On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote:
> The question is who is ultimately behind the appointment of the > "technocrats" and keeps them responsible: is the capitalists and their > banks? or is it the people who are ruled by the technocrats? > > > And you can't have it both ways: you cannot criticize the concept of an > > "independent" Fed on the grounds that it is unelected and at the same > time > > deplore that it is politically appointed. > > I don't think I did that. My point has always been that the Fed is NOT > independent despite propaganda to the contrary. It is independent of > democratic authority (even the very attenuated version we have in the > US) but not independent of the massive political influence of the > banks and financiers. Again this is too simplistic. The Fed, like most institutions in modern Western societies, falls somewhere along a spectrum between directly elected, and nominally independent. Even the most independent of government institutions in the US are in principle subject to oversight by elected bodies. In practice too, this oversight authority is sometimes used quite effectually, as in the Congressional audit of the Fed actions after the Lehman crisis. In summary, I'd directly contradict all of your assertions above. - The Fed's independence is very much real, though not unlimited. - The Fed is NOT independent of democratic authority. - While the Fed is subject to the influence of the bankers and financiers, this should not be overstated. For e.g., there is no reason to believe that Bernanke's QE or interest rate policies are influenced by anything other than what his public statements say i.e. inflation expectations and the dual mandate. -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
