Throwing all types of “Libertopia” straw men has nothing to do with the bill. I did not advocate libertarianism in this thread. I merely showed support for the bill in question.
Ron Paul sees the prior audits as lacking, I never hears him deny their existence.
Didja hear the one about how the existence of the FDIC poses a “significant risk” to the economy and monetary system, and later suggests that it be abolished?
Son of a gun, you learn something new everyday. Having heard Congressman Jim Jordan speak, I could’ve sworn his degree was in overused talking points and cliches. 
How? Specifically.
They haven’t resulted in the return of the gold standard. Obviously they have failed.
By the way, the Fed does not print currency - the Treasury does. The Fed pays a premium (markup) for the US Dollars it buys.
Basically, the US Treasury would have to be involved in this massive conspiracy.
Well, they do call it the dismal science.
Eh, “print money” is an accepted term for “create dollars”. The Treasury does do the physical printing, but the Fed does what most people mean when they say “print money”.
(and the Fed pays the treasury for manufacturing the dollars, but only the actual cost to produce the physical money. The treasury gets much less then a dollar from the Fed for each dollar that it produces. There’s no “premium” so far as I know).
Thus the whole gist of the central bank argument. People forget that dollars vanish as easily as they are created.
$15 trillion in net worth vanished in 2008. The Fed struggled but prevented another Great Depression via its extraordinary actions.
Neither.
Risk management was eschewed. In a bull market rick analysis is always lax (1960-2007).
Now risk is too strict. This is a centuries old cycle.
They were loans that were repaid.
“Bailout” is a loaded term.
What aspect was that? How was it not “audited”? What should it have been audited to?
Or maybe an “audit” does not mean “a magical process that prevents all problems from happening.”
Isn’t excess ‘scrutiny’ (i.e. control) one of those issues that 3rd world countries have that causes them so much trouble in the long run? Politicians meddle with their nation’s ‘fed’ to get short term jumps in the economy during election years but that hamstring them for the long haul.
Or am I thinking of something else.
On YouTube you can find recent C-SPAN interview with Ron Paul - I think it’s from Monday. They even have video from Bernanke’s last week Congress testimony where he explicitly rejects a specific audit request (Fed’s deliberations & decisions process) that Ron talks about.
I have a feeling that number of commenters are not informed at all on intricacies of the law proposed and then wonder why is law needed.
Also, number of comments are questioning Ron’s qualifications as if being a Chairman on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology means nothing.
However, suffice is to say that Bernanke knows very well what Ron wants therefore, strong words last week. That, to me, is the best proof that Ron knows what he’s talking about.
What “Stop’n’Frisk” does for reduction of crime in NYC that’s what audit of Feds should do in the area of nation’s finances.
On a related note, I’d like to reiterate my question that nobody touched - was a decision to create Maiden Lane(s) not only an economic but a political decision too? Or, how up to speed are you on Operation Twist’s negligible results?
This is pretty much it. Other countries have institutions called something like “Bank of <country>” which are, in first-world countries, largely independent of the government for the purpose of preventing politicians from screwing with the money supply for political gain. This is generally thought to be a good idea.
It means he’s the senior member of the majority party who sits on the subcommittee - which has existed for all of three years. Why, what do you think it means?
I’ll ask again:
:dubious: It should harass black people?
Presumably some of the people caught under the “stop and frisk” policy are actually committing crimes. What the fuck is the audit supposed to catch?
Fewer than by not having the policy. Going after people for being suspicious is more likely to catch criminals than going after them for having the wrong skin color.
Perhaps, but that’s a separate thread.