I’m impressed. Really. That’s a fine comment. But I’m a bit confused by this part.
[quote=aldante]
I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?
[/quote]
A couple comments and questions.
I’m reasonably sure that nobody here has indicated, even by implication, that they are “not in favor of an [Fed} audit”. I think for the most part, it’s been pretty unanimous in favor of further examination.
2nd, and more importantly, what is a “real audit”? Who does it? Who decides who is trustworthy enough to do it? You are apparently advocating an audit above and beyond that which has already been done, presumably in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards (which, despite your skepticism, I suspect was done properly). What would be your suggestion on how to formulate the scope of an audit of the fed, which would “reveal a giant ponzi scheme”?
The problem, as I see it, is that an audit would probably reveal little that we don’t already know. Typically, audits report on results of operations and current conditions. The problems are neither events nor existing conditions. I think they are systemic. The financial structure of the US (and probably much of the world), including the fed, the SEC, financial reporting in general, and the companies that are all supposedly regulated by those agencies and others, promotes that existing structure. That’s what they have been created to do. I don’t pretend to have a better path, but I think it’s flawed.
