As is typically the case, it's a political question at bottom more than an organizational or technical one. We could probably live with the Fed, the ECB and the other central banks as presently constituted - provided it was we who did the appointing. If that were the case, Paul Krugman would immediately go to head of the line to be the next Fed chairman rather than Larry Summers or Tim Geithner. Better yet if we could put J. Devine, Michael P., J. Huato, Doug H. or any of our other list members with the necessary expertise in charge of Fed operations. Then you would truly see a radical change in direction, even with the Fed's current structure and staff.
Of course, this all depends on the balance of forces in society. So even a Keynesian like Krugman who wants more fiscal and monetary stimulus is out of step with the Republican and Democratic party leaders who answer to the Wall Street consensus for monetary tightening and sharp cuts in fiscal spending. Needless to say, replacing the current Fed governors and regional presidents with eminent members of the Pen-L list would require a social revolution. On 2013-06-20, at 11:14 AM, Dan Scanlan wrote: > Is there a distinction between cartel as implementation and cartel as > framework? Wasn't the Fed set up in secret by bankers meeting on Jekle > Island. Could it be that on some ways it doesn't matter who's currently "in > charge" since the process/framework/architecture remains the same (and > controlling)? > > Dan > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 20, 2013, at 7:28 AM, raghu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. Franklin. 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 > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
