During his lecture, Chairman Bernake said many things about "the gold standard" as if there was only one possible kind of gold standard, the one that existed after World War I. Many of his assertions were true, as far as they went. However, in focusing on the shortcomings of one monetary regime, he diverted attention from the big picture. Only an automatic, market-based monetary control system can support rapid, stable, crisis-free economic growth in an economy as complex as America's. If it were possible for Fed experts using their discretion to achieve this, we would not have the problems that we have today. http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/03/27/ben_bernankes_shocking_gold_standard_ignorance_99586.html
I think the premise - if The Fed was good enough to manipulate an economy the benefit of all, it would have been done by now - if valid. How possible or good it would be to go back to a gold standard isn't something I would pretend to know, but frankly - how could it be worse than having one group of mortals do it? Do they really know what one would need to know to "run" an economy? Sounds like Fatal Conceit to me.
Or as the author put it:
It is simply not possible for a group of experts, with discretionary power and no rules, to manage, "money" effectively. If anyone had doubts, the Fed has conclusively proved this point over the past 40 years.
What sounds like massive folly is to keep betting the welfare on so many on the President's ability to pick a Fed Chairman - why's that different than roulette?
I think the premise - if The Fed was good enough to manipulate an economy the benefit of all, it would have been done by now - if valid. How possible or good it would be to go back to a gold standard isn't something I would pretend to know, but frankly - how could it be worse than having one group of mortals do it? Do they really know what one would need to know to "run" an economy? Sounds like Fatal Conceit to me.
Or as the author put it:
It is simply not possible for a group of experts, with discretionary power and no rules, to manage, "money" effectively. If anyone had doubts, the Fed has conclusively proved this point over the past 40 years.
What sounds like massive folly is to keep betting the welfare on so many on the President's ability to pick a Fed Chairman - why's that different than roulette?
No comments:
Post a Comment