The Federal Reserve

[ddmoit]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/946

Nearly all Americans know they are plagued by inflation. In 1962, a postage stamp cost four cents, a candy bar a nickel, a movie ticket 50 cents, and a pair of tennis shoes $5. A new imported Renault automobile cost $1,395, annual tuition at Harvard was $1,520, and the average cost of a new house $12,500. Over the last century, a dollar's purchasing power has declined over 95 percent — i.e., it won't buy what a nickel did in 1909.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/Economy/2508h-inflationgraph.png

The Federal Reserve has government-granted monopoly control over the supply (and therefore, the price) of money.

I ask my fellow, self-proclaimed advocates of the free market: How do you square your position with tolerance or even advocacy of the Federal Reserve?

[Sponsored Links]

[jgleason]

Dan,
I agree with you and it is shocking but to be fair you also need to look at whether or not your income levels have kept pace with inflation or not.

I think we'd all love to see a 5 cent candy bar or a 4 cent postage stamp but back when those prices were the norm the average income you had was a lot less too.

If you had a chart that showed average incomes during the same period of time what would it show?

[ddmoit]

I have two issues with your income level argument. But, first, can we agree that what you're really getting at is purchasing power?

Implicit in your post is the notion that inflation is OK so long as incomes - purchasing power - keep pace. I suggest that with a real commodity-backed currency in place, purchasing power should increase considerably over time due to productivity gains. An inflationary fiat currency completely distorts the truth about any purchasing power gains through productivity.

Secondly, even if the purchasing power of incomes keep pace with inflation, savings are still destroyed and discouraged. If I hid an ounce of gold for 100 years, that ounce of gold would more-or-less buy the same amount of goods today as when I hid it. The same cannot be said for a twenty dollar Federal Reserve note.

[jgleason]

Yep. Agree. Purchasing power. Regarding savings - yes, the way it is today holding on to any currency, say stuffed in a mattress, is foolish as it will be worth considerably less 10 years from now than it is today. However, if you invested the money and could maintain an after-tax yield at least equal to the erosion in purchasing power then you would at least break even.

[ddmoit]

Old days: hiding money under a mattress actually preserves purchasing power.

Now: We must risk our principle, just to earn a return that basically keeps us even.

[az_rancher]

Anyone else notice that the prices line really took off in 1965?

Remember what happened in 1965?

The Dollar was no longer backed by silver.

It's much better to stuff that mattress full of pre 1965 silver coins, not as comfey but still I sleep better at night.

Rancher

[Westchester]

Bloomberg news service has sued the Fed to find out where the
2 trillion in lent money went and the Fed laughs at the insult. ie. info
not provided. even under a FOIL.

the bailouts were to keep the status quo of bankers in place. the whole
system should have collapsed and new banks been formed.

[jgleason]

Absolutely Dan. The way it is today (and has been for some time) is that you either spend the money now and work until the day you die or put your savings at risk just to keep up.

[jgleason]

Another choice, when you have saved enough dough, move to a place where you will have greater purchasing power. I hear the Ukraine and Belarus are pretty cheap.

[MudMaker]

Dang Dan.... I was looking for that graphic this morning.. Thankx

This is Glenn Beck on the same subject.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNS8IY_Td14)

[HS345]

I say, abolish the Fed, and the IRS, in one fell swoop. But, it ain't never gonna happen. Not without a revolution. :shake:

[jvcstone]

There is a bill in the house that has at this time some 240 co sponsors. Basically it calls for a GAO audit of the fed. Any bets if the house leadership will let it get to the floor for a vote??

JVC

[cx]

And introduced by non other than our good friend Ron Paul, John. You remember him, the one the Republicans could have supported in the Presidential primaries, eh? :)

I say, abolish the Fed, and the IRS, in one fell swoop. But, it ain't never gonna happen. Not without a revolution.The logical response to that seems to be, "so, let's have a revolution," Greg.

I'm in favor. :shades:

My opinion; worth price charged.

[MudMaker]

Don't think any of the Fogies had a chance against an appealing articulate young man with all the campaign $$$$$ in the world.. especially Paul..
and it's hard to win against the guy that's giving out candy... :stick:

OH.. one more in favor of the Revolution... :clap1:

[HammerMill88]

Would you guys really belly up to it...even if it meant our lives?

[ob1kanobee]

A revolution is only going to occur when the middle class start losing there SUV's , can't go to the grocery store anymore to get necessities, higher crime rates....

It is going to take a lot more than what is going on right now to make anything like that happen. If the economy were to magically turn around today and things got back to normal (what is normal anyway?) talk of it would certainly be stifled or slowed down.

People are just upset because there 401k took a bath, their houses have taken dives in value (in some cases back flips). I mean there is a bunch of talk but can you find me one post on this entire forum about a revolution from 3 years ago?

Americans are scared of their government where in some other countries the government is scared of the people. I think the country would collapse inward on itself and have mass chaos before a revolution were to ever take place. When things get that bad people will be going into survival mode and what those dummies are doing up there in DC won't really account for anything.

Look at Hurricane Katrina. Most authorities got the heck out of dodge and helped their own families before trying to go be heroes. Magnify that by 20x on a nationwide scale. Maybe not the best example but the only one I can think of right now.

As long as you can somehow keep the middle class happy you are good. Like I said though, I think chaos will happen before a revolution and it will be too late.
My views though are stemmed more from biblical teachings concerning the "last days".

[HammerMill88]

Ben I don't discount your views; I agree with them actually.

Katrina on a more grand scale (is grander a word?)... is to what people are eluding. The gov't - both private and federal employees - went into peoples homes and confiscated weapons. Monies were just thrown out the door by the fed to smaller govt's which just trickled down into various people's pockets. There was a ton of corruption associated with this event. Even my great, crooked governor - whom I voted for twice - paid back his campaign contributors. The coast is still mostly uninhabited.

My good man, corruption in our govt is very deep, and people are fed up with it.

Our govt should be scared of us, but our constitution is being torn into shambles by crooked courts and lawyers (e.g. govt).

I don't want a revolution, don't even mention it until someone brings it up. My question is...what are we as U.S. citizens willing to do to keep our constitutional guarantees besides vote?

Middle-class...wait until Obama is through. There will not be a middle class, especially after the burden of health-care legislation.

[jjwq8]

As someone who finds politics tiresome and partisan politics particularly so, may I simply enquire if Glenn Beck has any real credibility?

Was his piece a reasonably balanced presentation of the facts?

The reason I ask is that he points out the stratospheric leap in money supply without referencing the circumstances that gave rise to the need to go that route in the first place (the previous 8 years?) and he offers no plausible alternative. Could a Republican Administration have done anything better?

[ddmoit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ79Pt2GNJo

[cx]

It's really interesting when it's assembled chronologically like that, eh, Dan? Very easy to follow, very easy see the error. If you want to see it, of course.

So, how's come someone like Peter Schiff isn't appointed to chair the Fed? Well, I mean aside from the fact that he'd immediately begin a policy to abandon it completely, of course. :)

A similar chronological assembly of his (Schiff) analyses would put him just about opposite of Bernake, which would also make him generally correct where Bernake was almost totally incorrect.

Our Federal Government in it's customary efficient and watchful mode, non?

[Mr.Miyagi]

I was wondering for all the talk about ending the Federal Reserve, which I'm inclined to believe our government is not going to do, wouldn't the prudent choice be to start using other than "legal tender"? Seriously, complaining rarely ever accomplishes anything. Having said that, I recently exchanged "gifts" with a client and to tell you the truth it was rather exhilarating. If any of my clientele or people I do business with wants to exchange "gifts", I'm game. Tired of the banter, time for action. BTW Thanks for the video link Dan, It's always hard to believe anything coming out of the Fed.

[ddmoit]

Hi Gary,

Legal Tender laws successfully prevent another medium of exchange from competing with the fiat dollar. The government won't enforce contracts stated in gold, for instance. Anyone who owes you a debt is entitled to pay you in federal reserve notes. Why part with a commodity of actual value when you can part with increasingly worthless paper?

That said, I admire and share your spirit. I am stockpiling whatever amounts of gold, silver, and bullets that I can afford. They will be money in my lifetime.

A few weeks ago, I came close to exchanging some precious metal for a firearm. The firearm owner just wasn't quite ready to do it though. Since then, my silver has gone up in price. I suspect that guy's gun may also have gone up in price.

[ddmoit]

Ron Paul today....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSRvnXtrmtE&e

[Mr.Miyagi]

Dan,
I suspect that you and I are not the only ones reverting to using precious metal
or whatever else as modes of exchange. The big issue for me is, how do you get a group of people to surrender the "god-like" power of creating money from nothing? It is possible that the government would wise up and go back to issuing real money, but I highly doubt this as the politicians are part of the status quo. It's unfortunate, but the solution will probably come via that gun and bullets that keeps going up in price. I don't know how Dr. Paul can even look at those guys and keep any sense of composure, an amazing individual that man is.

[ddmoit]

OK, these guys aren't Austrian economists, and they're not calling for the end of the Federal Reserve - but, they're starting to get it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAtSmR7Z-Kg&e

[ddmoit]

Uh oh....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125112547653253819.html

The Federal Reserve chose a labor leader to succeed a former Goldman Sachs executive as the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of New York's private-sector board of directors.

Denis Hughes, president of the New York state branch of the AFL-CIO, had been serving as acting chairman of the New York Fed board since May, when Stephen Friedman stepped down from the position.

[ddmoit]

A small step in the right direction...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=av_bCYnKeIUk

Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve must make records about emergency lending to financial institutions public within five days because it failed to convince a judge the documents should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

[ddmoit]

The Federal Reserve admits to manipulating the price of gold (which means they have lied about it before).

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090923005709&newsLang=en

MANCHESTER, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Federal Reserve System has disclosed to the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc. that it has gold swap arrangements with foreign banks that it does not want the public to know about.

The disclosure, GATA says, contradicts denials provided by the Fed to GATA in 2001 and suggests that the Fed is indeed very much involved in the surreptitious international central bank manipulation of the gold price particularly and the currency markets generally.

Why would they care about the price of gold - it's just a a relic of the past, is it not? The Fed is supposed to support full employment and suppress inflation. Gold is not in the basket of goods that make up the CPI, so why the concern?

[Mark Krachenspiner]

When the dollar and the market go down together, their gig will be up.

It's really pathetic what the politicians have let the Creature do to the American people over the years.

[Davestone]

Years ago i began to realize the American dream wasn't happening for me.I worked every holiday and went to another job after i came home and had a cup of coffee.What did it get me?I saw every ten years we had a slide and my wages went down, prices and inflation went up and i started all over.Meanwhile presidents and administrations came and went.

[Mark Krachenspiner]

Yeh Dave,

There's absolutely no reason for the Creature.

I paid a 1.49 for a gallon of gas last spring and would have been perfectly happy to the deflationary cycle to set in.

[Marct]

Aaron Russo, Freedom to Fascism.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#

[ddmoit]

Ron Paul's audit the Fed bill gets a hearing. Historic.

http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/09/25/Congress/A/23601/House+Financial+Services+Cmte+Hearing+on+Regulatory+Overhaul.aspx

[LadyGodiva]

To dream, the American dream...lalalala

Or the impossible dream? :D

[cx]

Ron Paul's audit the Fed bill gets a hearing. Historic.Well, I knowed it'd be a looooong time since Ron Paul first started trying to pass a bill to audit the Fed, but even I wouldn't have guess he first introduced it in 1983!

I'll hafta try to listen to the whole thing (Barny Frank and all) when I have more time tonight.

Where's Art to 'splain us why it was never even considered during the twelve years that the Republicans controlled the Congress? :shades:

Sure hope this wakes a few of those ....gentlemen in that club, but I'm still not hopeful. I do hope it happens, mind ya, I'm just not hopeful. That'll make sense later. I hope. :)

[ddmoit]

Tom Woods also speaks as a witness at the hearing. Make sure you at least see that part.

The most heartwarming moment for me was hearing some congressman that I never even heard of mention Ludwig von Mises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises).

[cx]

Couple more years, Dan, gonna be lotta folks up there at least recognize that name. Might not like it, but they'll know they've heard about it. :shades:

I saw Tom's name there inna credits. Should make a good witness. :)

[sandbagger]

if Barney Frank is involved it can't be good. Frank is up to something and the last thing he has in mind is free markets.

[ddmoit]

Art, isn't it possible that Barney Frank is an idiot who has no idea what he's doing? I think it's lazy to just assume that everything Barney Frank does is wrong. Instead, I recommend educating yourself on the evils of central banking and how central banks run counter to the free market. :)

[HS345]

I think it's lazy to just assume that everything Barney Frank does is wrong.
I think it's wrong to even entertain the idea that Bawney Fwank would do anything for the good of the country. :shrug:

I do agree that possible that Fwank is just an idiot who has no idea wtf he's doing. In fact, I'd say that is a safe bet. ;)

[stullis]

Capitalism at its finest and you guys don't like it? :D

[ddmoit]

What is your definition of capitalism, Scott? Central banking is not part of my definition of a free market. Government-granted monopoly control over the supply of money, along with legal tender laws, and court rulings that favor the fraud of fractional reserve banking are decidedly ANTI-free market.

[sandbagger]

the most dangerous thing you can do as assume that any politician is an idiot and "doesn't know what he is doing." They are all pretty smart people or they wouldn't be where they are. That is not to say that the Barney Franks of the world are not profoundly wrong. That is a different matter. I recommend educating yourself on the evils of central banking.... now, Dan, isn't it a bit presumptuous to assume if one doesn't share your "evil" conclusion that one can't possibly be educated? Not that it really matters. Whether or not you like the whole central banking thing it makes for a nice academic debate, but the cat is out of the bag and we aren't going to turn the clock back 250 years or so.

[ddmoit]

I stand by my "evil" comment - no moral relativism for me on this one.

The Federal Reserve (and the fractional-reserve banking it sanctions) is the sole source of inflation that discourages thrift, robs savers of their wealth, redistributes wealth worse than taxes, and allows the growth of government and the welfare/warfare/police states that come with it. Furthermore, it is one of the leading causes of the necessity of multiple incomes for one family.

That's evil. If you would care to refute, I will consider the merits of your argument as opposed to dismissing it out of hand based on the source.:)

The debate is no more academic than the debate about our move towards socialism. There is nothing that makes it impossible to return to a commodity-backed currency. Before all of this is over, we may very well return to a barter system for a while. I hope not, but it is possible, and has happened elsewhere.

[sandbagger]

Dan - the argument is academic for two reasons. 1) there's no way to test your theories in a controlled environment; and 2) If things proceed the way you believe then there's nothing any of us can do about it.

that said, I will toss out something I heard recently about how valuable certain hard assets will be if there is the crash you predict. The speaker made a very good case (again) that gold will be pretty worthless to the average Joe for the simple reason that you can't do anything with it. You grocer isn't going to want it, the plumber? carpenter? tile guy? The barter system you predict is a far more likely scenario. His idea for the "currency" to hold? Ammunition. :nod:

[ddmoit]

Yes, ammo will be currency if the shit really hits the fan. That's why I have more than I ever intend to shoot. I can pretty much exchange it for cash today if I wanted to.

And yes, there could be times when ammo will buy things when gold won't. But, gold has been valued for over 6000 years, and will continue to be valued in the long run. Sure, though - get some bullets and some silver too.

[Mark Krachenspiner]

Was clicking around the channels early Saturday morning and cspan was running a replay of that hearing ddmoit posted a link to.

At 1:59:40 this democrat from Florida gets his turn and I found that the manner in which he asked the feds lawyer his questions, was absolutely brilliant. Every so often a democrat will surprised you and when they do, the moment must be cherished.

[ddmoit]

Peter Schiff vs. Ben Bernanke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5sDKwMP6Pc

[ddmoit]

What is money? Gary North explains...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north761.html

[ddmoit]

Ron Paul on John Stewart's Daily Show yesterday...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O04zc9-PA2Y

[ddmoit]

His idea for the "currency" to hold? Ammunition.Here's some more on that topic...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/gillespie5.1.1.html

For some reason, our fiat tokens are still being mistaken for real money. And yet, I haven’t seen .357 Magnum on the shelves in the last 12 months. Maybe that’s why it’s already happening: Ammunition is being used for barter.

[ddmoit]

More wisdom on the topic of money...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north779.html

Mises argued that authority over money is derived from the right of individuals to exchange their property. There is a hierarchy of economic control that is based on individual ownership of the most marketable commodity: money. Buyers (sellers of money) are dominant. The logic of economics leads to this conclusion. In contrast, the other schools of economic opinion assume that the state inherently possesses lawful authority over money. They do not explain why this authority is a conclusion of their economic theory of human action. They merely assert that politicians or central bankers must retain control over money.

I cannot understand why so many self-proclaimed free market supporters concede state control over money. The two positions are incompatible.

It's hard to argue against government meddling elsewhere when you support it in monetary policy. You are forced into the weaker position of arguing to what degree the government should meddle - an argument that can never be won.

[HS345]

I cannot understand why so many self-proclaimed free market supporters concede state control over money. The two positions are incompatible.
Who does that? :scratch:

[ddmoit]

Milton Friedman (and the whole Chicago school of economic thought)
Alan Greenspan
George Bush

That list took me 10 seconds, I could go on.

Do you support the abolition of the Federal Reserve? Are you willing to let the fee market decide what money is? Can you accept competition among private minters of money? If you answer "no" to any of these questions, and yet claim to support the free market, I'd put you on the list as well.

[ddmoit]

Here is Milton Friedman explaining the purpose of the Federal Reserve...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V5OP-VmXgE

His whole premise falls apart when he fails to recognize the fraud of fractional reserve banking. Milton is no dummy. He knows the vast majority of his audience will not recognize the fraud either. As an economist in this country, it is much more lucrative to propagate government lies than it is to tell the truth.

[John Bridge]

We have a difference of opinion here, Dan. Surprise. ;)

I think Friedman tells it pretty straight. The difference of opinion arises when you keep mentioning "fractional banking" as if it's a four letter word. I believe that fractional banking bolsters a growing economy. Problems arise only when the Federal Reserve tells the Treasury to print more money when no evidence of economic growth is present. If it weren't for that it would be a pretty good system. :)

[ddmoit]

John, I hope we both live long enough for me to set you straight on this, my friend.:)

[cx]

If it weren't for that it would be a pretty good system.If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses when they hop, neither.

"fractional banking" as if it's a four letter word.And that's just how it should be mentioned, John. If you want a more succinct term for it, call it fraud, no?

If our monetary system were still based upon something, some commodity, something identifiable and relatively finite, such as gold, and if the banks actually advertised that they were issuing two or three times as much credit as they held in reserves of this commodity, people would at least know what sort of business they were transacting at these banks.

But with today's Federal Reserve system, we have no real idea. The fractional reserve may be a tenth, or a twentieth of what the bank has in a currency already based upon absolutely nothing. Nothing at all.

The Fed has more than doubled the amount of paper or electronic "reserves" out there in just the past year. That means each piece of paper your bank lent out to twenty different people was already worth only half as much as the one they lent out to twenty other people a year ago.

And they pretended that it was real money with real backing. That ain't fraud? Give it a try sometime on your own and see how the same government feels about competition in their little scheme.

It's nonsense, John. Federally mandated and backed nonsense, but nonsense none the less.

[John Bridge]

From the very beginning our financial system was based on debt. Read Alexander Hamilton and why he so strongly advocated assuming the Revolutionary War debt of the states. He wanted the debt at the federal level. Debt is money. Strange as that sounds, that's how it is.

You can clamor for a gold standard all you want; it's not going to change anything. I know you know this, but for the sake of those who've never pondered it, if I lend you $100 dollars, and you sign a promissory note for it, you've got the hun, and I have a note that's worth more than a hun that I can sell. I'll have to discount some of the interest on the note to sell it, so maybe I sell it for $110. You've still got the original hun (or a like value in goods, whatever, and I've got $110 in my hand. You still owe the money but to someone else. Now haven't we just expanded the money supply?

Money is "elastic." That's the system we are under, and it's the same system we've always been under. I doubt there ever was enough gold in Ft. Knox to cover the paper floating around. :)

[cx]

No, in your scenario we have not increased the money supply, John.

The debtor in question there must now come up with 110 real dollars with which to settle his debt. He is not permitted to simply print up more dollars based upon nothing but his own whim, he must produce and sell something tangible to someone else who holds real dollars.

And you had actual dollars to lend him, not pretend dollars. And the dollars you got for the sale of his "note" were real dollars.

Not at all the same thing we're talking about with the fractional banking scheme of today.

[John Bridge]

Hey, what are you doing in the Mud Box? Get back over to the tech boards. :D

By real dollars you mean printed paper, I presume. What's wrong with the paper the note is written on? You don't like that paper? :)

Paper money is printed based on debt, and I'm telling you it's been that way since Alex Hamilton took possession of the Secretary of the Treasury's chair. There was no Ft. Knox at the Founding, and the new government wouldn't have had any gold to put in it anyway. :)

[Davestone]

This argument reminds me when Sponge Bob was arguing with Squidword whether crusty burgers were the best thing in the world.:D

[cx]

Hey, what are you doing in the Mud Box? Get back over to the tech boards.Jus bein' a good lacky. I see my lord and master over here, I come over here. :bow:
By real dollars you mean printed paper, I presume.Not really, but it could be a printed paper. I mean something that is, or represents, a portion of the commodity that represents real wealth. Usta be gold and silver. Still should be. Or something similar.

So long as the paper in question says on its face that it can be redeemed for a portion of the actual exchange commodity, I like it fine. When it begins to be redeemable for nothing at all, I start to worry. I worry that it has no value at all. Yes, I can still exchange it for other things I might want, but only to the extent that the person to whom I want to give it in exchange hasn't figgered out that it has little or no value.

When our currency's "value" can be reduced by half in a single year simply because our government has printed twice as much of it, our currency has become essentially worthless. Just printed paper. Fiat currency. Monopoly money.

And if We, The People, don't begin recognizing that and demanding a change from a fiat currency system back to a commodity system, we're gonna be what we now like to refer to as a third-world country.

[ddmoit]

A good read that was somehow omitted from your high school history book...

http://mises.org/daily/3823

Until the 1960s, historians had established the myth that Progressivism was a virtual uprising of workers and farmers who, guided by a new generation of altruistic experts and intellectuals, surmounted fierce big business opposition in order to curb, regulate, and control what had been a system of accelerating monopoly in the late 19th century. A generation of research and scholarship, however, has now exploded that myth for all parts of the American polity, and it has become all too clear that the truth is the reverse of this well-worn fable.

[ddmoit]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a27_ZNGlQpNs

Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve’s shield from congressional audits of interest-rate decisions took a blow from lawmakers who want to open the central bank’s books to greater congressional scrutiny.

The House Financial Services Committee yesterday advanced a proposal to remove a three-decade ban on audits of monetary policy and carry out an examination of the central bank. The plan was offered by Representative Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas who has called for the abolition of the Fed, and based on a bill with more than 300 co-sponsors.

[ddmoit]

Do you have 38 minutes to learn how the Federal Reserve is retarding the economy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LNieU3XaeU

[ddmoit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act
The Senate, on December 23, 1913, agreed to it by a vote of 43 yeas to 25 nays with 27 not voting.

[sandbagger]

my nomination goes to the day that Congress dropped the 10% cap from the 16th Amendment (income tax). I think the advent of an income tax was inevitable. Failure to cap it was not. Shame on those who caved. :sheep: :sheep: :sheep:

[ob1kanobee]

Ah, it's just so nice to know you've got friends in high places, when you're AIG, that is...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aXIvW4igKV38

Quote: "Jan. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, then led by Timothy Geithner, told American International Group Inc. to withhold details from the public about the bailed-out insurer’s payments to banks during the depths of the financial crisis, e-mails between the company and its regulator show."

[ddmoit]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/senate-dems-not-sure-they-can-get-enough-votes-to-reconfirm-bernanke.html

Amidst the voter anger at Wall Street and Washington, D.C., ABC News has learned that the Senate Democratic leadership isn't sure there are enough votes to re-confirm Ben Bernanke for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve.He'll just be replaced by somebody as bad or worse, but it would be a feel-good to see him go down.

Why would the Democratic leadership be so married to this guy anyway? He was a Bush appointee.:shades:

[scuttlebuttrp]

Because they're scared and they think he's the only person who knows what to do to fix things.

[ddmoit]

An educational, 42-minute video on the Federal Reserve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE&feature=player_embedded#