The Federal Reserve - Lapdog to Goldman Sachs

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
What other rights are supported by the libertarians Don knows?

bear-arms-no-right.jpg
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
I have posted in this forum for quite a few years. I generally enjoy our discussions here. But I have seen a disgusting number of threads hijacked into becoming discussions of libertarian thought rather anything even remotely related to the OP, and I'm sorry, but if I see a thread started by certain members here calling out a government agency, I don't even want to participate anymore because I already freaking know where it's going to go.

No, this one didn't start out as a screed. But I can forgive Blacbird for assuming that it was going to become one and expressing some annoyance at the idea. I don't see any realistic way this thread would not have ended up in that territory. I often read threads simply because they have new replies, on impulse, whether or not I feel like discussing the topic at hand, and usually, if I'm not interested I simply remain silent. In this case, though, I have spoken out simply because it seems the constant beating of this particular hobby-horse has started to cause other people (not just me) to lose enjoyment in and have less desire to participate on this forum.

Come on, guys. There are some topics clearly open to detailed discussion of general political theory, and there are some that are about very specific issues and situations where the majority of us focus on the issue at hand rather than going into depth about only vaguely-related philosophical points. And yeah, those tangents into philosophy will always happen and should always be welcome, and I'm not advocating for any sort of censorship here except SELF censorship, but when you have a longstanding habit of turning thread after thread after thread into a chance to advocate one particular political theory instead of focusing on the OP, you are actually inhibiting the conversation the rest of us are trying to have.

Please, please, please for the love of god try to remember that we do not need a near-daily lesson in libertarian philosophy and thought in threads that are not so much about general political philosophy. You are certainly free to post what you like, and I am free to ignore it, but so many threads are getting hijacked that it's causing some of us to enjoy AW less, so I'm really asking you on a personal level to take that into consideration when you post.

As a favor.

Please.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Perhaps not, but they do support the "right" of an individual and independent state to make its own rules about whether or not to own other people.
Cite?
I was tired.

And I still think my comment was both appropriate and correct. Your solution to "protect society from rapacious corporations" is . . . a lot of verbiage, near as I can discern

caw
So the prevalence of rent-seeking and regulatory capture in the halls of the regulatory agencies that claim to protect society from rent-seekers and those who would game the system is just a lot of verbiage not worthy of discussion? Got it.
I don't think either one is in line with the sticky in this forum regarding name calling.

Things seem to stay pretty clean in regards to the two main parties and mainstream left-vs-right ideas, but things that don't nicely fit in either of those tend to more often be the recipient of name calling. A few months ago someone (I don't recall who, but it wasn't a regular) responded to one of my posts with some nasty variation on the word libertarian, and I regret not immediately posting that link and/or clicking the red triangle.
Some people are apparently more interested in scoring political points against the other end of the acceptable left-right paradigm than unsettling their worldview by having that left-right paradigm challenged and exploring root causes of the problems under discussion.

You can root for either the blue team or the red team, but denying the rationality of the Hunger Games themselves or challenging the god-given supremacy of Mordor on the Potomac or even proposing adding a green or purple team is beyond the pale.

Let's have an endless number of threads about the failure of the war on drugs, the growing militarization of the police, the expansion of CPS into every aspect of childrearing, the growth of zero tolerance in the school system, the insanity of telling people who they may or may not marry, the intervention of the state in decisions that should be a matter between a woman and her doctor, the legalized breaching of privacy, the slowly imploding economy, political corruption, blowback from more than a half-century of interventionist foreign policy, the growth of the dependent class, the lack of good options at the ballot box, and the crippling of the middle class by a politically-connected elite intent on claiming all the game pieces for themselves. And let's blame all those problems on the politicians of the other team or the evil corporations those same politicians created and daily enable.

But looking for a common thread among those themes?

Look away, young man. Therein lies only madness and exile.
 
Last edited:

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
Jesus, Don, it's not that we can't tolerate out-of-the box ideas. It's not that we just jump on anything revolutionary with fangs bared, looking to tear it apart regardless of merit. It's not that Libertarianism is the answer to every political problem in the world and we're just too blind to see it. It's not even that we have a problem with Libertarianism itself (although I admit that at this point, I'm getting rather irritated about it - collateral damage due to the behavior I mentioned earlier.)

It's the points I made earlier, pure and simple. My words were not a code or a smokescreen.
 

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
No, this one didn't start out as a screed. But I can forgive Blacbird for assuming that it was going to become one and expressing some annoyance at the idea. I don't see any realistic way this thread would not have ended up in that territory.

Well, Bbird could have not made this about anyone's personal philosophy, right? Really, that's where this all started.


Come on, guys. There are some topics clearly open to detailed discussion of general political theory, and there are some that are about very specific issues and situations where the majority of us focus on the issue at hand rather than going into depth about only vaguely-related philosophical points. And yeah, those tangents into philosophy will always happen and should always be welcome, and I'm not advocating for any sort of censorship here except SELF censorship, but when you have a longstanding habit of turning thread after thread after thread into a chance to advocate one particular political theory instead of focusing on the OP, you are actually inhibiting the conversation the rest of us are trying to have.

Agreed, as a general idea. In this particular thread, if you're concerned about derails inhibiting the conversation, you'd certainly have an ally in Rob. Admittedly, I followed the libertarian discussion in response to Rugcat, but I'm game for going back to the OP if there's mutual interest.

Please, please, please for the love of god try to remember that we do not need a near-daily lesson in libertarian philosophy and thought in threads that are not so much about general political philosophy. You are certainly free to post what you like, and I am free to ignore it, but so many threads are getting hijacked that it's causing some of us to enjoy AW less, so I'm really asking you on a personal level to take that into consideration when you post.

As a favor.

Please.

I certainly share the frustration. Again, I think the problem in this thread was the invitation to make it about someone's personal philosophy. Imagine this scenario:

Monkey: Let's talk about this issue I'm interested in. Here's a link to The Daily Beast that talks about it. Thoughts?

Michael: Here's what I understand to be your political philosophy, Monkey. Am I missing something?

Monkey: Yes, you're missing x, y, and z.

Others: Jeez Monkey, did you have to make this into a discussion about personal philosophies?

Believe me, if anything like that ever happened, I'd be willing to defend you. ;)

Cheers.
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
Well, Bbird could have not made this about anyone's personal philosophy, right? Really, that's where this all started.

What bbird may have done was simple trolling but all too easily, Don took the bait and worked himself up in a lather. In the end, Don made a parody of himself. And then the rest of us just poked the bear further because we knew the script. And it was funny.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
What bbird may have done was simple trolling but all too easily, Don took the bait and worked himself up in a lather. In the end, Don made a parody of himself. And then the rest of us just poked the bear further because we knew the script. And it was funny.
See, at the risk of getting people mad at me (yeah, I worry about that), I think this is the correct reading of the course of the thread. And I think it is very obviously the correct reading.

I know things about people. What I know is this:

1) If I want to get a response out of Don, all I need to do is lightly mock libertarian thought and imply Don and Glenn Beck share the same mother.

2) If I want to get a response out of kuwi, I just need to frame some statement in a such a way as to make it seem I'm questioning the legitimacy of native Americans actually being native Americans. That, or suggest he doesn't know a thing about statistics.

3) If I want to get a response out of rugcat, all I need do is point out how tragically clueless Paul Krugman is (which will also automatically induce Don to join me) and how road kill is more deserving of a Nobel Prize in economics.

4) If I want to get a response out of blacbird, well usually I can just look at him wrong (and he can do the same to me).

5) If I want to get a response out of William, I just need to note how Black Flag eats The Dead Kennedys for lunch.

6) If anyone wants to get a response out of me, well I probably have more buttons to push then everyone else combined. It's pretty damn easy, but everyone has their preferences...

7) I don't mean to exclude others, because I could literally go on all day. PM if you feel excluded. :)

It's true, we shouldn't make things personal as a rule, but those of us who have been exchanging thoughts and barbs here for a long time--way, way too long probably--can't help ourselves.

And in that regard, we set bad examples. But it's what makes things fun. The problem is--imo--sometimes we overdo it. And sometimes the people on the receiving end mistake playful (but with an edge) poking with a more nasty sort.

Still, this has all resulted--imo--in some great exchanges, some excellent analysis from every "side," and--for me--lots of learning moments.

I feel I'm a better person now.

*wipes away single tear*
 
Last edited:

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
I knew this thread would go a certain way as soon as I saw it. I'm neither surprised nor upset that it quickly went to the Op's personal philosophy. I responded only because others seem to be having some of the same frustrations I have, and because that was more or less becoming what this thread was about.

It's not about this particular topic so much as the reason behind some of the frustration some of us clearly have. This is not a one-off thing, but a build up literally over years, which is why some of us who have been here long times are the most frustrated. How many otherwise interesting threads have become lectures, as if we were slow students, on libertarian thought? Even when that was far off topic? And any sign of irritation is often met with charges that border on if not are flatly insulting. I am asking for a little voluntary restraint for the benefit and continued presence and enjoyment of fellow members. Not that preferred philosophies should never be expounded on at length, but that personal restraint should be shown in how often that happens so as to allow other conversations to take place.
last so
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
So I have a question. How prepared are we to talk of the original issue or is this an opportunity to expound, and I mean pound, on our well-worn lecterns?

Because isn't the actual insinuation of the original article that we should segregate investment banking and commercial banking, such that Goldman Sachs should not be having access to Federal Reserve dollars and that it shouldn't matter if the Federal Reserve draws brainpower from Goldman Sachs as long as Goldman Sachs does not have the privilege of issuing bonds to the Federal Reserve, as opposed to the non sequitur that Don wants to veer the thread onto with us being focused on the malum in se of the Federal Reserve?
 
Last edited:

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
I am asking for a little voluntary restraint for the benefit and continued presence and enjoyment of fellow members. Not that preferred philosophies should never be expounded on at length, but that personal restraint should be shown in how often that happens so as to allow other conversations to take place.

That makes perfect sense to me. But I think Rugcat was right when he said earlier:

Responding to a post initiated by another is what we do here.

I know personally, it's tough to not saying anything if I feel someone is misunderstanding me or misrepresenting what I think. That seems pretty understandable to me and I think others often act the same way here. It's a balancing act, I suppose. Maybe the right thing to do would be to steer things back and not take the bait, but I tend to put less of a burden on the responder. Sort of reminds me of a football game when someone shoves a player and the player who was shoved pushes back. Sometimes the ref only flags the guy who shoved back, but in most cases I tend to see that as a bit unfair. ;)
 

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
*responds disproportionately by writing a 1,500 page manifesto.*
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
I reckon it may be the sarcastic "Obviously this is just too RADICAL and REVOLUTIONARY for you people to hear - carry on, serfs!" whenever there is any argument that is the sand under the saddle.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
It is, Amadan.

And again, my issue is less about the OP of this thread or the particular way Libertarian philosophy was brought up here and more of a response to the frustration that was being demonstrated here and that I share.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
Back to the OP then - which I think is quite flawed because it presumes that the Fed has a regulatory function that it does not, in fact, have. The Fed's purpose is to manage the money supply to keep the economy on an even keel (as much as possible) by setting the interest rates for loans it makes to the banks. That article takes the Fed to task for trying to mitigate the failures of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG. I see it as what the Fed is supposed to do - use its power to try to avert economic crises.

The regulatory authority is supposed to rest in the Treasury and Commerce Departments. Give us an article about how they're failing to regulate the banking industry, and there's some real meat. Not this, which is basically a sugary soft drink of empty calories totally devoid of actual nutrition.
 

emax100

Banned
Joined
Apr 26, 2014
Messages
874
Reaction score
80
So he really believes that libertarians have the same self righteous attitudes you'd see like, say, from the Fox news talking heads or that they play the victim as much as the MSNBC talking heads? Yeah, not a very well thought out observation at all. So one can add inaccurate and simply not true in addition to insulting for that one.

Back to the OP then - which I think is quite flawed because it presumes that the Fed has a regulatory function that it does not, in fact, have. The Fed's purpose is to manage the money supply to keep the economy on an even keel (as much as possible) by setting the interest rates for loans it makes to the banks. That article takes the Fed to task for trying to mitigate the failures of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG. I see it as what the Fed is supposed to do - use its power to try to avert economic crises.

The regulatory authority is supposed to rest in the Treasury and Commerce Departments. Give us an article about how they're failing to regulate the banking industry, and there's some real meat. Not this, which is basically a sugary soft drink of empty calories totally devoid of actual nutrition.

Indeed going back to the OP - perhaps the point is that even when the Feds try to regulate the failures of these corporations they end up making things worse because they end up acting based on their loyalties to certain corporations and ultimately do not regulate fairly. Which goes back to the principle that the Feds are ultimately made of individuals who are prone to the same types of inherent failings as private individuals, which is the fundamental point, not that the Feds are some sort of demonic entity that came from nowhere.
 
Last edited:

BenPanced

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
17,864
Reaction score
4,639
Location
dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts
And may I clarify?

This is the New York Federal Reserve. There are 11 other districts that are as surprised as everybody else.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
Indeed going back to the OP - perhaps the point is that even when the Feds try to regulate the failures of these corporations they end up making things worse because they end up acting based on their loyalties to certain corporations and ultimately do not regulate fairly. Which goes back to the principle that the Feds are ultimately made of individuals who are prone to the same types of inherent failings as private individuals, which is the fundamental point, not that the Feds are some sort of demonic entity that came from nowhere.

I think there's very scant evidence of that. The Fed is the one part of the nation's financial structure that has largely behaved itself and done what it's supposed to do. Again, it's not structured nor intended to be a regulatory body.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Back to the OP then - which I think is quite flawed because it presumes that the Fed has a regulatory function that it does not, in fact, have. The Fed's purpose is to manage the money supply to keep the economy on an even keel (as much as possible) by setting the interest rates for loans it makes to the banks. That article takes the Fed to task for trying to mitigate the failures of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG. I see it as what the Fed is supposed to do - use its power to try to avert economic crises.

The regulatory authority is supposed to rest in the Treasury and Commerce Departments. Give us an article about how they're failing to regulate the banking industry, and there's some real meat. Not this, which is basically a sugary soft drink of empty calories totally devoid of actual nutrition.
And the decision of the New York Fed to grant "primary dealer" status to MF Global? Do you have an issue with this? Because it looks very much like MF Global only got that status
because of Corzine's connections.

The firm’s bankruptcy raises an important question. Had its financial soundness changed dramatically in nine months since it received New York Fed approval or were the standards flawed?

From a risk perspective, its capital position was 30 times weaker than that of most primary dealers. It was also new to investment banking, a higher risk area than its core brokerage business. Under Mr Corzine it placed ever bigger bets, and more of its own capital, at risk. With less capital, trading losses could quickly erode its financial stability. Within months it had placed a single bet of $6.3bn – six times its capital – on risky European sovereign debt. Its leverage, assets to capital, leapt to a ratio of 40 to 1.

By March 2010, soon after the New York Fed’s decision, a joke began to circulate: MF Global won fast-track approval because of two words: Jon Corzine. William Dudley, New York Fed president, and Mr Corzine had indeed worked together at Goldman Sachs, though approval came a month before the latter officially joined MF Global.

Having primary dealers is exactly how the Fed goes about managing the money supply. And it certainly didn't do a good job here. But the fraternal ties of Goldman Sachs trump everything else, it would seem. How can one trust these turkeys with any authority over anything?
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
There's a colossal difference between "didn't do a good job" and corruption. I think the overall results of the Fed's money supply management show that it's been pretty effective at its mission, and that it takes a lot more than innuendo to make the case otherwise.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Giving primary dealer status to an institution that was recently in serious trouble, that lacked the reserves and the stability of other primary dealers, apparently because the new boss used to share executive space with people at the New York Fed strikes me as both corruption and doing a poor job.
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
Giving primary dealer status to an institution that was recently in serious trouble, that lacked the reserves and the stability of other primary dealers, apparently because the new boss used to share executive space with people at the New York Fed strikes me as both corruption and doing a poor job.

Isn't this a bit like the bit on property rights? Of course corruption is doing a poor job, because corruption is by default a demonstration of doing a poor job. However, it must be important to note on which poor job is being refered to. The question of asking whether or not the Federal Reserve did a good job in responding to the crisis should not be confused with the question of whether or not there is corruption in the Federal Reserve that needs to be addressed. They are two distinct questions.