Bashing Ben Bernanke
Should Republicans criticize the Fed chairman?
In the Republican presidential campaign, candidates are sharply divided about Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke. Some want to heat up the tar. Some want to bring the feathers.
Hugo Chavez would get a warmer reception at a GOP event than Bernanke. In Tuesday's debate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich pronounced him "disastrous." Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney charges that he has "over-inflated the amount of currency." Texas Gov. Rick Perry warned Bernanke against pursuing a monetary policy that would be "treasonous."
Bernanke's alleged sins are legion. He is blamed for bailing out Wall Street, destroying the value of the dollar, orchestrating events to re-elect Barack Obama, and sinking the Titanic.
His GOP detractors don't mention that he was appointed by George W. Bush, and that the Wall Street bailout bill passed in October 2008, before Obama arrived. They also forget that Bernanke's actions helped avert a complete financial collapse that could have caused a full-fledged depression.
It's easy to dismiss the Fed's critical role back then. But had Bernanke shrunk from the task, or botched it, he would qualify as the worst Fed chairman in history.
Many conservative economists give him high marks. "The Fed got the big things right," says John Cochrane of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, who notes that it averted the mistakes that brought on the Great Depression. "We did not have deflation. That's enormous."
As he tries to combat the recession, Bernanke is accused of making monetary policy with a fire hose—spraying out new money that will inevitably bring back inflation. The complaint is at the heart of the Republican indictment. But it is largely a stranger to reality.
Under Bernanke, inflation has not flared out of control. Last year, the Consumer Price Index rose by just 1.6 percent. The year before, it actually fell. "The average annual inflation rate during Bernanke's term is lower than any Fed chair since 1970," notes Time magazine.
Lately, the CPI has been inching up. But that is largely a transient artifact of food and energy prices rather than a broad-based rise in prices. The core CPI, which excludes these commodities—not because they are unimportant but because they are notoriously volatile and often misleading—is up just 2 percent in the past year.
If investors were expecting runaway prices, they wouldn't be snatching up five-year Treasury bonds paying interest just above 1 percent per year. Rates on 30-year mortgages wouldn't be at record lows.
For that matter, consumers wouldn't be squeezing every nickel till Thomas Jefferson screams. If you expect prices to be higher tomorrow, the logical response is to buy today.
I asked John Makin, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington, if he sees any danger of inflation. "I don't," he replied. Greg Mankiw, head of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, titled a recent blog post, "Why I am not very worried about inflation just now."
Herman Cain and others accuse Bernanke of undermining a strong dollar. But the dollar is actually up against the euro over the past six months, and it's about where it was four years ago, before the recession and the financial crisis. As Cochrane tells me, "People are still running to dollar securities, not from them."
Republicans have come to view Bernanke as a flunky for the incumbent president. Perry fears he is "allowing the Federal Reserve to be used for political purposes"—in other words, to improve Obama's re-election chances.
But the Federal Reserve, by law, has two responsibilities: to promote full employment as well as stable prices. Bernanke is clearly striving to foster economic growth, which may be good for Obama but is also good for the country.
It's hard to guess what he would do differently if the election were three years away instead of one. If Republicans think the Fed should adopt a policy of utter indifference to high unemployment, they should say so.
Bernanke, who has done at least a competent job with hellish challenges, may wonder how he got to be a cartoon villain. He might reflect on the wisdom of Mark Twain: "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man."
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm saying, but you can't just wave way inflation by saying "Oh, it's just food and energy prices".
That's the most important thing in the world for the vast majority of people. If you're not rich, then the bulk of your paycheck is going towards food & energy.
Unfortunately, since prices of both have skyrocketed a good 10-30% (where I shop anyway), it's not getting so easy. I'm pretty much at the point of either going on food stamps or starving. Being right leaning, I'm obviously going to pick the former, but I'm sure as hell not happy about it.
Yes, there are other factors involved, but you can't seriously tell me that printing up money doesn't play a role in inflation.
D'oh, that would be slightly more coherent if it weren't 6 am in the morning and I weren't hungry.
But my point is, food & energy is what matters, not the prices of consumer junk like ipods or pet rocks.
Because our digestive tracts are constantly changing what they'll absorb as nutrients!
Anybody advocating a Paleolithic diet just isn't innovative enough!
"6 am in the morning"
Redundancy due to starvation induced by the federal government playing favorites!
consumer junk like ipods or pet rocks
These are really luxuries. At the least, there should be a separate inflation index for the necessities (food, shelter, clothing).
People? People! Places everybody. Morning links at 9.
The Corner has posted more stories before 9 AM in the morning that reason will do all day.
Consistency is only an admirable trait if you're not a fuckup.
Fiat Money = Fiat Agriculture. Both scams create illusory wealth that collapses after the law of diminishing returns catches up with them. Same with techno-triumphalism.
Thesis #9: Agriculture is difficult, dangerous and unhealthy.
Thesis #13: Civilization always pursues complexity.
Thesis #14: Complexity is subject to diminishing returns.
Thesis #15: We have passed the point of diminishing returns.
Thesis #27: Collapse increases quality of life.
http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/
Time to Go Galt and build a resilient community tribally networked while yet another agricultural city-State collapses again.
The city buildings fell apart, the works
Of giants crumble. Tumbled are the towers
Ruined the roofs, and broken the barred gate,
Frost in the plaster, all the ceilings gape,
Torn and collapsed and eaten up by age.
And grit holds in its grip, the hard embrace
Of earth, the dead-departed master-builders,
Until a hundred generations now
Of people have passed by.
THE RUIN
Thesis #27: Collapse increases quality of life.
http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/
Ah, Rectal is up early this morning! How's the smart phone working? Reception okay....four bars?
Too bad he does not use a Blackberry.
PLEASE...stop feeding this troll!
I hear the Amish are looking for a few recruits if you're willing to give up your razor.
"Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can derr 'lectric Amish have with darkness?"
Herp derp slurpa slurpa!
More than 90% of the world's population would have to die if humans returned to hunter-gatherer societies.
More than 90% of the world's population -- parasites all! -- would have to die if humans returned to Objectivist carrying capacity.
Atlas these days reads almost like a Peak Oil survivalist fantasy. Rand apparently accepted a form of Malthusianism which held that we have too many philosophically undesirable people in the world. Just withdraw the energy supplies (Galt's motor, Ellis Wyatt's shale oil, Ken Dannager's coal) that sustain them, and the resulting die off will restore Earth to its Objectivist carrying capacity. http://aynrandcontrahumannatur.....go_10.html
You're not that dieoff.org idiot who like to cross-dress are you?
Although I suppose it would explain a great many things.
Banhammer, pls. Pixelated diarrhea, threads wrecked, etc.
So much for a free exchange of ideas, loser.
As he tries to combat the recession, Bernanke is accused of making monetary policy with a fire hose?spraying out new money that will inevitably bring back inflation. The complaint is at the heart of the Republican indictment. But it is largely a stranger to reality.
_
and the party of know-nothings continues spewing radio entertainer nonsense...death panels & FEMA camps anyone?
"The free market means that those without money to buy what they need do not have the right to live."
- John McMurtry
Support at GOP debate for letting the uninsured die
September 13, 2011
Los Angeles Times
http://articles.latimes.com/20.....e-20110913
the only death panel im aware of is jan brewer's [GOP] arizona throwing transplant candidates off state medicare.
"Free Market Death Panel|10.17.11 @ 7:45AM|#
"The free market means that those without money to buy what they need do not have the right to live.""
Yes, agreed.
If I remember correctly, JP Morgan used to provide a sort of insurance for other bankers. He'd get equity for providing money for distressed banks. That can't happen now, since it would violate anti-trust regulations. Or, actually, it would give anti-trust regulators cover for hassling the banks.
No, now we have FDIC insurance - which means that there are federal regulations. Which means that banking has become a political process. So the banks invest in shit like bundled Fannie Mae loans.
But Bernanke prevented a depression? Hokay, whatevs, Steve.
Fannie is NOT named in the CUNA suit vs JP Morgan nor the AIG suit vs BoA both for [MALFEASENCE] & [MISREPRESENTATION] to shareholders & investors. this radio entertainment meme isnt even funny.
Whoosh...
Saying there's no inflation and people are running to dollars and bonds is like saying people were buying so many houses that there couldn't be a housing bubble. Does this article praising government intervention really belong on Reason?
It goes quickly from "we need government to protect X" to "we need government to protect y."
The goal is to keep it small enough to work just for us and not them.
Unfortunately, the agricultural city-State (civilization) doesn't work like either a libertarian or leninist dream.
Study some anthropology, history, archeology, ethnography, and evolutionary biology, and you'll know why.
Or just ask White Indian.
I'm the only intellectually consistent, integrated, non-contradictory voice at Reason comments.
Really pisses 'em off.
This has got to be waffles/pancakes. It's just too consistent.
Let us smoke a while.
Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one
Let us smoke a while.
The goal is to keep it small enough to work just for us and not them.
Since I'm right and they're wrong, that's exactly what our goal SHOULD be.
"I want a government that can stop rapists but that can't enslave people."
SHOCK GASP HUH WHA
"But I am a hunter-gatherer and I want to come steal your crops after you sow and tend them and eat your animals after you shelter and husband them!"
"And I want to shoot you in your fucking face."
See? I'm right and they're wrong. So the government should be big enough to work for me, and no bigger. That's perfectly moral and correct and I have no problem with it whatso-fucking-ever.
"So the government should be big enough to work for me, and no bigger. That's perfectly moral and correct and I have no problem with it whatso-fucking-ever." ~Fluffy
"Libertarianism is actually government for me and not for thee." ~White Indian
Thanks, Fluffy, for the confirmation. White Indian always right.
And no way do I want your unhealthy agricultural shit in my body, Children of the Corn. You keep your insulin shots to yourself.
White Indian right on Paleo-diet.
White Indian right on Paleo-everythingelse.
No, White Indian not always right. White Indian evil and stupid.
And if people are evil or stupid enough to attack me or my property, they deserve to die. And if they try to hypnotize themselves with delusional nonsense about how they're just happy hunter-gatherers who don't acknowledge lines on poor Mother Earth, that makes no difference to me at all.
So you can knock yourself out with that paleo nonsense as long as you don't step on my property or approach my stuff. If you do, I would happily slaughter you and never be bothered in my conscience even a little, because I would be 100% morally right and you would be 100% morally wrong.
And no, that is not "government for thee but not for me." If I subject myself to the same laws, it's government for us. I'm just right about what government has the moral authority to do, and you are wrong. If I was really going to sit down and devise a government purely for "me", and not for the Good, you would be my chattel slave. I refrain from advocating that sort of government because it would be immoral.
People deserve to die for assaulting [what government determines is] your property. But people don't have a right not to die from starvation. Because... morality!
Yes.
The government actually doesn't determine what is my property, in my view.
It only recognizes it. Or not. And thereby determines its legitimacy.
Not to go all desert island on you or anything, but if all us Hit & Runners were on a desert island with no property whatsoever, if I found food by my labor that food would be mine by moral right. If I made a spear with a stick I found and a rock I sharpened, that spear would be mine by right. If I re-invented aquaculture by trapping fish in a shallow pool, those fish would be mine by right, along with the pool. If we created a government among ourselves, that government would be legitimate if it recognized that set of rights and illegitimate if it did not.
If you tried to take any of these items of property from me by force, I would be without reservation or exception morally in the right to kill you to defend those rights.
The government actually doesn't determine what is my property, in my view.
Standard libertarian bullshit.
Do you pay taxes on what your Land enTitlement from the government?
You'd better - the government took the land the first families lived on by aggression, and enforces "private property" by aggression, and you always have to pay the piper.
Libertarianism is just whitewashing aggression and calling it "freedom."
Your aggressive language shows what you are Fluffy - an aggressive statist killer.
You'd better - the government took the land the first families lived on by aggression,
Because if it's one thing the "first families" never did, it was have conflicts over hunting grounds.
The first families also NEVER grew crops of any sort, which is why Squanto teaching the Pilgrims to farm was the most unusual anamoly in history.
Squirrels have conflicts. All animals do.
But they don't claim ownership to the whole forest and then charge rent to other squirrels for the necessities of life.
Thomas Jefferson observed an Indian might plant corn once place, and then abandon it, and somebody else take it up. No conflict. No abstract property rights to create conflict.
Anthropologists have studied this to a fair-thee-well, yet you remain ignorant and snipe with stupidity.
Thanks for trying, though. You need to study a bit more.
But they don't claim ownership to the whole forest and then charge rent to other squirrels for the necessities of life.
Squirrels are not people, in case you haven't noticed. And Indians did more than their share of murder of their "first family" members over hunting grounds.
Thomas Jefferson observed an Indian might plant corn once place, and then abandon it, and somebody else take it up. No conflict. No abstract property rights to create conflict.
There was plenty of conflict between tribes, and it was over hunting grounds and percieved territories. Just because they didn't draw a map doesn't mean they didn't perceive those arbitrary lines to exist.
Anthropologists have studied this to a fair-thee-well, yet you remain ignorant and snipe with stupidity.
Your cherry-picked nostalgia trip has been refuted, yet you remain obtuse and snipe with stupidity.
Thanks for trying, though. You need to study a bit more.
You haven't shown any source which refuted my assertion. Thanks for trying though. You need to study a bit more.
But you wouldn't have any legally legitimate claim to it, you'd just have to hope you have the best spear-throwing arm. I don't recognize the validity of anyone's mystical claim to specific entitlements, and neither would someone who decides he wants to claim your stuff for himself. Morality has nothing to do with it, especially when you're talking about a right to do bodily harm to a person for making, essentially, the exact same claim you are: that he has a claim to certain stuff because he says so. If you get into mystical justifications then any number of them can be fabricated. (I am king appointed by God, so give me your stuff or my army will take it--it's the moral thing to do.)
Therein lies one of the few legitmate roles of goverment. To arbitrate property right and contractual disputes.
So the story goes. What you're doing in actuality is legitimizing aggression.
"I have a right to my own labour," and, "I have a right to your labour," are not "the exact same claim".
But what if my labor consists of taking your stuff? Hey, it's my labor after all.
Tony smoke something else...
...something pink....fleshy.
Uncle Bernie has committed the same mistakes that brought about the GREAT DEPRESSION! Most folks are saying the depression began in 2008. I think the depression is just beginning and just about here. The EU is about dead,they just need to finnish pulling the plug from the wall rathering than trying new failures to a corpse!
Uncle Ben has printed 10s of trillions of dollars with his computer mouse and sent it down to the banksters on wall st. to buy up toxic bonds and stocks.
Latest estimates about 49 trillion since 07. Now we have obama and the rest offering trillions more to save the socialist EU,that dying corpse thats starting to smell from rotting on the operating table!
I agree. This article basically absolves bernanke of any wrong doing and states there isn't inflation. You don't have to be a monetary policy genius to know those statements are false. Disturbing to see an article like this in reason magazine 🙁
Saying there's no inflation and people are running to dollars and bonds
Ignores the fact that being the least worst currency, at the moment, doesn't preclude inflation.
I just want interest rates to stay low until we buy our house.
I don't like Bernanke, but I understand.
He's flailing around desperately because Congress and the President have completely given up on Fiscal Policy. No budget, no cuts - just more borrowing and continuing resolutions.
which has nothing to do w the Fed setting monetary policy
Yes is does dipshit - that is their job like it or not. Use a dictionary if you don't understand my words.
Monetary policy would be a hell of a lot easier if we had a fiscal policy.
He's flailing around desperately because Congress and the President have completely given up on Fiscal Policy.
"Bernanke's actions helped avert a complete financial collapse that could have caused a full-fledged depression."
Well we can never know what would have happened. But even if that is true, perhaps the house of cards needed to collapse.
the house of cards needed to collapse
The Taggart Tunnel needs to collapse on everybody I hate -- and you're not an exception, parasite.
Yes. Absolutely.
If to keep your tunnel up you have to lie and steal, then your tunnel has to come down. Next time don't stand in a tunnel built that way.
That's the real crime Bernanke has committed. Don't see any inflation? Fine. But it is indisputable that large numbers of people made financial bets that they absolutely, positively deserved to lose.
Bernanke's interventions have prevented them from losing them. He rewarded the guilty and saved them from the day of reckoning they so richly deserved.
No one disputes that Bernanke and the Bush Treasury department lied to the public and extorted BankAmerica into lying to the public and to investors in order to "protect confidence". And no one disputes that the QE programs cut the dollar to shreds and caused massive commodity inflation. So we have lying and stealing right there.
Lying, stealing, enriching the guilty. But according to Chapman, all of this is beyond criticism.
Lying, stealing
Most Indian treaties were broken
enriching the guilty.
Yes, you are.
all of this is beyond criticism.
Got a problem with that? This is reason, which actually means rationalization.
Remember, the libertarian's non-aggression principle is a debating convenience, not a fundamental rule.
Seriously, stop swallowing the seeds when eating berries. Spit them out. Your diverticulitis must be killing you.
Bo ho! The Normans took my land!
Yep, civilization is externally invasive and internally repressive. Any other news?
Must be some good peyote.
And, since lying and stealing are the cornerstones of capitalism (according to everything said here about the poor millionaires who are so shamefully prevented from lying and stealing), it should come down?
Yeah, I'll bet you would have loved a collapse. What do you think the 2008 election results would have been in such a case???? I'm not real sure the American people have the knowledge to turn to a Ron Paul and Austrian economics if suddenly 35% are out of work.
The school of economics where sinful children get the free-market shit beat into them.
Man is born an asocial and antisocial being. The newborn child is a savage. Egoism is his nature. Only the experience of life and the teachings of his parents, his brothers, sisters, playmates, and later of other people force him to acknowledge the advantages of social cooperation and accordingly to change his behavior.
~Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government, p. 241
...when our Dear Leader Mises says force is ok. Especially on children. The little shits.
Let us smoke a while.
Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, is it?
other people force him
Gonna whitewash that for me with your libertarian obfuscation?
Gonna go live the shackbrah lifestyle anytime soon?
I see conflicting signals in the economy right now. Food prices are rising, but we've had a recent drought in the South and speculative traders having rushing in droves to the commodities markets. Prices could drop precipitously if the speculators get scared. Gas prices are relatively high, but oil prices are being depressed by low demand. Refiners are milking the market. The stock market is volatile, to say the least, while HFT computers work the swings, giving Wall Street profits but destroying any remaining image of stocks as an investment.
The result is a confused marketplace, where people with cash don't know where to put it. No one wants to spend because uncertainty rules the marketplace. Government makes it worse by attacking the problem with more involvement in the economy instead of less. Nobody knows who's safe because the debt hasn't been flushed out the way it would have if banks and companies had been allowed to fail.
Meanwhile, the Fed is printing at breakneck speed. That's OK for the near term, but when some certainty comes back to the marketplace, it's going to fuel massive inflation unless the Fed can pull that money back. There will be extreme reluctance to raise interest rates coming out of a decade long (or more) recession. Those who have managed to save anything during these difficult times will be wiped out.
speculative traders having rushing in droves to the commodities markets. Prices could drop precipitously if the speculators get scared
We'll have none of that libertarian bullshit about speculators providing the market liquidity. We only talk economic nonsense as a debating convenience! Just like the non-aggression principle is a debate convenience.
confused marketplace
Ludwig von Mises, white courtesy phone please, your rational human action nemesis is on the line.
Speculators do provide the market liquidity, the problem is that the major speculators aren't allowed to fail. Goldman Sachs et al... are propped up by your tax dollars. This creates even more systemic risk.
When the government is changing the rules of the economy on an almost daily basis and mucking around in critical markets, it is confused. Everyone is guessing what the government or Fed is going to do next, as opposed to what the market wants.
...it's the government's fault. Never fails. LOL
"Predictability is useless information." ~Robert Anton Wilson
As opposed to the tired diatribe that we need more goverment oversight? We've seen how that ends up, or does the freddie and fannie debacle only exist academically?
Incoherent prattle from someone who has no idea what Mises wrote about. You going to join your bongo drummers and demand a fairer world ?
Yeah....like we've tried nuthin and we're all out of ideas.....!
Are you demanding an unfair world ?
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you.
~Ludwig Mises, letter to Mrs. (LOL) Ayn Rand, Jan. 23, 1958
Let us smoke a while.
I am demanding a free world, which actually in the end is the fairest thing one can hope for.
Your definition of fairness implies protectianism (why exactly is it fair that an American worker gets paid more for doing the same job than somebody in India ?), higher taxes (because it is completely fair that somebody needs to pay more for something that others pay less or even nothing for), more welfare (because giving people free things is what fairness in your world is about).
Bill Gates is better than you, he has improved the conditions of millions, what exactly have you done ? other than playing bongo drum, you are not his equal.
I'm for zero government protection, zero taxes, zero welfare, zero regulation, zero police, zero abstract lines drawn on Mother earth.
Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?
Got nothing against welfare, just don't want to pay welfare for you and many others like you.
Don't lie and steal land and break treaties then.
I don't believe in stealing land, that is what governments do.
Privation property is the big governments biggest enTitlement program.
Libertarianism tries to whitewash the aggression behind the concept.
In this perfect world of yours, if I built a shelter, you know, to keep the rain off and such, do you think it would be okay for you to just walk into that shelter without my permission? If I tried to stop you, would you consider me to be aggressing against you?
It's not a perfect world, Hidalgo. But it's the world humans are best adapted to, and in which 99% of humans have lived.
You're the one advocating the utopian perfect world shit.
If you're going to dodge a question don't be so obvious about it. I suspect you believe that if you build a shelter you have a right to stop people entering. This is an explicit advocacy of property rights - and property rights over land at that. Or admit that whether or not you build a shelter is irrelevant - if someone else wants to use the land you built it on for some other purpose they can knock your shelter down and you have no right to stop them.
Also, while it may be the world humans are 'best adapted' to, it's quite clearly not the world which is best adapted to humans. Remember that human beings are not fitness-maximisers - we don't explicitly pursue the increase in the frequency of our genes in the gene pool. This is what we're adapted for, but we're not adapted in such a way as we actually have natural desires for it to happen. We're adaptation-executers, meaning we don't want to eat because we know that it will help us reproduce, but because we're hungry. So even though we're adapted for certain circumstances, there's no particular reason why those circumstances would allow us to actually achieve our goals. Indeed, it's fairly obvious that most people's life-goals would be severely compromised by living in the society you advocate.
Now, please show me one example of somewhere I've advocated something you consider to be 'utopian perfect world shit', and I'll patiently explain why you're wrong.
I'm for zero government protection, zero taxes, zero welfare, zero regulation, zero police, zero abstract lines drawn on Mother earth.
You wouldn't last ten minutes in such a universe.
99% of humanity thrived in such a universe. Anthropology calls it the Original Affluent Society.
At least show the first degree of honesty, would you? Anthropology isn't a monolithic field of study in which everyone agrees. The best you can say is that some anthropologists call it the Original Affluent Society - although they only do so to point out it wasn't a miserable and constant struggle for survival as we might at first think. That doesn't mean they didn't die of toothrot in their twenties.
99% of humanity thrived in such a universe. Anthropology calls it the Original Affluent Society.
Anthropology calls it "half-caf latte with soy milk."
Yeah, that's important stuff and all...oh, excuse me. Hope Solo is on dwts. Buh-bye!
No State shall...coin money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts
The dollar may be doing better than the euro, but since the euro and the eu project is a house built on quicksand, that is not actually saying much.
Also the consequences of the bailout will be around far longer than any economic downturn that needed to to happen (I don't believe the world would have ended if there was not TARP). Those people protesting have the perfect ammunition now to accuse the government of being in bed with the banks, unfortunately they are right on that one now.
"Meanwhile, the Fed is printing at breakneck speed."
_
M2 is less than 3% above Oct 2010...hardly breakneck. another false radio entertainer meme.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/.....6hist1.txt
A click of the mouse,who needs green ink!
Since we can only guess about M3, M1 vs M2 is the only information we can get. As people are pushing for liquidity, M1 is skyrocketing while M2 remains relatively stable. That just leaves long-term deposits to be wondered about. My guess is that it is growing rapidly.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M1
yes M1 is growing but M2 is stable FY10-11. amazing how this is misrepresented by radio entertainers & repeated by conservatives.
But wasn't the Federal Reserve's policy of easy-money one of the largest reasons for the housing-bubble? So the Fed helps create the housing-bubble and then credit for saving us?
Congress shall have the power to coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.
So Congress has privatized one of it's most important functions, and no one is freaking out? They've also given the power to declare war to the President. What the fuck?
AGHH!! The stupidity.
1) Deflation is not a bad thing, and any economist saying so is an idiot. Deflation is merely prices going down, which often happens as a result of economy of scale and efficiency bringing about reduction in the many factors needed for production.
2) It is absolutely idiotic and misleading to measure the dollar against other currencies. The question, since the dollar is not backed by anything but our labor and production, and thus future expectations, is what are the prospects for the things I just mentioned, our labor and production?
3) Which brings us to this; there is absolutely no way that a private entity should be granted special privileges to print fiat money that becomes a tax by that private entity on the American people for the benefit of the financial elite.
The money printed by the FED is based on debt purchased from the federal government, so it also allows the federal government to surreptitiously tax us. It enables the financial elite to benefit from being the first receivers of the new money and thus inflation HAS to occur, and this is where we get hit when our labor results in less purchasing power, due to wages not catching up.
This is also why it's an outright lie to say inflation is not a problem, and shows how statistics can be used to lie, by excluding certain data, such as food and energy prices.
4) The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional because the framers and ratifiers understood the dangers of fiat money. They gave the power to the congress to COIN money because of certain states issuing bills of credit AND prohibited the states from making anything but gold and silver as payments.
5) The Federal Reserve Act has nationalized banking and allows legalized fraud through fractional reserve banking, which means that a bank may loan money it doesn't actually have, but we are still required to pay back actual money + interest. This is another factor in bringing about inflation, and a way of benefiting those who merely manipulate numbers, but produce nothing.
Fractional Reserve Banking means that a bank need only carry 10% of the money that it loans out. This is why banking is nationalized, because the risks that bankers take are subsidized by all of us.
There is so much more that could be said on this, but for those who really want a better grasp, I suggest Murray's Rothbards Case Against the FED and What Has Government Done to Our Money? or go to http://mises.org/ and read there. They even have books in pdf format for free.
Oh the stupidity? Indeed!
? Deflation is merely prices going down...
No, no, no. It's a decrease in the money supply! Don't you realize how Libertarians love to correct people on that? Now WI has to do it for you.
"What people today call inflation is not inflation, i.e., the increase in the quantity of money and money substitutes, but the general rise in commodity prices and wage rates which is the inevitable consequence of inflation." ~Ludwig Mises, Planning for Freedom, p. 79
? It is absolutely idiotic and misleading to measure the dollar against other currencies.
I was only wondering what a trip to London for some Tribal Headgear and an English Yew Bow were going to cost. Silly me.
Funny how the Mises crowd wants everybody to read Mises when they have not the slightest comprehension of the material. And it's not even that good. It's as damn stupid as Marx's shit.
If you read more, you would know that deflation and price deflation are different things, even for the Austrian school. Prices going down is always good, that includes house prices, wallmart and all the other things you proclaim as economic evils.
Len: Deflation is merely prices going down
NotSure: deflation and price deflation are different things
Thanks, NotSure, for agreeing with me. Even if you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Honestly I don't care what you think or if you agree or not, I do have something against having to work to support dimwits like you though.
Read his sentence again, it is pretty clear what he is talking about, though not for somebody with a muddled, confused and hateful mind like you have.
Just ignore White Indian the guys is a troll, that or mentally unstable.
Just ignore White Indian the guys is a troll, that or mentally unstable.
Or both.....
Or has debunked your main premises.
No point in debunking any of your nonsense...just want to have fun at your expense.
Yeah. No one here has heard of Mises or Rothbard. Thanks for the tip. Exactly where do you think you are?
I merely copied my response to Chapman from another site, where they are less likely to know of them.
Also, buttfuck, it may be that there are those who don't know of them, who may be wandering in here, or didn't know of the free PDFs, so fuck off.
Meanwhile, the Fed is printing at breakneck speed. That's OK for the near term
Simply deem the "near term" to be the next hundred years.
And it should be "Benank neck speed".
M2 is less than 3% above FY10. hardly breakneck. false meme
They also forget that Bernanke's actions helped avert a complete financial collapse that could have caused a full-fledged depression.
Someone mentioned this above. This is perhaps the basic question: was there a looming financial collapse that would, if left unattended by our betters, have led to a depression of the soup kitchen 1930s? It could be true. But certainly status-quo apologists want the masses to think so. I would suggest looking at what David Stockman has to say about this - he basically thinks that the political class was looting the treasury. To me he is persuasive.
Most mainstream economists claimed before the crash that things were fine and there was no reason for concern, Bernanke being obviously the most notorious. The very same people now suddenly with absolute certainty then proclaim that the world will implode without their intervention.
One can be forgiven for being skeptical for somebody who has as much predictive powers as a standard astrologer.
It's past 9 AM; we demand morning links!
Get a job!
Chapman's up to his old tricks, I guess.
I assume Bruce Bartlett qualifies as a "conservative economist" in Chapman-land.
Of course Bernanke didn't allow deflation. He is a student of the great depression. Does anybody here remember a guy named Milton Friedman? Anna Schwartz?
Stop fussing, Reason just likes posting Chapman's occassional meanderings into self conflicting nonsense to appear like there are multiple libertarian view points on the matter. Remember his epic and cohesive defense of 21 being the drinking age?
It would be one thing to say 'bernanke isn't to blame for everything', or 'the GOP are just as much to blame as anybody'. But to say the bailouts and QE's actually saved us when every other Reason article at the time slammed those measures? Well that's pure Chapman contrarianism.
Don't get upset. It's uncomfortable but necessary- like a warm soapy enema- to recalibrate logical consistancy.
Actually, the stuff Chapman is writing is the conventional wisdom, not contrarian at all. Of course the CW is often not very wise.
One thing you have to remember is the CPI numbers are RIGGED to show much lower inflation than we actually have.
Bailing out the banks has just delayed a necessary market downturn and restructuring needed for the US economy to get back on off.
The massive spending and bailouts just means when the big crash finally hits it will be accompanied by inflation (even hyper inflation).
You don't see that much inflation right now but when people start spending all the money the fed has been printing and when the dollar loses its status as reserve currency, WATCH OUT. All those dollars will come flooding back in the US and inflation will skyrocket.
I think the only economic phenomenon these guys know about is inflation, and it's tied to a masculine/jingoistic concern about weakening the dollar. The Republican party has become very, very stupid. And stupid people don't care about evidence. Runaway inflation will always be just around the corner, and any contradicting data is part of some conspiracy.
"stupid people don't care about evidence"
You read that in the mirror from your forehead tatoo? So, it did do you some good after all.
how about a morning cup of hyperbole?
Any conservative/Austrian economist would tell you, Steve, that high interest rates are good for economic growth, for they separate the wheat from the chaff. They could have corrected the market, if the government had not intervened. The greedy, sycophantic scum that invested in cheap mortgages would have been punished for their malinvestments.
Despite this evident truth, you actually defend Ben Bernanke for "saving" the economy. You defend his crony-capitalistic measures without recognizing that
his redemptive actions induced an uncertain recession and distorted the free market. He is the reason why frustrated, misinformed children are outside Wall Street calling for the end of capitalism and "corporate greed". Ben Bernanke is an insidious, unscrupulous man who gives capitalism a poor image. To defend him is to betray the free market's capitalistic ideals.
Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to purge myself of my breakfast and hope to forget that I read this vile, fear-mongering tripe.
What free market was distorted? What ideals?
Do what Chapman suggests, and say you don't care about high unemployment if that's what the market gods demand.
I do care about high unemployment.
That's why I want the correction to last a year rather than being drawn out over a decade like our current policies are doing.
A "correction" to the market conditions that existed would have meant a long-term depression.
You've got to get it out of your head that there is some ideal market state that would be realized if we just left it alone. Macroeconomic stability doesn't happen by magic.
History tells a different story, Tony.
http://www.thefreemanonline.or.....1920-1921/
1921
A "correction" to the market conditions that existed would have meant a long-term depression.
Okay, Nostradamus, what's your evidence for this? What do you mean by long-term?
You've got to get it out of your head that there is some ideal market state that would be realized if we just left it alone.
And you have to get it out of your head that economic downturns are preventable.
What free market was distorted? What ideals?
Would student loans be dischargeable in bankruptcy in a free market or not?
There is no such thing as a free market.
In teenaged boy ass! Trust me I've tried to bargain.
"Should Republicans criticize the Fed chairman?"
Of course....there shouldn't be a Fed. Bernanke should say the Fed is useless.
"But the Federal Reserve, by law, has two responsibilities: to promote full employment as well as stable prices. Bernanke is clearly striving to foster economic growth, which may be good for Obama but is also good for the country."
"...promote full employment..."
How's that working out?
"....striving to foster economic growth..."
Striving to do something doesn't mean shit! Doing is all that counts.
The CPI deliberately understates price increases. The commonly-cited "core CPI" excludes food and energy - two vital things for those of us who still live in the real world.
More to the point, monetary inflation distorts asset prices and distorts economic decision-making. Bernanke delayed but did not prevent a crisis; his actions will cause a still greater crisis.
All of this would be well known to anyone with the slightest grasp of Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
Funny that I already thought of this refutation as soon as I read that section of the article without reading any comments.
I keep thinking Bernanke is Krugman in photographs.
Much truth to this.
How sad that 90% great Chapman and 99.09% of the posters(I read em all) failed to even MENTION the leader in the fight against fiat currency and the "Federal" Reserve Banksters and thier lackeys and mouthpieces, Congressman and PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Ron Paul??????????????????? Cmon allegedly libertarian and "independent" Reason readers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What do you want? For everyone to sign off with 'Vote Ron Paul' at the end of every comment whether or not it's relevant?
Computer memory has suffered through severe hyperdeflation through the last few decades. Just look what it's done to the consumer electronics industry!
They also forget that Bernanke's actions helped avert a complete financial collapse that could have caused a full-fledged depression.
How can this be proven or known? It's not like we can go back in time and replay the subsequent events without the actions from the Fed. It sounds like certain assumptions are being made, the foremost being that the other assumptions are correct.
They also forget that Bernanke's actions helped avert a complete financial collapse that could have caused a full-fledged depression.
Complete speculation on Chapman's part. There's no evidence that such a depression was bound or that any of the Fed's actions prevented such a situation from occurring. I don't know what has Chapman sucking Bernanke's cock.
Bernanke is accused of making monetary policy with a fire hose?spraying out new money that will inevitably bring back inflation. The complaint is at the heart of the Republican indictment. But it is largely a stranger to reality.
Under Bernanke, inflation has not flared out of control.
I like how you dance around the metrics to support your thesis on this. Of course, the CPI is largely chosen to reduce the appearance of inflation since 1980 anyways, but still, using both core CPI and the general CPI shows how much you're trying to avoid the fact that inflation IS rising. It's basic economics; if you keep printing money, then the demand for money goes down, reducing its purchasing value.
In short, Chapman should stay away from economic issues, because he's obviously unfit to discuss such matters.
As an additional note, I'm now convinced Reason employs Steve Chapman solely to troll libertarians. Nick's such an asshole!
The author seems to still be laboring under the primitive Keynesian simplicity of a tradeoff between inflation and unemployment (as if the stagflation of the 1970s never happened--or periods of low inflation AND low unemployment).
Perhaps sound money is a necessary precondition to a favorable employment environment? Nah, what could I be thinking!
Chapman's analysis on this one is very weak. There have been multiple stages of monetary policy expansion since the 2008 crisis. One can believe that the provision of liquidity during the crisis was acceptable yet subsequent expansions of monetary policy to encourage growth were destructive. In addition, there is a lot of evidence that the Fed has begun cherry-picking inflation numbers to look good. Moreover, Mr. Chapman is selecting the Euro, perhaps the sickest of the global currencies as the benchmark for comparison. Has he looked at the USD/AUD, USD/JPY or USD/CAD exchange rates? They tell a remarkably different story. Moreover, to note that long-term Treasury rates have been favorable is laughable. The announced policy of the Fed has been to reduce long rates through non-traditional purchases of long-dated bonds. Moreover, during a period of escalated volatility, its absurd to consider the capital flows into what is regarded as the safe-haven currency.
About the only thing keeping inflation from exploding, given the continued increases in the monetary base, has been the policymakers' extreme compression of the shadow banking system. Unfortunately, the conflicting signals between massive liquidity in the official banking system and the contraction of outside financial intermediation has led to real growth being pathetic, as well.
"We did not have deflation. That's enormous."
If many goods are inflated due to government manipulation of the market (housing, medicine), isn't deflation a necessary correction?
If only it had been a firehose.
We essentially printed money. We could have handed that money out to the American people, then told them they'd have to pay it back in taxes someday.
Instead, it was the worst of crony capitalism, lining the pockets of those with political pull who had failed in the first place.
I'm surprised to see Chapman push this "You weren't against (policy x) when Bush was in office!" meme.
Who cares if republicans are hypocrites?
They are criticizing the right party. (or one of them)
Should we attack them when they are right because they were wrong before?
We want to persuade people. When they are right they should get credit.
We accomplish little, and win no friends, by pointing out past hypocrisy.
We have enough current hypocrisy we have to deal with.
"But the dollar is actually up against the euro over the past six months, and it's about where it was four years ago"
So our shit sandwich tastes a little better than their shit sandwich. How is the dollar doing against Asian currencies and other developed non-EU countries' currencies? And how has it been doing over a longer period?
I continue to be disappointed by Reason and the other Koch appendages when it comes to the Fed. This monstrocity is what enables the Federal Gov't leviathan and warfare/welfare state. End the Fed!
What's Chapman going to say when the Treasury bubble pops?