The appointment process is a fig leaf. The bankers control the appointment process and, indeed, much of government itself. See, for example, Simon Johnson's article "The Quiet Coup" in The Atlantic. I believe it appeared in 2008 -- it should be in their online archive, if not, I can provide a PDF.
With respect to the danger of politicians controlling monetary policy, the Kucinich bill would vest that power in an independent commission. The way I look at it is that the system the bankers set up with the 1913 Federal Reserve Act has served them very well while delivering two depressions (counting the present one) to the public. The people deserve a chance to run it given the poor track record and the fact that it is the people who bear the costs. The Fed refuses to be accountable and transparent. It took Bernie Sanders amendment to squeeze out of them an accounting that showed that they had lent out $16 trillion in the recent crisis, in some cases to non-banks and foreign banks. Yes, it is a cartel. Like a cartel, they fix prices, e.g., the "prime rate". Also, some of the banks are likely in the favored position to trade on insider information about the Fed's present and future monetary policies. Another cost of this arrangement is the interest on the Federal debt which the Congressional Budget Office forecasts at $800 billion/year in 2020. Another outcome of this arrangement is that the bankers can manipulate the public and Congress into gutting social programs so that an ever larger portion of tax revenues can be devoted to debt service. Peter -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Devine Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:23 PM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] More on comparing U.S. debt position to household raghu <[email protected]> wrote: > (1) What does it mean to say the Fed is privately-owned? I can > understand why someone would say the NY Fed is "owned" by the Wall St > cartel, but that does not seem like an accurate description of the Fed > Board of Governors. the 12 Reserve Banks are owned by member banks, but the system as a whole is government-run (through appointees). Both the banks and the appointees are on the Open Market Committee. It's a public/private partnership. In addition, I'd say it's a government-sponsored cartel of banks. > (2) Nationalizing the Fed would simply turn the central bank from the > control of technocrats like Bernanke to political appointees. Why is > this necessarily a good thing? yeah, is Geithner preferable to Bernanke? -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
