[expat_panama]

The IBD staff did an excellent job bringing the law to our attention and they really screwed up by writing this editorial w/o reading the law --it's either that or they're flat out lying which I doubt.  IBD said that the "bill is really pretty simple".  It's not.  I mean, anyone can look at the complete text of the law that the house passed for themselves and see that it rambles on for 61 pages with a huge pile of goofy stuff like a hard goal of 2 percent inflation, blackout periods for the FOMC, a morass of bureaucratic reporting channels, and the tosses in a new mandate for foreign policy/international finance.

Supposedly Yellen complained to Rand and Pelosi - nobody's seen this letter and everyone's quoting other folks who are quoting it.  If she may have had to write it (if she wrote it) but it was a mistake to complain about something that's never going any where and was never intended to go anywhere.  All I can see here is cheap, empty political ranting.  Yellen and IBD have really got more important things to do here. (mho)

[expat_panama]

Whoa, Monday already!  Hope y'all had a great weekend after last Friday wrapping up NASDAQ's "best week since July" (w/ S&P stalling).  Now we got futures upbeat expecting stocks +0.59% and metals +0.22%.  We'll be hearing from Existing Home Sales later this AM and it's a short low volume vacation week.  I can live w/ that.   More news here...

[DoodleDawg]

It’s a mish-mosh of a bill. It requires the Comptroller of the Currency to audit the Fed, and I don’t believe the Comptroller currently has a audit function. It requires Fed salaries to be posted on a public website; I’m sure Congress wouldn’t sit still for a similar website on Capitol Hill employees. And as you say it includes the weird stuff on inflation and international finance. It’d be hard to enforce and that may well be why the Fed Chair is opposed to it.

[Cincinnatus.45-70]

That is the classic question that answers itself.

If the Fed did its job as that was originally announced to the public in 1913, it would be responsible for the public good, not just enriching its banker friends.

I doubt whether anyone involved with creating the Fed ever intended to do anything but enrich their friends. But being told publicly and by law to live up to their propaganda is gagging them like a live pollywog in their caviar.

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

Things would be so much less confusing if we did away with “The FED” and had the DC lunatic asylum manage such affairs. Do I need a sarc tag?

[jmaroneps37]

Question: “New Law Would Force Fed To Do Its Job, So Why Does Fed Oppose It?”
Answer: see first nine words of title

[moovova]

[citizen]

It'll only make the Fed responsible for what it does, and transparent in how it does it.

This is outrageous. No wonder Janet's panties are in a wad!

No politician or political agency can be expected to allow everyone to know what they are doing and, perhaps more importantly, why.

/s

[PGalt]

Interesting thread. Thanks to all posters. BTTT