Federal Reserve Poll

[Bo]

Option 2 for me.

[Torie]

Option 4.  Reducing its power would be a big mistake. I have not read a cogent case about increasing its power.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Abolish it.

End the Fed.

[phk]

Option 4.

[Mint]

Abolish it.

End the Fed.

[Earth]

Abolish it.

End the Fed.

[War on Want]

Option 4.  Reducing its power would be a big mistake. I have not read a cogent case about increasing its power.

[Psychic Octopus]

Abolish it.

End the Fed.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Keep it, reduce/curb it's power.

The argument for abolishing it, like much of the rhetoric from the right-wing in American politics, requires complete ignorance of basic economics and higher prioritization on what feels/sounds nice for your ideology as opposed to simple facts.

And I have a rather hard time taking a 14 year old's opinion on the federal reserve and it's function in the U.S. economy seriously.

[Psychic Octopus]

And I have a rather hard time taking a 14 year old's opinion on the federal reserve and it's function in the U.S. economy seriously.

Suffice it to say, Fcuk you.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Keep it, reduce/curb it's power.

The argument for abolishing it, like much of the rhetoric from the right-wing in American politics, requires complete ignorance of basic economics and higher prioritization on what feels/sounds nice for your ideology as opposed to simple facts.

And I have a rather hard time taking a 14 year old's opinion on the federal reserve and it's function in the U.S. economy seriously.

Really, dazzle us ignorant teenagers with your economic brilliance. Let's hear why those who are against the Fed are so horrible.

[Mint]

Keep it, reduce/curb it's power.

The argument for abolishing it, like much of the rhetoric from the right-wing in American politics, requires complete ignorance of basic economics and higher prioritization on what feels/sounds nice for your ideology as opposed to simple facts.

And I have a rather hard time taking a 14 year old's opinion on the federal reserve and it's function in the U.S. economy seriously.

Simple facts are that the federal reserve's policies have contributed directly to the current crisis (through ludicrously low interest rates that nearly every acknowledges as irresponsible) as well as the progressive erosion of purchasing power since it's inception. We have seen this pattern play out many times before in our history... I fail to see what's so irrational about at least returning the power to issue currency to the treasury, as was originally intended. If anything you should support that since it's more transparent and makes those in charge of banking more accountable to the people.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Abolish it.

End the Fed.

[Bo]

Keep it, reduce/curb it's power.

The argument for abolishing it, like much of the rhetoric from the right-wing in American politics, requires complete ignorance of basic economics and higher prioritization on what feels/sounds nice for your ideology as opposed to simple facts.

And I have a rather hard time taking a 14 year old's opinion on the federal reserve and it's function in the U.S. economy seriously.

Simple facts are that the federal reserve's policies have contributed directly to the current crisis (through ludicrously low interest rates that nearly every acknowledges as irresponsible) as well as the progressive erosion of purchasing power since it's inception. We have seen this pattern play out many times before in our history... I fail to see what's so irrational about at least returning the power to issue currency to the treasury, as was originally intended. If anything you should support that since it's more transparent and makes those in charge of banking more accountable to the people.

I agree with you here. However, I would support retaining a weakened Fed just in case things get out of control on their own (like the hyperinflation of the 70s, where the Fed was not involved in causing it).

[k-onmmunist]

Abolish it.

End the Fed.

[Beet]

Keep it, reduce/curb it's power.

The argument for abolishing it, like much of the rhetoric from the right-wing in American politics, requires complete ignorance of basic economics and higher prioritization on what feels/sounds nice for your ideology as opposed to simple facts.

And I have a rather hard time taking a 14 year old's opinion on the federal reserve and it's function in the U.S. economy seriously.

Simple facts are that the federal reserve's policies have contributed directly to the current crisis (through ludicrously low interest rates that nearly every acknowledges as irresponsible) as well as the progressive erosion of purchasing power since it's inception. We have seen this pattern play out many times before in our history... I fail to see what's so irrational about at least returning the power to issue currency to the treasury, as was originally intended. If anything you should support that since it's more transparent and makes those in charge of banking more accountable to the people.

Because the Treasury is more likely to be politically motivated than the Fed. The Fed are a bunch of academic professionals with long term appointments. On the other hand, the Treasury Secretary is often a politician or bank chieftan and is accountable to the President, who is worried about re-election. Therefore, if monetary power is under control of the President, it will be more likely to become over-expansionary and over-inflationary. Isn't this what the Paulties are always complaining about?

[Mint]

I think looking at the performance of people like Burns, Greenspan, Bernanke, etc. just in the last few decades dispels that notion. We've had blatantly political decisions made repeatedly, often was devastating consequences. Of course we've had less panics on average since the depression (itself brought on, in part, by irresponsibly low rates in the early 20s). But I wouldn't say that's because of the inherent superiority of the current system so much as the unusually optimal conditions we had in the post-war era especially in regards to industry.

The bottom line is this: we need transparency and we need accountability. We can not afford to continue having secret loans, undisclosed foreign transactions, 'phantom inventory,' etc. This crisis should have taught us that. At least what I propose would involve congress (and by extension, the public) having direct access to that information. Right now we have nothing.

[CatoMinor]

Abolish it.

End the Fed.

[Beet]

I am not opposed to greater transparency so long as it does not undermine the Fed's ability to serve under its role as lender of last resort during banking liquidity crises. The idea of lender of last resort is not some socialist conspiracy. It is a basic tenet of modern capitalism that goes back to the experience of British panics in the 19th century. Bernanke, [Milton] Friedman, and others claim, and I take seriously, the idea that in some cases, forcing the Fed to disclose its counterparties would cripple its ability to be a lender of last resort during panics.

I am not against greater transparency requirements that do not affect this function. The Fed itself has stated a goal of increased transparency, and it has often acceded to such demands in the past after initial opposition. It may do so again. Part of the problem of the Greenspan Fed was that his personal aura and celebrity served for too many as a substitute for justification of his actions, in particular his flippancy at bubbles after 1997 and his violation of the Taylor rule in 2001-2004. Ideally, the Fed Chairman should be a relatively obscure figure, not a celebrity or Man of the Year. But before laying all blame at the feet of the Federal Reserve as an institution, fundamentally the idea of celebrity central bankers is only one part of the deeper social mentality of the "easy buck" as opposed to hard work for real wealth. As for Arthur Burns' mistakes, they were eventually corrected well before spiraling into hyperinflation-- contrast that to third world countries where the political leaders directly manipulate the money supply.

Unfortunately, a lot of people who really haven't thought through the consequences of their opinions have, for the past year or more, joined a misguided populist wave. The anger is justified, but the conclusions and slogans, like 'end the Fed' are stupid, and potentially dangerous.

[Bo]

I think looking at the performance of people like Burns, Greenspan, Bernanke, etc. just in the last few decades dispels that notion. We've had blatantly political decisions made repeatedly, often was devastating consequences. Of course we've had less panics on average since the depression (itself brought on, in part, by irresponsibly low rates in the early 20s). But I wouldn't say that's because of the inherent superiority of the current system so much as the unusually optimal conditions we had in the post-war era especially in regards to industry.

The bottom line is this: we need transparency and we need accountability. We can not afford to continue having secret loans, undisclosed foreign transactions, 'phantom inventory,' etc. This crisis should have taught us that. At least what I propose would involve congress (and by extension, the public) having direct access to that information. Right now we have nothing.

The reason we stopped having banking panics was because the Glass-Steagall Act and other similar laws were passed in the early 1930s. The Fed didn't do squat to handle banking panics--in fact, it caused two severe financial crises in the 1920s and late 2000s due to holding interest rates too low too long. Both of these crises were also allowed to happen because there were no laws separating commercial and investment banking (such as the Glass-Steagall Act) in the 1920s and 2000s. I think that the Fed should only be able to intervene in the economy if unemployment is 8-9% or higher and/or if inflation is 5% or higher or deflation is 1% or higher. Otherwise, if the Fed would intervene in the economy for too long, it often might create bubbles that would favor the rich and screw over the American economy and ordinary Americans in general. That's why I support Option 2 -- keeping the Fed but reducing its power.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

option 4