Comments on: Why the Fed should regulate banks A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: MSGret1 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:01:27 +0000 First let it be know that I am not an English scholar and there will probably be grammatical mistakes in this posting.

The question is do we allow the Federal Reserve to regulate banks? The simple answer is no. There are also simple explanations to this complicated issue, which only can be obtained through common sense.

There has always been housing bubbles and all have burst.
Most, if not all, housing bubbles are created by the government. Not only our government but ever government of the world.

Banks and the bursting housing bubble is not the problem. The problem is Washington politicians buying votes with easy money, borrowed from the Federal Reserve, from both parties.

It is a fact that the Federal Reserve is privately owned. It is a little know fact that the Federal Reserve is the only institution in this country, that cannot be audited by the Federal Government.

So, if bank regulator authority is turned over to the Federal Reserve, the question becomes who regulates them?

If you missed it the first time I will say it again. It is the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve, not the banks that is the problem.

By: infowars Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:17:59 +0000 The government wants Americans to believe the greatest economic collapse in history was the result of ineptness and mistakes yet still have confidence in their financial institutions.

Should American bankers be let off the hook because they self-declare, before an investigational panel, that the failure of their newly invented risk swaps and other highly leveraged investment schemes was simply due to “mistakes”? Not malfeasance – just every-day mistakes? Bankers just fell asleep at the helm at a critical juncture in American history. Is that what we are being led to believe?

Oh well, it’s just 18 million American homes that now lay empty in the wake of unprecedented foreclosures, and the bankers have collected obscene bonuses for reckless lending of their depositors’ money. It’s like the captain and crew of a ship saying, not to worry, twenty-percent of the passengers were lost overboard, but this was due to unavoidable mistakes, and then being rewarded with bonuses when they reach port.

All that Americans have left is their fiat currency (the Federal Reserve controlled-Dollar), more than 80% of our industry has been moved off-shore. We can’t even increase exports since we have absolutely nothing to export except fiat-money.

So when Alan Greenspan tells the Gulf States to decouple from their dollar-peg, it is not by accident.  /10192824.html

So the American public, who can’t even find the US on the world map and can’t name the three branches of the Federal government has no idea what is going on.

The useful idiots who wrote that its a good idea for the Fed to take over bank regulation are the same people who thought that the past 18 months were impossible. The Federal Reserve is a private company. it is owned by its twelve federal reserve branches who, are in turn, owned by the Rothschilds, Rockefellars, and Royal familes of Britain and Holland.

By: Kosta0101 Tue, 19 Jan 2010 07:04:22 +0000 It’s a good argument that the Fed should control both the monetary policy lever and the financial lever to better aid in the coordination of both levers. However, it’s not clear that both levers need be controlled by the same institution.

You wrote “[i]f by contrast the banks are regulated by some other institution entirely, the Fed has to second-guess what that institution is going to do in the future, and that’s never going to be easy.” However, there’s a very good counter-example to this problem, namely the control of fiscal versus monetary policy. These two levers are (usually) successfully by (mostly) independent parts of the gov’t, with the best example of their failure to properly coordinate being when Arthur Burns failed to adhere to a sufficiently independent policy in the 1970’s. Since then, the Fed and the gov’t had done a reasonably good job of coordinating their respective policies, with the Fed’s independence being the core reason for the Fed’s existence.

One could make a similar argument for the benefit of having financial regulation separated from the Fed. The goal of the regulator is somewhat distinct from the goal of monetary policy — having different people guide each policy could prove beneficial.

By: TimC Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:46:59 +0000 How did I end up leaving that comment on the wrong post? Sorry.

By: TimC Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:45:31 +0000 On the other hand there are those of us who refuse to buy cable because we don’t want our basic cable fees going to support the greedy, gluttonous and hateful Christians wagging their fat fingers in our faces about how sinful we are and how saved they are. Or to PAY to watch an hour of programming that consists of more than 20 minutes of advertising.

I only watch TV if I’m out of town and staying in a hotel that has cable. But I don’t understand how would you meter it if I spend 10 or fifteen minutes flipping thru channels trying to find anything interesting to watch. Do I have to pay for every show I watched for 30 seconds to 5 minutes? How do you challenge your bill when you get it?

By: dWj Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:06:22 +0000 Spot on, Felix. Absolutely spot on.