do you know what the federal reserve is?

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante][quote=SK in CV]inspector general audits may be less than optimal, and disclosure of those audit results may be limited, but it IS audited. Every single year.
Clues available for free.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2009.pdf%5B/quote%5D

Are you toying with us? Less then optimal?? I am laughing my a** off. I guess the Author Anderson audit of ENRON was less the optimal in your opinion? Look all you Fed defenders, this entity hired lobbyists using our money to stop s604. Someone somewhere convinced most major media outlets that auditing the past actions of the Fed – like actually where the money is, was the same as its losing its “independence”. Wrong, not in either the house bill or senate bill. As far as your cute statement “clues available for free” statement: the best information to decided to buy a car are the commercials on tv.[/quote]

The ignorant often laugh because they don’t know any better. I was responding to the claim that the fed had never been audited. It has been.

As to the rest of your comment. I got nothing. I don’t know how to respond to arguments that have no point and make no sense.

(and I haven’t defended the fed. I haven’t shared much opinion at all. Most of what I’ve written has just been factual counters to false, sometimes outrageously false claims.)

[aldante]

SK,
You are right, I am completely ignorant as to the actions of the FED. As are you (unless you are involved). Btw, our elected representatives are ignorant also.

That is the whole point. These “audits” are not audits like you or I have to go through when the IRS comes into our life.

These audits do not includ where TRILLIONS of dollars are flowing, a complete list of the assets that back up the FEDs balance sheet, or the debt agreements the FED has entered this country into with counterparties.

I was comparing the amount of information in your “free information” on the FED to the amount and bias of information that one might get about buying a vehicle from a commercial on TV.

So I guess this is just one ignortant person trying to point out that people who defend secrecy are defending ignorance.

So since by your own admission you have not shared your opinion at all, do you think that its right that our FED operates in secret or not?

[aldante]

SK,
You are right, I am completely ignorant as to the actions of the FED. As are you (unless you are involved). Btw, our elected representatives are ignorant also.

That is the whole point. These “audits” are not audits like you or I have to go through when the IRS comes into our life.

These audits do not includ where TRILLIONS of dollars are flowing, a complete list of the assets that back up the FEDs balance sheet, or the debt agreements the FED has entered this country into with counterparties.

I was comparing the amount of information in your “free information” on the FED to the amount and bias of information that one might get about buying a vehicle from a commercial on TV.

So I guess this is just one ignortant person trying to point out that people who defend secrecy are defending ignorance.

So since by your own admission you have not shared your opinion at all, do you think that its right that our FED operates in secret or not?

[aldante]

SK,
You are right, I am completely ignorant as to the actions of the FED. As are you (unless you are involved). Btw, our elected representatives are ignorant also.

That is the whole point. These “audits” are not audits like you or I have to go through when the IRS comes into our life.

These audits do not includ where TRILLIONS of dollars are flowing, a complete list of the assets that back up the FEDs balance sheet, or the debt agreements the FED has entered this country into with counterparties.

I was comparing the amount of information in your “free information” on the FED to the amount and bias of information that one might get about buying a vehicle from a commercial on TV.

So I guess this is just one ignortant person trying to point out that people who defend secrecy are defending ignorance.

So since by your own admission you have not shared your opinion at all, do you think that its right that our FED operates in secret or not?

[aldante]

SK,
You are right, I am completely ignorant as to the actions of the FED. As are you (unless you are involved). Btw, our elected representatives are ignorant also.

That is the whole point. These “audits” are not audits like you or I have to go through when the IRS comes into our life.

These audits do not includ where TRILLIONS of dollars are flowing, a complete list of the assets that back up the FEDs balance sheet, or the debt agreements the FED has entered this country into with counterparties.

I was comparing the amount of information in your “free information” on the FED to the amount and bias of information that one might get about buying a vehicle from a commercial on TV.

So I guess this is just one ignortant person trying to point out that people who defend secrecy are defending ignorance.

So since by your own admission you have not shared your opinion at all, do you think that its right that our FED operates in secret or not?

[aldante]

SK,
You are right, I am completely ignorant as to the actions of the FED. As are you (unless you are involved). Btw, our elected representatives are ignorant also.

That is the whole point. These “audits” are not audits like you or I have to go through when the IRS comes into our life.

These audits do not includ where TRILLIONS of dollars are flowing, a complete list of the assets that back up the FEDs balance sheet, or the debt agreements the FED has entered this country into with counterparties.

I was comparing the amount of information in your “free information” on the FED to the amount and bias of information that one might get about buying a vehicle from a commercial on TV.

So I guess this is just one ignortant person trying to point out that people who defend secrecy are defending ignorance.

So since by your own admission you have not shared your opinion at all, do you think that its right that our FED operates in secret or not?

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]SK,
You are right, I am completely ignorant as to the actions of the FED. As are you (unless you are involved). Btw, our elected representatives are ignorant also.

That is the whole point. These “audits” are not audits like you or I have to go through when the IRS comes into our life.

These audits do not includ where TRILLIONS of dollars are flowing, a complete list of the assets that back up the FEDs balance sheet, or the debt agreements the FED has entered this country into with counterparties.

I was comparing the amount of information in your “free information” on the FED to the amount and bias of information that one might get about buying a vehicle from a commercial on TV.

So I guess this is just one ignortant person trying to point out that people who defend secrecy are defending ignorance.

So since by your own admission you have not shared your opinion at all, do you think that its right that our FED operates in secret or not?[/quote]

I know quite well what these audits are like. Nothing like the 200 or so audits of tax returns I’ve been through with the IRS. They are much more strenuous, much more detailed, much more comprehensive.

But ultimately, they only do what they’re designed to do. which is opine on whether the financial position and results of operation are presented in accordance with current standards. There is no opinion with regards to whether management did a good job. Whether they performed their charge. Whether they regulated the currency as designed.

If the jab about “defending secrecy” was directed at me, point it somewhere else. I haven’t done that.

As to your final question, I don’t have a yes or no answer. There should be more and better oversight. There should be more transparency. But managing a money supply, the largest money supply in the history of the world (I’m just making that up, btw, though I suspect that it’s probably accurate, I’ve never looked it up) is complex. Every nuance is significant. Every business operates in secret. Every relationship operates in secret. Two people make a decision. It’s a secret until they tell everyone else. Sometimes they don’t tell everyone else until after a significant event has come and gone. Sometimes that’s necessary. The black and white question is the wrong one.

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]SK,
You are right, I am completely ignorant as to the actions of the FED. As are you (unless you are involved). Btw, our elected representatives are ignorant also.

That is the whole point. These “audits” are not audits like you or I have to go through when the IRS comes into our life.

These audits do not includ where TRILLIONS of dollars are flowing, a complete list of the assets that back up the FEDs balance sheet, or the debt agreements the FED has entered this country into with counterparties.

I was comparing the amount of information in your “free information” on the FED to the amount and bias of information that one might get about buying a vehicle from a commercial on TV.

So I guess this is just one ignortant person trying to point out that people who defend secrecy are defending ignorance.

So since by your own admission you have not shared your opinion at all, do you think that its right that our FED operates in secret or not?[/quote]

I know quite well what these audits are like. Nothing like the 200 or so audits of tax returns I’ve been through with the IRS. They are much more strenuous, much more detailed, much more comprehensive.

But ultimately, they only do what they’re designed to do. which is opine on whether the financial position and results of operation are presented in accordance with current standards. There is no opinion with regards to whether management did a good job. Whether they performed their charge. Whether they regulated the currency as designed.

If the jab about “defending secrecy” was directed at me, point it somewhere else. I haven’t done that.

As to your final question, I don’t have a yes or no answer. There should be more and better oversight. There should be more transparency. But managing a money supply, the largest money supply in the history of the world (I’m just making that up, btw, though I suspect that it’s probably accurate, I’ve never looked it up) is complex. Every nuance is significant. Every business operates in secret. Every relationship operates in secret. Two people make a decision. It’s a secret until they tell everyone else. Sometimes they don’t tell everyone else until after a significant event has come and gone. Sometimes that’s necessary. The black and white question is the wrong one.

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]SK,
You are right, I am completely ignorant as to the actions of the FED. As are you (unless you are involved). Btw, our elected representatives are ignorant also.

That is the whole point. These “audits” are not audits like you or I have to go through when the IRS comes into our life.

These audits do not includ where TRILLIONS of dollars are flowing, a complete list of the assets that back up the FEDs balance sheet, or the debt agreements the FED has entered this country into with counterparties.

I was comparing the amount of information in your “free information” on the FED to the amount and bias of information that one might get about buying a vehicle from a commercial on TV.

So I guess this is just one ignortant person trying to point out that people who defend secrecy are defending ignorance.

So since by your own admission you have not shared your opinion at all, do you think that its right that our FED operates in secret or not?[/quote]

I know quite well what these audits are like. Nothing like the 200 or so audits of tax returns I’ve been through with the IRS. They are much more strenuous, much more detailed, much more comprehensive.

But ultimately, they only do what they’re designed to do. which is opine on whether the financial position and results of operation are presented in accordance with current standards. There is no opinion with regards to whether management did a good job. Whether they performed their charge. Whether they regulated the currency as designed.

If the jab about “defending secrecy” was directed at me, point it somewhere else. I haven’t done that.

As to your final question, I don’t have a yes or no answer. There should be more and better oversight. There should be more transparency. But managing a money supply, the largest money supply in the history of the world (I’m just making that up, btw, though I suspect that it’s probably accurate, I’ve never looked it up) is complex. Every nuance is significant. Every business operates in secret. Every relationship operates in secret. Two people make a decision. It’s a secret until they tell everyone else. Sometimes they don’t tell everyone else until after a significant event has come and gone. Sometimes that’s necessary. The black and white question is the wrong one.

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]SK,
You are right, I am completely ignorant as to the actions of the FED. As are you (unless you are involved). Btw, our elected representatives are ignorant also.

That is the whole point. These “audits” are not audits like you or I have to go through when the IRS comes into our life.

These audits do not includ where TRILLIONS of dollars are flowing, a complete list of the assets that back up the FEDs balance sheet, or the debt agreements the FED has entered this country into with counterparties.

I was comparing the amount of information in your “free information” on the FED to the amount and bias of information that one might get about buying a vehicle from a commercial on TV.

So I guess this is just one ignortant person trying to point out that people who defend secrecy are defending ignorance.

So since by your own admission you have not shared your opinion at all, do you think that its right that our FED operates in secret or not?[/quote]

I know quite well what these audits are like. Nothing like the 200 or so audits of tax returns I’ve been through with the IRS. They are much more strenuous, much more detailed, much more comprehensive.

But ultimately, they only do what they’re designed to do. which is opine on whether the financial position and results of operation are presented in accordance with current standards. There is no opinion with regards to whether management did a good job. Whether they performed their charge. Whether they regulated the currency as designed.

If the jab about “defending secrecy” was directed at me, point it somewhere else. I haven’t done that.

As to your final question, I don’t have a yes or no answer. There should be more and better oversight. There should be more transparency. But managing a money supply, the largest money supply in the history of the world (I’m just making that up, btw, though I suspect that it’s probably accurate, I’ve never looked it up) is complex. Every nuance is significant. Every business operates in secret. Every relationship operates in secret. Two people make a decision. It’s a secret until they tell everyone else. Sometimes they don’t tell everyone else until after a significant event has come and gone. Sometimes that’s necessary. The black and white question is the wrong one.

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]SK,
You are right, I am completely ignorant as to the actions of the FED. As are you (unless you are involved). Btw, our elected representatives are ignorant also.

That is the whole point. These “audits” are not audits like you or I have to go through when the IRS comes into our life.

These audits do not includ where TRILLIONS of dollars are flowing, a complete list of the assets that back up the FEDs balance sheet, or the debt agreements the FED has entered this country into with counterparties.

I was comparing the amount of information in your “free information” on the FED to the amount and bias of information that one might get about buying a vehicle from a commercial on TV.

So I guess this is just one ignortant person trying to point out that people who defend secrecy are defending ignorance.

So since by your own admission you have not shared your opinion at all, do you think that its right that our FED operates in secret or not?[/quote]

I know quite well what these audits are like. Nothing like the 200 or so audits of tax returns I’ve been through with the IRS. They are much more strenuous, much more detailed, much more comprehensive.

But ultimately, they only do what they’re designed to do. which is opine on whether the financial position and results of operation are presented in accordance with current standards. There is no opinion with regards to whether management did a good job. Whether they performed their charge. Whether they regulated the currency as designed.

If the jab about “defending secrecy” was directed at me, point it somewhere else. I haven’t done that.

As to your final question, I don’t have a yes or no answer. There should be more and better oversight. There should be more transparency. But managing a money supply, the largest money supply in the history of the world (I’m just making that up, btw, though I suspect that it’s probably accurate, I’ve never looked it up) is complex. Every nuance is significant. Every business operates in secret. Every relationship operates in secret. Two people make a decision. It’s a secret until they tell everyone else. Sometimes they don’t tell everyone else until after a significant event has come and gone. Sometimes that’s necessary. The black and white question is the wrong one.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=aldante]

Are you toying with us? Less then optimal?? I am laughing my a** off. I guess the Author Anderson audit of ENRON was less the optimal in your opinion? [/quote]

Aldante: “Author Anderson”? Really? You mean Arthur Andersen, right?

Just curious, but have you ever read an Enron financial statement? Probably not, correct? I’m saying this because all of the relevant data, including those billions of off-balance sheet transactions that got them into trouble were disclosed, as was their God-awful cash flow position. You had to do some digging, sure, but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted. There were several prominent analysts who did point out Enron’s flaws and faults, but the rest of Wall Street was too busy buying into the hype (and, more important, buying Enron stock) to really question the solidity and stability of their business model.

I’d suggest you read the Fed’s financials, or have someone help you do so (not a put-down, you might not happen to be an accountant or financial person) and then decide what’s missing.

No, this is not some defense of the Fed; merely pointing out that you’re jumping to quite a few conclusions, and in the absence of any evidence. Personally, I’d love to see the valuation methodology used for all of those toxic assets the Fed swallowed. Now, that would make for some interesting reading and potential grist for your mill.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=aldante]

Are you toying with us? Less then optimal?? I am laughing my a** off. I guess the Author Anderson audit of ENRON was less the optimal in your opinion? [/quote]

Aldante: “Author Anderson”? Really? You mean Arthur Andersen, right?

Just curious, but have you ever read an Enron financial statement? Probably not, correct? I’m saying this because all of the relevant data, including those billions of off-balance sheet transactions that got them into trouble were disclosed, as was their God-awful cash flow position. You had to do some digging, sure, but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted. There were several prominent analysts who did point out Enron’s flaws and faults, but the rest of Wall Street was too busy buying into the hype (and, more important, buying Enron stock) to really question the solidity and stability of their business model.

I’d suggest you read the Fed’s financials, or have someone help you do so (not a put-down, you might not happen to be an accountant or financial person) and then decide what’s missing.

No, this is not some defense of the Fed; merely pointing out that you’re jumping to quite a few conclusions, and in the absence of any evidence. Personally, I’d love to see the valuation methodology used for all of those toxic assets the Fed swallowed. Now, that would make for some interesting reading and potential grist for your mill.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=aldante]

Are you toying with us? Less then optimal?? I am laughing my a** off. I guess the Author Anderson audit of ENRON was less the optimal in your opinion? [/quote]

Aldante: “Author Anderson”? Really? You mean Arthur Andersen, right?

Just curious, but have you ever read an Enron financial statement? Probably not, correct? I’m saying this because all of the relevant data, including those billions of off-balance sheet transactions that got them into trouble were disclosed, as was their God-awful cash flow position. You had to do some digging, sure, but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted. There were several prominent analysts who did point out Enron’s flaws and faults, but the rest of Wall Street was too busy buying into the hype (and, more important, buying Enron stock) to really question the solidity and stability of their business model.

I’d suggest you read the Fed’s financials, or have someone help you do so (not a put-down, you might not happen to be an accountant or financial person) and then decide what’s missing.

No, this is not some defense of the Fed; merely pointing out that you’re jumping to quite a few conclusions, and in the absence of any evidence. Personally, I’d love to see the valuation methodology used for all of those toxic assets the Fed swallowed. Now, that would make for some interesting reading and potential grist for your mill.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=aldante]

Are you toying with us? Less then optimal?? I am laughing my a** off. I guess the Author Anderson audit of ENRON was less the optimal in your opinion? [/quote]

Aldante: “Author Anderson”? Really? You mean Arthur Andersen, right?

Just curious, but have you ever read an Enron financial statement? Probably not, correct? I’m saying this because all of the relevant data, including those billions of off-balance sheet transactions that got them into trouble were disclosed, as was their God-awful cash flow position. You had to do some digging, sure, but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted. There were several prominent analysts who did point out Enron’s flaws and faults, but the rest of Wall Street was too busy buying into the hype (and, more important, buying Enron stock) to really question the solidity and stability of their business model.

I’d suggest you read the Fed’s financials, or have someone help you do so (not a put-down, you might not happen to be an accountant or financial person) and then decide what’s missing.

No, this is not some defense of the Fed; merely pointing out that you’re jumping to quite a few conclusions, and in the absence of any evidence. Personally, I’d love to see the valuation methodology used for all of those toxic assets the Fed swallowed. Now, that would make for some interesting reading and potential grist for your mill.

[Author]

Posts