Ok, I assumed we were doing an audit. I work with reviewed audits in my job with companies and it allows the reader, based on their level of knowledge and insight, a pretty detailed look at the entire operational basis of existence for said company. Bankers are in business to do one thing. Make money off interest. This seems a worth while pursuit, at least to me.
The Fed's finances are already audited by Deloitte (at least, I think it's them) on an annual basis. That information is already publicly available.
Recent years LOL, how much has my value decreased since the Fed arrived? Already public? Are you just trolling? I got a little job for you Major, everything is so public and they have no secrets- why damn son! You must have insiders that me nor our congressman have!! Anyways let me know on these 3 Who got and where are TRILLIONS of dollars the fed printed in this scenario? <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/75s8FauxjbQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Who got the 2.2 trillion they decided to print and loan? While your at it major what factors did they use to decide who was the benefactors of this 2.2 trillion? (that de-valued my money btw) <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rCWXrMCGJT4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> What foreign entity and who exactly received a half a trillion dollars they decided to print? Honestly, I would like to know who all received this half a trillion because even though I get paid the same salary number wise from that point on I actually earn less since it's not worth as much. Why am I earning less? because everything else is getting more expensive.. I mean damn I wouldn't mind paying more if I knew who it all helped <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uGs_Qn5yEgs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Again that's not a full audit, they are partials and those audits are only on the portions they allow audited Lets go back to Dahmer - "Yes Mr. Policeman you can look around my apartment, just don't open the fridge. I promise you won't find anything"
Ok, then I want more than that Memos, internal documents, ect I do respect Deloitte and their ability to track and post transactions [got a really smart buddy who works in the Cayman office--yes, offshore banker territory]. It is the information before the transaction I'm after to be most specific aka the transparency of the business model. I realize a reviewed audit will not provide such information, but a full blown audit related to informational gathering of the internal operating nature of this organization should be on full display IMO. Trust & credibility with this organization should be questioned at this point, also IMO. Not too much to ask & I think that's a good thing in this 'democracy'.
...I (still) to this day don't understand why most Americans fear the inflation powers of the Fed, considering most are debtors rather than creditors. If anything, the Fed pumping inflation up would help most Americans rather than hurt them. That's not even happening though (Bernanke is adapting a defensive position faced with private deleveraging.)
I see you still can't answer what specific information you are looking for. Perhaps instead of looking for goofy Youtube videos of Congresspeople trying to create theatre, you should figure EXACTLY what information you want, and then look at the audits already out there. This is EXACTLY why this Fed bill is stupid. It causes stupid people ask stupid questions based on things they don't understand for purely political purposes. On a side note, the bill you're supporting won't get you the answers you're looking for from your silly Youtube videos.
What you're looking for is not really what's covered in this bill either. Some of that is public, some probably isn't. The problem with "too much transparency" is that it prevents the Fed from doing what it needs to do. It would be similar to asking for the internal notes of board room meetings of public corporations, diplomatic meetings between heads of state, or Supreme Court deliberations. Privacy is paramount to being able to conduct good policy. If you can't have honest discussions trusting that your conversations will not be made public to be politicized and taken out of context, you're not going to have honest conversations. And if that's the case, the Fed will become a political tool instead of an independent agency. This is why the people that push the fringe "Audit the Fed" stuff are always the same as the "End the Fed" people. If you look at the audit that resulted from the Dodd Frank legislation, I think you'd be shocked at how much you want to know is already available. It's also where a politician was able to take the 17 trillion number from - totally out of context and without any understanding of what he was reading - that Realjad now uses in his crusade to audit the fed, again without remotely understanding the number or what exactly happened. It's the perfect example of what happens when audits are conducted as parts of political witch hunts.
The FOMC publishes minutes of every meeting. They make for some pretty interesting reading sometimes.
I just audited the Fed! You can too at http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomccalendars.htm.
That's good to know as a share holder. Still don't believe that provides insight to all matters though.
I think the only major sticking point is that the Fed won't release who they are currently bailing out---which would defeat the purpose of bailing them out. If, for example, people knew Goldman took money from the discount window (which they did at least 5 times---thanks Dodd-Frank), then Goldman might be dead right now. Which is preferable in some quarters, though I personally would like a controlled demolition rather than the wind derby that was 2008. Really, I think the Fed's biggest sin is that they buy into the system we have, and prop up the big players. I do understand that given that direction, keeping some of their actions secret make a ton of sense, even if I don't particularly like the direction.
Mind you, in comparison to Greenspan's Fed, Bernanke's Fed has totally dropped the pants on central banking. Which can be good and bad. Markets literally follow the FOMC minutes (a Bernanke innovation that came in around 2007) like a shark follows blood. It actually leads to major movements in financial indices, which can be problematic in of itself. Sometimes knowing too much isn't a great thing (sadly).
Good thoughts. Major mentioned board minutes earlier and other information being privy. It is obvious that people who argue against transparency are not major shareholders in a publicly traded company. One of my clients is a very successful employee of BAC. He had invested his hard earned sweat equity into BAC stock for many many years as an employee-probably had $5 million in stock in 2007. BAC was coerced on many accounts to 'bail out' Merril lynch [& countrywide too] to the detriment of BAC's stock value & its shareholders. The CEO lost his job [nice golden parachute tho] but it did not replace the wealth lost when the share value fell of BAC stock of my friend or any other individual holding significant shares of BAC. He didn't take it kindly when the official statement was: "This is in the best interest of BAC long term", as a vast amount of his wealth vanished overnight and they've had problems really ever since the merger. He mentioned to me wanting to know exactly what happened outside of the rumors and partially disclosed information that came out about the fed, Merril and the CEO of BAC. This was a closed room meeting and decision affecting millions and their wealth between 5 maybe 10 people. Transparency would have been nice as well as potential financial recourse against the old CEO for his short sighted, no doubt, thought process. What we have here are ultimately decisions leading to inflation and the purchasing power of hundreds of millions. I recognize that some entity needs to be the regulator of currency and I am fine with it being the FED so long as all information related to major decisions is completely disclosed. Am I to believe all decisions on bills argued in congress on CSPAN are not discussed with lobbyist beforehand? This would allow us to move on and focus on other topics, hopefully, and lay the conspiracy theory related accusations to rest. IMO opinion, respectfully of course.
The thing is though, I would trust the FOMC over Congress. It's very hard to buy members of the FOMC. I think a lot of people have this fear of the Fed as some world-domineering conspiracy, but once you get to know the members, that kinda falls apart. A lot of the FOMC members are basically crotchety old academics who are taking a pay cut for academic glory, power-tripping, or some sense of serving the nation. A quick example; Janet Yellen has spent her whole life in academia. She graduated summa c*m laude from Brown, got her PhD in economics from Yale. She could very easily get millions a year working as a key macro-economist for any of the big Wall Street banks, but she chose not to. Those kind of people are, I think, are the hardest to lobby. They have nothing to lose for choosing what they believe is right, and they have all the intelligence and will to stick (generally) on what they think is the right way. Whether or not they're right can be a good question, but questioning their integrity is not something I would pursue too hard, personally.
I thought there was a bill (last FinReg reform?) that required release of Fed actions...after a, iirc, 5 year moratorium to protect uhhh trade secrets...
I'm going to go back to this: In particular, I am interested in knowing what deals the Fed is making with foreign banks and governments. Major & Northside - please explain to me why Congress and the American people shouldn't know what transactions the Fed makes with foreign banks and governments...
The funny thing is your points 2 and 3 have already been covered under this thread. Maybe the GAO can't do it, but you can see what goes into FOMC actions and deliberations. Voting for this action: Ben Bernanke, William C. Dudley, Elizabeth Duke, Dennis P. Lockhart, Sandra Pianalto, Jerome H. Powell, Sarah Bloom Raskin, Jeremy C. Stein, Daniel K. Tarullo, John C. Williams, and Janet L. Yellen. Voting against this action: Jeffrey M. Lacker. Also, foreign private banks are covered under the new Dodd-Frank laws as well. You don't release as they get the money (for obvious reasons), but those tracking the situation know who got what already. Now, as for "foreign central banks, governments of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organizations"---and not private foreign banks---we have the same issue of not letting the cat out of the bag before investors can kill it. Unfortunately, telling the American people also means telling American markets, which can kill monetary policy action. With that said, the Fed doesn't operate by directly recapping governments and central banks, it prefers going through private banks, so I don't see it as too much of an issue. If, for instance, it comes out that the Fed has been re-capping the ECB, for instance, than the financial world is semi-over anyways, investors will just accelerate that slide.
