Vote against Bernanke!
Jenson Hagen
Senator Jeff Merkley has already publicly stated he will not vote to reappoint Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. He argues that the people that created the mess should not be commissioned to clean it up. I don't think Ben Bernanke played a major role in the financial meltdown, but if we hesitate to oust conservative thinkers because a transition made during rough economic times would be imprudent, then we will forever employ conservative thinkers because they are constantly sending us into rough economic times.
The critical deregulation occurred a decade ago via the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Anyone that supported this legislation in reality should be ousted. We now need Fed leadership that will advocate for sensible regulation. Tighter restrictions have to be imposed on banks because of the central role they play in creating money. As soon as you take banks out of the equation, the whole economy will falter. No other sector holds such power over the entire economy.
True, Ben Bernanke came from humble roots and he perhaps cares about the middle class. We don't need understanding, though. What we need is appropriate regulation -- the kind that was implemented after the Great Depression, i.e. Glass Steagall, meant to prevent such recent abuses. Getting new leadership might destabilize stock markets in the short term, but we need to stabilize our long-term total economic position, and that will not happen if we lack the strength to finally transition over to progressive leadership of the Fed.
Ron Wyden should take up the charge and loudly advocate for progressive Fed leadership. Contact him to advocate against him voting to reappoint Bernanke. Thank you Jeff Merkley for already speaking out against Bernanke!
Jan 24, '10
Still thinking about your argument, but I would add that "a fish rots from the head down". As a consultant, I work in lots of organizations as a temp, and see others move around, and it always amazes me how people become little clones of their bosses. Point being, he will do what Obama expects. If Obama goes for aggressive reg, he will implement it. Apart from Gates and Clinton, I don't see many in this Administration that will go it their own way. Ben B, certainly isn't one of them. Debating his personality distracts from the goal.
1:06 p.m.
Jan 24, '10
The critical deregulation occurred a decade ago via the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Anyone that supported this legislation in reality should be ousted.
Okay, since Wyden voted for the first and against the second, you are saying that Ron Wyden should be thrown halfway out of office, right?
Jan 24, '10
Much of the regulation initiated during the Depression of 1929-1941 further exacerbated the economic issues and delayed economic recovery.
You may not like Bernake for his personality or mannerisms, but he accomplished what needed to be done to prevent the US and the world economy from cratering. Since you've never exprienced anything other than the most recent economic boom-bust cycle, perhaps some who have a better understanding could weigh in.
Jan 24, '10
From the memory hole:
Re Gramm-Leach-Bliley:
Oregon Yea OR-1 Wu, David [D] Yea OR-2 Walden, Greg [R] Yea OR-3 Blumenauer, Earl [D] Nay OR-4 DeFazio, Peter [D] Yea OR-5 Hooley, Darlene [D]
Thanks so much to our "progressive" Oregon delegation.
2:41 p.m.
Jan 24, '10
I don't think this an easy decision. Politically, as you say, "getting new leadership might destabilize stock markets in the short term." This would be bad for Democrats this November.
And Democratic economist Brad Delong, one of my favorites, now seems to support Bernanke. See here.
I lean towards confirming Bernanke. What, really, are the chances of getting anyone better through the Senate?
I'm all for a substantial protest vote against Bernanke, but to not confirm him seems to be asking for more trouble.
Jan 24, '10
Jenson Hagen:
True, Ben Bernanke came from humble roots and he perhaps cares about the middle class.
Bob T:
None of that should matter at all, of course, for a Fed Chairman to stick to his main job which is keep a sound currency. Unfortunately, Congress (thanks to people like Dodd who will now cut and run and be extremely comfortable in retirement) saw to it some years back that the Fed be given other duties such as trying to keep unemployment down and/or other stuff that distracts from its main duty.
But I am for letting Bernanke be a one-termer. He may have tried, but this is a job someone should be good at on the first day. Not that I have any confidence in anyone Obama will name - after all, he's lacking in very basic economic theory. Anyone who really thinks there's something not quite right about the fact that the US has about 5% of the world population but consumes a quarter of the world's energy, is more into rhetoric than reality.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Jan 24, '10
I see that Jenson Haugen has read William Greider's "let's get the Democrats back to 40% in presidential elections just like in 1972" advice for the donkeys - that appeared in today's Oregonian opinion section.
4:04 p.m.
Jan 24, '10
A great book to read on this topic is In Fed we Trust: Ben Bernanke's War on The Great Panic by David Wessel, economics editor for the Wall Street Journal.
He pulls no punches in finding fault with the entire financial/political leadership during the period leading up to the what he calls The Great Panic, but his account of how Bernanke was quick to shed his ideological predilections and work pragmatically to avoid a repetition of the 1929-1933 financial crisis convinced me that Bernanke is absolutely the right guy at the right place at the right time to head the Federal Reserve.
Interestingly enough, the Wall Street Journal has editorialized against his reappointment, precisely because he is not ideologically pure enough for their tastes.
Jan 24, '10
I don't think Ben Bernanke played a major role in the financial meltdown, but if we hesitate to oust conservative thinkers...then we will forever employ conservative thinkers....
Huh?
Jan 24, '10
Imagine sharing a chocolate product range that is healthy, has been proven to be good for you and can help people to loose weight, intrigued?
Jan 24, '10
Jenson - Actually I'd be yealling for Geithner's head more, but who would you replace Bernanke with?
I understand about Glass-Stegall, but the majority of this trouble came from easy-money mortgages issued by bank not securities.
Jan 25, '10
I was disappointed when Novick lost to Merkley in the '08 primary, but have been pleasantly surprised by Merkley's decent voting record as a US Senator... his refusal to back Bernanke's re-appointment is most welcome.
It would've been nice had he also stood against the crappy HCR <s>insurance industry giveaway</s> reform bill, but I suppose that would be asking too much.
Jan 25, '10
Bob Soper:
It would've been nice had [Merkley] also stood against the crappy HCR
insurance industry giveawayreform bill, but I suppose that would be asking too much.Bob T:
No, it would not have been asking too much. He was so bent on riding a wave that he thought was inevitable that he had zero interest in taking a careful look.
By the way, are you related to the Sopers of Staten Island?
Bob Tiernan Portland
Jan 26, '10
Greenspan started the original melt down by dropping rates to 1% weaking the dollar which caused commodity prices to increase causing inflation to rise, all the while causing home prices to inflate to fast. Bernanke got in, and raised rates too high, too fast above 6% causing new home prices drop to value, less than the actual cost of buiding the homes, while inflation in the market place was being absorbed into the market place, people choose to pay for rising food and energy prices, and couldn't make their home payment and couldn't sell their homes. Bernanke lowered rates to 0.13% in January 2009, when unemployment was 8%, weaking the dollar, now commodity prices are at record levels, and inflation will kick in worse than Greenspan's artificial and distructive policy. If Bernanke and Greenspan would set rates at 3% we would be in a more responsible lending, borrowering and saving environment in America. My middle class cost of living has risen 1200.00 a month during the seven years and I'm consuming less because my kids are grown. 1200.00 monthly for American families would have prevented alot of foreclosures and keep the auto industry rolling, making the melt down less severe. Banks would have also been able to compete for our dollars by offering 4% for a CD, stimulationg the economy making it so less seniors having to compete for jobs with the unemployed in a stressed out job market.
Jan 26, '10
So, does anyone care to address how they would treat, in a differential manner, those who said, "shit, damn! who the hell would buy an adjustable mortgage now!", and those that said, "yeah, I really liked him when he was playing"?
Jan 27, '10
I think many of you are missing the political intention behind not reappointing Mr. Bernanke. It really doesn't matter who heads up the Fed, they're just a public figure. He can be replaced by anyone else. They will have the same ideology and agenda that the Fed currently has.
Much of the opposition is basically because the fed is opposing audit bills, or attempting to water them down.
So the argument is more motivated by "No audit bill, No Bernanke reappointment"
<h2>Democrats should jump ship on Bernanke, and the Fed. Its going to damage them by siding with him in the long run.</h2>