The Fed’s Vice Chair retires, and the Washington Post is on the case: “creating a key vacancy and setting the stage for President Obama to reshape the leadership at the Fed”.
This begs the obvious question: Why?
There are currently 2 vacancies on the Fed Board, so now there are 3.
If Obama wanted to reshape the Fed’s leadership, wouldn’t it be a good idea to fill a few vacancies?
And since when is the Vice Chair of the Fed a key position?
Can anyone, including the Post’s editorial board, name one Fed Vice Chairman in the history of the institution?
If someone can, that would be one more Vice Chairman than has ever mattered in the history of the institution.
The chance to reshape the leadership came with Obama’s decision to reappoint Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman: Obama chose the status quo, so there will be nothing new coming from the Fed.
The Fed’s more or less missed the boat on bubble watching and unemployment since Paul Volcker departed, so what exactly is the change the Post (and the Times, who also think this is a reshaping opportunity) has in mind?
Better regulation? Not when trillions of easy money are still being given to the banks to keep their bubbles afloat.
Better inflation control? The Fed’s been fighting non-existent inflation since Obama came into office. There’s no more committed inflation hawk/peacock than Helicopter Ben.
Better attention to unemployment? Both before and after his reappointment, Chopper Pilot Ben essentially said: “Thanks, but no thanks, you jobless workers are on your own. It’s supposed to be in my remit, but sorry, it’s not my job!”
Gorilla says: “You can beat your head against the wall, our mainstream media remains out of shape!”
