Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=aldante]SV,
I think that the main line of the audit should be focused on obligations that the FED has with counter parties, and what the value is of thier entire balance sheet and what comprises their balance sheet. Its funny but Ron Paul was ridiclued by Ben Bernanke about the possiblity of the US funding part of the Greek crisis about 3 months ago now and it turns out our committment may be $60 billion or so.Who should perform? Great question. I am pretty sure that HB 1207 and SB 604 say that entity should be the CBO. I don’t know enough either way to advocate for against that recommendation. I do disagree with you on your premise that “we” would not find out new information. I think that the majority of the American population would be appaled at what this independant organization has gotten us into. I don’t know the specifics but the notion that we live in a free society will be smashed when the FEDS’ committments are revealed. I think it would amount to the Germans funding Greek workers retirements at 50 years old x 100. I think that it will be difficult to control mass anger in the US at that point.
Bottom line is that we as a country (not individually) have been living beyond our means since 1982 and our debt needs to be either restructured or paid. The FED has been the bartenter – and Americans the drunks. So that is why-btw I am sitting it out in real estate….I think a lot more hurt is coming down the pipe.[/quote]
Again, I don’t know where to begin.The fed has little in the way of outstanding obligations other than dollars in circulation and cash on deposit from federally chartered banks and the US Treasury. This makes up over 90% of the feds obligations. You’ll have to explain where that examination will lead.
The US did not fund $60 billion to aid in the crisis in Greece. It granted a credit line to the IMF a year ago, with exposure estimtated to be $5 billion. Many experts consider that estimate high.
I think you’re actually referring to S 3217 and HR 4173, which are the current bills headed to reconciliation. they both grant the examination powers to the GAO.
I never asserted that we would not find new information. Only that if the audit was consistent with what are normally called “audits”, then there would be little if any new information. Traditional audits have already been done. So the scope has to be redirected. Which is why I asked for your recommendations, that if I understand what you’re saying correctly, will lead nowhere. Even a different approach to “valuing the assets” may not be very informative.
You totally lost me on the free society thing. And with the “FEDS’ committments are revealed” thing. What do you think the secret fed committments are?
Participant[quote=aldante]SV,
I think that the main line of the audit should be focused on obligations that the FED has with counter parties, and what the value is of thier entire balance sheet and what comprises their balance sheet. Its funny but Ron Paul was ridiclued by Ben Bernanke about the possiblity of the US funding part of the Greek crisis about 3 months ago now and it turns out our committment may be $60 billion or so.Who should perform? Great question. I am pretty sure that HB 1207 and SB 604 say that entity should be the CBO. I don’t know enough either way to advocate for against that recommendation. I do disagree with you on your premise that “we” would not find out new information. I think that the majority of the American population would be appaled at what this independant organization has gotten us into. I don’t know the specifics but the notion that we live in a free society will be smashed when the FEDS’ committments are revealed. I think it would amount to the Germans funding Greek workers retirements at 50 years old x 100. I think that it will be difficult to control mass anger in the US at that point.
Bottom line is that we as a country (not individually) have been living beyond our means since 1982 and our debt needs to be either restructured or paid. The FED has been the bartenter – and Americans the drunks. So that is why-btw I am sitting it out in real estate….I think a lot more hurt is coming down the pipe.[/quote]
Again, I don’t know where to begin.The fed has little in the way of outstanding obligations other than dollars in circulation and cash on deposit from federally chartered banks and the US Treasury. This makes up over 90% of the feds obligations. You’ll have to explain where that examination will lead.
The US did not fund $60 billion to aid in the crisis in Greece. It granted a credit line to the IMF a year ago, with exposure estimtated to be $5 billion. Many experts consider that estimate high.
I think you’re actually referring to S 3217 and HR 4173, which are the current bills headed to reconciliation. they both grant the examination powers to the GAO.
I never asserted that we would not find new information. Only that if the audit was consistent with what are normally called “audits”, then there would be little if any new information. Traditional audits have already been done. So the scope has to be redirected. Which is why I asked for your recommendations, that if I understand what you’re saying correctly, will lead nowhere. Even a different approach to “valuing the assets” may not be very informative.
You totally lost me on the free society thing. And with the “FEDS’ committments are revealed” thing. What do you think the secret fed committments are?
Participant[quote=aldante]SV,
I think that the main line of the audit should be focused on obligations that the FED has with counter parties, and what the value is of thier entire balance sheet and what comprises their balance sheet. Its funny but Ron Paul was ridiclued by Ben Bernanke about the possiblity of the US funding part of the Greek crisis about 3 months ago now and it turns out our committment may be $60 billion or so.Who should perform? Great question. I am pretty sure that HB 1207 and SB 604 say that entity should be the CBO. I don’t know enough either way to advocate for against that recommendation. I do disagree with you on your premise that “we” would not find out new information. I think that the majority of the American population would be appaled at what this independant organization has gotten us into. I don’t know the specifics but the notion that we live in a free society will be smashed when the FEDS’ committments are revealed. I think it would amount to the Germans funding Greek workers retirements at 50 years old x 100. I think that it will be difficult to control mass anger in the US at that point.
Bottom line is that we as a country (not individually) have been living beyond our means since 1982 and our debt needs to be either restructured or paid. The FED has been the bartenter – and Americans the drunks. So that is why-btw I am sitting it out in real estate….I think a lot more hurt is coming down the pipe.[/quote]
Again, I don’t know where to begin.The fed has little in the way of outstanding obligations other than dollars in circulation and cash on deposit from federally chartered banks and the US Treasury. This makes up over 90% of the feds obligations. You’ll have to explain where that examination will lead.
The US did not fund $60 billion to aid in the crisis in Greece. It granted a credit line to the IMF a year ago, with exposure estimtated to be $5 billion. Many experts consider that estimate high.
I think you’re actually referring to S 3217 and HR 4173, which are the current bills headed to reconciliation. they both grant the examination powers to the GAO.
I never asserted that we would not find new information. Only that if the audit was consistent with what are normally called “audits”, then there would be little if any new information. Traditional audits have already been done. So the scope has to be redirected. Which is why I asked for your recommendations, that if I understand what you’re saying correctly, will lead nowhere. Even a different approach to “valuing the assets” may not be very informative.
You totally lost me on the free society thing. And with the “FEDS’ committments are revealed” thing. What do you think the secret fed committments are?
ParticipantI’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.
ParticipantI’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.
ParticipantI’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.
ParticipantI’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.
ParticipantI’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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.)
-
AuthorPosts
