A recent talking point re-emerges in another light....

[Mark Kohut]

In Suskind's Confidence Men, Bernanke's independence is shown by his silence at meetings which included him.
Largely, although he would have Fed-based answers.
 
Geithner, public servant insider, is seen by the others as the inside guy most hewing to Fed perspectives. Summers and
others---Christina Romer is a major source within this book, it is clear---shape the economic ideas....while Geithner's team
is pulling all-nighters to unwind the tangled web we wove......talk about a "knotting into"....and unknotting.
 
The bank stress test was Geithner's..."a plan beats no plan".....
 
Summers and Emanuel controlled the messages that got to Obama.....

From: "malignd at aol.com" <malignd at aol.com>
To: pynchon-l at waste.org 
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: A recent talking point re-emerges in another light....


I agree with everything you say -- it is all transparently true -- except about the independence of the Fed.  It is not an issue often, but it is important.  It does not often come up as an issue because the Fed is independent.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Technopaegnion Tapinosis <technopaegniontapinosis at gmail.com>
To: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wed, Jan 25, 2012 3:33 pm
Subject: Re: A recent talking point re-emerges in another light....


Not really. The independence of the Fed has little to do with governments buying dollars during crises. In fact, it's not a consideration at all for most buyers of dollars. The dollar, as you note here, is a haven in difficult or uncertain economic periods (short or long) because, as you also note, it has an excellent history. But it is the dollars very special function as the currency of the world, its liquidity, its size as a currency, and the size the markets that trade in dollars, that make the dollar the currency the world turns to, bit only in times of trouble and undertainty, but all the time. Two nations that do little business with the USA, and who hold few secutities in dollars, will still hold and trade in dollars. It's not the Fed or anything political that motivates this, but the fact that it is in the dollar, as it is in English, that  business gets done in the world. The political play, say the surrent S&P move into the assessment of
 political risks, is a trend that may undermine the dollar in time, so the perception of an independent Fed seems, these days, important, but it matters almost not at all.  


On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:08 PM, <malignd at aol.com> wrote:

The gold standard is absurd.  If the world's currencies devalued to such an extent that everyone demanded gold, then gold would be equally worthless, except to make jewelry with. 
>
>
>Also, if this hasn't been discusssed (I haven't read the entire thread) the independence of the Fed is of great importance to the dollar's being the world's currency.  Nations are not going to invest in the dollar if it is subject to the policies of changing administrations.  The dollar has never failed, not through two world wars.  When things go bad, governments buy dollars.  The independence of the Fed is one big reason.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alex Colter <recoignishon at gmail.com>
>To: Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>
>Cc: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Sent: Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:29 am
>Subject: Re: A recent talking point re-emerges in another light....
>
>
>Would it be fair to say all money must be back'd by Energy?
>
>
>On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>On 1/25/2012 12:42 PM, David Morris wrote:
>>
>>http://www.trutv.com/conspiracy/government/ron-paul/gallery.html?curPhoto=11
>>>
>>>The New World Order
>>>
>>>"[Is there] an international conspiracy to overthrow our government?"
>>>Paul said in 2003, repeating the question of an audience member at his
>>>Austin speech. "The answer is 'Yes'. I think there are 25,000
>>>individuals that have used offices of powers, and they are in our
>>>Universities and they are in our Congresses, and they believe in One
>>>World Government. And if you believe in One World Government, then you
>>>are talking about undermining National Sovereignty and you are talking
>>>about setting up something that you could well call a dictatorship -
>>>and those plans are there!"
>>>
>>>Ron Paul's call for a return to the Gold Standard are clear proof that
>>>he's w/o a clue about economics and monetary dynamics.  But neither do
>>>most people...
>>>
>>
>>
>>Hey, I got an idea.  Why doesn't the Fed just SAY it has enough gold buried somewhere to "back" all the money it creates.  Of course, the public would have to take this on faith.  It wouldn't be possible to actually count or weigh this much gold.  So in the end the value of money depends on trust.  Like so much else in this world.
>>
>>Approached from another angle, is there enough gold in the world, above or below, ground to "back" but a tiny fraction of the money supply?  Any kind of conceivable "gold standard" would just add an unnecessary, though minor,  complication to something that is complicated enough already.
>>
>> Saying all money must be backed by gold  is kind of like saying that all books have to be printed on paper.
>>
>>Good-bye Kindle. 
>>
>>
>>P
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Paul Mackin<mackin.paul at verizon.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>>It's my impression that spinners of this particular conspiracy theory,  espoused by Ron Paul and others, don't really understand how money and banking work, or of American economic history.
>>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120127/c68beac0/attachment.html>