Fed Chairman Bernanke term is up

[Michael]

I say his term should NOT be renewed.

This Washington cult of rewarding failure must end. Bernanke was a major player in the failure of regulatory agencies in the lead up to the financial crisis.

Bernanke was also a significant failure in seeing the crisis coming and slow to acknowledge the crisis once it hit.

Bernanke may have done a "decent/satisfactory" job since that time, but the fact is, Bernanke was one of the guys who contributed to the housing bubble and tried to defend/deny it before he admitted the problem.

I say it is time to stop rewarding failures. He's finished his term. Say thanks and move on.

[wphelan]

I don't have any doubt that Bernake is a huge failure, but I'm not sure if anyone else would be, or could be, better. However, that's likely because I'm having more and more doubts about the effectiveness of central banking in general. I hope to address that issue some time in the banking thread.

That said, I would love to see him go. He sure seems smug for a guy who has been wrong in every way since he's taken over the job. Here's a nice video montage that shows how wrong he's been: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QpD64GUoXw

[Michael]

I look forward to your addressing the issue in the banking thread. While I do believe it is easy to critique the principle of central-reserve banking, I'm not sure than any possible alternative would be better...

[wphelan]

Well, so much for change at the Fed. Looks like we can expect several more years of Bernake's central planning.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125120274221856591.html

[Michael]

Like I said, I don't like rewarding failures with promotions. Seems like a dumb thing to do.

Indeed, I'd like to see the Fed Chair's term NON-RENEWABLE in order to avoid the hyper-worship that Wall Street and the media tend to engage in.

We wouldn't have half the problem with the US economy right now if Wall Street and the media didn't worship the ground that Greenspan walked on - given that history has shown that Greenspan was wrong on just about every issue he addressed as Chair of the Fed.

The Chair of the Fed should be a faceless technocrat. Not some Washington/Wall Street celebrity.

[wphelan]

Like I said, I don't like rewarding failures with promotions. Seems like a dumb thing to do.

Indeed, I'd like to see the Fed Chair's term NON-RENEWABLE in order to avoid the hyper-worship that Wall Street and the media tend to engage in.

We wouldn't have half the problem with the US economy right now if Wall Street and the media didn't worship the ground that Greenspan walked on - given that history has shown that Greenspan was wrong on just about every issue he addressed as Chair of the Fed.

The Chair of the Fed should be a faceless technocrat. Not some Washington/Wall Street celebrity.

I think you're right. The Fed chairman should serve one non-renewable term. That would certainly be better than the situation we have today where the chairman is worshiped for pursuing short-term policies that ultimately make the economic situation in the country worse. The Fed chairman is supposed to be independent in order to remove political pressure from his decisions, but as long as there is the incentive to be reappointed at the end of the term, he will only think far enough ahead to keep his job.

[Zarquon]

The Fed chairman should serve one non-renewable term. The Fed chairman is supposed to be independent in order to remove political pressure from his decisions, but as long as there is the incentive to be reappointed at the end of the term, he will only think far enough ahead to keep his job.
I would have to agree with that.

[wphelan]

I've had an increasing number of disagreements with The Economist's economic views since the fall of 2007. It's still a first rate magazine, and I still get a lot out of reading it, but here's another example of a pretty severe disagreement I have with them.

This article praises the job Ben Bernake did during his first term as chairmen of the Fed. They went so far as to call him the "very model of a modern central banker."

Any thoughts?

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14327657

[Michael]

I've had an increasing number of disagreements with The Economist's economic views since the fall of 2007. It's still a first rate magazine, and I still get a lot out of reading it, but here's another example of a pretty severe disagreement I have with them.

This article praises the job Ben Bernake did during his first term as chairmen of the Fed. They went so far as to call him the "very model of a modern central banker."

Any thoughts?

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14327657
In all fairness to the Economist, they are a staunchly pro-capitalist pro-market publication, always have been and always will be. They are at least predictable on this account. They are NOT radicals.

Thus, the Economist values stability in the central banking process more than anything else. The Economist is no different than Wall Street here.

Also, I think the Economist also tries to ingratiate themselves with various powerful political players from time to time. This appears to be one of them. Apparently the Economist was much hated by US financial elites because of the Economist's long-standing critique of Greenspan (they were right of course). This might be an attempt to shore up support in the US for the Economist - they are a profit making enterprise and do need the support of their influential readership to do that.

And the US economy needs "confidence" to climb its way out of its problems. The Economist is perhaps trying to do its part to help, since they share the same goal - wanting to see the US economy grow. A little fluff piece on Bernacke is a small price to pay for that. Besides which, for those who read closely, there is some back-handed shots at Greenspan buried in the article - that's the Economist's way - they are using Bernacke as a foil to keep up the battle against Greenspan.