The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Julia Gillard’s inability to change political direction: A price we all pay > Comments

Julia Gillard’s inability to change political direction: A price we all pay : Comments

By Bruce Haigh, published 8/9/2011

The decline of the Left, the disappearance of the Centre and the bullying of the Right: the modern Australian paradigm.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Yabby

I think you'd find the bankers representatives on the Fed Res don't give a diddly squat about 'what is best for the country in the longer term'.

I think you'd find they pay much more attention to the interests of the banks in both the short and longer term and any advantage for the country would be pure fluke or unintended consequence.
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 12 September 2011 4:33:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/board/default.htm

Nutter, there is a list of the current board of Governors and their
credentials. Tell me which ones don't give a stuff about the
US economy.

Methinks you would not have a clue as to what people are thinking
but its easy to try and pretend that you do.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 12 September 2011 5:22:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby

I'll respond to your insults by pointing that you have overlooked what I actually said.

There's that old lack of comprehension you always used to display.

I didn't say the members appointed by the Government 'don't give a stuff about the US economy'. I said the bankers representatives don't give a didly squat.

The other mistake you make is in understanding the essential roles in the Fed Res, and your assertions or suggestions don't reflect the truth.

Firstly the setting of interest rates and monetary policy is not the responsibility of the Board of Governors. A committeee called the Federal Open Market Committee is, by law, entrusted with those roles
This committee has 12 voting members:

In 2011 the Members of the FOMC were

Ben S. Bernanke, Board of Governors, Chairman
William C. Dudley, New York, Vice Chairman
Elizabeth A. Duke, Board of Governors
Charles L. Evans, Chicago
Richard W. Fisher, Dallas
Narayana Kocherlakota, Minneapolis
Charles I. Plosser, Philadelphia
Sarah Bloom Raskin, Board of Governors
Daniel K. Tarullo, Board of Governors
Janet L. Yellen, Board of Governors

Alternate Members
Jeffrey M. Lacker, Richmond
Dennis P. Lockhart, Atlanta
Sandra Pianalto, Cleveland
John C. Williams, San Francisco
Christine M. Cumming, First Vice President, New York

Non-voting Reserve Bank presidents attend the meetings of the Committee, participate in the discussions, and contribute to the Committee's assessment of the economy and policy options.

Much of the information supplied to this committee is supplied by the Regional Feds and decisions are made on the basis of that information.

Now of the Board of Governors Members:

Duke once served on the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond and has extensive banking background.

Raskin once worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and also has extensive banking background.

Yellan was President and Chief Executive Officer of the Twelfth District Federal Reserve Bank, at San Francisco.

Only Bernanke and Tarullo weren't from the Reserve Bank System. They are banking academics.

Don't you think the backgrounds of these people windicate some preference in their attitudes and emphasises in setting monetary policy?
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 13 September 2011 8:12:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nutter, one of my experiences about life is that people who don't
have much, invariably think that the rich are only driven by money.

In all my dealings with them, that has not been my experience. Ego
is a far larger driver, then money ever was. They just use money
as a kind of scorecard as to how they are doing in this world.

Serving on the Fed is considered quite a prestige appointment, but
it also carries with it responsibilities and lots of criticism.

As you would know, economics is hardly an exact science, or not
even a science at all. So there is much debate about what kind
of monetary policy is best for the country and economy, despite what
politicians might be doing.

These guys don't serve on the Fed because they need the money. Getting
it right would be a huge boost to their ego, so why should they not
do the best job that they can and cash in on all the prestige which
that entails? Money can't buy that.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 13 September 2011 9:37:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

It is my experience in life that employees will invariably do the bidding of the people who pay them and who will best enhance their careers.

None of those people on the list actually own any of the Fed Res banks. They may have a few shares but they wouldn't be from the families like the Rockeffellers, the Rothschilds, the Morgans, and lately the Buffetts etc who own the vast majority of shares inthe banks that make up the membership of the Federal Reserve. They achieve their positions through the patronage of the owners of these banks. I doubt they would be all that rich. They are like most board members in most enterprises, very well off but not mega rich like the people they serve.

I don't know your would but in mine money can very definitely be seen to buy prestige. But then again our values are somewhat different. In my world it isn't seen as all that prestigious to be an employee.

In the organisation of the Fed Res I guess we see differently where the prestige lies. I think the owners carry the prestige where you see it lies with the employees. hmmmm I guess we are both exposing more of ourselves than we normally would and I think this discourse should end.
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 6:51:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*But then again our values are somewhat different. In my world it isn't seen as all that prestigious to be an employee.*

Nutter, that really depends on where you are working and why. In
America, results matter, above all. Steve Jobs gained his prestige
not because he owns shares in Apple, but as an employee of Apple,
having turned Apple into what it is, the list goes on.

Petreus won prestige as he got results in Iraq, not because he was
rich. Service to the country, if you get results does indeed carry
prestige with it in America.

All American savings banks have shares in the Fed, but they don't
get to keep the profits, as Arjay and others seem to imply.
So the Rockefellers, Rothchilds and others, really don't matter.
In fact like here, pension funds today are the largest investors
in banks, so everyday Americans would be the largest investors
in the Fed
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 11:17:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy