Does Existence of the Federal Reserve Contradict Free Market?

1. 0

   rakubaposted 14 years ago

   Does Existence of the Federal Reserve Contradict Free Market?

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That's a foolish question. The Federal Reserve is the key mechanism for controlling inflation and avoiding deep recessions. It's hard to imagine how our banking system and economy could function without it. As we discuss it, the FED is taking strong measures (buying government bonds) to avoid deflation and depression. No serious, informed individuals in either the GOP or Democratic party supports doing away with the Federal Reserve.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         LOL! Look how good it's worked! Yet you liberals still think government is the answer! LOL

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I bet you can't name an economics professor or contemporary economist who doesn't agree that the Federal Reserve is an essential part of our free market capitalistic system. Did you ever take an economics course? If so did you pass? I doubt it.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Like an economics professor knows better than I do how to balance a check book? The whole federal reserve system is corrupt even those on the left think so! Now under Obama's "financial reform" bill they have even more autonomous power unanswerable to anyone!
               
               http://dailyreckoning.com/economists-ag … s-payroll/
               
               http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj5n3/cj5n3-7.pdf

               replyreport
            2. 59

               qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Ralph:
               Pls read this.
               I respect Ron Paul. I don't know what your feelings are about him and his aspirations.
               This is written by him about the Fed Reserve.
               He's just skimming the danger it represents.
               
               http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul380.html

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Ron Paul is a libertarian whose views I respect as sincere and some of which I actually agree with, i.e., his criticism of Republican and Democrat use of the military as an instrument of foreign policy. I also agree with his dislike of government intrusion on citizens personal lives. However, he is not an economist, and his views of the Federal Reserve and our money, currency and banking system are not among those with which I agree.

                  replyreport
   2. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Au contraire, the FED helps facilitate and preserve the free market.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         dutchman1951posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I believe Ralph is correct here, it helps facilitate the markets.
         
         Rules that govern the banking system dictate that banks cannot loan out all their money but have to keep a required amount in reserve. That money does not earn interest, but banks that find themselves with an excess of reserves can loan that money to banks that are short on reserves. The amount one bank charges to another for those loans is called the federal funds rate. When the Fed met on March 20 and cut its target for a key interest rate by half a percentage point to 5 percent, it was the federal funds rate that they were cutting.
         
         So then why should some technical transaction between banks affect average Americans? Because the target that the Fed sets--in particular whether they have raised or lowered interest rates--is the rate on which most other rates of credit are based.
         
         When the Fed acts, banks immediately adjust their prime lending rate, which affects mortgage rates, credit card rates, car loan rates, etc.

         replyreport
   3. 60

      Peter-Jan Celisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Yes. The FED is monetary communism.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         ???

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Peter-Jan Celisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            When a small committee of "experts" get to decide the "production" levels of a good (in this case money), this is called communism.
            
            Free market would be competing currencies issued by private organisations.

            replyreport
2. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 14 years ago

   yes. of course. How could it not?Wouldn't you like to counterfeit your own money? Why can't you?
   
   Obviously because you'd be thrown in Jail...Yet the fed can do it because the congress allows them.That ain't a free market.
   
   For more info, check out my Evan's Easy Economics hub series.

   replyreport
3. 78

   Mr. Happyposted 14 years ago

   Americans will enjoy financial slavery as long as the Federal Reserve Bank exists. This to me is really crazy: to allow a bunch of private bankers to control the monetary system of a country ... I honestly don;t know how Americans are not rioting in the streets over this. Enjoy your financial slavery!

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The Board of Governors of the FED are appointed by the president and paid by the federal government. They aren't "private bankers." Where did you get that misinformation? Why don't you take a couple of minutes and read up on it here:
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Druid Dudeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The ultimate goal, I believe, of the "free traders" or WTO, is to control every aspect of world trade. Once in control, there will be no more FED, because, one of their aims is to create a one world currency.

         replyreport
      2. 78

         Mr. Happyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Mr. Ralph, I thought you'd be a little more open-minded to say the least considering you seem to be aged enough to know the crooked way the Federal reserve Act came to being. It was all a scheme to get bankers to control the currency. What there is now is fiat money ... garbage, useless paper, really as you will see with the increase of inflation in the United States.
           The deviation from the gold-standard was done so bankers can play around with numbers like little kids in kindergarden; just throw them around whichever way you like. Look at Greenspan, all he could say after the economic colapse was that he never thought ... blablabla. I wish someone feeds him to piranhas.
           You say that we need the Federal Reserve Bank? What, the world began in 1913? Wow ... ya you need the Federal Reserve Bank to issue currency at interest. Every dollar comes at interest, leaving the country in more and more debt as inflation rises because it is printing money. You are getting screwed royaly and you seem to be loving it so good for you.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Yours is a highly unorthodox view held by a small minority of uninformed people. I repeat, can you name one contemporary economist or banker who agrees with your views of the FED? (Glenn Beck doesn't qualify on either count!) As you may know the argument over the need for a central bank was settled between Hamilton and Jefferson. Hamilton won the argument.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               HSchneiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I agree that the argument has been won over the the need for a central banking system. It is true that Hamilton defeated Jefferson over this during the Washington Presidency. But Jackson struck down the second national bank effectively killing the system until the Fed was created in 1913. It was created because of the constant financial panics one of which occurred during the Van Buren administration directly after Jackson. Before the Fed, the country relied on powerful bankers such as JP Morgan to save the country from financial ruin. I don't think that kind of situation which plaqued us for over 70 years would be advantageous to us over the present system.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Mr. Happyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  The argument has not been won. Balls! If it was won I would not be arguing here. The Federal Reserve Bank does nothing except put people in debt. Watch the first 4 minutes of the documentary-link I will post here.
                  
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9Os3B6aAuQ

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Pure conspiracy crapola!

                     replyreport
            2. 78

               Mr. Happyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Sure my view is unorthodox Mr. Ralph. I am not religioulous in any way. I never liked the herd much, it smells bad and it's too crowded. Look where the herd got you Mr. Ralph and you might rethink your orthodox views.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Mr. Happyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  replyreport
            3. 0

               rakubaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               As far as I know, F. A. Hayek, L.v. Mises and some other austrians were kind of against  Fed in part of its monopoly over issuing money. M.Friedman supported fed, however he thought that fed should increase money at a constant rate, which everyone knows. That would add more predictability and stability. However, no one  exactly knows, what "independent" fed is going to do.
               Who knows better please correct me if I am wrong.
               
               No one disputes, that there should be an authority that controls banking system and sets its standards. However, manipulating with interest rates and money, as they wish is not what free market is all about. Manipulating is exactly what fed does.
               
               All this manipulations of Fed lead to boom and bust, inflation, bubbles, crisises. Of course, they dont tell you that they are responsible for this. You only know that they are heroes in fighting inflation, recessions, which were created by Fed.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  There were plenty of booms and busts long before the advent of the FED, and as we have seen in 2008, there are no guarantees even with the FED. The banksters seem to be able to find new ways of screwing things up. The FED is far from perfect. Under Greenspan it suffered from an ideology of of over-reliance in un-regulated markets.
                  
                  Hayek and Mises contributed to the now widely accepted belief in the superiority of markets over socialist, centrally controlled economies. They are among the fathers of our current libertarians. I don't know what their position was on the need for a central bank. Two of their followers, Milton Friedman and FED chairman Alan Greenspan didn't advocate doing away with the FED. Friedman was an advocate of the use of monetary policy to deal with economic disruptions rather than Keynsian fiscal policy. Now mainstream economists agree with Mises and Hayek's views on the superiority of capitalism over socialism, but most stop short of their libertarianism, and they support the need for controlling the money supply and interest rates by the FED or some other central banking mechanism.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     rakubaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     My personal feeling is what happened in 2008 was carefully planned in 1990s and it is so blind no to see the role of Fed in it.
                     Its "independency" matches very well plans of government.  What a coincindence to have socialist president just when it is right time for that.

                     replyreport
4. 71

   tritrainposted 14 years ago

   I think the term "free market" is an oxymoron.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Well, even Adam Smith recognized the tendency of businessmen to conspire to rig prices.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Yet none of you on the left have a problem with a government monopoly?

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            What government "monopoly" are you talking about? The Federal Reserve is necessary to control the currency, money supply and banking system. Our economy couldn't operate without it or some similar system which all industrial countries have. The presumption is that the FED operates in the public interest which is not the case with every private business.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               "What government "monopoly"
               
               How about the postal service Ralph?
               
               Have you ever received a letter from anyone other than the postal service, Hmmmmmmmmm?

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Are you suggesting that the U.S. Postal Service be done away with?
                  Yes, I have received a number of packages and letters through FEDEX, not to mention emails. The U.S. Postal Service is hardly a monopoly these days. That's one of the reasons it's in financial difficulty.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Absolutely.
                     
                     It loses money every year.
                     
                     It is not necessary.

                     replyreport
                     1. 69

                        Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        You're entitled to your minority opinion.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           I appreciate that but I was entitled to it before you magnanimously gave me your blessing.
                           
                           You hate that don't you?

                           replyreport
                        2. 73

                           Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Minority of opinion doesn't mean, or even indicate, wrong.
                           
                           The USPS loses money because it doesn't charge market rates. It doesn't charge market rates so that anyone (who can scrape together the negligible price of a first-class stamp) can send a letter to any other person in the United States, and (if they can scrape together the almost-as-negligible price of an air-mail stamp) anywhere in the world.
                           
                           It's a public good, as I see it, to allow the poorest of citizens to communicate cheaply with their representatives in Congrefs.
                           
                           On an economic level, though, I bet many corporations would balk at mothballing the USPS. How would they send bills and junk mail to their customers?
                           
                           I think perhaps if the USPS would just up their bulk rates, they might be able to make ends meet a little better.

                           replyreport
                           1. 69

                              Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              "Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Minority of opinion doesn't mean, or even indicate, wrong."
                              
                              True, but an unsupported opinion or assertion expressing a tiny minority libertarian or Tea Party view doesn't deserve much credence compared to what is a standard economist/banker view of the need for a central banking institution. I concede that the FED's job is not easy and the results of its policies are not always happy, but they are much preferable to what would happen without the FED.
                              
                              I completely agree that minority views may be more correct than those of the establishment majority. I marched with a no war sign in protest of Bush's Iraq policy in the February before his foolish invasion of Iraq (which was supported by the NYTimes, Hillary Clinton and practically the entire foreign policy establishment). Phil Donohue was fired by NBC for questioning the Bush preemptive strike foreign policy. Turns out Phil and I were correct and the majority was wrong.

                              replyreport
               2. 59

                  Druid Dudeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Letters? Does anyone send letters anymore? The USPS is a dying animal. Let them R.I.P.

                  replyreport
            2. 0

               andycoolposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Why don't you understand Ralph Deeds that they're just FED up with your FED, not that they're against the existence of a central bank.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Only fed up with "My FED?" It's not my FED. And many of the Teatards are proposing to do away with the FED. And several GOP senators and congressmen are proposing that the FED be audited at the behest of Congress which in my opinion is a very poor idea. There are good reasons why the independence of the FED from political influence is desirable.

                  replyreport
                  1. 73

                     Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Wait a sec, Ralph--I think that any person or group of persons who act on behalf of the government, or under the pay of the government, ought to be subject to public scrutiny while acting in their official capacity. Why would it be bad to have someone audit the Fed?
                     
                     Serious question, not baiting, and not sure whether I agree or disagree with you yet. I want to hear your reasoning first.

                     replyreport
                     1. 69

                        Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        The prevailing conventional wisdom which I learned in my money, currency and banking class 50-some years ago and which both parties have endorsed many times since then, as has the current FED chairman Bernanke, is that the FED should be free from expedient political influence from the president or the congress, remaining free to make unpopular decisions (e.g., increasing the interest rate to control inflation which results in increased unemployment). FED chairmen are appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate for 5-year terms, and they have remained relatively free from election year politics when an incumbent president might be inclined to urge the FED to ease up on interest rates to help him be re-elected when objective economic analysis might call for higher, not lower, interest rates. On this theory putting the FED at the mercy, for example, of the House appropriations committee or the government oversight committee wouldn't be a wise thing to do. The recent proposals were not for merely auditing the books. The fear is that the FED would be subject to bullying by Congressional Republicans or Dems whichever is in the driver's seat.
                        
                        Here's what Wikipedia said about auditing the FED:
                        
                        "Accountability
                        
                        "The Federal Reserve System and the individual banks undergo regular audits by the GAO and an outside auditor. GAO audits are limited by law, however, and do not include dealings with foreign governments and other central banks.[140] Various statutory changes, including the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, have been proposed to broaden the scope of the audits. Bloomberg L.P. News brought a lawsuit against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to force the Board to reveal the identities of firms for which it has provided guarantees.[141] Bloomberg, L.P. won at the trial court level,[142] and as of early September 2010 the case is on appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[143]"
                        
                        As is the case with the independence of the Supreme Court whose justices are appointed for life, the theory is that the FED needs independence in order to do its intended job.

                        replyreport
                     2. 69

                        Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Here are a couple of links to articles explaining why it's important for the FED's decisions not be subject to approval by the President or the Congress:
                        
                        http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/11/federa … ooley.html
                        
                        http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-new … dence/151/
                        
                        http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevent … 90709a.htm
                        
                        http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo … enc_1.html
                        
                        http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/ … 080207.cfm

                        replyreport
5. 60

   berrtusposted 14 years ago

   The Department of Management and the Economy was in the former Soviet Union.  If was comprised of guess who economists.  Of course their management of the economy was a complete failure.  The free market is a natural system and economists cannot 'manage' it.  Even if they could they are always corrupt and mismanage it for that reason.  The Fed is just another complex scheme by the elites to steal money and they do into the trillions.  Printing money is the equivalent of taxing the ownership of money.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The FED doesn't manage the economy. It manages the monetary and banking system and adopts policies designed to avoid inflation and depressions with mixed success. But with results much preferable to not doing anything.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         berrtusposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I did not say that they manage the economy but yes they are a part of a broader scheme to do just that as you so eloquently explain and seem to favor.  Short term printing money may provide stimulus.  Long term what they do is counter productive.  The free markets operate more efficiently when not managed.  Those who try to manage the markets end up corruptly abusing their authority as the Fed currently does.

         replyreport
      2. 58

         lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Whic is it Ralph? This is what you said earlier:
         
         
         
         Obviously if their job is to avoid deep recessions they failed mierably! Now why would Obama give them even more unregulated power over the economy?

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan failed to do his job. He's a libertarian follower of Ayn Rand with an overblown faith in unregulated free markets. He was a poor choice to head the Federal Reserve. He has since acknowledged his error in allowing the housing bubble to go on for so long until it burst.
            
            I'm not aware of any Obama change to the Federal Reserve. Wouldn 't that have to be done by Congress? What are you referring to? What's your solution? Cutting the budget and reducing taxes on the rich?

            replyreport
            1. 58

               lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this

               His Financial Reform Bill gives greater authority and power to the Fed.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm not familiar with those details. The FED may well need additional powers to prevent the mortgage abuses of the Wall Street banksters who put us in the current hole where we find ourselves.

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     LOL! You're all over the map Ralph! First it was Greenspan and the Fed that caused the housing bubble now it's the fat cats on Wall Street and only the Fed can save us! LOL!

                     replyreport
                     1. 69

                        Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        There were multiple causes of the meltdown, including Clinton and his Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, who supported repealing the Glass-Steagall Act. Dealing with complexity isn't your strong suit, Luv.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           berrtusposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           Actually I think Lady_Love158 deals just fine with complexity.  How else could she so gracefully and directly get to the center of the twisted knots of your muddled reasoning. 
                           
                           The big picture is that the financial meltdown was a symptom of a bigger problem.  The gradual socialization of the American economic system.  Seen from that light what we have experienced is precisely the same as what other economies experience when they go down the road of socialism.  There is an unknown principle I believe called the invisible hand that says free markets work efficiently.  More efficiently than corrupt government bureaucrats who couldn't improve things even if they were the idealized Utopian social engineers that they are supposed to be.  The Fed is just another trick or scheme on the part of the elites to control and get money.
                           
                           I was sad to see Greenspan capitulate to the left on this.  I think he was worried about his legacy and they were out to destroy him.  But he did capitulate and it was sad.

                           replyreport
                           1. 69

                              Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              Greenspan admitted that he screwed up, and that his faith in the market to regulate itself was misplaced. So did Judge Richard Posner, conservative stalwart from the University of Chicago.
                              
                              The cause of the bubble and the deep recession after it burst was a failure to regulate and prevent corruption and excessive risk in the mortgage market, not over-regulation.
                              
                              From the titles of your Hubs you appear to be a poorly informed right wing ideologue. Discussing anything with you is a waste of my time. Bye, bye.

                              replyreport
               2. 0

                  EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Had to do a bit of digging to find this but yes, you're right.  It does.
                  
                  "Improvements in the supervisory framework will lead to better outcomes only if day-to-day supervision is well executed, with risks identified early and promptly remediated. To facilitate swifter, more-effective supervisory responses, we have increased the degree of centralization of the oversight and control of our supervisory function, with shared accountability by senior Board and Reserve Bank supervisory staff and active oversight by the Board of Governors. Supervisory concerns will be communicated to firms promptly and at a high level, with more-frequent involvement of senior bank managers and boards of directors and senior Federal Reserve officials. Where necessary, we will increase the use of formal and informal enforcement actions to ensure prompt and effective remediation of serious issues."
                  
                  http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north883.html

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     That's right and it also creates a permanent slush fund to bail out and close banks all decided by the FED without any congressional or government oversight! And where does the money come from for the slush fund? From a tax on every financial transaction, which of course is passed on to the consumer and has resulted in higher bank fees! Thanks Obama!

                     replyreport
6. 64

   Astra Nomikposted 14 years ago

   This forum thread is so cool! Keep it going, folks.

   replyreport
7. 82

   HSchneiderposted 14 years ago

   The Federal Reserve is rightly independent. Politicians would direct it to operate in the ruling party's political interests. The Fed Chairman reports to Congress semi-anually and can subpoena the Chairman for testimony. He serves 5 year terms. He does not have to be re-appointed if he fails to do a good job. Otherwise the Fed needs its independence to maintain a stable currency and economy. This economy would have slipped into a depression without an independent Fed and Ben Bernanke. We complain so much about the president and Congress. Do we really want them directing the Fed? I don't think so.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Very true. The FED has had to fight periodically for its independence. Nixon bullied FED chairman Arthur Burns into allowing election politics to influence FED interest poilicy with disastrous results. Nixon was elected and inflation soared. It was curbed very painfully by Carter's FED chairman Paul Volcker who has been credited with restoring the FED's independence and respect.

      replyreport
8. 78

   Mr. Happyposted 14 years ago

   Ahmm, yes Congress should be in control of the monetary system not a bunch of crooks who do as they please.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That would be a disaster because it would introduce an inflationary bias into FED interest policy, as occurred under Richard Nixon.

      replyreport
9. 69

   Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago

   Here's an article from today's paper on Bernanke and current FED policies--
   
   http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/busin … f=business

   replyreport
10. 59

    qwarkposted 14 years ago

    I've gone thru this with a fine tooth comb.
    There ae facets of it I'm not sure of and will continue to question, but in the main, it is a historical accounting well worth reading,no...try studying it!
    
    http://www.scionofzion.com/federalreserve.htm

    replyreport
    1. 69

       Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Dr. Ken Matto, as far as I can tell has no credentials relevant to issues involving the FED. He appears to be some kind of Evangelical Christian. His views on banking, currency and the Federal reserve and those of Ron Paul are far outside the mainstream, which is where I'm coming from. The FED is here to stay. Suck it up!

       replyreport
       1. 59

          qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          No doubt about it Ralph, it is here to stay.
          What ya have to do is look at a subject from every angle, collect as much data from all sides as ya can, fit them together like a jigsaw puzzle and create a concept.
          It matters not, to me, if one is an expert in an area. I read everything available on a subject. Opinions and fact and develop a position upon which I can comfortably depend. If along the way, information becomes available, to consider, that might improve my concept, I'll make the change for what I consider to be the better.
          There is no way that either you or I can trust what is presented to us by the gov't or private citizens. We can only compare what we have gleaned from a system/world in trouble and amalgamate it into concepts upon which we can make life decisions.
          Where man and his greed is concerned, the guile is profound.
          The minority of humanity which literally controls the majority is always functioning in clandestine manner to gain and maintain power.
          We both know that "Absolute power corrupts, ABSOLUTELY!"
          You and I can just agree to disagree....:-)
          Qwark

          replyreport
          1. 69

             Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Not in this case, but I agree that the mainstream view can often be wrong. As in the case of the current Tea Party rage which is recommending exactly the wrong action to get us out of the recession and reduce unemployment. (They are recommending cutting the budget which is exactly the wrong thing to do until the economy has improved significantly.)

             replyreport
             1. 59

                qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Ralph:
                Que sara sara!  :-)

                replyreport
11. 69

    Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago

    Here's an informed view on current Federal Reserve policy by David Leonhardt:
    
    For much of the last year, there were three basic camps on what the Federal Reserve should be doing.
    
    One focused on the risks of the Fed’s taking more action to help the economy. This camp — known as the hawks, because of their vigilance against inflation — worried that the Fed could be sowing the seeds of future inflation and that any further action might cause global investors to panic.
    
    Another camp — the doves — argued instead that the Fed had not done enough: inflation remained near zero, and unemployment near a 30-year high.
    
    In the middle were Ben Bernanke and other top Fed officials, who struggled to make up their minds about who was correct. For months, they came down closer to the hawks and did little to help the economy. On Wednesday, they effectively acknowledged that they had made the wrong choice.
    
    The risks of inaction have turned out to be the real problem.
    
    The recovery has not been as strong as the Fed forecast. Businesses became more cautious about hiring after the European debt crisis in the spring. State governments began cutting workers around the same time, and the flow of federal stimulus money began to slow. Since May, the economy has lost 400,000 jobs.
    
    Now — six months later, with Congress unlikely to spend more — the Fed is getting more aggressive. (And, yes, the idea that the doves are the advocates for aggression is indeed a bit odd.) Having long ago reduced its benchmark short-term interest rate to zero, the Fed will again begin buying bonds, as it did last year, to reduce long-term interest rates, like those on mortgages. Lower rates typically lead to more borrowing and spending by households and businesses.
    
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/busin … dt.html?hp

    replyreport