08 Apr 09
Originally posted by telerionHere is what it says.
I've already talked about this before though perhaps not in these latest threads and maybe you weren't the person bringing it up.
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 . . ...[text shortened]... stuff yourself rather than just repeating something you heard in a blog or conspiracy site.
"M3 does not appear to convey any additional information about economic activity that is not already embodied in M2 and has not played a role in the monetary policy process for many years. Consequently, the Board judged that the costs of collecting the underlying data and publishing M3 outweigh the benefits".
They say it because they do not use it anymore and that is fine for them, but this is not about only them. This is for other people to look at as well. I don't see why investors should be denied the M3 if they want to see it. I don't want to pay extra for the transition to digital TV either, but we all are. There are lots of things we pay for that we shouldn't that mean less than the M3. M3 would help us see things sooner than M2 .
08 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainM3 does not convey any more information so how is M3 going to "help us see things sooner than M2"?
Here is what it says.
"M3 does not appear to convey any additional information about economic activity that is not already embodied in M2 and has not played a role in the monetary policy process for many years. Consequently, the Board judged that the costs of collecting the underlying data and publishing M3 outweigh the benefits".
They say it becau that we shouldn't that mean less than the M3. M3 would help us see things sooner than M2 .
Quite simply if you want to see M3 go collect it yourself. The Fed isn't required to measure and publish every possible statistic under the sun.
08 Apr 09
Originally posted by telerionIf the M3 is so useless why was it reported in the first place?
M3 does not convey any more information so how is M3 going to "help us see things sooner than M2"?
Quite simply if you want to see M3 go collect it yourself. The Fed isn't required to measure and publish every possible statistic under the sun.
08 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainIt's called learning. The Fed learned that it was really not worth it to spend so much tax payer money calculating M3.
If the M3 is so useless why was it reported in the first place?
You see learning is something other people do, MB. Maybe you should try it sometime.
09 Apr 09
Originally posted by telerionSo they learned they were wasting our money. How long did it take them to learn? Wait. Don't answer that. I don't want to burden you with another question you would have to look up. The answer would probably tick you off anyway.
It's called learning. The Fed learned that it was really not worth it to spend so much tax payer money calculating M3.
You see learning is something other people do, MB. Maybe you should try it sometime.
09 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionIt isn't just about M3. People have been asking about many other things. And i told you what they are. You only picked one. I really do find it hard to believe you don't think these things should at least be reported. These are the other things being asked for...M3 is way down the list of priorities.
M3 does not convey any more information so how is M3 going to "help us see things sooner than M2"?
Quite simply if you want to see M3 go collect it yourself. The Fed isn't required to measure and publish every possible statistic under the sun.
Do you know how much "taxpayer" money is spent compiling statistics by the government? For the FED to say they don't think it's necessary is laughable. Full Disclosure means just that. Not, "whatever we think you don't need to know because since we're not government we don't have to give you want you ask for"
Think about it. You have over 50 congress members who are ASKING for this info and the Fed is telling the government, "piss off". Can you imagine the Department of Education saying to congress, "piss off, you don't fully understand the education system so trust us when we say you don't need this information or go pay someone else to look it up for you..."?? It would be a scandal!
I don't know if you really disagree with full accountablility or if you are just arguing against a position taken by someone you don't want to agree with.
09 Apr 09
Originally posted by uzlessDon't question my sincerity. I asked you to make a list of the things Ron Paul wants (since your hero is rather long-winded and confused). If these 50 congressmen can get a lot of other congressmen to support them then more power to them. I'm sure the Fed would start collecting and reporting M3 again. The problem is that 50 congressman isn't exactly a public mandate (unless they're all senators). So far only the conspiracy theory fringe and the radical Christian right want to waste taxpayer money on reporting M3 or embarking on some wild witchhunt.
It isn't just about M3. People have been asking about many other things. And i told you what they are. You only picked one. I really do find it hard to believe you don't think these things should at least be reported. These are the other things being asked for...M3 is way down the list of priorities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xeb2VnI7S4U
Do y ...[text shortened]... ust arguing against a position taken by someone you don't want to agree with.
09 Apr 09
Originally posted by PalynkaYou are the one that is non-frickin-commital. Usual palynka clap-trap. Your responses to reasoned arguments contain ZERO retorts.
Non-commital, as usual. What a surprise.
The article explains why in detail. Go read it.
The best you can do is tell me to go read an article from 19 frickin 93 (16 years old) that is just one person giving his reasons why the GAO should take a hike. You give no analysis on his reasoning. You just say, "Go read it" as if you believe that everything he says is correct. If you believe what he says is correct, you need to get out your critical reading glasses.
There was a reason why way back in 1993 he was called to give his reasons why the GAO (who WANTED TO DO FULL AUDITS, which should really tell you something...) should not be allowed to do the full audits they wanted to.
The GAO works for the American public. The FED does not. That should tell you something unless you are one of those whacko's that think the government is not to be trusted but private entitities are. "In the Fed we trust"??
Sadly,your empty response will no doubt contain zero arguments beyond, "you're a stupidhead" You're a smart guy..why don't you show it?
😕
09 Apr 09
2 edits
Originally posted by uzlessMore empty clap-trap.
You are the one that is non-frickin-commital. Usual palynka clap-trap. Your responses to reasoned arguments contain ZERO retorts.
The best you can do is tell me to go read an article from 19 frickin 93 (16 years old) that is just one person giving his reasons why the GAO should take a hike. You give no analysis on his reasoning. You just say, "Go rea uments beyond, "you're a stupidhead" You're a smart guy..why don't you show it?
😕
Your claim that there are no audits is false. I provided evidence and named official documents that confirm that. If you want to attack the exemptions, which is a valid argument unlike your "why aren't audits allowed", then claim why.
Until you do, don't expect me to try to guess why you don't like them.
09 Apr 09
Originally posted by telerionRon Paul is not my hero. Never said he was. He's just the most public person leading the way. His youtube posts are easy to post in RHP. Ron Paul has many flaws. I disagree on many of his Libertarian viewpoints. But just because I think he is wrong on other issues, it doesn't mean I automatically discount his views on FED accountability.
Don't question my sincerity. I asked you to make a list of the things Ron Paul wants (since your hero is rather long-winded and confused). If these 50 congressmen can get a lot of other congressmen to support them then more power to them. I'm sure the Fed would start collecting and reporting M3 again. The problem is that 50 congressman isn't exactly a pu ...[text shortened]... tian right want to waste taxpayer money on reporting M3 or embarking on some wild witchhunt.
I can't watch youtube videos through the work firewall so if you want me to make a list of what he said (even though you already watched it.....??) I'll have to do it later.
09 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaSTOP RIGHT FRICKIN THERE. YOU ARE SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WRONG.
[b]
Your claim that there are no audits is false. b]
NEVER HAVE I SAID THERE ARE NOOOOOOOOOOOOO AUDITS. I SAID PARTIAL AUDITS. JUST LIKE IT SAYS HAPPEN IN YOUR ARTICLE......BUT I WANT FULL AUDITS LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE DO....INCLUDING OVER 50 CONGRESSMAN WHO SIGNED THE FED ACCOUNTABILITY BILL.
HELLO, MCFLY ARE YOU IN THERE...MCFLY??? BUELLER? BUELLER?? BUELLER???......
09 Apr 09
Originally posted by uzlessFascinating.
STOP RIGHT FRICKIN THERE. YOU ARE SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WRONG.
NEVER HAVE I SAID THERE ARE NOOOOOOOOOOOOO AUDITS. I SAID PARTIAL AUDITS. I WANT FULL AUDITS.
HELLO, MCFLY ARE YOU IN THERE...MCFLY??? BUELLER? BUELLER?? BUELLER???......
09 Apr 09
Some people I know have met some celebrities over the years. These celebrities appear to be smart, intelligent people on tv or in movies but my friends have said that some of these celebrities, when you meet them in person, are actually just morons and have nothing to offer. On the surface, they seem like interesting people, but underneath they are just a waste of your time.
Sadly, it appears you fall in this category. You had so much potential palynka. You seemed to stand above most of the rift-raft on this site but you dissappoint. You've exposed your underbelly and you've been found wanting.
Adieu.
09 Apr 09
Originally posted by uzlessYou break my heart, uzi.
Some people I know have met some celebrities over the years. These celebrities appear to be smart, intelligent people on tv or in movies but my friends have said that some of these celebrities, when you meet them in person, are actually just morons and have nothing to offer. On the surface, they seem like interesting people, but underneath they are just a ...[text shortened]... ut you dissappoint. You've exposed your underbelly and you've been found wanting.
Adieu.
Uzi: lots of bullets, no accuracy.