08 Apr 09
Originally posted by kmax87How do they not have the same requirements? The FOIA doesn't have an exemption that says, "...except for the Fed." It is my understanding that there are general exemptions, some of which apply to the Fed. Opening up all their records would be relinquishing the Fed's rights to those exemptions. Assume for a moment that they have nothing to hide, why should they release information just to prove a minority of conspiracy theorists and marginal political groups that they are wrong?
But the claim against them is not "are you sleeping with your mother" (an assertion which is almost impossible to disprove, given that most people at sometime have).
Why shouldn't the Fed have the same requirements as other corporations or Governmental departments in terms of disclosure? If they are saying trust us there's nothing to hide, then why hide?
08 Apr 09
Originally posted by telerionWell surely it would disclose if in any of their dealings there was a conflict of interest. What if it could be shown that some of their interest rates decisions directly benefited private individuals or banks? Should'nt they have a duty of disclosure to ensure that these sorts of conflicts of interest did not exist. Most conspiracist theory on the subject suggests that their are Svengali's in the background who incrementally benefit because of their control over the Fed. The Fed's insistence to not be examined only adds fuel to this fire.
How do they not have the same requirements? The FOIA doesn't have an exemption that says, "...except for the Fed." It is my understanding that there are general exemptions, some of which apply to the Fed. Opening up all their records would be relinquishing the Fed's rights to those exemptions. Assume for a moment that they have nothing to hide, why shou ...[text shortened]... prove a minority of conspiracy theorists and marginal political groups that they are wrong?
08 Apr 09
2 edits
Originally posted by kmax87But interest rate decisions move in one of three ways:
Well surely it would disclose if in any of their dealings there was a conflict of interest. What if it could be shown that some of their interest rates decisions directly benefited private individuals or banks? Should'nt they have a duty of disclosure to ensure that these sorts of conflicts of interest did not exist. Most conspiracist theory on the subject su ir control over the Fed. The Fed's insistence to not be examined only adds fuel to this fire.
1) Up
2) Down
3) Not at all
Because there are only three choices and individuals/banks are heterogeneous any of the three will benefit some private interests. Also we should keep in mind that the Fed system wasn't designed to only look out for the public. It was built with a balance of private and public interests (with greater weight to the public interest).
I suppose that the conspiracy types expect to find that the Fed really wanted to tighten credit three years ago but because the descendant of an old oil baron or something was hunting for a new home loan the Fed bowed to keeping rates low and as a result brought a terrible recession upon the American people.
08 Apr 09
4 edits
Originally posted by telerionOr a more realistic scenario might be that some private bank that had a huge position on a certain currency and used their knowledge of the Feds timing of a rate cut could end up making a squillion. Ultimately it would outwardly manifest itself as a fabulous upgrade to their sprawling mansion portfolio ("a new home loan"😉) but the balance of payments of countries can be undermined by such conflicts of interest.
I suppose that the conspiracy types expect to find that the Fed really wanted to tighten credit three years ago but because the descendant of an old oil baron or something was hunting for a new home loan the Fed bowed to keeping rates low and as a result brought a terrible recession upon the American people.
08 Apr 09
2 edits
Originally posted by kmax87I really don't think that that scenario is much more realistic.
Or a more realistic scenario might be that some private bank that had a huge position on a certain currency and used their knowledge of the Feds timing of a rate cut could end up making a squillion. Ultimately it would outwardly manifest itself as a fabulous upgrade to their sprawling mansion portfolio ("a new home loan"😉) but the balance of payments of countries can be undermined by such conflict of interest.
First, banks usually have decent predictions for what the Fed will do so it is unlikely in practice that a particular bank is going to get a large advantage over the competition by knowing whether the Fed will cut rates or not. Second, the major banks that I worked with when I was doing Forex for a my own bank didn't make their money by taking large positions on foreign currency. They link suppliers with buyers and make fee income and a spread between the buy and sell rates. By keeping their positions relatively small and, more importantly, balanced and by making enough in fee and spread to cover any short term losses from exchange rate fluctuations, they are able to make good money. They do not make their money by speculating on rates.
08 Apr 09
4 edits
Originally posted by telerionI don't know enough about banks or fourex transactions to know exactly what positions they do or don't take, but given your knowledge of how it works, surely you could construct a scenario whereby a financial institution, may be able to exploit some significant advantage over the rest of the market by having a closer than typical association with the fed. I used the example of a currency position, because that's about my level of understanding when it comes to high powered business transactions and private investment banks in general.
I really don't think that that scenario is much more realistic.
First, banks usually have decent predictions for what the Fed will do so it is unlikely in practice that a particular bank is going to get a large advantage over the competition by knowing whether the Fed will cut rates or not. Second, the major banks that I worked with when I was doing For ions, they are able to make good money. They do not make their money by speculating on rates.
While I may not be able to articulate the exact instrument of advantage a private institution may be able to leverage from having a special relationship with the Fed, I'm sure there would be something someone could think of.
The point is, a closely allied private associate of the Fed may not need to make a killing or a big score anyway to really profit. Given the volume and extent of trade that some of these institutions engage in, all any would need is a few points advantage over the rest of the market to be very well placed with respect to their competitors. Its that inexorable growing in size ahead of where they would have been had they not been running on an inside track, that ultimately sets up the possibility of an event horizon of wealth and holdings that like gravity ensures that whenever the house(s) of cards collapses at any time, the proceeds of the failures line the pockets of those who are big enough to mop up the spills, and the assertion that wealth money and power are being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, makes ever more compelling sense with each financial bubble burst.
08 Apr 09
that whole video is just plain stupid and the conspiracy only adds entertainment value to people hungry for a more intelligent conspiracy theory than would appeal to the UFO and Bigfoot crowds... unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, it still falls on its face in the missing evidence (quantity and quality both). Implications are for conspiracy theorists.
08 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Point taken. One could make money by knowing for certain what would happen to rates. But I really don't see it happening in reality. The Fed is extremely strict with its officers about what they can and cannot say concerning what a Fed may or may not do. Every time any economist from a Federal Reserve bank visits my university and gives a seminar (s)he has to preface the talk with basically "These ideas are my own and not endorsed by the Federal Reserve." In one seminar the speaker was presenting a model of how economy-wide business cycles (expansions and contractions) manifest themselves in different regions and industries at different times. This was in early 2008 and his simulated model showed a pretty significant recession for 2007. He made sure to tell us that the Fed is not saying that 2007 was a recession year. Of course, not long after that, the NBER officially announced that the downturn began in late 2007.
I don't know enough about banks or fourex transactions to know exactly what positions they do or don't take, but given your knowledge of how it worlks, surely you could construct a scenario whereby a financial institution, may be able to exploit some significant advantage over the rest of the market by having a closer than typical association with the fed. I to fewer and fewer hands, makes ever more compelling sense with each financial bubble burst.
Economists have very strong restrictions on their laptops just to protect information. Oddly enough most of them agree that the information actually on their laptops is nothing interesting, but the rules of conduct are just very tight. Relaying anything about what the FOMC is likely to do is a serious infraction.
It could be all because the "higher ups" use the restrictions as cover for their secret plans, but these economist are very close to the "higher ups" at the banks (the senior economists would probably qualify for the title in most people's books). Again I could be duped, but my experience with these people suggests to me that nothing dirty is going on.
08 Apr 09
Originally posted by telerionIts the whole insider trading thing. Did Martha Stewart really deserve to go to prison or is it more likely the case that when certain shoulders rub together, a seemingly casual conversation can have huge financial impact for a savvy player who knows the intentions of a friend. In some ways its unavoidable when you have a close allying of powerful groups who also mingle at a social level. Look its like if you're a physicist and I'm a physicist and I cant get my nuclear reactor to work, you by talking to me about some abstruse bit of math could actually give me the breakthrough I need, even though you did not specifically talk to me about my *problem*
It could be all because the "higher ups" use the restrictions as cover for their secret plans, but these economist are very close to the "higher ups" at the banks (the senior economists would probably qualify for the title in most people's books). Again I could be duped, but my experience with these people suggests to me that nothing dirty is going on.
When you put a group of highly educated economists into the same room, by the same token, the information being shared does not have to be that specific, for information of a highly advantageous nature to pass hands. Information that would not be readily available to the rest of the market.
08 Apr 09
Originally posted by kmax87Hmm . . . I should have used you as my agent on the job market. 🙂
When you put a group of highly educated economists into the same room, by the same token, the information being shared does not have to be that specific, for information of a highly advantageous nature to pass hands. Information that would not be readily available to the rest of the market.
08 Apr 09
Originally posted by uzlessSorry, but I'm going to call your bluff: there is no clear "case" presented in that page of charts.
wrong. I just haven't explained it for you. Don't take the fact I haven't bothered to spoon feed it to you as proof I don't have a spoon.
I'm not wasting my time building the case presented in the charts just for you at the end to say you don't know if its true. (which IS what you would say) Because if you DID know something, you would know whether or ...[text shortened]...
I offered the chart as a conversation piece. It didn't work.
Time to move on.
I offered the chart as a conversation piece. It didn't work.
Right, obviously not. Why don't you try presenting some considered argument next time? You might have a better go.
08 Apr 09
Originally posted by telerion[/b]Government offices must release their documents because they are part of the public record (unless exempted by National Security reasons)
How is it different
Private institutions (like the Fed) are not required to release information because it is not part of the public record.
But "private" instituions are supposed to be corporations, businesses etc. Not an institution set up to serve the citizens at the behest of the govt.
08 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloLike I said to palynka, Joy Division and New Order are connected. Even though I have only just listed the band names, can you tell me how the band members are connected or do you need me to draw you a chart too? If you know how the band members are connected, you don't need a chart!
Sorry, but I'm going to call your bluff: there is no clear "case" presented in that page of charts.
[b]I offered the chart as a conversation piece. It didn't work.
Right, obviously not. Why don't you try presenting some considered argument next time? You might have a better go.[/b]
Same thing. If you can't just look at the names and know whether or not they are all connected, then you simply don't know if they are connected. You shouldn't need some lines on a piece of paper to tell you if they are connected or not.
Edit: By the way, there is no "argument" to be made. We were tyring to figure out who the chartered members of the fed and the regional banks are. I offered the chart as a conversation piece to help potentially shed some light. Nowhere did i argue for the validity of the chart or its accuracy. In the absence of information, you are forced to speculation. This is the thrust of getting the fed to open its books. This really shouldn't be so hard for you to understand. Before you respond, read what I just wrote again. Then get an 8 year old to explain it to make sure you understand it.
You really need to try critical reading for content sometime.
08 Apr 09
3 edits
Originally posted by uzlessNow you're just being dense (in addition to disingenuous). Perhaps you should read back through what you yourself have written in this thread.
Edit: By the way, there is no "argument" to be made. We were tyring to figure out who the chartered members of the fed and the regional banks are. I offered the chart as a conversation piece to help potentially shed some light. Nowhere did i argue for the validity of the chart or its accuracy. In the absence of information, you are forced to speculation. make sure you understand it.
You really need to try critical reading for content sometime.[/b]
I remind you: you asked Palynka to draw on the implications of your charts to see how it bears on the question of how removed the Fed is from private interests. And it was a loaded question at that. That is, you were supposing that the charts bear witness to propositional content that supports the conclusion that the Fed is not as removed from private interests as it should be. That is, you yourself implied that the page represents some manner of argument for such a conclusion. Now, you have contradicted your earlier implicit assumption and are actually telling us that there is no argument to be had there! Well, then the page doesn't bear witness to any propositional content that supports a conclusion one way or the other. So you have answered your own question (and the answer is that those charts don't demonstrate jack with respect to the question of how removed from private interests the Fed is).