What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing
When Should I Book My Flight Home for Christmas? view!
bing.com - Bing predicts if your fare is likely to fall by $50 or more within 7 days. Shockingly accurate.
50 Comments
- BlacklabelSAR, on 11/11/2009, -3/+47The reason that the the U.S. 2-party system looks more like a 1 party system is because it is. The Bankers are always in power. This isn't rocket science.
- kemp34, on 11/11/2009, -5/+42What if those in control decide to tilt the table to their cronies?
- SchmuckofNI, on 11/12/2009, -3/+37Audit the Fed, enough said.
- americanhelot, on 11/11/2009, -2/+33I thought that's what they have been doing.
- kemp34, on 11/11/2009, -4/+25Should we significantly increase the size of the entity that can tilt the table?
- BillE3, on 11/11/2009, -5/+22Just what is the financial incentive for Chris Dodd to propose this? I say follow the money.
If we are not allowed full disclosure on authors of bills regarding who is giving the money and who will receive the power then they should not be allowed to pass the bills. - algaeturd, on 11/12/2009, -5/+17The bad news: There will never be an audit of the Fed because the people who run this place won't allow it. There are too many money men in charge who won't let anyone get near the Fed.
The good news: Some Americans are waking up to the fact that this institution that is in no way a government branch is sitting laws and dictating the economy, printing worthless money on their printing press, gaming the stock market and the financial market so their friends make money on the way up and even on the way down (from inevitable crashes).
It's a ponzi scheme. The fox is guarding the hen house. Literally. As long as the Fed continues to operate, the rich will never lose money and the poor will never make money. Period.
That's the way the system is set up and that's the way it will stay and there's nothing you can do about and nothing I can do about it. Together, if Americans wake up, they can demand a change (if they weren't so apathetic and head-in-the-sand) but it likely won't happen until it's too late.
My biggest disappointment with Obama was having the Wall Street money men in high positions around him. The same people who caused this recession who all made billions of dollars off of the American tax payer, still in charge of the whole shebang.
But if people would wake up, they'd realize that the right and left are both governed by the same people: The money men. No ifs, ands or buts. If you can't see it clearly after the past 2 years, you'll never see it. It's crystal.
5 years ago, if you said 'Audit the Fed,' you were a paranoid conspiracy theorist. These days, if you say it, people know why you're saying it and many are starting to demand it.
Again, it'll never happen because the politicians we elect are just protecting the source of the money. Follow the trail...it all leads back to the Fed. - NorthMass, on 11/12/2009, -4/+13I agree with most of your comment and dugg you up, but Mitt Romney supported TARP. He is no better than the Democrats and Obama, as the Democrats and Republicans are mostly the same. Ron Paul, that is a man who believes in laissez-faire economics that enforce fraud laws, while at the same time letting banks who took big risks FAIL, not bail them out like Romney believes in.
- Insightful, on 11/11/2009, -2/+10"However, as Mitt Romney might suggest, putting men and women who actually understand the dynamics not only of economics but Wall Street as well is the best idea."
Mitt Romney called: having you comment on this might not be the best idea. - mcdropkicker, on 11/12/2009, -1/+8What do you mean 'What if'?
- elliotys, on 11/12/2009, -3/+10I am for regulation. I am also for enforcing the laws we already have, and not undoing the ones that were put in place to protect us from the economic crisis we are in now (aka Glass Steagall act, thanks a lot Phil Gramm you ***** douche). But what I am against more than anything else, is each side pointing fingers, when blood is on everyones hands.
- avengingturnip, on 11/12/2009, -0/+6Not just the hyperinflation and unemployment of the '70s and the '87 crash there was also the 90s recession and the early 2000's recession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recession
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession
Since by the early 2000s the U.S. had already shed much of its industrial base there was no economic engine to lead the country out of recession except for inflated consumer spending. That led to 6 years of artificially low interest rates that fed the bubble that burst last year. - Rothbardosaurus, on 11/12/2009, -0/+6Crash of 1987.
The 1970s. - Rothbardosaurus, on 11/12/2009, -0/+5Let it suffice to say that ever since the Fed was created, the economy has NOT been stable.
- avengingturnip, on 11/12/2009, -0/+4And it has been an absolute roller coaster since Nixon shut the gold exchange window.
- mah2cent, on 11/12/2009, -2/+6Saying the Fed's primary purpose is monetary policy indicates that the author does not know what the Fed is responsible for.
"Google a Fed publication entitled "The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions." In addition to recklessly manipulating the money supply and causing boom-and-bust cycles for more than ninety years (including the Great Depression and the current one), the Fed "has supervisory and regulatory authority over a wide range of financial institutions and activities." That’s an understatement if ever there was one. Among the Fed’s "functions" are the regulation of:
Bank holding companies
State-chartered banks
Foreign branches of member banks
Edge and agreement corporations
U.S. state-licensed branches, agencies, and representative offices of foreign banks
Nonbanking activities of foreign banks
National banks
Savings banks
Nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies
Thrift holding companies
Financial reporting procedures
Accounting policies of banks
Business "continuity" in case of economic emergencies
Consumer protection laws
Securities dealings of banks
Information technology used by banks
Foreign investment by banks
Foreign lending by banks
Branch banking
Bank mergers and acquisitions
Who may own a bank
Capital "adequacy standards"
Extensions of credit for the purchase of securities
Equal opportunity lending
Mortgage disclosure information
Reserve requirements
Electronic funds transfers
Interbank liabilities
Community Reinvestment Act sub-prime lending demands
All international banking operations
Consumer leasing
Privacy of consumer financial information
Payments on demand deposits
"Fair Credit" reporting
Transactions between member banks and their affiliates
Truth in lending
Truth in savings
All of this financial market regulation and regimentation was in full force during the Greenspan era. None of it could conceivably be considered to be "libertarian" or "free market" in any way. The Fed is a government central planning agency, period.
Source: Thomas DiLorenzo: professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland.
Perhaps the best regulator for the job is the American consumer. People already know how to research things that they purchase. For safety, electrical appliances, etc there is Underwriters Laboratories, an independent testing lab that has been around since 1894.
There are lots of places to investigate investments, such as Motley Fool and various other newsletters, and most of all the internet. There are also ratings for various auto purchase and practically every thing else. Being responsible for your own investments and every other purchase you make risk/reward decisions every day.
Having government involved creates a sort of moral hazard in that you don't feel the need to investigate every thing because "government regulators" are on the job. But, what about Bernie Madoff? Several attempts by independent ratings agencies tried to warn regulators over several years to no avail. Having one huge regulator would result in even greater failures.
As an aside, there is currently over 70000 pages of government regulations on the books creating massive amounts of company expense for "compliance" involving having to add analysts, CPAs and attorneys. This huge cost burden is at least part of the cause of companies either leaving the US or at least exporting jobs overseas.
Just mah2cent comment. - kemp34, on 11/12/2009, -1/+4As in, what happens when? Do people just roll over and accept it?
- Gudeldar, on 11/12/2009, -0/+2Thanks for the non-sequitur.
- Lonandubh, on 11/12/2009, -2/+4Oh, because Mr. Clinton decided to find someone who Would regulate during his 8 years as president...
- Barackalypse, on 11/12/2009, -2/+4The armed citizenry, which is why we have the Second Amendment.
- govtdoesnotwork, on 11/12/2009, -3/+5Romney's Taxachusetts Health Care plan is also growing fiscal disaster. If Republicans run him in 2012, not only will he lose, _I_ will strongly consider voting for Obama. I'd rather have a real big government Democrat for 4 years than a fake "small government" Repubican for a possible 8. And Dr. Paul's too old & has too much baggage, so we need to get behind another sensible candidate like Gary Johnson, IMO.
- Barackalypse, on 11/12/2009, -3/+5That doesn't help, because you're still left with incompetent regulators, like the ones that took over a decade to detect Bernie Madoff's fraud despite investigating him 6 times over that time period?
- bshock, on 11/12/2009, -0/+2Oh, you mean like the Bush Administration?
Look, just because the dam doesn't work perfectly, is that any reason to tear down all dams and never build another one? - SanDiegoFreeway, on 11/12/2009, -2/+4Who watches the watchmen?
- SanDiegoFreeway, on 11/12/2009, -3/+5Except #2 isn't really the case. He's handed important things like health care off to Democrat majorities in Congress who put bipartisanship at the bottom of the list.
Obama's bipartisanship rhetoric is just a better face put on an equally peremptory attitude to the minority. I don't hear any Democrats calling foul on the "party of no" bit after screaming bloody murder when they were called the "party of no".
As an Obama voter, I am deeply, deeply disappointed. - hypogenic, on 11/12/2009, -1/+2I see that armchair whiners have arrived early for the party.
- induren, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1Regardless of your views you have to agree that to see this kind of statement in the WSJ is a bit of a shock.
- PhilliesBlunt, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1If that's the case, they dropped the ball.
- richmomz, on 11/12/2009, -1/+2So long as they still have the power to tilt the table without fear of public oversight that's all they care about.
- mythril, on 11/12/2009, -2/+3Ayn Rand was all about gold as money, in fact there is a rather large speech about it in 'Atlas Shrugged.'
Claiming that because Greenspan was a fan of Ayn Rand therefore he must have identical economic understanding is fallacious at best and intentionally deceiving at worst.
Nothing about a central monetary authority is libertarian in nature, or Objectivist.
Both ideologies are fundamentally opposed to the central planning of anything, let alone an economy's lifeblood (money). - LokitheComplex, on 11/12/2009, -1/+2No matter what you do to your own central bank or regulations won't the banks just shop around the world until they find the deals they like? They don't need to move anywhere just pick and choose things they like, cheap money from X, no regulation in Y and bonuses from Z. Its a global market.
- AmnesiacJack, on 11/12/2009, -2/+3The Fed is the only thing propping our house of cards up right now.
When / If we pull them out we're going to have a long fall to the bottom. There is no ideal situation any more, the longer they stand, the longer we'll fall when the time comes. - dalittle, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1Stripped down oversight like we had results in begging by financial institutions that try to convenience everyone they are too big to fail and need corp welfare from the federal government at the taxpayers expense. The US Government needs heavy regulation of the financial industry as a result of their inability to regulate themselves.
- gradient01, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1Goldman Sachs ... FTW (or FTL, depending on your point of view).
- DiggerLater, on 11/12/2009, -3/+4Nice little swipe at Ayn Rand there. I think any truly dedicated fan of hers would cringe at the thought of taking up the role of the largest regulator of a fiat currency for the government. I think he is a terrible hypocrite to the ideas of gold-backed currency and the free market as he advocated in the 1960's.
- Blinker1315, on 11/11/2009, -23/+24This op-ed is typical of the left-wing mindset. Every economic trouble is due to de-regulation, privatization, greedy fat cats on Wall Street (as if New York City had a monopoly on greed in this, or any other, country) and the lack of an overwhelming federal government. Here's part of the trouble: the financial industry, for both good and ill, moves much faster than either the government or media. So a lot of transactions and ways of doing business are too complex for many to understand. I assume Frank is being sarcastic when he speaks of Obama's as a "happy bipartisan administration," but one never knows. Yes, the financial industry cannot go completely unregulated. However, as Mitt Romney might suggest, putting men and women who actually understand the dynamics not only of economics but Wall Street as well is the best idea.
- Elranzer, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1Well there are two parties...
The Banker/Corporate Interests Party - Masquerades as Democrats and Republicans
Populist Party - Greens, Libertarians, Constitution Party, Independents (not Joe Liberman "independents") basically people who never get elected to higher office than at the county and state levels - emmeron, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1Bring it on. I'd rather have children that grow up in a hard world where things are real than a fantasy where their strings are pulled.
- emmeron, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1To follow up: Greenspan was all about Rand... THEN he became what he was known for -- the two have nothing in common.
This writing was just plain biased tripe. Pretend to see a problem, but make it into something that isn't a problem to show how the way you see it is right. Works fine when one uses real information rather than ad populum. - Lonandubh, on 11/12/2009, -4/+4Presenting an option that is ideologically abhorrent to the opposition then blaming them for not playing along is disingenuous. At least W was honest about screwing over the people he didn't like.
- avrus, on 11/12/2009, -0/+0Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- richmomz, on 11/12/2009, -1/+1Oh come on, they would never do that... /S
- mythril, on 11/12/2009, -2/+2Ayn Rand was a woman.
And yes, anyone who understands the Austrian Business Cycle Theory and the fraud that is Fractional Reserve banking, realizes that it matters little who the regulator is. - richmomz, on 11/12/2009, -1/+1I think the "incentive" was political, not financial (political as in his potential rival in the next election is Peter Schiff, the guy who predicted the crisis years ago and Ron Paul's former economic advisor)
- peteroth29, on 11/12/2009, -1/+0well i as well am all for enforcing laws we already have but i am also all for going by that peice of paper that makes our government so great.. The Us Consitiution... if a law can be undone, which is possible in our constitution then i deserves to be. thats a big majority necessary.
Something that is always going to be: pointing fingers when the blood is on everyones hands... its politics... no one is wrong/ everyone is wrong..
I LOVE U.S. POLITICS! - mythril, on 11/12/2009, -4/+3The market is self regulating, if you take away _all_ the government-granted favors.
- algaeturd, on 11/12/2009, -10/+7Clearly you don't get it at all. So I won't even bother to address most of the inaccurate info you gave, esp. RE: the financial sector in the U.S.
As far as Frank's comment about a happy bipartisan administration, how do you NOT get that?
Let me make it easier for you.
1. Bush: "I don't give a ***** what the other side thinks or what the American people think, I'm the decider." Rush through *****, bypass congress, checks & balances, etc.
He gets a lot of ***** done but it's all wrecking America from the inside out.
2. Obama: "I'm working with the other side to get something done."
Nothing gets done because the other side is just trying to block him from accomplishing ANYTHING at all. His serious downfall right now is that he IS working with the republicans too much and they think they're being clever by blocking him at ever single ***** turn. So, in turn, he's not getting a whole lot done because he's bending over backwards to work with these ***** who are just sitting up road blocks.
Get it now? - PhilPerspective, on 11/12/2009, -9/+4Did you ever notice how we didn't have a financial meltdown between the end of the Great Depression and until this crisis? I wonder why. And no, the CRA didn't have a damn thing to do with it. And who would you suggest be appointed per Romney's suggestion? You do understand where Greenspan came from, right? And as we know, he didn't enforce any regulations. Bob Rubin was a CEO. Look what he helped do to Citibank(Citigroup .. whatever it is called). Besides, we already have too many people in regulatory positions who are too chummy with the people they are supposed to regulate. I presume you've heard of the term moral hazard?
- Syric, on 11/12/2009, -9/+4Here come the armchair economists and political scientists.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is