PDA

View Full Version : Bernie Sanders NYT op-ed: "To Rein In Wall Street, Fix the Fed"



vacuum
23rd December 2015, 10:18 AM
It's not perfect, but I'm glad Bernie is bringing this issue up.

Bernie Sanders: To Rein In Wall Street, Fix the Fed


WALL STREET is still out of control. Seven years ago, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department bailed out the largest financial institutions in this country because they were considered too big to fail. But almost every one is bigger today than it was before the bailout. If any were to fail again, taxpayers could be on the hook for another bailout, perhaps a larger one this time.

To rein in Wall Street, we should begin by reforming the Federal Reserve, which oversees financial institutions and which uses monetary policy to maintain price stability and full employment. Unfortunately, an institution thatwas created to serve all Americans has been hijacked by the very bankers it regulates.

The recent decision by the Fed to raise interest rates is the latest example of the rigged economic system. Big bankers and their supporters in Congress have been telling us for years that runaway inflation is just around the corner. They have been dead wrong each time. Raising interest rates now is a disaster for small business owners who need loans to hire more workers and Americans who need more jobs and higher wages. As a rule, the Fed should not raise interest rates until unemployment is lower than 4 percent. Raising rates must be done only as a last resort — not to fight phantom inflation.

What went wrong at the Fed? The chief executives of some of the largest banks in America are allowed to serve on its boards. During the Wall Street crisis of 2007, Jamie Dimon, the chief executive and chairman of JPMorgan Chase, served on the New York Fed’s board of directors while his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Next year, four of the 12 presidents at the regional Federal Reserve Banks will be former executives from one firm: Goldman Sachs.

These are clear conflicts of interest, the kind that would not be allowed at other agencies. We would not tolerate the head of Exxon Mobil running the Environmental Protection Agency. We don’t allow the Federal Communications Commission to be dominated by Verizon executives. And we should not allow big bank executives to serve on the boards of the main agency in charge of regulating financial institutions.

If I were elected president, the foxes would no longer guard the henhouse. To ensure the safety and soundness of our banking system, we need to fundamentally restructure the Fed’s governance system to eliminate conflicts of interest. Board members should be nominated by the president and chosen by the Senate. Banking industry executives must no longer be allowed to serve on the Fed’s boards and to handpick its members and staff. Board positions should instead include representatives from all walks of life — including labor, consumers, homeowners, urban residents, farmers and small businesses.

The Fed must also make sure that financial institutions are investing in the productive economy by providing affordable loans to small businesses and consumers that create good jobs. How? First, we should prohibit commercial banks from gambling with the bank deposits of the American people. Second, the Fed must stop providing incentives for banks to keep money out of the economy. Since 2008, the Fed has been paying financial institutions interest on excess reserves parked at the central bank — reserves that have grown to an unprecedented $2.4 trillion. That is insane. Instead of paying banks interest on these reserves, the Fed should charge them a fee that would be used to provide direct loans to small businesses.

Third, as a condition of receiving financial assistance from the Fed, large banks must commit to increasing lending to creditworthy small businesses and consumers, reducing credit card interest rates and fees, and providing help to underwater and struggling homeowners.
We also need transparency. Too much of the Fed’s business is conducted in secret, known only to the bankers on its various boards and committees. Full and unredacted transcripts of the Federal Open Market Committee must be released to the public within six months, not five years, which is the custom now. If we had made this reform in 2004, the American people would have learned about the housing bubble well in advance of the financial crisis.

In 2010, I inserted an amendment in Dodd-Frank to audit the emergency lending by the Fed during the financial crisis. We need to go further and require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a full and independent audit of the Fed each and every year.
Financial reforms must not stop with the central bank. We must reinstate Glass-Steagall and break up the too-big-to-fail financial institutions that threaten our economy. But we need to start with fundamental change. The sad reality is that the Federal Reserve doesn’t regulate Wall Street; Wall Street regulates the Fed. It’s time to make banking work for the productive economy and for all Americans, not just a handful of wealthy speculators. And it begins by making the Federal Reserve a more democratic institution, one that is responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans rather than the billionaires on Wall Street.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/opinion/bernie-sanders-to-rein-in-wall-street-fix-the-fed.html?_r=0

Shami-Amourae
23rd December 2015, 10:22 AM
Without the Fed, how is he going to pay for all his pet Niggers?

http://s1.postimg.org/m9hhpw0sf/1439344328155.jpg (http://anonym.to?http://anonym.to/?http://postimage.org/)

vacuum
23rd December 2015, 10:29 AM
Without the Fed, how is he going to pay for all his pet Niggers?


I agree he's a socialist. It's better than Killary though, who would send all that money to Israel through aid and wars. And probably start WWIII.

mick silver
23rd December 2015, 10:44 AM
reforming the Federal Reserve will only help one group to gain more control do away with the fed would be a start

mick silver
23rd December 2015, 10:49 AM
Don't Wait for the Fed to Change
By Daily Bell Staff - December 22, 2015



http://www.thedailybell.com/default/includes/themes/tdb/images/printer.png (http://www.thedailybell.com/printview/params/id/36704/printview/)
http://www.thedailybell.com/default/includes/themes/tdb/images/font-size.png (javascript:void(0))
http://www.thedailybell.com/default/images/icon_feedback.png 3 (http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/36704/Dont-Wait-for-the-Fed-to-Change/#disqus_thread)


Confident and clear, Yellen says rate path will be well signaled ... The unanimous backing Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen got for the Fed's first rate hike since the financial crisis let her deliver a clear message: Don't expect further rate hikes for a while, and when we are ready, we'll tell you. Yellen's confident and measured performance - she even managed a joke about the Fed's forecasting record - came as she ended the "extraordinary" measures that revived the U.S. economy from the worst recession since the 1930s. – Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-communications-analysis-idUSKBN0TZ34220151217)
Dominant Social Theme: The Fed is a great organization and Janet Yellen is a great leader.
Free-Market Analysis: We missed this recent Reuters article about a "confident and clear" Janet Yellen. This was the kind of article mainstream media types used to write in the 20th century before so much was known about central banks (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/2958/) and the serial idiocy of their various protocols and actions.
Clearly, the Fed (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1855/) isn't getting the kind of fulsome coverage it used to receive. Even when the article is an approving one, there are caveats. This Reuters article was as close as we've seen recently to old-school coverage that treated the decisions of the steering committee as commandments from on high.
Here's more:
When it mattered the 69-year old economist guided markets to a soft landing and convinced skeptical rate setters to back the consensus. Indeed, before the Fed's last meeting, an overwhelming majority of Wall Street firms told the Fed that its communications were ineffective or nearly so, according to the New York Fed's most recent survey. Stocks even managed a rally on the Fed decision as Yellen corralled doubters like Fed governors Lael Brainard and Daniel Tarullo, as well as the dovish chief of the Chicago Fed, Charles Evans, to sign on to the decision to raise short-term interest rates.
"Definitely a communications coup," said Scott Anderson, chief economist for Bank of the West in San Francisco. Market responses were relatively muted, with futures on short-term interest rates dropping just enough to suggest traders now believe the next rate hike will occur in April, rather than in June as had been expected.
Contrast this sort of coverage to Ron Paul's column on the Fed (http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/december/21/do-we-need-the-fed/), just posted. Paul asks the important question, "Do we need the Fed?" Of course, we know this is merely rhetorical, as Ron Paul (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/859/) has devoted his life to reducing or eliminating the central bank.
The article is partially devoted to restating the ways that the central bank aggravates a normal business cycle (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/634/) by artificially lowering rates and sustaining those rates over a too-long time period.
It is the artificial creation of too much money that lowers rates, Ron Paul notes, and low rates send questionable signals to investors and businesses about the size and timing of investments.
He adds:
When the rates are artificially lowered by the Fed instead of naturally lowered by the market, businesses and investors receive distorted signals. The result is over-investment in certain sectors of the economy, such as housing. This creates the temporary illusion of prosperity. However, since the boom is rooted in the Fed's manipulation of the interest rates, eventually the bubble will burst and the economy will slide into recession.
While the Federal Reserve may tighten the money supply before an economic downturn, the tightening is simply a futile attempt to control the inflation resulting from the Fed's earlier increases in the money supply. After the bubble inevitably bursts, the Federal Reserve will inevitability try to revive the economy via new money creation, which starts the whole boom-bust cycle all over again.
There is no way to halt this vicious cycle except for central banks simply to step out of the way and stop trying to interfere with the market's pricing of money. A "rules-based" monetary system will not work any better because the issue is the mispricing itself. That's what does the damage. Having rules will not affect the problem and may only make it worse.
Ron Paul suggests that the only real way to remove the Fed's influence is to allow US citizens to use alternative money and currencies. He also suggests free-market economics (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1918/) and education and believes that as more and more people rediscover Austrian economics, the pressure to adopt private, competitive money will increase.
He mentions Audit the Fed legislation, which has passed the House twice and is scheduled for a vote in the Senate on January 12th.
Paul is hopeful of reversing the power of the Federal Reserve but it occurs to us that people actually don't have to wait for legislation to pass. It is much better to remove oneself from the system than to wait for it to somehow perish. The easiest way is to buy gold and silver (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/804/) and take possession of it.
Also, if you have a second home elsewhere in the world, you might wish to keep some reserves of gold and silver there as well. Again, the most utile method of holding gold and silver is to take physical delivery. There are other ways to gain exposure including purchasing ETFs and junior mining stocks. Some junior miners have considerable "in-ground" gold, including a company we have written about, Seabridge (http://www.thedailybell.com/exclusive-interviews/36601/Anthony-Wile-Rudi-Fronk-All-That-Glitters-With-Seabridge-Is-Gold/).
Conclusion: The Fed is not a force for monetary stability, though it is often portrayed that way. People who don't want to expose themselves to central bank-induced chaos will seek to keep close at hand the oldest and most credible kinds of money – yellow and white precious metals.

- See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/36704/Dont-Wait-for-the-Fed-to-Change/#sthash.B4CVuGbv.dpuf

Shami-Amourae
23rd December 2015, 10:56 AM
god dayum rite nyuhguh
ah lahd
we best be getten dat Ohbayma rite-een vote on if we wanst ta be getten dat muhney fo dem pro-grams cuz aint no cracka ass liddle bitch az ho like Saundaz gunna gibs uz dat i dun gib a fuk if he makes dat chicken with thertin erb an spieces
Fuk da poh-leese

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1450/89/1450895645081.png

mick silver
23rd December 2015, 12:15 PM
they don't know how to flip a burger are make fries .......................... YET ....................................

Horn
23rd December 2015, 02:06 PM
reforming the Federal Reserve will only help one group to gain more control do away with the fed would be a start

Vacuum has a point, Republicans should infiltrate the democratic party and elect him,

There's obviously no way they're going to win on their own.

cheka.
23rd December 2015, 02:16 PM
dont be fooled -- bernie sabotaged ron paul's anti fed legislation (after stringing doc along like he was supporting it)