Don't Cede More Economic Authority to Unaccountable Fed

The reviews are in on Barack Obama's plan to address the crisis of Wall Street speculation and casino capitalism that has dramatically increased the gap between working Americans and the rich, created pressure for the deindustrialization of the United States and depression of wages and income for workers and farmers and created a nasty banking crisis.

Though even Obama acknowledges that this is the big one –- the issue that as much as anything led Americans to elect him last fall –- his "financial overhaul plan" did not merit above-the-fold coverage on the front page of The New York Times, the country's "newspaper of record." Two stories from Tehran and one on a poll about health care reform held the top spots. The overhaul merited only a feature suggesting –- correctly -- that there was "only a hint of Roosevelt" in Obama's plan.

In other words, for the great mass of Americans there will be no new "New Deal." To be sure, there's some good stuff here: creation of a new agency to help protect consumers of "financial products" and some stronger transparency requirements, a few more rules regarding banks and mortgage-backed securities. "But," as Times writer Joe Nocera notes, "it's what the plan doesn't do that is most notable." Nocera focuses, appropriately enough, on the failure of the administration to do much about the problem –- for taxpayers and for democracy –- of banks that are "too big to fail."

But the real concern ought not be focused on what this seemingly tepid plan fails to do.

The real concern is what it does.

The plan dramatically increases the authority and reach of the Federal Reserve, an already too powerful and unaccountable institution that will -- to the delight of the administration's "Fed men": Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and administration economic adviser Lawrence Summers -- become what the Wall Street Journal says will be "the nation's most powerful financial overseer."

"The proposal, if passed into law, would represent one of the biggest changes ever in the Fed's role," explains Journal writer Sudeep Reddy. "The central bank would win power to monitor risks across the financial system, and sweeping authority to examine any firm that could threaten financial stability, even if the Fed wouldn't normally supervise the institution. The nation's biggest and most interconnected firms would be subject to heightened oversight by the central bank."

In announcing the plan, President Obama claimed "that lines of responsibility and accountability are clear" with regard to the new authority being placed in the Fed's hands.

That is a ridiculous statement.

The Fed is famously unaccountable and resistant to transparency. Even Geithner acknowledged in his Thursday morning session with the Senate Banking Committee that there is a need to look at reforming the Fed's lax governance structure.

But don't expect Geithner of others in the administration to take a lead when it comes to fixing the Fed, an agency that zealously guards –- for logical reasons, as its track record is one of frequent missteps and failures on an epic scale. As Senate Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd said after reviewing the central bank's significant flaws, "There's not a lot of confidence in the Fed at this point, and I'm stating the obvious."

What should be obvious to everyone is that Congress needs to get a grip on the Fed –- which is structured in a manner so that it faces little or no congressional oversight -- before it allows Obama's proposal to advance.

So says Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the dissident Democrat who responded to Obama's plan by declaring that: "Before Congress gives the Fed any new authority, we must thoroughly examine the Fed's response to our current economic crisis."

Noted Kucinich:

Since August 2007 the Fed has intervened in the economy in an extraordinary way, as a result ballooning their balance sheet from $847 billion to more than $2 trillion. Yet, we still don't know what the Fed has done or who got the money. That is why I introduced the bipartisan HR 2424, which would grant the GAO the authority to audit the Fed's response to our nation's economic crisis, a response that has dwarfed the $700 billion TARP program by more than 2 to 1.

Before we grant the Fed any new authority, we must demand greater transparency from the Fed; an earnest and open audit of the Federal Reserve's response to the economic crisis would be a significant step in the right direction. We can't continue to let the Fed operate within a black box.

Kucinich has proposed HR 2424, a piece of legislation that would amend United States Code "to authorize reviews by the Comptroller General of the United States of any credit facility established by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or any Federal reserve bank during the current financial crisis, and for other purposes."

Several progressive Democrats and old-right Republicans, including Texas Congressman Ron Paul, have cosponsored Kucinich's measure. Additionally, Paul has proposed H.R. 1207, which would amend the bill "to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes."

A majority of House members –- 234, so far, ranging from the most progressive Democrats to the most conservative Republicans -- have signed on as cosponsors of this necessary legislation.

This is one of those issues that makes sense to any honest representative, no matter what the party or what the ideology. Our elected and reasonably accountable federal officials cannot cede more control over the U.S. economy to the unelected and unaccountable Fed without auditing, reviewing and reforming how the Federal Reserve System operates.

Comments (67)

1. Watching Dodd, Frank, Shelby and Durbin rolling into the room to set rules for those that underwrite their campaigns made me want to squeal like Ned Beatty.

   Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2009 @ 11:18am

2. Ooooooh.....I smell the delicious aroma of...

   FREIHEIT and FROSTY chum, served up by our friend Mr Nichols!

   LOL

   Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 11:25am

3. The "flaw" is intentional in every respect. This proposal is a Trojan horse for the banksters who are breathtakingly persistent in ripping off the rest of us. They will stop at nothing & so must be stopped. Looks as if Geithner Summers & Co are not about to stop their pals & paymasters. They're cornholing us again, yes, that much is clear.

   Obama is much too smart not to realize this.

   Posted by sloper at 06/18/2009 @ 11:26am

4. Posted by sloper at 06/18/2009 @ 11:26am

   Curious, slope....besides WHINING a lot, how exactly do you propose "stopping them"???

   Always odd we don't hear much from you on that score. Or is it we have to wait until January 2012, when RALPH will magically appear out of his "undisclosed location" for another stab at it???

   Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 11:40am

5. this is an issue that should unite both right and left.

   Ceding more control of our financial institutions to what is in reality, a corporation is not healthy, even to this small govt conservative.

   Posted by antisocialist at 06/18/2009 @ 11:49am

6. This is sad and tragic but hardly surprising. As with so much of what Obama has done thus far, this move can be summed up as plus ça change….

   Posted by feinfein at 06/18/2009 @ 11:55am

7. Exactly right! Hold the privately owned and operated Federal Reserve accountable. The fact of the matter is that the "Fed" was told to regulate the mortgage industry in 1992 by Congress. Fed Chairman Greenspan thought this too much of an intrusion and never got around to it, even after it was becoming apparent in 2004 that the entire mortgage process was deeply flawed. Edward M. Gramlich, , Federal Reserve governor,now deceased, warned in 2002 that a fast-growing new breed of lenders was luring many people into risky mortgages they could not afford, but the band played on.

   Real reform would be to nationalize the Federal Reserve and make it a real federal agency. It could then be placed in the Treasury Department ... As long as the Federal Reserve is a private entity its focus, mission and priority of purpose is, by law, its owners, the Member Banks of the Federal Reserve Banking System.

   Posted by mmckinl at 06/18/2009 @ 12:11pm

8. Goddamn it, tell people the truth about the Federal Reserve. There should be no control over our financial system by a central bank that does not have to answer to the American government. The Federal Reserve is a criminal organization. Its job is to filch the American government and thereby, the American people out of their money.

   The Federal Reserve is a bank owned and operated by international bankers. It is not a branch of the American government. In fact, it dictates policy to the American government. It is in cahoots with all of the other central banks around the globe.

   Just because the President appoints the chairman, doesn't mean the US has any control over this insidious bank. The bankers dictate, to the president, whom to appoint.

   The Federal Reserve is the reason for the national debt and the Sixteenth Amendment, which gives Congress the right to levy a personal income tax. Not coincidentally, the Federal Reserve Act and the Sixteenth Amendment were passed into law the same year, 1913.

   All of a sudden, Americans are becoming concerned about the federal deficit, well, tell them the origin of this monstrous debt that we proudly display on a counter on the side of a building in New York.

   The American people's personal income tax is used to pay the interest on the national debt. The Federal Reserve loves wars. Nothings better for a bank than a war, or two, or three. It's a great way for a country to run up its debt.

   The Federal Reserve should be abolished; and the fact that Obama is planning to strengthen it demonstrates the strangle hold this vile bank has on our government and our people. It will continue this boom/bust economy or ours because it pays very well to do so.

   Charles

   Posted by clingenf at 06/18/2009 @ 12:32pm

9. will continue this boom/bust economy or ours because it pays very well to do so.----Posted by clingenf at 06/18/2009 @ 12:32pm

   Curious...how do you explain the booms and busts that occured BEFORE 1916?

   Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 1:20pm

10. "Didn't need no welfare state. Everybody pulled his weight.

    Gee, our old LaSalle ran great. Those were the days.

    And you know who you were then. Girls were girls and men were men.

    Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again."

    According to Kevin Baker in Harper's that's what we are getting: Barak Hoover Obama. Obama "will refuse to seize the radical moment in hand." If only he would wield the power that he has to give the US a new New Deal and to enact urgently needed environmental protection. But he is too cautious, trying to build by centimeters instead of making sweeping changes. Sigh!

    Posted by Portia at 06/18/2009 @ 1:45pm

11. North Korea has responded to the Obama administration's controversial attempts at diplomacy with only more threats and missile tests. More Hope and Change for us all as Iran keeps telling him what he can do with his diplomacy also!

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/18/2009 @ 1:54pm

12. Like I posted;

    "The biggest sticking point may be the role of the Federal Reserve, the U.S. central bank. Obama envisions the Fed overseeing the largest financial firms to ensure that they are not taking excessive risks that could destabilize the economy.

    But several top Democrats and Republicans questioned whether that would vest too much authority in an agency that has already drawn the ire of many lawmakers for its role in the costly bailouts of Bear Stearns and AIG.

    "There's not a lot of confidence in the Fed at this point," Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said on Wednesday.

    Senator Richard Shelby, the committee's ranking Republican, said the Fed had "utterly failed" as a regulator and putting it in charge of regulating systemic risk would be piling on too many responsibilities."

    Hope and change seem desperately foolish ventures for the Obamanation that makes desolation. He has given us NONE when it comes to hope and foolished minded socialistic rherotic for change along with unrepayable increasing debt!

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/18/2009 @ 1:57pm

13. THIS IS WHY I WAS FOR JOHN EDWARDS.

    Posted by steverouse2001 at 06/18/2009 @ 2:03pm

14. Rolling this out during the health care "reform" effort is about as NO CHANGE as you can get.

    If Congress lets this pass we need a new Convention and a new Constitution and the end of the Era of Exploitation.

    Revolution equals change.

    Posted by public_takeover at 06/18/2009 @ 2:53pm

15. THIS IS WHY I WAS FOR JOHN EDWARDS.--------Posted by steverouse2001 at 06/18/2009 @ 2:03pm

    And I'm sure Big Posture/RIO and the Right are incredibly disappointed that you didn't get your choice for the Democratic nominee last year.

    Lots of other Americans...not so much.

    Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 2:55pm

16. FREIHEIT and FROSTY chum, served up by our friend Mr Nichols!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 11:25am

    the "chum" is in your wallet, sir.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2009 @ 3:14pm

17. Curious, slope....besides WHINING a lot, how exactly do you propose "stopping them"???

    Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 11:40am

    how do you propose it?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2009 @ 3:15pm

18. Posted by antisocialist at 06/18/2009 @ 11:49am

    yep.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2009 @ 3:15pm

19. The New Deal (the new version 2009) was always intended to be one of pacifying the mood of the discontent rather than correcting flaws that allow for unethical behavior... in line with all progressive policies by the Obama administration. Progress, yes. Radical, no. That's the WAY. So obvious the flaws and corruption of the previous administration, so clear the path to correct for this one. Follow the arrows. Just don't print new road signs... the old ones will do. It will do for now. Sad but effective. Some changes will serve to stimulate economic growth under the same premises that caused the collapse for another period of growth before the next inevitable loss of faith in the system... when the real change will occur, by those with vision. Sorry... not now. The Fed, well... What can one deduce from the premise that it is a banking institution with international ties not national interests? Is there more to say?

    Posted by Gustav at 06/18/2009 @ 3:17pm

20. Two very good reasons to look at the fine print of all of this.....Geithner and Summers are involved in it. Both of these guys were part of the rah rah group for deregulation and now we are to trust them not to line the pockets of their pals in the banking industry and wallstreet again?

    I still wonder why Obama picked those two guys out of all of the qualified people out there. If Summers has shown one thing, it is that he isn't qualified to balance his own check book. Geithner, on the other hand is like a blind referee who didn't wear his glasses to the big game and missed all of the calls.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/18/2009 @ 3:29pm

21. What can one deduce from the premise that it is a banking institution with international ties not national interests? Is there more to say?

    Posted by Gustav at 06/18/2009 @ 3:17pm

    Not really.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/18/2009 @ 3:33pm

22. I just had a wave of empathy wash over me! It must be a terrible burden to be a progressive. To awake every day with such hope, only to hear the news and be crushed again and again. So much redistribution of wealth not happening, no single payer million patient march in the streets, no news of a large grant to ACORN, no hope that the census will get to guess at the numbers it wishes it could have. I don't know how a loyal progressive gets through the day. I feel their pain.

    Posted by sntauri at 06/18/2009 @ 3:36pm

23. Posted by clingenf at 06/18/2009 @ 12:32pm

    For some reason, the more I read The Nation and the comments section, the more I think - "Google Pundits". I recently read the below article on the Perils of Pop Philosophy, and this is exactly what we have going on in any discussion of the Federal Reserve.

    Is the Federal Reserve system flawed? Yes. Is it undemocratic? Yes. But, does it have a useful function in muting banking panics? Yes.

    But, is there any real discussion of the pros and cons of the Federal Reserve System and alternatives? I've never seen it.

    It's always someone with a pet theory (e.g., the Austrian School) using loaded language (e.g., "criminal organization", "insidious bank", "monstrous debt", etc.) linking it to every problem based on the most tenuous of evidence (e.g., " passed into law the same year") as if it were a manifestation of the Illuminati conspiracy.

    And because there is so much Ron Paulish kookiness surrounding the Federal Reserve, it is almost impossible to talk about its pros and cons and alternatives without the conversation becoming dominated by tin-foil-hat Google punditry.

    Here's a thought experiment for you folks. What would have happened if the Federal Reserve and by extension the Federal Government did not make the implicit guarantee supporting the banks in 2008? We know the answer to that, a banking panic.

    Now, if you really want to talk about this issue, you have to come up with a real solution - not pretend the problem doesn't exist and that the market regulates itself. It doesn't. The whole history of banking panics prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve illustrate the point. Maybe it's time for some of you people to shut the hell up.

    http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/06/01/perils-of-pop-philosophy/

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/18/2009 @ 3:43pm

24. That said, there are obvious problems with concentrating more power in the Federal Reserve and the federal government. But, what are the alternatives?

    It seems to me that big business requires big government. You cannot have large, multi-national banks with trillions and assets without an equally large entity regulating them.

    Part of the solution, it seems to me, is to reduce the size of all these entities so that we eliminate single points of failure - which includes the Federal Reserve system itself. It also seems to me that deregulation was partly responsible for the emergence of these large financial institutions, and some form of Federal Reserve style regulation is necessary. The question is how to make the regulating body more transparent, democratic and effective.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/18/2009 @ 3:53pm

25. June 18, 2009

    Understanding the Age of Obama

    By Victor Davis Hanson

    Are you confused by all that has changed since President Barack Obama took office in January? If so, you're not alone. Perhaps, though, this handy guide to Age of Obama "logic" might be of some assistance.

    1. The Budget. Wanting to cut $17 billion from the budget, as President Obama has promised, is proof of financial responsibility. Borrowing $1.84 trillion this year for new programs is "stimulus."...

    2. Unemployment. The number of jobs theoretically saved, or created, by new government policies...is now the far better indicator of unemployment.

    3. The Private Sector. Nationalizing much of the auto and financial industries...is an indication of our new government's repeatedly stated reluctance to interfere in the private sector.

    4. Race and Gender. Not what is said but who says it and about whom reveals racism and sexism. For example, an Hispanic female judge isn't...

    5. Random violence. Some assassinations represent larger American pathologies, but others do not. When a crazed lone gunman murders someone outside the Holocaust Museum or shoots an abortion doctor, we should worr....But when an African-American Muslim convert brags about his murder of a military recruitment officer or an Islamic group plots to kill Jews and blow up a military jet, these are largely isolated incidents without larger relevance.

    6. Terrorism. Acts of terror disappeared...there will be...only occasional "overseas contingency operations" ...At the same time, ongoing military tribunals, renditions, wiretaps, phone intercepts and predator-drone assassinations are no longer threats to the Constitution. And just saying you're going to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is proof that it is almost closed.

    Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 4:05pm

26. Federalize the Fed.

    Posted by sloper at 06/18/2009 @ 4:06pm

27. VDH - continued

    7. Iraq. The once-despised Iraq war thankfully ended around Jan. 20, 2009, and has now transformed into a noble experiment that is fanning winds of change throughout the Middle East. There will be no need for any more Hollywood cinema exposés of American wartime crimes in Iraq with titles like "Rendition," "Redacted," "Lions for Lambs" and "Stop-Loss."

    8. The West. Western values and history aren't apparently that special or unique. As President Obama told the world during his recent speech in Cairo, the Renaissance and Enlightenment were, in fact, fueled by a brilliant Islamic culture, responsible for landmark discoveries in mathematics, science and medicine. Slavery in America ended without violence. Mistreatment of women and religious intolerance in the Middle East have comparable parallels in America.

    9. Media. The media are disinterested and professional observers of the present administration. When television anchormen and senior magazine editors bow to the president, proclaim him a god or feel tingling in the legs when he speaks, it is quite normal.

    10. George W. Bush. Former President Bush did all sorts of bad things to the United States that only now we are learning will take at least eight years to sort out. "Bush did it" for the next decade will continue to explain the growing unemployment rate, the most recent deficit, the new round of tensions with Iran and North Korea, and the growing global unrest from the Middle East to South America.

    Once we remember and accept the logic of the above, then almost everything about this Age of Obama begins to make perfect sense.

    Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 4:08pm

28. Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 4:08pm

    They call that a copyright violation, Happy. Or do you believe in socializing the "property" of writers but not the "property" of apartment owners?

    Perhaps the reason you are on The Nation so much is that you have a hidden lefty streak. I look forward to seeing you in the next black bloc get together chanting, "Copyright is theft!"

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/18/2009 @ 4:36pm

29. The oligarchs rule!

    Posted by hkaplan at 06/18/2009 @ 4:49pm

30. Federalize the Fed.

    Posted by sloper at 06/18/2009 @ 4:06pm

    You said it brother. In response to srjenkins, it should be pointed out that the fed, as it stands now, is just the head of private banks. Sloper is right, federalize the fed, strip the banking community of it's grip on our government which is the way things stand today.

    What the largest cause of all of this meltdown has been greed, deregulation and speculation completely out of control. Wallstreet and the banking system have turned into a Las Vegas cassino less the mafia to control out of control players.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/18/2009 @ 4:54pm

31. They call that a copyright violation, Happy.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/18/2009 @ 4:36pm

    "They" Who? You?

    Maybe I'm missing something......commentary freely available on the Net, without a firewall for access/registration, is free!

    Frankly, VDH (or anybody else providing free opinions I cut-n-paste in here) is likely tickled to be present on THIS blog!

    There was a time folks here accused me of being paid to spread the Right words....LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 5:26pm

32. "Terrorism. Acts of terror disappeared...there will be...only occasional "overseas contingency operations" ...At the same time, ongoing military tribunals, renditions, wiretaps, phone intercepts and predator-drone assassinations are no longer threats to the Constitution. And just saying you're going to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is proof that it is almost closed."

    for someone who not only cheered on the most radical bush counter-terrorism policies, but who also masturbated to them, victor davis hanson really can't say the above with a straight face.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/18/2009 @ 5:31pm

33. Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 5:26pm

    You'll notice that at the end of the Victor Davis Hanson article you quote in full is the following: "Copyright 2009, Tribune Media Services Inc." You'll also notice the page is full of ads, which are less likely to get clicked on if it is reposted in this forum.

    All Tribune Media Services Inc. would have to do is subpoena The Nation for your email provider, then your email provider for your IP address, then your service provider for your home address. Then, they can subpoena you, and you would find out that copyright infringement carries a statutory penalty of between $750 - $30,000. It might also possibly include attorney's fees - someone has to pay for all the subpeonas, it might as well be you too.

    While it is unlikely to happen, I do find it incongruent with your personal positions of support for business. Your actions here, arguably, undercut the business model of Tribune Media Services.

    I, personally, think copyright law is broken. So, I don't have any issues with your reposting beyond the fact that I would rather you gave a two sentence summary and a link, rather than clutter the boards with silly commentary with people with an agenda against "postmodernism". It's also not just you, I'd like b_kool to follow the same practice - but then again, as Mick Jagger tells us, "You can't always get what you want."

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/18/2009 @ 6:15pm

34. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/18/2009 @ 4:54pm

    Banks own non-transferrable stock. Saying they control they Fed is like arguing that stockholders are telling Bill Gates and Warren Buffet how to run their companies. A dubious proposition, at best.

    I'd also argue that talking about banks as a casino has a feel of kookiness. Investment carries risk. Many modern investment vehicles are speculative. In other words, it is a casino, and it is not going to be anything other than a casino.

    So, other than the emotional effect, why bother to say this? Are you advocating abolishing the investment casino? Or its most egregious elements, throw out the Russian roulette tables but leave the video poker and the dancing girls? In other words, it's a bad - or at least, unhelpful - metaphor about a topic that few people understand.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/18/2009 @ 6:29pm

35. You'll also notice the page is full of ads, which are less likely to get clicked on if it is reposted in this forum.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/18/2009 @ 6:15pm

    Sometimes, you like to argue just for arguments' sake.....alright, son!

    Here's what's directly above the VDH article I pasted here:

    SEND TO A FRIEND | PRINT | Comments | Share Share

    What do you suppose was the intent of "Send", "Print" and "Share"?

    I concede I'm not so good w/language art....perhaps you can interpret more precisely for me as to copyright enfringement as it relates to the 3 above words I clearly just don't understand!

    BTW, you should note that I took the time to delete all Extraneous verbage associated with ads.....gotta get some credit for my `work'.....LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 6:54pm

36. What would have happened if the Federal Reserve and by extension the Federal Government did not make the implicit guarantee supporting the banks in 2008? We know the answer to that, a banking panic.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/18/2009 @ 3:43pm

    and what would happen if the money weren't made of ether?

    and what would have happened if the greenspan print-o-thon had been circumvented because the fed were a public not privblic entity?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2009 @ 8:03pm

37. Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 6:54pm

    All of which is done through the website or linking to the website. It is not permission to republish elsewhere.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2009 @ 8:03pm

    What would happen? You don't have to speculate. You can look at what did happen with the Brenton Woods system and the use of the gold standard. In sum, governments faced with needing to spend a lot of money (say during a recession, war or what have you) and insufficient tax revenue, devalue the currency or game the market through trade deficits.

    So, you are basically proposing that countries should be forced to take high interest loans when they get crunched economically and then subjected to IMF style exploitation.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm generally with you on this point. I just don't think any of us understand the secondary or tertiary effects of moving to some form of international monetary standard.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/18/2009 @ 8:22pm

38. The oligarchs rule!

    Posted by hkaplan at 06/18/2009 @ 4:49pm

    uh, those are the obamagarchs.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2009 @ 8:33pm

39. Ding dang I'm in agreement with the Reverend.

    Way cool this already has majority support in House. Am I more paranoid than normal or has the corporate media been relatively subdued on this?

    1- It doesn't fit their template of "let's what 'em fight" (socialism, abortion, immigration, guns).

    2- There's not too meaty of a take away message, like if we discover X, we'll do Y, leaving Jane Q. Public with Z.

    Posted by winyahn at 06/18/2009 @ 9:00pm

40. Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 6:54pm

    All of which is done through the website or linking to the website. It is not permission to republish elsewhere.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/18/2009 @ 8:22pm

    Clearly, you are reading far more `protection' than what VDH and his All Tribune Media Services Inc. intended. For more self-enlightenment, I click on "Share", not ever having done it before, and below is what came up. You may think VDH & co. want to limit distribution, but they sure made it easy to spread the words.....if I'm VDH, I want my opinion read as widely as possible. Human nature!

    From clicking on "Share":

    Bookmark & Share

    Select a Service:

    AIM Google Bookmarks Reddit Ask Kaboodle Segnalo Backflip kIRTSY Simpy BallHype Link-a-Gogo Slashdot Bebo LinkedIn Spurl Blogger Live StumbleUpon Blogmarks Mister Wong Technorati Delicious Mixx Tumblr Digg Multiply Twitter Diigo myAOL TypePad Facebook MySpace WordPress Fark Netvibes Yahoo Bookmarks Faves Netvouz Yahoo Buzz Favorites Newsvine Yardbarker FriendFeed Propeller

    Get your own AddThis button! Get your button

    Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 9:34pm

41. Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 9:34pm

    I use these services and can tell you that all of them link to the site. You, on the other hand, republished it. It's not terribly complicated.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/18/2009 @ 10:15pm

42. All of a sudden, now you care. What happened when BO (Still has B.O.) was taking over the banks to begin with. Idiot.

    Posted by apoorspic at 06/18/2009 @ 10:22pm

43. http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/ conservatism-attack-of-the-zombie-party/

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/18/2009 @ 11:22pm

44. The idea behind the Federal Reserve was to have an entity that was nonpartisian and independent as it related to the political parties. Of course that is down the drain now so, no, no new powers. Add to that the "possibility" they don't know what they are doing.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/18/2009 @ 11:33pm

45. The fox wants to guard the henhouse.

    The Fed is a privately owned cartel so how can it enforce laws of the US?

    It's just another shell game to fool the unwashed masses.

    The bankers are reluctant to change. They want this all to blow over and then start over again where they left off. The casino, remaining intact, where they gamble with other people's money and rake in huge bonuses themselves.

    But, at least they get to play in a casino....The rest of us suckers are out in the street playing 3 card monte.

    Posted by koroviev at 06/19/2009 @ 02:25am

46. I'd also argue that talking about banks as a casino has a feel of kookiness. Investment carries risk. Many modern investment vehicles are speculative. In other words, it is a casino, and it is not going to be anything other than a casino.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/18/2009 @ 6:29pm

    Since you claim to be an expert in this arena, perhaps you can tell us what the ratio of actual cash the banks hold to the credit or debt to witch the loan?

    The banks are giving away money they don't have and nobody is regulating this and the fed has only the power to adjust interest rates. Sounds to me like the fox guarding the hen house or stated in a different way, the banks waging the fed, not the other way around.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/19/2009 @ 07:33am

47. "I am a most unhappy man..." "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/19/2009 @ 07:38am

48. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/19/2009 @ 07:33am

    I've never claimed to be an "expert" on the Fed. I know enough to know I don't know a great deal, which is more than most people that have strong feelings about the Fed.

    "The banks are giving away money they don't have and nobody is regulating this and the fed has only the power to adjust interest rates. Sounds to me like the fox guarding the hen house or stated in a different way, the banks waging the fed, not the other way around."

    This comment is exactly what I am talking about. The specific purpose of the Fed is to dampen banking panics. It does not regulate the banks or financial services products. That's not what it does.

    Then, you move from saying that because the Fed doesn't regulate banks, banks control the Fed. That doesn't even have any logic to it.

    Don't feel like I'm singling you out Wolfgang. Every discussion of the Fed turns into this type of discussion.

    Example: Sure, we can talk about international pooled currencies - like snowball does at 06/18/2009 @ 5:20pm. But who's going to point out that basing a currency partially on a product (oil, as he suggests) that is heavily consumed and non-renewable is likely to have deflationary effects? And even so-called "experts" don't know how that would play out in the context of an international monetary system with a "basket" of real products backing it. It's never been tried.

    All I am saying is that the Fed is being used as a scapegoat. It's fine to point out that regulations failed, but that's not a problem with the Fed. There are problems with the Fed - but again, the discussion is so all over the map and rife with misunderstandings it is useless to discuss it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/19/2009 @ 08:10am

49. Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 4:08pm

    Hey, HAPP..."when" you guys "take it all back" in 2012...

    then what? What EXACTLY will Republicans do to fix things?

    Posted by Mask at 06/19/2009 @ 08:17am

50. There are problems with the Fed - but again, the discussion is so all over the map and rife with misunderstandings it is useless to discuss it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/19/2009 @ 08:10am

    True enough. It's a complicated mess to say the least.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/19/2009 @ 08:26am

51. I feel their pain.

    Posted by sntauri at 06/18/2009 @ 3:36pm

    Sometimes you feel like a nut.

    Most of the time you write like one.

    Posted by theplatitude at 06/19/2009 @ 12:08pm

52. In essence, they're arguing against fiat currency itself because they don't understand the effects of having one's economy completely tied to something like gold: you trade stability of currency for a smaller economy.

    Posted by snowball666 at 06/19/2009 @ 11:22am

    and that is good.

    when money was gold (a rather poor choice), our economy, hence our SIZE, was tied directly to the earth.

    in many ways it held our greed in check, and thus slowed down our ability to squish the lorax.

    compare global debt, global gdp, and global temperature since 1971....

    a basket of commodities is a great idea, but the gamers will still game the system.

    we need TREE BASED MONEY!

    but, someone will want to devalue, so that's not a good idea.

    we need one currency. anything else is unjust.

    i say we call them "quatloos".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2009 @ 1:01pm

53. i say we call them "quatloos".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2009 @ 1:01pm

    That does not sound Chinese.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/19/2009 @ 1:30pm

54. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/19/2009 @ 07:38am

    Wolf, I always get a BIT suspicious of historical quotes like that. Too many right-wingers who place some 20th Century conservative's words in Thomas Jefferson's mouth.

    Could you cite the original source for that Woodrow Wilson quote? What book or writings of Wilson that was in.

    BTW, no aspertion on YOU....just curiious.

    Posted by Mask at 06/19/2009 @ 1:51pm

55. Wangs.

    should set the American Taliban into a frenzy on multiple levels.

    Or, keeping Onomatopoeic ( a new word for me BTW)... Ooofs.

    How many oofs in a wang?

    Ask Sen Ensign.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/19/2009 @ 1:54pm

56. It's not terribly complicated.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/18/2009 @ 10:15pm

    I'll let you know when it gets complicated....when VDH & his media co. come knocking on my PC! In the meantime, we have a different standard.....VDH loves me while you don't think so.

    Posted by Happy at 06/19/2009 @ 2:47pm

57. Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2009 @ 1:01pm

    Thought you might appreciate this infographic:

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/ bailout-costs-vs-big-historical-events/

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/19/2009 @ 3:02pm

58. "thanks", srj.

    when i read the link in your post, i thought it would show that the big historical events were huge compared to the recent blahblah, thus enabling me to feel less cynical.

    alas....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2009 @ 3:15pm

59. Mask, This is one of the sources. I've seen this elsewhere. A colleague sent me about a 45 minute video explaining how the federal reserve functioned and how societies operate on debt which in turn creates motivation for people to work.

    If this statement is false, my apologies to all. I wasn't there if and when Wilson said it so I certainly can't be sure of this.

    Web of Debt By Ellen Hodgson Brown. p. 127, partial quote [6]

    "The bill passed on December 22, 1913, and President Wilson signed it into law the next day. Later he regretted what he had done. He is reported to have said before he died, "I have unwittingly ruined my country."

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/19/2009 @ 4:39pm

60. Wolf, I always get a BIT suspicious of historical quotes like that. Too many right-wingers who place some 20th Century conservative's words in Thomas Jefferson's mouth.

    Posted by Mask at 06/19/2009 @ 1:51pm

    True enough Mask. Especially with Jefferson.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/19/2009 @ 4:49pm

61. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/19/2009 @ 4:49pm

    Not that Salon is a definitive source, but...

    http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/12/21/ woodrow_wilson_federal_reserve/

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/19/2009 @ 4:54pm

62. EDWARDS COULD NOT KEEP HIS WOOD IN HIS PANTS. THIS IS WHY I WAS FOR JOHN EDWARDS. Posted by steverouse2001 at 06/18/2009 @ 2:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 5:28pm

63. I still wonder why Obama picked those two guys out of all of the qualified people out there.

    sometimes it takes a thief to catch a thief.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 5:30pm

64. to catch a thief.

    ah, one of Hitch's most magical romantic concoctions. that fireworks scene. priceless. and Grace was never lovelier and sexier. but I digress.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 8:06pm

65. I don't trust congress as far as I cna throw them. I think this HR is intended to control the fed so that they can "Whip Saw" the economy for thier own purposes. This is the reason the fed was chartered as a private entity to begin with. Politicians can't keep thier hands off the reigns of power and one way of controlling thier own environment is to control the fed. So far, they have been frustrated in thier attempts to do so.

    This article is implicit in fostering a false sense of security over this issue. The harder issue is to regulate the banking industry and holding the fed's feet to the fire to enforce this regulation. But as has been said before, "The banking industry owns this place". That's the true problem. And empoweing the fed with additional powers that they won't enforce won't solve this problem.

    I think the Consumer Financial Products Safety Commision will provide an unusual view of the financial industry by looking inwards to the financial industry instead of outward, like the fed does.

    Posted by elgog at 06/22/2009 @ 08:43am

66. Currently there is no agency that has this view of the financial industry. A Financial Consumer protection Agency will see transgressions and receive reports from the out flow of the financial industry instead of the inputs to the system. This is a huge gap in financial regulation. We can only hope that this new agency will take thier responsibility seriously and actually do the work it is chartered to do. One problem that could arise is that bankers would be appointed to the leadership. This will probably happen after a while when things calm down after the current crisis. Then the FCSC would be no better than any other agency the government runs. It's sad, but that's the way thing happen. The consumer is just a pocket to pick for most companies, financial or otherwise.

    Posted by elgog at 06/22/2009 @ 08:49am

67. sometimes it takes a thief to catch a thief.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 5:30pm

    True enough. That would be about the only reason for appointing those two "gentlemen" and I use the word gentlemen quite liberally in this case.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/23/2009 @ 09:14am