Time for Bernanke to go?

Time for Bernanke to exit stage left?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 8 36.4%
  • No.

    Votes: 8 36.4%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 6 27.3%

  • Total voters
    22

Little Raven

On Walkabout
Joined
Nov 6, 2001
Messages
4,244
Location
Cozy in an Eggshell
As Daniel Foster notes over at The Corner, the odds of a Bernanke nomination passing the Senate, while still good, are getting worse every day.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Ver.), Bernanke's nemesis, has a hold on his nomination — as do Sens. Bunning (R., Ky), DeMint (R., S.C.), and Vitter (R., La.) — which means Bernanke will need 60 votes to break procedural deadlock. And with little more than a week before his term as Fed Chair expires, majority leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has yet to schedule a vote.

Senators Byron Dorgan (D., N.D.) and Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.) have previously indicated they will vote against reconfirmation (Merkley did so when it came before the Senate Banking Committee in December). And today, Sen. Russ Feingold (D., Wisc.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) both added their names to the "no" roll.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.), by one measure the most liberal and the fourth most conservative senators, respectively, are currently a "leaning no" and a "no."

Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) is a no. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) is wishy-washy. Perhaps worst of all, Politico's Martin Kady is reporting that Reid himself is undecided, while the minority's offices across the aisle are "no-commenting" questions about whether they'll "whip" votes on the chairman's future.
I'll give Bernanke this much: we didn't collapse. Of course, there are lots of people that say we never would have collapsed anyway. And he certainly did and was complicit in lots of stuff that doesn't pass the smell test.

Do we need a new guy at the Fed? Is Volcker still up for the job?
 
I like Bernanke. My economics professor seems to think he is one of the greatest economists of today, and says he is the best man for the job in this position. On those grounds, I say leave him as is.
 
Don't see what's wrong with Bernanke. He did pretty much what was needed, when it was needed. In fact, he acted much faster than the ECB or other national banks. Would somebody else be better than him? I don't know. But I can imagine far worse... :shudder:
 
There are two considerations: (1) Is Bernanke above some 'minimal threshold' to competently execute his job, and (2) what is the opportunity cost?

(1) He, and the FOMC, could have been more aggressive in 2008Q3 and Q4, but their actions prior to that were good, and their actions in 2009 were not horrible. The errors were of omission rather than commission, and policy to correct the errors would have been...unorthodox. Given that the dominant paradigm in the central banking community is interest-rate manipulation, I don't think Bernanke could have done more even if he wanted to - and he certainly knew what was proper to do. See Bernanke (1999).

(2) Who are the likely competitors? Are we talking about established monetary economists like Woodford, Gali, Hetzel, Hall or Gertler? Or someone outside the money & macro community? I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who would be unquestionably better, and I can think of many that would be far worse.
 
I don't know me no fancy economics, but people smarter than me say he's good so I trust them over grandstanding politicians.
 
He was slow off the mark. But if we had had a lesser Fed chairman over the past 2 years, like say, Greenspan, then we'd be in a global Great Depression right now. Anyone in Congress that wants him gone should resign immediately.
 
I like Ben Bernanke.
 
My kneejerk is yes, but I don't know much about economics he is involved in, so I have to say I don't know whether he should stay or not.
 
Contre sums up my views on this I suppose...

I'll wait until the right-wing posters can inject some balance, however, before coming to a full decision.
 
Bernanke didn't want to pop the bubble, and while slow to do realize the problems (his own admittance), his reaction was superb and yes, with a lesser chairman, we would be in worse shape.

There are very few economists that are as good as a policy wonk as bernanke. These folks are playing politics with an institution that shouldnt be played with
 
Bernanke didn't want to pop the bubble, and while slow to do realize the problems (his own admittance), his reaction was superb and yes, with a lesser chairman, we would be in worse shape.

There are very few economists that are as good as a policy wonk as bernanke. These folks are playing politics with an institution that shouldnt be played with
Have you read his speech from the AEA this year? It's basically a defense of his monetary policy, to other monetary economists.
 
Bernanke Sails Through Senate, With Support of Schumer and Gillibrand
By Reid Pillifant
January 28, 2010 | 5:56 p.m

Ben Bernanke was just confirmed by the Senate again--the vote was 70-30, which gives the suddenly controversial chairman another term at the helm of the Federal Reserve.

The vote carried at least a small amount of drama, after a flurry of senators from both parties announced they'd vote against Mr. Bernanke's confirmation. The Wall Street Journal even set up an online chart to note the defections and track where each senator stood on the nomination.

Chuck Schumer was squarely in support of Mr. Bernanke. But, as late as this morning, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand--who has been criticized for following Mr. Schumer's lead--was still "Declared Undecided" by the W.S.J. (Two inquiries from the Observer to Ms. Gillibrand's office--one last week and one early this afternoon--failed to clarify the matter.)

Ms. Gillibrand's position on financial issues has taken on a newfound significance since Harold Ford Jr.--an employee of Merrill Lynch who has pledged to support the financial services industry--announced he was considering a possible run against the appointed senator. In his first interview with the New York Times, Mr. Ford criticized Ms. Gillibrand for voting against the TARP bill and for not doing enough to protect Wall Street. (At the time of her vote, Ms. Gillibrand said she supported the need to recapitalize the banks, but felt the government should receive equity "to protect the taxpayer.")

A vote against Mr. Bernanke would have been seen as a rebuke to President Obama; the Senate has never rejected a president's nomination for Fed chairman.

Ms. Gillibrand, in the end, voted in favor of Mr. Bernanke's confirmation.
http://www.observer.com/2010/politics/bernanke-sails-through-senate-support-schumer-and-gillibrand
 
Isn't Bernanke making another fat bubble with all this easy money sloshing around the system and low interest rates?
 
Bernake was reconfirmed for a second term


WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was confirmed for a second term Thursday by the U.S. Senate.

The final confirmation vote was 70-30. Minutes earlier, more than enough senators, 77, voted to end a filibuster on the nomination in a procedural move that required 60 votes.

http://www.nationstates.net/
 
Top Bottom