Posted on 11/09/2009 7:20:34 PM PST by rabscuttle385
A University of Texas at Austin LBJ School of Public Affairs professor called for an unprecedented audit of the Federal Reserve Bank balance sheet expansion of $2trillion during the 2007-09 financial industry crisis.
During a San Antonio appearance Friday, Robert Auerbach, author of the 2008 book “Deception and Abuse at the Fed,” argued for an audit by the U.S. Government Accountability Office as he spoke at an event sponsored by the Henry B. Gonzalez Foundation for Inspiring Public Service in San Antonio.
Auerbach, who served on the U.S. Housing Banking Committee staff when Gonzalez was chairman in the 1990s, said an audit would require the Fed to reveal what it has done with the $2 trillion it has distributed into the economy. Gonzalez, a longtime former Bexar County Democratic congressman, died in 2000.
Bills to conduct an open audit, sponsored in the U.S. House by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Houston, and in the U.S. Senate by independent Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, are pending in Congress with more than 300 signatures of support, Auerbach said at the event.
“There should be some checks and balances on where that money goes,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at mysanantonio.com ...
Here’s where some of it went
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/11/aig-bailout-not-only-bailed-out-goldman.html
Sounds great- will never happen. We should also demand an inventory of Ft. Knox, but that's not gonna happen either.
I believe it’s going into the stock market . If it is perhaps this is just another way for govt. to control the private , competitive marketplace .
Thanks for the ping.
Executive bonuses have absolutely NO significant effect on the national economy as a whole.
None.
Besides, those funds are the stockholders' to spend as they choose. Not so with government money.
If there was a way that people on Wall Street could earn tens of billions in bonuses by pushing risky securities that endangered the entire national economy, then they would do that.
Oh wait.
Besides, those funds are the stockholders' to spend as they choose.
Stockholders of major corporations basically never have any say in determining executive bonuses.
LOL!
K. It must be the Midichlorians then.
High executive compensation and unethical behavior are two separate issues. Yes, one can affect the other, but one does not require the other.
Wealth is not wickedness.
Government power is FAR more to be feared than overpaid CEOs.
You are making some generalizations about wealth that have nothing to do with the cartoon in #1, which is pretty accurate. The possibility of earning a lot of money on Wall Street and in major corporations by doing the wrong thing was a major factor in the last two market crashes.
Buy more stock.
The people making those decisions most assuredly ARE stockholders.
You are making some generalizations about wealth that have nothing to do with the cartoon in #1, which is pretty accurate. The possibility of earning a lot of money on Wall Street and in major corporations by doing the wrong thing was a major factor in the last two market crashes.
The cartoon is accurate except for the "bonuses" bit.
It's not wrong to be paid the bonus you signed on for.
Whatever else happened, it had nothing to do with the bonuses. Those who shake their fingers at executives for making money are pushing class warfare and socialism.
So you admit that there are stockholders who have no say in executive compensation. In fact executive compensation in many major corporations is determined by the "compensation committee" which is appointed by the board of directors. Perhaps you could do the work of looking up what percentage of a company's stock one must own to get a seat on the board and what percentage of the total stock in a major corporation is typically owned by the members of the compensation committee.
Saying that stockholders decide on compensation is like saying that individual citizens have a vote on every bill in congress. Only it's worse than that because stockholders typically have no say in the selection of the board of directors, except as a chance to rubber-stamp a slate of names selected by the current board. Also CEOs can often arrange that the members of the compensation committee will be friendly (or beholden) to them.
Clearly it is often the case that the majority of the stock in a major corporation is held by people with no practical influence on executive compensation.
No, and I said no such thing.
I said that stockholders determine compensation, and they do. I never said that each stockholder makes that determination, nor that each stockholder takes part in the decision.
My claim was that it is the stockholders' money to do with as they see fit, or something to that effect. And that is true.
If you don't personally like the compensation arrangements of a company and you are a minority stockholder, you can sell your stock and put your money elsewhere.
Maybe you could organize a group of like-minded stockholders to increase your influence in the decision.
It's still the stockholders' money and their right to decide how to spend it. It's ABSOLUTELY none of the government's business, and it has NOTHING to do with the nation's economy.
And the board is elected by the stockholders. If stockholders think the board isn't upholding its fiduciary duty, they can always vote the board out.
Silly economists! They make the assumption that the money existed in the first place!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.