08 Apr 09
The Fed is audited by the General Accounting Office. The latest (AFAIK) update on the legislation that concerns this is the Federal Reserve System Accountability Act of 1993.
Please see this federal reserve bulletin:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4126/is_n12_v79/ai_14729638/
There are 4 exemptions to auditing powers:
- transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or non-private international financing organization;
- deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, open market operations;
- transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee
- a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items.
The quoted reasons for these exemptions are:
By excluding these areas, the act attempts to balance the need for public accountability of the Federal Reserve through GAO audits against the need to insulate the central bank's monetary policy functions from short-term political pressures and the need to ensure that foreign central banks and governmental entities can transact business in U.S. financial markets through the Federal Reserve on a confidential basis.
The article linked above is much more detailed about this.
08 Apr 09
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 was referred to committee. It will likely die there much like the Sunshine in Monetary policy Act did.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207
I have never heard a decent reason for ending the reporting of the M3 money supply. Can anybody tell me why this is a good thing?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2754
08 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal Brain"Yeah, but what about THIS other thing?"
I have never heard a decent reason for ending the reporting of the M3 money supply. Can anybody tell me why this is a good thing?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2754
I guess it's because Rothschild has gone into hiding between M2 and M3.
08 Apr 09
Originally posted by PalynkaHere is something that Ron Paul wrote on this website.
"Yeah, but what about THIS other thing?"
I guess it's because Rothschild has gone into hiding between M2 and M3.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-25/ron-paul-audit-the-federal-reserve-2/
_____________________________________________________________
In 1950 the law was changed and it exempted the Federal Reserve from any auditing procedures, and they have run wild since then. And what needs to be done is a certain portion of the code has to be repealed so that when we ask questions to the Federal Reserve, they have to answer these questions.
__________________________________________________________________
Are you saying that his statement is inaccurate because in 1978 the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act changed all of that? If you think Ron Paul is lying, please say so.
08 Apr 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Palynkait's irrelevant. Everyone knows the official reasons. But allowing an audit has nothing to do with remaining politically neutral. It has nothing to do with a witch hunt.
"Yeah, but what about THIS other thing?"
I guess it's because Rothschild has gone into hiding between M2 and M3.
I realize it helps you argument if you can cast people as conspirators but this has no god damn thing to do with conspiracy. It has to do with transparency and being accountable to the public. Get that into your head.
I can't believe you actually are defending the hiding of information. In no way does allowing an auditor to look at the books hurt anybody or hurt the Fed's ability to conduct its business. Good grief.
08 Apr 09
Originally posted by Metal BrainHahaha, what a muppet.
Here is something that Ron Paul wrote on this website.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-25/ron-paul-audit-the-federal-reserve-2/
_____________________________________________________________
In 1950 the law was changed and it exempted the Federal Reserve from any auditing procedures, and they have run wild since then. And what needs to be done is a ce ...[text shortened]... ral Banking Agency Audit Act changed all of that? If you think Ron Paul is lying, please say so.
Accusations of lies would imply that I know the motives for him saying that (which is either false or misleading,at best). Since I value intellectual honesty and am not a conspirational nut-job like you, I'll abstain from doing so.
08 Apr 09
Originally posted by uzlessTry reading. The first post in this page, for example, is a good start.
it's irrelevant. Everyone knows the official reasons. But allowing an audit has nothing to do with remaining politically neutral. It has nothing to do with a witch hunt.
I realize it helps you argument if you can cast people as conspirators but this has no god damn thing to do with conspiracy. It has to do with transparency and being accountable to t ...[text shortened]... nformation. In no way does allowing an auditor to look at the books hurt anybody. Good grief.
08 Apr 09
3 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaYou mean where you state the reasons for the fed not releasing information?
Try reading. The first post in this page, for example, is a good start.
The quoted reasons for these exemptions are:
By excluding these areas, the act attempts to balance the need for public accountability of the Federal Reserve through GAO audits against the need to insulate the central bank's monetary policy functions from short-term political pressures and the need to ensure that foreign central banks and governmental entities can transact business in U.S. financial markets through the Federal Reserve on a confidential basis.
Like i said, which you obviously didn't read. Doing an audit doesn't impinge on the feds ability to conduct its business free from political interference. If you think it does, please explain how.
It sounds like you are saying the fed will be affected because the fed SAYS it will be affected. This "argument" reduces down to, "because I said so". And this is what people take issue with. Not many people believe the fed can't operate if the GAO does an audit.
08 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessDo you really think I'm falling for your cheap trick of trying to pump emotional baggage into that statement?
You mean where you state the reasons for the fed not releasing information?
The quoted reasons for these exemptions are:
By excluding these areas, the act attempts to balance the need for public accountability of the Federal Reserve through GAO audits against the need to insulate the central bank's monetary policy functions from short-term political p ...[text shortened]... t its business free from political interference. If you think it does, please explain how.
Audits are being done. Try again.
08 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynkaemotional baggage? cheap trick?? wtf are you on about now???? Get thee to a psychologist woman!
Do you really think I'm falling for your cheap trick of trying to pump emotional baggage into that statement?
Audits are being done. Try again.
PARTIAL AUDITS are being done. Ron Paul and the like, are asking for additional info. The fed doesn't want to. The additional info won't stop the fed from doing its business. The reasons given by the fed for not giving up this info are BS.
You haven't explained why you agree with the fed keeping this info hidden. We wait....
08 Apr 09
Originally posted by uzlessBut the Federal Reserve Boards policy is to make all records public as long as the record does not fall under one of the exemptions in the FOIA. They are behaving in that regard more like government offices. I gave a link to the FOIA exemptions, and they are more than just national security. There's even one in there about geological information (which the Fed of course never uses).
Government offices must release their documents because they are part of the public record (unless exempted by National Security reasons)
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
Originally posted by uzlessNon-commital, as usual. What a surprise.
emotional baggage? cheap trick?? wtf are you on about now???? Get thee to a psychologist woman!
PARTIAL AUDITS are being done. Ron Paul and the like, are asking for additional info. The fed doesn't want to. The additional info won't stop the fed from doing its business. The reasons given by the fed for not giving up this info are BS.
You haven't explained why you agree with the fed keeping this info hidden. We wait....
The article explains why in detail. Go read it.
08 Apr 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainI've already talked about this before though perhaps not in these latest threads and maybe you weren't the person bringing it up.
I have never heard a decent reason for ending the reporting of the M3 money supply. Can anybody tell me why this is a good thing?
The easiest way to find the answer is to actually research it yourself first! Why not perhaps go the Fed website and see what excuse they give for it. It's actually a pretty good one (Ron Paul ignores it too).
Bah . . . here's the link ðŸ˜
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/discm3.htm
Next time do try to find this stuff yourself rather than just repeating something you heard in a blog or conspiracy site.
08 Apr 09
Originally posted by uzlessRon Paul: OMG!!! What is M3!!! The world must know!!!!
emotional baggage? cheap trick?? wtf are you on about now???? Get thee to a psychologist woman!
PARTIAL AUDITS are being done. Ron Paul and the like, are asking for additional info. The fed doesn't want to. The additional info won't stop the fed from doing its business. The reasons given by the fed for not giving up this info are BS.
You haven't explained why you agree with the fed keeping this info hidden. We wait....
Fed: We don't collect data on M3 anymore. It doesn't convey any more information than M2, and it is costly to collect the data.
Ron Paul: OMG!!! It's a conspiracy! Open the books! Let the light shine in for all of America to see!
Fed: We don't have it. Why do you keep bothering us?
Ron Paul: Because populism is so damn popular.
08 Apr 09
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloMy god, you still dont' get it. Last time,
Now you're just being dense (in addition to disingenuous). Perhaps you should read back through what you yourself have written in this thread.
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 onstrate jack with respect to the question of how removed from private interests the Fed is).
NO ONE KNOWS WHO IS CONNECTED TO THE FED OR WHO ITS MEMBERS ARE!
Do you understand that? None of us have stated otherwise. Never. It wasn't implied. You have read into it and made the connection in your head. We were discussing whether the Fed should open its books. I posted the chart to explain how SOME people think the FED is connected with the question being, IF TRUE then do you believe the Fed is free from private interests? The answer, of course, is that if true the Fed is not free from private interests.
Now, the Fed's defense is that the chart is simply wrong. And if the chart is wrong then they don't have to subject themselves to an audit because they are free from private interests and are protected from audits because they are a private entity, not a government body.
But this argument is flawed because they act like a government body. If they truly were a private corporation, then there is no justification for them to have to defend themselves to an accusation that doesn't have any proof. But, they are not a classic private corporation and their work directly affects the people of the country and an increasing number of people believe that an institution that controls the money supply should have real oversight by the government, not PARTIAL oversight.
For this reason, they should allow the GAO to do a full audit. Not to find out if the chart is correct but in the interests of full disclosure and transparency.
That's all I'm going to say on this. If you still believe I am not correct, then so be it.