They are out voted by governors if necessary. I don't know why I bother to respond to your ridiculous posts. All you'd have to do is look at the make-up of the FOMC to realize it's under firm control of the Governors. (Have you heard of Google?) Reality is that the Regional Banks follow directives from the FOMC and the Board of Governors. You're still stuck back in pre-1932. The Fed operation is huge! The Fed is the Bank's Bank -- they are the clearing house for all U.S. bank and Treasury transactions! and the auditors of banks, in addition to all their other critical functions. Every time you write a check it goes through the Fed for clearing, electronically of course, not physically! And it does so by midnight on the day it is presented at a bank for clearing. And you don't have to worry whether the Bank you wrote it on is solvent or not. The Fed will guarantee your check will clear so long as you have deposited funds to back it, regardless of the solvency of the institution it is written on! The strength, stability and reliability of the U.S. Banking system is the model for the rest of the world. Because the Fed operation is so gigantic it only makes sense to split the various operations up regionally. The Dallas Branch and one or two others handle all the check clearing. The NY Branch, the Bond Desk operation, etc. The research function is distributed among all the branches and in Washington. The examiners are distributed throughout the nation with their home offices associated with each of the regional branches, instead of having them all located in Washington, which would make no sense. That's the reason we have, to this day, maintained the regional Branch structure. It makes good practical sense.
They did far, far more than that! It was brilliant actually the way they handled the crisis that they, indeed, played the major role in creating. A good lesson was learned I hope. Markets are self correcting (Eventually) but not always harmlessly as Greenspan firmly believed they would do. Most of the time markets are far from equilibrium and moving spontaneously further away from equilibrium. And as we have seen, they can move so far out of whack that when the correction finally comes it can come violently and causes a lot of collateral damage. It was the brilliance of the Fed under Bernanke, working with the Treasury under Paulson, and with a cooperative Administration, that kept us out of an extended depression and prevented the collateral damage from being even worse. You can compare the speed of recovery in the U.S. to that in the EU where they do not have a common bond, and Draghi, who had the same influences and mentors as Bernanke, was therefore forced to deal with the crisis with one hand tied behind his back by the German's, who have never updated their economic thinking to accommodate a post Gold Standard world.
Apparently Greenspan kept to himself all those letters he was getting from those warning of underwriting standards going to hell. I have been reading Greenspan's autobiography.
Funny joke about the death of some 2 hundred people, I suppose. But computers do lots of things in this world right now. I know that might not be evident from a bar stool in a pub in Alabama, but they do. And they don't cause death.
Of course he did. He's just as guilty for the destruction of the middle class as Bernanke. Maybe more so because he wasn't just an idiot like Ben.
Markets are self correcting when you let them self correct. We, of course, don't do that. The Fed is involved - has been involved - in propping up the stock market for years now. And when the piper needs to be paid, they'll get more and more desperate. Some central banks are already all in (BoJ, SNB, etc). The Fed has so much more craziness to deploy it will frighten even you some day. As for complimenting someone on doing a great job putting out a fire that they started, well that's really swell.
The old don’t blame me for the idiot I voted for argument. Very clever. I really don’t know where to start with all of this “the Fed created the recession” nonsense. Congress failed to do its job in the 2000s and you can blame democrats and republicans alike, mostly republicans though, for lack of regulation. AAA says rates were too high, I assume you’re saying rates were too low. You guys figure it out for yourselves. The Fed is certainly not perfect. I absolutely agree. Yes, the Fed is showing a lot of weakness in bending to political pressure and market crybabies. No, a computer is not a viable source for interest rate decisions. That’s just whacky.
Really... you are such a bullshitter. I doubt what you said is true overall. But, I wanted to see if what I learned was incorrect. I would like to see your proof. But for now I will state this.... You need to read the FED charter and documents. There was a thread here, where it was pointed out that the board must vote unanimously to change policy. There was a citation to the FED charter. Even wikipedia states the Board must reach consensus. With 5 on the board from the regional fed banks... the idea of control control by the governors is is illusory... Hence Kabuki. Consensus[edit] Finally, the Committee must reach a consensus regarding the appropriate course for policy, which is incorporated in a directive to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York—the Bank that executes transactions for the System Open Market Account. The directive is cast in terms designed to provide guidance to the Manager in the conduct of day-to-day open market operations. The directive sets forth the Committee's objectives for long-run growth of certain key monetary and credit aggregates.[5] It also sets forth operating guidelines for the degree of ease or restraint to be sought in reserve conditions and expectations with regard to short-term rates of growth in the monetary aggregates. Policy is implemented with emphasis on supplying reserves in a manner consistent with these objectives and with the nation's broader economic objectives.[5] ---- Therefore... Everything you write is propaganda. My only question is whether you realize it or not?
What? Trump doesn't understand the Fed anymore than Obama did, or Bush before him. All of them appointed people that should not be at the Fed. Hillary would have done the same. Which party were Glass and Steagall in, can you remind me? AAA's position is more "rates were kept low for Obama forever to help juice the economy, and so they started raising when Trump came on board." i see where AAA is coming from. However, they've been kept way too low for way too long, regardless of who is in the white house. Why? It's just a model. What is whacky [sic] is expecting academics who have no real business experience, are corruptible and easily swayed by absurd arguments to do the right thing.