Fine job highlighting an important issue that will not likely receive much attention in the US.

There are two motivations going on here.

First, those who are attracted to DC to drink from the waters of the Potomac, believe the economic, financial and even social environments are mechanisms that highly educated individual's (Ph.D. from an elite school) are capable of understanding from a "positive" or "what is" perspective. As one becomes aware of this understanding, it then follows not only the belief one can manage the environment with the tools learned during an elite education, but one becomes capable of making the proper "normative" or "what ought to be" decisions for the rest of us about what light bulbs we can use, what insurance coverage we should have, etc. BB, along with Janet Yellen, has clearly drunk from the waters of the Potomac and really believes he is capable of "dancing like a butterfly and stinging like a bee". The problem with moral hazard is the more you engage in bailouts the less effective they become and you end up with a discredited central bank. Staying too long in the bar drinking and buying drinks for everyone would eventually ruin even Sister Theresa's reputation. BB is a true believer in the ability to manage the economic and financial environment much like Burns; and like Burns, he is generating much economic and financial distress.

Second, the idea any central bank is independent is a myth and there is little doubt in my mind that another motivation of the Fed is to ensure Obama is elected in 2012. There is likely some serious concern at the Fed about any of the republican candidates and the threat they pose to the Fed's formal independence. Ron Paul could not be elected in my opinion; however, his rhetoric about the Fed is not well received by that institution. The economy is in a weak and fragile recovery that will benefit Obama, the republicans have only weak contenders and Obama's class warfare is working. The only risk to Obama is a double dip which would occur should Europe fall back into serious recession before the election – who cares what happens afterward because what's more important, is Obama's quest to reshape America. One should read Burns' diary published a few years ago or Meltzer's history of the Fed as to how close the relationship can be between the Fed and the administration and the unfortunate outcome of a close relationship. I believe, as well as Jerry, that BB is at least as political as Burns and those who think the Fed's independence will prevent the politicalization of monetary policy are very naive.

What a mess.

In any event Jerry deserves much credit for attempting to bring this to the public's attention. Let's hope it catches on.

Best wishes, Tom

Fine job highlighting an important issue that will not likely receive much attention in the US.

There are two motivations going on here.

First, those who are attracted to DC to drink from the waters of the Potomac, believe the economic, financial and even social environments are mechanisms that highly educated individual's (Ph.D. from an elite school) are capable of understanding from a "positive" or "what is" perspective. As one becomes aware of this understanding, it then follows not only the belief one can manage the environment with the tools learned during an elite education, but one becomes capable of making the proper "normative" or "what ought to be" decisions for the rest of us about what light bulbs we can use, what insurance coverage we should have, etc. BB, along with Janet Yellen, has clearly drunk from the waters of the Potomac and really believes he is capable of "dancing like a butterfly and stinging like a bee". The problem with moral hazard is the more you engage in bailouts the less effective they become and you end up with a discredited central bank. Staying too long in the bar drinking and buying drinks for everyone would eventually ruin even Sister Theresa's reputation. BB is a true believer in the ability to manage the economic and financial environment much like Burns; and like Burns, he is generating much economic and financial distress.

Second, the idea any central bank is independent is a myth and there is little doubt in my mind that another motivation of the Fed is to ensure Obama is elected in 2012. There is likely some serious concern at the Fed about any of the republican candidates and the threat they pose to the Fed's formal independence. Ron Paul could not be elected in my opinion; however, his rhetoric about the Fed is not well received by that institution. The economy is in a weak and fragile recovery that will benefit Obama, the republicans have only weak contenders and Obama's class warfare is working. The only risk to Obama is a double dip which would occur should Europe fall back into serious recession before the election – who cares what happens afterward because what's more important, is Obama's quest to reshape America. One should read Burns' diary published a few years ago or Meltzer's history of the Fed as to how close the relationship can be between the Fed and the administration and the unfortunate outcome of a close relationship. I believe, as well as Jerry, that BB is at least as political as Burns and those who think the Fed's independence will prevent the politicalization of monetary policy are very naive.

What a mess.

In any event Jerry deserves much credit for attempting to bring this to the public's attention. Let's hope it catches on.

Best wishes, Tom

Stalin (and Mao and Castro and ….) all tried to make the people the same…except for the leaders. They were (are) 'more equal than the others.' Forced equality is impossible as the enforcers naturally entitle themselves to more!

Statists think collectivism is altruistic. It is not. Only giving of oneself is altruistic. taking from the productive and giving to the idle is not good or right. It is bad and wrong. Individuals will provide for the less fortunate through charitable pursuits. The unfairness of the free rider problem is what eats at liberals. Relying on private charity means selfish people will benefit from the poor being taken care of by others. This bothers liberals.

Many conservatives believe in some sort of cosmic justice where the charitable gain satisfaction and the selfish live shallow lives that lack happiness.

Embrace inequality! We were created unequal and given free will. Godspeed!

How well put Tom. I could not have said it better myself. If only we had more like you thinking like you, more Latinos would be inclined to turn our way and be true to their consevative values. The D's continue to drive the hate the R's nail and the R's don't seem to want to get caught in a contest where they feel they have no chance to win, none the less PARTICIPATE. Taking the road less traveled as it said will forever be a weakness rather than a strengh for R's.