3 ms·

I question why they want to see where the FED spent the money. Is it actually because they care, or they want to get in on all the wheeling and dealing with th

I question why they want to see where the FED spent the money. Is it actually because they care, or they want to get in on all the wheeling and dealing with the banks? I agree with transparency, but what is the true motive of the politicians? I think it will be to line their pockets.

borism 16y ago
Ron Paul is known gold bugs' favorite, so undermining the Fed by any means is definitely going to score some points for him.
- philwelch 16y ago
  For the longest time there was a theory called "starve the beast". The idea is that Republicans interested in reducing the scope of the federal government could cut taxes and actually increase spending, forcing a deficit crisis and a sudden paring-back of the government (similar to the now famous Greek "austerity measures") and creating a permanent distrust of big government. I bring this up because it seems like a similar tactic could be applied to the FED. The FED doesn't hyperinflate because there's no oversight or control by Congress--if there was oversight, Congress would do all they could to get the FED to hyperinflate just to increase spending. Maybe goldbugs want to introduce permanent oversight and control over the FED just to cause that hyperinflation, just so they could turn around and say "Look! Central banks are untrustworthy!". There are lots of similar examples on the left, whether deliberate or accidental--regulating certain industries within inches of their lives (healthcare) and then pointing to it as a market failure.
  - borism 16y ago
    yeah, that's second thing I thought as well. GOP is definitely on this big time. But unanimity of this totally gives populism of the bill out.
  - jacoblyles 16y ago
    "Starve the Beast" is a surprisingly bipartisan tactic. For example, it's no secret on the right that entitlement spending has the US government on a course towards bankruptcy. So the right wing tends to think the left wing is stupid when they support even more generous benefits. But I read an interview with Paul Krugman the other day where he acknowledged the fact that our entitlements are unsustainable. Of course, having a Nobel prize in economics, he would not be so blind as to miss our looming national bankruptcy. But he figures if the public finances get bad enough, then politicians will be forced to raise taxes and/or nationalize health care, i.e. follow the leftist plan. The theory is that if politicians play chicken with global debt markets then eventually they will be forced to swerve. Krugman has more faith in politicians than I do. I think the politicos are going to drive us off a cliff. Starve the beast comes in many guises. Even the most shrill critics of it's practice by the right wing (such as Mr. Krugman) practice it themselves. I don't think any such tactics are terribly smart.
spoiledtechie 16y ago
Whats the reasoning behind this down vote? I like many other Americans these days do not trust the politicians currently. I am just pointing this out. If they do see where the FED spends their money, they could look at a bank and say hey, give me money in my next campaign or I will close you down.

borism 16y ago

Ron Paul is known gold bugs' favorite, so undermining the Fed by any means is definitely going to score some points for him.

philwelch 16y ago
For the longest time there was a theory called "starve the beast". The idea is that Republicans interested in reducing the scope of the federal government could cut taxes and actually increase spending, forcing a deficit crisis and a sudden paring-back of the government (similar to the now famous Greek "austerity measures") and creating a permanent distrust of big government. I bring this up because it seems like a similar tactic could be applied to the FED. The FED doesn't hyperinflate because there's no oversight or control by Congress--if there was oversight, Congress would do all they could to get the FED to hyperinflate just to increase spending. Maybe goldbugs want to introduce permanent oversight and control over the FED just to cause that hyperinflation, just so they could turn around and say "Look! Central banks are untrustworthy!". There are lots of similar examples on the left, whether deliberate or accidental--regulating certain industries within inches of their lives (healthcare) and then pointing to it as a market failure.
- borism 16y ago
  yeah, that's second thing I thought as well. GOP is definitely on this big time. But unanimity of this totally gives populism of the bill out.
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  "Starve the Beast" is a surprisingly bipartisan tactic. For example, it's no secret on the right that entitlement spending has the US government on a course towards bankruptcy. So the right wing tends to think the left wing is stupid when they support even more generous benefits. But I read an interview with Paul Krugman the other day where he acknowledged the fact that our entitlements are unsustainable. Of course, having a Nobel prize in economics, he would not be so blind as to miss our looming national bankruptcy. But he figures if the public finances get bad enough, then politicians will be forced to raise taxes and/or nationalize health care, i.e. follow the leftist plan. The theory is that if politicians play chicken with global debt markets then eventually they will be forced to swerve. Krugman has more faith in politicians than I do. I think the politicos are going to drive us off a cliff. Starve the beast comes in many guises. Even the most shrill critics of it's practice by the right wing (such as Mr. Krugman) practice it themselves. I don't think any such tactics are terribly smart.

spoiledtechie 16y ago

Whats the reasoning behind this down vote? I like many other Americans these days do not trust the politicians currently. I am just pointing this out. If they do see where the FED spends their money, they could look at a bank and say hey, give me money in my next campaign or I will close you down.