For those that want to get rid of Bernanke, be careful what you wish for.

The main job of Bernanke right now is to decide how long to leave interest rates at 0% (and how long to continue quantitative easing beyond that). Right wingers hate Bernanke because he isn't immediately raising interest rates (which will help rich people with huge dollar reserves and might lower future inflation but will proportionally raise unemployment). But Bernanke is not only keeping interest rates as low as he can. He is saying that he will do so for a long period of time. This is a very liberal policy. Bernanke is basically saying that "I would rather have somewhat higher inflation and lower unemployment than lower inflation and higher unemployment." This is why Republican Jim Bunning will do "everything he can" to stop Bernanke's confirmation.

The other job of the Fed chair is to decide when to intervene in the economy to prevent a crisis. This is not necessarily part of the Fed's job description. However, the Fed has sort of taken over this job due to our dysfunctional political system. For example, back in September of 2008 when AIG was about to fail (causing the whole banking system to collapse and probably 25%+ unemployment), Bernanke knew that Congress wasn't capable of enacting a bailout for them on a moment's notice. Misguided liberals (who want to make AIG feel pain regardless of how many tens of millions of Americans end up feeling pain with them), and disgusting conservatives (who couldn't give two shits about the human suffering that would have followed had AIG collapsed) wouldn't have voted for it the next day, which would be what was needed. So he had to act. And his actions indicate that should another moment come where the fate of the US economy hangs in the very short term balance, he would act again. We shouldn't underestimate Bernanke's role here. At a time of political paralysis, he quite literally saved the world (though some might argue that an AIG collapse would be so devastating that any Fed chair in power would have saved it).

So why are so many liberals opposed to him? I can think of a few reasons (that I respectfully disagree with).

One is based more on populist anger at the status quo (high unemployment) than actual policy decisions. These people view Bernanke as a symbol responsible for our current economic crisis (whose job needs to be sacrificed). The problem with this is that so far, Bernanke is doing everything he possibly can to bring down unemployment. He is literally driving right wing market fanatics (who don't really care about unemployment) off the wall doing so. There hasn't yet been a major decision by Bernanke that has been bad on this regard. The truth is that there are limits on what the Fed can do to bring down unemployment. But I don't think that alone is a reason to sack the Fed chair, who seems to be doing everything he possibly can up to those limits.

Another is based on his decision to bail out AIG in the first place (though putting misguided progressive anger aside, this was the liberal policy, not the conservative one).

Another reason is that Bernanke managed the AIG bailout improperly (not enough restrictions), even while acknowledging some bailout was needed. This criticism is entirely valid. Bernanke probably could have done more to limit the side benefits to Wall Street while still keeping AIG solvent and preventing a depression. My only point here is that while Bernanke clearly wasn't perfect, I'm not sure anyone else could have done much better, given the lightning fast pace that events were unfolding in September.

And another reason is that Bernanke failed to forsee and stop the crisis before it happened. This, again, is indeed a failure on Bernanke's part. There were a few (though I emphasize very few, such as Brooksley Born) who saw major problems with the lack of derivatives regulations at the time. However, just because these people (such as Born) saw the crisis doesn't necessarily mean that they would be a better Fed chairperson. Bernanke's education has revolved around studying the Great Depression and how to prevent another one; I'm not sure how Born's education compares.

And finally, some believe that even though Bernanke is keeping interest rates low (in the interest of keeping unemployment from skyrocketing further), that he will eventually fear inflation and start to raise rates (and take out the aid to the economy) too soon. Some liberals want someone who essentially pledges to keep interest rates low until we are well into the recovery, even if that might produce high inflation. And that might be the correct move (inflation, while problematic, is better than deflation and depression). But I don't yet see any indications that Bernanke will pull the trigger to soon. He has consistently said that interest rates will be 0 for an extended period of time, even though we are technically out of the recession already. I don't know what else Bernanke could say to indicate that he really, really means it.

So in summary, I don't really know what a more liberal Fed chair would actually do differently than Bernanke. I certainly know what a conservative, Ron-Paul-style fed chair would do (raise interest rates tremendously, causing skyrocketing unemployment). But I don't know what a more liberal fed chair would do differently.

Just curious.

:evilgrin:

:D

actions in the financial crisis. I'm sure that doesn't mean he thinks Bernanke didn't make any mistakes in the lead up to the meltdown. Both of those statements aren't mutually exclusive.

It was all planned.

If you mean interest rates staying low to keep unemployment from going up, that was a decision by Bernanke, not a decision by Congress.

If you mean the AIG bailout, this was also a decision by Bernanke. It wasn't a "bill" that was "passed" by any legislative body.

DU meme indeed....

:thumbsdown:

n/t

Its a private joke.
We left you out on purpose.
We're ALL laughing at you.




NOW we have Your Children’s Money too !!!
And there is not a fucking thing you can do about it!
Now THIS is “Bi-Partisanship” !
Better get used to it!!
Hahahahahahahahaha!

Some of these people would be really really happy with a complete collapse of the financial system and the economy.

What do we call these people?

:D

then let loose with the ad homs, slay the straw men, etc. etc.

When you're slinging insults from your first post to the thread, you'll never be taken seriously. :hi:

:hi:

I'm sure he'll land on his feet at Goldman Sachs if he is terminated from Government service.

Instead of trying to sound educated and pointing to actual policy decisions that you disagree with, you simply hate him because of the identity of the person who appointed him (even if his policies have all been as liberal as possible). This justification is populist uneducated gibberish.

:rofl:

:hi:

that people who were unserious about Fed policy and simply turn from one sacrificial lamb to the next probably shouldn't waste their time reading this thread. The point was really to have a discussion with people unlike you, not to have a pissing match with you on a subject wholly unrelated to the topic of the thread.

Is it possible to challenge his nomination, and make him answer some tough questions, but confirm him in the end? That seems healthy, to me. I don't object to him as much as I object to the unchecked power associated with the position. If it can be demonstrated there is no better way, because all alternatives depend on the dysfunctional legislature, then I suppose there is no choice. I think it should be debated.

That really doesn't seem like a lot to ask.

Carter nominated Volcker and Reagan kept him on until 1987.

People bashing him have been infected with right-wing libertarian conspiracist hysteria.