As an addendum to my letter, it should be noted that Harry Reid was once a
supporter of a Federal Reserve Audit. You can see a speech where he gives his
reasons on Youtube if you search for "Harry Reid Fed audit". In his
speech he makes the claim that "there's no entity in the world that
controls our lives more than the Federal Reserve System." I point out what
he once believed to show that this should be a bi-partisan issue. It
doesn't belong to Republicans or Democrats. An audit of the fed has been
fought for by progressive democrats like Dennis Kucinich and libertarian leaning
Republicans like Ron Paul.
What will auditing the fed do? Nothing. The Federal Government should abolish it
out right and spend money into the economy debt free and interest free.
@Shaun: and how will issuing debt-free currency solve the inflationary problem
discussed by Mr. King? Won't it enable the government to rob its citizens
even more efficiently of its purchasing power?Auditing the Fed will
let us have a window into how they have manipulated the money supply and
interest rates, and where they have been distributing money and credit (possibly
illegally?). It will, to a great extent, expose the level of crony-capitalism
going on behind government walls. You call that nothing?
Conservatives relying on Keynes? Amazing! Is the irony lost on you?
@Esquire: you'd be surprised how self-contradictory Keynes could be. You
can use his own words against him in a number of topics. That's why it
seems so ironic that liberals trust his pronouncements at all. Keynes was an
economic chameleon, depending on the situation. His General Theory is an
unintelligible collection of contradictory prose. To call it a coherent economic
theory is a stretch.
@EsquireTrust me, no irony was wasted on me this time. My use of
Keynes's words were deliberate. I could have just as easily have quoted
Austrian economist F.A. Hayek stating that "history is largely a history of
inflation, usually inflations engineered by governments for the gain of
governments," but I wanted someone that would not be immediately dismissed
because they're "not mainstream". I've seen too many comment
threads on these pages devolve into hyperpartisan bickering, so I wanted to
quote Keynes to show that this issue cannot be expressed simply as only one
group having the right position. Members of the tea party support a Federal
Reserve Audit. Many members of the Occupy movement do as well. Politicians
ranging from Jim Demint to a younger version of Harry Reid (as I mentioned
above) and even some in between are Fed audit supporters. Why is there
opposition now to even holding a vote?
@ Shaun & SEYI'd like to see the Fed go away but exactly
how? The powers that be won't let it. Furthermore, Lewis v.
United States (1982) states, "the Federal Reserve is privately owned"
So, its as much a Federal Agency as say Federal Express.Its looking
more and more like Jekyll Island, GA in Nov 1910 (creation of the Fed) was the
darkest day in American History.
No reasonable person can deny that the American economy, and even the American
way of life is under attack by a vast conflagration of left-wing extremists.
They have gone so far as to essentially take over the fed.We cannot
allow the fed to continue using its power to support leftist bailouts,
entitlements, and socialistic programs that destroy the economy. These are the
very insidious programs that the leaders of the fed took an oath to fight
against. It is time to hold them to that oath.All patriotic
Americans must demand a full and complete audit of the fed. Its works have been
cloaked in darkness long enough.
David - I agree that inflation is the cruelest tax of all because it punishes
people who do the right thing (work, save, and invest) and as you said it
enables politicians to keep spending money we don't have. The idea
though that we would allow Congress to interfere even more with the Fed is more
frightening to me than no oversight. Do you really want someone like Al Franken
or Patty Murray poking around the Fed's books? I suggest ending the
dual mandate for the Fed to maintain a stable currency and low unemployment
rates (they aren't compatible) or switch back to a convertible currency
(e.g. gold standard) Also, the Fed should stop buying Treasury debt so maybe
we'd have an idea of what the market really thinks the ten year treasury
yield should be.
@Hank Pym: I'm pessimistic about the possibility of eliminating the Federal
Reserve by any outside action. You're right, the fix is in and the powers
that be won't allow that to happen as long as they're in charge. What
will have to happen (and I believe it will eventually) is that the Fed will
disappear when the economy along with the US currency collapses. Both are on an
RE: SEY 10:27 a.m. Agreed. When the eventual happens
will some credit be given to the conflagration of evil lefties known as Occupy
Wall St? ROFL! p.s. In the meantime, I'm off to learn Mandarin.
@red state prideI see your point, but I still believe Congressional
interference is preferable to complete secrecy.A partial audit of the
Federal Reserve in 2011 revealed that they had given more than 16 trillion in
secret loans during 2008. To me, that sort of thing is worth finding out about
even if it is done by a politician seeking political gain. I am almost certain
that a complete audit of the Fed would reveal more secret actions performed by
the Fed. To steal a phrase that big government advocates use when trying to
justify civil rights curtailing legislation like the Patriot Act, "those who
have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear." If the Fed has not done
anything that can't be justified they have nothing to fear. It is only if
they have been bailing out buddies or giving special deals that they should have
cause to worry. If that is the case, than a painful truth is better than a veil
of secrecy which prevents us from ever knowing what is being done.
The Federal Reserve was audited last year, wasn't it? It was found that
this banking institution had given 16 trillion Amercan taxpayers' dollars
was to foreign governments.A full audit is now demanded by more than
two thirds of the House. How dare Harry Reid conspire to prevent a debate and
vote in the Senate. Iime to go Harry!Next year would make a hundred
years of this control of the value of the American dollar (almost always to its
detriment) by a secret organisatin. An hisoric moment and a good time to vote
it out of existence.Meanwhile let's insist on a full audit. An
audit does not give any opportunity for Congress to meddle in he economy (they
do that aleady) but it does show us what the "Reserve" is doing to your
money. Imo their actvities will not survive the full light of day for long.
Great letter, David King, and your follow up comments reinforce your argument
even more fully. The more said about the need for Fed audit and transparency the
better. I give a hearty amen to your observation that "too many
comment threads on these pages devolve into hyperpartisan bickering." It
accomplishes nothing and ruins what otherwise might turn into a decent debate or
discussion. This thread (so far) is different and for that I am grateful.Also a nod to SEY for his astute observations.
If the Fed is to be audited, it needs to be done independent of congress (the
final report goes to them, that is all). Congressional meddling with the Fed
would not be a good thing.As to abolishing the Fed, please point to
the modern economy that functions without a central bank. Was the gold standard
working well for us? For the rest of the world? If so, why abandon it? Were
there no issues with using a gold standard? Were there economic crashes under
the gold standard?I have no problem talking about change. But I
would hate to use our economy as the lab rat. If this is all such a good idea
then other countries should be racing for the same goal. If not, we need to
step back real slowly and ask why.
When we were fighting in Iraq there were whole pallets of $100 bills that were
flown to Iraq and disappeared into "thin air". I don't think any of
the alleged "trillions" the Fed may have used to bail out overseas banks
like Deutschebank "disappeared". We're talking about bankers here.
Has a banker ever just given anyone money? Not any that I know. I reject the
notion that the Federal Reserve is a sinister institution. Incompetent?
Definitely. Go back to the easy money of Alan Greenspan that gave us the dot-com
bubble and the housing bubble and now Bernanke who has given us the new
commodity bubble and zero interest on savings accounts and cd's. I
agree that all will end in a very bad place but Congressional meddling will just
exacerbate the mess that's probably going to come our way. You do
have options. The Swiss franc is pretty solid- buy francs. You can buy gold if
you don't think it is part of a bubble or McDonald's gift cards. You
do have options to show your skepticism.
@Twin Lights: the question shouldn't necessarily be about choosing between
central banking and the gold standard. Neither system will guarantee the absence
of recessions, depressions or panics. They have happened under both. The real
issue is the concept of fractional reserve banking and the excessive credit
spawned by it. The gold standard, when strictly adhered to, should
reduce or eliminate the hazards of excessive credit. The panics that occurred
under the gold standard happened because species payment was suspended for
whatever emergency reason. The result was that speculation increased in a
similar way it did in the recent real estate boom. Eventually, borrowers
defaulted on loans and banks failed, causing panics. It was not the gold
standard at fault, it was fractional banking and excess credit.The
point is that something needs to anchor and limit the money supply to prevent
excess credit from creating booms and their concomitant bust. Economic problems
are not caused by having too little money. They're caused by rapid
expansions and contractions of the money supply. If you can suggest a better way
of minimizing those shocks than by implementing the gold standard, I'd love
to hear it.
SEY has said it with ringing clarity. I would recommend a second reading of his
comment (4:49pm). He's pointed directly to the cause of our economic
problem, which is rapid expansions and contractions of the money supply--and the
source of the problem--fractional reserve banking. A system wherein every single
dollar is borrowed into existence, and it’s owed back with interest.While we may understand that the present currency system “is what
it is” and we have to operate within it, for now… it is educational
to learn more about how this system of creating currency really works.
Good letter. Transparency is always a good thing. Audit the Fed, by all means.
>SEYJust because you can't understand
Keynes' General Theory doesn't mean it's incoherent or
contradictory or inconsistent. It just means that you've haven't done
the requisite background reading in economics.
Why would you want an audit? To get a look at the balance sheet and income
statement? I think those are already available to the public.The
Fed is the central banking system of the United States with the objectives of
maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. It
accomplishes these goal using monetary policy, member bank depository
requirements, and the Discount Window.That's it. If the
objectives are not being met an audit will not help. In which case, all that it
needed is to replace the Chairman and the Board of Governors, et. al.It appears those who are calling for an audit actually are concerned with the
whys and wherefores of the poor condition of our economy... as if an audit would
bring to light and solve those problems.
@ SEY, I would sey that conservatives are self-contradictory. They love to pick
and choose. Kind of like how they say they hate the federal government, then
line up for the handouts.
@SEY"The real issue is the concept of fractional reserve banking
and the excessive credit spawned by it."So, tell us, what are
the banks supposed to do with the money put there on deposit by customers if
they can't lend it out? And how do banks stay in business without interest
income on loans? And how would our economy operate without available credit
supplied by banks?"The gold standard, when strictly adhered to,
should reduce or eliminate the hazards of excessive credit."Wrong. The gold standard backs currency... not credit."It was
not the gold standard at fault, it was fractional banking and excess
credit."What do you suppose the FDIC and the Federal Reserve
member bank deposit requirements are for? Answer: If there's a run on the
bank these two entities can step in to provide needed funds to depositors."The point is that something needs to anchor and limit the money
supply..."That, sir/ma'am, is the function of the Federal
Reserve."If you can suggest a better way of minimizing those
shocks than by implementing the gold standard, I'd love to hear it."Try the (wait for it) Federal Reserve.
SEY,The key question IS about choosing between central banking and
the gold standard. That is precisely what folks here are talking about. Again,
what modern economy uses the gold standard? What modern economy does not use
some system of fractional banking? Please just let us see the model so we are
not the guinea pigs for someone’s economic reveries.As to
anchoring and limiting the money supply. If those are the marching orders for
the Fed, then that is what they will do. We just have to choose what we want
congress to make it do.BTW, economic problems can be caused by not
having enough money. And, all investment bubbles are not caused by monetary
@Twin Lights:"The key question IS about choosing between central
banking and the gold standard."No country currently uses the
gold standard as the basis of its monetary system. But, several hold
substantial gold reserves.There are at least two problems with a
gold standard: First, the price of gold is no longer pegged by the government.
Gold prices are subject to and fluctuate with market forces. So the value will
go up and down depending on demand for gold as an investment. Then, the quantity
of gold may not be large enough to cover the volume of currency in
circulation.Furthermore, since the government owns gold at Fort Knox
and also issues currency (Treasury), can't we say we are de facto on a gold
standard? The only difference is... you can't go to Fort Knox and exchange
your $20 bill for gold. In fact, you couldn't do that under the gold
standard, either."As to anchoring and limiting the money supply.
If those are the marching orders for the Fed, then that is what they will
do."That is exactly what the Fed does. And we have no evidence
that it's not doing it.
Why would Gadianton's allow themselves to be audited?BTW - The
Federal Reserved is NOT part of the Government.They are a collective of
PRIVATELY owned banks.Why do conservatives not know this?It's in everyone of W. Cleon Skousen's books....I can
only reckon Glenn Beck intentiaonally leaves that little factoid out on purpose
when he reads it on his programs.
The Fed is NOT a private business but rather a quasi-public enterprise. The
ruling of Lewis v United States (1982), states that the Federal Reserve is
"independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and
there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed
physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the
Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency.What
the ruling doesn't say however, is that the Fed is chartered and overseen
by Congress. Neither does it refer to the fact that the chairman of the Fed is
appointed by the POTUS or that the Board of Governors (7 of them) is appointed
by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate and serves staggered, 14 year terms.How many private businesses operate like that?
CLMDraper, UTThe Fed is NOT a private business but rather a
quasi-public enterprise. ============ Owned and Operated
by non-other-than the Rothchilds...
re: CLM 11:46 a.m. July 30, 2012I already pointed this out on 7/28.
I don't know that quasi-public enterprise is the right term IMO.I'd say a consortium, cabal, & (for LDS Lib) a not so secret
combination. If you look at who they founders were and then look at who received
a Lions share of TARP; you'd see a high degree of correlation.