Bernanke Confirmation Hearing

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
So I thought this comment by Bernie Sanders who placed a hold on Bernanke was interesting,

"Among the litany of reasons he cited for his move, the statement from Sanders' office noted that unemployment had more than doubled under Bernanke's watch "

So usually when we argue about employment we argue who gets the credit/blame based on who is/was President. I've not seen it directed at the Fed though most admit the Fed has more control over the economy than the President.

Since we know politicians love to take credit for any good news if I get a new job do I have to now thank Gavin Newsom (my Mayor), Arnold (my Govenor), Obama (my President) and Bernanke?


http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/02/news/economy/Sanders_Bernanke_confirmation_hold/index.htm
 
The unemployment rate is just an indicator that the bailouts that supposedly fixed the economy didn't do anything but put money in the pockets of the rich. I don't blame Bernanke for unemployment, I blame a whole host of people. Bernanke is included in that list but to me, he's just a figure head. He's head of the Federal Reserve, and the Reserve itself is the problem, no matter who is at the head. I think Bernanke needs to go because he hasn't been very open about his policies or about where the bailouts went.
 
cawacko said:
So I thought this comment by Bernie Sanders who placed a hold on Bernanke was interesting,

"Among the litany of reasons he cited for his move, the statement from Sanders' office noted that unemployment had more than doubled under Bernanke's watch "

So usually when we argue about employment we argue who gets the credit/blame based on who is/was President. I've not seen it directed at the Fed though most admit the Fed has more control over the economy than the President.

Since we know politicians love to take credit for any good news if I get a new job do I have to now thank Gavin Newsom (my Mayor), Arnold (my Govenor), Obama (my President) and Bernanke?


http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/02/news/economy/Sanders_Bernanke_confirmation_hold/index.htm
Click to expand...


Part of the Fed's mandate, among other things, is to implement policies that serve to maximize employment:

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.
Click to expand...

If Sanders is of the view that the Fed has failed in its mandate to maximize employment through monetary policy than Bernake should answer for that.
 
DigitalDave said:
The unemployment rate is just an indicator that the bailouts that supposedly fixed the economy didn't do anything but put money in the pockets of the rich. I don't blame Bernanke for unemployment, I blame a whole host of people. Bernanke is included in that list but to me, he's just a figure head. He's head of the Federal Reserve, and the Reserve itself is the problem, no matter who is at the head. I think Bernanke needs to go because he hasn't been very open about his policies or about where the bailouts went.
Click to expand...

I still vacillate on the bailouts. The free marketer in me believes the companies should have been allowed to fail while the pragmitist in me says the entire financial system did stand a chance to collapse without the government stepping in. I never viewed the bailouts as something that would create jobs as much as it saved a lot of jobs.

As far as Bernanke I'm really indifferent as to whether he stays or goes. I hear you about the Fed though.
 
DigitalDave said:
The unemployment rate is just an indicator that the bailouts that supposedly fixed the economy didn't do anything but put money in the pockets of the rich. I don't blame Bernanke for unemployment, I blame a whole host of people. Bernanke is included in that list but to me, he's just a figure head. He's head of the Federal Reserve, and the Reserve itself is the problem, no matter who is at the head. I think Bernanke needs to go because he hasn't been very open about his policies or about where the bailouts went.
Click to expand...

The bailouts were not designed to fix the economy. They were designed as triage to stop the bleeding. That said, they should have also helped loosen the credit market... in that sense they were a failure. In large part because the bailouts did not include anything that made the large banks clean up their balance sheets. Those bad assets are still there.

The stimulus was a failure in what it was designed to do. The money was spent (thus far) saving the state governments and sucking up to the unions and 'saving' jobs within the government. They did nothing to CREATE jobs.

Many on the left have suggested something similar to FDRs job program. I would agree with stimulus spending in this fashion. We HAVE to re-build our infrastructure anyway. NOW is the time to do so. When unemployment rates are high, you have the ability to put these people to work in jobs that need to be done while providing the other sectors of the economy to get back on their feet.
 
Superfreak said:
The bailouts were not designed to fix the economy. They were designed as triage to stop the bleeding. That said, they should have also helped loosen the credit market... in that sense they were a failure. In large part because the bailouts did not include anything that made the large banks clean up their balance sheets. Those bad assets are still there.
Click to expand...

I understand what they were designed for, and that they failed. The problem was the credit market. There was a lack of lending and therefore loans for cars, houses, and anything else you might need a loan for started causing a collapse in those sectors. Those boiled over into other sectors, and so and so forth. Had the bailouts worked, lending would have been opened up, and jobs would have been saved in the automotive and real estate industries. Thus, unemployment would not have been so high.

As I said, it's just an indicator that they didn't do anything but put money in the hands of the rich. The big banks got bigger by gobbleing up other banks at fire-sale costs and felt safe doing so with bail-out money in their pockets. They still didn't lend out money to the consumer, they kept it so they could swing the market more in their favor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top