Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezra Pound
They not only didn't alleviate it, they literally compounded the problem. Central banks are bad. I can not say it any plainer. So I must respectfully disagree with you. Also I did not use the term engineer and the intentional action I referred to is discussed by the two quoted individuals; Milton Friedman and Ben Bernanke.
I really must disagree with you about there being a great depression without the Fed as does economist Milton Friedman in the above quotations. The Federal Reserve is an external entity. It exists for the sake of profit for its shareholders only. It is not "independent within the government" as is claimed. There are other books on the topic I would urge you to read before you make up your mind.
|
Just because the Fed severely screwed up in 1929 doesn't mean that the whole concept of central banks is a poor one. To me, they make perfect sense. Someone needs to be in charge of a country's monetary policy, and who better than the world's leading economists? What other system would you propose?
I would prefer that the Fed be focused strictly on monetary policy and controlling inflation rather than worrying about those things AND unemployment, and I don't like to see them bailing out businesses that make incredibly poor business decisions. However, I appreciate that controlling unemployment and inflation is a balancing act, and I understand that the failures of institutions like Bear Stearns will be more destructive to the country's economy than bailing them out.
The responsibilities of the Fed require it to walk a fine line, and you are always going to be able to find fault in whatever decision they make, but just because they are not able to please 100% of the people 100% of the time does not mean that the Fed should be abolished.