Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Time to Audit the Fed
Two key lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee, Reps. Alan Grayson (D-FL) and Ron Paul (R-TX), are pushing to authorize a full, comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve. The plan has sparked fury from both the Fed and the corporate banking industry, but the proposal is so appealing that the controversy is almost laughable.
The Federal Reserve is one of the most powerful economic institutions in the world, but most of its operations are conducted in total secrecy. The Fed's rescue activities have dwarfed the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, but without any public accounting. Some of these efforts may have been entirely appropriate, but we don't even know who the Fed is helping. That fact is a major barrier to establishing effective and fair economic policy.
As Glenn Greenwald observes for Salon:
"The Fed is a typical Washington institution that operates un-democratically and in virtually total secrecy, and a Congressionally-mandated audit that they (and much of the DC establishment) desperately oppose would be a serious step towards changing the dynamic of how things function. At the very least, it would provide an important template for defeating the interests which, in Washington, almost never lose."
Under the Grayson-Paul plan, which is offered as an amendment to the Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009, the Government Accountability Office would be given the authority to audit all of the Federal Reserve's activities, just as it can audit other public programs and institutions.
Last week, the House Financial Services Committee approved the audit-the-fed bill, despite opposition from panel Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), who tried to gut the plan. Even on the Financial Services Committee, where the banks concentrate their campaign contributions, Grayson was able to convince 14 other Democrats to stand up to the financial establishment.
The vote of approval scarcely registered on mainstream media's radar, and even then, the Grayson-Paul legislation was portrayed as an assault on the Fed's "political independence." As Dean Baker notes for Talking Points Memo, it's hard to see how a simple, public accounting can be construed as a political hit on the Fed's policy-making.
By setting interest rates, the Fed has enormous power to do almost anything under the economic sun, from fueling quick growth to destroying jobs. All of these powers have useful functions under the right circumstances, and we really don't want Congress to make decisions about the economy based on the interests of powerful lobby groups. The Grayson-Paul bill wouldn't do anything of the sort. As John Nichols explains for The Nation, audits of sensitive economic policy decisions would be subject to a six-month lag before they could be publicly released. If the Fed needs to act fast, Congress won't be able to get in its way. The public will eventually know how its own money is being spent, however, and learn how a public institution is conducting itself.
"In other words, this is about simple transparency, which everyone should favor," Nichols writes.
The White House and the Congressional Democratic leadership need to support a full and comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve. It's an issue of basic democratic accountability. There is no good reason why economic policy should be conducted in secret.
48 Comments so far
Show AllAudit the Fed once and then shut it down.
Or even better, just shut it down.
q
Shutting it down is necessary, but not the complete solution. Monetary control, policy-making needs to be as per the U.S. Constitution specifies and as actual historial experience proves to be right; it needs to be solely for The People, through their Congress, to have authority over. For this topic, I posted a link to a basically "must read" article by Stephen Lendman further below.
This article is right-on! We hear so much these days, including an election campaign promise by Obama, of total transparency in the workings of the government. HA!!!
Little did Obama know that we the people - most of whom are intelligent, thinking people - became aware of his own transparency during his election campaign. That is - we could "see right through him!"
It's "business as usual in Washington" (translation: "screw the people!").
I didn't read the article, but did read the title, so what makes you think that only auditing the Fed. is right; realistcally trustworthy? Hint: Read the second sentence of your post; maybe you wrote it without thinking further than the mere explicit words and you need to re-think about what you wrote. Don't stick to the words, alone. Think about the essence of what's implied or indicated. Think relationally, say.
Relationally, or relatively, as in relativity, anyway. F.e., Obama lied; but he's far from being the sole liar. If he was, then he wouldn't get away with it. And the Congress and Senate consist of plenty of liars, too. You want to entrust them with only auditing the Fed.? You're joking, right?
The Fed has never been audited since inception in 1913. Can you imagine what a monumental task an audit would be? There would be millions of archived documents with faded typed ink. If an audit could even be accomplished there is no way the Fed could "pass" that audit. Better to just shut it down.
"By setting interest rates, the Fed has enormous power to do almost anything under the economic sun, from fueling quick growth to destroying jobs."
We really don't need the audit. It should be shut down for that reason alone. They have had that power and that is exactly how they used it.
The Fed/Goldman Sachs criminal partnership ought to be made illegal. The Fed needs to be re-structured and held accountable and made transparent.
As it is now we are living in a fincancial Mafia regime, legal organized crime theft ring that has drained trillions from the public sector and private citizens and transferred it to the top 2% of the ruling class.
We need a wildcat general strike to shut the country down, that is the only way to get the Oligarchs' attention.
The outspoken members of the population have the oligarchs' attention. It's why they're trying to appease with talk of auditing the Fed., which, "as usual", would just be another fraud. There'd be plenty of cover-up. The Fed. banksters, alone, didn't get away with a century of robbing and "screwing" with the population; they had partners-in-crime, the U.S. Congress and White House administrations. They always work on covering up.
They're very attentive; don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise. If they weren't paying attention to voices from and actions by the populace, then they wouldn't [constantly] have "law" enforcement cracking down on protesters, wouldn't be spying on your telephone calls, and so on. They know there's adversity for them with a considerable segment of the populace even if a large minority of the latter stupidly supports the "elites".
So we should just sit back and do nothing? No matter, a general strike to shut down the country for a few days would do far more than calling your Senator.
the fed is better dead;
it keeps us in the red.
with public banks instead
all of us could be fed,
and prosperity would spread.
if The Web of Debt, Hoodwinked or Agenda For A New Economy
you haven't read,
let their knowledge fill your head
with ways to overcome fed dread.
nuff said.
Stephen Lendman's article that I linked to in a post further below makes considerable use of "Web of Debt" by Dr Ellen Brown, and the article's not long, but has some strong content.
Barney, Barney, Barney...you've been fooling us all this time.
The Fed is in the business of regulating interest rates and money supply, an activity that is delegated to the Congress and the Treasury under the Constitution. "Auditing" the Fed makes no sense in light of the fact that it allocates monetary value as it sees fit in light of managing interest rates. Its secrecy and political unaccountability is completely unwarranted in a democratic republic, however. It functions as a "partnership" between business and government, but what everyone who partners with business should realize is that business will take the wheel and the partner will take the blame when business crashes the car.
2 gross problems with the Fed:
1. It's run in secret.
2. It's run for private profit.
These two resolved, it's hard to imagine what would remain that could be called "the Fed."
What a concept.
Check their books.
Wow.
Revolution
in the air.
Why an expensive audit? We already know the capitalist class is screwing us over and over again ... and always will. Just want to see it in writing?
Found this information at OpenLeft regarding Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke:
Ben Bernake's current term as chair of the Federal Reserve ends on January 31st, 2010. As such, the Obama administration and Senate are looking to reconfirm him...
The Federal Reserve Act dictates that one of the founding directives of the Federal Reserve is to "promote effectively the goals of maximum employment." However, with a current U3 unemployment rate of 10.2%, it is obvious to everyone in the country that we do not have maximum employment.
The Federal Reserve, under Bernanke, could be taking steps to increase employment. One possible means would be through a program to just start lending money directly to small businesses, such as the one proposed by Senator Mark Warner.
** Bernanke's reconfirmation hearing starts tomorrow. Reports are that he has the votes necessary. The organizations below are fighting to dethrone Bailout Ben.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
http://action.ourfuture.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=69
http://stopbailoutben.com/?source=huff
one of the founding directives of the Federal Reserve is to "promote effectively the goals of maximum employment."
Taking a moment to "split hairs" here. Just for amusement, nothing else.... BUT is .... promoting the GOALS of maximum employment, the same as maximum employment? It may not necessarily be. Why was the word "goals" inserted into the statement? Was the goal to get people off the street?; to provide families with a living wage?; to bolster the "gross national product" of the time?
As a close friend always tells me.... "black words on white paper, make for gray requirements".... peace
Maximum employment could potentially mean all jobs being filled in the U.S. and like with the H-1B visa program for importing hi-tech. workers, really for replacing the hiring of U.S. professionals, the jobs can be filled with foreign workers; and H-1B, at least initially and formally, is for temps, though they get an automatic 3-year visa that's renewable for another 3 years, after which comes green card time.
So "max. emp." ... for who? Only for employers, or for US citizens and other residents; or both, employer and us? It's never for the general population, which micro-econ. says at least 4% must be kept unemp.; to reduce wage demands, f.e. But H-1B, L-1, TN-1, ... worker visa programs illustrate that not only is there no shortage of people to fill the jobs, it's mostly through importation; while citizens and other residents aren't getting jobs, etc.
Everyone with an income of over $500,000 a year must die.
A very nuanced position. Classy too.
Nuanced? Anyone with an income of $499,999.99 could say the same thing.
Well, I guess that'd still be some (unstated) nuance. And who the heck needs $400,000 a year income? Only an idiot would. The person could be brilliant in some respects, but there are people who are brilliant in some respects while also being idiots in other regards.
"Nuanced?"
It was sarcasm. Anyone over $499,999.99 DIES. Seems to me the original comment stemmed from no discernable thought.
"Anyone with an income of $499,999.99 could say the same thing."
Right, see below.
"And who the heck needs $400,000 a year income?"
The problem is when a disinterested third party (you in this case) determines themselves to be the arbiter between need and want. Suppose I think the level is just $30,000?
And who says life should be limited to rudimentry "need" anyway?
When Bloomberg News asked the FED for information on who and how much the FED had loaned money to, they refused. Bloomberg sued; still no answer on that one. We do know that the FED has bought up bad loans, guaranteed loans for investment banks who became bank holding companies so they could get money from Uncle Sugar, hedge funds, insurance companies. The grand total so far is between 17-23 trillion dollars. Senator Cantwell gave the 23 million figure. Barney Frank was one of the early birds to call for an audit so apparently the Bankers and FED got to him because he is now opposing any audit. Some articles to enlighten our readers:
"What Cooked the World's Economy", "Why Wall Street Reform is Stuck in Reverse", and "The Battle Against Letting Wall Street Continue to Make a Killing on Derivatives". We need to make certain to let our members of Congress know that the behind the scenes bail-outs of the financial industry crooks needs to be stopped and Bernanke and most of the FED board members need to be canned.
I thought people were against the government treating corporations or businesses as persons, but it's become popular, that is, common, for citizens of this view to do the contrary. Businesses, cies, are not "who" matters. "Who" refers to person. "Which", "that", "it", ... fit referring to non-persons. The People have brainwashed themselves into doing what many of them were opposed to the government doing. Quite a culture.
Those of you who want the Fed dissolved support a gold standard. Right?
It seems that gold would be more stable, or stronger, for the time being anyway. But the question is odd and I wonder what the unstated purpose is. It's clearly fishing for replies, but what its purpose really is needs explanation. Gold and silver are two metals I've read about having historically been used for backing paper currency, and I realise that the mining industry is very bad for the Earth and human populations, but this is all I am aware of in this regard.
" But the question is odd and I wonder what the unstated purpose is. "
Then I'll state it plainly: It's *useless* to call for the end to the Fed without proposing the alternative. The gold standard is the most often cited alternative.
" It's clearly fishing for replies,"
As if there were something wrong with posing a question and actually wishing for people to answer?
"and I realise that the mining industry is very bad for the Earth "
That all depends on what you mean by "bad". *Everything* we use in the material world must be grown from the soil or dug out of the earth. Many useful and necessary commodities can only be mined.
I'm not sure if you really do not know the alternatives to the 'Fed' (as it exists in the U.S. - not ANY central bank anywhere), or you're trying to deliberately confuse people that the alternative would be a gold standard. If you have read books like "Web of Debt" by Ellen Brown, you'll know that there are alternatives, and where the central bank would truly be owned by the nation, where the money supply is not created out of debt and thin air, etc. You'll also see that some countries (I think India, in its early days of independence, is mentioned as an example) have used their central banks in a different way, and also cases where the international bankers have brought about the collapse of economies in countries where the government refused to play by the bankers' rules. Ron Paul may be right in calling for ending the Fed (at least as it operates today), but I think he has supported going back to the gold standard (I could be wrong) - and that is where he would be wrong. Abraham Lincoln's 'Greenback' is described in the book I mentioned - and according to the author, that was probably what got him assassinated. She even tries to set the record straight on what actually happened in post-World War-I Germany, its hyperinflation and how the Nazis managed their way out of the situation (I'm not crazy enough to support the Nazis by any means, but I just found it interesting to read another take on what really happened back then). In any case, I think there's simply not enough gold to stand as a reserve for such a major economy as the US, nor is it necessary.
For commodity exchange to take place, something has to act as an equivalency. Something has to be recognized as equivalent, so that a ton of steel can be exchanged for something else. For most of the life of capitalism, gold was the recognized means of exchange. Why gold? Because it had the quality of being able to be divided and proportioned out in specific quantities and was chemically stable. As Marx pointed out, gold itself is a commodity when it enters the realm of commodity exchange. In other words it can exist in two forms: as an exchange value and as a use value.
It isn't convenient to carry around gold bars and scales to carry out commodity exchange, so paper and coinage was used to reflect the value of gold and hence we have money. Within national boundaries and with national currencies, control of the value of that currency is easily done. It's when foreign exchange comes into the picture that things get more difficult trying to maintain the equivalency between disparate currencies. Gold allowed this to happen. Political problems arose however causing the US to take its currency off the gold standard. The USSR had most of the world's gold and could flood the market at will.
In any case, money, gold, wheat or Big Macs are all commodities and hence have an exchange value. This exchange value is determined by the socially necessary labour-power expended to create the commodity.
Central banks can influence the demand for the commodity called money when it comes to exchange and speculation on that commodity by setting interest rates or printing more or less money. But, the real value still belongs and is found in the real world of commodity exchange and remains based on the value of the labour-power carried within that commodity. The general crisis of capitalism isn't going to solved by manipulations of currency values as the contradictions are more fundamental than that.
"I'm not sure if you really do not know the alternatives to the 'Fed'"
If you review my original post, I simply asked a question, and clarified later what I thought would be the need to propose some other system than the Fed control of our fiat money, when calling for it's end. I am aware of the history of money, what has been used in the past, etc.
"there are alternatives,"
What alternative would you most enthusiastically back?
Jake, I support ending the Fed, but as Ralph Nader said to me in Portland Maine last year, "There isn't enough gold in the world any more to do this". This fiat monitary system we use has many, many flaws.
First, we need to take the "FED" out of private hands and make it a federal agency. Just calling something "federal" does not make it so....and so is the case here.
Second, if we back our money with something of value, "real money" as used to be printed on our paper currency, we, and the world, would be more assured that the system would not collapse instantaniously.
Last (for now), is that although the "FED" is supposedly made up of independant banks, these banking interests are now "international" in nature, thus may or may not have the best interest of the USA at hand. These banking interests have profit as motivation, and if that profit will be enhanced by deflating the value of our currency and inflating that of another country... guess what. (just an opinion)
"There isn't enough gold in the world any more to do this". "
So it would seem.
"This fiat monitary system we use has many, many flaws."
So it would seem.
"if we back our money with something of value,"
Such as gold say.
" "real money" as used to be printed on our paper currency, we, and the world, would be more assured that the system would not collapse instantaniously."
In a commodity money system you would have to consider who has control over the commodity, gold in this case. Certain nations produce it out of proportion to their other importance in the world economy, such as South Africa. Does that make sense? Are we prepared for the implications?
If we are to back our money with something of "real" value, then, yes, we would have to accept the implications. Opening gold mines here in the US would provide some more of those super-dangerous (read high paying) mining jobs. Trade with other nations to obtain the bullion would be a true diplomatic and economic roller coaster ride. Trading our excess corn, or wheat or coal for gold would be on a sliding scale..... and we'd be on the short end for a while, until such time that our reserves could be built back up. Gold has the advantage because it does not rust, and it also has industrial importance. (we may find in the near future that gold also has important health implications). Of course any of the precious metals could be used, so long as they do not readily oxidize. I suppose it does not have to be a metal at all, looking back at The Netherlands and the way that tulip bulbs once had 'real' value....
Anyway, I do understand the problem of a deminishing supply of whatever could be used for 'real' money as well. Though gold holds a value, it's usage in some industrial processes can not be substituted. Nano-technology also relies heavily upon this metal. (I'm not a real fan of this new technology, but realize that it IS here and will continue to be for some time...)
Irrespective of going back to a "standard" however, bringing the FED under direct control of the government is the most important task. The constitution gives the federal government the authority to mint money. That the government has 'subbed' this out to a private entity is of questionable legality in the Constitutional sense (IMHO), but has been sanctioned by Congress. I don't know if the matter was ever addressed at the Supreme Court level.
I suspect that we may eventually see the 'cashless' society, plastic for everything worldwide. Computer debit for each purchase and be damn with any "real" money. Like it or not, fight it or not, the "New World Order" is being enacted all around us. Perhaps, like Moses' journey to the promised land, it will take 40 years, and those of us alive now will not cross to those shores, but.... peace
"Opening gold mines here in the US would provide some more of those super-dangerous (read high paying) mining jobs."
Look for recent articles on "peak gold". Despite high prices, mine output is in decline due to low ore grades. And "high paying" jobs amount to "high expense", in any case, and mines open or close based on operating expences vs. the prevailing trade rate for the commodity.
"Trade with other nations to obtain the bullion would be a true diplomatic and economic roller coaster ride."
Right, with nations that we may not like very much.
"Irrespective of going back to a "standard" however, bringing the FED under direct control of the government is the most important task."
How do you do that while also divorcing it from partisan politics?
"I suspect that we may eventually see the 'cashless' society, plastic for everything worldwide. Computer debit for each purchase and be damn with any "real" money."
We are already there, given that the vast majority of the money supply exists as bits and bytes on computers. The function of the Fed to control money supply today amounts to no more than incrementing or decrementing account totals in certain banks.
Please see themoneymasters.com and explore. The documentary available at that site is a shocking eye-opener about The Fed. Rep. Ron Paul had this documentary available at his website for a while.
It's available online. A post of mine further below indicates two places where the full video can be viewed; just that it's not in high quality dvd format.
Never happen--you will never see
the real books--not from those crooks--at least that's the
way it looks
to little old me.
Web of Debt - Ellen H. Brown, mentioned poetically above (make-it-happen 3:21) was an excellent historical education about how we got monetarily where we are.
Sen. Sanders of Vt said today he'd put a hold on the Bernanke nomination for a second term which could delay confirmation until next year but probably not stop it (washington post 12/3)
To hell with auditing the Fed, MAKE it disappear and the Congress in charge of U.S. monetary policy. The following article provides important history from U.S. Presidents Madison, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Kennedy, with plenty of explanation.
"Abolish the Fed and Return Money Creation Power to Congress",
by Stephen Lendman, Dec. 2, 2009
http://www.uruknet.info/index.php?p=60711
A useful doc. to view for the need to abolish the Fed. and which I've posted about plenty of times at CD is, "The Money Masters", for which people can get full online viewing at Google. An easy way for the full clip is through freedocumentaries.org or topdocumentaryfilms.com. Lendman also refers to "money changers" and I think there's also a doc. film entitled, "The Money Changers", but I haven't viewed it, so couldn't say more about it.
I'd really like to quote some of the presidential quotes that Stephen Lendman provides, but can only make very short posts now, again, for some inexplicable reason (and it's the same with sending emails). So I'll just say that while I haven't read his complete article, I looked over it and read some of the quotes, as well as some of the related history, and ohhhh yah; strong and clear. We could not mistake the meaning. ABOLISH the damn Fed.
This amendment is why Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus are now boycotting the Financial Stability Improvement Act.
They were for the bill until the Grayson-Paul Amendment passed. Then Maxine Waters (co-chair of the House Finance Committee, head of the Black Caucus, voted against the amendment) and Barney Frank (chairs the committee and also voted against the amendment) came up with this scheme.
Maxine Waters got her caucus behind her to boycott the bill altogether because of "jobs", and Barney Frank said when they reconvene if they still don't have the votes the bill will be killed. THAT is how much this amendment scares them!
PART ONE..
Capitalism has evolved from its more primitive stage as exposed by Marx where free competition existed between the owners of industry to a global system with a new name and form: monopoly capitalism. This later form of capitalism incorporates a global social devision of labour and is far more complex in its operations than was the earlier form.
The inherent contradictions of capitalism as exposed by Marx continues to operate but on a much grander and complex scale. Technological revolutions have produced a global system with some of the following characteristics that are new to the old capitalism:
1. Production (the division of labour) is now globalized facilitated by the rise of the computer age, advanced transportation technologies, new production strategies, such as just-in-time production, agri-business food production, de-ruralization of the countryside, realtime communications, etc.
2. Corporate consolidation has flourished to the point that prime industries are now controlled by fewer and fewer large multinational corporation which effectively operate as monopolies and through collusion are able to fix prices on commodities and not be restrained by free market competition in the traditional sense of the term. Rather the "competition" is carried out through the sales push of their products and further protected from competition through the use of intellectual property rights.
3. The ability of smaller capitalists to move into the sphere of direct competition with the monopoly capitalists is prohibited by the high cost of fixed capital inherent in the new technological basis of capitalist production.
4. The efficiency of modern day technological production has resulted in escalating productivity requiring huge investments in the tools of production while at the same time a diminishing requirement for labour-power. Where labour-power is less expensive than the cost of new fixed capital the monopoly capitalist move their production there. Where fixed capital investments in productive capacity out way the costs of labour-power, capitalist adopt the new technology and "downsize" the work force.
5. Since capitalist profits still accrue on the basis of the production of surplus value that arises from unpaid labour, a fine balancing act is constantly being carried out.
6. The highly productive production processes under advanced monopoly capitalism results in an economic system of overproduction. This means a capitalist crisis arises where more goods and services are introduced into the market place than the working class can afford to consume. Frequent adjustments need to take place to lower production so that the system can once again return to a period of growth. Because of the complexity of the whole system, the capitalist system as a whole needs to be macro-managed to prevent the system from collapsing totally.
7. Monopoly capitalism is confronted with another crisis besides the cyclical crisis of overproduction and that is the crisis of overproduction of surplus value that needs to be returned to the system as capitalist capital. For the reasons pointed out above, capital cannot be reinvested into new production capacity because the system has an over-abundance of commodities. The capitalists would simply not realize profits at the point of sale because those goods just can't be sold under such conditions. This excessive surplus value must be invested outside the real economy of production to the growing side of the economy, the financial sector. The growth of the financial sector roared ahead at unprecedented rates starting back in the '70s when the neo-liberal model of capitalism started to take off.
8. The financial sector of the world economy is the place where accrued assets are bought, sold and speculated on. It is driven by a whole collection of tools designed to attract capital investment and make money for its investors who can't any longer make their money in the real economy. It does this by creating financial bubbles that draw in trillions of dollars of investment capital. But because it operates outside the real economy these bubbles eventually are forced to collapse, what capitalist economists refer to as "corrections".
9. The financial sector is there not only to absorb capitalist excess capital but also the extend credit to the real economy with the intention of trying to prevent a general collapse there. The successful class struggle launched in the '70s by the capitalist class against the working class has resulted in a declining standard of living for the working class in the highly developed capitalist economies. Real wages have dropped in the last 30 years for working people. The result of course is lowering of consumption and accelerated overproduction. To alleviate this problem for the system, finance capital began to lend money to working people in place of the higher wages they were unable to obtain. This easy credit extended in the form of easy and cheap mortgages and easy access to credit cards saved the general collapse of capitalism for a time. But, as we are all aware now, the busting of the real estate bubble in the US brought down the financial sector like a house of cards. The working class woke up to find that their debts far exceeded their assets. Foreclosures rose, unemployment rose and banks tightened their lending. The global capitalist system entered into what can only be described as the Great Depression Version 2.
PART TWO ...
10. The stage of monopoly capitalism requires a super government standing above and outside national governments with the power to keep global capitalism from completely falling apart. The role of the state has taken on roles far and beyond the roles they did when capitalism was more primitive. Since these states are directly controlled by the capitalist class, the solutions they come up for trying to keep the system working are viewed through their eyes and their own self interests. Up to now these solutions can be called neo-liberal solutions and comprise of such ingredients as:
- deregulation of the economy so that the big capitalists are free to make money regardless of how doing so impacts society as a whole.
- the establishment of free trade zones making it easier to quickly implement the division labour
- protection for capitalist profits through rules that make accumulation of capital more important than internal democratic decision making by the affected countries
- the maintenance of a single hegemonic capitalist state that has the military muscle to keep all countries in line with the neo-liberal agenda
- the establishment of a world currency (the US dollar) to be the purchaser of last resort for the commodities production capital produces
- the spreading of "free market" ideology to all corners of the world, through the spread of the dominant culture of the US. The main ingredient is to change peoples attitudes from one of being citizens to one of being consumers and where all success in life is gaged on ones ability to accumulate commodities
- the hiding away wherever possible the true nature of the capitalist system through educational systems and popular culture that the existing system is a natural system and is static and the only type of system we could possibly have.
We are in a new stage of capitalism where growing inequalities through the accumulation of surplus value by the capitalist class has become the greatest problem capitalism has ever faced. Capital itself has now become a problem for the capitalist system itself. The irrational system of capitalist production is becoming more and more painfully obvious to more and more people who never questioned the system before. A new working class struggle is rising up in a land that was always told to us has no classes. The enemy of the people, the massive multinational corporations, appear to no longer offer solutions to those in the middle and working classes who have been so relentlessly ground down. More and more are realizing that a new system is required and the political agenda today is to define what a new system will be like that will allow for the massive production of wealth to reach the producers of that wealth - the broad working class.
The other main crisis facing the system, that falls outside of a pure economic crisis is the environmental crisis. The connection to the economy is of course there. Human beings are a product of the natural world while at the same time exploit the natural world to obtain use values for our survival. The capitalist mode of production it totally at odds with the natural world because capitalism can only operate and indeed continue as a working system by constantly increasing its growth. In a finite world, this irrational system collides with any ability to keep the natural world sustainable. Neither can continue to exist with each other, so we are faced with the choice of do we want to see the end of capitalism or do we want to see the end of the natural world?
Finally, back to the topic at hand: "Time to Audit the Fed". In view of the real realities of the world today, the need by the capitalists to control the world system and save it from collapse, control of monetary policy must stay within their hands. It is through this means that the capitalist class has just another important tool to try to keep THEIR system going. From a working class perspective, tweaking these tools just isn't enough. A completely new system has to be built that eliminates that class that presently privately appropriates the surplus value society produces and distributes this surplus value directly to the needs of society as a whole. An audit of the fed won't do that. :-)