Names like Bernanke, Greenspan and Volcker have become buzz words since the collapse of the housing market. Now that H.R. 1207 and S. 604 picking up momentum there has been a good bit of talk about these figures from all sides of the media. With eyes on the dramatic expansion of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet and its maintenance of an ultra low funds rate the actions of the Fed have almost become mainstream.

What hasn't become mainstream is how Bernanke and the rest of the "Economy Czars" have been wrong in their understanding of the economy for years now. Summa Anthropica has an excellent overview. Grassroots media is picking up on inaccurate economy forecasts that the mainstream media is either missing or ignoring. The recent "Bernanke in Denial 2005-2007" video that has been frequently exchanged is an excellent example.

Feeling the pressure, Ben Bernanke is currently scrambling to protect the independence of the Fed. For a jobholder to attempt to protect his job is not to be unexpected. What is unexpected is the way that American journalists have been institutionalizing support for the people who have been chronically unreliable.

Robert Lenzner of Forbes reports that Ben Bernanke is our economic salvation. The Washington Post, who once reported Bernanke's claim that "There's No Housing Bubble to Go Bust" is calling for a continued lack of transparency. Joseph E. Stiglitz claims that "No one can understand what happened and what did not happen without reading" David Wessel's In Fed We Trust. Why is nobody asking how supposed gurus like Greenspan and Bernanke failed to foresee what would come of the housing and credit markets when others did? Why is nobody pushing the question of the Federal Reserve's role in creating the housing bubble? Why is nobody questioning the expansion of the Federal Reserve's authority that Obama is proposing? So much for Pilger's ideal that journalists be the ones who "push back screens, peer behind façades and lift rocks".

You would think that Mr. Stiglitz would be recommending we listen to economists like Peter Schiff, who didn't need a post-hoc book - or a nobel prize - to see the coming economic downturn. If we are to listen to someone who has been consistently correct throughout the last few years, like Peter Schiff, then the American economy isn't through its economic troubles and the path we have been taking is only doing more damage. Now that the news organizations that have been peddling two-cent journalism are stirring up the topic of another round of bailouts we need to question the advice given to us from the institutions and individuals that have been in control of our economic health - especially those who have chronically unreliable with their forecasts.

UPDATED 7/28 11:19 AM

Most people have seen the Washington Post's "Focus on the Fed" article in regard to H.R. 1207 and S. 604, both of which are bills to audit the Federal Reserve. Here is a small taste:

Which brings us to the proposed Federal Reserve Transparency Act, sponsored by anti-Fed crusader Ron Paul (R-Tex.) in the House and socialist Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) in the Senate. In the name of open government, it would subject the Fed's decisions to a full-blown audit by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. Though the bill has attracted 276 co-sponsors in the House and 17 in the Senate, it is wrongheaded in the extreme. By opening up the Fed's most sensitive interest rate and credit policies to public second-guessing, the bill would create a risk -- real and perceived -- of monetary policy bent to suit congressional overseers. This would destroy financial markets' faith in the Fed and, by extension, the value of the U.S. dollar, just as surely as a political "audit" of the Supreme Court's deliberations would undercut public faith in the justice system.

This article makes comparisons that are utterly dissimilar. Not only does our justice system make available verdicts and vote counts the same day that the court votes on the issue, they also make public the dissenting parties with the articulated minority opinion. This is a a world of difference from the transparency policy of the Federal Reserve, who graciously offers us meeting transcripts five years after the meetings occur. The transparency policies of these two groups are in no way similar and making such a comparison is disingenuous at best.

But that isn't the real problem with the article.

If you look again you will see that the article has no author. As Glenn Greenwald has stated in a recent article, anonymous comments "are often worse than nothing: they're inherently unreliable because they're made without accountability". Here we have the Washington Post, which has been been labeled in the past "Pravda on the Potomac" for its lack of journalistic integrity and tendency for political coddling, writing an article which nobody is accountable for, which advocates the continuation of non-accountability in government. Does anything feel odd to you about this situation?

We continually hear, as the Washington Post's regurgitates, that H.R. 1207 and S. 604 would bring politics into managing monetary policy. However, as it has been stated in the Financial Services Committee hearings the bill would have no impact monetary policy nor would it give anyone authority to sit in on its hearings. The article advocates the continued secrecy of the Federal Reserve based on this premise. Unfortunately we have no source for this article and therefore there can be no dialog as to the accuracy of this claim or of the credentials of its author. I don't want to lead anyone into assumptions but the proximity of the Washington Post to Washington DC makes me wonder about the motivations of this article. So much for the standards Walter Cronkite wanted to establish.

When we see an anonymous article in the future we should immediately throw it in the trash like the unscrupulous, irreverent garbage that it is.

UPDATE I

drs27 over at the Daily Paul commented on this article:

the editorial was written collectively by the Washington Post editorial board. In my hometown paper there is 2 or 3 short editorials like this a day, none more than a paragraph or two long, and none with any author shown; the "author" is the entire editorial board. Its the same thing when a newspaper endorses a candidate, they'll write a short explanation of why they endorsed the candidate, and no author will be shown.

Putting out articles in this manor may be commonplace but that doesn't mean it isn't deplorable. Should we just accept the embarrassing standards for journalism in this country and move on? I hardly think so. In this article we have a major paper pushing policy and the reporting can not be attributed to anyone. This would be considered propaganda in many parts of the world, and many parts of the dictionary.

UPDATE II

drs27 later stated that he agreed with my article and that he was just clarifying that it was more then likely an editorial board that contributed to the Washington post article and not just one person. I decided to read his comment from a "devil's advocate" position because it brought something to the dialog. Thanks to drs27 for the comment in any case.

UPDATE III

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a sponsor of S. 604, has responded to the Washington Post's "Focus on the Fed" article.

Regarding the July 24 editorial "Focus on the Fed":

What a sad day for a newspaper with a storied reputation for exposing waste, fraud and abuse in government, to oppose the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act, legislation that would simply increase transparency at the Federal Reserve.

The Fed has expanded its balance sheet by more than $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars in response to the financial crisis. Who received this money? Is it being used primarily to help ordinary Americans or just the wealthy and well-connected? What conflicts of interest exist between members of the Fed and Wall Street bankers? This is all information that the American people deserve to know.

Kudos, Senator Sanders!

Today I came across an article on the Huffington Post from Bill Maher, I guy I used to admire. Bill commented on the state of profit in American life.

How about this for a New Rule: Not everything in America has to make a profit. It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us. But now it's becoming all that we are.

This piece was so thick with almost-lies I decided to make up a few of my own "new rules" in response.

New Rule - Lets stop creating political scape goats and address our real problems.

We used to regard journalists with standards like Walter Cronkite highly because our values used to be different. We used to value critical thought and objectivity. In Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury warned about the dystopia we would one day achieve if we gave up on critical thinking. Today the most popular programming trend is reality TV, which is eerily similar to Mildrid's television parlor. Network, a film that warned of the dangers of network TV, pointed out the idiocy in media that was dominated by "gossip, opinion polls, and yellow journalism". The media depicted in that film is our current reality.

Both sides of the political spectrum have created monsters. MSNBC strokes the left openly (although I do give Rachael Maddow and Keith Olbermann for being critical of issues like Obama's adoption of "prolonged detention"). We all know Fox News sold their soul to the neo-cons long ago. This isn't an objective and honest media.

It isn't profit that has ruined media. We have. We fully accept partisan reporting in lieu of the pursuit of truth and objectivity. Until we, as a society, start valuing critical thinking and objectivity again we will be stuck with it.

New Rule - Lets stop confusing "corporatism" with "capitalism".

Capitalism is the state of the economy that occurs when businesses are forced to serve the people directly. Corporatism is the state of the economy that occurs when economic power is centralized in the government and powerful businesses lobby for unjust legislation they can profit from.

You mentioned three consequences of corporatism: the military-industrial complex that drives war and imperialism, the prison-industrial complex that perpetuates the war on drugs and Big Pharma's war on market forces.

You claim these relationships are due to profit motive. However, a critical thinker will quickly realize this is not the case. There is no individual incentive for empire and subsequently no market. Without government officials positioned to sling propaganda to support the intents of their hawk buddies and a non-negotiable pool of taxes to pay the price there would be no military industrial complex. There is certainly no individual incentive for prohibition to support a market - quite the opposite - despite drug prohibition. Without government officials positioned to block products from the market and create a market for imprisonment there would be no prison industrial complex. There is no individual incentive for healthcare monopolies. Without government officials positioned to provide intellectual properly laws, FDA market blockades, taxes breaks for systems that create moral hazard, then market forces would apply to healthcare market like they do in every free market. These problems are not created by businesses serving people in pursuit of profit motive, which is the definition of capitalism. They are due to government-business collusion, which is the definition of corporatism. Spinning these terms is disingenuous if not worse.

New Rule - Lets all commit to being honest.

As I said before, I used to be a huge fan of Bill Maher. In the Bush days there was enough to be angry about without twisting truths and I respected you for calling out people's lies. On your show, and in this post, you use tactics like non sequitur attacks, comparing the voluntary service of firemen to involuntary usurpation of market control. You don't lie, per-se, but you sure bend the truth to hell for a cause you support. Now, when I watch your show, I see what I see here on this post: a bunch of leaning to one side. Wasn't being disingenuous part of what we disliked about Bush?

I won't lose respect for you for believing in social programs. I will loose respect for you for being creative with your facts. Don't bend the truth, Bill. You will contribute more to society and you will be a better comedian for it.

A couple days ago, LittleGuy at the Daily Paul commented on the importance of the Rand Paul August 20th Money Bomb.

Here is just a sample of just how important it is and that we all must take seriously the Aug. 20th Rand Paul Money Bomb. This is a report on the fundraising for this race so far and Rand of course is not mentioned. He's raised only approximately $130,000.

Rand Paul must raise $1 Million in order to be a contender in this race. We may not be able to afford it, but we damn sure can't afford not to see to it that he does! If he does the game changes dramatically in a move and momentum toward Rand Paul.

The money bomb is even more important then LittleGuy states because Rand Paul is more important then winning a single senate seat.

Despite his excellent vitality and intellectual acuity, there is a very good chance that Ron Paul may step out of politics and not run again at the end of his current term. Even if his political career extends beyond that point, the reality of his age dictates his exit will undoubtedly happen soon then later. This will leave us with no leader to represent us in the political arena or the media. When we are trying to increase the influence of the liberty message the worst thing that can happen for our movement is to have no representative at all.

We have limited time for another champion to step up and lead the movement before the spot goes vacant and subsequently it is vital we support the quality candidates that are stepping up to the plate. This applies to other liberty candidates such as Adam Kokesh, BJ Harris and Mike Vasovski to a lesser extent. However, the more prominent candidates like Rand Paul and Peter Schiff are very symbolic to the movement and could be figures that unify proponents of liberty - just as Ron did - for a long time to come.

These are the candidates we must push to the forefront. Ensuring that these candidates are successful not only supports their individual pursuits for a senate seat, it is also pertinent for the continuation of the liberty movement. We are fortunate that events have aligned so that each candidate could raise a great amount of money very soon. Rand Paul's money bomb will be August 20th and Peter Schiff's money bomb will be August 7th.

We have all contributed to the movement in some way. Some people volunteer for their candidates. Some people write in support of the principles of liberty. Some people stay active in pursuing liberty initiatives through their elected representatives. Some people donate money. In the grand arena of politics, proponents of liberty are an extreme minority. However, we have seen in the past how the "money bomb" has turned heads across the political spectrum in our direction. Once again we are faced with an opportunity to show how loud our voice is.

I have already donated to both Rand Paul and Peter Schiff. I will be doing it again on August 7th and August 20th. It is my great hope that all who believe in liberty stand behind these candidates on their day. If we do, then the world will surely see the headlines again.

Reid Wilson of The Hill recently reported on comments made by Ron Paul on a the potential of running in 2012:

"There's a lot of people that are smarter and academically inclined. They are spreading this message of freedom even better than I am," Paul said.

As far as his own future, Paul said he is unlikely to run for president again.

"It's very unlikely," a smiling Paul said. "I had my chance and just missed it."

Many ardent Paul supporters are currently echoing his reluctance in regard to a 2012 run. However, I think all of us, including the Good Doctor, should take a moment and reflect on the secondary intent of the campaign and its level of success, which Ron has stated in the past:

In April, shortly after he announced he'd run for president, Paul told the Trib that his goal -- besides winning, of course -- was to make an impact on the race and to spread his ideas about maximizing freedom, limiting the federal government and practicing nonintervention overseas.

So was the campaign successful in achieving these goals?

Was Paul not successful in impacting the race? After his comments on eliminating the IRS became popular, Mike Huckabee, one of the most fiscally irresponsible candidates on the Republican ticket, mimicked his position - however superficially it may have been. Paul was able to bring an objection to the U.S policy of foreign intervention to the forefront of public dialog, a policy that would have undoubtedly gone unquestioned by both major parties throughout the campaign. He accomplished this despite being blocked from the debates and having his debate responses cut from televised replays.

Was Paul not successful in spreading the message of liberty, educating the people and curing the apathetic? Ron unified supporters across the country as thousands of supporters createdhundreds of MeetUp groups. During the campaign, these supporters spontaneously organized a new type of fundraiser, the "money bomb", which smashed fund raising records in a flooded field of Republican candidates and forever changed campaign fund raising. Paul peaked our interests in economics and showed us the real reasons why our country experiences the same problems again and again. The enthusiasm hasn't faded since the end of his 2008 presidential campaign. Ron's Campaign for Liberty has continued with the post-election momentum and continually pushes for liberty based reforms such as the H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act and S. 604, the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act, both of which have gained serious momentum.

Was Paul not successful in inspiring people across the country to run for office? In 2008 Ron had a full slate of six liberty candidates running for congressional seats in my state, Maryland. He has already inspired a quite a few liberty candidates who are either running or considering runs for 2010, including Peter Schiff, Mike Vaskovski, Adam Kokesh, RJ Harris and Rand Paul, not to mention the candidates running for smaller positions outside this already impressive list.

Was Paul not successful in pushing the party back towards its roots? The Republican majority was very supportive of the July 4th Tea Party movement which was symbolic to the Paul campaign. Ron is now seeing support on the right from blowhards like Ann Coulter to important Republican players like Michael Steele to influential economists like Jim Rogers. Paul is getting tons of exposure, often seeing several interviews on big news networks in a single day.

It was thought by some that Mark Sanford would be the liberty candidate to step up in 2012 and attempt to cast down Obama. With his recent marital implosion it looks very unlikely that he will be our next champion. In light of this event we should consider the real results of the 2008 Paul campaign - which was a monumental success in spreading the liberty message despite his loss.

If we go to 2012 without no liberty candidate stepping forward we will be stuck with someone from the unprincipled abyss that is currently the Republican party, which is still rife with hypocritical windbags such as Lindsey Graham. With that in mind, I pose this question to you:

If we knew going into 2012 that he would suffer defeat, would it still be worth having Ron Paul enter the race again to continue to spread the message of liberty?

Given the recent coverage Fox News has been giving him, I suspect his biggest detractor in 2008 may now be favoring his ideas. Wouldn't people be receptive to his policies seeing how accurate his predictions have been? Wouldn't it help the cause to see him thrash the neo-cons again with irrefutable truths? Wouldn't it be great to see someone with integrity, intelligence, principle and an actual message stand up against the Democrats? To those of you who doubt that another run for the Good Doctor would be beneficial, I beg you to consider the alternative:

I can only hope that Dr. Paul seriously considers a 2012 race. I am confident I speak for the rest of the liberty movement when I say that we are behind another run 100%.