| Bernanke: For many Americans, the financial crisis, and the recession it spawned, have been devastating -- jobs, homes, savings lost. Understandably, many people are calling for change. Yet change needs to be about creating a system that works better, not just differently. As a nation, our challenge is to design a system of financial oversight that will embody the lessons of the past two years and provide a robust framework for preventing future crises and the economic damage they cause. | |
| For many unemployed Americans, the Federal Reserve’s credibility crisis, and the dialogue it spins, has been productive – jobs, homes, savings have been lost – and other vacuous phrases useful in socially-engineered observations. Understandably, we are aware of this controlled substance called “change” as well. Believers will accept our mantra as a system that works better, never differently. As a nation, our system is to engage a cult status that embodies the lesson of the past two years: to provide robust conditioning to marginalize public economic damage and position economic opportunities for a selected few. | |
| Bernanke: These matters are complex, and Congress is still in the midst of considering how best to reform financial regulation. I am concerned, however, that a number of the legislative proposals being circulated would significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions. Notably, some leading proposals in the Senate would strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers. And a House committee recently voted to repeal a 1978 provision that was intended to protect monetary policy from short-term political influence. These measures are very much out of step with the global consensus on the appropriate role of central banks, and they would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the United States. The Fed played a major part in arresting the crisis, and we should be seeking to preserve, not degrade, the institution's ability to foster financial stability and to promote economic recovery without inflation |
| These matters are so complex that I write this Op-Ed piece like you are a kindergartener and Congress is in the midst of upgrading from Windows 95. I am concerned, however, that a number of congressional allies who didn’t receive their paybacks from last year are taking advantage of the current political climate at the Federal Reserve’s expense. And, they want to punish me further by forcing me to make guest appearances on Glenn Beck, Jon Stewart and Fox & Friends. Notably, the exaggeration required to foster a tone of defenseless is very much in step with the out-of-touch reality The Fed’s relies upon in their communication to the public. And a House committee recently voted to repeal a 1978 provision that intended to protect monetary policy from short-term political influence? Granted, I was so high already while laughing at this incident that I almost forgot that the Fed had some kind of accountability to these measly public servants. I told them that measures obfuscating appropriations to foreign central banks, deficit spending and patronizing explanations is the very essence of our collusion with Congress. To say the Fed played a major part in arresting the crisis is to say it started it in the first place, so what. We should be seeking to foster the belief system this country has enjoyed rather than celebrating its demise without inflation. Viva Fiat Financial! |
| Bernanke: The proposed measures are at least in part the product of public anger over the financial crisis and the government's response, particularly the rescues of some individual financial firms. The government's actions to avoid financial collapse last fall -- as distasteful and unfair as some undoubtedly were -- were unfortunately necessary to prevent a global economic catastrophe that could have rivaled the Great Depression in length and severity, with profound consequences for our economy and society. (I know something about this, having spent my career prior to public service studying these issues.) My colleagues at the Federal Reserve and I were determined not to allow that to happen. |
| The Federal Reserve’s adulterous relationship with the financial community – as distasteful and unfair as some undoubtedly were – are, at best, a once-in-a-lifetime journalistic opportunity. The true product of public anger must be systematically diffused though an elaborately written Washington Post Op-Ed piece to advertise The Fed’s credibility. Otherwise, outsourcing the Federal Reserve to India or China will be the logical next step. Fortunately, the Fed has sold the future Great Depression off to the next generation, and securitized the present analysis into a new Exchange-Traded-Fund, called “Profound Consequences For our Economy and Society” (PCFES). The real catastrophe, however, is that shares of PCFES will NOT be distributed to those poor suffering bankers, our humble CEOs and fund managers, and those who had to endure public-fund financing to keep their jobs and bonuses. Shares of PCFES will be made available to readers of my doctrine and my YouTube tour (I know something about this having spent my career being a lowly public servant dreaming of being a financial rock star on Book TV) |
| Bernanke: Moreover, looking to the future, we strongly support measures -- including the development of a special bankruptcy regime for financial firms whose disorderly failure would threaten the integrity of the financial system -- to ensure that ad hoc interventions of the type we were forced to use last fall never happen again. Adopting such a resolution regime, together with tougher oversight of large, complex financial firms, would make clear that no institution is "too big to fail" -- while ensuring that the costs of failure are borne by owners, managers, creditors and the financial services industry, not by taxpayers. |
| Moreover, looking at my central-banker writing style, we divert your attention to --- including the development of special concessions to some politicians to enjoy some transparency to financial firms who are their largest political donors – an undocumented, ad hoc, didactic on how our regime will survive the impending dismantling of financial institutions in general. Initially, we were surprised that 10 years ago there was over a four trillion dollar in notional value at risk in the top 20 global banks. They told us back then not “We’re too big to fail” but rather “You will not fail us”, ensuring that the costs of failure are to be borne by taxpayers, not the owners, managers, creditors and the financial services industry who were the real Morlocks working for your Eloi |
| Bernanke: The Federal Reserve, like other regulators around the world, did not do all that it could have to constrain excessive risk-taking in the financial sector in the period leading up to the crisis. We have extensively reviewed our performance and moved aggressively to fix the problems. Working with other agencies, we have toughened our rules and oversight. We will be requiring banks to hold more capital and liquidity and to structure compensation packages in ways that limit excessive risk-taking. We are taking more explicit account of risks to the financial system as a whole. |
| Commercial Break: The Federal Reserve would like to have the opportunity to take advantage of the current Op-Ed piece to borrow the readers’ intelligence and invest the funds in an apology/confessional booth arbitrage contract: Working within the public parameters, we have reviewed our best publicists’ recommendations and found that going long the spot market on a mangerial style lifted from a stock prospectus, and selling short the future economic results is the appropriate trade to appeal to the public’s drugged expectations of the banking system. Although we are taking more explicit account of risks to the financial system as a whole, the situation is already more fucked up than we’ll ever know. |
| Bernanke: We are also supplementing bank examination staffs with teams of economists, financial market specialists and other experts. This combination of expertise, a unique strength of the Fed, helped bring credibility and clarity to the "stress tests" of the banking system conducted in the spring. These tests were led by the Fed and marked a turning point in public confidence in the banking system. |
| We are replacing the title “bank examination” staffs, as well as punishing them by eliminating their positions, and replacing them with the more austere-sounding titles of “teams of economists, financial market specialists” and well as a secret division called “Other Experts(OEs). OEs will be visiting households at random to ensure people are not stashing dollar bills underneath their mattresses or practicing other forms of socialism. The glorified combination of the Federal Reserve's staffing as well as its unparalleled transparency of unspecified details in bi-lateral accounting "stress tests" twists the public confidence in the banking system anew. |
| Bernanke: There is a strong case for a continued role for the Federal Reserve in bank supervision. Because of our role in making monetary policy, the Fed brings unparalleled economic and financial expertise to its oversight of banks, as demonstrated by the success of the stress tests. |
| There is a strong odor of arrogance that the Federal Reserve exhibits in defending their role as bank supervisors. It is symptomatic of those loosely defined as a quasi-public governmental institutions to base their merit on only two sentences. |
| Bernanke: This expertise is essential for supervising highly complex financial firms and for analyzing the interactions among key firms and markets. Our supervision is also informed by the grass-roots perspective derived from the Fed's unique regional structure and our experience in supervising community banks. At the same time, our ability to make effective monetary policy and to promote financial stability depends vitally on the information, expertise and authorities we gain as bank supervisors, as demonstrated in episodes such as the 1987 stock market crash and the financial disruptions of Sept. 11, 2001, as well as by the crisis of the past two years. |
| This expertise is essential in handling the oxymoron inherent in “supervising highly complex financial firms”. Unlike storing plutonium in a household refrigerator, or strolling into a Starbucks with a semi-automatic, the venerable Federal Reserve has analyzed the matter and concludes that all equity and bond markets will accept their fate someday. Further the Fed use the phrase “grass-roots” to appeal to the “unique” regional structure, comparing themselves to main street with a church, the corner store, the local library and, of course “community banks”. At the same time, when we’re not trolling through your community in horse and buggy, we don our pinstripes and the authorities we gain as monetary superpowers and fly to the rescue. To my recollection, presenting two non-bank related financial episodes such as the 1987 stock market crash and the financial disruption of Sept. 11, 2001 as examples in support of the Federal Reserves ability to make monetary decisions is spoon-fed patriotism, and not even good enough for Fox and RepublicFriends. |
| Bernanke: Of course, the ultimate goal of all our efforts is to restore and sustain economic prosperity. To support economic growth, the Fed has cut interest rates aggressively and provided further stimulus through lending and asset-purchase programs. Our ability to take such actions without engendering sharp increases in inflation depends heavily on our credibility and independence from short-term political pressures. Many studies have shown that countries whose central banks make monetary policy independently of such political influence have better economic performance, including lower inflation and interest rates. |
| Of course, the ultimate goal of all our efforts is to package and redistribute economic activity as prosperity. To micromanage economic belief systems, the Fed has codified interest rate policy as a public panacea while covering counterparty exposure among privately-owned international banks. Our ability to take such actions without engendering sharp increases in confidence deflation depends heavily on our concocted program of appearing vulnerable to short-term political pressures. However the opposite is true: Many studies have shown that countries whose central banks make monetary policy in consideration of such political influence have better economic consequences because corruption is more efficient than bullshit. |
| Bernanke: Independent does not mean unaccountable. In its making of monetary policy, the Fed is highly transparent, providing detailed minutes of policy meetings and regular testimony before Congress, among other information. Our financial statements are public and audited by an outside accounting firm; we publish our balance sheet weekly; and we provide monthly reports with extensive information on all the temporary lending facilities developed during the crisis. Congress, through the Government Accountability Office, can and does audit all parts of our operations except for the monetary policy deliberations and actions covered by the 1978 exemption. The general repeal of that exemption would serve only to increase the perceived influence of Congress on monetary policy decisions, which would undermine the confidence the public and the markets have in the Fed to act in the long-term economic interest of the nation. |
| Unaccountable does not mean happiness. The Fed is extremely unhappy in composing these highly transparent details to the public, highly interpretative minutes of policy meetings and orchestrating stylized rapport with congress to dull the media’s attention. Our financial statements are audited by an unnamed accounting firm. We obscure the calculation of our balance sheet, yet want to reinforce the fact that we print them with non-invisible ink. Congress fully enjoys the amount of data they are buried in, easily displacing their contribution to monetary discussion. Besides, the financial world has remained essentially the same since 1978. The general trust in this conclusion only serves to underscore the sole reason for The Fed to argue against the repeal of the 1978 exemption in this paragraph. |
| Bernanke: We have come a long way in our battle against the financial and economic crisis, but there is a long way to go. Now more than ever, America needs a strong, nonpolitical and independent central bank with the tools to promote financial stability and to help steer our economy to recovery without inflation. |
| We have come a long way in our battle against the financial and economic crisis, but there is an idiomatic presence in this letter that proves there is definately a long way to go. Now more than ever, American has proved its worthlessness as a strong democratic culture. The only tool of The Federal Reserve is the American public itself. |
Recent Comments