do you know what the federal reserve is?

[aldante]

I don’t understand. Are you saying that Iran/Contra was not a conspiracy?

Here is a couple of definitions I think apply:

a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)

Am I missing something? Or is it my punch?

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]Davelj,

Wow so simple………….The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks that comprise the Federal Reserve System are “owned” by their respective member banks – that is, a bank has to own stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank to be a “member bank.” And the System is an independent, non-profit entity operating within the government.

got it that explains everything…..wait a second….mmmmm does this have something to do with why those rich bankers and investment bankers make billions and the dry cleaner went bankrupt?

Oh that’s right Allen and Sv will probably say”….grow up that the way things are…live with it” . Since you guys have such a firm grasp…..f***it…let me bend over and have some bernanke.

By the way it’s not a conspiracy if it is in your face. Remember when you were a commie if you didn’t take Ollie Norths side? Guess what that was a conspiracy that involved hundreds.

Why don’t we all get our facts right then have a real debate. Oh that’s right there are no facts. Any substantive question put to the Fed Chairman is repeatedly not answered.

Bottom line, I will give Investor the benefit of the doubt on this one.[/quote]

I don’t agree with Allan on much politically, but on this we do agree. I’m quite sure I didn’t say (nor do I believe) that we should “live with it”. I’m all in favor of the fed being audited regularly, and substantially more oversight than currently exists. The fed was created by congress, under it’s power of appointment granted in Section 1 of the constitution. It can just as easily amend the mechanism under which it was created.

The problem is not ownership. The problem is it’s lack of transparency in operation.

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]Davelj,

Wow so simple………….The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks that comprise the Federal Reserve System are “owned” by their respective member banks – that is, a bank has to own stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank to be a “member bank.” And the System is an independent, non-profit entity operating within the government.

got it that explains everything…..wait a second….mmmmm does this have something to do with why those rich bankers and investment bankers make billions and the dry cleaner went bankrupt?

Oh that’s right Allen and Sv will probably say”….grow up that the way things are…live with it” . Since you guys have such a firm grasp…..f***it…let me bend over and have some bernanke.

By the way it’s not a conspiracy if it is in your face. Remember when you were a commie if you didn’t take Ollie Norths side? Guess what that was a conspiracy that involved hundreds.

Why don’t we all get our facts right then have a real debate. Oh that’s right there are no facts. Any substantive question put to the Fed Chairman is repeatedly not answered.

Bottom line, I will give Investor the benefit of the doubt on this one.[/quote]

I don’t agree with Allan on much politically, but on this we do agree. I’m quite sure I didn’t say (nor do I believe) that we should “live with it”. I’m all in favor of the fed being audited regularly, and substantially more oversight than currently exists. The fed was created by congress, under it’s power of appointment granted in Section 1 of the constitution. It can just as easily amend the mechanism under which it was created.

The problem is not ownership. The problem is it’s lack of transparency in operation.

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]Davelj,

Wow so simple………….The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks that comprise the Federal Reserve System are “owned” by their respective member banks – that is, a bank has to own stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank to be a “member bank.” And the System is an independent, non-profit entity operating within the government.

got it that explains everything…..wait a second….mmmmm does this have something to do with why those rich bankers and investment bankers make billions and the dry cleaner went bankrupt?

Oh that’s right Allen and Sv will probably say”….grow up that the way things are…live with it” . Since you guys have such a firm grasp…..f***it…let me bend over and have some bernanke.

By the way it’s not a conspiracy if it is in your face. Remember when you were a commie if you didn’t take Ollie Norths side? Guess what that was a conspiracy that involved hundreds.

Why don’t we all get our facts right then have a real debate. Oh that’s right there are no facts. Any substantive question put to the Fed Chairman is repeatedly not answered.

Bottom line, I will give Investor the benefit of the doubt on this one.[/quote]

I don’t agree with Allan on much politically, but on this we do agree. I’m quite sure I didn’t say (nor do I believe) that we should “live with it”. I’m all in favor of the fed being audited regularly, and substantially more oversight than currently exists. The fed was created by congress, under it’s power of appointment granted in Section 1 of the constitution. It can just as easily amend the mechanism under which it was created.

The problem is not ownership. The problem is it’s lack of transparency in operation.

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]Davelj,

Wow so simple………….The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks that comprise the Federal Reserve System are “owned” by their respective member banks – that is, a bank has to own stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank to be a “member bank.” And the System is an independent, non-profit entity operating within the government.

got it that explains everything…..wait a second….mmmmm does this have something to do with why those rich bankers and investment bankers make billions and the dry cleaner went bankrupt?

Oh that’s right Allen and Sv will probably say”….grow up that the way things are…live with it” . Since you guys have such a firm grasp…..f***it…let me bend over and have some bernanke.

By the way it’s not a conspiracy if it is in your face. Remember when you were a commie if you didn’t take Ollie Norths side? Guess what that was a conspiracy that involved hundreds.

Why don’t we all get our facts right then have a real debate. Oh that’s right there are no facts. Any substantive question put to the Fed Chairman is repeatedly not answered.

Bottom line, I will give Investor the benefit of the doubt on this one.[/quote]

I don’t agree with Allan on much politically, but on this we do agree. I’m quite sure I didn’t say (nor do I believe) that we should “live with it”. I’m all in favor of the fed being audited regularly, and substantially more oversight than currently exists. The fed was created by congress, under it’s power of appointment granted in Section 1 of the constitution. It can just as easily amend the mechanism under which it was created.

The problem is not ownership. The problem is it’s lack of transparency in operation.

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]Davelj,

Wow so simple………….The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks that comprise the Federal Reserve System are “owned” by their respective member banks – that is, a bank has to own stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank to be a “member bank.” And the System is an independent, non-profit entity operating within the government.

got it that explains everything…..wait a second….mmmmm does this have something to do with why those rich bankers and investment bankers make billions and the dry cleaner went bankrupt?

Oh that’s right Allen and Sv will probably say”….grow up that the way things are…live with it” . Since you guys have such a firm grasp…..f***it…let me bend over and have some bernanke.

By the way it’s not a conspiracy if it is in your face. Remember when you were a commie if you didn’t take Ollie Norths side? Guess what that was a conspiracy that involved hundreds.

Why don’t we all get our facts right then have a real debate. Oh that’s right there are no facts. Any substantive question put to the Fed Chairman is repeatedly not answered.

Bottom line, I will give Investor the benefit of the doubt on this one.[/quote]

I don’t agree with Allan on much politically, but on this we do agree. I’m quite sure I didn’t say (nor do I believe) that we should “live with it”. I’m all in favor of the fed being audited regularly, and substantially more oversight than currently exists. The fed was created by congress, under it’s power of appointment granted in Section 1 of the constitution. It can just as easily amend the mechanism under which it was created.

The problem is not ownership. The problem is it’s lack of transparency in operation.

[aldante]

I’ll buy that for sure.

[aldante]

I’ll buy that for sure.

[aldante]

I’ll buy that for sure.

[aldante]

I’ll buy that for sure.

[aldante]

I’ll buy that for sure.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]

I don’t agree with Allan on much politically, but on this we do agree. I’m quite sure I didn’t say (nor do I believe) that we should “live with it”. I’m all in favor of the fed being audited regularly, and substantially more oversight than currently exists. The fed was created by congress, under it’s power of appointment granted in Section 1 of the constitution. It can just as easily amend the mechanism under which it was created.

The problem is not ownership. The problem is it’s lack of transparency in operation.[/quote]

SK: Given that we’re both former accountants (I was not a CPA, however), I’d frame my response within that context. I’m less worried about the Fed’s ownership, than their ability to perform as a “going concern”. We’ve seen a rapid ramp up in their balance sheet, specifically massive acquisition of assets that are, in my opinion, toxic, or at a minimum, difficult to value/sell (i.e. highly illiquid).

While the Fed is not Bear Stearns, nor is it Lehman Bros., it would still be problematic to unload these various assets in a timely fashion, and it would also be difficult to unload them in such a way as to return maximum value to the US taxpayers, who financed their acquisition in the first place.

I don’t see a conspiracy, per se, but I do see a huge “shadow” buyout, wherein the Fed became a purchaser of last resort in order to avoid a huge and disorderly unwinding. In that regard, I would like to see the Fed audited, and I’d love to see an opinion letter by a wholly objective third-party auditor (if one still exists) as to the estimated value of the Fed’s balance sheet, and both Assets and Liabilities. I think this document would be a whole helluva lot more interesting than the Fed’s ownership.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]

I don’t agree with Allan on much politically, but on this we do agree. I’m quite sure I didn’t say (nor do I believe) that we should “live with it”. I’m all in favor of the fed being audited regularly, and substantially more oversight than currently exists. The fed was created by congress, under it’s power of appointment granted in Section 1 of the constitution. It can just as easily amend the mechanism under which it was created.

The problem is not ownership. The problem is it’s lack of transparency in operation.[/quote]

SK: Given that we’re both former accountants (I was not a CPA, however), I’d frame my response within that context. I’m less worried about the Fed’s ownership, than their ability to perform as a “going concern”. We’ve seen a rapid ramp up in their balance sheet, specifically massive acquisition of assets that are, in my opinion, toxic, or at a minimum, difficult to value/sell (i.e. highly illiquid).

While the Fed is not Bear Stearns, nor is it Lehman Bros., it would still be problematic to unload these various assets in a timely fashion, and it would also be difficult to unload them in such a way as to return maximum value to the US taxpayers, who financed their acquisition in the first place.

I don’t see a conspiracy, per se, but I do see a huge “shadow” buyout, wherein the Fed became a purchaser of last resort in order to avoid a huge and disorderly unwinding. In that regard, I would like to see the Fed audited, and I’d love to see an opinion letter by a wholly objective third-party auditor (if one still exists) as to the estimated value of the Fed’s balance sheet, and both Assets and Liabilities. I think this document would be a whole helluva lot more interesting than the Fed’s ownership.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]

I don’t agree with Allan on much politically, but on this we do agree. I’m quite sure I didn’t say (nor do I believe) that we should “live with it”. I’m all in favor of the fed being audited regularly, and substantially more oversight than currently exists. The fed was created by congress, under it’s power of appointment granted in Section 1 of the constitution. It can just as easily amend the mechanism under which it was created.

The problem is not ownership. The problem is it’s lack of transparency in operation.[/quote]

SK: Given that we’re both former accountants (I was not a CPA, however), I’d frame my response within that context. I’m less worried about the Fed’s ownership, than their ability to perform as a “going concern”. We’ve seen a rapid ramp up in their balance sheet, specifically massive acquisition of assets that are, in my opinion, toxic, or at a minimum, difficult to value/sell (i.e. highly illiquid).

While the Fed is not Bear Stearns, nor is it Lehman Bros., it would still be problematic to unload these various assets in a timely fashion, and it would also be difficult to unload them in such a way as to return maximum value to the US taxpayers, who financed their acquisition in the first place.

I don’t see a conspiracy, per se, but I do see a huge “shadow” buyout, wherein the Fed became a purchaser of last resort in order to avoid a huge and disorderly unwinding. In that regard, I would like to see the Fed audited, and I’d love to see an opinion letter by a wholly objective third-party auditor (if one still exists) as to the estimated value of the Fed’s balance sheet, and both Assets and Liabilities. I think this document would be a whole helluva lot more interesting than the Fed’s ownership.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]

I don’t agree with Allan on much politically, but on this we do agree. I’m quite sure I didn’t say (nor do I believe) that we should “live with it”. I’m all in favor of the fed being audited regularly, and substantially more oversight than currently exists. The fed was created by congress, under it’s power of appointment granted in Section 1 of the constitution. It can just as easily amend the mechanism under which it was created.

The problem is not ownership. The problem is it’s lack of transparency in operation.[/quote]

SK: Given that we’re both former accountants (I was not a CPA, however), I’d frame my response within that context. I’m less worried about the Fed’s ownership, than their ability to perform as a “going concern”. We’ve seen a rapid ramp up in their balance sheet, specifically massive acquisition of assets that are, in my opinion, toxic, or at a minimum, difficult to value/sell (i.e. highly illiquid).

While the Fed is not Bear Stearns, nor is it Lehman Bros., it would still be problematic to unload these various assets in a timely fashion, and it would also be difficult to unload them in such a way as to return maximum value to the US taxpayers, who financed their acquisition in the first place.

I don’t see a conspiracy, per se, but I do see a huge “shadow” buyout, wherein the Fed became a purchaser of last resort in order to avoid a huge and disorderly unwinding. In that regard, I would like to see the Fed audited, and I’d love to see an opinion letter by a wholly objective third-party auditor (if one still exists) as to the estimated value of the Fed’s balance sheet, and both Assets and Liabilities. I think this document would be a whole helluva lot more interesting than the Fed’s ownership.

[Author]

Posts