Comments on: Fourteen More Cosponsors Join Alan Grayson, Sign On to Federal Reserve Transparency Act

By: Smgumby

Smgumby — Wed, 27 May 2009 21:33:05 +0000

Sent my Rep a note this morning!
Thanks for the reminder!

By: mui1

mui1 — Wed, 27 May 2009 21:13:01 +0000

Ditto. Thanks for the heads up Jane.

By: eCAHNomics

eCAHNomics — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:08:57 +0000

BT is upstairs.

By: eCAHNomics

eCAHNomics — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:04:36 +0000

Can’t comment on that.

My problem with the financial sector, including monetary policy, is that it’s only purpose is to serve as a simple middleman. Between borrowers and lenders; between savers and investors. I don’t understand why it has to be so complicated. I understand the efficiency arguement, as eretail is more efficient for some purposes than stores, but that does not explain all the garbage that goes on in “high finance.”

By: SouthernDragon

SouthernDragon — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:00:41 +0000

Back to the cesspool.

Namaste

By: SouthernDragon

SouthernDragon — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:59:13 +0000

The impression I’m getting from the book is that the banks/banksters have purposely fostered the belief that monetary/economic policy is all mysterious black magick voodoo stuff. It isn’t if one is willing to take the time to understand how the system works. The folks who became the Populist Party, farmers, small businessmen, etc, in the late 1800s knew how the economy worked. Our 21st century population can’t even balance their damn check book.

By: eCAHNomics

eCAHNomics — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:52:47 +0000

Oh goody, I don’t need to read the book from what you say. Nothing against the book, but I try to save 700 pages for subjects about which I know nothing. I knew Fed watchers. They spent inordinant time doing the kind of jerky stuff the Kremlin watchers did, whereas the broader direction of monetary policy was usually pretty clear. Turning points were tricky, but even Fed watchers didn’t do a good job of figuring that out.

Yes, central banks in the last few centuries were primarily concerned with inflation, and that puts them on the side of lenders at certain points in the business cycle. However, the broader argument is that inflation is destablizing (reductio ad absurdum: hyperinflation), and thus keeping it under control is pro-growth over the long term. I have a more nuanced view of that, but wouldn’t disagree with it.

The FRB may be the only central bank of the developed economies whose goal is both growth and inflation, the Humphrey-Hawkins Act. The ECU’s only policy directive is to control inflation, for example.

By: SouthernDragon

SouthernDragon — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:48:41 +0000

The Rethugs are really scurrying. We had one more Rethug, a woman, jump into the govenator race saying she balanced out the field. Dems are worried about primaries because of cost issues combined with the general. They need to get off their ass and start knocking on doors.

By: eCAHNomics

eCAHNomics — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:45:34 +0000

Someone asked him about reelection when he was here. His answer was something like: I guess we’ll see.

By: SouthernDragon

SouthernDragon — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:45:19 +0000

He wasn’t and Greider writes about his “conversion” while still thinking adjusting rates was the way to cool inflation. The subject of inflation seems to be central to everything the Fed does. Nothing new to you but for me it makes our political economy more understandable. He mentions “Fed watchers” a few times and how they try to interpret what the Fed says and does for the benefit of their company/bank.