Propoganda - and the money as debt video

[Dick Knox]

It's interesting to look at the "money as debt video" as an example of what is wrong with video as an information source.

 I personally worry about the ability of a democratic process where the electorate gets it information from video. I take it to an extreme. I dont have a TV. I liken it to having a window that opens upon an adjoining insane asylum.

That said, I do go documentatry movies by certain authors.

I think it this particviular video could be the subject of a whole course at a university. The object would be to compare and contrast how one would process that same material if it were a written text.

I think it's flaws would be much more evident in a written text - because one can read and reread and return to a prior section and compare one part with the another, trying to make sense of a written work. One can stop in the middle and consult some authoritative source - or try to reconstruct the logic - and then return.

Note the clever use of shading when text is displayed. Only one line of a sentence is visible, denying the reader the chance to look forward and back to make sense of it as a whole.

Just some thoughts precipitated by our discussions triggered by the video.

--
Dick

[Mark Bachmann]

Yes, I found the video a little creepy, although I'm not sure sure the medium is necessarily the problem. I had much the same reaction to Ellen Brown's book a couple of years ago, which covered this same ground,  but in print. Much of the material is actually true, engaging the viewer/reader before veering into half-truth and finally non-truth. Embedding strategically placed lies in a bed of truth is a technique common to totalitarian propaganda.

 

By the way, I'm not being critical of Vern here for posting the video, because it's obviously prompted some interesting discussion.

 

    Mark Bachmann 

[Dick Knox]

Mark

I'm a bit fascinated by trying to guess the authors motive. It is not clear that anyone benefits from presenting these distortions. It feeds a kind of pananoid "they're out to get us" frame of mind. I would imagine that - since it is 3 years old - knowledgable people have tried to set him straight.

There are somewhat similar paranoid presentations from the tea party people - but I understand them - since in fact our system really is screwed up. I see the tea party followers as the pawns of a group that has an agenda.

But I dont see an agenda that could be motivating this video.

What's in it for the author?

Dick

--
Dick

[mbach...@gmail.com]

Dick,

The ideological background to this stuff spans the far right and far left, and it has a long history. The Fed has since it inception been a controversial institution, and the current campaign against is includes everyone from conservative republicans to left-liberals who share a is conviction that the Fed is somehow the root of all economic evil in the world. This video, I think, like Ellen Brown's book, reflect the beliefs of this movement.

Mark Bachmann

[Dick Knox]

Mark
Thanks - makes sense
Dick

--
Dick

[Nick Polimeni]

Are you saying that money is NOT created by the process of borrowing/lending (people going into debt by receiving loans)?

The attached is a booklet issued by the Federal Reserve of Chicago many years ago. The video explains the same thing in different words.

The conversation is now turning towards condemnation by political evaluation.

William was the ONLY person who made a list of errors or falsehoods; i.e.: points that could be debated by inspecting facts.

Seems like many others who spoke negatively about the video condemn the video for reasons not related to specific falsehoods, or seriously misleading points.

Cheers,

Nick

[Jean Erick]

     I think the author just got caught up in something that he, for a while, believed.  The fact that he remained open enough to accept and concider criticism speaks well for him and his intentions, IMHO.

 

James

[Jean Erick]

     I don't understand how people can criticize the "private nature" of the FED when it's very creation made the bankng system more subject to public observation.

Boogers the mind.

 

James

[Jean Erick]

     As I understand it at this time.  Money is not created by that process.   Debt is created by that process.  MMM, as I recall it, stresses money creation without sufficient stress of the fact that the money created is also destroyed as the loan is paid back.  But, as I said, it''s not money anyway, it's debt.  So, there is no NET creation of money.  There is a creation of debt, which is destroyed as it is paid off.  And debt is a direct claim on money.  But it isn't money.  It's a claim on money.  Debt may come and debt may go but money goes on, seeking its proper deffinition.

     As before, I think money is net created when the Treasuries, bought by FED created money, decrease in value thereby "revealing" the financial value of the created money.

 

James

[Nick Polimeni]

Hi, Jean Erick,

I don't see how this is true when the Fed can't even be audited, not even by law... And they haven't been audited by any agency of government...

So the "private nature" of the institution allows all kinds of events behind closed doors...

Nick

[William Hummel]

From: Nick Polimeni

To: understan...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 10:16 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Propoganda - and the money as debt video

Hi, Jean Erick,

I don't see how this is true when the Fed can't even be audited, not even by law... And they haven't been audited by any agency of government...

So the "private nature" of the institution allows all kinds of events behind closed doors...

Nick

 

Not true.  The Board of Governors contracts with an accounting firm to conduct and audit of the Reserve Banks every year.  The audited combined financial statements of the Reserve Banks are published in the Board's Annual Report.

 

The Reserve Banks, like the Board are subject to audit by the GAO, but certain functions such as transactions with foreign central banks and open market operations are excluded from the GAO's audit.  Each Reserve Bank has an internal auditor who is responsible to the Bank's board of directors.

[Nick Polimeni]

What legal right does the GAO to audit? Why does Ron Paul keep demanding an audit of the Fed, and get rebuffed? Why wouldn't the GAO not be entitled to audit certain transactions? That they "hire" their accounting firm is common to all corporations that are required to make public an Annual Report, which is different than an audit report. 

I've worked in banking, and it was government banking authority who hired the auditors and sent them to the bank at their pleasure. We did not hire them. We only hire an accounting firm to prepare the Annual Report, which is not the same thing.

Nick

--
Nick

[William Hummel]

You claimed that no agency of the government audited the Fed.  The GAO (Government Accounting Office) is the investigative arm of Congress, charged with investigating matters relating to the receipt and payment of public funds.  The law prohibits the GAO from auditing certain transactions to protect the privacy of the counterparties and sensitive policy decisions of the Fed.  Ron Paul is confused.

 

The Board of Governors, not the Reserve Banks, hires the outside accounting firm to audit the Banks.  That firm does the audit itself, including preparing the audit report.  That's no different from the audit of any private corporation.  

[Nick Polimeni]

I confess I'm not as informed, with regards to actual documentation, as I would like to be to argue the point. The principal foundation for my arguments is their actions and the ensuing results: They do not act in favor of the public, as an agency of government should, assuming they are such thing. They act and support the interest of private banking. Not the public. And it's not a matter of applying sane economic principles... They're not even action on rational economic principles. 

I'm sure there will be apologists to explain why they do as they do... That doesn't change the fact that they have failed the nation and the world since their inception... One would expect much more from an organization many believe is part of the Federal government... which arguments to support aren't at all convincing. 

Cheers, Nick

--
Nick

[Nick Polimeni]

One more thing... according to Jean Erick, GAO cannot audit certain international transactions... You restrict the audit to "matters of public funds receipts.... Then who is the judged of the privacy of counter parties? What counter parties, and what sensitive policy decisions? How would not such be of no concern or right for the public to understand or know about? Can't help it by being suspicious... when government wants to hide stuff, they say, "sensitive national security" issues. 

You maybe accurately quoting laws or regulations, but expecting that they be simply accepted? Whom do you trust? 

Still no one has produced documentation to show the ownership by the US Government; then, I've read about stock ownership by other banks... but have seen no documentation showing proportion of ownership of the Federal Reserve, and the name of the owners of the bulk of the stock.

A lot of obscure stuff. Maybe you know where the information is... and I'm not talking about the Federal Reserve Act, which of course, is what one might start with. I'll go read that one again, and see what I can understand from a fresh look. 

Nick

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:53 AM, William Hummel <wfhu...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

--
Nick

[Nick Polimeni]

I had a chance to review the Federal Reserve Act, and here are some things which came up on searches:

To this day there's controversy as to whether it is a Federal agency or a private corporation.

Why this would come to issue is because we can't truly apply a workable definition of which makes a Fed Agency,  or a private corporation. 

Points at issue are for example, the ownership as shown in the number of shares held by private individuals/corporation/banks. I've not found a good source for that. However, we can say that in normal business practice, the stock holders are proportionate owners, and The federal government maybe one of the stock holders. Have not been able to ascertain this point. 

At this point, it then becomes a matter of functionality and whether public or private corporation, what it does and how it affects the nation becomes a reflection of the intentions of the folks who rule how the bank operates, and how it will affect the system. 

The Act give the Fed a mission of currency stability, as described in the Act's Policy Objectives chapter. Whether the Fed has discharged its duties adequately is questionable. Even for a government agency, that's actionable to some extent. 

The Comptroller and the Treasury have wide powers to examine all aspects of the bank, nothing appears to be excluded. Has that ever happened? I haven't researched that point.

The act gives the Fed the right to issue currency, without spelling out exactly how... but the Federal Reserve Notes are such money it can issue. 

We can go through a discussion which falls under technicalities, as to what indicates ownership, or we can examine the validity of the this central bank as it serves the nation; we can examine its behavior and whose interests it serves. In my opinion, it is clear that while the Congress has some level of oversight, and can exercise some control, it rarely if ever does so, and relies significantly on the people at the Fed for advice.  Like their idea of the bailouts were readily taken up by congress as an unavoidable thing to do. 

Then we can examine the people involved across the century, and we can acquire other ideas of what its interests might be, in addition to how their interests are revealed in the result of their actions. 

Here is a web site with a list of people directly or indirectly connected to the running of the Fed:

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/federal_reserve.shtml

A study of these people would paint an interestingly different intention and idea behind the Federal Reserve.

Cheers, 

Nick

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:53 AM, William Hummel <wfhu...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

--
Nick

[Dick Knox]

NIck

The Fed may not be that different from other agencies - just more blatant and more totally captured by the industry and its oligarchs.

I bet you think the mission of the Dept of Agriculture is to serve the interests of the citizens of the USA.

Check its actions and you may conclude that its mission is more narrow

I bet you think the mission of the government of the USA is to ...

(oops - just ran up against the great wall).

--
Dick

[William Hummel]

Instead of simply reading and believing what the conspiracy advocates write about the Fed, why don't you do some research on the Fed yourself.  You could start by reading the "Purposes and Functions of the Federal Reserve System" at http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm.  I digested a lot of it in my website article at http://wfhummel.net/fedoverview.html which might be a better place to start.

 

The claims by people like Ron Paul who say we can get by without a central bank by returning to the gold standard obviously don't know about the many crises under the gold standard during the 19th and first half of the 20th century.    

[Nick Polimeni]

The Federal Reserve Act itself is an excellent source about what the Fed is all about. Even if you dismiss off-hand the second document I sent. 

You can read what's in writing about purposes and functions... but I'm sure most of us have learned that words aren't of much value, when the actions speak louder and tell another story. Just like how government touts to uphold and protect the constitution, while at the same time eroding it by their actions.

Cheers, Nick

--
Nick

[William Hummel]

OK, Nick, it's obvious you have made up your mind.  There's no point in my discussing this any further with you. 

[Terry Hammonds]

Military does not get audited either. Supposed to be, but they strongly resist it. There is no way to know what they do or how much they spend doing it. There should be a stop to "entitlement" reform until ALL agencies and departments are properly audited. We are too loose with secret spending.

Sent from my iPad

[Nick Polimeni]

Of course, one must always make up one's mind; and be capable of changing it when new information shows up that causes a need to adjust what one once believed to be true. 

In light of the significantly mounting evidence that the actions are the real expression of intention of the Fed, it would be more difficult to defend it. 

I wish the good will and lofty mission of the Fed were to materialized in real life. 

But let's consider what the discussion is/was about. We started from a statement where you asserted that the idea that it is a myth that the Fed Reserve is private corporation, but more or less an agency of the government. 

When I read the Act and attendant documentation, I realized that the words clearly subject the Fed to complete audit-ability by the government, which in the discussion seemed to be viewed as something that proved ownership. 

I realized that discussion the technicalities of what constitutes ownership from a mechanical point of view was not a viable path of discussion, since the issue has been in controversy for ever. But shifted towards saying that whether it's technically an agency or not, it has never really served the public interest, by looking at its actions. 

So I started with the assumption that the Fed's actions showed it was not an agency that government could really control, and thus an independent. 

So I assert that actions show more clearly what the intentions are, and the relationship of the Fed to the society or the state.

If that premise is not reasonable, then, we obviously can't discuss it. But if it's valid, then, it's reasonable to discuss the Fed's actions to determine the agency's right to exist, even; and/or whether something else should replace it that can perform the actions that gave rise to its creation. 

Cheers, Nick 

[George Chandler]

The FED is audited very heavily by several agencies. There are a couple of areas of work that are not audited such as the Open Market Committee and the Foreign Office Operations. But yes, there are all kinds of schenigans
 behind closed doors.

[Joe Leote]

This article on who owns the Fed passes "the smell test," if accurate, the owners of the domestic banking system are the primary shareholders of the Fed:

 

http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html

 

There is a problem with Fed in that it serves primarily the interests of bankers and only secondarily the interests of the people, however, Congress and the people must get educated about the limits of capitalism as a social system to enact change for the better. This is not very likely.

 

Jefferson said something to this effect, I think in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, "All experience hath shown that mankind are more inclined to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

 

Unstable banking and credit relationships are one such form.

 

Joe

----- Original Message -----

From: Nick Polimeni

To: understan...@googlegroups.com ; jim blair

Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 10:05 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Propoganda - and the money as debt video

Of course, one must always make up one's mind; and be capable of changing it when new information shows up that causes a need to adjust what one once believed to be true. 

In light of the significantly mounting evidence that the actions are the real expression of intention of the Fed, it would be more difficult to defend it. 

I wish the good will and lofty mission of the Fed were to materialized in real life. 

But let's consider what the discussion is/was about. We started from a statement where you asserted that the idea that it is a myth that the Fed Reserve is private corporation, but more or less an agency of the government. 

When I read the Act and attendant documentation, I realized that the words clearly subject the Fed to complete audit-ability by the government, which in the discussion seemed to be viewed as something that proved ownership. 

I realized that discussion the technicalities of what constitutes ownership from a mechanical point of view was not a viable path of discussion, since the issue has been in controversy for ever. But shifted towards saying that whether it's technically an agency or not, it has never really served the public interest, by looking at its actions. 

So I started with the assumption that the Fed's actions showed it was not an agency that government could really control, and thus an independent. 

So I assert that actions show more clearly what the intentions are, and the relationship of the Fed to the society or the state.

If that premise is not reasonable, then, we obviously can't discuss it. But if it's valid, then, it's reasonable to discuss the Fed's actions to determine the agency's right to exist, even; and/or whether something else should replace it that can perform the actions that gave rise to its creation. 

Cheers, Nick 

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:51 AM, William Hummel <wfhu...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

OK, Nick, it's obvious you have made up your mind.  There's no point in my discussing this any further with you. 

[William Hummel]

Joe,

 

Let's not perpetuate the myth that the Fed is "owned and controlled" by private banks.  Yes, large banks have more influence than they should at the Fed, but that comes as a result of their influence in Congress, not from their so-called ownership of the Fed.  The Fed is a creature of the Congress which set up its structure and writes the rules it is required to follow.

 

The Fed is comprised of the Board of Governors and staff in Washington DC, plus twelve Reserve Banks around the country.  The Governors are appointed by the President of the US, subject to confirmation by the Senate.  Monetary policy is set by the twelve member FOMC in Washington which consists of the seven members of the Board of Governors and five of the twelve Reserve Bank presidents.  The Reserve Bank presidents are elected by the nine directors of each Bank, but subject to the approval of the Board of Governors. 

 

The controlling arm of the Fed is in Washington DC, not in the Reserve Banks.  The Reserve Banks were structured legally as private corporations and that's about all that corresponds to private ownership. To become a member of the Federal Reserve System, a private bank must subscribe to the "stock" in its regional Reserve Bank in an amount proportional to its own capital and surplus.  The stock is not available for purchase by individuals or entities other than member banks.  It cannot be sold or pledged as collateral for loans.  The stock does not carry with it the control and financial interest conveyed to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations.  It is merely a legal obligation of membership.

   

If you hold stock in a corporation without a claim on any of its assets except for the amount paid for the stock, which cannot be sold, cannot be used as collateral, offers no opportunity for capital gain, earns no dividends, and only earns a fixed interest on the paid-in amount, would you say you were an owner of that corporation?

 

William

----- Original Message -----

From: Joe Leote

To: understan...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 4:57 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Propoganda - and the money as debt video

[Joe Leote]

William,

 

Although I agree with you that Fed is largely controlled by Congress, and that "ownership" interests are not the same as ownership claims to stock in a private corporation, nonetheless in the role of centralized counterparty (CCP) and lender of last resort (LOLR) Fed exists primarily to serve the interests of its stakeholder industry: banks.

 

The concept of serving the interests of private stakeholders without all the usual benefits of share ownership is also evident in the structure of the DTTC:

 

http://www.dtcc.com/ 

 

which offers CCP and custodial services to its member stakeholders and returns profits to the beneficial owners while attempting to provide an efficient cost effective service to member stakeholder banks and brokers. Fed looks a lot like this type of organization.

 

I regard banks and bankers as the primary beneficiaries and therefore stakeholders of the Fed as it exists regardless of your otherwise valid arguments below. Fed is proving this by implementing policies calculated to help recapitalize or publicly subsidize the major banks as we speak. It also fails frequently in its role as primary bank regulator.

 

Joe

[Mark Bachmann]

The Federal Reserve system was bitterly contested from the time of its inception, as were earlier proposals for and experiments with national banks, going back to the days when Alexander Hamilton was the most controversial figure in the country.  The reasons for such intense conflict has always been general recognition of the economic power that resides with a central bank and fear of such power falling into the hands of people who would misuse it. The danger has been seen as arising potentially from two directions: (1) Private interests, who could try to use the Fed as a vehicle for looting the economy and (2) politicians who, posturing as public servants, could use it as a tool for establishing an overwhelming political power.

 

It's my reading of the Fed's history that it's present governance structure has evolved precisely to protect against both of these dangers by balancing them off against one another. The decentralized and cooperative "private" ownership structure, which indeed exists,  helps ensure that the various regional economies around the country are represented in the determination of Fed policy. At the same time, all the political controls that William enumerates are there to insure that political accountability exists and that the Fed does not lose sight of its essentially public character.

 

I'm no fan of Ben Bernanke at this point, but I believe that his failings have mainly to do with hubris, i.e., sounding as though he believes he somehow has the ability to fine-tune the dynamics of an economy that is largely chaotic in nature. I certainly don't see Bernanke as corrupt in any way or unaware of his public responsibility, even though there are always going to be corrupt people with access to the Fed chairman attempting to influence him.

 

And I think that the Fed's governance structure is actually pretty good.

 

     Mark Bachmann

[Dick Knox]

Mark

I so enjoy your wise and moderate comments.

I suspect that if faced by 2 women fighting over a baby , that you would suggest they cut him in half.

Maybe there's something to this reincarnation idea.

Dick

--
Dick

[mbach...@gmail.com]

Dick,

Whenever I've tried to deal with two women fighting, I've found out how limited my abilities as a statesman really are!

M.

On , Dick Knox <kn...@knox-data.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[William Hummel]

Joe,

 

I agree that the Fed has failed in recent years in its role as primary bank regulator.  I think most of that failure can be traced to the hands-off policy of Alan Greenspan, who treated the financial industry as needing less rather than more oversight and regulation.  However I think Congress, especially during the last twenty years, was a major contributor to the overreach of Wall Street firms which led to the recent financial debacle.  By ending Glass-Steagall in 1999 with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Congress cleared the path for depository banks to operate in much the same way as investment banks and hedge funds.  The anti-regulatory stance of the Bush administration also played a significant role.  Under those conditions, it was almost inevitable that the Fed would fail as primary regulator.

 

Nevertheless I can't believe you really mean that the reason for the Fed's existence is to serve the interests of banks.  That's a very narrow and cynical view, and I don't think it reflects the history of the Fed over at least the past seventy years.  There have been times when it may have seemed the Fed was overly generous to the banking system, but almost always when it coincided with its goals regarding the general economy.

 

Faced with the impending bankruptcy of major financial institutions starting in 2007, the government had three options: (1) let them go bankrupt and have the courts deal with the problem, (2) nationalize the failed banks and restructure them before selling them off, or (3) bail them out and hope to recover as much as possible. 

 

Most economists agree that option 1 was totally out of the question because it would have taken years to settle all the claims and get the banking system functional once again.  Meanwhile the economy would have been paralyzed and come to a near halt.  Option 2 would have taken control away from the individuals who got us into the mess and provided a rare opportunity to restructure the financial system.  It was never given proper consideration because of political pressures, but I think it would have been the best choice. 

 

So the Fed, together with the Congress, was left with option 3, which ended up rewarding those who helped create the problem, but saving the economy from another depression.  It could have been done more equitably if time had not been so critical, but that's the typically the problem in a crisis. Unfortunately those who got bailed out are now at the forefront of the fight against regulation needed to prevent a repeat. 

 

William

[George Chandler]

In order to assist with following the fascinating developing new regulation system... below is a list of the agencies  involved with the regulation of our financial system. 

 

U.S. Treasury, Comptroller of the Currency, FED, FDIC, SEC, Fedreral Trade Commission, Commodities Trading Commission. And new under Dood-Frank Law : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Council of Regulators, and the Financial Stability Oversight Council. 

[Joe Leote]

William,

 

I agree with much that you say. However, persons who have lost jobs, have diminished income, or lost homes to foreclosure to banks have not been "bailed out." The legal process IS taking years and for the most part the overpaid bank executives are on the winning side of the income and rewards, while the non-bank borrowers experience loss.

 

Fed, therefore, primarily serves the interest of banks and bankers. Do I blame Fed exclusively for these structural problems, or see their role as adverse to wider economic interests? No, but the result is that banks and bankers are in alliance with the Fed and derive the more significant benefits from the financial structure as I see it.

[Jean Erick]

     Not according to Jean Erick.  I don't know that much about it to say one way or the other.

 

James

[Jean Erick]

     I don't think they are an "agency" of the government.  They are regarded as a quasi private - government entity.  I think the problem here is that most of the crticism

of the FED simply comes from lasseiz faire propagandists so it is more difficult to figure out becasue you have to sort thorugh a lot of garbage and learn to tell the difference between valid arguments and lies.  That takes more time, and can be defeating, then if the field were clear of false arguments.

 

James

[Jean Erick]

     Ron Paul is like the traditional democrat.  He gets you half way there then walks away.  ;-)

 

James

[Jean Erick]

     Nice post.  As in another post, I think the main criticism is that the FED's regulatory frunction was disabled by the move back to lasseiz faire.

 

James

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark Bachmann

To: understan...@googlegroups.com

[Jean Erick]

     Gee.  Even as a bachelor, I've come to understand the reason for the beautiful sublimlity of the phrase "Yes Dear."  ;-)

 

James

----- Original Message -----

From: mbach...@gmail.com

To: understan...@googlegroups.com

[Jean Erick]

     Roubini, in the "Deflating Bubble" conferences, seemed to expect nationalization to take place.

 

James

[Jean Erick]

     As in another post, the FED is being blamed for elements derrived from the overall move from semi Keynes to lasseiz faire.   As the FED has the "taint" of government action, it must be evil.  Propaganda 101.

  

James

[Jean Erick]

     The creation of the FED -apparently- makes some things available to the public such as FED meeting minutes,  public statements to congress by the FED

chairman, and the listing of a FED balance sheet.  And public information on the theory and practical operation of the FED.  Whether there is more behind the  scenes involvement is beyond my knowledge.

     It seems to be an improvement in public knowledge over JP Morgan locking the bankers in a room until they came to agreement on a solution.  However, relative to our late economic machinations, no improvement in finding a solution.  But, JP is gone, so what can we do?

But, you know. I've posted many times on the Thomas Jefferson statement that having banks in private hands is worse then an invading army and  that that will result  in the public being drained by continuing cycles of inflation and deflation.   Just like we just had.  I have never received a responce.

 

James

----- Original Message -----

From: Nick Polimeni

To: understan...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 10:16 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Propoganda - and the money as debt video

Hi, Jean Erick,

I don't see how this is true when the Fed can't even be audited, not even by law... And they haven't been audited by any agency of government...

So the "private nature" of the institution allows all kinds of events behind closed doors...

Nick

[Jean Erick]

     I suggest the context of arguments must be the realization that the FED operation, and results, may be confused with the transition from lassiez faire to semi Keynes and back to lasseiz faire.  As, what are the peas and what are the shells.

 

James

----- Original Message -----

From: Nick Polimeni

To: understan...@googlegroups.com