Trump is Right to Blow Up the Fed

by the Milton Freidman opposed the FED.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism

Monetarism is an economic theory that focuses on the macroeconomic effects of the supply of money and central banking. Formulated by Milton Friedman, it argues that excessive expansion of the money supply is inherently inflationary, and that monetary authorities should focus solely on maintaining price stability.

This theory draws its roots from two historically antagonistic schools of thought: the hard money policies that dominated monetary thinking in the late 19th century, and the monetary theories of John Maynard Keynes, who, working in the inter-war period during the failure of the restored gold standard, proposed a demand-driven model for money.[4] While Keynes had focused on the stability of a currency’s value, with panics based on an insufficient money supply leading to the use of an alternate currency and collapse of the monetary system, Friedman focused on price stability.

The result was summarised in a historical analysis of monetary policy, Monetary History of the United States 1867–1960, which Friedman coauthored with Anna Schwartz. The book attributed inflation to excess money supply generated by a central bank. It attributed deflationary spirals to the reverse effect of a failure of a central bank to support the money supply during a liquidity crunch.[citation needed]

Friedman originally proposed a fixed monetary rule, called Friedman's k-percent rule, where the money supply would be automatically increased by a fixed percentage per year. Under this rule, there would be no leeway for the central reserve bank, as money supply increases could be determined "by a computer", and business could anticipate all money supply changes.[5][6] With other monetarists he believed that the active manipulation of the money supply or its growth rate is more likely to destabilise than stabilise the econom
 
Ha ha ha . You've been had again. The 1978 Humphrey Hawkins act, an Act I'm quite familiar with because it allows a government employment program very similar to what the MMT economists -- of whom I am a student -- later proposed. It does not mandate, nor could any rational Act, mandate 0% inflation, nor does it propose such a target. (Wiki has this wrong and has most likely been hacked -- extremely easy to do with Wiki, Wiki's most serious fault!)* The language throughout is "reasonable price stability." The act does not make much mention of the Central Bank**, but concerns itself with fiscal directives to the President and Congress with the primary goal of full employment and "Reasonable Price Stability." It revises the 1946 Act.

The current Fed inflation Target is 2%. A zero target is impractical and dangerous as it risks deflation. A target value does not mean inflation will be 2% any more than a Fed Funds rate of 2% would mean that the actual Fed Funds rate will be exactly 2%. These are targets and the Fed adjusts policy and operations to come as close to them on average as reasonable and practical.

*Wiki is most likely the source of the incorrect information in that hopelessly ignorant article you posted.
**I recall only that the Act dealt with achieving full employment and various directive to Congress and the President to that end. So i just now looked up the Act again. (It's been awhile)
This below is the only significant part dealing with the C.B. . underlining is mine. Furthermore I should mention that the primary mandates given to the Central Bank will be found in the Federal Reserve Act. Not in Humphrey- Hawkins.

MONETARY POLICY
SEC. 108.
(a) Section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act is amended
by striking out the second and third sentences and inserting in lieu
thereof the following: "In furtherance of the purposes of the Full
Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, the Board of Gov-
ernors of the Federal Reserve System shall transmit to the Congress,
not later than February 20 and July 20 of each year, independent
written reports setting forth (1) a review and analysis of recent
developments affecting economic trends in the Nation; (2) the objec-
tives and plans of the Board of Governors and the Federal Open
Market Committee with respect to the ranges of growth or diminu-
tion of the monetary and credit aggregates for the calendar year
during which the report is transmitted, taking account of past and
prospective developments in employment, unemployment, production,
investment, real income, productivity, international trade and pay-
ments, and prices; and (3) the relationship of the aforesaid objectives
and plans to the short-term goals set forth in the most recent Economic
Report of the President pursuant to section 3(a)(2)(A) of the
Employment Act of 1946 and to any short-term goals approved by
the Congress. In addition, as a part of its report on July 20 of each
year, the Board of Governors shall include a statement of its objec-
tives and plans with respect to the ranges of growth or diminution of
the monetary and credit aggregates for the calendar year following
the year in which the report is submitted. The reports required under
the two preceding sentences shall be transmitted to the Congress and
shall be referred in the Senate to the Committee on Banking, Hous-
ing, and Urban Affairs, and in the House of Representatives to the
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. The Board shall
consult with each such Committee on the reports and, thereafter, each
such Committee shall submit to its respective body a report containing
its views and recommendations with respect to the Federal Reserve's
intended policies. Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to require
that the objectives and plans with respect to the ranges of growth
or diminution of the monetary and credit aggregates disclosed in
the reports submitted under this section be achieved if the Board
of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee determine
that they cannot or should not be achieved because of changing
conditions:
Provided, That in the subsequent consultations with, and
reports to, the aforesaid Committees of the Congress pursuant to this
section, the Board of Governors shall include an explanation of the
reasons for any revisions to or deviations from such objectives and
plans.".

P.S. Watch out for those pesky Russian Hackers and their clever disinformation! And here is some additional friendly advice, don't give any money to Mr. Christopher Whalen to Manage. "Christopher Whalen provides investment banking and consulting services to institutional investors and corporate clients around the globe." (quote from Christopher Whalen. Ha ha ha. )

I have said this many times, but it bears repeating as it is our principle defense against disinformation. "If something you read violates your common sense, chances are it is wrong."

I just posted the article. I didn't write it. I posted it because of the premise that the Fed needs to be "blown up". Whether that is with someone like Cain or other people with real world experience is the only thing I care about.
 
I’m sorry but which successful business did Herman Cain found?

I will say this, there is too much Wall Street superstitious nonsense going around about the Fed. The Fed has a dual mandate to control inflation and promote full employment, not create an economic environment for easy profits.

We are obviously in a state of stable inflation and full employment and the Fed actions helped bring us here.

All of this talk about the Fed killing housing for millennials is right wing garbage. Millennials are underpaid and carry way too much student loan debt and that is what is holding them back from housing and starting families.

Which brings us to the larger point of what the hell is the point of having a country if the conditions in the country are adverse to starting families?

I agree wholeheartedly with everything in here other than the talk about the Fed killing the housing market. First, that's not right wing garbage, its truth.

Easy money has encouraged an inflationary rush into all asset prices, housing being one of them. Housing is not affordable, and this is directly attributed to the Fed's policies.
 
that was by the way...
Milton Friedman opposed the FED.

by the Milton Freidman opposed the FED.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism

Monetarism is an economic theory that focuses on the macroeconomic effects of the supply of money and central banking. Formulated by Milton Friedman, it argues that excessive expansion of the money supply is inherently inflationary, and that monetary authorities should focus solely on maintaining price stability.

This theory draws its roots from two historically antagonistic schools of thought: the hard money policies that dominated monetary thinking in the late 19th century, and the monetary theories of John Maynard Keynes, who, working in the inter-war period during the failure of the restored gold standard, proposed a demand-driven model for money.[4] While Keynes had focused on the stability of a currency’s value, with panics based on an insufficient money supply leading to the use of an alternate currency and collapse of the monetary system, Friedman focused on price stability.

The result was summarised in a historical analysis of monetary policy, Monetary History of the United States 1867–1960, which Friedman coauthored with Anna Schwartz. The book attributed inflation to excess money supply generated by a central bank. It attributed deflationary spirals to the reverse effect of a failure of a central bank to support the money supply during a liquidity crunch.[citation needed]

Friedman originally proposed a fixed monetary rule, called Friedman's k-percent rule, where the money supply would be automatically increased by a fixed percentage per year. Under this rule, there would be no leeway for the central reserve bank, as money supply increases could be determined "by a computer", and business could anticipate all money supply changes.[5][6] With other monetarists he believed that the active manipulation of the money supply or its growth rate is more likely to destabilise than stabilise the econom
 
I agree wholeheartedly with everything in here other than the talk about the Fed killing the housing market. First, that's not right wing garbage, its truth.

Easy money has encouraged an inflationary rush into all asset prices, housing being one of them. Housing is not affordable, and this is directly attributed to the Fed's policies.

Read this all the way through:

https://data.sca.isr.umich.edu/fetchdoc.php?docid=62127

D2E33DD3-22AD-43D9-8C0C-42DA893DD49F.jpeg
 
I just posted the article. I didn't write it. I posted it because of the premise that the Fed needs to be "blown up". Whether that is with someone like Cain or other people with real world experience is the only thing I care about.
If you think the Fed should be blown up, as you say. You, in my opinion, are very misguided.
 
that was by the way...
Milton Friedman opposed the FED.
Friedman was a radical. He was a mixture of very good ideas and horrible ideas. Whereas most of us are mixtures of pretty good ideas and some not so good. Friedman was at the extremes. When the Fed tried his ideas about controlling inflation via the money supply, the experiment failed mightily! (Volcker's time) He had influence over Reaganomics which we have yet to recover from. Yet I can't entirely dismiss his thinking as totally nuts, because in fact we have gone way overboard with regulatory capture, something that would have been entirely held in check had Friedman's ideas persevered.

As a young man he was greatly influenced by Hayek and attended the Mount Pelerin Society Meetings. The irony is that Hayek moderated his views as he got older, and recognized and admitted where he had gone wrong. Whereas Friedman, while he changed his views as he matured, never fully recognized, or was too vain to acknowledge, where he had gone badly wrong.

My defense of the Fed in these Forums is only a defense against the ridiculous claims of those who know nothing of Central Banking and its critical role in creating a stable banking and monetary environment for business and society. But my allegiance and respect is not blind allegiance. The Fed has made serious mistakes from time to time. On balance however, it is one of the best run Federal agencies, and the model to which the rest of the world aspires..
 
Last edited:
If you think the Fed should be blown up, as you say. You, in my opinion, are very misguided.

The fact that the Fed's #1 cheerleader on this site, the so-called Libertarian that supported the bailout of AIG and GM, etc, thinks I am misguided makes me feel even more certain of my position.
 
Can you explain how the Fed accomplished this?

Read the context of the reply to UsualName. The Federal Reserve killed the housing market (for millenials). They did this by inflating asset prices through easy money policy until housing prices were way beyond the level millenials can afford. They didn't kill the housing market, they inflated it beyond affordability. Of course, eventually when everything comes crashing down like it did before, it will be because they did it.

Remember Bernanke telling everyone to go out and get an adjustable rate mortgage? Remember when Bernanke said there would be no housing crisis? Good times.
 
Back
Top