In The Blogs

Old Dogs, Old Tricks

| Mon Dec. 7, 2009 9:09 PM PST

Matt Yglesias says it's puzzling that Ben Bernanke isn't adopting a more expansionary monetary policy in order to jumpstart the job market. Brad DeLong says, "I am puzzled too." A bunch of other liberally inclined economists have said similar things recently.

I dunno. I guess I wish we could stop pretending to be surprised by this. Ben Bernanke may be a specialist in economic contractions, but he's also a mainstream conservative economist. And mainstream conservatives have always been more concerned with inflation than with unemployment. Likewise, they tend to be opposed to entitlement spending, opposed to serious financial regulation, and opposed to expanded consumer protections. And guess what? Bernanke is more concerned with inflation than with unemployment and he's opposed to entitlement spending, serious financial regulation, and expanded consumer protections.

This was all pretty plain several months ago, when virtually every liberally-minded economist supported Bernanke's reappointment. So what's the point of bellyaching about it now?

For what it's worth, I'm surprisingly bitter about this and I keep stewing over it. Maybe I'm just being an asshole. But I've been reading liberal economists yammer on for years about liberal economic policies, so when an actual opportunity came along to appoint a liberal economist to an important position it was really disappointing to see them all circle the wagons around Bernanke almost instantly. It felt like the worst kind of professional backscratching.

I guess I should get over it. But we all have our dumb little pet peeves to be bitter about, don't we?

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Comments

Baker

Submitted by PeakVT on Mon Dec. 7, 2009 10:00 PM PST.

to see them all circle the wagons around Bernanke almost instantly.

You forgot about somebody.

I'm not sure about Dean.

Submitted by Kevin Drum on Mon Dec. 7, 2009 10:13 PM PST.

I'm not sure about Dean. When I talked to him at Netroots Nation he criticized Bernanke but said he ought to be reappointed because the alternative (Larry Summers) was worse. But he may have been more openly opposed in other venues. I'm not sure.

Blog

Submitted by PeakVT on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 10:28 AM PST.

Bloggity blog blog.

I share Baker's A.B.S. position, though now that Bernanke's anti-entitlement bias has been revealed I view the two as equally bad, except that Bernanke isn't a jerk.

Bum rap

Submitted by g. powell on Mon Dec. 7, 2009 10:21 PM PST.

I agree that Bernanke should be offering more when it comes to regulation and consumer protection, but right now in regulatory reform it's the job of Congress to come up with something. It would be nice if the lead central banker was more constructive, but not essential.

When it comes to monetary policy, Bernanke's primary responsibility, what else do you want him to do right now? He indicated today that he has no intention of raising rates, despite Friday's little down tick in the unemployment rate. There are few extraordinary things I guess he could do, like outright purchases and retirement of treasuries, but he has to hold them in reserve in case the crisis flares up again. I wish the critics would be more specific.

In this situation, there isn't a whole lot that monetary policy can do, it's really up to fiscal policy. I think Bernanke is getting a bum rap for a timid fiscal stimulus, and that's Obama's fault. Monetary policy responded extraordinarily well to the crisis, but the fiscal response was half-hearted.

Bernanke isn't perfect, but he isn't the problem right now. Regulatory reform and a better fiscal stimulus are what are needed, so Congress and Obama are the problem.

I agree that critics should

Submitted by Kevin Drum on Mon Dec. 7, 2009 10:24 PM PST.

I agree that critics should be more specific about what they want him to do, but in fairness, I think several of them have done so. There are definitely a few ideas out there.

As for regulatory reform, I agree. But it would sure be nice to have a Fed chair who supported reform, wouldn't it?

Certainly Bernanke hasn't

Submitted by g. powell on Mon Dec. 7, 2009 10:42 PM PST.

Certainly Bernanke hasn't exhausted all options, but he shouldn't. I don't think any central banker wants to be a position when they are going full throttle on monetary policy when a new crisis hits, and they have no options left to respond with. That's the nightmare scenario. And there really aren't that many monetary levers left, while there are plenty of fiscal tools that can still be used.

I've come around to questioning whether Bernanke is suitable on regulatory reform, but I can't say he is coming across like an inflation hawk right now.

Drum, your inane dislike of Bernake is foolishness

Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 1:58 AM PST.

Primo, Bernanke has already expanded the Central Bank balance sheet to unprecedented proportions. That's a monetary expansion of unprecedented proportions. Writing as if Bernanke has been "conservative" in monetary policy is at best dishonest tripe, at worst merely reflects fundamental illiteracy.

Secundo, already your dollar is highly unstable, bouncing around the bottom of historic lows against Euro and other currencies. Rolling out more monetary expansion under such conditions automatically implies greater downward pressure on the dollar, which is clearly risky in terms a potential major break downwards in the dollar, with all the risks of setting off a dollar currency crisis and thus a real Depression. Americans perhaps are unused to thinking about their precious bloody dollar in such terms, but you bloody well better get used to it as it is on a long-term decline. If orderly, good for you, if a route, very bad for all.

In addition to G Powell's points regarding having more ammunition "just in case" - a highly prudent position to take given your Congress seems to show little sensible reaction on the fiscal side, where the next response would normally be expected. A failure of your Executive and parliament, not of Bernanke or the Central Bank.

As for Reforms, Jaysus you all are quite thick in the end. Bureaucracies are about turf - indeed probably all human endeavour. You would be as profitably served by whinging on about the OCC, FDIC and other Federal reglators that objectively on a percent of supervised institutions failed, have done far worse. Why you would be sanguine about their equal opposition to reform, but select out the Central Bank (which again if one looks at percent of failures of institutions under lead supervision - a factual item - did not do so badly so far), escapes me. Other than you rather simply like and need to have a single easy scapegoat.

grudges I cherish

Submitted by joel hanes (not verified) on Mon Dec. 7, 2009 11:27 PM PST.

we all have our dumb little pet peeves to be bitter about, don't we?

I am not going to "get over" Obama's having initially opposed retroactive telecom immunity during the FISA debates, then voting for it. And Obama's Holder/Bush43-holdover DOJ seems to find some new way to anger and disappoint me almost every day.

Some people care greatly about health care, others about the economy, others about LGBT issues --
for me, it's the Constitution and the rule of law;
I really did think Obama would be better on those fronts
than he has turned out to be.

Thank You Kevin

Submitted by Vincent Sheffer (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 1:07 AM PST.

I generally only comment to blogs when I disagree with the blogger, but I have to just give kudos to Kevin on this score. Mr. Drum, you have consistently been a critic of Bernanke, and rightfully so. And thank you for doing this yeoman's service. I say that because you, even among liberal bloggers, have been a voice in the wilderness. The fact that some of your liberal brethren are finally catching up is a good thing.

We have now lived through a pretty long list of conservative economists who, as academics, wrote about and seemed to even advocate for reasonable economic policies, only to be corrupted by the political process into advocating batshit crazy policies. Whatever Bernanke may have written as an academic, his actual policies as Fed chairman and his latest comments to the Senate Finance committee betray his true colors. And Bernanke, with this latest testimony, clearly adheres, when it comes to policies that actually impinge on the financial sector, to the tried and false policies that continue to promote the financial industry above all other sectors of the economy. Policies that advance the notion that there should be no limit to government intervention to save and even advance the financial sector, but that any government intervention to come to the aide of other sectors, much less individuals should be resisted completely.

Can I just remind everyone of something that I never thought got enough media play...

Quite possibly the worst Fed chairman in it's history (Greenspan) admitted in congressional testimony that his entire world view had a fundamental flaw. I am paraphrasing, but he basically said that the worldview that dominated his decisions as Fed chairman, which is that he never conceived of the notion that bankers could be so greedy as to bring the entire system down. In other words, he admitted that greed is not always, in fact, good.

It was, without a doubt, the most damning condemnation of the Randian worldview that has dominated not only the financial sector, but our entire economic system for the last 30 years that I have ever heard. Certainly no one who had previously adhered so faithfully to that world view as Greenspan has uttered such heresy. Seriously, does any one even remember that now? But, despite the maestro admitting such a fundamental flaw at the core of everything we think we know about the "free" market, we still have our economic leadership, of which Bernanke is very much a part, still adhering to that flawed belief to the exclusion of all other considerations. That's why he can come out, after all that has happened, and defend massive public welfare for the financial industry while advocating for cuts in entitlements that help average Americans. I still have the capacity to be shocked at how audacious the claims of people who have been proven so disastrously can be.

That whole worldview is corrupt, bankrupt, and morally repugnant. For that reason, his reappointment should be vigorously opposed. Once again, Mr. Drum, thank you for being one of the first voices against him.

You are being an asshole.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 2:19 AM PST.

You are being an asshole. Good for you! Soon you'll have DeLong, the lover of the status quo and all bureaucrats calling you a concern troll.

In my view

Submitted by alkali (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 9:45 AM PST.

Every pundit should be required to use the sentence "Maybe I'm just being an asshole" in a nonironic way at least once a year (monthly if you are named David Broder).

Inflation and SocialSecurity

Submitted by SRW1 (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 2:23 AM PST.

Bernanke had the Fed pump more than a trillion dollar into the economy in addition to the TARP money. To recipients and under conditions very few people know about, and which Ben Bernanke won't divulge even to Congress. Maybe he has reasons to sweat about massive inflation threatening behind the horizon? I'm not arguing that you're wrong about your point that Bernanke is being an excessive inflation hawk. What I'm trying to say is that it's a question that's difficult to judge from what is known publicly.

There's another point though with Bernanke that very recently has made me come around to your position that he should not be confirmed for a second term, and that is the position he has taken on Social Security. Bernanke's implication, well actually it was more than that, it was already a suggestion of what he'd like to see; anyway his statement of Social Security simply being a construct that Congress giveth and therefore Congress taketh away, and his implication of the US government having no obligation to honor the SS trust fund is unconscionable.

To take that position after large junks of the trust fund money have been shelled out on Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and after the banks have been kept alive on taxpayers dime, that in my opinion should disqualify Bernanke from receiving a second term.

Re Soc Security

Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 10:21 AM PST.

I should think that this is merely a statement of fact. Anything that Parliament creates, it can indeed take away.

Seriuosly

Submitted by SRW1 (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 11:25 AM PST.

You want us to believe that Bernanke was just giving a little civic lesson in the general, there was nothing to it beyond that?

I should think it was an empty dodge

Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 4:32 PM PST.

for a stupid question outside his competence. The state retirement fund is not an object of central bank policy as such, and if a cretinous, grand standing parliamentarian asks him questions in this area, the best response is to point out it is them, not he, that makes said policy. That idiots like yourself draw conclusions off of overheated irrelevancies, well it merely indicates that parliamentarian grandstanding is driven by things other than their egos, such as the idiocy of the constituents.

Mirror, mirror on the wall

Submitted by SRW1 (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 7:25 PM PST.

Bernanke offered the need for cutting entitlement programs out of his own volition at the hearing in the context of establishing fiscal sustainability.

Nice little scenario you're spinning there of a 'cretinous, grand standing parliamentarian' pestering a valiant central banker. Shame really, even though it obviously conforms so neatly to your little world of financial experts valiantly fighting idiotic dimwits, that doesn't make it so.

You're always pretty quick to harangue others on how they don't know what they're talking about. Here's a tip: If you want to see a picture of somebody prone to spouting boilerplate rubbish, have a look in the mirror.

It doesn't bloody matter "who got it"

Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 7:09 AM PST.

Expanding the Central Bank balance sheet in that manner - which is monetary policy although Drum rather illiterately seems not to know that - is of COURSE a major long term inflation threat. In fact, if not carefully managed just the sort of thing that can very easily lead to a snap of double digit inflation. It is literally unprecedented and to imply the Federal Reserve is being an inflation hawk after these operations is patently absurd.

There is a non-trivial threat as well to the dollar for these same reasons, which Bernanke / Central Bank must pay real attention to, as triggering a dollar collapse / run on the dollar is not impossible under current conditions. Americans are not used to thinking of their currency in these terms, but I assure you neither was UK when Sterling collapsed. Blindness to said issues will easily drive you off a cliff. Bernanke's expressions of Central Bank planning for Exit from its unprecedent TRILLION USD expansion are not premature, he's managing in a sharp manner expectations.

The sole legitimate complaint Drum has is regarding instutional reform, although that is no surprise. No goddamned bureuacracy willing gives up power (and certainly not pre-emptively). To expect that is gross naivete. However Drum remains silent on the passel of your other far more incompetent regulators and their equal obstructionism.

As I have been pointing out for a year now, the major weakness in American financial sector regulation is in its haphazard hyper-balkanisation that positively incents "pass the buckism."

And not only that, the people

Submitted by g. powell on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 7:44 AM PST.

And not only that, the people now accusing Bernanke of being an inflation hawk at the expense of employment are often the same people who criticize him for not raising rates earlier in the decade in order to deflate the asset bubble. But he didn't raise rates precisely because that would have hurt employment. So he is damned in their eyes regardless of what he does.

Quite right, I rather think of the 3 bears and porridge

Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 8:21 AM PST.

Most of the critics at present really are just lashing out at a scapegoat. If their porridge is not just the right temperature...

Frankly much of the criticism is internally incoherent.

On one hand the Left and Right anti-Fed people are whinging on about Fed exercise of power without "sufficient" oversight (although it escapes me how a dilettante Congress would add value to Central Bank, and if there is one clear empirical fact in Central Banking, it is parliamentary interference on long-run is a negative).

On the other, they are complaining about the Fed "not doing enough" (more on the Left than elsewhere) relative to employment (although interest rates and general monetary policy via unprecedented interventions are well beyond the frontiers of anything ever done before).

All the critics focus on the Fed as if it were in fact the unified and lead regulator in the US, entirely ignoring that 2/3 of your issues come out of the balkanised system, and major portions of the problems in your Fin Sec arose in areas outside standard Cen Bank supervision - e.g. AIG and more broadly the insurers, as well as the capital markets operators (hint, SEC). Drum himself has done this repeatedly.

It is the height of either hypocrisy or lazy know-nothingism to do so. He rather rightly criticises the Right in the USA for its inexplicable know-nothing approach to your similarly byzantine health care system, then turns around and behaves in the same fashion relative to financial sector.

And not only that, . . .

Submitted by Miracle Max (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 10:13 AM PST.

Examples, please. (People who charge inflation hawkery after criticizing failure to deflate an asset bubble.) Who and when?

So you claim it doesn't matter who

Submitted by SRW1 (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 9:21 AM PST.

So you claim it doesn't matter who got the trillion and under what condition. Would you mind to educate me on the thinking in the international finance community as to the perceived mechanism, and its probability of working, when the Fed gets to 'collect' that surplus of money sloshing around. Or do you guys expect that there ain't no such thing as putting it, or at least parts of it, back into the Fed's vault?

Matter in terms of what

Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 9:55 AM PST.

Unwinding, of course details matter.

Matter in terms of judging whether there is serious inflation risk, no not really. It's bloody well evident.

Nor would I expect that it would be an intelligent move, in the name of some misbegotten pseudo transparency, to force the Fed to be specific, as then you are positively begging for the market to trade against them, and setting up to make an unwinding rather more difficult by that.

Revealing their specific positions puts your central bank at a specific disadvantage relative to the trading assholes in New York. I should hardly think anyone thinks that would be a good idea.

I certainly wouldn't, and frankly the information would hardly do any of you lot any good as you wouldn't fucking understand it, but would doubtless foam on at the mouth based on misreadings, and empty headed populism.

Ah, and there is only

Submitted by SRW1 (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 11:48 AM PST.

Ah, and there is only 'revealing specific positions' or nothing, as well as Bernanke and us empty headed populists.

Maybe this should just be formalized then by reviving the old Roman tradition of having a dictator for a fixed period of time.

No there is aggregate values, etc

Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 4:34 PM PST.

As well as general types of assets.

As far as I read, said information has been revealed.

Your childish foot stamping and false dichotomies notwithstanding.

False Dichotomy

Submitted by Mario on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 7:29 AM PST.

This isn't a liberal vs. conservative thing, it's a right vs. wrong thing. If the situation is as Bernanke describes, then to abandon monetary stimulus and let Congress continue with fiscal stimulus is just wrong.

Now I'm sure there are plenty of people on the right that think that neither form stimulus is a good idea, but those people are also against the Fed as a whole, so their opinions don't matter and, presumably, you can't count Bernanke among them. They are no more a factor than those people on the left itching to raise trade barriers. Among the economically literate, trying unconventional monetary stimulus is the only right answer; even people who don't think it would work recognize it as preferable to another round of stimuli and "jobs" bills.

Bernanke's position is only right if he is holding information back from the public. While that could be true, we can't be expected to just assume that proposition blindly. If the left were to put someone forward who was committed to reigniting monetary policy, I think you'd see a significant amount of support from those on the right, who want to see an end to fiscal stimulus as much as you want to see the Democratic reelection chances bounce back. Now if that person were to push for too much regulatory reform all bets are off, but there is room for substantial agreement here.

And not only that, the people

Submitted by John Emerson (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 8:11 AM PST.

That's just silly. The situations were as different as "boom" and "bust".

No, the criticism is that the

Submitted by g. powell on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 8:50 AM PST.

No, the criticism is that the Fed is biased toward keeping inflation down rather than employment up, even though it is legally required to do both. And I'm sympathetic to that criticism, even though those aims are somewhat contradictory. Yet, they also complain that Bernanke didn't take more aggressive action to deflate the asset bubble, though that would have inevitably led to higher unemployment. So if Bernanke had moved against the bubble, they would have criticized him. Damned if he raised rates, damned if he didn't.

And the charge that Bernanke is now too tight, is absurd. His speech yesterday indicates that he will maintain a loose policy as long as necessary.

It reminds me of the criticism that the last "liberal" Fed chairman, Paul Volcker, received when he defeated chronic inflation.

Kevin Drum and Mark Kleiman

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 8:16 AM PST.

Kevin Drum and Mark Kleiman are the clearest explainers I've found in the media.

Aside: If you watch David Faber interview Alan Greenspan in the recent CNBC documentary "House of Cards," keep an eye out for three elements: 1. David letting Greenspan reiterate the historically fallacious "nobody could have guessed" that housing prices could EVER fall;
2. David letting Greenspan reiterate the 'I couldn't do my fiduciary duty to rein in the housing bubble or Congress would have been all over me' dodge; and, 3. the moment where David gets Greenspan sort of chortling over the meltdown, and Greenspan says something like, 'yeah, ha, I'd have thought the bankers would have "gotten out" in time.'

Seriously, it sounded, to me, as if this were no joke, and that Greenspan would have been completely ok with the meltdown and all the banker complicity, if only the banks had preserved themselves by "getting out" in time to leave the rest of us holding the gargantuan bag of worthless assets. No bank meltdown, no problem--just a bunch of families and communities fleeced and ruined. Business as usual.

Pick the right people

Submitted by Samuel Knight (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 8:20 AM PST.

It's not a minor peeve - it's huge. You pick the right people who've had a track record of understanding.

Stiglitz not Geitner at Treasury

Krugman not Summers on Economic concepts.

Dean not Daschle on health care.

Dean not Emmanuel on big picture strategy.

And giving in to the Military Industrial complex on terrorism, war, etc.

It's a huge missed opportunity, and when the movie 2012 even jokes about, no it Euros not dollars, the clock is really ticking on the US accendancy.

Bernanke Has Been Wrong Repeatedly in His Public Statements

Submitted by Detroit Dan on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 8:56 AM PST.

He just doesn't impress me as being on top of things. Yes, he reacted to the crisis, but he didn't see it coming. So he should not be reappointed, even though history may show that he was the right man in the right place for the cleanup that he's done so far.

Now we need someone with the vision for a functioning system moving forward. That's not Bernanke. Likewise, Obama may prove to be a transitional figure if he doesn't provide a vision and some leadership.

And mainstream conservatives

Submitted by DAS (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 11:10 AM PST.

And mainstream conservatives have always been more concerned with inflation than with unemployment

Has this always been true? I seem to remember that monitarists (whom I think would count as "mainstream conservative economists") historically tended to worry about deflation and didn't care too much about inflation (or, for that matter, unemployment).

Please don't get over it!

Submitted by Sam Penrose (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 11:46 AM PST.

Please don't get over it! I've admired Brad's writing on the Net since '95, but he's just wrong on Bernanke, and per @Samuel Knight's excellent comment, he and the administration and *systematically* wrong, both in the people they pick and the insiders-vs-outsiders dynamic around them. Millions of Americans are suffering right now in part because kinder, gentler plutocrats such as Bernanke are defying both the expressed will of the electorate and their own legal obligations. Turn the pressure UP.

"Kevin Drum and Mark Kleiman

Submitted by Gary Sugar (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 1:19 PM PST.

"Kevin Drum and Mark Kleiman are the clearest explainers I've found in the media."

Yes, Kevin is a great writer, probably the clearest of any pundit I read.

And I agree with him that the time to complain about conservative Fed policy was when Obama proposed keeping Bernanke. Likewise the time to complain about conservative military policy was when Obama proposed keeping Gates.

You are all missing the point.

Submitted by Quiddity who can't login as Quiddity (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 1:41 PM PST.

The last decade has demonstrated that global labor arbitrage is in full force and without gimmicks like bubbles and borrowing, the diminishing of the middle class in the U.S. (which no longer gets anything from productivity growth) is a given, leading to economic stagnation or decline.

Kevin is right that Bernanke is not the guy to lead the Fed, mainly because he puts the Financial Sector ahead of everything else. But even that is a symptom of the problem, not its cause. When this country loses manufacturing jobs (and services are following suit) and when the economy has such a large percentage of activity in finance, that's not a sign of strength. It's moving paper around for the most part.

But what do you expect when conservatives and neo-liberals (like Brad DeLong) are gung-ho for free trade with low wage countries? The argument is that consumer prices are lower - and they are! - but the other side of the coin is greatly diminished power of labor. We've seen that take place over the last 30 years:
Limited wage growth.
Abandoning pensions in favor of 401Ks (which totally destroys the security gained from pooling of risks)
Moving health care cost to workers or eliminating it all together.

But you do get to purchase a flat-panel TV for cheap at Wal-Mart, so what's the problem?

Consumerism is the handmaiden of rapacious capitalism. Don't forget that.

You are all missing the point.

Submitted by Quiddity who can't login as Quiddity (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 2:12 PM PST.

(note: this was "posted" previously, but now seems to have disappeared. Apologies if it shows up twice. I have repeatedly had trouble with the MJ site w/ both FF and Chrome browsers, FWIW)

But you do get to purchase a flat-panel TV for cheap at Wal-Mart, so what's the problem?

Consumerism is the handmaiden of rapacious capitalism. Don't forget that.

Bah, Humbug!

Submitted by avannavon on Fri Dec. 11, 2009 4:29 PM PST.

Read END the FED by Ron Paul and educate yourselves about the real nature and role of the Central Bank. You will then understand that Mr. B has no interest in doing anything other than gut the dollar and, via inflation, rob the Americans of everything they have left. He just has to do that while avoiding panic, riots. and marches on Washington, DC. That's the only tricky part of it.

He's like the valve on a pressure cooker, having to let off a little steam here, letting it build up a bit there, and CONTINUE COOKING the American wage earner, homeowner, or farmer, and whoever else is left contributing anything to the productivity of the nation.

Then he'll dance off to Europe like Kissinger and Greenspan, and drink lots of champagne on the rest of us who are TOO STUPID or TOO LAZY to demand accountability. Other bloggers have noted that the FED added "over a trillion" to their balance sheet and refuses to answer where the money went. The actual number is now at 2.45 TRILLION already added to the FED's balance sheet, unaccounted for and unexplained, with the CONGRESS poised to approve another $1.8 trillion increase to the "debt ceiling".

This is not rocket science. We are being robbed blind and we will stagger from one side (inflation) to the other (unemployment) until the plutocrats have rung everything they can squeeze out of this once-great-nation and we spiral down into a complete currency meltdown JUST LIKE ITALY AND GERMANY and every other country that has ever been DUMB enough to allow a fiat currency. The only thing that can change this dire outcome is if enough people put on their spurs and RIDE Congress into auditing the Federal Reserve in time. Toward that end, see HR 1207 and S604---or go to Ron Paul's website for an update.

Postscript

Submitted by avannavon on Fri Dec. 11, 2009 4:32 PM PST.

Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson has been leading the effort to audit the Federal Reserve from the Dem side. It is a bipartisan effort throughout and very badly needed. Those of you who intend to live in America, need to get busy and write to your US Senators and tell them to back S604.....or move to Costa Rica right about NOW. The Dubai Implosion is coming.

The best place for freelance

Submitted by david baer (not verified) on Wed Dec. 30, 2009 12:17 AM PST.

The best place for freelance projects is freelancing sites. Freelancing sites are the best option for part time home based business and freelance jobs. There are many types of work available at freelancing sites

PART TIME MONEY