Fed needs to be looked at for conflicts of interest
August 31, 2012 Leave a comment
The Federal Reserve is run by people who have connections with banks and investment houses.
So what happens when those interests conflict with those of the general population?
Banks and investment firms will want QE3 because they can make money off it and provide society with nothing in return.
Bernanke says further QE will drive stocks and financial markets higher.
Stocks and financial markets are not the economy.
If a company is objectively worth a billion dollars and already has a market capitalization of 5 billion dollars, what on earth do we accomplish by raising it’s market capitalization to 10 billion dollars?
What do consumers and retailers gain from increasing prices of food, gas and other commodities?
I see in an article on Jackson Hole that Bernanke has supposedly “refuted” the arguments against QE.
That QE makes commodity prices go up is notorious and irrefutable. These markets are constantly reported to go up on anticipation of QE. What conceivable argument could Bernanke make that this does not happen?
Or maybe, notwithstanding that it was increasing commodity prices precipitated the financial crisis, it is his position that increasing commodity prices so that consumers and retailers are poorer is good for the economy.
The markets are not the economy. Remember when things happen that are bad for the economy, like layoffs, moving manufacturing offshore to cheaper sites, and drops in wages, the markets tend to go up.
Then there is the claim that QE created 2 million jobs.
It was recently revealed that jobs just rose to the same level as at the start of Obama’s presidency.
So when there is no net increase, what is the basis for coming up with 2 million jobs? It’s like Bernanke is channelling Romney.
Moreover, QE2 by increasing commodity prices has probably slowed the recovery. Extra money going to international energy and resource companies is money that isn’t spent locally.
Liquidity issues, if they arise, should be dealt with by way of adding the minimum liquidity required, and targeted, so as to deal with that problem but not create unnecessary inflation.
The point of adding liquidity is so that viable businesses don’t close their doors because of an artificial problem.
Buying up government bonds so that companies that already have liquidity will plant their money elsewhere does not accomplish that objective except perhaps indirectly and in the discretion of other institutions.
Fed members need to remember that when they make decisions they are only wearing one hat.
If they are getting confused about that, well, the basis for giving the Fed free reign is they are supposed to be a neutral independent body.