Ron Paul’s Fed audit idea: Are there any economists in favor?

August 4, 2009

I have taken a lot of heat about my coverage of Ron Paul’s idea to audit the Federal Reserve.  I would love to do a piece on economists in favor of the bill. So I am looking for names.  Now these have to be professional economists, people making a living from teaching or consulting. No self-taugt experts. Please leave names in the comment section below. And here is a bit from the good doctor himself on his bill:

The big guns have lined up against HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve. What is it that they are so concerned about? What information are they hiding from the American people? The screed is: transparency is okay except for those things they don’t want to be transparent.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, argues that HR 1207, the legislation to audit the Federal Reserve, would politicize monetary policy. He claims that monetary policy must remain independent, that is; secret. He ignores history because chairmen of the Federal Reserve in the past, especially when up for reappointment, do their best to accommodate the president with politically driven low interest rates and a bubble economy.

Bernanke argues that the knowledge that their discussions and decisions will one day be scrutinized will compromise the freedom of the Open Market Committee to pursue sound policy. If it is sound and honest and serves no special interest, what’s the problem?

He claims that HR 1207 would give power to Congress to affect monetary policy. He dreamt this up to instill fear, an old statist trick to justify government power. HR 1207 does nothing of the sort. He suggested that the day after an FOMC meeting, Congress could send in the GAO to demand an audit of everything said and done. This is hardly the case. The FOMC function under HR 1207 would not change.

The detailed transcripts of the FOMC meetings are released every 5 years, so why would this be so different and what is it that they don’t want the American people to know? Is there something about the transcripts that need to be kept secret, or are the transcripts actually not verbatim?

Fed sycophants argue that an audit would destroy the financial markets’ faith in the Fed. They say this in the midst of the greatest financial crisis in history brought on by none other than the Federal Reserve. In fact, Chairman Bernanke stated on November 14th 2007, “A considerable amount of evidence indicates that Central Bank transparency increases the effectiveness of monetary policy and enhances economic and financial performance”.

They also argue that an audit would hurt the value of the U.S. dollar. In fact, the Fed, in less than a 100 years of its existence, has reduced the value of the 1914 dollar by 96%.

They claim HR 1207 would raise interest rates. How could it? The Fed sets interest rates and the bill doesn’t interfere with monetary policy. Congress would have no say in the matter and besides, Congress likes low interest rates.

It is argued that the Fed wouldn’t be free to raise interest rates if they thought it necessary. But Bernanke has already assured the Congress that rates are going to stay low for the foreseeable future. And again, this bill does nothing to allow Congress to interfere with interest rate setting.

Fed supporters claim that they want to protect the public’s interest with their secrecy. But the banks and Wall Streets are the opponents of HR 1207, and the people are for it. Just who best represents the public’s interest?

The real question is: why are Wall Street and the Fed so hysterically opposed to HR 1207? Just what information are they so anxious to keep secret? Only an audit of the Federal Reserve will answer these questions.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

Don’t know any economists. All I know is that the welfare/warfare state would be impossible without the Fed. Thanks for ruining the country central bank and politicians. Great job.

Posted by Dave | Report as abusive

Why are we still discussing this, Ron Paul’s speech that’s posted above basically squashes any of the anti-1207 propaganda with ease and then some. No need to bring in any more “economists” or “experts” to discuss this it’s a simple audit of the Federal Reserve, this isn’t rocket science.

Posted by brody | Report as abusive

LOL@ “Professional economists”Do you mean the ones who didn’t see the bubble forming nor bursting? The ones from the Keynesian school of economics=Hokus pokus economics?Please, you are insulting our intelligence.You are putting yourself in the hot seat by defeding a corrupt institution that plunged our economy into this recession/depression and is working hard to destroy the dollar and create inflation.75% of the american people want a fed audit, period.We are fed up listening to those “Professional economists” who kept telling us we should keep borrowing, spending, buying stocks …. fed up of the ill advices of the talking heads and the likes who have no clue about what’s going on, FED UP.If you are serious about getting the opinion of those real economists who foresaw and warned us about the current crisis, other than Dr. Paul, please start we the following “Real economists:Peter SchiffJim RogersNouriel RoubiniPssss. the scholars of the Austrian economics didn’t just forsaw the crisis and predicted it acuratly, they even have real solutions not like those “Professional economists” who want to solve the problem by doing the same thing that caused this mess in the first place: SPENDING AND BOROWING!

Posted by James | Report as abusive

I guess that the vast majority of economics in this list would be in favor of HR1207: lus09/alternate_version.htmlIn fact any non-Keynesian economist would do, and even some famous Keynesian economics such as Dean Baker are in favor of HR1207, see here: -Q

Posted by nim | Report as abusive

Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff have been speaking out against the Fed on national TV for years. David Friedman, Milton’s son, teaches economics and has spoken out against the Fed. All the economists who work at and for the Von Mises institute have been making videos you can find on the internet about this.. I have attended and watched lectures by Charles W Baird who was a professor of economics at both UCLA and CSUEB supports this idea. Murray Rothbard, key Austrian economist, wrote a book years ago about the Fed. Are any of these names “professional” enough for you?? These are just a few names that came to the top of my head when I saw this article, out of a very long list of professionals who have been speaking out against the Fed since before Greenspan or even Volker for that matter.

Posted by Liberty_Mike | Report as abusive

Ron Paul is one of the great economists of our times, and he supports the audit.Scott

Thomas WoodsPeter SchiffJim RogersNouriel RoubiniRobert HiggsDouglas FrenchRobert MurphyWalter WilliamsWalter BlockThat’s just a few off of the top of my head. All of whom, mind you, were predicting this economic downturn. At the same time, the “pro-Fed” economists, including the chairman, Ben Bernanke himself were telling us that the economy was sound and the fundamentals were just fine. That brings up the question of whether Bernanke and friends are/were lying to the public, or just incompetent. Pick your poison.There is no doubt that the central economic planning of the Federal Reserve system is at the very root of our economic problems.

Posted by Mike | Report as abusive

Let’s pidgeon-hole everyone. Ron Paul is a doctor, therefore he cannot also be an economist. We should take this one step further and find out everyone’s talents when they are very young, and strategically place all those people in schooling and professions that will best serve the state.Why is everyone listening to Ron Paul when there are so many university-trained economists out there? I’m so frustrated!

Posted by David Sullivan | Report as abusive

I also believe the late great Milton Friedman would grant his approval for an audit. Maybe we should check with Anna Schwartz.

Posted by Mike | Report as abusive

Mr. Pethokoukis,I’m glad you’ve decided to follow up on your previous column regarding auditing the Federal Reserve, which was profoundly misguided. My top recommendation would be to go to (see especially and/or, where you will find a number of fully credentialed and currently teaching economists who have written and are writing eloquently about the destructive nature of central banking in general and the Federal Reserve in particular.Here’s even a recent piece in the Christtian Science Monitor from economist George Selgin, a University of Georgia prof, endorsing Audit the Fed: 09s01-coop.htmlI hope this helps!

I am a Chicago Econ PhD. Can’t reveal any more information because my tenure could be at stake. Hopefully, you will judge my remark based on the content.First of all, I think there is a quite a bit of confusion as to how the price system works. This is not only an issue with undergraduates in Microeconomics, but also policy-makers, politicians and clearly economic journalists. Free market economists believe that prices established without distortion reveal preferences about agents in the economy. Prices with distortion will also reveal the same but then you have to disentangle how much of it is from distortion and how much from actual preferences.Conducting monetary policy in secret is a huge distortion. The market should not have to guess what the Fed is upto. That cost could simply be eliminated if prices (i.e. interest rate) is established in the free market without interference from the Fed. Look at the yield curve. The right side of the yield curve is primarily established by the market and it is significantly more stable than the left end where the Fed has a lot of monopoly power. The right end may shift up or down (a result of the Fed’s shifting the level), but it is lot less volatile than the short end of the yield curve.We simply do not need the Fed. Now, if I don’t make tenure and have to get a cushy Fed job, I may sing a different tune. From an impartial point of view, the Fed creates unnecessary distortions in the capital market which we don’t need.

Posted by DH | Report as abusive

I don’t think it takes an economist to understand that adding more transparency to the Federal Reserve will help preserve honesty and integrity with our money supply. Sorry James, but simply having economist after economist telling us that faith in the FED is more important than the truth and disclosure that we as citizens are all accountable for will just not cut it this time.

Posted by Jeremy | Report as abusive

How about Thomas Jefferson and our founding fathers who warned us against central banks and paper money?

Posted by Muhammed Sulfi | Report as abusive

A real economist understands how to create real wealth that can be traded for money. Many economists simply teach or talk about economic theory, that the Englishman Lord John Maynard Keynes taught.However,Ron Paul,Peter Schiff,Lou Rockwell,James Turk,And my college professor, Rex Frank are all free market Mises economistsMost people now realize that I.O.U. notes { Federal Reserve Notes }can never be substituted for real wealth.It’s that simple.

Posted by Ron | Report as abusive

sounds like you’re getting exactly what you asked for, James. I hope by tomorrow we’ve got an entry from you presenting the opinions of the noted economists recommended above as to why increased transparency and even abolition of the Fed may be good for the economy.

Milton Friedman died 3 years ago, but he was opposed to the Fed’s very existance. Why then would it not be rational to assume he would have supported an audit of it? Or are Nobel prize-winning economists and their views not important enough to consider? lton_Friedman

Posted by BD | Report as abusive

George Selgin, Univ. of GeorgiaPeter Boettke, George Mason U.Thomas DiLorenzo, Loyala University in BaltimoreRoger Garrison, Auburn UniversityGeorge Reisman, Pepperdine UniversityThere are many, many more. These are off the top of my head. is devoted to ending the Fed and has many economists under their umbrella.

Posted by Nick | Report as abusive

My major was math but I’ve taken several upper-divisions economic classes. Looking back on it, they do teach you a lot of sound things but they also teach a lot of nonsense: Keynesianism’s only practical merits seem to be giving politicians cover to do favors for special interests and making economists a lot more relevant.In financial economics I was taught specifically that the more “independence” a country’s central bank had the better the country’s financial health tended to be. But now this strikes me as nonsense as well. Most mainstream Keynesian economists (if they had an opinion) would probably be against HR 1207. But economists are notorious for not agreeing unanimously on issues so I’m sure you could find some of them who are all for it.But seems to me that this is a question of ethics and justice more than economics. It always has been. If Bernanke has given trillions to his crooked banker friends, then it is paramount that a society which values justice to find out through legal means and prosecute them.BTW, if Congress is unfit to be allowed to affect monetary policy, then why the hell are they fit to run health care?

Posted by Michael M | Report as abusive

Economists to solicit who are in favor of HR1207:1) Ron Paul – he is the most competent politician on the topic, so perhaps your search for an economist should start with him directly. He can trace economic developments in America back to our founding, speaks clearly and passionately, and is a nice guy, too. I’m certain he is more knowledgeable about the economy than most economists.2) Peter Schiff – I saw him on some news shows and he is very articulate and persuasive in his support of HR1207.3) Did I already suggest Ron Paul?

Posted by ChrisCZ | Report as abusive

Quite the propagandist aren’t we James, little scumbag. Your losing buddy no one believes you or the MSM anymore, nobody has for a while and that’s me putting it lightly bud. You need to think about what your doing James, you need to think about real integrity and journalism something that you and the rest of the MSM need to think long and hard about. More and more people are becoming familiar with the federal reserve and the whole fractional reserve central banking system James and the more they learn the more likely its really gonna piss them off!!

Posted by Max | Report as abusive

Wow, the propaganda machine is really going into high gear. As one with an advanced degree, I will be the first to tell anyone that common sense is often the first victim of our educational system’s indoctrination. Economics is not difficult to understand on the Macro level. One need only to think for themselves to a very small degree to see that the FED is self destructive and will take our country down with it. I must conclude that this, (our destruction), must be their intent. No one I know believes that the FED has our countries best interest at heart. Being a Privately owned company necessarily proves that it dose not.

Posted by Tim Galien | Report as abusive

Oh… James, looking for “professional economists” who will substantiate your lemminghood.Looking for “professionals” coming from a scribe… Irony of ironies. One would seek the advice of professionals when one does not exercise one’s own human curiosity, in the Age of InternetS and google to seek out “alternative theories,” since you’re so keen on dismissing them, if nothing else but to in fact WIN the debate, against your detractors, as it were… reeks of “journalistic” indolence.When will you people learn, kissing asses of oligarchs does not make you part of the Ruling Class. In fact, they HATE kiss assess, just ask the idiots who followed their fate on the Night of the Long Knives.You honestly believe the Federal Reserve is there to protect the value of the dollar of the general American Populace, whom you seem to exclude yourself from? Kiddo you’re gonna need to wake up a bit. I know you think you’re doing your bit to keep the con going. But just ask Bernie Madoff, hey, he was a “professional” who if not indicted, would agree with you. How else do you think he got away doing what he did, if the PRIVATE FEDERAL as FedEx, FedReserve were not in collusion with extensive backroom dealings with other private banks and central govt.You people delude you’re still in 19th Century. You have no idea just how much the PEOPLE know what the hell is going on. Your Ponzi schemes are up.By the way, do you even know how the FED actually creates Notes?? Do you even know the difference between what a “notes,” currency, and money is?Right, you’re just a scribe, a repeater of info, why don’t you ask one of your “professionals” for help. I’ll bet they can offer you a discount on the Madoff plan.You guys are SOOOO pathetic. Sign of desperation is everywhere. YOU ARE GOING TO BE AUDITED, ya criminal goons. Unlike 1980′s, you’re NOT gonna have it your way. Even in the age of American Idol, people are hip to your CON.Keep scribing, pal. Oligarchy will go the way of dinosaurs. We’re gonna get our OLD Constitutional Republic back.-cheers, mate.PS. I’d recommend you watch Animal House and repeat the scene, “Thank you, sir! May I have another!” Because that’s who you remind me of.

Posted by Sic Semper Tyrannis | Report as abusive

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Professor Emeritus at UNLV would be in favor of HR 1207.

Posted by John | Report as abusive

To everyone saying Milton Friedman, you should recommend his son, David Friedman. David currently teaches law and economics at Santa Clara University in California.

Posted by Mike | Report as abusive

You deserved the heat you received for your previous articles on HR 1207, but I thank you for now including Ron Paul’s side of the story.I hope, now that people have helpfully supplied names of likely HR 1207 proponents, you will do a piece on economists in favor of the bill.

Posted by yoikes | Report as abusive

I just graduated with a degree in economics form Auburn University and was lucky enough to have Roger Garrison as my Macroeconomics teacher. I was taking his class when all of the problems with the economy started to come true. It was amazing to listen to his lectures that go home and turn on the TV/Internet and see/hear all of the problems we were talking about in class. His lectures made me so interested in Austrian Economics that I have read several books by Mises, Hayek, Menger, and Böhm-Bawerk. I am so glad that I learned Austrian Economics.Also any one that works with the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama would at least support an audit of the FED, most just getting rid of

Posted by Richard | Report as abusive

*********Are there any professional Mafiosos out there who support the belief that law enforcement should be beefed up? Now these have to be professional Mafiosos who racketeer for a living. No self-taught experts.

Posted by Larry | Report as abusive

“Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce. And when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.” – James A. Garfield”It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” – Henry Fordsee more great qoutes here

Posted by Adam | Report as abusive

Ron Paul is like a house fly to Ben Bernake. He his a nuisance but that is about it. This bill probably won’t even come to a vote.

Posted by Todd | Report as abusive

unfortunatly James, your missing the point. Economists do not run the country, we do not live in a democrasy, your point is moot

Posted by bob barker | Report as abusive

if I had to give you one name it would be Dr. James Galbraith otherwisetake your pick here … guess is any Austrian SChool Economist will favor an audit …orPaul Craig RobertsHe served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration.Marc Faber was born in Zurich and schooled in Geneva, Switzerland. He studied Economics at the University of Zurich and, at the age of 24, obtained a Ph.D. degree in EconomicsI am drawing a blank on the gentleman who spoke before congress regarding an aduit of the fed …I guess this guy does not count …James Beeland Rogers, Jr. (born October 19, 1942) is an expatriate American investor and financial commentator based in Singapore. He was a co-founder, along with George Soros, of the Quantum Fund, and is a college professor, author, world traveler, economic commentator, and creator of the Rogers International Commodities Index (RICI).Catherine Austin Fitts served as managing director and member of the board of directors of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co. Inc., as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush Administration, and was the president of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc., an investment bank and financial software developer. She is now the president of Solari, Inc., and managing member of Solari Investment Advisory Services, LLC.has a BA from the University of Pennsylvania, an MBA from the Wharton School and studied Mandarin at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.David M. Walker (born 1951) served as United States Comptroller General from 1998 to 2008, and is now the President and CEO of The Peter G. Peterson Foundation.Dennis Gartman editor of The Gartman LetterGerald Spencer .htmMid South Bank President and CEO R.J. “Rusty” ClouthierPeter Schiff is a supporter of the Austrian School of Economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute[4], and was an economic adviser for Ron Paul’s campaign in the 2008 Republican Party primariesMurray Newton Rothbard (March 2, 1926 – January 7, 1995)

Posted by TILT | Report as abusive

First off, I sense that asking us to submit an “Appeal to Authority” (a logical fallacy) is asking us to be setup for failure and put us on the defensive. Either you are asking for experts names in support of HR1207 to pigeonhole and slander their professional opinions by attacking them personally, or you actually want to read what is out there for what they have to say (along with your own common sense) and form a logical conclusion, I hope it is the latter.

Posted by Jay_C | Report as abusive

“This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.” – Robert Hemphill”It [the depression] was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence worked out as one works out a mathematical equation. The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as the rulers of us all.” – Louis T. McFadden”The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933.” – Milton Friedman”Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce. And when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.” – James A. Garfield”Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States.” – Barry Goldwater”If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” – Thomas Jefferson”I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” – Thomas Jefferson”It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” – Henry Ford

Posted by Adam | Report as abusive

Sure, I am a Professor of Economics at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Here is what I wrote my colleagues about supporting the idea that the Fed should not reveal what it buys (or holds as collateral for loads, I should add as that is a very large component).Dear Colleagues,At the Economists’ Dinner at the Fed, this year, we were told that the Fed is currently operating under an emergency powers provision in which the Treasury in effect has a seat at the Fed table. Bernanke signed off on Paulson’s decision to funnel what was initially tens of billions of dollars into AIG and on through to, among others, Goldman Sachs. The Goldman Sachs CEO was also in on that discussion, and reportedly said Goldman risked bankruptscy without that funding. Well, Goldman did not go bankrupt, has since achieved record earnings, and has personalized about half of those earnings into promised bonuses and other personalized pay. For its part, the Fed has been buying trillions of dollars, trillions with a T, of nonstandard securities. Is it buying or holding as collateral junk from Goldman Sachs at an above-market price? What all told has it gotten? The Fed will not tell, despite a lawsuit from Bloomburg to reveal.My point is the Fed is not currently independent. It is anything but transparent. It is doing things that have tremendous long-lasting consequences for our economy and way of life. This petition appears to ignore all that, and returns to yesteryear’s idea of a wise, impartial group of experts making decisions for our interests in isolation from the executive branch of the government. Think twice before signing this politically charged petition that has been circulated to us.and in a latter emailWe commonly teach that the Board of Governors is assured independence because no single President can ever appoint a majority until that President is on his way out of office from his second term. The reason for this independence is that the seven members of the Board each have a 14-year term, and those terms are staggered to be two years apart. If you teach it that way these days and go no further, though, you would be missing that it is not working out in practice like envisioned in theory.Only two of the current Fed Board members have been appointed to 14-year terms. The other three were each appointed to fill out unexpired terms. In other words, Board members have been increasingly not willing to stick it out for the full fourteen years. That is also evident in that there are currently two unfilled Board seats. If Obama wishes to appoint a Larry Summers/Robert Rubin combo to the Fed, for example, he would be free to do so right away.In short, even in the absence of today’s emergency powers, the staggered 14-year terms are not serving to keep the Fed independent of the Executive branch — Bernanke and Kohn are the only two members of the current Fed with even the possibility to be there 14 years. What’s more, Bernanke’s role as Chair expires this January. While he can be reappointed Chair by Obama, that in turn provides another point of leverage for the Executive branch.FYI, here are the current 5 members of the Board: d/default.htm

Posted by Robert Collinge | Report as abusive

Economists who favor a Fed Audit…Marc FaberPeter SchiffJim WillieJim SinclairTom Woods

Posted by Rockefeller | Report as abusive

In the last post, please overlook a couple spelling mistakes, such as loans not loads, bankruptcy not bankruptscy. The idea is that the Fed is bandying about so many trillions of dollars that, like it or not, they have gotten into the business of picking winners and losers in our economy, and transferring income as only central planners can. The Fed’s operations have changed from anything economists have been familiar with in the past in terms of what they buy and to whom they grant borrowing privileges. Not all economists are fully current on how matters have changed in the last year. Nor are many economists imagining how the allure of privatizing these Fed trillions seems to have led to private-banking infiltration into what we think of as merely academic Fed decisions. More accountability is needed to maintain integrity in Federal Reserve processes and fairness to the people of our country.

Posted by Robert Collinge | Report as abusive

Oh, and the disclaimer – My posts do no speak for nor necessarily represent the position of my university or the state that funds it. . . . reminded of that by that fellow with the Chicago degree worried about losing tenure.

Posted by Robert Collinge | Report as abusive

Yes, many many economists in favor and alot of the HOuse of Representatives let alone the over-whealming majority of people. One of the wonderful things about Doctor Paul is that economics is his “A” game. This man needs no advisory board or think tank councils to advise him on how to do the right thing. He knows it like the back of his hand. Crazy crazy we wound up with who we did as president especially in these current conditions. Republican voters really really screwed this one up for Americans. I am hopeful he’ll run again.

Posted by jason | Report as abusive

Jason, I think you are right about the numbers. When earlier this year Obama said all economists supported his stimulus policies, the CATO institute put together an ad I signed along with hundreds of other economists asserting our analysis to the contrary. Basically, like Nixon before him, Obama assumed Nixon’s assertion saying “We are all Keynesians now.” Keynesian analysis fell from favor around that time, just as it is doing again, now.James Pethokoukis, you might contact CATO about rounding up economists to support an audit of the Fed. I don’t know if they have taken a position, themselves.

Posted by Robert Collinge | Report as abusive

Hey James!How much do they pay you to LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?Look up Council on Foreign Relations sheep!

Hey James!How much do they pay to you LIE to the Amerikan people? (Deliberate spelling).Look up Council on Foreign Relations SHEEP!END THE FED, END THE FED, END THE FED!!!!!

Posted by shansher | Report as abusive

james galbraith

Posted by Jim | Report as abusive

James Pethokoukis, how much are they paying you to write this utter bull$hit? What has made you hate America? End the Fed!

Posted by Jim C | Report as abusive

Seems to me this is becoming a huge issue with everyone I know. And all say “Open the Books Audit the Fed!”Ben Bernake admitted in a speech honoring Milton Friedman – “Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.” Ben Bernake rddocs/speeches/2002/20021108/ m Last paragraph of speech

Posted by Tim | Report as abusive

Walter Williams

Posted by Angela | Report as abusive


Posted by JackassJones | Report as abusive

Don’t just audit the Fed, END IT!

Posted by joe | Report as abusive

If you think about how widely this petition was circulated and how it does not even directly say to not audit the Fed, it is remarkable that there were only two hundred economists who signed it. That says something in itself.I know I received a couple supportive replies to my email to colleagues, including a couple responses saying “good job” or “very important points” or “Thank you for speaking up.” Nobody sent me any argument against an audit.I’ve posted enough here. So, in closing, I think you will have no problem uncovering what you seek. While economists support a monetary policy independent of direct Congressional control, they do not support that anything and everything goes in what the Fed does when there is not verifiable transparency and accountability. The Fed should not be allowed to emulate the Politburo. I think even many of the petition signers would agree with those statements or words to that effect.

Posted by Robert Collinge | Report as abusive