A couple of comments here: The Fed usually acts in lockstep behind the Chairman, and under Greenspan most (if not all) FOMC votes were unanimous.
Bernanke has encouraged more debate and a plurality of opinions (good) but this could be leading to a more serious rift (and lets hope it cracks that
evil institution in two).
The issue seems to be the interest rates: when to raise them, by how much, to what extent, etc.
The Fed is caught between a rock and a hard space. If it keeps rates low forever, the dollar will collapse for good as the world's reserve currency,
the US will be at risk of hyperinflation, while at the same time imported goods (i.e., almost everything) will skyrocket beyond the ability of normal
Americans to pay. Whatever is left of the US standing as a "superpower" will collapse, bases will close everywhere, and military will return home,
angry and jobless. Social security and whatever medical care checks are given out will likely be not worth the paper they are printed on. Granny will
have to chose between eating catfood and sewing up the ripped colosotomy bag, or getting a new one and going without the Fancy Feast that evening.
Meanwhile shevles will be emptied, there will be literal lines for food and basic necessities, businesses and retailers will go bankrupt. Chaos.
If they raise the rates, they put additional budens on already-stressed borrowers, be they consumers, companies, or the government. All are deeply
indebted already, and additional interest will be the very heavy staw that breaks millions of camel's backs. Comapneis will choke off what little
hiring they are doing, millions more houses (not just "deadbeat" cases or those with exotic mortgages) will be forced into foreclosure, further
putting downward pressure on the already-moribund property markets. Businesses will not be able to borrow money they need to ride out or innovate in
the face of of this storm, etc. etc. Chaos.
You can't have both high and low interest rates. Trouble is, they seem to lead to the same place: Chaos.
Snippet from the article:
Fissures are developing among policy makers at the Federal Reserve as they debate how and when to start raising the benchmark interest rate from its
current level just above zero.
With Fed officials forecasting that unemployment will average 9.8 percent in 2010, nobody appears to be arguing that monetary policy should be
tightened anytime soon. The central bank’s official mantra continues to be that the overnight federal funds rate will remain “exceptionally low”
for “an extended period.”
But Fed officials have hinted at new disagreement in recent weeks. The arguments go beyond the traditional split between hawks, who worry that easy
money will stoke inflation, and doves, who contend that unemployment is the top problem.
The more devilish debates are about how fast to act once the decision has been made, and how to carry it out. Beyond raising the overnight federal
funds rate, the Fed also has to unwind $2 trillion in special programs that prop up paralyzed banks and credit markets.
Where Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, stands in the emerging argument is a question mark. At a conference held by the Fed on Thursday evening, he
assured economists that the central bank had a detailed list of tools to reverse course but offered no new hint of when he planned to begin his exit
strategy.
“When the economic outlook has improved sufficiently, we will be prepared to tighten the stance of monetary policy and eventually return our balance
sheet to a more normal configuration,” Mr. Bernanke promised.
Any move to tighten monetary policy over the next year or so could set the stage for a clash between the Fed and the White House. The Obama
administration has been outspoken in saying it does not want a quick end to stimulus policies, whether fiscal or monetary.
Policy makers are haunted by the results of previous miscalculations. Mr. Bernanke and others have warned that the central bank should not repeat its
error in 1937, when it raised interest rates too early and helped extend the Depression for several years.
At the same time, officials at the Fed are acutely aware that it has been widely blamed for contributing to the housing bubble and the financial
collapse by keeping the cost of borrowing too low for too long after the recession of 2001.
One hint of the discord came Tuesday, in a speech by Thomas M. Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
Though he stopped short of calling for immediate rate increases, Mr. Hoenig made it clear that he was getting impatient.
“My experience tells me that we will need to remove our very accommodative policy sooner rather than later,” he told an audience of business
executives. “Even if we were to start immediately, much time would pass before incremental increases could be considered tight or even neutral
policy.”
More at source
www.nytimes.com...
[edit on 10/13/09 by silent thunder]