BoE's 'hierarchical' culture attacked in reviews … The "centralised and hierarchical" governance structure of the Bank of England is damaging its effectiveness, according to three independent reports. Former investment banker Bill Winters questioned the "robustness" of internal BoE governance in his review. Its "vulnerable" forecasting processes also lack detail and have become "noticeably worse" since the onset of the financial crisis, the reviews said. But the central bank was praised for its "effective" actions at the height of the economic collapse. – UK Telegraph
Dominant Social Theme: Investigations into the BoE show it could have done better but did well enough …
Free-Market Analysis: News comes of the release of no fewer than three separate probes into the Bank of England's performance during the financial crisis that actually started in 2007 and expanded in 2008.
The reviews do not apparently cover any of the critical 2007 area. They commenced in May by the Court of the Bank of England, "which manages the affairs of the bank but does not deal in monetary policy."
One is always amazed by power elite damage control. Such reports constitute a kind of dominant social theme reinforcing the idea that monopoly central banking has difficulties but is ultimately a utile and appropriate system.
But it is not so. Central banks are intrinsically flawed. It is impossible for any group of individuals to pre-set the price, quantity and value of money. When monopoly central bankers attempt to do so, there is always a distortion created in the money supply.
Only competition between currencies or gold-and-silver as money can introduce the necessary market discipline. Here's more from the article:
They focused on the Bank's handling of emergency lending at the height of the financial crisis, its forecasting record and its ongoing plans for providing support to the banking sector.
The reports were completed in October and released today after being discussed at a meeting between BoE officials.
Andrew Tyrie, the chairman of the House of Commons' Treasury Select Committee, said the reports were a step forward, but were too limited in scope and had taken too long, reflecting problems with governance at the bank.
"What we needed was a full investigation and we needed it earlier," he told Radio 4's Today programme on Friday.
Former investment banker Bill Winters, who sat on the Independent Commission on Banking, questioned the "robustness" of internal BoE governance in his review.
Calling into question the bank's "centralised and hierarchical" system, he said that less senior BoE staff had "a tendency to filter recommendations in such a way as to maximise the likelihood that senior staff will find the recommendation palatable".
He said: "While this makes it easier for the Governor, as ultimate decision-maker, to reach conclusions, it risks reducing the range of views he sees and, as such, might lead to a less effective overall outcome."
This, of course, is not the real reason the reports will not make a difference and are not to be taken seriously. They are not intended to change British monetary reality. They are damage control.
The idea of a "Court of the Bank of England" is itself an astonishing one. Knowing that central banking is an invasive and damaging institution, the powers-that-be apparently created the court as a kind of fail-safe.
One can bet that the same individuals who benefit from monopoly fiat central banking are behind the court, as well. That way they control not only the damaging practice of printing monopoly fiat; they are also able to control the official reports on ramifications.
We can see this process at work in the reports themselves. One review found that the BoE "achieved its purpose effectively" by providing enormous sums of money to various large banks to keep them afloat during the crisis.
There are statements to the effect that the bank "did the right thing" by keeping secret who received bailout funds and that bank measures were "essential" in stabilizing the larger marketplace.
This is the crux of the matter! The power elite that wants to create world government apparently does not want any discussion of fundamental bank privileges.
In fact, what the modern system does is create huge flows of fiat money that end up building an entirely artificial system beholden to central bank facilities.
When the system collapses, as it must, it is artificially propped up by the same bankers that have done the initial money printing. Those bestowing billions on failing entities don't want their actions made public or subject to scrutiny.
The entire process of modern economics is a kind of "mob" operation that begins with a system set up to fail and then continues with regular cover-ups intended to mislead people about how the system actually operates.
In fact, central banks should be entirely privatized and their various privileges removed. Let money compete. Then there won't be any necessity for such misleading reviews.