'TIME' Person Of The Year

[HuskyCaucasian]

Time.com-

The story of the year was a weak economy that could have been much, much weaker. Thank the man who runs the Federal Reserve, our mild-mannered economic overlord

Edited December 16, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[Jenksismyhero]

Should have been Obama. Noble Peace prize, Person of the Year, Greatest Person to Have Lived Since Jesus - all much deserved praise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(half kidding)

[DukeNukeEm]

lolwut

 

I know jenks is joking around, but giving to Obama would've seriously been a better choice than this. Hell, give it to me for not having any part in the mess at all!

[southsider2k5]

Should have been Obama. Noble Peace prize, Person of the Year, Greatest Person to Have Lived Since Jesus - all much deserved praise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(half kidding)

 

After all, he full intended to fix the economy...

[NorthSideSox72]

I remember the uproar when Bush won this.

 

I think (could be wrong) that this isn't intended to be necessarily a good thing - just that the person had the biggest or most interesting world effect. For that description, I think Bernanke is in the discussion at least.

 

[Balta1701]

I remember the uproar when Bush won this.

 

I think (could be wrong) that this isn't intended to be necessarily a good thing - just that the person had the biggest or most interesting world effect. For that description, I think Bernanke is in the discussion at least.

He had a bigger impact in 2008 than in 2009.

[Balta1701]

Wanted to post this yesterday but was on a plane. I agree with this.

Bernanke takes office in February of 2006 holding what’s probably the second most-important job in the United States and the most important job for determining overall macroeconomic conditions. He follows basically conventional thinking and doesn’t make any unusual errors. Unfortunately, conventional thinking and normal errors lead into a major financial panic and the worst recession in 70 years. Then during the desperate fall of 2008 Bernanke takes decisive action and helps put a floor on the collapse. By spring 2009 it’s clear that this will be the worst recession since the end of the Great Depression rather than, as some had feared, the second-coming of the Depression. At this point he basically unfurls a “Mission Accomplished” banner, says ten percent unemployment is okay by him, and if congress wants to do anything fiscally it should look at cutting Social Security benefits.

 

That’s not nothing. That’s not the worst record of any 21st Century public official (I dunno…Robert Mugabe?) or even of any major 21st Century central banker (Jean-Claude Trichet) or any Bush administration appointee (Don Rumsfeld) or anything. But it’s really not all that great. And it demonstrates a very specific class skew—extraordinary intervention into the market place just long enough to fix the situation from the point of view of asset-owners while leaving wage-earners holding the bag. But the owners and managers and editors of Time Magazine and the companies that advertise in it probably don’t care so much about that.

 

In a lot of respects it strikes me as the most fitting possible choice, an eloquent statement about where America is in 2009.

[southsider2k5]

Wanted to post this yesterday but was on a plane. I agree with this.

 

lol. The fed bank is now responsible for fiscal policy as well? Eh, might as well be for as well as Congress and the President handle it.

[iamshack]

Should have been Obama. Noble Peace prize, Person of the Year, Greatest Person to Have Lived Since Jesus - all much deserved praise.

(half kidding)

Obama was one of the finalists, actually.

He won this award last year.

[Balta1701]

lol. The fed bank is now responsible for fiscal policy as well? Eh, might as well be for as well as Congress and the President handle it.

Yup. Thank Goodness Alan Greenspan recognized how tenuous the surpluses were in 2001 and therefore advocated a program of sound fiscal policy.

[southsider2k5]

Yup. Thank Goodness Alan Greenspan recognized how tenuous the surpluses were in 2001 and therefore advocated a program of sound fiscal policy.

 

So you are advocating that the Fed do the Congress's job? Interesting.

[Balta1701]

So you are advocating that the Fed do the Congress's job? Interesting.

Considering that they've decided to ignore 1/2 of their job and focus solely on inflation while ignoring unemployment, they must have some spare time.

[southsider2k5]

Considering that they've decided to ignore 1/2 of their job and focus solely on inflation while ignoring unemployment, they must have some spare time.

 

Considering one is a function of money supply and the other isn't, I'd still consider them doing their "job". Unemployment and job creation are results of fiscal policy, which are not supposed to be charges of the banking system.

[BigSqwert]

[Balta1701]

Considering one is a function of money supply and the other isn't, I'd still consider them doing their "job". Unemployment and job creation are results of fiscal policy, which are not supposed to be charges of the banking system.

So you're actually arguing that monetary policy has little impact on job creation? I'm not sure I really even feel the need to argue this, especially with the current trade deficit and liquidity trap conditions.

[southsider2k5]

So you're actually arguing that monetary policy has little impact on job creation? I'm not sure I really even feel the need to argue this, especially with the current trade deficit and liquidity trap conditions.

 

No. I am arguing it shouldn't be the Fed's primary goal. They manage the banking sector. Their primary focus is to maintain the integrity of the banking system and the money supply. Their job is not fiscal policy. The very idea that it is comes from the complete failure of Congress and the President in those areas.

[Balta1701]

No. I am arguing it shouldn't be the Fed's primary goal. They manage the banking sector. Their primary focus is to maintain the integrity of the banking system and the money supply. Their job is not fiscal policy. The very idea that it is comes from the complete failure of Congress and the President in those areas.

The Feds goal also explicitly includes maintaining employment.

[southsider2k5]

The Feds goal also explicitly includes maintaining employment.

 

It should not. Fiscal policy should not be decided by the Federal Reserve Bank. That is pretty clearly supposed to be a constitutional function of Congress.

[Balta1701]

It should not. Fiscal policy should not be decided by the Federal Reserve Bank. That is pretty clearly supposed to be a constitutional function of Congress.

For example, right now, an increased inflation rate would possibly leave to a cut in the trade deficit and additional job growth. That is something that the Fed can affect. But they're going solely after inflation, which is why we're discussing this.

[Balta1701]

This is now my official Bernanke bashing thread.

In January 2005, National City's chief economist had delivered a prescient warning to the Fed's board of governors: An increasingly overvalued housing market posed a threat to the broader economy, not to mention his own bank and others deeply involved in writing mortgages.

 

The message wasn't well received. One board member expressed particular skepticism -- Ben Bernanke.

 

"Where do you think it will be the worst?" Bernanke asked, according to people who attended the meeting, one in a series of sessions the Fed holds with economists.

 

"I would have to say California," said the economist, Richard Dekaser.

 

"They have been saying that about California since I bought my first house in 1979," Bernanke replied.

 

This time the warnings were correct, and the collapse of the California real estate market would bring down the nation's fourth-largest bank, the largest casualty of the financial crisis.

 

Dekaser and Bernanke declined to comment on the exchange.

As more than a few people pointed out in response...California went through a very large housing bubble in the 1980's that burst in the early 90's and did severe damage to the state's economy at the time. If the chairman of the Fed did not know/understand that, then who the hell is Princeton hiring?

[southsider2k5]

This is now my official Bernanke bashing thread.

As more than a few people pointed out in response...California went through a very large housing bubble in the 1980's that burst in the early 90's and did severe damage to the state's economy at the time. If the chairman of the Fed did not know/understand that, then who the hell is Princeton hiring?

 

Hey I hear Harvard's favorite castaway, Lawrence Summers, is looking for work... He has lots of investing experience!

[Balta1701]

Hey I hear Harvard's favorite castaway, Lawrence Summers, is looking for work... He has lots of investing experience!

Isn't he already in the Obama administration?

[southsider2k5]

Isn't he already in the Obama administration?

 

Exactly. Having a brilliant financial mind doesn't mean you are never wrong.

[NorthSideSox72]

Exactly. Having a brilliant financial mind doesn't mean you are never wrong.

pssssh, whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

Exactly. Having a brilliant financial mind doesn't mean you are never wrong.

But you know...it might mean that you ought to be amongst the group that says something is amiss in the housing market. To use the comparison to me again...if I could say something was screwy with that market, without knowing all the details about lending standards...then people who's job it is to get it right should be able to do at least as well as me (Note; I actually considered buying a condo when I started grad school in 03, and I decided against it entirely because I figured that there was a housing bubble that was eventually going to burst and I'd wind up losing a lot on my investment and being caught with the property, so I legitimately put a bet on the existence of a housing bubble).