Are anti-Fed articles appearing in mainstream publications part of an extended program of tearing down the Fed in order to remake it as part of a global central bank?
Recently published anti-Fed arguments and their nearer-term motives have been commented on with considerable accuracy by various alternative-media entities. These arguments are compellingly presented. But step back, please.
It is difficult to avoid concluding – if one examines events from the requisite altitude – that the current system will eventually give way to something more homogenized. Perhaps the IMF will take the lead, or perhaps the Fed and other powerful central banks will be more fully integrated under the supervision of the International Monetary Fund.
No matter the disasters of ever-larger bureaucratic, price-fixing entities, the solution is always seen to be even more centralization. The bigger the better: As if somehow technocratic corporatism and its affiliated bureaucracy are going to succeed when they finally accumulate enough power.
Ordo ab chao …
And thus the tearing down proceeds apace. Does anyone really believe, for instance, that at the topmost level, people were not aware that posting an unmonitored Fed Facebook page would attract serious opposition (here)?
Is it some sort of secret that many are generally are disgusted with central banking and the Fed in particular? We are supposed to believe that an organization that can send $16 trillion around the world as it chooses (here) is incompetent about even the rudiments of public relations?
Before the big meeting at Jackson Hole that ends this weekend, (here) prominent negative news has been featured regarding the Fed. The article regarding the Fed’s Facebook trolls was posted at US News and World Report. But other anti-Fed articles have attracted attention.
John Hilsenrath recently posted an anti-Fed article at the Wall Street Journal (here). An excerpt:
Years of Fed Missteps Fueled Disillusion With the Economy and Washington … Once-revered, [the] central bank failed to foresee the crisis and has struggled in its aftermath, fostering the rise of populism and distrust of institutions.
And then there is the just-published – and biting – article by former Fed member Kevin Warsh (“The Federal Reserve Needs New Thinking”), also posted at The Wall Street Journal (here).
An excerpt from the conclusion:
As the dispenser of fault and favor, the Fed is contributing to the public perception of an unfair, inequitable economic system. Real reform this is not … If, as is more likely, the economy is closer to recession than resurgence, the Fed is poorly positioned to respond with force, efficacy and credibility.
The Fed is vulnerable. Its recent centennial as our nation’s central bank should not be confused with its permanent acceptance in the American political system.
This is not normal rhetoric. It is provided by a senior member of the monetary establishment and presented in the nation’s most prestigious business journal.
Perhaps in order to ensure our comprehension, a previously established-group is suddenly rising to prominence, “Fed Up.”
Where is Fed Up being featured? Why in the Financial Times (here).
‘Fed Up’ activists give message to Jackson Hole Central bank officials …
Federal Reserve officials on Thursday found their plans to tighten policy under assault from community activists, who accused them of compromising the interests of poorer citizens in a fight against an illusory threat of inflation.
In a meeting with the Fed Up coalition attended by 11 top US Fed officials on the eve of the Jackson Hole symposium, central bankers insisted they had no desire to halt the recovery but that they needed to act to prevent risky imbalances from emerging down the road.
However, the packed and occasionally heated gathering at the Jackson Lake Lodge saw some community activists arguing that the Federal Reserve leadership needed to better understand the plight of ethnic minority Americans on low wages.
The Fed’s decision to hold the meeting with activists reflects a need not to appear out of touch during a presidential election year when there is growing pressure from both sides of the political divide.
This is exactly the point. It doesn’t really matter if the Fed is right or wrong (invariably as a price-fixing institution it MUST be wrong). The larger issue here is that it is “open season” on the Fed:
The meeting was stacked with Fed Up activists from around the country wearing the group’s characteristic green T-shirts, with slogans including “We need a people’s Fed.”
Of course, we don’t really need a people’s Fed. The US doesn’t need a Fed at all. The world, generally speaking, doesn’t need central banks. They fix the value and volume of money and over time, price-fixing always creates economic disasters. Price fixing doesn’t work. Ever.
Some six years ago, we suggested (here) that the Fed – and other central banks – have no logical justification and would inevitably sink in public estimation.
However, these days we have no illusions that central banking is going to easily, or even effectively, disappear. Yes, it may be subject to more and more opprobrium. But if the system eventually breaks down worldwide, there is surely the possibility that those behind it will try to implement a new and even more centralized formula.
The dollar system is at stake, not just the Fed. In a previous article we pointed out that the dollar itself was under increasing pressure from both the ruble and yaun. Russia is reportedly doing more to separate the ruble from the dollar and the yuan is due to accumulate additional power as it joins the IMF’s SDR basket. See here for an analysis of both moves
It is during the implementation phase that the most massive opposition might be generated. On the other hand, we are well aware that before the current quasi-global system was implemented (including the BIS, IMF and World Bank), a world war was waged that thoroughly disorganized the opposition of the day.
As of this writing, Janet Yellen has not yet given an eagerly awaited speech at Jackson Hole. Could it create another market meltdown? Within this context, we should continue to consider the larger question: Is the actual goal of the world’s current, deliberate chaos intended to support the creation of a new and more vehement global order?
Conclusion: As we observe the unfolding of what we call “dominant social themes” and the “directed history” accompanying them, we should certainly pay attention to patterns that can confirm our suspicions and clarify our understanding. In the meantime, as we watch the demonizing of central banking, we will continue to remind ourselves that there are always deeper agendas at work.