Federal Reserve Board is now stocked entirely with Bush appointees

Federal Reserve Board is now stocked entirely with Bush appointees

economistsview.typepad.com

Mark Thoma points out that the Federal Reserve Board is now stocked entirely with Bush appointees, which isn't really how the Fed is supposed to work. But he doesn't go into why.

Fed governors serve staggered 14-year terms, so clearly the idea is to keep any one president from appointing the entire board. But nowadays Fed governors almost always leave before the end of their terms.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
economistsview.typepad.com
time-blog.com

Why is our economy so bad? What would be the next step to controlling money and the power? Bush has it figured out, this would be the way it would have to be done.

economistsview.typepad.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by xstealth


I wonder what the stats are of this ever happening before, or how many time this has happened in the past. Either way though, it's got to be more than coincidence with everything else that's going on.



[edit on 4/22/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


It's a recurring theme with this admin...Total cronyism, stacking every branch of every dept with folks with vested interests, etc...Look at the INjustice department....

So essentially, since Bush appointed these guys and has granted them more power over the economy, we will be stuck in a Bush economy for the next 14 years or so? Well, he really did a bang up job with the last 8 years, so how bad could another 14 be.... right??


God Save Us.

I wonder whether there is ever open debate in congress regarding the 'renewal of the Federal Reserve Charter'?

It is supposed to be voted upon or simply one committees 'rubber stamp' or what? I believe it is also every 14 years. Apparently the president is allowed to 'appoint' one members each time around - but only from a list of 'candidates' provided by the Fed itself. This is what I got out of the "Money Masters" video, but it never really got into the mechanics of the charter renewal. Anyone here know how that works?

Maybe it's just to maintain the illusion that 'the people' are represented in the bank. Anyway, what the heck are we supposed to make of this?

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Maxmars]

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Maxmars]

... which isn't really how the Fed is supposed to work.

When the hell has Bush or this Admin. done anything in this 7 1/2 years, "the way it is supposed to work"?

What's the line? 'This country would be good if run under a dictatorship, just as long as I was the dictator"? Seems that's the way it has been.

I've said it before, this Admin. is not going to give up this White House, imo.

Well, as a sort of bright side, anything that goes wrong with the economy can be entirely blamed on the Bush administration.

Chalk another one up for charges of criminal incompetence.


If I were you, this would seem like a nice chance to abandon ship. Look at other countries, and figure out which ones fit the description of a place you would love to grow old in, and go.

Speaking of the FED - I'll add this bit of news:

www.myprops.org...

A few days ago an unusual event took place: Paul Volcker, the mythical U.S. Federal Reserve Board chairman from the Reagan years, criticized the policy of the current Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, in a speech to the Economic Club of New York.

Just so you grasp how extraordinary this was, you should first understand that normally a past Fed chairman scrupulously avoids saying anything at all about current Fed policy - for the simple reason that the current Fed chairman's words are one of his most important tools: They can sway markets.

This ability does not fade entirely when a Fed chairman leaves.

So when a past Fed chairman speaks, his words can clash with those of the present one and make that one's job difficult. Out of professional courtesy, past Fed chairmen therefore keep quiet; Mr. Volcker especially - the man who hiked interest rates to 20 per cent to kill inflation, at the cost of a deep recession. But last week Mr. Volcker spoke his mind bluntly. He said, in effect, that the current Fed is not doing its job.

This would have been unusual enough. But Mr. Volcker went further. Not only is the Fed not doing its job, he said, but it is doing the wrong job: It is defending the economy and the market, instead of defending the dollar. And just to stick the knife in, Mr. Volcker added that this bad job now will make the real job - defending the greenback - much harder later. It'll cause even greater economic suffering.

In plain words, Mr. Volcker implied that the current Fed is not only incompetent, but that its actions are dangerous…

Up to now Mr. Volcker kept quiet, but no more. In his speech he just said, in effect, that the recession is not the Fed's problem. It's the government's. The Fed's job is to defend the currency and fight inflation - exactly the opposite of what this Fed is doing. The solution? Raise interest rates, Mr. Volcker practically said, no matter the consequences now, because if you don't, you'll have to raise them even more later, with even more awful consequences.

Will rates indeed rise? I have no doubt they must. Not now, perhaps, but at the end of this year or the beginning of 2009, with a new president in the White House. The stock market, which usually looks six to nine months ahead, already understands this and may soon react. In fact, when Mr. Volcker's words sink in, the markets are likely to sink as this bear market rally ends.