First ever Fed audit now has majority support in House

[HalfLotus]

Your boundless optimism astounds me.

I haven't said anything about the possibility of ultimate success, I just stated the facts about HR 1207's co-sponsors. This is far more Congressional support than any such bill has received before.

[Darius871]

This is far more Congressional support than any such bill has received before.

Which could be no better explained by some upwelling of support than by the unique historical anomaly presented by the colossal disbursements the Fed has had to make in reaction to the market collapse and related concerns about inflation. Once the economy rebounds and the sheeple can get back to indulging themselves at the mall, they won't give two ****s about who did and did not get loans from the Fed.

[Dinner]

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???"

Not to mention all the warehousing fees for all those secret captured alien space craft.

[Dinner]

I'm honestly still trying to figure out if supporting Ron Paul makes people mentally ill or if he just attracts the mentally ill to his cause. Paultards indeed.

[HalfLotus]

Once the economy rebounds

Boundless optimism alert.

[Darius871]

Boundless optimism alert.

Wow, I actually paused to change "once" to "if/when" knowing that you're the type to probably take Peter Schiff's words as gospel, but I left it in just to get a laugh out of your utterly predictable reaction.

In any event, I didn't say when a rebound would be if any, just that there would be one. Leading economists might say 1-2 years, and you in your vast expertise might say we'll face 10 years of a hyperinflationary vicious cycle before finally shedding the most fictitious elements of our economy, but in either case some sort of "trough" would eventually be reached. Surely you don't deny this. Or are you really planning for some Thunderdome escapades?

[HalfLotus]

I don't see the hyperinflation thing happening, if that's what you mean by Thunderdome.

I suspect a slow and steady decline and a shift toward 'world currencies', i.e. IMF SDRs or a full basket, moving away from the dollar. A big step toward this was taken at the recent G20 summit.

And these 'leading economists', are they perhaps the ones who say things like "no one could have predicted this" (as Greenspan said in Congressional testimony), while Schiff and the Austrians, among others, have been predicting it for decades?

[Kuciwalker]

Darius, these people want to be ignorant; let them.

[Darius871]

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???"

Not to mention all the warehousing fees for all those secret captured alien space craft.

I thought about throwing that in, but he already said he hasn't gone that far of the deep end... at least not yet. Give it 2-3 more years of Obama and I'm sure he'll be sporting a ZZ Top beard and warning us that Bernanke's a "Reptilian."

[Darius871]

And these 'leading economists', are they perhaps the ones who say things like "no one could have predicted this" (as Greenspan said in Congressional testimony)

Seeing as I don't agree with them, I don't feel compelled to defend them at this time. I was merely using them to illustrate an extreme of the spectrum opposite your extreme.

while Schiff and the Austrians, among others, have been predicting it for decades?

Predicting in a very general way that "the sky will fall" like Schiff did had an almost 100% chance of eventually coming true, just as a broken clock manages to eventually be right twice a day. A real feat would have been predicting precisely how the sky was going to fall and how far, but several particulars he had in mind still haven't happened, or at least not yet. The Austrians are every bit as clueless as the Keynesians are when you expand the outlook beyond a year or so.

[OzzyKP]

Which could be no better explained by some upwelling of support than by the unique historical anomaly presented by the colossal disbursements the Fed has had to make in reaction to the market collapse and related concerns about inflation. Once the economy rebounds and the sheeple can get back to indulging themselves at the mall, they won't give two ****s about who did and did not get loans from the Fed.

The question is which comes first.

[HalfLotus]

You seem to have a lot of information on the topic Darius, but haven't shared your view on HR 1207 yet. What do you think?

[Berzerker]

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.

most of the country would fail a test on the Constitution, most of Congress too

but it does require Congress to give us regular updates on where our money is going

[Darius871]

You seem to have a lot of information on the topic Darius, but haven't shared your view on HR 1207 yet. What do you think?

Me? I suppose I don't really care one way or the other. On the one hand, yes the idea of "transparency" makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. But on the other hand, should the recipients, amounts, reimbursements, and defaults on the Fed's books become public knowledge all of a sudden, every investor worth his salt will quickly bet for or against major financial institutions based on this data, which could cause another crisis in the stock market and a run on banks, not to mention subtly discourage member banks' frequent use of the system for fear that the weaknesses necessitating such use could become public and harm their stock prices. As a policy matter, is that risk outweighed by my desire to feel warm and fuzzy inside? I don't know. I do think that making such data and conclusions based thereon available to a limited amount of legislators so as to guide their policymaking would be a good thing, but too much public disclosure would be dangerous. I guess finding a safe middle ground is the kind of thing a representative government is for.

[Darius871]

but it does require Congress to give us regular updates on where our money is going

Does it? Should I assume classified portions of the military budget violate Art. I, S.9, clause 7 as well?