Fed Chairman Bernanke nominated for another term

Some are divided over Bernanke's performance.

My opinion is that regardless of any missteps he has done, the overall result takes precedence.

He did keep the financial crisis from exploding into a second Great Depression,

I think he should serve another term.

Link

I doubt that he could be ever worse than Alan Greenspan.

Wasn't the fed called into life to make sure a crisis like this never happens? Or was alan greenspan the guy that was on watch when everything went wrong?

The Fed should be gone.TheAbbeFaria

How would you suggest to have a stable money supply?

I am smart enough to know that a smarter man than I should be overseeing it...he seems to, at the very least, be doing a good enough job to stem the floodrawsavon

I won't pretend that I know enough to decide whether or not he's worthy of the job.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]The Fed should be gone.coolbeans90

How would you suggest to have a stable money supply?

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]I am smart enough to know that a smarter man than I should be overseeing it...he seems to, at the very least, be doing a good enough job to stem the floodTheAbbeFaria

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]The Fed should be gone.TheAbbeFaria

How would you suggest to have a stable money supply?

Way to avoid the question. What exactly would you replace it with?

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"][QUOTE="rawsavon"]I am smart enough to know that a smarter man than I should be overseeing it...he seems to, at the very least, be doing a good enough job to stem the floodrawsavon

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"] What has he done to "stem the flood" exactly? Who's to say that the government didn't orchestrate this economic disaster in the first place?TheAbbeFaria

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

How would you suggest to have a stable money supply?

coolbeans90

Way to avoid the question. What exactly would you replace it with?

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]I am smart enough to know that a smarter man than I should be overseeing it...he seems to, at the very least, be doing a good enough job to stem the floodTheAbbeFaria

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] I was about to answer...then I got to the last part of the post...really? -you should listen to what Collin Cowheard has to say about conspiracy theory guyrawsavon

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"][QUOTE="rawsavon"]I am smart enough to know that a smarter man than I should be overseeing it...he seems to, at the very least, be doing a good enough job to stem the floodbluezy

"Bernanke was first tapped to run the Fed by President George W. Bush. Before taking over in February 2006, Bernanke had served as Bush's top economic adviser"....

You guys think its cool that this guy should be running things again?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"] The Fed has existed for about 100 years since its creation in the early 20th century. Commerce-rich empires have existed for over 1000 years. The ending of the Fed would not mean economic disaster.TheAbbeFaria

Way to avoid the question. What exactly would you replace it with?

I see nothing in your post that indicates that things were better without a central bank, nor that suggests that the Federal Reserve should be replaced. Those "wealthiest empires" would hardly pass as second world modernly.

I won't pretend that I know enough to decide whether or not he's worthy of the job.

Oleg_Huzwog

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"] You should listen to what Plato has to say about debate and thought. You have not provided a proper rebuttal against the last point, and you have not answered the question put to you.TheAbbeFaria

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Way to avoid the question. What exactly would you replace it with?

coolbeans90

I see nothing in your post that indicates that things were better without a central bank, nor that suggests that the Federal Reserve should be replaced. Those "wealthiest empires" would hardly pass as second world modernly.

"Bernanke was first tapped to run the Fed by President George W. Bush. Before taking over in February 2006, Bernanke had served as Bush's top economic adviser"....

You guys think its cool that this guy should be running things again?

OBLOK

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"] I have not avoided anything. I provided an interesting paradigm which should elicit you to think about my position. If you're not thinking about my position, then why bother talking to you? In any case, I don't know what I would replace it with, perhaps nothing? Some of the wealthiest empires never had private entities like the Federal Reserve, so perhaps we should follow their model, or create something entirely different to replace the Federal Reserve with.TheAbbeFaria

I see nothing in your post that indicates that things were better without a central bank, nor that suggests that the Federal Reserve should be replaced. Those "wealthiest empires" would hardly pass as second world modernly.

Then the status-quo remains. Fine by me.

Countries with central banks are wealthy now.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] I assumed it was a rhetorical question...there is no way that one could prove that the Gov. did/did not orchestrate the economic downturn -at least not w/o extensive resources to dig up the facts -so inn lieu of that, we are left with only reason and logicrawsavon

The financial crisis really came out of nowhere, most including him didn'tsuspect it and even he has said that he could have and should have done more to prevent it...but when it did happen, and the country got closer and closer to a full blown depression, it was Bernanke who essentially prevented the worst of the worst from happening. He set many things in motion to get the economy back on track and it really should be him who oversees them for the next few years.

SaintLeonidas

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I see nothing in your post that indicates that things were better without a central bank, nor that suggests that the Federal Reserve should be replaced. Those "wealthiest empires" would hardly pass as second world modernly.

coolbeans90

Then the status-quo remains. Fine by me.

Countries with central banks are wealthy now.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"] I see nothing in your post that indicates why things are better with a central bank. . . Also, those "wealthiest" empires wouldn't pass as second world only because the world has changed since their times, which is why it is important to look at things in perspective.TheAbbeFaria

Then the status-quo remains. Fine by me.

Countries with central banks are wealthy now.

As opposed to poor countries dying under the boot of "wealthy empires" without central banks?

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"] There are many things we can't prove including conspiracies, but that doesn't mean we should ignore them or desist from debating them. Furthermore, one can debate this particular point with reason and logic, so I do not understand your meaning here, unless you think the dialogs between Socrates and Thrasymachus were completely bereft of logic and reasoning?TheAbbeFaria

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Then the status-quo remains. Fine by me.

Countries with central banks are wealthy now.

coolbeans90

As opposed to poor countries dying under the boot of "wealthy empires" without central banks?

[QUOTE="OBLOK"]

"Bernanke was first tapped to run the Fed by President George W. Bush. Before taking over in February 2006, Bernanke had served as Bush's top economic adviser"....

You guys think its cool that this guy should be running things again?

SaintLeonidas

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"] Countries without central banks, but which are under the boot of countries with central banks, are dying.TheAbbeFaria

As opposed to poor countries dying under the boot of "wealthy empires" without central banks?

I think that wealth is generally a good thing, ceteris paribus.

I do not think that the exploitation of poorer nations has anything to do with whether or not the Fed should be abolished. But being the one who suggested that it should be, the onus is on you to state why.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="OBLOK"]

"Bernanke was first tapped to run the Fed by President George W. Bush. Before taking over in February 2006, Bernanke had served as Bush's top economic adviser"....

You guys think its cool that this guy should be running things again?

OBLOK

The Federal Reserve determines whether or not we go to war? Interesting. I'm not too convinced that the wars caused the recession. Housing bubble, burst rather suddenly. Even then, there is only so much the Fed can do to minimize the cycle. Hence the bailouts/stimulus...

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="OBLOK"]

"Bernanke was first tapped to run the Fed by President George W. Bush. Before taking over in February 2006, Bernanke had served as Bush's top economic adviser"....

You guys think its cool that this guy should be running things again?

OBLOK

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

As opposed to poor countries dying under the boot of "wealthy empires" without central banks?

coolbeans90

I think that wealth is generally a good thing, ceteris paribus.

I do not think that the exploitation of poorer nations has anything to do with whether or not the Fed should be abolished. But being the one who suggested that it should be, the onus is on you to state why.

[QUOTE="OBLOK"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] The financial crisis really came out of nowhere, most including him didn'tsuspect it and even he has said that he could have and should have done more to prevent it...but when it did happen, and the country got closer and closer to a full blown depression, it was Bernanke who essentially prevented the worst of the worst from happening. He set many things in motion to get the economy back on track and it really should be him who oversees them for the next few years.

coolbeans90

The Federal Reserve determines whether or not we go to war? Interesting. I'm not too convinced that the wars caused the recession. Housing bubble, burst rather suddenly. Even then, there is only so much the Fed can do to minimize the cycle. Hence the bailouts/stimulus...

The war was just the first steps leading to the recession...

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"] Then we've reached a conclusion haven't we? Monetary wealth has not proved to be a virtuous goal as shown by the likes of the British Empire as well the United States. TheAbbeFaria

I think that wealth is generally a good thing, ceteris paribus.

I do not think that the exploitation of poorer nations has anything to do with whether or not the Fed should be abolished. But being the one who suggested that it should be, the onus is on you to state why.

Wealth as opposed to less wealth is a good thing. I do not think that countries should be impoverished to encourage it. There were plenty of booms and busts with the gold standard. It is part of the capitalist system. People in Vietnam working for corporations I doubt are worse off than they would be without employment.

What the Fed targets with the money supply, is the price level. Keeping it stable provides a fair amount of predictability, and confidence in the market. Sure, the system is prone human error, but so does every other system.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="OBLOK"]Thats totally rubbish, of course they saw it coming, what about the billions on war?, billions that vanished?, now billions on big corp bailouts?

OBLOK

The Federal Reserve determines whether or not we go to war? Interesting. I'm not too convinced that the wars caused the recession. Housing bubble, burst rather suddenly. Even then, there is only so much the Fed can do to minimize the cycle. Hence the bailouts/stimulus...

The war was just the first steps leading to the recession...

Alan Greenspan (Bernanke's predecessor) was the Federal Reserve chairman under Bush, whose policies to a large extent were somewhat responsible for encouraging the housing bubble.

The war did exactly what to encourage the recession? It was the foolish lending practices, and the policies which encouraged them which lead to the recession.

[QUOTE="OBLOK"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] The financial crisis really came out of nowhere, most including him didn'tsuspect it and even he has said that he could have and should have done more to prevent it...but when it did happen, and the country got closer and closer to a full blown depression, it was Bernanke who essentially prevented the worst of the worst from happening. He set many things in motion to get the economy back on track and it really should be him who oversees them for the next few years.

SaintLeonidas

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I think that wealth is generally a good thing, ceteris paribus.

I do not think that the exploitation of poorer nations has anything to do with whether or not the Fed should be abolished. But being the one who suggested that it should be, the onus is on you to state why.

coolbeans90

Wealth as opposed to less wealth is a good thing. I do not think that countries should be impoverished to encourage it. There were plenty of booms and busts with the gold standard. It is part of the capitalist system. People in Vietnam working for corporations I doubt are worse off than they would be without employment.

What the Fed targets with the money supply, is the price level. Keeping it stable provides a fair amount of predictability, and confidence in the market. Sure, the system is prone human error, but so does every other system.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="OBLOK"]Thats totally rubbish, of course they saw it coming, what about the billions on war?, billions that vanished?, now billions on big corp bailouts?

OBLOK

[QUOTE="OBLOK"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] It wasn't just spending that led to this financial crisis. And you can complain all you want about bailouts but they were one thing that helped prevent a full blown depression.

SaintLeonidas

The Fed should be gone.TheAbbeFaria

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"] quod, contentionem optimum non me das, ergo tu rem non probas. ita vero, ego linguam latinam dico, et tu? It's interesting that you should agree with the premise that nations that strive for wealth have proven to hurt other countries in the process, yet you think wealth is a good thing. Certainly, it can't be good for those in Vietnam, working in rice fields for big corporations like Wal-Mart. Greedy investors and profligate consumers are but a symptom of the real problem, which is monetary policy. The history of the boom-bust cycle since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 has been the deliberate increase of the money supply, the misallocation of resources due to the perverse incentives of inflation, and eventually the bursting of the bubble. It is the consequence of the Federal Reserve system, a central bank that confers upon a chosen elite-the Federal Reserve governors-the monopoly of money creation and the power to decide what amount of money is appropriate for an economy in which millions of people are making decisions they cannot anticipate.TheAbbeFaria

Wealth as opposed to less wealth is a good thing. I do not think that countries should be impoverished to encourage it. There were plenty of booms and busts with the gold standard. It is part of the capitalist system. People in Vietnam working for corporations I doubt are worse off than they would be without employment.

What the Fed targets with the money supply, is the price level. Keeping it stable provides a fair amount of predictability, and confidence in the market. Sure, the system is prone human error, but so does every other system.

Alright, I do not know much latin. I just used a phrase which is commonly used in economics.

I think that priorities can be skewed, while exploitation is an unfavorable outcome, I think that central banks really do not play a role.

The key central bankers are appointed by our elected representatives.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="OBLOK"]Yeah, no, the bailouts are a temporary safe guard for the government, from the people, who are starting to get pissed and asking questions, demanding real change.

OBLOK