|
Title: Stamping out dissent at the Fed? Post by: WhiskeyGirl on October 03, 2011, 08:09:06 PM Quote "If two people always agree," says Ben Bernanke, "one of them is redundant." So, imagine what the Federal Reserve chairman thinks of Rep. Barney Frank's legislation designed to dampen dissent within the Fed. Quote Five presidents are permitted to vote at one time, and Frank's bill is a response to three of them voting incorrectly, in his opinion. In August, the FOMC voted 7-3 in favor of an indefinite extension of the very low interest rates of recent years. This is a story I don't recall hearing in the news. Quote When three regional presidents voted their skepticism about cheap money, Frank decided to act against the problem, as he sees it, that allowing five regional bank presidents to vote "has the effect of skewing policy to one side of the Fed's dual mandate." That is the side of preserving the currency as a store of value — controlling inflation. This comes, Frank thinks, at the expense of the other side, which he calls "promoting employment." The actual language of the mandate speaks of promoting "maximum employment," which is problematic: "Maximum" means "the highest attainable," and this depends on ignoring the other half of the mandate. So what is the goal? More Americans working for Zimbabwe dollars? Instead of a few less working for real money? read more here - http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700183349/A-Frank-cure-for-the-Federal-Reserves-processes.html (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700183349/A-Frank-cure-for-the-Federal-Reserves-processes.html) I just can't imagine a political Fed...what about all the entitlements? All the job rotation regulars that have to donate or get in the unemployment line? |