| sc94597 said: @ Bolded Then your assumption is wrong. I have taken intermediate level macroeconomics, econometrics, and a financial crisis course as part of my economics minor at a top university. I know very well the arguments for central banks. That doesn't mean they do no wrong, however. Most people who oppose the federal reserve don't oppose central banks anyway. Ron Paul and many of his followers advocate central bankless "free-banking" he uses it all the time in his arguments. He calls central banking "the great evil of our time" however I agree that central banks aren't perfect, but that's pretty much reiterating my original post. Macroeconomics is not a unified, consensus driven field like microeconomics. Many economists have macroeconomic beliefs that central banks do just as much harm as they do good, and that there are alternatives to enabling elasticity in the financial market (the main reason for central banks.) This is a specious statement, how many is many? (similar to using "some people" to introduce an idea on the news) Opposition to central banking is certainly not mainstream economic thought, even if there isn't as much consensus in macroeconomics as in micro. Most of the debate is on how policy should be conducted, not whether central banking should or should not exist. We entered the age of central banking long ago and it does not appear that we will ever go back, it is very much fringe theory to say otherwise. I personally don't support replacing the federal reserve with a public central bank. However, I don't think the federal reserve handles anything better than other - even public - central banks in the world. They all practically are doing the same thing.
A demonstrably incorrect statement. Swedens central bank and the ECB both screwed up royally by increasing interest rates too soon. The Fed has done a better job and the result is that the US economy has rebounded faster than any other country affected by the global financial crisis. My personal beliefs are in competive currencies and replacing fiat currency/fractional reserve banking with market driven solutions. @ Underlined When the audit is forewarned it is much easier to manipulate things so that the audit is in your favor. I think you have too much trust in the people in the federal reserve. They are no more virtuous when it comes to corruption than government officials, and they have a special privelege afforded to them by government officials no less. |
I think you misunderstand what an audit of the Federal reserve would entail. What exactly do you mean by "manipulate things"? You can already go online and see every asset on the Fed’s balance sheet, including its serial tracking number. An audit would require the GAO to factor political questions in determining the validity of every single market transaction the Fed engages in. You say you don't support a public bank but the audit would politicize the institution to death (it would either have to disappear or become a public entity). Can you imagine Volcker taming the 70s inflation with the GAO breathing down his neck over unemployment? He could never have made the decision to increase interest rates to the heights he did which we known now as very much the right thing to do. I think you are too paranoid and are demonizing a group of people because you've probably never met them in real life and that makes it quite easy to imagine them to have the darkest intentions. I have debated with Federal Reserve economists and have serious disagreements with them but I don't imagine them to be doing anything other than what they honestly believe is the best policy. Also to add to your comment on trust, I don't trust the Federal Reserve, they are audited every year. The bill you are debating about is an audit not of the institution but of monetary policy actions. It is currently already audited by the GAO, the Office of the Inspector General, and an independent outside auditor every year. I'm not asking you to blindly trust people without any sort of oversight, really the Fed is already perhaps the most watched over area of government.
Edit: also to stay on topic- I did not catch the debate last night but many outlets seem to indicate Hilary "won" and largely thanks to her strength in foreign policy matters. I've long considers this area Sanders' biggest weakness and in the aftermath of major terrorist attacks its likely this weakness was amplified by the debate. Hopefully he can turn it around but he has to strengthen his Foreign Policy credentials.
