There seems to be a broad acknowledgement that the Federal Reserve has made the terrible decision to randomly change their goals by making their new top priority maintaining a one-percent inflation target, instead of the old understanding, two-percent inflation, or trying to achieve full employment, despite 8.8 percent official unemployment. I will let Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong explain how horrible this decision is for regular Americans—they do it better than I can.
However, as a person who believes the inherent structure of things is more important than individuals, stated goals, mandates or almost anything else, this is slow motion disaster was entirely predictable. I couldn’t predict that the Fed would take this particular moment to embrace this exact destructive madness, but given its structure, it was inevitable that the Fed would make terrible decisions at the expense of regular people.
The structure of the Federal Reserve inherently caused this problem
The Federal Reserve is, by design, very “independent” (well, from our elected government, anyway, not from the banks that populate the board the runs it), secretive, and highly unaccountable (to our elected government, at least).
The Fed is technically private and not part of the government, this means the Fed can’t be audited. The seven members of the Federal Open Market Committee that come from the government are appointed by the president to serve for extremely long 14-year terms. In addition, over 40 percent of the FOMC, five members, have basically zero accountability to government or the people. They come from the regional banks controlled by the financial corporations. So, the only constituents the FOMC really is accountable to are the large financial companies. This is made ever worse by the fact that former Fed appointees can almost always expect a multi-million-dollar Wall Street job once they leave.
Arguments supporting design of the Fed mirror arguments in favor of dictatorship
Many people, for a long time, have argued this “independence” is a good thing because it frees the Fed to make the unpopular “tough choices.” Of course, that is the exact same argument made by those who supported an all-powerful monarchy that could make tough choices without fear of being unpopular in the next election. The efficiency of a wise, all-knowing, and benevolent king would be a good way to run things, but history shows such a family never has and never will exist. Eventually no accountability breeds idiotic recklessness, and accountability only to a small group leads to massive corruption.
Yes, in theory, being independent does technically mean the structure of the Fed could make the unpopular but right decisions that are best for regular people, but that is to whom it is almost totally unaccountable. On the other hand, independence means it is equally free to make the very unpopular decisions that are bad for regular people but great for rich bankers, to whom the Fed has much more fealty.
For a structuralist, the fact that the Fed uses its “independence” for decisions along the lines of the latter is totally predictable. That is exactly what happened in the bailout when not only did the Fed make the banks rich with free money at government expense, but also basically just gave free money to the wives of banksters.
When the problem is structural, you need root and branch reform
The point is, don’t look at the current people leading the Fed as misaligned, uninformed, or evil. That leads to thinking the fix for this problem is just a really good argument or the replacement of FOMC members with a new set of super-smart, benevolent overlords.
It is the structure of the Fed that is inherently rotten, and favors the banks over the people. Independence and lack of accountability doesn’t lead to smart, “tough choices,” it just provides the secrecy and freedom that feeds corruption. Fed critics need to realize the only real solution is total root-and-branch redesign that gives it a structure that encourages the best decisions for regular people.
Given its current structure, there is no question of whether the Fed will act in the best interests of the rich banksters or regular people. The only question is when and how.




31 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Amen.
Nothing shocking about a politician system that depends on getting big donations really favoring rich donors.
Nothing shocking an “independent” group made up mainly of banksters favors banksters.
Seize the Fed! Topple the Bernank! Besides, we have bailed them out massively so we already own them.
The Fed, by its very existence, is the root of our financial problems. Looking to the Fed for solutions is futile.
The fact that so call financial reform didn’t reform the Fed shows that there was very little real “reform” in the law
Mellon brought the country to it’s knees in the first depression, Bernanke is doing the same. Both will go down in the history books as the worst Fed regulators ever.
The Fed is audited. It’s audited continually. The NY Fed is audited by Price Waterhouse. All the fed branches are audited by independent FED auditors. Auditing monetary policy as it happens would be a disaster. It could be totally offset and completely abused by Wall Street. Every single piece of academic literature on central banks around the world says that what you’re suggesting is a bad idea. You should do some research on the topic before suggesting such a thing.
IF that’s the case, then why is Ron Paul pushing for a complete and full audit of the Fed? Why is it a bad thing that the Fed would be transparent and open with respect to their books? Could you explain?
Ron Paul is a gold bug that has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to anything about the economy or banking.
An odd thing to say on a day when gold surges to another all time high.
Maybe it’s you who doesn’t know what the f___ you’re talking about?
http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed35.html
Each fed is subject to audits. Here’s the info from the NY FED. I worked for the Atlanta Fed. I’ve managed a branch accounting function as well as treasury functions. My Treasury functions were audited by the FED and by the Treasury. The accounting functions were audited by the branch and by the BOG auditors. I’ve served on auditing teams of other feds. That’s just the internal controls. I’ve also been involved with monitoring reserve bank accounts and the dailies from banks. The Treasury holdings, which are basically the result of monetary policy, are reported and they have been audited. You do not want any political body any where near the FED. Every single study of any country’s central bank shows that it’s a disaster. The bank does become political and it becomes captured by whoever the politicians represent; not the people. The Fed takes its charter very seriously. I wouldn’t want Congress any where near monetary policy given the mess they make of fiscal policy and the complete ignorance of most every politician I’ve seen come down the pipe recently. The Central Bank of Europe and nearly every other central bank that works is based on the FED model because it works and the research shows that its current structure works. Politicians have been trying to get their hands on it for decades because they’d like to be able to manipulate things. That is extremely dangerous. There is nothing secretive about the FED except it’s current OMC actions. Even those results become public.
This isn’t the first time the Feds gone nuts on inflation. I’m old enough to remember being unable to buy a house (or much of anything) in 1980 because then-chairman Paul Volcker had run the prime up to 21% or so. The excuse was avoiding inflation (which was rather high at 13%) but I’ve always thought Republican Volcker’s real goal was to get rid of Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election by destroying the economy in the months leading up to November. It worked really well.
heard of speculation?
Here’s a statement; examine it for contrast:
The military is so crucial to the nation’s well being that it needs to be independent from meddling politicians.
Substitute military for the money supply; that’s literally the system our economy is driven by.
Scared yet?
you want my CV? I’m a financial economist and I’ve worked at the FED. I teach Money and Banking, ecoomics, and finance at the University and Graduate level and I do peer-reviewed research in the field.
I’m more scared of politicians getting close to monetary policy than just about anything.
The GAO audits the FED with the exception of current monetary policy.
“Operations at each Federal Reserve Bank also are subject to review by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the audit arm of the U.S. Congress. However, GAO auditors are restricted by law from reviewing monetary policy operations and transactions carried out by the Federal Reserve on behalf of foreign central banks. This restriction was imposed by Congress to assure the independence of the Federal Reserve from political influence.”
That’s from the link above. I’ve had the GAO audit my Treasury and T&L functions when I worked for the FED so I know it to be true.
“You do not want any political body any where near the FED”
So who hired Bernanke?
You mean like MCI/WorldCom and Enron were audited by Arthur Andersen (and don’t forget KPMG’s role in Enron)?
{ snip }
Mwa ha ha ha { gasp } Bwa ha ha ah ha ha ha!
Hey Dakininikat,are you trying so hard to impress us that your insider -pedigree makes you part of the problem or the solution .It took Paul and Sanders over a year to get Bernanke to open the books back to 06 in this agency of nonpareil secrecy.In a society equally vicious and more intelligent,bernanke would be put in prison for treason for un-American activities.If one decontructs his liquidity trap,nobody could believe he hasn’t sold out America for corporate transnationals,that answer to shareholders,not nations regardless of charter.
Any thoughts on how you go about changing this state of affairs? Certainly acknowledging that basic democratic values demand it is one thing, as well as the fact that Fed representatives admit they are prioritizing fighting inflation over job creation, despite its mandate. But beyond that, what would it take?
The problems are the same as the problems with Wall Street and Mayfair (London-based financiers). You can take a gander at http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/search?q=%22federal+reserve%22&btn=Search .
More …
Interview with John Perkins begins at ~ time point 14:15– “Keiser Report – Markets! Finance! Scandal! (E14)” (video, Feb. 5, 2010)
“Max Keiser makes fun of CIA agents’ moonlight” (Feb. 9, 2010)
“Inside Job – Clip – You Have Faith in the Central Bank” (video ; film released Oct. 8, 2010)
Note time point 17:49 and later– “John Perkins with John Stadtmiller June 17 2010” (video)
Ron Paul has been the champion of calling out the Fed..
http://www.ronpaul.com/congress/legislation/111th-congress-200910/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/
The fed and congress boosted the economy through currency manipulation for the last 40 years. Now, we’ll pay for it for the next 40 years.
So you are a man paid by the fed to say that what the fed is doing is awesome.
BINGO! With a resume like that you can’t possibly identify reality. Out of pity, I’m leaving a link to get you started learning from the gold bugs.
http://www.caseyresearch.com/gsd/home
Skip down to “Critical Reads”.
No. Not at all. I have nothing to do with the FED any more, haven’t for nearly 12 years, and there’s no lost love believe me. I’m a financial economist who knows the literature. A central bank has to be independent of its government or the economy goes to the hyperinflation realm.
What you are arguing for is EXACTLY why the shadow banking sector ate the SEC’s lunch. That’s also where the heart of the problem lies now. It’s in the shadow banking sector–the investment banks. Do some real research and you’d find that out. I’m known as a muckraker when it comes to research. What I do in the finance area is highly against orthodox. I sniffed out the problems in the subprime market in late 2005. What you’re suggesting leads to real regulator capture. It’s one of the reasons why the Europeans went with the FED model even over some of the other models of central banks during unification. It’s designed to prevent political manipulation. The BOG directors serve for 14 years, they’re appointed by a president and approved by the senate. They usually live through several presidencies which makes them eventually in the political minority. The Open Market Committee is a hodgepodge of the very independents individual bank presidents that rotate in and out and a few of those Directors. It’s well-designed to be apolitical for some very good reasons. The books are audited a lot and the information is published. The only thing that doesn’t get audited or published is real time monetary policy and again, it’s because Wall Street could completely offset the entire thing or use it like insider information. You’re argument is self-defeating your purpose. Go do some research, really.
You know, all this name calling and baseless personal without any arguments of substance is a sign of baseless and weak arguments. That being said I’ll know better where to spend my time.
and what proof do you have of that? Have you researched the FOREX numbers or are just relying on the rantings of a no-nothing medical doctor from Texas?
Oh, and you have a Paultard problem. Aren’t you a liberal?
“Geithner Nixed Dodd-Frank” (by Bruce Krasting, Apr. 30, 2011)
“Grand Theft Benny” … From “Hanky-Panky at the Fed” (Counterpunch.Org, by Mike Whitney, Weekend Edition, April 29 – May 1, 2011):