In A CRUSHING BLOW---Bernanke Loses! SCOTUS says Show us the Money

[kpete]

Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 01:07 PM EDT
Bernanke Loses! SCOTUS says Show us the Money


From Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/fed-must-release-bank-loan-data-as-high-court-rejects-appeal.html

The justices today left intact a court order that gives the Fed five days to release the records, sought by Bloomberg News’s parent company, Bloomberg LP. The Clearing House Association LLC, a group of the nation’s largest commercial banks, had asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

The order marks the first time a court has forced the Fed to reveal the names of banks that borrowed from its oldest lending program, the 98-year-old discount window. The disclosures, together with details of six bailout programs released by the central bank in December under a congressional mandate, would give taxpayers insight into the Fed’s unprecedented $3.5 trillion effort to stem the 2008 financial panic.

“I can’t recall that the Fed was ever sued and forced to release information” in its 98-year history, said Allan H. Meltzer, the author of three books on the U.S central bank and a professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

Under the trial judge’s order, the Fed must reveal 231 pages of documents related to borrowers in April and May 2008, along with loan amounts. News Corp.’s Fox News is pressing a bid for 6,186 pages of similar information on loans made from August 2007 to November 2008.

............

more:

In a crushing blow against the Fed and the banks that own it, in this case represented by the Clearing House Association, the Supreme Court rejected an industry appeal set forth by the CHA, that sought to keep critical bailout data from going public. The lawsuit was originally started by the great and late Mark Pittman, who tragically passed away around Thanksgiving 2009: we are confident we would be delighted to learn that his unprecedented act of suing the Fed in order to generate more transparency has finally succeeded.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/final-count-pittman-1-fed-0-supreme-court-refuses-grant-confidential-data-disclosure-appeal-

...............

Oil up those shredding machines boys, and get your best sleazy accountants to move the numbers around, PDQ. Lots of damage control to work on before the time is up and 'we,' the little people that you robbed blind, get to actually find out what it is like to be such close friends with the 'endless open discount window,' of the high and almighty Oz, The Federal Reserve.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/21/958642/-Bernanke-Loses!-SCOTUS-says-Show-us-the-Money

[Angry Dragon]

1. GOOD!!

[gratuitous]

2. Oh now, why would any of that matter?

Why are we worrying our pretty little heads over these totally inconsequential, none-of-your-business transactions between the Big Money Boyz? Aren't there enough pictures of Snooki in a bathing suit to occupy you proles? We can publish more, you know. And no, I can't say whether that's a promise or a threat.

[JDPriestly]

40. So, is this why Obama visited the Brazilian slum?

Was he trying to show what a wonderful human heart he has. (I'm joking. I know he really does have a wonderful affection for people. But he doesn't seem to be able to figure out that his love of people is incompatible with appointing Ben Bernanke to the Fed and worse yet, Tim Geithner (who was the Fed in NY at the time of the transactions that will be revealed) as Secretary of the Treasury.

What I would like to know is what kinds of campaign contributions Obama and McCain got from Wall Street employees following the bail-out of the banks right before the election in 2008.

As I recall, and I'm not sure about this, but didn't both of them sign off on the 2008 bail-out plan? Weren't both of them receiving donations from bankers the whole while?

It will be interesting to watch how this unfolds.

I wondered why Tim Geithner has been looking like he is having appendicitis lately. This explains a lot.

[gratuitous]

44. I'm as conspiracy theorist oriented as the next guy

But Supreme Court decisions run on their own clock, and the President has had this trip to Brazil scheduled for some time now, so I can't imagine the decision and the photo op having any connection. Sometimes things are indeed just coincidental.

My recollection (always a risky undertaking with my swiss cheese memory) is that the Wall Street bailout was pretty much a done deal by the time of the inauguration of the new president in January 2009. Whoever was elected probably didn't have any say over the bailout in any case, though its ongoing administration would, of course, be subject to the new executive.

I'm more interested in the follow up, which at this point seems to be wailing and crying from the Big Money Boyz about how tough things are for them while they pocket another round of enormous bonuses. I'd dearly like to see a return (if only a partial return) to the days when finance and investment were strictly separated. Financiers who plunged too often into risky ventures lost their backing; investors who tried to sell too many phony baloney schemes didn't get financing. Now, the rewards for even the shadiest deals are already claimed while the risks, if any, devolve to insured money paid back by the ever-dependable taxpayers. Who wouldn't throw money at the slimmest odds knowing that any winnings were yours alone while any losses were covered?

[JDPriestly]

47. I was joking. Sorry it was so lame.

Still, I appreciate your response very much. I will be watching this quite closely.

I too would like to see the separation of finance and investment.

I am reading Matt Taibbi's Griftopia. It is a great beginner's manual on the economy. If you want to suggest reading material to someone who has no grasp of the reality of America's banking system, that book is readable.

[gratuitous]

54. Sheesh, of course you were

Troubled times indeed when I don't get a joke.

[gateley]

77. This has always been something that drives me nuts -- "Wall Street employees" -

That always seems to be interpreted as the powers that be on Wall Street - the big money, when in actuality it's just people who are working for these companies. I worked for a biotech company and I had to list my employer and industry when I contributed, so I would be considered as part of the "biotech money" going to X candidate. I can guarantee you in my red neck company, I was the only person who contributed to Obama and other Democrats. Employees' contributions don't mean they are acting at the behest of their employers, yet that seems to be the general belief. It drives me crazy so knock it off! :banghead:

That being said (and I trust you've learned your lesson! :7) I agree that his appointments of Bernanke and Geithner (among others) have always disturbed me. I just don't understand if he was naive, felt that these guys knew the game (like the Roosevelt story of "yeah, but he's MY bad guy") or what. Sigh.

I'm happy to see this happening although, as always, not sure if any "good" will come of it. We'll see. :shrug: :hi:

[Amonester]

42. Yeah. After all, America's own goddafi's are above all laws...

since they can purchase any puppets they occasionally feel they need, even if it's only to tell the crumbs eaters to look forward, not backward.

Nothing will ever be done against these *stealth* god-hafees.

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. Wow...a win for "the small people"? ( ok..where's the pickle?)

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Always nice to see Ben Bernanke get smacked in his face

The fervent money printer, fake wealth creator and bubble manufacturer hates transparency.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chill_wind]

5. Somewhere Mark Pittman is grinning his incomparable journalist ass off!

"At the time of his death, Pittman’s outgoing messages offered a link to a black-and-white photo of folk musician Woody Guthrie. Written on Guthrie’s guitar: “This machine kills fascists.”


Mark Pittman, Reporter Who Challenged Fed Secrecy, Dies at 52
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=alcABq2uaBOc





Damn! Excellent! Never really believed this would finally come about.

[slipslidingaway]

58. Thanks for remembering his name n/t

[chill_wind]

78. This is HIS victory for us all. Rewarded only in his death.

A victory for a brand of courageous investigative journalism, all but dead in the mainstream.
May he inspire somewhere a whole new young breed in his example.

[slipslidingaway]

85. ! n/t

[FrenchieCat]

6. Too bad SCOTUS ruled as they did on Citizens United......

[freshwest]

7. That's why I'm looking to see if this is a scam, too.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Depends on how you look at it.

It gave Unions and non-profits of all sorts a larger voice in our elections as well.

Some corporations might have deeper pockets, but they are beholden to their shareholders, and corporate officers have a fiduciary responsibility to the company, so they can't just spend every penny the company has on lobbying or ads/etc.

[NashVegas]

39. How Do You Think Unions Are Doing Right Now?

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Quite well.

Watch the next election. If the republicans thought the midterms were a 'blowout', they better hang onto their asses.

Quite a few Republicans in WI aren't even going to make it to the next election, with the recall efforts underway.

[AlbertCat]

43. and corporate officers have a fiduciary responsibility to the company

fiduciary

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's rich (pun intended)


Even the ones who run their companies into the ground and still get their big bonus?

Well, I guess if they appoint themselves VP of the USA, they can make it up to the company.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Some egregious examples have pretty much gotten away with murder, that's for sure.

No argument from me.

Still, I want Unions to have a strong voice in an election cycle, and I don't see a way to allow that without also allowing corporations. vOv

[lunasun]

84. Koch Industries, Inc. is a privately held company beholden to no share holders

and they like it that way ! ;)

[snappyturtle]

8. Wonderful news! Should 'we', the little people, just sit back and watch the squirming

on the hot plate? I'm ready. It's about time.

:popcorn:

[femrap]

27. So the release will be Friday?

Or Saturday? This could very well POP THE BUBBLE!!! Maybe if Paulsen comes back, gets down on his knees and begs Johhny Bob Taliban, I-lie-too, Clarence and Scalia....they'll change their minds.

This is gonna be sweet. Maybe that's why the Dollar is down so much???? It broke 76 which is a huge level of support. Very interesting.

Shit approaching fan....:beer: :popcorn: :toast: Have some beer with that popcorn!

[snappyturtle]

55. Beer IS so-o good with popcorn! Gotta get some....I like it just haven't

had any for a long time and I think the time is so right! I'm betting the five days will coincide with the Friday news dump. I hadn't heard about the dollar....scary.

:toast:

[Modern_Matthew]

9. Now how about nationalizing the Federal Reserve? nt

[Ikonoklast]

10. Oh, my.

Really?

Oh, wait, you're serious!

[Modern_Matthew]

36. Why wouldn't I be serious? You do know it's privately owned, right? nt

[Xicano]

11. Doesn't Mean Diddly Squat!

So long as the FED is allowed to go unaudited they can post whatever numbers they feel like. Without an audit its like asking a criminal to hand over incriminating evidence against himself.


--


As a side story:

GATA has a class action lawsuit against JP Morgan in market manipulation. Basically what's going on here is a hidden backdoor quantitative easing to artificially keep the dollar up by suppressing silver/gold, by selling large amounts of shorts on silver. JP Morgan has done this several times now over the last few years.

Lets break down what's going here with this manipulation. First off, rich people are not stupid. They didn't get rich by being stupid. They might be assholes, but, they are not stupid. So why then would JP Morgan for the last few years take out large shorts in a bull precious metal market? Makes no sense as an investor to do that, especially over and over and over again. At some point even if they were dumb enough to take out large shorts in a bull market, at some point after losing large sums of money even a not so smart investor would acknowledge he was wrong on his trade.

So the question remains. Why would JP Morgan keep taking out large shorts on silver? Simple. Its not JP Morgan's money. JP Morgan is a FED member bank, and, what these shorts indicate is the FED through JP Morgan is pumping currency into the market in what can be best described as a backdoor quantitative easing while suppressing the value of a commodity which if allowed to adjust to its true value would cause the value to the dollar to fall.

Anyway, my two cents..

Here's a vid that sort of touches upon the issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScZlVQ1BMBM


Peace,
Xicano

[rhett o rick]

12. There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that the Fed just hired Oly North as a consultant. nm

[Aerows]

13. Wake me...

...when someone goes to jail, because that's what needs to happen. We can seize assets and build a bigger jail to hold them all if need be. They keep saying they want to create jobs, well, let's make some prison guard jobs for these crooks.

[dawg]

14. I keep telling you people ...

Bernanke is, for the most part, our friend. Look at the text of the damn article. Fox news is wanting this info as well. Rupert Murdoch and Michael Bloomberg win! Yay for the little people!

[girl gone mad]

15. Bernanke is not my friend.

None of my friends would ever print $1.3 Trillion to gift to corrupt bankers who gambled and lost on toxic derivatives.

[dawg]

20. Bernanke was not responsible for TARP.

99% of the TARP funds have been repaid, anyway.

What Bernanke is attempting to do, known as Quantitative Easing, is to stimulate the economy by purchasing longer-maturity treasury paper on the open market. This does not print money, but it does drive interest rates lower, which helps people trying to refinance their debts.

The conservatives *hate* this. They are afraid it will cause inflation, which would reduce both the value of their huge cash hoards, and the value of the debts we poor people owe to them.

[girl gone mad]

24. 1. I'm not talking about TARP.

I'm talking about the $1.3 Trillion the Fed automagically put onto banks' balance sheets in exchange for toxic garbage (what TARP was actually supposed to do, but banks never used TARP for that since Bernanke found a nice way for them to offload their trash with significantly less oversight and accountability).

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/08/26/129451895/how-to-spend-1-25-trillion

2. TARP was not repaid. Banks were allowed to make a public show of "repaying" portions of TARP. Meanwhile, the funds were funneled back to them through various tax forgiveness schemes and secretive backdoor bailouts. We are still out $123 billion on TARP alone, not even accounting for these tax shenanigans and the Trillions more in financial bailouts.

http://www.propublica.org/article/behind-administration-spin-bailout-still-123-billion-in-the-red

3. Quantitative easing is a joke that will do nothing to stimulate the economy. It simply amounts to an asset swap. It is not equivalent to "printing money" (although I think you can make a case that it's at the root of some of the financial speculation pushing commodities and oil higher), nor will it effectively "drive interest rates lower".

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=661

4. I don't care what conservatives think because they are idiots. However, it would be nice if liberals made more of an effort to actually understand finance so they wouldn't say dumb things like "TARP has been 99% paid back".

[dawg]

31. Well ... Paul Krugman agrees with me ....

so nyah! :P

[ozone_man]

46. He also wanted to nationalize the banks before TARP.

Read his "Depression Economics." But, that was a non starter. Instead we bailed out Wall Street so that they could reap record profits and bonuses.

Besides, Krugman is just a mechanic, trying to maintain a failed economic system. What we need is a new and just system, not to fix the zombie banks (his words), and to accomplish this we need to abolish the FED.

[Major Hogwash]

65. Who wanted to nationalize the banks before TARP? Krugman?

And who wrote "Depression Economics"? Bernake?

When you used pronouns like "he" when discussing 2 different people, you lost me as to which one you were talking about.

Also, do you think the Fed is the US Central Bank?
I never thought it was considered the US Central Bank, but a system of banks that were autonomous and separate from the federal government.

[girl gone mad]

66. The Federal Reserve is considered the Central Bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

[PoliticAverse]

52. Indeed. If you "follow the money" the real scandal leads back to the FED n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Excuse me, 'conservatives' aren't the only people trying to live on cash savings.

My grandparents will be crippled by inflation, beyond the lack of COLA adjustments, given the real cost of inflation right now.

[dawg]

33. The "inflation" your grandparents will experience has nothing to do with Bernanke.

Our economy is in the crapper, and until workers are able to demand ever-increasing wages, the stimulative efforts of the fed will not generate inflation. OTOH, we are dealing with issues of scarcity - energy and food - that have nothing to do with the money supply. Those prices are rising because there are real-world shortages of those items.

The choice, is whether we want a Fed chief like Bernanke who is trying to stimulate employment, or one like the rightwingers want, who would only try to protect the interests of the moneyed class.

I'm not the one who's misinformed here. And anyone who thinks I am needs to read up on what the rightwingers think about Bernanke. They HATE him. And it is not because they are idiots.

[LooseWilly]

60. The inflation my dead grandparents are experiencing DOES have to do with Bernanke...

because the quantitative easing essentially makes money cheaper, through some combination of printing and lowering of interest rates to keep people borrowing the newly printed money—which has the effect of combating deflationary pressures that would ordinarily be the result of stagnant/dropping wages and resultant drops in consumer spending.

Supply and Demand, according to economic scripture, dictates that the lack of demand caused by job losses, stagflation and uncertainty in the face of debt burdens... should cause increases in supply and thereby lead to dropping prices—deflation.

Deflation accompanied the Great Depression (the one in 1929... not the one I sometimes hear reference to in 1871)—and the prospect of deflation now scares the piss out of anyone who carries a lot of debt, because revenues drop in the face of deflation... as the prices that can be charged deflate/drop, and the owners often lose out more promptly than the workers in the face of deflation.

Further, the "owners" don't usually own anything at all... they've usually financed their "ownership" and are depending on ever-increasing prices and income to continue to pay the financing charges required in order to continue to have control of the means of production so as to keep their workers coming and making shit for them to sell for more than the cost of the wages they're paying to make said shit. Deflation makes the "financed owner-ship" liable to sinking... as it were.

The "quantitative easing" being performed by Bernanke is keeping the money flowing for these borrowed-owners... and keeping prices, if not rising, at least stable-to-mildly rising—while neither wages nor Cost Of Living Adjustments (COLAs) are keeping up with even these mild monetary-policy-induced increases, let alone those being caused by speculators on the oil commodity markets and such-like.

While perhaps not causing the fiscal pinching being experienced by my dead grandparents, Bernanke's policies are contributing to the pinch.

And, just because some LaRouchian gold-standard cranks, like Ron Paul, hate the Fed... doesn't mean that the Fed gives a flying fuck about the interests of the poor... let alone my dead grandparents. :+

[dawg]

70. Any concerns over built-in inflation right now, are hysterical.

As your post rightly mentions, we should be much more concerned about deflation than inflation. The only rising prices that are causing difficulties for ordinary people are energy and food, and these are driven by shortages and *not* by the money supply.

You've taken an anti-fed position, and you are twisting the facts to fit your pre-determined point of view.

And here is where you do that: You say that most owners don't own anything at all - it's all debt financed. That is what you have told yourself in order to make sense of the position you have taken. But rich people do own things! Lots of things! And the Fortune 500 companies are sitting on record amounts of cash right now. CASH!

They say they aren't hiring because of uncertainties related to health care and taxes. But that is a lie. They aren't hiring because they don't need to. There is insufficient demand because consumers are strapped by their own debts and cannot afford to spend more. And that's just the ones who still have jobs.

The people who stand to gain from deflation are the people who have the wealth. With deflation, the value of money increases relative to goods. Inflation is the opposite. The people who stand to gain from moderate inflation are those who are in debt. The rich have more wealth than debt - that is the very definition of being wealthy. That is why they hate the easy money policies of the current fed. They fear it will erode the value of their precious dollars.

Well, if Ben's policies don't help the super-wealthy (lessens the value of their dollars), then what is his point? The answer, is that an accomodative federal reserve is stimulative to the economy and employment. These efforts are primarily designed to bring down unemployment.

[LooseWilly]

81. If the wealthy are sitting on piles of CASH then Fed policies can't affect unemployment.

You assert, and I stipulate, that the corporations are sitting on piles of cash. The only way that lowering interest rates &/or printing money could lower unemployment, as you end your post by saying, would be by freeing up more money for investment in expanding production/operations... but we've already agreed that there is no shortage of money to compensate for.

When I say that most "owners" don't "own", but rather debt-finance, I didn't go crazy and say that the wealthy don't own anything... I was specifically trying to communicate (without being overly verbose) the fact that the wealthy rarely use their own money to finance business endeavors. They use debt to finance their "entrepreneurship" and at the same time use complex legal structures (Limited Liability Corporations, etc.) in order to shield their personal wealth from any risk that might be faced by the debt-financed enterprises that they might hope to later extract more wealth from.

Corporations are, essentially, the most complex legal structures created by these same wealthy a**holes in order to shield their personal wealth from any risk arising from their "entrepreneurship". So, if these legal wealth shielding structures are sitting on mounds of cash that the wealthy haven't been able to channel into their own pockets (yet)... and there is still no thought of utilizing this idle cash for expansion/hiring— then the notion that the Fed's policies of loosening up the money supply will have any effect on expansion/hiring is nothing more than theoretical idolatry.

The fact is, the wealthy not only have more wealth (by definition), they also leverage that wealth by taking on debt (which the tax codes then allow them to use as a deduction against tax liabilities). Likewise, the not-so-wealthy leverage what little crumbs of wealth they have by taking on debt (all too often with only the option of credit card debt, which the tax code does not allow the use of to reduce tax liabilities).

Nearly everyone in the US is saddled with debt. Lots of it. Way more than they'll ever know what to do about, most likely, in the case of the not-so-wealthy. All of these "nearly everyone" benefit from inflationary pressures being employed by the Fed. Including the wealthy. And the super-rich.

It is the ones who have some assets but who have a low debt load and also have a small income stream, one which doesn't rise at the rate of inflation (or whose COLA adjustments don't reflect the reality of inflation) who will benefit from deflation.

I am simply saying that my dead grandparents (especially the ones who actually lived in this country before dying) ... as well as many other grandparents, fit the profile of people who would most benefit from deflation and suffer most from inflation.

Your simplistic assertion that inflation makes rich people's money worth less neglects the fact that inflation increases the rate at which rich people collect newer and better monies... keeping the prices charged for their stuff increasing faster than the wages they (or their fictional legal entities) have to pay to their workers to help produce said stuff—while decreasing the "value" of the debts that their fictional legal entities are burdened with.

This isn't an "anti-Fed" position... it's just an analysis of who benefits from current policy.

Alan Grayson's was an anti-Fed position: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTu4Fs7yGkw

[dawg]

82. You misunderstand.

Corporations have piles of cash. They could hire; they choose not to because there is insufficient demand for additional goods. The corporations do not need lower interest rates, or easier money. You and I agree on that.

However, lower interest rates *would* make it easier for consumers to pay down their debts. That would enable them to spend more. The additional consumer demand would induce the corporations to expand. They will only hire if they think there is extra money to be made.

The easy money policy is aimed at consumers and not at corporations. This is where you are missing the point. You are so focused on the big boys, you fail to realize that is the vast horde of ordianary consumers that really drives the economy. Ben Bernanke realizes this.

You have called my arguments "simplistic". I'm not offended by that. I try to simplify ideas and boil them down to their essence. That is how we can get to the truth. Along those lines, I pose the following questions to you:

1. Who benefits more from higher interest rates - rich savers or poor debtors?
2. When the value of the dollar declines, who benefits more - people who have lots of dollars, or people who owe lots of dollars?
3. Do you think people would spend more, or less, if their debt payments were lowered?
4. Aren't you at least a little bit uncomfortable sitting on the same side of this issue as Rand Paul, the Chicago School of Economics, the Austrians, and the teabaggers?

[LooseWilly]

87. You are assuming that I am saying things that I'm not really saying.

We have agreed that we agree that the corporations don't need money to hire and that, as a result, Fed policy of low interest rates will not, in and of itself, stimulate them to any new hiring or expansion.

You then move on to the idea of lower interest rates allowing consumers to pay down debt so that they can spend more.

Firstly, I was talking specifically about the situation often faced by grandparents, alive or dead. Most grandparents are not in a position, or inclined, to refinance whatever debt they have... generally speaking they have their assets and they are setting up their finances in order to draw the equity from those assets in order to support themselves. Inflationary money pressures cause the value of those assets to drop and drops the interest rates that they can earn off those assets... leaving them facing the prospect of having to go out and start greeting for Wal-Mart to get by—especially as the increases in cost of living aren't registering with the factors considered when calculating the COLAs of their social security.

If you want to enlarge the argument of the beneficence of the Fed to consider the effects/effectiveness of Fed policy on consumers at large, we can do that. It might be interesting...

You assert that lower interest rates allow consumers to pay down debt- I would like to hear more about the mechanism you envision allowing this. Lower interest rates might allow them to refinance debt... move it from credit card to credit card, always taking advantage of introductory rates (until they run out of credit card providers to switch to)... but lower interest rates will not allow the paying down of debt without the income stream of a job to go with it. Once a worker is laid off, lowering interest rates on said workers debt will only extend the period of time before said worker is bankrupt and out on the street.

In fact, for workers whose unemployment has run out, deflation is more beneficial than inflation—at least until a new revenue stream (job) is found.

And here we come to the essential impotence of the Fed policy at the moment. The only way to truly "re-activate" consumer spending is to provide more jobs and to convince those with jobs that their incomes will actually rise. Current trends of stagflation, largely caused by employers (public and private alike) taking advantage of the growing desperation of the workforce to extort more work for the same or less pay... has left consumers who still have incomes to begin paying down debt rather than increasing it. For those without jobs, well... the fact that the employers are in a position to extort more productivity out of the workers they have means even less pressure to hire new workers... combined with the fact that there is sagging demand (because... the workers aren't seeing any increase in pay, and the jobless numbers are holding)... means that "bosses" are doubly disinclined to hire.

Given that overall situation, the Fed's relentless pressure to loosen up money is little more effective than ideological masturbation.

I fully realize that Bernanke believes "that {it} is the vast horde of ordianary consumers that really drives the economy"... but I think Bernanke is deluding himself into believing that these "ordianary" consumers still exist in "vast hordes" here in the US. The "hordes" are now in China and India, consuming as happily as the migrated jobs will allow them to do.

Meanwhile, what I am observing is that, as usual in US politics, all policy is being decided in terms of how to best help those who don't really need much help. The Upper Middle Class (Democratic party concern) and The Plain Old Upper Class (Republican party concern).

If, by "vast hordes of ordianary consumers" you and Ben are referring to the "vast hordes" that make between $100K and $500K... then I would have to agree that keeping interest rates down and keeping inflation ticking along apace will probably have the intended effect of allowing them to pay down debt and increase their consumerism.

My dead grandparents didn't make $100K plus come the time they were grandparents, however... and I suspect that few grandparents of others make more than $100K either.

(As to your questions, just for fun.)
1- Higher interest rates benefit all lenders, rich or poor; lower interest rates benefit all borrowers, rich or poor.
2- When the value of the dollar declines people with more Euros/Rupees/Yen/etc. benefit, while all people with dollars suffer in direct relationship to the number of dollars they have.
3-I think people will not change their spending habits based solely upon the size of their debt payments. I think the ratio of their debt payments to their income levels, as well as such squishy math calculations as probability of continuing income stream, odds of acquiring a new income stream once the current one dries up, estimations of the length of the dry spell involved between "streams", as well as a whole host of other considerations affect decisions about spending. (Trying to reduce the value of the debt payments without considering the other factors in an effort to increase spending is like having a spitting contest without considering the direction of velocity of the wind.)
4-I don't feel uncomfortable at all where I'm sitting. I don't think any of those whose association you are trying to foist on me are anywhere near "my side" on this issue... which is to abandon shenanigans with the Fed to fix the economy and just go ahead and expropriate all inheritances over $1 million... that is, tax at 100% all inheritances over $1 million, and use that money to fund education, publicly owned entrepreneurship, a real health care system, a public temp agency to take the place of the unemployment system currently in place... and while we're at it also set up a fully funded public campaign finance system and force all media outlets, if they want to keep their FCC licenses, to provide free air time for all candidates. {I pretty much doubt that the Chicago School of Economics, let alone Ron Paul, sits anywhere near my side of this issue...:+}

[Alcibiades]

75. I agree that inflation is on the way

but it is caused, in part, by this quantitative easing. The main effect is to shift the assets owned by the financial sector. They want to move out of treasuries, but not to dump them on the market, which would lower the price they get. So Bernanke gives them what they want, and what do they get in return? CASH. What have they done with this cash? Invested it into the real economy, so that employers can make improvements to plants and equipment and hire workers? No. They hzve speculated in commodities. They are getting ready for doomsday scenario part two. No one needs a t-bill, but folks will still need things like cotton, food and oil. Money will be worth less, and consumers will have less of it for non-necessities, so the only safe investment is in the necessities. So they have speculated in commodities. I bet they are making the same kind of highly leveraged bets that fueled the bubbles in the tech stocks, securitized mortgages, the energy sector and every other asset bubble we have seen over and over again in the past 30 years. So the fed gets a whole lot of paper that will be worth less, in real terms, in the future, and they get to crash the economy again but make billions in the process.

http://www.procurementleaders.com/news/latestnews/4702-us-quantitative-easing/

[Cali_Democrat]

17. So we shouldn't know the details of the loans?

Is that your position?

[dawg]

19. My position is that if Bloomberg and Fox want it, it's probably bad.

The rightwingers hate Bernanke. They hate the idea of an activist Fed attempting to fight unemployment. I suspect this is just an attempt to mine the data for supposedly egregious examples they can then use to discredit *any* government efforts to ease the impact of the recession.

[femrap]

30. This is fun.....

nothing like watching TPTB fight amongst themselves. Many will become TPTW!!!!!

:beer: :popcorn: :woohoo:

[Jakes Progress]

32. Yours is a good guideline. If Fox wants it

and this court gives it to them, it's not going to be good for the people.

I will have to read a lot more about this if I am to speak about it with any credibility. Until I decide to do that, I will side with the side that is against Fox, Bloomberg, and the Supreme Court that said corporations have the same rights as people.

[dawg]

35. I know very little about this particular decision.

But it has been very clear to me that the string-pullers on the other side have been pushing a low-key propaganda campaign against this Fed chief for some time now. He's not one of them - not loyal like Uncle Alan, the Maestro - and they would love to see him neutered until they are able to appoint someone more to their liking.

We're liberals here. We *want* government intervention to lower interest rates.

[TheKentuckian]

18. I see this theme from time to time but never is it elaborated on how Bernake is "our friend" or "on

the side of the people".

I don't have a guess other than Obama recycled his ass from Bush.

[dawg]

22. Bernanke did what needed to be done.

He was not responsible for the TARP - that was Bush.

He has fought to keep interest rates low. That helps the people and hurts the rich. The rightwingers hate him for this.

Keeping the fed window open for short-term loans to troubled institutions was the only option Ben had to keep the entire banking system from freezing up on itself. Ben hasn't given any of our money away - just made loans that must be repaid.

The true giveaway was the bailout of AIG - and by proxy - Golman Sachs, the parent company of the U.S. Government. Politicians were responsible for that - not Bernanke.

The person responsible for *not* fixing the crony capitalism run amok that almost destroyed our economy is Barack Obama. Obama did not do his job. Benanke has done his job reasonably well - with an eye towards protecting workers as well as capital.

[TheKentuckian]

48. Man throws trillions at gambling robber barons declared working class hero, news at 11!

[girl gone mad]

59. Low interest rates don't hurt the rich.

Low interest rates hurt savers and retirees.

The rich are borrowing at 0% and loaning to the middle class at 10% to 25%, loaning back to the government (risk free) at 4%, speculating on stocks and commodities around the globe, piling in to the Facebook offering, etc.

[Kolesar]

74. Bernaike's interest rate policies try to make up for the idiot Congress not creating more stimulus

...spending such as infrastructure projects. Bernaike's policies were the best that anybody could do.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. 'If it bleeds, it leads'. This is going to bleed... A LOT.

[snot]

16. K&R'd

[krispos42]

21. Ha ha!

[Citizen Worker]

23. Better believe that it's Material Condition Zebra at the Fed after this decision.

[Miss_Underestimated]

25. link to second article not working

[Roland99]

49. Use this link >>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/final-count-pittman-1-fed-0-supreme-court-refuses-grant-confidential-data-disclosure-appeal-

[Miss_Underestimated]

50. still doesn't work for my computer!! dang!! but thanks for trying

:(

[Roland99]

69. Now the link works!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

CLICK ME!

[Miss_Underestimated]

76. yes it works!!!! thank you for going the extra mile to make it work; after all

that , I was hoping the article would go into detail as to how each justice voted, but there was no mention of that...

[Roland99]

79. Probably need to file a FOIA request for that info....

[truedelphi]

34. I bet that Bernanke's buddy il Timmy needs a clean pair of

Underwear.

No bets placed yet on whether the POTUS needs a change as well. (If so, might be one of the few "Changes" from him so far.) But if Geithner does go down, Obama will be well advised to quit referring to Tim as being "my good buddy."

[Mimosa]

37. Good news. n/t

[JDPriestly]

38. This may finally result in sufficient calls for prosecutions and lawsuits

that we will actually get some action.

What do you want to bet that a lot of banks were telling their customers and investors that everything was okey-dokey when in fact they were suffering from crippling institutional disfunction. (I am making a great effort not to commit libel here.)

[orbitalman]

51. K and R

[defendandprotect]

53. Terrific -- if we ever see the info! Didn't Bernie Sanders begin this push?

[slipslidingaway]

57. Think the Bloomberg suit came first ...

then again Ron Paul has pushed for more transparency for at least a decade, the Sanders bill was shy of the Paul bill.

IMHO sometims Paul has it right, like when he was questioned someone a few of years and said 'what is the word that describes the merger of government and corporations ... it starts with a F'

[freshwest]

80. Kucinich and Paul pushed a bill on it too.

[slipslidingaway]

56. knr for Bloomberg and others who have pushed for Fed transparency n/t

[lonestarnot]

61. Far fucking out!

:woohoo: :7

[obxhead]

62. Awesome! K&R

[The Traveler]

63. It is likely

that nothing significant will out. The cynical part of me believes the court went this way because the shredding and creative accounting suggested in the OP has already been accomplished.

Of course, I recognize that I could be and hope that I am wrong about that.

Trav

[PufPuf23]

64. The USA financial system is rigged and dominated by cronysim and idealogy

-- however theoretically stupid like supply side economics -- and, worse, are to a large degree dupes at present to extrernal interests (and international interests that are globalist).

Current Globalism as an economic system does not meet the tests of natural world nor human ecology and is highly inefficient, risky, and harmful except for a minority that benefit from a rigged system that is stupid over multiple generations. Efficency and ideology (and the unmentioned croneyism) justify status quo.

There is a Globalism that recognizes local, communities, energy and productive niches and that is much more energy and quality of life efficient.

Wish there was a simply way to get there.

[xchrom]

67. Recommend

[timtom]

68. This seems like a good place to thank Alan Grayson.

He sacrificed his career by being a pit bull on this issue.

[tjwash]

71. Bernanke...there's a smarmy little corporate lapdog if one ever walked the face of the earth

I hope they rake his ass over the coals

[Kolesar]

73. Too bad that you don't have the comprehension to explain what has been going on in the economy

and what the policies have been. so sad

[w4rma]

83. How could anyone, except the insiders who are profiting? The Fed is keeping the facts secret. (nt)

[chill_wind]

86. Mark Pittman...

Secret $301 Billion bailout of Citi: Obama admin refuses to reveal info
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=488563

Court Orders Fed to Disclose Emergency Bank Loans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4032116

Audit Interview: Mark Pittman
“This is a defining moment for business journalism and for Wall Street.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=499174

[slipslidingaway]

88. .... nt