murra Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 I feel bad for Ron Paul. It looks like he's sincerely trying to combat nonsense, but he was betrayed by the dude he drafted the bill with. Of course, I'm not shocked...
Celtic_soulja Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Ron Paul is the man. I was a little surprised socialist Sanders sold out. He seemed like he had backbone, he's a cooky dude, but at least I thought he stood up for what he believes. Course I guess every politician has a fairly cheap pricetag.
Dante Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Anyone that actually has our best interests in mind(that is the middle class average citizen) is an enemy of the government. Ron has a uphill battle.
GG Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 To play the devil's advocate, if the goal is less intrusion by the government, how does a law that gives Congress the ability to second guess and influence interest rate policy decisions accomplish that?
ieatcrayonz Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 To play the devil's advocate, if the goal is less intrusion by the government, how does a law that gives Congress the ability to second guess and influence interest rate policy decisions accomplish that? 16 wrongs don't make a right.
Magox Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 To play the devil's advocate, if the goal is less intrusion by the government, how does a law that gives Congress the ability to second guess and influence interest rate policy decisions accomplish that? I've been making this argument all along. Yeah, sure it sounds nice "Let's audit the Fed. YAAAAAAA", well in reality it's a terrible idea. Think about it for a second people, do you really want politicians involved in the audit process?
Gene Frenkle Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Ron Paul seems such an idealist. Are his no-government ideas even practical or just a symbolic rallying point for people who hate the idea of big government?
Magox Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Ron Paul seems such an idealist. Are his no-government ideas even practical or just a symbolic rallying point for people who hate the idea of big government? No, I truly believe that he feels that the Federal Reserve is on the path of ruining our currency, and there definitely is a strong argument to be made on his behalf, without a doubt. The question is how do you hold the Federal Reserve accountable? I don't disagree with this concept, I'm just opposed to the idea of politicians getting their grubby little hands on the decision making process of monetary policy. Politicians have to get re elected to maintain their jobs. So in most cases they will look for short term solutions to help them achieve this goal, and having pro-growth dovish monetary policy is something that most politicians want, but at the same time, dovish monetary policy (which includes printing money) can debase the currency.
murra Posted May 7, 2010 Author Posted May 7, 2010 No, I truly believe that he feels that the Federal Reserve is on the path of ruining our currency, and there definitely is a strong argument to be made on his behalf, without a doubt. The question is how do you hold the Federal Reserve accountable? I don't disagree with this concept, I'm just opposed to the idea of politicians getting their grubby little hands on the decision making process of monetary policy. Politicians have to get re elected to maintain their jobs. So in most cases they will look for short term solutions to help them achieve this goal, and having pro-growth dovish monetary policy is something that most politicians want, but at the same time, dovish monetary policy (which includes printing money) can debase the currency. I think I agree with the stance that Congress shouldn't possess the authority to audit our Federal Reserve... But if Ron Paul's assertions are true, how then do we prevent the Federal Reserve from unintentionally (or intentionally in this case) ruining US capital WITHOUT having the government do it? If you watch that video, Ron Paul mentions how the bill that Bernie proposed could actually worsen the issue by increased government involvement...leading me to believe that Ron Paul's version may have included a less corrupt policy. Realize one issue in coming up with the bill was to find a way to answer the question both you and I asked. That's why he's so pissed that this got botched. How could you not see that?
John Adams Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 I feel bad for Ron Paul. It looks like he's sincerely trying to combat nonsense, but he was betrayed by the dude he drafted the bill with. Of course, I'm not shocked... I see a few people already commented on this but this Bills was a great idea poorly executed. The last thing the Fed needs is Congress poking around in its underpants. Still, having NO ONE poking around in their underpants is kinda ****ty too and I'm not sure I know the better solution. The macroecon guys probably have some suggestions.
GG Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 I think I agree with the stance that Congress shouldn't possess the authority to audit our Federal Reserve... But if Ron Paul's assertions are true, how then do we prevent the Federal Reserve from unintentionally (or intentionally in this case) ruining US capital WITHOUT having the government do it? If you watch that video, Ron Paul mentions how the bill that Bernie proposed could actually worsen the issue by increased government involvement...leading me to believe that Ron Paul's version may have included a less corrupt policy. Realize one issue in coming up with the bill was to find a way to answer the question both you and I asked. That's why he's so pissed that this got botched. How could you not see that? Becuse the Fed is a convenient scapegoat for not cowtowing to Congressional or Presidential whims. The Fed cannot unintentionally or intentionally ruin US capital. They are just a conduit for the fiscal policies that the government establishes. Paul is just using this as a lever for his long time campaign to abolsih the Fed, which is also a mistake. He just happened to have a receptive audience this time around who thinks that Fed caused this crisis. Fed's actions did contribute, but unfortunately nothing that I've seen in the any versions of Congressional reform would have dealt with their actions leading up to the crisis. Most of the criticism involves their role in the bailouts, but again their hand was pretty much forced by that time.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Becuse the Fed is a convenient scapegoat for not cowtowing to Congressional or Presidential whims. The Fed cannot unintentionally or intentionally ruin US capital. They are just a conduit for the fiscal policies that the government establishes. Paul is just using this as a lever for his long time campaign to abolsih the Fed, which is also a mistake. He just happened to have a receptive audience this time around who thinks that Fed caused this crisis. Fed's actions did contribute, but unfortunately nothing that I've seen in the any versions of Congressional reform would have dealt with their actions leading up to the crisis. Most of the criticism involves their role in the bailouts, but again their hand was pretty much forced by that time. Why is abolisment of the Fed a bad thing? Not trying to be snide, just trying to understand the viewpoint.
Magox Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Why is abolisment of the Fed a bad thing? Not trying to be snide, just trying to understand the viewpoint. What would be the alternative?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 What would be the alternative? I would think a reserve-backed currency. The whole beef is with the fiat currency and the inevitable conclusion: hyperinflation.
Celtic_soulja Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 I've been making this argument all along. Yeah, sure it sounds nice "Let's audit the Fed. YAAAAAAA", well in reality it's a terrible idea. Think about it for a second people, do you really want politicians involved in the audit process? Complete transparency by openning the books is a good way to hold them accountable. No?
Celtic_soulja Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 I would think a reserve-backed currency. The whole beef is with the fiat currency and the inevitable conclusion: hyperinflation. This is one area that I don't completely side with Ron Paul. I love the guy, he's honest and has backbone, but I disagree with a silver or gold standard. There are somethings that we now value more than shiny metal. Certain services. I believe we should have a service standard. Similar to the basket that our financial leaders already put together, except instead of goods I would have services and goods.
GG Posted May 8, 2010 Posted May 8, 2010 I would think a reserve-backed currency. The whole beef is with the fiat currency and the inevitable conclusion: hyperinflation. The assets of USA are much greater than any commodity reserve that you can hoard. Hyperinflation in a hypothetical sense can occur when the central bank is a puppet of the government. In the 100-yr history of the Fed, you haven't seen cases of blatant populism that stokes hyperinflation. The close call came in Volcker's term and he's the one credited with breaking inflation. I think there's enough Fed independence to allow them to control monetary policy separate from government's whims. I don't forsee a realistic scenario where the President comes into the Fed and demands cash to go to the Treasury, like you're seeing in Venezuela & Argentina. If that happens here, we've got bigger problems than hyperinflation. Fed is a very capable middle man between government and private financial industry that does smooth out the shocks. It hasn't been perfect, but it's better than the alternative of letting the banks fend for themselves. You'd be experiencing 2008 every 15-20 yrs, instead of every 80 yrs.
Celtic_soulja Posted May 8, 2010 Posted May 8, 2010 The assets of USA are much greater than any commodity reserve that you can hoard. Hyperinflation in a hypothetical sense can occur when the central bank is a puppet of the government. In the 100-yr history of the Fed, you haven't seen cases of blatant populism that stokes hyperinflation. The close call came in Volcker's term and he's the one credited with breaking inflation. I think there's enough Fed independence to allow them to control monetary policy separate from government's whims. I don't forsee a realistic scenario where the President comes into the Fed and demands cash to go to the Treasury, like you're seeing in Venezuela & Argentina. If that happens here, we've got bigger problems than hyperinflation. Fed is a very capable middle man between government and private financial industry that does smooth out the shocks. It hasn't been perfect, but it's better than the alternative of letting the banks fend for themselves. You'd be experiencing 2008 every 15-20 yrs, instead of every 80 yrs. Question... I have read in numerous anti-fed material that the FED has done a terrible job "smoothing" the shocks. Thier evidence is that before the FED the ups and downs were much less intense. My question is: Is there truth to that? or is it more due to the sheer size of the economy now versus before the FED existed?
GG Posted May 8, 2010 Posted May 8, 2010 Question... I have read in numerous anti-fed material that the FED has done a terrible job "smoothing" the shocks. Thier evidence is that before the FED the ups and downs were much less intense. My question is: Is there truth to that? or is it more due to the sheer size of the economy now versus before the FED existed? The data prior to 1920's is not as comprehensive, so you'd have to do a lot of research into individual historic economic studies. Fortunately, Wiki did it for you. I know it's Wiki, but it's the best quick resource for comparison. Maybe TPS has his own history & can share. So here you go, draw your own conclusion. To me, anyone claiming that Fed has amplified the cycles is like a child putting hands over ears, closing eyes and signing La la la. The data just doesn't support it.
Celtic_soulja Posted May 8, 2010 Posted May 8, 2010 The data prior to 1920's is not as comprehensive, so you'd have to do a lot of research into individual historic economic studies. Fortunately, Wiki did it for you. I know it's Wiki, but it's the best quick resource for comparison. Maybe TPS has his own history & can share. So here you go, draw your own conclusion. To me, anyone claiming that Fed has amplified the cycles is like a child putting hands over ears, closing eyes and signing La la la. The data just doesn't support it. It is kinda unfair about the intensity. Right after they were put together you have the great depression lol. There was none so severe than that IMO I don't know, I can say they seem to happen whether we have the FED or not and the intensity is varied regardless. It seems to me they don't have too much control over it. So I couldn't blame to the FED, but then again I couldn't say they are doing a smash up job with averting disaster either.
Recommended Posts