9,000,000,000,000 Missing From FED RESERVE --**CNN VIDEO**

[Dusty Bake Activate]

are you insane? i JUST quoted a post from gallo that you dapped, and in that post he states:




and you co signed that shh... its even uses the specific term "good guys" lol so wtf are you talking about... i worry about you sometimes vic

So now any time I dap a thread, that person's words are the same as mine? For the record, I do NOT agree with the notion that the Fed are the good guys. I don't even recall that sentence being in there until you just linked me to it. I dapped the post because as I explained in my last post, I have reservations about adding another layer of bureaucracy on top of the already clumsy unaccountable Fed apparatus manned by the fukking morons in our Congress who know nothing about monetary policy, and that was the crux of what he said.

You said I have a lengthy history of being an apologist for the Fed. All you have is I once dapped a post from a guy that was multiple paragraphs and contained a sentence saying he thinks the Fed are the good guys, a statement with which I don't even agree. That's my lengthy history of being a Fed apologist?

Once again, you cannot find one single post of me ever being an apologist for the Fed...ever. You pulled that out of your ass. Weren't you recently accusing me of distorting your words?

and the rest of your post was but i do have one question... and forget the rothchilds or the bank of england or conspiracies or whatever... put that out of your mind for a sec

You can't refute anything in my post, but we both know that. It's all good.

if you acknowledge the role of the government in creating financial inequality, WHY do you think they are actively participating?

do you think they are ignorant to what they're doing? that this is just incompetence on their part?

or do you think they are getting paid to assist in the financial robbery of the people, through campaign contributions, money off the books, and the like?

or is it a combination of things?

im not trying to attack you, i genuinely want to hear your perspective

because either all this is happening on accident, and we just so happen to be the ones getting fukked.

or all this is happening on purpose.

and if you ask me, the evidence supports that this was a coordinated effort between corporations, big banks, the federal reserve, and government regulators in the area of finance. because none of these entities could have done this without the help and cooperation of the other entities, they all needed to be complicit.

Of course there's collusion. The big banks are greedy obviously. They're trying to maximize their profit margins. They influence and control the government by lobbying to strip regulations and laws or put in place regulations and laws that are favorable to them. Politicians do the bidding of Wall Street and appoint people from the banks to top levels in the government. I don't think the general idea is that complicated...it's a favor for a favor, just like you see in politics at local level on up. We've seen several decades of the big banks consolidating more and more power. And the Fed has helped grease the skids the through their artificially low interest rates and cheap money policies. Alan Greenspan held a certain ideology that he believed to be gospel, as did a lot of Wall Street investment bankers, traders, and hedgemfund managers on Wall Street. They thought that by mitigating the risk, prices could not all collapse at once, and there were mathematical models created by brilliant people ("the quants") they put in place that supposed assured this. It was arrogance. They thought they had the market figured out, but in the end, markets were irrational. You have unchecked power in private banks, greed, cronyism, arrogance and dogmatic commitment to ideology that created a bomb that exploded on us all.

What I reject is the notion that somehow this was all planned to a desired end. One, as I said they did a shytty job of it because while the middle class and poor are facing most of the brunt of the recession, the banks certainly did not gain more from it than they were before. They took losses. And two, the lesson from all this like I said markets and the whole financial system is indeed irrational and unpredictable. This all happened largely due to people thinking they had it all figured out and being wrong.

 

[Gallo]

I think there is a major difference between wanting a great deal of influence in the daily activities of the federal reserve versus being able to ask questions on an annual basis especially when discrepancies become apparent. The situation with Bloomberg highlighted that it was necessary for the fed to be more open with information. The fed could have defended themselves and specifically pointed out the flaws in the reporting on the part of Bloomberg, but they instead went about it in a passive aggressive manner further undermining their reputation. A decrease in the often unnecessary secrecy prevalent at the federal reserve does not necessarily have to coincide with a loss of independence.

I would imagine there is some daily reporting mechanism in place already. If Congress wanted to read the daily reports, they would only need to ask for them. Saying that they want to impose an auditor seems odd. What should an auditor do with this information? It would contain very complicated facts relevant to choosing to tighten or loosen the money supply, for example. How does that measure up to anything an auditor would be able to use?

I'm not sure what you mean by secrecy. I guess if they were planning a contingency, one that might depress the stock market, they wouldn't want it to leak out and create a needless panic. Other than that I don't even know what kind of secrecy they are supposed to be engaged in, in the eyes of the Republicans.

 

[Gallo]

are you insane? i JUST quoted a post from gallo that you dapped, and in that post he states:




and you co signed that shh... its even uses the specific term "good guys" lol so wtf are you talking about... i worry about you sometimes vic

Maybe I owe you an explanation, this is all just my opinion of course. I never used to understand the Fed. In the Greenspan years it seemed like some weird game bringing him out to deliver the most incomprehensible English yet written. I now see him in a completely different light, like a plant operator at the controls, or an air traffic controller, except of course he's not acting alone, he has a team of experts. Bernanke seems just the same, except he tries to avoid the high jargon. My opinion of the Fed completely changed during the last crash. You saw economists hugely rallying in support of Fed intervention. All this nut-cutting that's going on now was not an option back then. It was a crisis and one that the Fed had a huge role in resolving. I saw them act, I understood the basic principles for their actions - because Geithner and Bernanke were pretty clear and reasons given were logical - and there wasn't one shred of evidence that they were doing anything but rescuing the people from a serious catastrophe. Since then they have continued to act. I've done a little spot checking, and it confirms that they have been addressing economic trends (such as a slowing of growth after the stimulus spurt), nipping them in the bud and getting close to the anticipated results. In other words, if they were at all incompetent or up to something else (lining their own pockets?) they couldn't have been so successful. You have to look at some charts to see what I mean. I've also spent some time studying computer simulations (not economics) so I have a lot of respect for what's involved in modeling a problem of this scale and actually having the guts to apply it to assist in decision making.

It's not a political office like Congress so you're not likely going to see idiot liar-hypocrites worm their way into office. In any case, I'm not claiming clairvoyance or any special smarts. It's just a comfort level that comes with being given a plausible, rational explanation for taking a course of action, as opposed to hearing something unfounded and ludicrous, which is the way this congressional bill strikes me. What are the Republicans trying to say? That the Fed botched the post-crash policy? The Republicans voted for it. Admittedly, they slashed the Fed's recommendation in half, and then a stimulus was required. They probably cost the US trillions and they probably kept the economy where it is. No one will know for sure. But they would seem to be the last people to turn to, the last authority, on the question of Fed honesty and integrity. They have yet to show one thing credible about anything they complain about. In recent years they fabricated the hugest frauds, from WMDs to Swift-Boat to Birthers, while engaging in the worst most corrupt and sex-scandal ridden years in Congressional history. Plus they have obstructed science, interfered in the DOJ Civil Rights Division and on and on. Yet they sit there and crow like they have some good gossip about the Fed screwing us over. I'm not buying it. I respect the science being employed to rescue the economy. So far, its only true champions are the Fed. And in spite of all the idiots in Congress who would pull this country down just to be able to claim that it happened on Democratic watch.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

I would imagine there is some daily reporting mechanism in place already. If Congress wanted to read the daily reports, they would only need to ask for them. Saying that they want to impose an auditor seems odd. What should an auditor do with this information? It would contain very complicated facts relevant to choosing to tighten or loosen the money supply, for example. How does that measure up to anything an auditor would be able to use?

I'm not sure what you mean by secrecy. I guess if they were planning a contingency, one that might depress the stock market, they wouldn't want it to leak out and create a needless panic. Other than that I don't even know what kind of secrecy they are supposed to be engaged in, in the eyes of the Republicans.

We could start with the $9T they misplaced...

I think people's anger w/the Fed is misplaced anger w/the govt. For example I don't think the crisis would have been as bad if commercial banks were walled off from investment banks like before they repealed Glass Steagall. But they werent, and the Fed had to float banks cash in secret. So to a layperson it looks like the Fed is enabling + favoring, when its really largely the policy that enabled the banks to create the fiasco in the first place.

I def agree that the govt, at least as is, should have no influence over the Fed, but on the flip side a lot of what the Fed has to do to keep the economy afloat is reflective of the fundamental problems of the country, and gives people someone to point a finger to. But their actions are symptoms not the cause, the more I think about it

 

[ogc163]

I would imagine there is some daily reporting mechanism in place already. If Congress wanted to read the daily reports, they would only need to ask for them. Saying that they want to impose an auditor seems odd. What should an auditor do with this information? It would contain very complicated facts relevant to choosing to tighten or loosen the money supply, for example. How does that measure up to anything an auditor would be able to use?

I'm not sure what you mean by secrecy. I guess if they were planning a contingency, one that might depress the stock market, they wouldn't want it to leak out and create a needless panic. Other than that I don't even know what kind of secrecy they are supposed to be engaged in, in the eyes of the Republicans.

I don't even think congress wants to know the daily reports, they want to audits done on an annual basis. In terms of loosening or tightening as it relates to the money supply again I don't think congress wants that information unless you have evidence stating otherwise. There seems to be a lot of talk about the loss of fed independence and overt congressional meddling when I don't see that there is much evidence pointing to that. I'm not denying that congress being too involved would be counterproductive, but the chances of it even getting to that point are slim to none.

I could point to the unnecessary secrecy and redaction's prevalent in The Freedom of Information Act lawsuits involving the fed. After redaction's were lifted and information was fully disclosed it becomes apparent that the fed was overly paranoid about the negative effects full disclosure would have on the markets.

 

[TopKat]

Surprised they've only recently started auditing, i thought that would've been essential

Bank of England>>

 

[OsO]

I LITERALLY laughed out loud when I opened the first link. Why??? Its from 3 years ago. Not only that, they paid back the bailout money they got along w/$400 million in dividends... IOW, barring any other evidence you can post, as far as GS is concerned we made money on the bailout

you asked for evidence people were during the recession. we were in the recession in 2009

And you wanna know how GS has been doing since then???

Goldman Sachs reports third quarter loss of $393m | Business | The Guardian <---- Oct 2011

Goldman Sachs Employees On Bonus Day: 'It's A Bloodbath' <---- Jan 2012

Goldman Roiled by Op-Ed Loses $2.2 Billion - Bloomberg
<--- March 2012

so they lose a few billie after a record year

Everyone knows the wealth gap is expanding, the difference between you and other people is others can look objectively to see what the actual reasons are (changes in skill demand, increased competition from abroad, monetary policy that punishes traditional saving, declining prioritization of science and education in general, increases in costs of the 3Hs- housing, healthcare, higher education) rather than using tenuous links & goofy vague analysis to come to a predetermined conclusion ("THE BANKS ARE ROBBING US, BUT I CAN'T SAY HOW SPECIFICALLY")

Are there problems? Of course, I don't think anyone disagrees there, the country is getting gangbanged economically right now. But foaming at the mouth and scapegoating one group when by varying degrees EVERYONE is somewhat responsible for where we are is just ass backwards

when did i say it wasnt a culmination of all those factors you listed and then some? i never said the elite financial networks were solely responsible for anything. you think im putting too much emphasis on the banks, the govt, the fed, and the corporations-and i dont think youre putting enough emphasis on their role because these are literally the groups at the center of this whole financial fiasco.

and how am i scapegoating one group?

i think youre arguing just to argue at this point

So now any time I dap a thread, that person's words are the same as mine? For the record, I do NOT agree with the notion that the Fed are the good guys. I don't even recall that sentence being in there until you just linked me to it. I dapped the post because as I explained in my last post, I have reservations about adding another layer of bureaucracy on top of the already clumsy unaccountable Fed apparatus manned by the fukking morons in our Congress who know nothing about monetary policy, and that was the crux of what he said.



You said I have a lengthy history of being an apologist for the Fed. All you have is I once dapped a post from a guy that was multiple paragraphs and contained a sentence saying he thinks the Fed are the good guys, a statement with which I don't even agree. That's my lengthy history of being a Fed apologist?

Once again, you cannot find one single post of me ever being an apologist for the Fed...ever. You pulled that out of your ass. Weren't you recently accusing me of distorting your words?

you dapped a post that said the "fed economists are the good guys" thats a fact, so you brought this on yourself. read the posts a little closer next time. but again, we all know you have problems with reading comprehension

You can't refute anything in my post, but we both know that. It's all good.

you want congress out of monetary policy, thats fine. but thats a small matter considering the people we currently have dictating and executing monetary policy are thieves and gangsters. so wtf are you even talking about?

you already have a knife in your neck bleeding to death and youre talking about how you dont anyone to put a knife in your chest

not only that but we 14 trillion in debt and rising with no way out, dollar about to go belly up, muthafukkas bout to be using dollars for wallpaper but IM the one who doesnt know shyt about economics? lol youre an idiot

and yes all those countries built their economies with similar models. its the model thats worked for thousands of years and its the model that still works today. and ill go ahead and answer your next question it was through domestic manufacturing... keeping production inside the national borders by any means necessary, and keeping higher levels of foreign competition out of the domestic market until local companies mature.

yes there are variations due to each countries specific situation and their specific strengths/weaknesses. but the manufacturing model is consistent.

this is the same shyt i was saying on the podcast its the same shyt i been trying tell HL/KTL for years and its the same shyt any economist who knows anything about the economy will cosign.

so those are a few of the reasons your post was

youre worried about equations and economic models while im dealing with practical application. thats one of the big problems with egg head ivy league economists now... all theory and no application.

but let me make it plain for you... economic prosperity will come from re-developing our manufacturing base. GUARANTEED. we have got to start making products to sell again.

Of course there's collusion. The big banks are greedy obviously. They're trying to maximize their profit margins. They influence and control the government by lobbying to strip regulations and laws or put in place regulations and laws that are favorable to them. Politicians do the bidding of Wall Street and appoint people from the banks to top levels in the government. I don't think the general idea is that complicated...it's a favor for a favor, just like you see in politics at local level on up. We've seen several decades of the big banks consolidating more and more power. And the Fed has helped grease the skids the through their artificially low interest rates and cheap money policies. Alan Greenspan held a certain ideology that he believed to be gospel, as did a lot of Wall Street investment bankers, traders, and hedgemfund managers on Wall Street. They thought that by mitigating the risk, prices could not all collapse at once, and there were mathematical models created by brilliant people ("the quants") they put in place that supposed assured this. It was arrogance. They thought they had the market figured out, but in the end, markets were irrational. You have unchecked power in private banks, greed, cronyism, arrogance and dogmatic commitment to ideology that created a bomb that exploded on us all.

i agree with the bold, but i disagree with the rest. i dont think it was incompetence or arrogance

What I reject is the notion that somehow this was all planned to a desired end. One, as I said they did a shytty job of it because while the middle class and poor are facing most of the brunt of the recession, the banks certainly did not gain more from it than they were before. They took losses.

some folks took losses for sure... but dont think for a minute that everybody did. lots of people are in this recession

And two, the lesson from all this like I said markets and the whole financial system is indeed irrational and unpredictable. This all happened largely due to people thinking they had it all figured out and being wrong.

if you create bubbles they eventually pop, thats why theyre called bubbles because they do not contain any real economic substance. are you telling me these trained economists DONT know this yet?

 

[ogc163]

SMFH It's amazing how dudes embrace protectionism and the very worst aspects of mercantilism fallacies but then turn around and act like they are raging against the machine

 

[Jesus H. Christ]

nine trillion dollars.

 

[OsO]

SMFH It's amazing how dudes embrace protectionism and the very worst aspects of mercantilism fallacies but then turn around and act like they are raging against the machine

please stop acting like you know anything about anything

 

[Jatt]

Federal Reserve made $9 trillion in emergency loans - Dec. 1, 2010

During the financial crisis, the Fed did great to act as a lender of last resort and provide liquidity to banks.


The real problem is the Government. The Fed should not have to resort to the politics of the Government. Auditing the Fed is good, but I dont think it will do much. It may only open the pathway to further future government intervention into the Fed.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

please stop acting like you know anything about anything

You yourself said you dont know much about economics

I mean the Fed has lent out/"created" trillions over the past few years. Why haven't we seen this inflation you say is coming, from the same shyt that they have been doing since 08?

 

[ogc163]

please stop acting like you know anything about anything

Your the idiot talking about protectionism has been the foundation for prosperity for thousands of years. And that in order to get back on track we need to embrace quota's and tariffs again, you would be hard pressed to find an international trade economist who would agree with you.

 

[Black smoke and cac jokes]

You yourself said you dont know much about economics

I mean the Fed has lent out/"created" trillions over the past few years. Why haven't we seen this inflation you say is coming, from the same shyt that they have been doing since 08?

Inflation does not come from creating money, but from it being circulating in the system. As long as it is not used it won't affect the value of the currency.

 

[Black smoke and cac jokes]

Your the idiot talking about protectionism has been the foundation for prosperity for thousands of years. And that in order to get back on track we need to embrace quota's and tariffs again, you would be hard pressed to find an international trade economist who would agree with you.

I don't see why isolationism wouldn't work, mainly with the production of national brands.