done by gold or silver so obviously you know the reality is for any any particular bond it could be monetized by the by the fiscal or by the monetary authority yeah but i'm saying that the bonds have no connection to the underlying economy they're just going to print up a bunch of paper and use it as a medium of exchange even though it's inherently worthless i mean does that sound unsustainable to me but i know that your paper bike and. paper colored people bug whatsoever actually i think currencies are not the way to go i believe that actually we should go away from currency but i do better understanding of the money system the fact that in a few currency system none of the assets are actually the liabilities of the government or backed by anything other than the. faith and credit of the nation that's. the paper the reality is they can always print more money if it wanted to do so that's true in the united states and that's what hyperinflation as i said is a psychological it's a political it's because of the loss of faith in the currency as long as you know the legal tender laws are there as

from joe wiesenthal legendary paper about who we just interviewed thanks for the fed's ability to monetize the debt to some extent all u.s. sponsored backed by the printing press but it's never explicit last night news broke that japan would issue rebuilding bonds worth ten trillion yen and it sounds as though they'll specifically be backed by the bank of japan but this is exactly what we're talking about the central bank issuing electronic fiachra nonsense and claiming it has value it has no value other than the value to impose debt upon people destroy the ability for honest commerce to take place with the sound of money like gold and silver and to further perpetrate the global in slave bent over population that is now turning against this form of virtual currency instead. and revolting in north africa the middle east in europe in the united states and wisconsin the global insurrection against begging occupation but there is a cost to it there is a cost to printing up more yen and that is to the savings to the pensions to those on fixed incomes to people's wealth workers wealth anybody wh

looking at as we determine how to withdraw or maintain our policy. >> the quantitative easing, monetizing of debt or however we term that, has caused some concern about our currency, long-term value of our currency, and it's caused a lot of us to look at ways to create a more substantial or more soundness and stability to our monetary policy. in 1981, former chairman greenspan wrote in "wall street journal" about an idea of using five-year notes payable in gold that the federal reserve would issue or excuse me, the treasury department, payable in gold or dollars to create some standard as just a test, and a lot of folks are talking about some form of standard -- some way to create some boundaries f our monetary policy. have you given any thought to the idea of a gold standard or ways like that, issuing bonds payable in gold that would begin to create some standard for our currency? >> first, i would just say that federal reserve is not debasing the currency, that the dollar's value is roughly the same as it was before the crisis, in foreign exchange markets, that inflation is low and that

>> there's no doubt there is an extraordinary amount of monetizing team information. as you know, door bader i believe is a very responsible 15-year-old and i know from my children they spend a lot of time on-line, and so one of the recommendations in our report discusses sort of the need for a kind of enhanced consensus for children. but of course one of the other issues with teams is sort of often the act compulsively and put things online they never expect will remain. when a privacy policy of a social network switches from something that protect privacy to something that has less privacy protections, sometimes kids don't realize or teams don't realize a lot of information they thought was private will be put on line so it's a very important issue for us coming and we are studying it. >> okay. thank you to read anything you would like to add, administrator? >> nope. >> as we talk about privacy, i wonder, chairman leibowitz, if the ftc looked into the issue of privacy notifications on smart phones as you can imagine those are smaller letters and harder to read it to

. >> the quantitative easin monetizing of debt or however we term that, has caused some concern about our currency, long-term value of our currency, and it's caused a lot of us to look at ways to create a more substantial or more soundness and stability to our monetary policy. in 1981, former chairman greenspan wrote in "wall street journal" about an idea of using five-year notes payable in gold that the federal reserve would issue or excuse me, the treasy department, payable in gold or dollars to create some standard as just a test, and a lot of folks are talking about some form of standard -- some way to create some boundaries for our monetary policy. have you given any thought to the idea of a gold standard or ways like that, issuing bonds payable in gold that would begin to create some standard for our currency? >> first, i would just say that federal reserve is t debasing the currency, that the doll's value is roughly the same as it was before the crisis, in foreign exchange markets, that inflation is low and that's the buying power of the dollar. i think those concerns are somew

to say the effect of the fed's purchase of treasury securities on federal budget is similar to monetization, whether the fed buys securities on the secondary market or directly from treasury. when the fed holds treasury securities, treasury must pay interest to the fed as it would to any private investor. these interest payments after expenses become part of the profits of the fed. the fed in turnremits 95% of the profits to the treasury, where it is added to the general revenues. it concludes in essence the fed has made an interest-free loan to the treasury because almost all of the interest paid by the treasury to the fed is subsequently sent back to the treasury. would you agree withhat? >> yes. we've remitted $125 billion to the treasury in the last two years. it's important to understand that what we're doing is not fial spending. it is in fact, you know, purchasing securities which we'll then sell back to the market. >> so because of section 14 of the act, maybe the simple way of saying it is others are lending money to the federal government, you are purchasing those loans, and then

finds just simply benefit the koch industries bottom line the koch industries company has basically monetize the very worst types of carbon emitting industries whether it's fertilizer oil refinery. tar sands basically specialize in global warming and that's why the koch industries charitable funds you know almost three dozen different climate organizations so it's two things there's incredible you go there and you can see that in the piece they're bragging about how brilliant they are and the weekly standard person's lavishing praise on them on the other hand they want to make more money into the r. o. i their return on investment is incredible if you just think about the koch brothers made an additional eleven billion dollars in the last two years and let's imagine that it's all income and they make it again in the next two years that means billions yeah the thousand million that means. that effort with the bush tax cuts for the upper two percent they're sending five hundred million dollars right there and that's that's just one small part of us robert. two to what extent are your films. fo

and then we are not monetizing the debt because we will be returning our balance sheet to a more normal level ultimately. i think what is all comes down to, and this is the point we have made in the discussion several times already is that what the markets are looking at is the long-term fiscal discipline of the u.s. government and whether or not interest rates will spike or whether they will remain reasonable depends far more on congress' decisions about long-term fiscal planning than anything the fed is going to do. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator hagan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm honored to be on this committee. thank you so much. chairman bernanke, in your last monetary policy report to congress, you touched on housing finance. when you noted that on balance inrest rates on fixed rate mortgages decreased over the first half of 2010. but you also acknowledged that despite the further fallin mortgage rates, the availability of mortgageinance continued to be constrained. and i hear time and time again from constituents throughout my state in north carolina that they're havi

>> a lot of people are thinking that charlie sheen has a huge opportunity to monetize his whole crazyeck life on line. he's got the tools at his disposal. he's all ready proven that he's a gigantic twitter and facebook monster. >> reporter: companies hoping to cash in are boarding the train wreck, too. sheen's tweet about needing an intern links directly to this ad from internships.com which paid sheen an undisclosed amount for the placement and got more than 300,000 clicks in return. that deal was brokered by a company called adly whose c.e.o. was in an advertising conference in austin today. adly pays up to $10,000 per tweet to celebrities who hawk products. >> these are celebrities who have huge scale and huge influence with consumers and social media. that's why brands are lining up to be part of it. >> reporter: even wholesome companies are borrowing his catch phrases "winning" and "tiger blood." mcdonald's tweeted about mcwinning. target tweeted "tiger blood is not yet for sale at their stores and even the venerable red cross tweeted "we may not collect tiger blood but our donor

it still is tough companies like twitter have all of this information they can figure out how to monetize even facebook despite its evaluation still has fairly small revenues but the fact book investors are valuing these companies at such high levels indicates that there's the opinion that over the next few years we're going to figure out a way to better connect buyers and sellers use information people get more comfortable with that gradually you know there's still sort of it factor i think that's going away over time it's a good thing overall for consumers i think everybody if you compare let's say the u.s. and the u.k. and the u.k. they have certain laws on the books right but if you tell a business that you don't want them giving your personal information to marketers then well it's a law they have to comply whereas we don't have that so perhaps our government regulators not doing enough to help out you know the average internet user people like you and i you know to keep our information private if we want it to be that way actually the problem with the u.k. model here in the us we ha

>> there's no doubt there is an extraordinary amount of monetizing team information.as you know, door bader i believe is a very responsible 15-year-old and i know from my children they spend a lot of time on-line, and so one of the recommendations in our report discusses sort of the need for a kind of enhanced consensus for children. but of course one of the other issues with teams is sort of often the act compulsively and put things online they never expect will remain. when a privacy policy of a social network switches from something that protect privacy to something that has less privacy protections, sometimes kids don't realize or teams don't realize a lot of information they thought was private will be put on line so it's a very important issue for us coming and we are studying it. >> okay. thank you to read anything you would like to add, administrator? >> nope. >> as we talk about privacy, i wonder, chairman leibowitz, if the ftc looked into the issue of privacy notifications on smart phones as you can imagine those are smaller letters and harder to read it to

is monetizing debt. he believes the dollar will follow -- will fall roughly 20%. regardless of the reality of your actions, if the perception causes the dollar to no longer be the world's reserve currency, what are the implications of it? >> first, i do not see any evidence that that is happening let's be clear about that. if the dollar was no longer the reserve currency, it would probably mean that we would have to pay higher interest rates to finance the federal debt. that would be a negative, obviously. on the other hand, we might not suffer some of the capital inflows that contributed to the boom and bust in the recent crisis. again, there was also a countervailing argument in the journal this morning as well. i just do not see at this point that there is a major shift away from the dollar. i would also add, on the commodities prices come first, the fears of some foreign governments that but we were reducing the value of the dollar, it is not true. the dollar has not moved much at all. and the commodities have moved just as much and other currencies as in the

is monetizing debt. he believes the dollar will follow -- will fall roughly 20%. regardless of the reality of your actions, if the perception causes the dollar to no longer be the world's reserve currency, what are the implications of it? >> first, i do not see any evidence that that is happening. let's be clear about that. if the dollar was no longer the reserve currency, it would probably mean that we would have to pay higher interest rates to finance the federal debt. that would be a negative, obviously. on the other hand, we might not suffer some of the capital inflows that contributed to the boom and bust in the recent crisis. again, there was also a countervailing argument in the journal this morning as well. i just do not see at this point that there is a major shift away from the dollar. i would also add, on the commodities prices come first, the fears of some foreign governments that but we were reducing the value of the dollar, it is not true. the dollar has not moved much at all. and the commodities have moved just as much and other currencies as in the

we take the knowledge we have in the think tank that monetize it. then you can speak the truth.ou are wealthy and you can be honest and i would never go back to a think tank that was part of the bavaria do you live in? >> i live in rosenberg which is in northwest bavaria. i am gone about half the time. i have about 20 people working with me directly and indirectly. you can manage quality with that low number. i don't have to check the footnotes. that is what i rely on. >> are you married? >> i am about to be. i will be married to a pretty german girl, hello eva. that is the reason i welcome back is because i love them what languages do you speak? >> i can understand french a little bit and english and german. >> what do europeans assume about americans? >> we don't care what is going on in the rest of the world, we are still involved, for good and bad reasons. they think we are woefully ignorant about the way the world works them is that true? >> yes, but so are that. ey. the germans are very isolationist. you can ask about china but they don't care. >> are they angry about us?

the air force and the navy knew full well they were creating a crisis in their force structure monetization program in the late '90s, that they had no plan to modernize all the a-10s and f-16s and a lot of the f-18s in the navy force structure. so basically what they did is they frontloaded these programs, started the political engineering thing, got the whole thing, the whole system pregnant, and then in comes the clinton administration and deliberate and say we've got this pickle in the out years let's start a new program. f-35 jobs and. so whole thing was like an extortion strategy and was done in the case of f-22 and f. 18 we have a thoroughly documented the documents on the web. it was done with malice of forethought, period. >> on that note i want -- [laughter] -- i would open up to the people in the audit. i remember because this is being recorded if you could speak loudly so people can all here. i'm not sure if it works or not but go ahead. >> do you know how much more weapons systems cost because they politically engineered the way that i built? how much more does it inflate the co

you take the knowledge of a think tank and monetize it. you can be both wealthier and more honest. brian: you live in behave aria. what part? >> i live in the north. i have to be near an airport because approximate i'm gone about half the time. the good thing about the low number is i can manage quality. i don't have to question them, check the footnotes and make sure the english makes sen. that's what i rely on. brian: are you married? >> i'm about to be to a very pretty german girl. hello, air ofa. i'm madly in love and that's another reason i probably won't come back. brian: what languages do you speak? >> i speak very is poof -- poor french. many and english and i can get by in german. brian: got to ask you about that comment about what europeans assume about americans. what else do they assume about us? we don't care about what's going on in the rest of the world, we're self-involved, for good and bad reasons. they would accept that we're the greatest power in the world but we're woefully ignorant of how the world really works. brian: is that true? >> yeah. but it's true of th

so what we do is take the knowledge we had in a think tank and monetize it. you can be both wealthier and more honest. frankly, i would never go back to a think tank. brian: you live in bavaria. what part? >> i live in the north. i have to be near an airport because i'm gone about half the time. i have working with me directly and indirectly about 20 people around the world who are all think tank friends. the good thing about the low number is i can manage quality. i don't have to question them, check the footnotes and make sure the english makes sense. that's what i rely on. these years of being in washington, and really deciding who is good. brian: are you married? >> i'm about to be, to a very pretty german girl. hello, ava. i'm madly in love and that's another reason i probably won't come back. brian: what languages do you speak? >> i speak very poor >> i speak very poor french. but i can write in it and i can understand it. it is important for europeans that americans speak a language. they assume none of us speak any. latin and english and i can get by

in effect, the bailout of fannie mae and freddie mac prevented tarp recipients to monetize what they would have received and use the proceeds to pay that which was outstanding. costs such as this should be thoughtfully considered when evaluated need tarp. -- when evaluating the tarp. it is also clear that the success or failure of the tarp remains an open question. neither a favorable adjustment to the cbo subsidy rate nor the repayment of the top funds by some recipients tells the entire story. it is critical to note that all of the tarp play a meaningful role in the u.s. economy. its enduring legacy may have been to codify the implicit guarantee of the too-big-to- fail. the tar, in essence, reinforced the bubble bailout cycle as the government's preferred business cycle. along these lines, "the government's actions in rescuing a ig continues to have a poisonous effect on the marketplace by providing a complete rescue that called for no shared sacrifice among aig's creditors. the federal reserve and treasury fundamentally changed the relationship between the government and the count

it always leads to a disaster, but monetizing the debt is a way that many governments have chosen to deal with excessive spending. i'm very worried right now about the policy of the fed, the qe-2 is a policy by which they are currently monetizing more than half of all of the deficit that we're running this year. i think that's a very, very dangerous policy. combined -- the combination of this fiscal imbalance and this fiscally imprudent policy together with this very, very accommodative monetary policy, i think it is a very dangerous mix. what we can do in the shortrun and what we ought to be doing right now is addressing the spending problem that's at the heart of all of this, that's really driving this. and in my view, that starts with the continuing resolution that will fund the government for the remainder of this year. we just passed one that will fund this government for the next three weeks. i wish this had bhn for the remainder of this year. but we've got no time to waste now. we've the g.a.o. to ghet resolved and move on to a budget that brings us our spending and our revenu

recipients to monetize their gse guaranteed prices above what they would have received without the guarantees and used the proceeds to pay their obligations outstanding and under t.a.r.p.. there by arguably shifting a greater portion of the t.a.r.p. from the recipients themselves, to the taxpayers. costs such as this should be thoroughly considered when evaluating the t.a.r.p. after reflecting upon the analysis conducted by the panel, its individual members and panel staff over the past two years, it is all but clear that the success or failure of the t.a.r.p. remains an open question, and that neither a favorable adjustment to the subsidy rate, nor repayment of the t.a.r.p. funds buy some recipients tells the entire story. it is critical to note although t.a.r.p. played a need for role in the rescue of the u.s. economy, during the closing days of 2008, its enduring legacy may have been to codify the guarantees of the too big to fail, notwithstanding the moral hazard risk arising from such action. the t.a.r.p. reinforced the bailout cycle, as the government's preferred business model. along t

is monetizing its debt, he believes that the dollar will fall roughly 20% and that our u.s. living standards will be reduced by 1.5% of g.d.p. so the real question, regardless of the retail of your actions, if the perception causes the dollar to no longer be the world's reserve currency, what are the implications of it? >> first, i don't see any evidence that that's happening. let's be clear about that. the dollar was no longer reserve currency, they would on the margin probably mean we had to pay higher interest rates to finance the federal debt and that would be a negative, obviously. on the other hand, we might not suffer some of the capital inflows that contributed to the boom and bust in the recent crisis. but again, i know there was also a countervailing argument in the journal this morning as well and i just don't see at this point that there is a major shift from the dollar. i would add also on the commodity prices that first, that the fears of some foreign governments that we were, quote, manipulating the currency, meaning we reduce the value of the dollar, have not

is monetizing debt. he believes the dollar will follow -- wi fall roughly 20%. regardless of the reality of your actions, if the perception causes the dollar to no longer be the world's reserve currency, what are the implications of it? >> first, i do not see any evidence that that is happening. let's be clear about that. if the dollar was no longer the reserve currency, it would probably mean that we would have to pay higher interest rates to finance the federal debt. that would be a negative, obviously. on the other hand, we might not suffer some of the capital inflows that contributed to the boom and bust in the recent crisis. again, there was also a countervailing argument in the journal this morning as well. i just do not see at this point that there is a major shift away from the dollar. i would also add, on the commodities prices come first, the fears of some foreign governments that but we were reducing the value of the dollar, it is not true. the dollar has not moved much at all. and the commodities have moved just as much and other currencies as in the

we think it should go further, but nobody has talked about monetizing that.if you put some limits on tracking or have a privacy protections, as the commerce department in vision and we support -- i am supportive of -- you don't necessarily need to -- the sky will fall down on internet commerce. if consumers have more trust in the internet, they will do more business on the internet, to. >> do you think there is a vision of where we draw the line? we would never dream of telling slim-fast they cannot advertise on "oprah." behaviorial marketing. a lot of women watch that show and their marketing is mostly to women. how do we draw the line between what kind of a behavioral marketing is fair and what kind invade privacy? >> you raised an important point, and i don't know if you were here when senator isakson was speaking. he used to run a company, and he pointed out that there's a difference between advertising and internet -- from the corrugated, enormous amounts of information -- aggregated, and on amounts of information. it is different, as you know, from adve

intend to track carefully our performance as we move toward implementation of the food safety monetization act. we recognize there are a number of key areas where we have to make significant progress moving forward. we need to put in place preventive risk based approach is working with industry and farmers and producers -- risk- based approaches working with industry and farmers and producers. we need to continue to expand our production. it takes a number of years before an expected is trained and able to go out into the field and performed at full capacity. some of the impact of dollars today will not be seen for a few years down the road. we will be strengthened in our employ safety activity to make sure that we expand our inspections overseas and work with industries to ensure that boots are being manufactured according to our standards -- foods are being manufactured according to our standards. that is an important part of the act that we have not had a chance to talk about yet. we will be working with states and localities in terms of helping them stand in their capacities and the co

is the purpose to help the administration out of its physical problems by monetizing federal debt? is the purpose to inflate our way out of our housing problems, or is it something else? additionally, the fed has not yet clearly articulated the basis on which qe-2 should be judged. for example, if inflation rises to 3%, is qe-2 still deemed a success? if unemployment stays above 8%, is qe-2 a success? if the inflation falls to near zero, is qe-2 a success? these basic questions cannot be answered without clearer guidance from the federal reserve. today, mr. chairman, i hope that you explainhow the fed will determine if qe-2 is working and how the fed bieves qe-2 should be evaluated. i hope to hear what indicators the fed will use to determine if the qe-2 needs to be scaled back or expanded. make no mistake, we all know the fed has hadto respond to the worst economy in a generation. unemployment stands at 9:00%. home prices continue to decline, and the federal deficit exceeds $1.3 trillion. monetary policy is always a difficult task, but our fragile economy and perilous fiscal decis

recipients to monetize their gse guaranteed prices above what they would have received without the guarantees and used the proceeds to pay their obligations outstanding and under t.a.r.p.. there by arguably shifting a greater portion of the t.a.r.p. from the recipients themselves, to the taxpayers. costs such as this should be thoroughly considered when evaluating the t.a.r.p. after reflecting upon the analysis conducted by the panel, its individual members and panel staff over the past two years, it is all but clear that the success or failure of the t.a.r.p. remains an open question, and that neither a favorable adjustment to the subsidy rate, nor repayment of the t.a.r.p. funds buy some recipients tells the entire story. it is critical to note although t.a.r.p. played a need for role in the rescue of the u.s. economy, during the closing days of 2008, its enduring legacy may have been to codify the guarantees of the too big to fail, notwithstanding the moral hazard risk arising from such action. the t.a.r.p. reinforced the bailout cycle, as the government's preferred business model. along t

recipients to monetize their gse guaranteed prices above what ey would have received without the guaranteessed the proceeds to pay eir obligatis outstanding and under t.a.r.p.. there by arguably shifting a greater portion of the t.a.r.p. from the recipients themselve, to the taxpayers. costs such as this should be thoroughly considered when evaluating the t.a.r.p. after reflecting upon the analysis conducted by the panel, its individual members and nel staff over the past two years, it is all but clear that the success or failure of the t.a.r.p.emains an open question, and that neither a favorable adjustment to the subsidy rate, nor repayment of the t.a.r.p. funds buy some recipients tells the entire story. it is critical to note although t.a.r.p. played a need for role in the rescue of the u.s. economy, during the closing days of 2008, its enduring legacy may have been to codify the guarantees of the too big to fail, notwithstanding the moral hazard risk arising from such action. the t.a.r.p. reinforced the bailout cycle, as the government's preferred business model. along these lines, the

and there were pictures on the wall just tacked up, but the pictures were like monet, just priceless but also how salty and down to earth and unpretentious at the same time. she was a really fascinating character to me. >> one thing she also proved to be was a true friend to so many people. even at times in the michael jackson story, when michael jackson couldn't seem to -- didn't seem to have a friend left, she stood by his side. and at last time she was really publicly seen was at her funeral. what does that say about the kind of person that she was? >> she never cared what people thought of her. so regardless of what people would think, she would go out on a limb for her friends. she went out on a limb for michael jackson. she understood michael jackson. he was a child star who -- >> so was she. >> -- had been driven. she was a child star who had been probably terrorized by these studio executives back in the '40s. she really understood him. she also was very loyal to people like rock hudson. and that was probably one of the main reasons she came out as an activist, fighting the g

recipients to monetize their gse guaranteed prices above what they would have received without the guarantees and used the proceeds to pay their obligations outstanding and under t.a.r.p.. there by arguably shifting a greater portion of the t.a.r.p. from the recipients themselves, to the taxpayers. costs such as this should be thoroughly considered when evaluating the t.a.r.p. after reflecting upon the analysis conducted by the panel, its individual members and panel staff over the past two years, it is all but clear that the success or failure of the t.a.r.p. remains an open question, and that neither a favorable adjustment to the subsidy rate, nor repayment of the t.a.r.p. funds buy some recipients tells the entire story. it is critical to note although t.a.r.p. played a need for role in the rescue of the u.s. economy, during the closing days of 2008, its enduring legacy may have been to codify the guarantees of the too big to fail, notwithstanding the moral hazard risk arising from such action. the t.a.r.p. reinforced the bailout cycle, as the government's preferred business model. along t

intend to track carefully our performance as we move toward implementation of the food safety monetization act. we recognize there are a number of key areas where we have to make significant progress moving forward. we need to put in place preventive risk based approach is working with industry and farmers and producers -- risk- based approaches working with industry and farmers and producers. we need to continue to expand our production. it takes a number of years before an expected is trained and able to go out into the field and performed at full capacity. some of the impact of dollars today will not be seen for a few years down the road. we will be strengthened in our employ safety activity to make sure that we expand our inspections overseas and work with industries to ensure that boots are being manufactured according to our standards -- foods are being manufactured according to our standards. that is an important part of the act that we have not had a chance to talk about yet. we will be working with states and localities in terms of helping them stand in their capacities and the co

is the purpose to help the administration out of its physical problems by monetizing federal debt? is the purpose to inflate our way out of our housing problems, or is it something else? additionally, the fed has not yet clearly articulated the basis on which qe-2 should be judged. for example, if inflation rises to 3%, is qe-2 still deemed a success? if unemployment stays above 8%, is qe-2 a success? if the inflation falls to near zero, is qe-2 a success? these basic questions cannot be answered witho clearer guidance from the federal reserve. today, mr. chairman, i hope that you explain how the fed will determine if qe-2 is working and how the fed believes qe-2 should be evaluated. i hope to hear what indicators the fed will use to determine if the qe-2 needs to be scaled back or expanded. make no mistake, we all know the fed has had to respond to the worst economy in a generation. unemployment stands at 9:00%. home prices continue to decline, and the federal deficit exceeds .3 trillion. monetary policy is always a difficult tas but our fragile economy and perilous fiscal decisio