Skip to main content

View Diary: Fed Audit: $16T in secret loans (228 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually not. The Fed is a creature of (13+ / 0-)

    Congress.  It's a statutory private corporation.  It's the Congress delegating its obligation to manage the currency (public purse) to a private entity, so it can claim like Pontius Pilate, to have clean hands.

    What we can probably conclude is that printing lots of money does not create inflation.  What we should ask is where did the money go?  Are the bankers and brokers merely sequestering it by passing it back and forth, like a balloon, among their friends?

    The federal government allocating credit is bad; the Federal Reserve allocating credit and giving Wall Street a share is good.

    http://www.youtube.com/cyprespond

    by hannah on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 03:05:59 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well, no. (8+ / 0-)
      It's the Congress delegating its obligation to manage the currency (public purse) to a private entity, so it can claim like Pontius Pilate, to have clean hands.

      Currency isn't the public purse.   The loans are not funded with tax dollars.  

      The reason why there's delegation to the fed is because Congress is the last place you want screwing with the decisions made by the fed.  Or do we want the House to hold the dollar hostage along with the debt ceiling?

      Avg. Medicaid cost to New Jersey: $1936 per child per year. Avg cost of helicopter commute for Governor: $2300 per hour. Guess which one Christie wants to cut back on?

      by Inland on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 03:16:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Much better having unaccountable bankers (12+ / 0-)

        manipulating booms and busts, definitely. That way, they and their friends get to consolidate their wealth (which used to be "our wealth") plus there's never a chance to replace them.

        Much much better. Look around the world, and see how great it is.


        Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

        by Jim P on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 03:33:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But that's not the fed governors. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden

          If the fed reserve governors were that way, then we wouldn't trust them with a nickel.

          But the evidence is that the fed governors not only try to do good, but actually manage to accomplish it with the limited portfolio it has.

          I'd stack up its record against Congress's any day.

          Avg. Medicaid cost to New Jersey: $1936 per child per year. Avg cost of helicopter commute for Governor: $2300 per hour. Guess which one Christie wants to cut back on?

          by Inland on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 06:07:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm sure you would. (8+ / 0-)

            btw, you interested in a toll-bridge I got here in NY, for cheap?
            Let me explain, I'm a Nigerian Prince, ....

            Seriously, you must have missed the papers. For example when Alan Greenspan testified in Congress and wrote an Op-Ed in the NY Times on how young couples starting out should hurry and get one of these ARM mortgages real quick... when even I knew from reading that the interest rates were about to start shooting up.

            Or Timmeh, while under his nose a major bank was being told to lie by his NY Fed, and he didn't notice. Guess he was busy forgetting to pay the income tax like we all do every year.

            And on and on and on and on. "It ain't organized crime if you have your name painted on the door" eh?

            Okay, trust them if you want. But better act on the bridge while I still have it.


            Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

            by Jim P on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 06:20:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Any time you're ready, let's do it. (0+ / 0-)

              You might have missed it in the papers, but the fed is the only thing that's working to stimulate the economy.  Not congress.

              The fed saved us from the financial meltdown.  Congress repealed glass steagal.

              And that's not even the day to day work in maintaining a stable currency.  You're welcome.

              But hey, Greenspan once said something about ARMs which we all know are bad, right?

              Avg. Medicaid cost to New Jersey: $1936 per child per year. Avg cost of helicopter commute for Governor: $2300 per hour. Guess which one Christie wants to cut back on?

              by Inland on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 06:42:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  The FED since Volcker has pursued (10+ / 0-)

            unemployment as a means of bolstering corporate profit margins.

            In 1998, for example, the Span explicitly stated that the FED was going to raise rates because low unemployment was pressuring profit margins: firms, caught in a collective action problem, were raiding one another's laborers; and labor itself was becoming cantankerous with respect to wage and benefit demands.  

            The notion that the FED is a neutral institution doing its best is so naive as to be laughable.

            "The attack on the truth by war begins long before war starts and continues long after a war ends." -Julian Assange

            by Pierro Sraffa on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 06:42:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Link? Didn't think so. (0+ / 0-)

              The fed doesn't target corporate profits or even the unemployment rate.

              But you're saying it's been "pursuing unemployment" for thirty years, so you should be able to come up with something to back that up.  Can't you link to a bobswern diary or something?

              Avg. Medicaid cost to New Jersey: $1936 per child per year. Avg cost of helicopter commute for Governor: $2300 per hour. Guess which one Christie wants to cut back on?

              by Inland on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 06:44:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Inland, it appears you are not the "expert" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                polecat

                you think you are.

                One example of the FED pursuing unemployment as a means of protecting corportate profits:

                NY TIMES, 29 October 1999, Section C, page 6

                Numbers and [........] are mine.

                “Greenspan Calls Recent Rate of U.S. Growth Unsustainable”  

                 “…(1) Mr. Greenspan warned that the growth rate of productivity would inevitably level off, leaving the economy vulnerable to a resurgence in inflation…repeated his longstanding warning that the economy was running out of workers [low unemployment] so fast that continued strong growth could lead to a surge in wages and then prices [cost-push inflation]…(2) ‘All the same, the rate of growth of productivity cannot continue to increase indefinitely,’ Mr. Greenspan said.  ‘At some point it must, at least, plateau.  Should, at that point, labor market tightness [low unemployment] result in faster growth of nominal wage rates [labor as an increasing cost of production], there would be no offset from accelerating productivity.  As a consequence, unit costs [price of labor] would likely rise, pressuring profit margins and prices.’…(3) Mr. Greenspan left no doubt that he was particularly concerned about the shrinking pool of available workers [unemployed workers].  The number of people seeking jobs has declined over the last two years and is heading lower as the economy hums along, he said…(4) The problem for the Fed…is that it can no longer [because of productivity gains from fast-changing technologies] assume that it knows when the economy is at risk of overheating.”

                The purpose here is to draw out the assumptions contained within Greenspan's statement and then articulate what they reveal about the underlying dynamics of contemporary U.S. accumulation processes.  From (1) and (2) we see that as a consequence of low unemployment there exists an upward pressure on wages: low unemployment creates bargaining conditions favorable to labor as well as a collective action problem, i.e., an incentive for individual capitalist firms to raid one another’s labor forces, thereby driving up labor costs, which is mutually ruinous. If wages [unit costs] increase then this leads to lower profits [pressuring profit margins] or inflationary pressures or both insofar as there are not corresponding increases in productivity. One conclusion is that current economic practices require unemployment to ensure high profit margins (3), that is,  unemployment disciplines labor.  Conversely, anything mitigating the sting of starvation or an inability to pay the rent or mortgage—unemployment insurance, welfare programs, etc.—favors labor militancy.  Another pertinent issue is the trade-off between full employment and inflation [(1) and (2)] and how this paints an accurate portrait of contemporary U.S. capitalism as an irrational system with two mutually unsatisfactory options: (A) unemployment, stable prices, high profits, and job insecurity; or (B) full employment, destabilizing inflationary pressures, and low profit margins.  I reject (A) because all citizens have a right to work.  

                Though option (B) may sound better than (A), it is not.  Low profits adversely impact research and development, and  unstable prices result in production and distribution inefficiencies.  These inefficiencies have negative material and ecological consequences.  It is also important to note that money is based on social trust, a social relation.  With inflation—and even more so with hyperinflation—social trust breaks down.  Breakdowns in social trust tempt persons to act in ways they would otherwise avoid.  These breakdowns in social trust can even result in violence.  

                The last comment is on (4).  The economy as engine metaphor [overheating = inflation] is telling of the Fed’s outlook: overheating is bad, i.e., no one wants an overheated car engine; thus, the Fed favors option (A).  There is no discussion of option (B) or of purchasing through the political transformation of existing relations of production a rational economic engine.  Unarticulated option (C)—the rational economic engine—might be stable prices, full employment, and job security.  Solving the collective action problem of capitalist firms in times of full employment would require strong unions acting in comprehension of economic tendencies and laws: wage growth should not exceed productivity growth.  Because the marginal productivity of some workers is such that they cannot adequately provide materially for themselves, option (C) ought be combined with progressive taxation and redistribution policies whose central focus ought be on the State’s obligation to provide a deep and far-reaching social safety net for all of its citizens.

                Inland, you may want try a little harder before asking me to "give you a link" or I will continue to make you look like you don't know shit.

                "The attack on the truth by war begins long before war starts and continues long after a war ends." -Julian Assange

                by Pierro Sraffa on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 07:45:42 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You should be writing a series of diaries on (0+ / 0-)

                  Economics and options available to the Fed, chained-CPI, what the current employment numbers mean, and why 1931 isn't like 1937.

                  IMHO.

                  Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                  I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                  -Spike Milligan

                  by polecat on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 07:49:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  No. Not even close. (0+ / 0-)

                  a)  As always, the fed is targeting inflation, not profit margins, not unemployment.  Even by standards of hyperbole, nobody can say that the fed is pursuing unemployment to push up profit margins.  

                  Now, when would the fed chairman make a remark about things that cause inflationary pressures, like a possible shortage of labor?  Why, in 1999, when there was such a thing.  

                  Heard anything since?  

                  Of course not.  Since then, there hasn't been any inflationary pressure from an overheated economy, and the Fed doesn't see it's job has holding down wages.  The Fed is countercyclical.  It changes what it sees as "the problem" every month.  It's in all the papers.

                  But the statement that you are "defending" said something about a policy since Volcker.  That's 1980.  It's 2011.  

                  It would be equally honest for me to cherrypick out a statement from Bernanke last week and say that the Fed sees its job as fighting deflation since Volcker.  

                  b)  And speaking of dishonest, the parentheticals you insert bear watching.  He's not talking about wages per se but the cost of production.  As the actual statement says, a rise in productivity would also lower the cost of production.  Either one would stave off inflation pressures. But you insert a parenthetical that makes it seem like all he really wants is wages down, not productivity up.

                  c) As for your discussion of strong unions and labor, it's not wrong, it's just irrelevant.  The fed, being an unelected and quasi government institution, isn't give a portfolio over everything.   Just as Greenspan doesn't have the power to increase productivity.

                  THat's why Sanders isn't saying, get rid fo the fed: he's saying "where's the help for everyone who isn't a bank?"   THat's exactly the opposite of the attitude that the Fed is intentionally sabtotaging the economy.

                  Avg. Medicaid cost to New Jersey: $1936 per child per year. Avg cost of helicopter commute for Governor: $2300 per hour. Guess which one Christie wants to cut back on?

                  by Inland on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 08:09:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Jesus, you willingfully obfuscate when shown (0+ / 0-)

                    that you wrong.

                    You:

                    As always,the fed is targeting inflation, not profit margins, not unemployment.  Even by standards of hyperbole, nobody can say that the fed is pursuing unemployment to push up profit margins.

                    Nobody?  Greenspan says it himself, in Fed Speak so that most people will have no idea what he is talking about.

                    Greenspan:

                    ...longstanding warning that the economy was running out of workers so fast that continued strong growth could lead to a surge in wages and then prices…‘All the same, the rate of growth of productivity cannot continue to increase indefinitely,’ .... As a consequence, unit costs would likely rise, pressuring profit margins and prices.’…Mr. Greenspan left no doubt that he was particularly concerned about the shrinking pool of available workers unemployed workers.

                    Just admit that Greenspan raised rates and created unemployment for the reason he said he did: because corporate profit margins are more important to the FED than the well being of workers.  Accept that the reason Greenspan did this is the reason Greenspan himself publicly stated.  If you can't do that then you are too intellectually dishonest to have a meaningful discussion about any of this.

                    If you want to talk about the relationships between inflation, unemployment, and productivity we can.  But you need to be honest first.

                    You may want to read the minutes from actual FED meetings, where the veneer comes off and they reveal just how intimately they are concerned about unemployment, profit margins, and the state of class warfare.  

                    Greider's Secrets of the Temple is a good place to start.  PERI also does good work when it comes to the FED.
                     

                    "The attack on the truth by war begins long before war starts and continues long after a war ends." -Julian Assange

                    by Pierro Sraffa on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 08:30:32 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sorry about the typos above. I stand behind the (0+ / 0-)

                      thrust of my argument though.

                      "The attack on the truth by war begins long before war starts and continues long after a war ends." -Julian Assange

                      by Pierro Sraffa on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 08:44:00 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Nuts. (0+ / 0-)

                      That's like saying Volcker raised rates to lower the price of oil.    

                      I realize there's a relationship between unemployment, inflation and productivty.  That's why pretending that the Fed's concern is lowering wages, not inflation, is so dishonest.

                      Similarly, cherrypicking out one moment from 1999, when there were inflationary pressures,  is dishonest.  What's the Fed's position on wages and employment now?   If the Fed is really for lower wages and higher profits as opposed to fighting inflation, you'd see it working to raise rates and cause unemployment, right?  But if the Fed is really trying to stablize the currency, it would be lowering rates.

                      So.  Which is it?

                      You may want to read the minutes from actual FED meetings, where the veneer comes off and they reveal just how intimately they are concerned about unemployment, profit margins, and the state of class warfare.  

                      Well, for god's sake, I hope they are concerned about unemployment.  But saying they are "concerned" includes concerned about the high unemployment, and your thesis is that the Fed has been fighting for highER unemployment for thirty years.  Fail.

                      Avg. Medicaid cost to New Jersey: $1936 per child per year. Avg cost of helicopter commute for Governor: $2300 per hour. Guess which one Christie wants to cut back on?

                      by Inland on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 10:56:13 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  private (8+ / 0-)

        unelected bankers in the federal reserve making these decisions?  Oy .. hello pure fascism which is what is going on

        "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

        by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 04:04:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Appointed for a term, and confirmed: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fisheye, CarbonFiberBoy, neroden

          if that's fascism, then so is the FDA and the Supreme Court and the FEC and all the agencies that kossacks demand be headed by Elizabeth Warren.

          Avg. Medicaid cost to New Jersey: $1936 per child per year. Avg cost of helicopter commute for Governor: $2300 per hour. Guess which one Christie wants to cut back on?

          by Inland on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 06:09:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  "Tax dollars" and "tax payers" are new-fangled (5+ / 0-)

        effort to make distinctions for which there is no basis in fact.  Dollars are dollars.  What they are used for is irrelevant. They all belong to us.  We, the American people vouch for their value.  
        Letting banksters decide who's credit worthy has not turned out well.  When they were entrusted with the higher education loan portfolio, they steered students to educational enterprises set up by their friends. People weren't just suckered into debts for dead-end training, we the people got stuck paying when the unemployed couldn't pay off the loans.  And despite all the subsidies and guarantees, the banks are still failing right and left. 16 in Georgia alone so far this year.

        Where did all the money go?  Like the nine billion in Iraq, it just disappeared.

        http://www.youtube.com/cyprespond

        by hannah on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 05:55:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please educate yourself (0+ / 0-)

          If anything the dollars belong to the banks, its a goddamn "reserve" People are so stupid!

          •  Please educate yourself further (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hannah

            The Federal Reserve Act was a deal between the private bank executives and the Greenbackers.

            The private bank executives wanted private banks to control the money supply and collect all the economic profit from printing money -- which was what happened during the 19th century.

            The Greenbackers wanted the US Treasury to control the money supply and collect the economic profit from printing money.

            The compromise was that the Treasury controlled the money supply but the private bankers collected all the economic profit from the Treasury's money printing.  That is the Federal Reserve in a nutshell.

            Well, until the Treasury got taken over by the agents of the private bankers.  :-P

            Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

            by neroden on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 01:15:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What is reserved to the private (0+ / 0-)

            Federal Reserve Bank is the profit from managing the currency.  While it's appropriate to charge a fee and collect income for keeping accounts and handling transactions, there's no reason money, a figment of the imagination comparable to the symbols in the various alphabets, should have instrinsic value.  And, now that it's made out of paper or electronic blips, it is indeed worthless -- the best kind of money as Galbraith observed several decades ago.
            Charging us to use our own money and charging people who have none to begin with more than those who already have a store is fundamentally immoral because it exploits our own kind.
            However, I will grant that exploiting our own kind is better than the alternative -- killing all humans we don't like because they have a claim to something we want. Putting native Americans on reservations, the precursors of the concentration camp, was preferable to burning down their villages and slaughtering all the women and children after the men had been killed in combat.
            Apparently, the Iraqi people agree, since they've consented to be walled up in their own cities and monitored at check points to escape the continuous bombardment from the air and the destruction of the cradle of civilization by the American vandals.  Prison is always preferable to death, because it contains the possibility of escape.
            When the last American troops leave Iraq and there are none left on which revenge could be wrecked, it will be time to tell the whole story, pictures and all.  There's many a law suit biding its time. But, I agree that "change first, revenge later" is the proper order.

            http://www.youtube.com/cyprespond

            by hannah on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 03:49:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site