Washington Post Misses Again in Editorial on the Fed
The Washington Post editorial board once again missed the boat in trying to argue the case against an audit of the Fed, getting both the facts and the logic wrong. Starting with the facts, the Post confidently told readers that: "it's uncontroversial to keep Fed decisions about setting interest rates and other traditional functions confidential."
Umm, actually no. It's uncontroversial that they should be made available to the public. Since the early 90s the Fed has made the transcripts of its open market committee meetings available to the public with a 5-year lag. They may be some dispute about whether the time lag should be longer or shorter, but there is no big push to reverse the policy of making the transcripts available.
In terms of the logic, a major concern of many proponents of the Paul-Grayson bill to audit the Fed is to try to insert democratic control as a check on the financial sector's influence on the Fed. The banks actually appoint most of the members of the open market committee that decides monetary policy. This should be unacceptable in a democracy.
While in the Post's pretend land the Fed is an independent actor, making decisions that are best for everyone, in the real world, the Fed is overly responsive to the interests of the financial sector. This is a main motivation behind the support for the Paul-Grayson bill -- a motivation that went completely unmentioned in the Post editorial.
--Dean Baker
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (5)
So isn't it also uncontroversial to keep deliberations confidential for 5 years?
Posted by: catclub | October 22, 2009 10:01 AM
One of the great traditional recommendations for "independent" central banking is that it removes the onus of raising interest rates from politicians. Raising interest rates is always unpopular, and it's nice for politicians to be able to blame the "independent" central bank.
The GFC has created a new recommendation for independent central banking. When there is an almighty crash, the politicians can point to the independent central bank, and pretend that (a) it's all their fault and (b) that they're wonderful people and we need to assist them to bail out failed institutions. Never mind that (a) and (b) aren't entirely compatible.
It's time to ask whether independent central banking is acceptable in a democracy.
Posted by: gordon | October 22, 2009 7:02 PM
More thumb-sucking faith in another of our nation's failed institutions, from the apparatchiks at the Beltway Pravda.
Posted by: some guy in a cube | October 22, 2009 9:17 PM
Your article is write very well, I like it very much ~
I wish you have a wonderful day!Thank you.
classic ugg boots
Posted by: ugg boots | November 18, 2009 8:24 PM
I am very like it, I wish you happy every day!
ugg london
Posted by: ugg boots london | February 5, 2010 10:21 PM