First ever Fed audit now has majority support in House

[Felch]

Does anybody actually oppose auditing the Fed? I mean, it seems like a sensible thing to do, no matter who owns it. What's the downside, aside from a pretty negligible cost?

[zakubandit]

The Fed is illegal anyways, auditing them is a good step in the right direction to eliminating those criminals.

Yea illegal, read the Constitution and figure it out. Anyone realize that by Constitutional law our paper money isn't valid? Because the government can "coin money" for the equal value of the minerals in the coin *ie; gold silver*. But the Fed, when it was created, decided on all these great things, like money backed by.....well nothing at all. And then income taxes, which by the way ARE NOT required by law. All these other taxes, tariffs, decrees, or anything involving money comes from the Fed. The list of Fed members is a close guarded secret as well. A lot of well known banks and people, and then an unknown number of the unknowns. Those shadowy millionaires who like people not knowing they exist.

Either way this bill needs to pass. In our transparent public servant government we are supposed to, as the people, know everything. I accept there are somethings we wont ever know, or shouldn't know, but this is our money. Not just money, OUR money. We need to know where it goes, what it does, who it pays off, who it pays for.

[KrazyHorse]

[HalfLotus]

The Fed certainly goes against the wishes of the founders. Does anyone seriously think the handful of Senators who were bribed during a Christmas holiday session to pass the FRA were wiser than Jefferson and co?

The circumstances of the FRA's passage should be enough to take a long hard look past today's statist propaganda in favor it.

[zakubandit]

The Fed is one more way for the national government, formed by the people for the people, to usurp power. It conflicts with the Constitution and has constantly promoted things that go against the wishes of the people. So not much is needed to be said that it is illegal and unwanted. Anything that fights the Fed is a good thing.

[Darius871]

Does anybody actually oppose auditing the Fed? I mean, it seems like a sensible thing to do, no matter who owns it. What's the downside, aside from a pretty negligible cost?

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.

That said, I do think keeping the audit itself confidential would mitigate this downside well enough. OTOH it's not that hard for some congressman's aide to slip a quick PDF over to the Wall Street Journal...

[Felch]

So your objection is that people will be given accurate information and make decisions based upon it?

I understand a panic is bad, but burying your head in the sand isn't any better.

[zakubandit]

Too true, ignorance is not always bliss.

[Darius871]

So your objection is that people will be given accurate information and make decisions based upon it?

I understand a panic is bad, but burying your head in the sand isn't any better.

I don't see a problem with decisions based on accurate information in principle, but just blasting that information into the marketplace overnight is what's conducive to panic. And people might read a lot more into a bank's loan from the Fed than it really does imply, so it could serve to distort the market more than inform it.

In any event, as my DanS notes, there is also a policy interest in encouraging banks to participate in the system as much as they need to. Confidentiality of these transactions was legislated for a reason. If member banks knew that any and all loans they get from the Fed (and the manner in which they pay them back) would be plastered all over the Wall Street Journal once a year for every Tomdickandharry to bet on, they would be reluctant to participate as much as they should and consequently would rely more on higher-interest private creditors who are able to keep their confidences and/or simply tighten up their own lending altogether, either or both of which would cause the sort of liquidity crises that the Fed was intended to prevent.

[HalfLotus]

I think what's happening now, due to Fed secrecy, is that a few 'insiders' (ahem, Chase Manhattan) are influencing Fed actions, or at least privy them perhaps before they occur, and are reaping big profits and sowing lots of havoc among the general public.

Surely we're not all naive enough to believe that the secrecy of the Fed hides only well-intentioned activities. When the Treasury Secretary is a tax cheat and former Goldman Sachs man, we have a little conflict of interest up there in central banker land.

In the balance between 'necessary' state/economic secrecy and public disclosure, I tend to favor the latter.

[Az]

Ron Paul 2420 FTW

[Jon Miller]

I am definitely not a paulbot/etc, but would still like to see this passed.

I don't even mind if it is treated like national security and isn't released to the public/etc for 10 years.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Agree with Berz. Fed reserve is unconstitutional, and is a creation by Woodrow Wilson.

[Dinner]

It's like the ultimate fail. Ben agreed with them.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you calling me a paulbot?