala TARP) are going to be seen as decisive and society-saving. We're probably going to spend a lot more of our time debating the couple hundred billion in stimulus effect this year and whether it truly affected our $14 trillion economy, but had the BANKS gone under we might not be having any debates about anything, because we'd all be in line at the soup kitchen. Can't prove a negative, obviously, but when it's all said and done I think we're going to have had the clearest indication ever about the inherent value and systemic sanity of a mixed economic model. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Bernanke also reinforced comments I made in response to Jackson33 in the "Market is bad because of Obama" thread. I mentioned that the biggest concern in the market right now is that investors are uncomfortable that the government will do enough, and worry that the political will doesn't exist to do what's necessary. Anyway, Pangloss - I happen to agree very much that what we did, as painful as it was, and is... will in the future (in retrospect) be seen as the life vest which prevented us collectively from drowning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I have a hunch that in the future when we look back on this period it's going to be clear that while the stimulus actions were murky and indeterminate at best, the banking actions (ala tarp) are going to be seen as decisive and society-saving. QFT. This comment is one that should be remembered by people of all ideologies and perspectives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now