Federal Reserve

The Sane Case for Auditing the Fed

|

Just a couple of weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed The Federal Reserve Transparency Act by an overwhelming vote of 333-92; a majority of House Democrats voted for an audit while just one Republican voted against the bill.

Yet despite overwhelming public and congressional support for an audit, it's just not going to happen.

For that, you can blame Senate Majority Leader Harr Reid (D-Nev.), who's just not interested in putting the legislation up for a vote in the country's upper chamber.

That's a shame, I argue at The Daily Beast, because we really should know a lot more about how the United States' central bank does what it does. In fact, if a 2011 GAO report is any indication, nobody outside the Fed even knows what it's doing on a regular basis. And there's this:

[A new] Pro Publica bombshell story about funny business at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York [should] only increase calls for a truly wide-ranging, independent audit.

Bank examiner Carmen Segarra, who the Fed tasked with monitoring Goldman Sachs in an effort to learn how and why the 2008 financial crisis unfolded, was fired from her post after seven months. She walked away with 46 hours of secretly recorded conversations and other documentation amounting to an "unignorable truth," in the words of journalist Michael Lewis: that one of America's biggest investment banks had co-opted its supposed overseer.

"You sort of knew that the regulators were more or less controlled by the banks," Lewis wrote. "Now you know."

Whole thing here.

NEXT: Town Wants to Ban Cameras After Cop's Obama Rant Goes Viral

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “But everybody knows that only gold cranks and conspiracy theory crazies want to audit the Fed, anyway!”

  2. Maybe someone should audit Harry Reid’s finances.

  3. OT: Who watches the watchers?

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/met…..ion_Bottom

    Over the past five years, Massachusetts State Police have been involved in more than 1,800 accidents ? almost one a day ? leaving behind a trail of battered vehicles, expensive lawsuits, and painful injuries to officers and civilians alike. Though many were the fault of other drivers, State Police acknowledge that hundreds were the result of troopers driving too fast, ignoring traffic signals, or violating other safety rules.

    1. State Police acknowledge that hundreds were the result of troopers driving too fast, ignoring traffic signals, or violating other safety rules

      “Rules are for mere mortals.”

    2. Over the past five years, Massachusetts State Police have been involved in more than 1,800 accidents

      Proof that policing is a dangerou profession!!!111!!!

      1. As bland assured me last night, this is why cops deserve to make $100,000 a year.

        1. “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it…”

    3. many all of them were the fault of other drivers the police, but they managed to bully the driver into taking the rap.

      FTFY

  4. Thomas Friedman writes an 850 word article on ISIS but 250 words are just quotes from Batman.

    It ends with the following paragraph:

    There is so much state failure in the Arab world, argues Fukuyama, because of the persistence there of kinship/tribal loyalties ? “meaning that you can only trust that narrow group of people in your tribe.” You can’t build a strong, impersonal, merit-based state when the only ties that bind are shared kin, not shared values. It took China and Europe centuries to make that transition, but they did. If the Arab world can’t overcome its tribalism and sectarianism in the face of ISIS barbarism, “then there is nothing we can do,” said Fukuyama. And theirs will be a future of many dark nights.

    Good God.

    1. I know I’ve linked this before but I think it’s worth linking again:

      http://thomasfriedmanopedgenerator.com/about.php

      Thomas Friedman Op/Ed Generator

      Because this is what his writing actually looks like.

    2. Why is Fukuyama still gainfully employed?

      1. Especially given that ‘The End of History’ is one of the worst attempts at prognostication in the history of this country. It’s on the same level as The Population Bomb.

      2. Why is Thomas Friedman still gainfully employed?

        1. Perhaps this is approaching the derp singularity where left and right derp converge…

          No, no there is nothing denser and more impenetrable than Friedman.

    3. Also, Friedman is an idiot for wasting the opportunity for a perfectly good Ra’s al Ghul reference.

    4. Because our founding fathers were escaping from tyranny, they were focused “on how power can be constrained,” Fukuyama explained to me in an interview.

      With slavery and a civil war?

    5. Kenya has tribal loyalties which lead to lots of trouble, but that state isn’t too dysfunctional. The ME has much worse problems than tribes-like bad ideas that predate and were intensified by Islam.

    6. So does Morgan Freeman have to say on the subject?

      1. *What. What does Morgan Freeman.

        Sigh. My kingdom (pitiful as it is) for an edit button.

        1. He said to poll some millenials.

  5. This is never going to happen because it would cause the whole house of cards to collapse.

    1. Checkmate.

  6. The second half of the Salon article about re-writing the Constitution is up and it’s wonderful.

    We have reached a level of absurdity in associating the right to stockpile arms with individual freedom. Those not obsessed with gun rights should be protected against gun nuts, too, right? Guns in bars? In places of worship?

    I try not to use this word, but this is retarded. If a church wants to allow guns in their own places of worship, then not allowing them to do so not only infringes on the second amendment, but on their freedom of religion and property rights.

    The hard truth is that economic opportunity has been proven less real in America than in Western Europe.

    They say this and then provide no evidence or citations. Evidence is for elitists, not noble progs.

    I love that these nitwits keep talking about the founders while attacking everything the founders actually believed in.

    1. These are two history professors that explicitly claim that the only conceivable reason the Framers of the Constitution thought people would own a rifle is for militia service or hunting.

      They then, without a shred of evidence or citation of something the Framers wrote, claim that the current SCOTUS is wrong and the “libertarian view of the Second Amendment” is wrong.

      Because it’s not like cannons and man-of-wars were privately owned in the 18th and 19th centuries. And it’s certainly not as if there is a clause in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to grant letters of marque to private individuals to hunt down enemy ships at sea.

      Because all that would clearly indicate that the Framers were just fine with private individuals owning weapons for purposes other than hunting or militia service.

      1. Also, read to the end. They make all these radical proclamations about things that ‘must be changed,’ but then when they actually list the radical changes they’d make, their big idea is…term limits.

        Yeah, way to go out on a limb there.

        1. Just in general, that article is poorly written and excessively wordy. It’s like they figured if they rambled on and on and asked enough rhetorical questions their suggestions would appear extra smart.

          1. Paging Judge Napolitano…

            1. I could write a perl script that changed all of the judges rhetorical questions into plain old sentences. I think he might read like the Ernest Hemingway of libertarians then.

      2. All those original state constitutions guaranteeing “the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state” also don’t exist.

    2. Why do you even need to “fix” gun rights? That’s like saying you need to “fix” free spech rights.

      1. Given their hatred of Citizens United, they think we should ‘fix’ free speech rights too.

        These are the people who, in the last article, also argued in favor of legally mandated two year ‘community service’ which seems indistinguishable from slavery.

        1. So they want to fix the 1st, 2nd, and 13th amednments. Somehow I doubt they want to fix the 16th.

        2. These are the people who, in the last article, also argued in favor of legally mandated two year ‘community service’ which seems indistinguishable from slavery.

          That’s because it is slavery.

          1. But it is a good slavery – for the public not for profit!

    3. France: a bastion of economic opportunity.

      1. No one has more economic opportunity than the 80% of Somalis living in Sweden who are not working.

        Nothing says economic opportunity like a 20% labor force participation rate.

        1. The ability to collect welfare counts as economic opportunity, doesn’t it?

          1. I’m guessing this is followed up with complaints about being alienated from both the source and host cultures.

    4. They say this and then provide no evidence or citations. Evidence is for elitists, not noble progs.

      It’s Salon. They assume readers have been properly indoctrinated to not raise such questions.

  7. Ever since its creation during the Woodrow Wilson era, it’s been a favorite target of everyone from right-wing conspiracists who fear the Fed is simply another cog in an international Jewish banking conspiracy ….

    Also, anyone who criticizes America’s first black president must be RACIST.

    1. Fuck off.

      1. WTF is your problem? You don’t recognize sarcasm? Or do you really feel anyone who questions the Fed must be anti-semitic and anyone who criticizes a black president must necessarily be racist?

        1. He’s angry right now. He’s been having an argument upthread and needs to blow off steam. No worries.

          1. He can take a laxative and blow his brains out for all I care.

            1. . . . . . . .

              Why the laxative?

              1. Lol. Think about it.

                1. See, I GET the shit-for-brains reference. But couldn’t he get the shit out by just shooting himself in the head?

                  Hmmmmmm. . .

                  I guess if he’s got constipation of the brain, then he’s only be able to clear the problem with a large caliber weapon, such as a .45 hollowpoint or a shotgun. Something small like a .22 wouldn’t have the power to shatter his skull to the point that the poo could properly escape.

                  So, then, I guess Cyto just doesn’t own any shotguns or large-caliber handguns. Thus his need for laxatives.

                  Or did I miss something?

        2. I recognize your sarcasm, and it gave the impression that you thought dismissing anti-semitic conspiracy charges against the Fed was equivalent to dismissing anti-Obama criticism as racist.

          1. That’s because it is equivalent.

            I know full well there are those who think the world’s finances are run by THE JOOS and that many of those people are simply anti-semitic. I would also guess that at least some who criticize Obama really are racist assholes. However, that doesn’t necessarily invalidate criticisms delivered by either group. Valid criticism is valid no matter whose mouth it comes from – racist or saint.

            1. So you mean yelling “RACIST” when losing an argument is equivalent to yelling “RACIST” when losing an argument.

              I’ll have to think about that one.

  8. So since the SJW infiltration, 4chan is dead, or 4chan is kill as they say. While there’s always been a ton of other 2ch inspired, futaba-style boards, the one that has been setup specifically for the 4chan exodus seems to be 8chan (see background with video of the founder). And in this case, they’ve managed to officially partner 2ch as well.

    The name is short for ?chan (infinitechan) since anyone can create their own boards. Complete board list: http://8chan.co/boards.html
    Click “Expand all images” to expand any nsfw images or videos if they are hidden by default, depending on the board.

    1. Interview with Fredrick Brennan aka hotwheels

      1. Can’t you just ignore it? 😉

    2. No, no, and never.

  9. “For that, you can blame Senate Majority Leader Harr Reid (D-Nev.), who’s just not interested in putting the legislation up for a vote in the country’s upper chamber.”

    Another reason not to care if a losing libertarian candidate for Senate takes enough votes away from a Republican to elect a Democrat, keeping a Dem-controlled Senate.

    If you like your Harry Reid you can keep your Harry Reid.

    1. Error in logic, assuming that all votes for a libertarian are taking away from a Republican.

      1. Safe bet, I think.

        1. I’m not so sure. We, here in Texas, have some really shitty choices from both major parties in the upcoming elections for governor and lieutenant governor this year. They’re so shitty, in fact, that I probably wouldn’t vote at all without the Libertarian Party running some candidates. Obviously my vote is not going to take away from either major party candidate.

        2. I’m not so sure. We, here in Texas, have some really shitty choices from both major parties in the upcoming elections for governor and lieutenant governor this year. They’re so shitty, in fact, that I probably wouldn’t vote at all without the Libertarian Party running some candidates. Obviously my vote is not going to take away from either major party candidate.

    2. Angry partisan is angry.

      1. Observant, not angry. Reality is what it is.

    3. I agree with you in general, but the Dems would just filibuster and barring that, Obama would veto any Audit the Fed bill. The purpose of getting back the Senate is to block BO’s appointments.

    4. That argument only works if you assume that Senate Majority Leader McConnell will reverse course on this policy despite pushback from the Chamber of Commerce.

      Do you see that happening?

  10. Because A leftist might ask “hey, if non-White immigrants are such as wonderful thing, why limit ourselves? Why not throw open the border? Why not have hundreds of millions of Africans immigrate here? I see no downside whatsoever, only a racist would.” But he would use the power of crimestop to prevent himself from asking such a question. The libertarian, however, goes right ahead and asks it anyway. He is more deluded than the liberal.

    1. Fuck off, American.

    2. Hilariously, all the immigrants I know from Angola, Cameroon and Zimbabwe work their asses off, are surprisingly responsive to anti-government arguments (they put up with some of the most corrupt governments on the planet for Christ’s sake) and tend to, in general, be far better people than the lazy white assholes demanding my obedience and income.

      1. That does sound hilarious 🙂

      2. No, no, no – can’t be. Its a matter of faith among the large anti-immigration portion of our commentariat that immigrants are all about the welfare and voting Democrat.

        Or maybe they just think its the Mexicans.

        1. They do, actually. Every fucking one of them that I know thinks it’s Mexican Immigrants and Black Poor Folk that cause the democrats to win.

      3. It’s a lot harder to immigrate from those places than it is from Mexico. So we get the cream of the crop of sub-saharan Africa, but any ragged pendejo can walk across an unfenced, barely guarded land border.

        1. Even then I doubt that more than 7% of them are any type of conservative.

    3. Harold: So what are you in here for?

      Tarik: For being black.

      Harold: Seriously.

      Tarik: I am serious. You wanna know what happened. I was walking out of a Barnes & Noble, and a cop stops me. Evidently, a black guy robbed a storein Newark. I told him, “I haven’t even been to Newark in months.” So he starts beating me with his gun, telling me to stop resisting arrest.

      Harold: Holy shit! What’d you do?

      Tarik: I kept saying, “I understand I’m under arrest. Now please stop beating me.”

      Harold: I don’t understand how you can be so calm about all this.

      Tarik: Look at me. I’m fat, black, can’t dance, and I have two gay fathers. People have been messing with me my whole life. I learned a long time ago there’s no sense getting all riled up every time a bunch of idiots give you a hard time. In the end, the universe tends to unfold as it should. Plus I have a really large penis. That keeps me happy.

  11. So are the Jets that bad or are the Chargers kinda good?

  12. Hmmm…

    Body camera exonerates cop

    All other issues aside, article notes that numerous civil rights groups are pushing for

    FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO REQUIRE POLICE OFFICERS TO WEAR BODY CAMERAS

    would you support this?

    It goes against every principle of libertarianism and is a classic example of federal government intervention in state, County, city, and even private business affairs such as a private university police

    It could save lives and mean that officers using excessive and excessive deadly force will be much much more likely to be held accountable

    Recent studies also suggest that making officers wear body cameras results in fewer uses of force as well

    So does one abandon libertarian beliefs and be pragmatic God forbid and support federal legislation such as this?

    I have yet to see alleged principled reasonoids complain about federal oversight of police departments such as in Seattle, in fact quite the opposite

    Definitely a thought provoking question and a perfect example where the concept of blackguardism really gets interesting

    In the instant case and assjacket who is told repeatably to show his hands response with the brilliant reply. ‘No fool’

    And gets shot

    I am so utterly shocked (rolls eyes)

    Very heartening that this officer had videotape to clearly portray the shooting and justification of same

    http://www.policeone.com/offic…..-shooting/

    Smooches!

    1. FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO REQUIRE POLICE OFFICERS TO WEAR BODY CAMERAS…would you support this?

      Yes. It places a uniform restriction on government and also makes said government more accountable to the people it, ostensibly, serves.

      1. I respect that response and I agree

        My libertarianism is pragmatic and I accept that sometimes it’s a good thing when the feds step in on a local matter

        I 100% support mandatory body camera wear for all police officers and in my opinion we will see close to Universal adoption of these within 15 years

        Cheers!

  13. An ideologue not interested in facts and just bigotry would make a sarcastic response to the number of collisions the state police were involved in

    A prudent intelligent person would know the number says nothing and that what would be useful is to know what is the collision rate per mile driven or hour driven as compared to nonpolice drivers?

    I would like to have the answer. Then doing what adults versus bigots do I could at least come to a valid initial opinion as to the quality of their driving

    The only study I have ever seen in the police academy said that we have a lower collision rate

    This is another area where instead of posting examples of alleged police misonduct to satisfy people who already formed an opinion without data

    Some investigative journalism could help determine the truth God forbid

    Of course this would ignore that there is a difference between police driving which includes pursuits and lights and siren responses versus conventional driving but it would still be interesting

    A study could exclude collisions during emergency response and then they can actually compare apples to apples another reality in Mediocre anti police journalism

    Smooches!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.