First ever Fed audit now has majority support in House

[HalfLotus]

When did I deny that banks own "stock" in the Fed?

June 13, 2009, 23:13

[HalfLotus]

Welcome to the real world. On this planet, the Fed was created by an Act of Congress. It is controlled by a Board, the members of which are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

No one "owns" the Fed.

Who collects the gauranteed 6% annual interest earned on member bank stock? Nobody?

[Darius871]

When did I deny that banks own "stock" in the Fed?

June 13, 2009, 23:13

Demonstrably false. From the very post to which you refer, unedited:

These characteristics take the Fed so far into the fold of "government" that the mere fact of member banks' being "shareholders" doesn't take it out in my book. If you think the shareholder banks wield too much influence over Fed policymaking, that might be a legitimate argument, but that would be the fault of lax Congressional oversight and by extension of the voting public, not the Fed system in itself.

In other words, I conceded that the banks own "shares" or "stock" in the Fed, but I pointed out that the specific legal rights associated with this so-called stock conspicuously lack the mechanisms of control that are by definition incident to "ownership." I could give my neighbor "stock" in my business that gives him no rights whatsoever other than letting his dog **** on my yard and hump my leg with impunity. That doesn't mean he "owns" my business. Do you understand the distinction? Perhaps you do, but naturally you have ignored this argument entirely. I can only take your silence to concede that "stockholders" do not control the Fed, because it's obvious that only Congress and the President do.

Ok no more snarkyness, I'm genuinely curious and would like your opinion: do you "own" my lemonade stand or not?

[HalfLotus]

I'm not terribly interested in the public/private debate, which is why my comments have been brief. I understand that it's a gray area, and I've read the Fed FAQ which you seem to be quoting. I've also read the Federal Reserve Act about 50 times, so don't feel a need to remediate me. I think that comparisons to conventional private businesses (i.e. lemonade stands), and corporations have limited value as well. The Fed is certainly unique in many ways, making those comparisons are a waste of time, imo.

No I do not own a lemonade stand.

I think the distinctions about control are very important, however. And that's why HR 1207 is key.

Congress controls the Fed on paper (via changes to the FRA), but is repeatedly denied access to the Fed books, Fed meetings, or to perform even a partial audit.

How can Congress can be responsible for Fed oversight when they don't even know what it's doing? It's absurd. The Congress is gutless and seemingly powerless to fix any perceived problems.

Perhaps you heard about Sen. Bernie Sanders' recent exchange with Bernanke? When asked if the Fed would disclose where certain 'bailout' monies went, Bernanke said flatly, "No." And Sanders is a socialist just like you guys! (and an honest man, I like him.)

The secrecy of the Fed makes me very suspicious, and makes me very skeptical of conventional 'wisdom', and the oft quoted Fed FAQ: i.e. "no one owns the Fed", or "the Fed owns itself". Those don't fly with me. People are making money off the Fed (at the very least, the 6% dividend for member banks), Fed meetings are 100% private, and their audits are performed by outside agencies and kept private as well.

Given the dollar's reserve status, its unique relationship with oil and other commodities, and the enormous effects of monetary policy on the global economy, the Federal Reserve is maybe the most powerful institution in the history of the world - and I want to know what the **** it is doing.

Support HR 1207!

[Jon Miller]

Is the congressman for Newport News VA a sponser or cosponser?

JM

[HalfLotus]

Ron Paul is the sponsor, of course.

I don't see Bobby Scott, who appears to be Newport News Rep., on the list of co-sponsors:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207

[Darius871]

Fed FAQ which you seem to be quoting.

Never heard of it. The constitutionally enacted Act and myriad federal court cases interpreting it are illuminating enough without accepting anything the Fed says in its own interest.

I think that comparisons to conventional private businesses (i.e. lemonade stands), and corporations have limited value as well. The Fed is certainly unique in many ways, making those comparisons are a waste of time, imo.

I think they are too, but when PaulBots watch a few Youtube videos and regurgitate disingenuously simplistic concepts like "privately owned" to describe an institution so complex in total ignorance of what the word "own" even means, reciprocally simplistic analogy seems to be the only way to get a point across.

Congress controls the Fed on paper (via changes to the FRA) but is repeatedly denied access to the Fed books, or to perform even a partial an audit.

How can Congress can be responsible for Fed oversight when they don't even know what it's doing? It's absurd. The Congress is gutless and seemingly powerless to fix any perceived problems.

Perhaps you heard about Sen. Bernie Sanders' recent exchange with Bernanke? When asked if the Fed would disclose where certain 'bailout' monies went, Bernanke said flatly, "No."

Yes I'm aware that the Fed has kept its books and proceedings confidential even when asked, but that only suggests that Congress is too "gutless" to require access, not that it's "powerless" to get access. There's a gigantic difference between one grandstanding jackass at a committee hearing asking for highly sensitive information to which he/she is not statutorily entitled and Congress actually passing a bill statutorily entitling specified individuals to that information. Congress is free to do the latter anytime it damned well pleases, and therefore the Fed "denies" Congress nothing. Rather, Congress just doesn't care, because voters apply no pressure that would make them care. If they want to know, they can find out, but they don't, so they won't. That impugns Congress and the idiots that vote for them, not the Fed system in itself.

Sanders is a socialist just like you guys!

So because I blame Congress for the Fed's problems rather than the Fed system itself, that makes me a socialist?

[Dinner]

Wow, HalfLotus and DD are dumb.

[DinoDoc]

Wow, HalfLotus and DD are dumb.

Barney Frank does take time out of his day to run the Fed after all?

[HalfLotus]

Rather, Congress just doesn't care, because voters apply no pressure that would make them care. If they want to know, they can find out, but they don't, so they won't.

This is where you're a little behind the times.

Voters, many of them 'Paulbots', are applying pressure to pass 1207.

And with 224 co-sponsors and counting we have a majority of Representatives, including Barney, Chair of the House Committee on Financial Services, who do want to find out.

Maybe take some time off of vitriolic internet debate and call your Senators and Representative? It'll relieve some of that tension when you get off your ass and actually do something meaningful.

[Darius871]

This is where you're a little behind the times.

Voters, many of them 'Paulbots', are applying pressure to pass 1207.

And with 224 co-sponsors and counting we have a majority of Representatives, including Barney, Chair of the House Committee on Financial Services, who do want to find out.

LOL, if that bill passes both the Senate and Dear Leader without pathetically eviscerating amendments, I'll gladly kiss your bare ass on Main Street at noon. Even in the highly, highly unlikely event that some remnant is passed into law, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the data and results would be restricted only to specified legislators and would not be made public. Your boundless optimism astounds me.

Doesn't Paul propose a lost-cause Fed bill at least every year?

[Dinner]

Barney Frank does take time out of his day to run the Fed after all?

Giving a list of reasons why a complex is valuable and might be useful during a recovery hardly amounts to running a company. Every nonhack knows this... Which explains why you, once again, are having a hard time.

[HalfLotus]

Doesn't Paul propose a lost-cause Fed bill at least every year?

Something like that. But not until this year did the Fed see fit to hire a lobbyist.

Looks like somebody's sweating.

[DinoDoc]

Giving a list of reasons why a complex is valuable and might be useful during a recovery hardly amounts to running a company.

So now the government isn't running Government Motors?

PS What's Frank's experience in the Auto Industry?

[Darius871]

Something like that. But not until this year did the Fed see fit to hire a lobbyist.

Looks like somebody's sweating.

Sure, they're shakin' in their boots all right.

"OMG, how are we going to explain all these budget entries for bribes, hitmen, and black helicopters???"