 |
|
|
I thought it was kinda cool how you could see what boards a guy was on or companies, institutions they were a part of.
http://www.theyrule.net/2004/tr2.php[^]
I saw it a while back on TechTV before it became G4. The data is old, but still a cool concept. There are some pay for versions available as well.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A key House panel approved the Paul-Grayson Amendment by an overwhelming 43-26 Thursday afternoon, which will give watchdogs new authority to audit the Federal Reserve.
Here is a summary of the Paul-Grayson Amendment:
Dear Financial Services Committee Colleague:
It is encouraging to see the issue of Federal Reserve transparency receiving so much attention during this current markup. Today we plan to offer an amendment to the Financial Stability Improvement Act that expands on the many extant proposals to enhance Federal Reserve transparency. Our amendment is based on HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, which has broad bipartisan and grassroots support. The bill is cosponsored by 309 Members of Congress, including all Financial Services Committee Republicans and 13 Financial Services Committee Democrats.
The amendment removes restrictions on GAO audits of the Federal Reserve, as HR 1207 does, but makes a few changes to take into account some of the concerns that the Fed has made known in public testimony. Specifically, the Paul/Grayson amendment:
=>> Exempts unreleased transcripts and minutes from meetings of the Board and FOMC to address the Fed’s concerns that free and open debate in their meetings would be stifled.
=>> Sets a 180-day time lag for release of details of market actions the Fed has undertaken, to address the Fed’s concerns that Congress or GAO is second-guessing its actions.
=>> Removes boilerplate language that allowed GAO to make recommendations on monetary policy and adds a section stating that nothing in the amendment shall be construed as interference in or dictation of monetary policy to the Fed.
Unlike proposals that target the Fed’s 13(3) facilities, the Paul/Grayson amendment opens up the entire $2 trillion Federal Reserve balance sheet to a GAO audit. The Fed’s recent purchases of nearly $800 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) have occurred under the MBS Purchase Program, authorized under section 14(b) of the Federal Reserve Act. This program, which is expected to reach a size of $1.25 trillion, would remain exempt from audit even if all the current 13(3) audit proposals were to go into effect. Targeting facilities that are in the process of being drawn down and that are authorized under a specific subsection of the Federal Reserve while allowing other facilities to spring up in their place is counterproductive to true transparency. All purchases and loans that appear on the balance sheet should be subject to audit, without loopholes for the Fed to evade scrutiny.
More importantly, the Paul/Grayson amendment does not create any additional burdens. Some competing proposals, while making a good effort at expanding the number of 13(3) facilities open to audit, take a step backwards by imposing new restrictions on GAO that are more burdensome than the restrictions currently written into law. We cannot accept these new restrictions. Unlike competing proposals, this amendment amends existing restrictions on GAO audit authority, a necessary precondition for a complete audit. Competing proposals leave these restrictions in place, and even add new ones.
We also reject the false dichotomy between transparency and independence. The Paul/Grayson amendment would achieve the necessary transparency of the trillions of dollars of Fed interventions while keeping Congress from directly intervening in the decision-making process. Independence should not be synonymous with secrecy. We urge our colleagues to support the Paul/Grayson amendment.
 
Sincerely,
Ron Paul, Member of Congress
Alan Grayson, Member of Congress
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Sincerely,
Ron Paul, Member of Congress
Alan Grayson, Member of Congress
Ron Paul passed in a proposal with emoticons in it ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Such exuberance, and the audit not yet written into law!
What treat have you in store for us when it is? <marquee>? <blink>?
Bob Emmett
Support the Pall/Gruesome Amendment!
Congress for Financial Responsibility - you know it makes sense!
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol if nobody really gets how huge of a win this is, then let them be. because seriously, this is a big milestone. basically, watt has been shut down, and now watt's bill and ron's bill have the same text that paul wanted in the first place. so if either pass, we're all clear! wooo! i can't wait to tape the end the fed protest in boston...
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great, now maybe you'll stop whining about it.
Amusingly enough, you do realize that those giant bullet points you drew so much attention to, are actually the backpedaling and weakening of this amendment, done to compromise with Paul and Grayson's opponents.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't worry, like I said before, even when they get it they won't know what to do with it.
They'll just herald it as a massive victory of unmentionable implications. Unmentionable as they do not no what they could possibly do with it and ignoring the entire possibility that they could have just gotten a pile of falsified records which they have no method of verifying, all while cheering they won.
I don't really get it myself.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, you're right. It's been about a year, it took them way too long for this thing to happen. But the thing is, even if they did falsify the records, the records won't add up on the balance sheet. Then, they'll have to make up for that. It will be recognized as a scam, as it already is recognized anyway. Then there will be even more of a push to end the Federal Reserve system; and with that kind of political pressure, they will do it, however gradually. In the end, it is a great thing, even if it takes a couple of years. This bill might be the first step on the way to saving the dollar...
That's the point. Don't be so cynical as to what this amendment/bill will do. It will examine the records, see how ridiculous these evil people are, and then abolish the system and replace it with what we had before it: Gold and/or silver coins, maintained by the People under Congress and held by the Treasury. Not maintained AND held by a "central" private bank.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
josda1000 wrote: Gold and/or silver coins, maintained by the People under Congress and held by the Treasury. Not maintained AND held by a "central" private bank.
Quote Selected Text
Gold and silver would be fantastic. However the central bankers have large stocks of it. They own and control most of the world's wealth. They really got us by the balls. So I think the first step would be to use United States Notes to replace the federal reserve notes. There are a lot of details and steps to liberate ourselves from the grip of the corruptoids but it must be done. No excuses, no bullsh*t, just do it...the sooner the better.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I absolutely agree with that statement. I mean it'd be great to get to use silver and gold, but a great start would be certificates. Though that wouldn't stop them from creating bubbles; as seen in the great depression, the housing, the automotive sector, etc.
But you're absolutely right.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
josda1000 wrote: Though that wouldn't stop them from creating bubbles; as seen in the great depression, the housing, the automotive sector, etc.
This is pretty ignorant. Are you CSS posting on another account, or just someone like minded ? The market creates bubbles, not any secret cabal. government policy can affect how things play out, but they can't FORCE a bubble to form.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
no, i'm not css. notice i only post about the fed basically lol
and no, that isn't ignorant. it's called the austrian theory of economics. look up thomas woods, peter schiff, ron paul... of course you despise talking about ron paul, i remember that.
the way they create the bubbles is by lowering interest rates. of course everyone loves lower interest rates though, because that's the start of the boom. when they necessarily, and eventually, have to bring them back to nominal levels, the bust phase is created.
bubbles are started by lowering interest rates, say for housing. then people flock to that market, saying "hey, this is awesome, i can take out a loan with little to nothing on this mortgage!" then eventually, the party ends because the market value is nowhere near what the mortgages are going for. so people start having to pay more on the loans, people don't buy into the market any longer, and you see a dramatic drop in stock price. that's precisely what happened in the housing bubble last year. prove me wrong.
this is the austrian theory.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funny how with you guys, it's always a "they"...
Do you know what bubbles and busts are? Human nature.
"Well, the economy seems to be improving... I better invest while I still can!"
That's all the bubbles are. People see things going well, and so they decide to join in. The better things go, the more people join in, and so it keeps going up. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy...
Except eventually, things will get so expensive that people start to think... "Hmm, well, maybe that's as high as it's going to go. I better sell now before it goes back down!"
And that's when the bubble bursts. People take their profits and sell, and that drops the price. When the price drops, more people sell, which drops the price more. And it starts spiraling down and down and down and down... And that's the bust.
Eventually, it gets low enough that people start to think... "Well, can't get much worse than this, huh? Maybe this is the bottom... I better buy in!"
And it starts all over again. It has nothing to do with interest rates.
There's one principle you and CSS need to understand... And this applies to everything from business to politics... Here it is in big letters...
Perception is Reality
If people think the market is going up, it goes up. If people think it's going down, it goes down. If the Fed can convince people that it'll get better, say by lowering interest rates, it WILL get better.
The problem with this past recession was that the Fed couldn't convince people that it would get better... That's what the stimulus package was for. It was to show people "Hey, look, the government is going to fix everything!" Enough people believed that, so the market started to go back up. Perception is reality.
Lesson over. Class dismissed.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes you're absolutely right. That's market theory in general, not Keynesian or Austrian. You're absolutely right.
And that's exactly what I'm trying to tell you. The Fed can manipulate the markets by lowering interest rates. The bust will come when they take the interest rate and set it to a normal value. The boom comes when the Fed, aka "they", lowers it. Just think of it like that. Because you gave me half of the argument in your long speech there, just extend the logic a bit.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point is that they aren't CAUSING the booms and busts. They're countering them.
When the bust happens (And it will, with or without the Fed), they lower interest rates in order to COUNTERACT that, and end the bust before it gets too bad.
Of course, those interest rates have to have somewhere to go... So when things get near the top, they gradually raise interest rates so they'll have some breathing room for the next bust.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A) give me an example of when booms and busts, like what you see now since the fed has been in force since 1913, happened so rashly in america. or even still, give me an example of when the market wouldn't correct itself when a central bank was in place around the world.
B) before the great depression, there was another minor depression, around 1920 or 1919 or something, and it only lasted a year or two. does anyone know about it? no, not as greatly as the great depression, which lasted for about a decade. this is because FDR was known to "solve the great depression". he and the fed actually exaggerated the problem, by trying to correct it. now about the smaller, lesser known depression, that lasted for a short time because nobody even TRIED to correct it, at all. the fed was just enacted only a few years prior, and the market corrected itself.
C) if the fed tries to correct it with changing the interest rates, then the market becomes skewed. soon, the fed will have to necessarily bring the interest rates back up to nominal conditions, in which time the bust will come BECAUSE OF THAT, and we will have a depression. mark my words. when you see this happen, you will really wake up. the bust will come because people will get out of that sector of the market (housing AND education), and people will be really hurting. badly. people will leave the sector because interest rates are not what they were (which is actually now), and the bubble will have popped.
So what i'm getting at is that this is all started with the fed. when the fed counteracts, it acts against the will of the market, causing confusion in the market, and causing a bubble in the sector.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of those are the result of irresponsible use of loans and the inability to pay back the loans. Your solution to that is to let this super secretive private bank have absolute power over our currency and do as they please with it. Get real.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CSS, go back to your cave... At least josda is debating the issue intelligently. You don't even understand your own position, let alone anyone elses'
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Austrian School is just one body that forwards a theory. The Chicago School also forwards a theory. But those theories are each different in both tone and content.
Read this PDF [^] and give us your considered opinion.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with it 100%. We need to base our dollar on something hard, such as gold, silver, platinum, etc. It doesn't matter if it's a mix of these hard assets either, just as long as it's backed by, or actually is, commodity/commodities.
They blamed the problem on the banks. Agreed. They think that the only way that the federal government would be able to solve it is by inflating. Agreed.
So basically, I agree with it, 100%.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do I take from your postings that you fully agree with the Austrian School of Economics as well as fully agree with the Chicago School of Economics?
Frankly, they are competing theories not complementary. It is impossible to fully accept both.
So, would you like to clarify your position, it is a little confused from where I stand.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gold is impossible for reasons already stated.
Why would you care ? You'd be poor no matter what we accepted as money.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Question 
Answer 
Joke 
Rant 
Admin 
