Yes. From the Cheerleader Times: Right. Like the Fed isn't already beholden to banks and politicians in their decision making. They are bought and paid for, non-elected officials that - upon leaving - find lucrative jobs immediately back in the financial industry for whom they have catered their entire careers. They are utterly corrupt, acting under the pretend guise that they are "helping the American people". The only "substantial risk" that comes from an audit is disrupting the feeding trough. Congress controls the purse - but the Fed believes it should have the power to provide emergency loans (which are rarely repaid) whereby a shadow institution issues money to "friends" and "allied" institutions under the banner of "too big to fail". If the Fed were truly transparent, there wouldn't be any objection to an audit of this nature. Said differently, if there were nothing to hide, no one would care if we saw it. As opposed to interests purely serving the banking cartel and a secret non-elected group of cronyist officials bent on keeping the cartel alive. Yeah, Piezoe. I read it.
If the American people own the Fed, and 74% of the American people want an audit of the Fed, then it should be audited! Yes, and it's not like we have hundreds of examples of banks colluding with each other to corner and manipulate markets, or any examples of financial industry corruption that would make us leery of this setup at all! But yet when Congress wants oversight on these tasks, there's a huge push back. "Just give us the power, and truuust us." But they are capable of instant catastrophe. I asked you this before (and you never answered). Can you name me one other Central Bank that has a declared Full Employment mandate?
Sure. For starters, I'd like to know the answers to the questions posed in Paul's article. Here, to save you some time I'll requote them: Well, when the auditor came to Congress, she was asked the identity of the debt bought by the Fed. She didn’t know. When pressed on the case she responded, “We do not have the jurisdiction to directly go and audit reserve bank activities.”
In retrospect I think the language adopted with regard to full employment was a mistake. I don't know of any other central banks that are given this particular responsibility, nor have I made any attempt to find out if there are any others. I am strictly opposed to Congress having anything to do with monetary policy. When you let politicians interfere with monetary policy you get Argentina and Zimbabwe. The Federal Reserve System may have flaws. These flaws should be fixed. But the audit the Fed business is not about fixing flaws, it's about allowing political interference with Fed operations. I am strictly opposed to that. As you point out, the Fed could create a catastrophe. That, of course, is why it is so important that it be isolated from direct political interference. And it is equally important that we have smart, cool, experienced hands in charge of the Fed, as we do. The independent, U.S. Federal Reserve System is in large part the reason that U.S. financial strength is respected around the world, whereas our foreign policies, which the administration and Congress share responsibility for, is the reason the U.S. is reviled around the world. I wouldn't want to ruin that which is good. I think we should concentrate on fixing that which is bad, and leave that which is good alone.
The Fed is the only central bank with a Full Employment mandate. Why do you think this is? What direct influence over the unemployment rate do you think the Fed (or ANY central bank) has? In regards to your continued commentary on avoiding political influence in the Fed, if the Fed weren't already corrupted and bloated with political and financial industry influence and beholden to the banks it supposedly "monitors" (laugh) then I would agree with you. But it's already marching to the beat of special interest - and adding Congress to oversight can't make things any worse for the real people of the country. All it can do is spoil it for the private interest and the banks that own it. And that is why you see the elite railing against it. Fortunately, as I mentioned earlier, your Fed days are numbered.
There is far more evidence on each side but the basic argument is below for those who wish to decide for themselves: http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm vs http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html So we have an organization that issues private non-negotiable shares, pays a dividend, is not accountable to the government, and the stock "holders" vote and set policy. The stock "holders" are not owners and they are not elected. I am confused. If it is not public and not private so what kind of animal is it? For sure a central bank can destroy a country or rescue it by improper decisions of money policy. It's a branch of the treasury but not responsible for social security payments. Hmmm. When Andrew Jackson destroyed the second bank of the US as an election issue, the owners were found to be largely owned overseas. I suspect that has changed for the FED today. The FED was created as a resurrection of the second bank wasn't it? Several panics were caused ( deliberately some accounts say) and the FED was created to save the day. It was approved over the Christmas session when most voters were away since planes didn't fly in those days. Aldrich's daughter married a Rockefeller and he had a grandson Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller I believe. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/general/a-brief-history-of-central-banking/second-bank-of-the-united-states-(1816-1836).php Note the comment " .... the Second Bank was plagued with poor management and outright fraud ..." The FED today has no owners and no managers? Really. What is wrong with this account? - http://www.jekyllislandhistory.com/federalreserve.shtml Piezoe - Please show me the line in the US budget where the following occurs .... ".... All net Fed profits flow directly back to the U.S. Treasury...." Also .... which of these statements you make is more true .... "The Federal Reserve is not a for profit business" vs "All net Fed profits flow directly back to the U.S. Treasury." If there aren't profits, then why pay a dividend at all? When interest rates when down and mortgages went down, what senior wouldn't want to own something paying a 6% dividend? Here is a question for you - if the FED went bankrupt, who would be on the hook for the losses? The whole issue (no pun intended) is quite murky. Please show me where I am incorrect or misleading.
"The independent, U.S. Federal Reserve System is in large part the reason that U.S. financial strength is respected around the world, " Another interpretation is that in 1971 the Bretton Woods agreement was not honored (essentially a default) and thus the US dollar became the defacto world base currency. Unfortunately the Triffin Dilemma raised its ugly head. Who will pay the 18 trillion admitted to debt and square the world accounts? Who will pay America's pension obligations to the "owners" of the government - the people? If the FED creates a catastrophe, then who is responsible for cleaning up the mess? BTW, I am not afraid of you showing me where my inaccuracies are and the Fed audit issue is no concern to me. I am willing to learn more.
The answers to most of your questions can be found at FederalReserve.gov.This is a marvelous website with all kinds of detailed information. Currently there is a link to Governor Powell's recent speech on the "Audit the Fed" movement. I can highly recommend that to you! It is worthwhile to become acquainted with the Federal Reserve System if for no other reason than all of the misinformation found on you tube and many other websites. It seems there are a lot of lunatics running around, and one of their favorite subjects when they are dreaming up their latest conspiracy theory is the Federal Reserve. I must confess, I've found some of these stories to be quite entertaining..
It is well to know the circumstances under which the U.S. was forced to stop redeeming dollars for gold at 35$/Oz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock It became untenable for the Treasury to maintain it's 35$/Oz. dollar peg because the U.S. lost control of the price of gold. The treasury was redeeming at 35$ while elsewhere gold was selling at the equivalent of over 40$/Oz. Keynes had foreseen that at some point this would happen and warned Bretton Woods participants that the 35$ peg could not be maintained indefinitely. But his protestations had little affect on Harry Dexter White, the U.S. representative.