Opposition to QE2 kicks it up a notch
By D.J. McGuire | Wednesday, November 17th, 2010 | Policy
A group of leading economists have joined together with Republican political strategists to take aim at the Federal Reserve’s latest money supply gusher (a.k.a. “QE2″) in an open letter to Fed Chairman Ben Bernake ?(the Wall Street Journal has both the open letter and the reaction). Among the economists weighing in is Stanford’s John Taylor.
This, plus news that the economists have reached out to incoming House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan, ensures that monetary policy will remain a subject of serious political discussion for a while. I repeat my assertion that this is a good thing, and reflects an electorate more knowledgeable than the political consulting industry is willing to admit.
Fed defenders, such as Rob McTeer, are already trying to smear the group: “What populists on the right and the left have in common is a distrust of the establishment, and to them the Fed personifies the establishment.”
So . . . John Taylor and Douglas Holtz-Eakin are now Ron Paul populists?
I don’t think so. If those who defend loose money want to engage in a serious debate, we can have one; but placing the Fed on some ivory tower-like perch above the rest of us isn’t going to cut it anymore.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Former candidate for Board of Supervisors in Spotsylvania, current blogger, economics teacher, and long-rumored windbag. There are two causes closest to the heart: steering the country away from the social democratic nonsense that is sinking Europe, and convincing the rest of the "rightosphere" that the NBA really is a joy to watch.
Comments
3 Responses to "Opposition to QE2 kicks it up a notch"
Amen brother. I never thought I’d live to see the day that monetary policy is being talked about in mainstream America and not avoided by the political parties.
How many things does Ron Paul have to be ahead of the curve on for people to realize he isn’t crazy?
Ron Paul IS slightly crazy, but also right too many times to disregard.
Head of GM interviewed on CNN tonight; I paraphrase: “We’ve added 7300 jobs to the payroll this year because demand for our product has picked up; consumers are buying our cars again.” Talk to any CEO; ask the same question, “When will you begin hiring workers again?” and receive the same answer, “When demand for our product increases.” Profound? Not really. Supported by economic theory? Yes. Econ doesn’t get much simpler, truer, or closer to the core than Ludwig von Mises’ micro theories, outlined in his book, “Human Action; A Treatise on Economics”. Download a free PDF copy of the entire book here: http://mises.org/books/humanaction.pdf
Misus was an economic theorist who also kept eyes open and understood political pressures operating on governments. When Germany’s government kept printing more and more money, he understood what was going to happen and – in 1912 – Misus predicted the hyperinflation that crippled German society and its economy in the early 20s. His book is a good read for anyone looking to become better schooled in econ.
Thanks for the posts DJ. While few are posting, am guessing many are reading, learning, and thinking.
JAYD
Of course CNN never asked whether the customers the phony balony CEO of GM refers to aren’t the pawns of the government – such as GE buying … drumroll … the VOLT! The last GM CEO was a crony of Rahm Emanuel who by his own admission knew nothing about cars but did know about cronyism. He got fired recently when he made a little joke about “Government Motors” that annoyed Obama. The Fed is part of this corrupt crew and needs to keep these little enterprises afloat until 2012. This is what happens when you have secret organizations like the Fed and to a lesser extent Fannie and Freddie in charge of vast amounts of cash.
By the way the posts are few because they get deleted along with the thread every few days.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.