Response From Senator Feinstein On Fed

I recently emailed Senator Feinstein, asking her to reconsider her position on expanding Fed powers, and to ask that she support S.604. Here is her response (slightly edited):

Dear Mr. Ranter:

Thank you for contacting me to express support for legislation to increase transparency at the Federal Reserve. I appreciate your interest in monetary policy and welcome the opportunity to respond.

The Federal Reserve was originally established in response to the country's need for a sound and independent central bank to manage decisions relating to U.S. monetary policy. I understand your concern with some of the unprecedented steps that the Federal Reserve has taken recently to ease the flow of credit and stabilize financial markets.

On March 16, 2009, Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) introduced the "Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009" (S. 604), which would require the U.S. Comptroller General to audit the Federal Reserve System before the end of 2010. This bill has been referred to the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a similar bill (H.R. 1207) in the House of Representatives. Please know that I will keep your support for this legislation in mind should it come before the full Senate.

While I recognize the importance of accountability in the operations of the Federal Reserve, I strongly believe that monetary decisions should be made independent of political influence or motives. You may be interested to learn that I supported an amendment to the Congressional Budget Resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) offered by Senator Sanders requiring the Federal Reserve to disclose how it has disbursed emergency economic assistance to financial institutions during this severe economic crisis. Be assured that I am carefully monitoring the actions taken by the Federal Reserve to help stimulate our economy and unfreeze credit for businesses and homeowners.

Once again, thank you for writing. I hope that you will continue to share your views with me. If I can be of any further assistance, please contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ENewsletterSignup.Signup.

Support Gary Clift

Please consider supporting Gary Clift in his run for congress in a special election. While he has many quality arguments, I support him primarily because he will back HR 1207, because he's a libertarian, because he backs the constitution, and because he's endorsed by Retake Congress.

Capitalizing on Cool

My cousin works for a shoe designer. They started off very small, but had original products that their customers loved. Then they hit it big, and stores like Macy's and Nordstrom wanted to carry their brand. They went to China to scale their manufacturing.

Much of the doom and gloom in the economy has been warranted: our manufacturing sector is dying and we are in a huge debt hole. Our politicians are bad jokes and our values are scripted from Looney-Tunes cartoons. But, that's actually been the case for some time in the US, even if it's more pronounced and a heavier weight today. I still believe that, while the American brand is damaged, much of the world thinks of us as pretty f-in cool, and that's partly because we imagine products that are golden.

The entrepreneurs we need will be creating the next iPods, walkmans and boom-boxes; levis jeans, Air Jordan's, and leather jackets; coca-cola, malbros, and bubble gum. If it's cool, you can sell it. Should the dollar continue to decline against gold, it may become profitable to again manufacture these products at home. Gold is valuable (largely) because people think it's valuable - the same has been true and can be true of American products even if their manufacturing costs are low.

That is, until consumerism is replaced by a new world utopia and fads are replaced with morals (that was meant to be funny, but it's just kinda sad).

Support Liberty - Through Lessened Financial Independence?

If you're a libertarian like me, we understand that part of being free is being financially responsible. If I donated to every cause I felt had merit, I'd quickly be a pauper. I may end up that way regardless, but I'd much prefer that it happen slowly.

But money talks. At some point before the 2010 election I will donate to or volunteer for one or more of the following, and I encourage you to do the same:
Rand Paul for Senate
Meg Whitman for Governor of California
Peter Schiff for Senate
Campaign for Liberty
Whoever runs against Barbara Boxer, unless she starts championing liberty (like getting behind S.604)

A Detailed Analysis Contrasting Crony Capitalism to a Communist Oligarchy

Trifecta of Corruption

Sorry if you already figured this out, but I haven't heard anyone say it yet: auditing the fed should include investigations into Goldman Sachs, and probably the treasury.

Make Money Like a Capitalist: the Labor Market

I'm a big fan of Peter Schiff. I can think of better people to be Senator, but I definitely like him over Dodd.

In his latest vlog, Schiff talks about how an increase in the minimum wage is bad for everyone, and I agree. But he only tells half of the story, probably because he's an employer.

If you really want capitalism to work, you have to have mobility in the labor market. If you are "loyal" to your employer, you're not making the most amount of money for your work, and you're depriving a company who values your talents more - i.e. can make more money from your work. This is a suboptimal situation for all parties (except for your employer who had a monopoly on your labor).

When people (en mass) forget that they can switch employers, all sorts of bad things happen: wages fall, unions form, and people start talking about implementing or increasing a minimum wage.

This is how it works: You're making $10/hour from your employer making widgets. The widgets you make in one hour are worth $30, but your employer needs sales staff, etc; and he's not very good at running his company, so he only ends up making $1 from your labor. His competitor is better at running a company and can sell the widgets you make in an hour for $40: he offers you $20 an hour and you both make more money. Eventually your old employer figures out that he needs to pay his employees more to keep them, or they'll all go over to the competition, so he gives them a 75 cent raise, starts running his company more effectively, and the friend that you left there can now afford milk for his baby daughter.

So you see, it's in your interest, and better for the market as a whole, to shop your skills every 3 to 6 months.

Other notes: job cartels can form to artificially push down labor costs - like if the two employers I mentioned start working together to avoid price competition. If you read my previous posts, imo government needs to step in, otherwise, a union is in order.

The Son of a Eco-Terrorist Mafioso Don

I'll probably never be able to fully describe how far left the household I grew up in was. I mean, my father actually encouraged me to smoke marijuana. That's right, encouraged me.

Sorry, short term memory loss - this blog is not about dope it's about ... about ... about ... oh yeah! no, wait. Eco-Terrorism, that's right.

This how the con works: first, you round up a bunch of good intentioned proletariats and start paving a road with their intentions by accepting donations to save mother nature. You do want to save mother nature don't you?

Then you start making a fuss by dragging your children out in front of town councils, state legislatures and the like and making them cry. (That literally happened to me - my father got me to cry in front of a town council to stop a hydroelectric project).

Then you hire a well meaning, dope smoking (hehe, dope, 'member ... dope), attorney or five to block something like tuna fishing or logging or farming. Industry has to hire their own attorneys (their side usually prefers coke over shwag, and they wear loafers instead of Birkenstocks). Once your side starts winning lawsuits, or just cost industry enough in snow and footwear, you start settling out of court to look the other way - and you're in patchouli oil, incense, and yoga lessons for another 6 months.

But it's all just a lecherous protection racket. None of it produces food for anyone, or electricity, or wood so people can build houses. It's mostly just a giant drag on the system and forces good, hard working people to make due with less and work harder so that a few hippies can feel self-righteous and get stoned.

If You Can't Sell It, You Don't Own It

There's been some talk about how the US taxpayer now owns GM, banks, etc. The logic is something like: the government owns X, and since the government is for and by the people, the people own X. BS. The people used to own these institutions through stocks and bonds, which they were able to sell on the open market if they chose - but in many cases these people have been wiped out. The only people, now, who can sell your stake in these institutions are people who work for the government.

There is, of course, a way out of this - issue stock to the taxpayers whose money you stole to fund the bailouts. This won't happen, of course, because our government is now fascist.