The charter would serve the public's interest better if it only focused on keeping prices in check. Worrying about employment should be under the purview of politicians, policymakers, businessmen, and so on. Doing their best, both sides will find a balance (in the form of reaching the economy's full potential).
BTW, you do understand that unemployment and inflation are inversely related, right?
And craig, I'm glad to see you admit the underlying problem was POLITICS, not the market itself. The problem is that politicians can be bought, and that they can be persuaded to rape taxpayers in all of these corporate bailouts. If we had let the bad firms and bad investments be liquidated and bought by stronger firms, this economic crash would have been finished long ago. Instead the process has been dragged out by incessant intervention and the propping up of zombi-fied firms with connections in Washington and endless lines of 0% credit from the fed.
I'm sorry I can't say it more simply for you. Monetary policy affects employment. Politicians put monetary policy largely in the hands of the fed.
Therefore, having it in the Fed charter HAS AN EFFECT, as opposed to not putting it in the charter but making a lot of nice speeches that they are all for low unemployment.
What did I say that implied otherwise?
Craig, not craig. As for the weighing of the problem between the market and politics, here's the issue:
Not everyone understands that the market is 'psychopathic', as so well explained in "The Corporation", in its pursuit of profit. People see it provide puppy dog food and thing it has some benevolent constraints that it does not have, while failing to appreciate that it's the role of government in our democracy to create the boundaries for the market to serve the public interest - which includes making safe,affordable puppy dog food, profitably.
So, to the extent that you are trying to say that the markets are some wonderful benevolent forces and government is the problem - wrong.
But to the extent that you are understanding what I'm saying that this is primarily a political problems, not a market problem, because markets can be expected to act in this harmful manner if allowed to, and it's the political system that is supposed to prevent the problem, we are agreeing.
You take it too far with statements like 'politicians can be bought' without qualifying them. Who can 'buy' Henry Waxman? SOME can be bought on some things - disastrously.
But the corruption is often of a different type than simply 'being bought' - there are a lot of ways special interests gian inappropriate influence.
You go on to spew one thory as if it were fact - a theory that every credible economist I've seen disagrees with you on.
It's easy for you to *claim* they're all wrong that the government intervention prevented a systemic crash; doesn't make you right, or wrong for that matter, but it's hardly proof.
But let's note our apparent agreement, at least, that there is a big problem with the corruption of our political system, affecting both parties - though not to the same degree.
Well, politicians know that they will be bias when it comes to monetary policy. that's why the fed is supposed to be independent. There are many central banks that don't have it in their charter and they seem to be fine. IMHO, the only effect it has is hamstringing the Fed.
Yes, but 'bias' on monetary policy implies bad things, while employment is not seen as 'bias' or a bad things, but rather good for the citizens.
Bias would be having the Fed set policy by asking the banks what they want; employment is *public* policy.
You only see it as hamstringing, because you apparently have a misguided and radical right-wing ideology that makes you see pro-employment policies as worthless and costly.
Since it appears to be an alien policy to you, I'll mention it's hardly the only time in our history the government has put public policy in place in institutions. When the government first regulated the airwaves, they required the content serve the public interest as a price for the businesses getting the use of the airways for profit for free. Corporations themselves used to need to have some specific 'public good' in their charter to be approved. Theodore Roosevelt used to say that when a man's fortune grows past a certain point, the effect on the public outweighs his personal desires for it - he was for keeping fortunes from growing too large. Our government was quick in space exploration to pursue a global policy that it could only be used for peace (which they're now backpedalling on). Our national parks got their start when miners wanted to destroy the beauty ni Yosemite with blasting and Lincoln said no, the public interest in preserving its beauty dserved protection. The government frequently legislates consumer safety issues and environmental effects of products rather than leaving it up to the market.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
Who is John Galt?
Would anyone care to discuss the actual book?
Weren't Reisman and his wife psychologist Edith Packer excommunicated from the Objectivist movement or at least from the Ayn Rand Institute several years ago for various reasons?
Originally posted by: shiner
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Goldbug
bump for craig self pwnage.
Clueless.
If by clueless you mean accurate...then yeah.
If by accurate you mean clueless, then ya.
Balance, balance, balance between competing factors and benefits.
What's better, water to drink or food to eat, or leisure products?
It's pretty easy to say you can't really pick between the first two, and that the third comes lower priority - but that doesn't mean you might not pass up SOME food for leisure costs.
Well then, if you want good balance, why not optimize returns by letting each group focus on what they do best? Let the government maximize employment and let the independent central bankers have an optimal interest rate in response to the whole economy?
Government does not create productive jobs, and central bankers will always have imperfect knowledge of market conditions..and by imposing their will at a central level are guaranteed to cause damage and distortions to the market. The only sensible policy with regard to employment and interest rates is laissez faire.
To repeat myself, because monetary policy has a big effect on employment, and so politicians need it in monetary policy, making speeches 'we like employment' won't do it.
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: shiner
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Goldbug
bump for craig self pwnage.
Clueless.
If by clueless you mean accurate...then yeah.
If by accurate you mean clueless, then ya.
You never did try to refute what yllus said.
As usual you are wrong, it is pointed out to you and you aren't man enough to suck it up and admit it.
I just read through this thread again and craig actually did this whne somebody didnt capitalize his handle lmao. The ego on this guy is hilarious.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter