Skip to comments.Romney’s Fed chief: Who would get the job if the Republican takes the White House?
Posted on 10/10/2012 6:44:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Many of the challenges Mitt Romney would face in choosing a Federal Reserve chairman, should he win the presidency, are the same as those that President Obama would encounter: the need to find someone with an exemplary mix of skills as an economist, communicator and financial regulator.
But he would have an added challenge. Romney would need to decide whether he fully buys in to the arguments he has made in favor of a tighter money supply. Is he willing to put the nations money where his mouth is?
The American economy doesnt need more artificial and ineffective measures, Romneys campaign said after the Fed announced its latest strategy to pump more money into the economy in September, a policy aimed at bringing down unemployment. We should be creating wealth, not printing dollars. Romney has said he would not reappoint Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke when his term expires Jan. 31, 2014, about one year into the new presidential term.
If Romney sticks to his embrace of hard money, it would be a rare event in economic history. Elected political leaders, at least outside of Germany, almost always favor lower interest rates to higher, and easier money to tighter. Aides to Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush pressured the Fed to ease monetary policy, at times of significantly higher inflation than what has been experienced recently. Bush is said to have blamed his loss in the 1992 election on Fed Chairman Alan Greenspans unwillingness to cut interest rates enough.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Ron Paul would be the first name on my list. He would scare the hell out of them. And the senators that would have to confirm him.
In any case, it should not be anyone from a Wall Street firm.
Richard W. Fisher is an inflation hawk and would be my choice, although he did vote with the board on the last round. Hubbard has the inside track.
Peter Schiff. :)
First chice = Rick Santelli.
Second choice = Art Laffer.
RE: Ron Paul would be the first name on my list. He would scare the hell out of them. And the senators that would have to confirm him.
I found it very odd that Ron Paul did not attack Romney during the GOP primaries even as he trained his guns on everyone of Romney’s rivals ( Santorum, Newt, etc ). Heck, he even called Ric Santorum a fake. Romney? Ron Paul Didn’t touch him at all.
Could there have been an agreement in secret?
Also, if Ron Paul were Fed chairman, get ready for a huge, ugly and divisive debate about the return to the gold standard (Abandoned by Nixon 40 years ago ). Count on it.
G. Edward Griffin!
RE: Art Laffer
Make him Treasury Secretary ( and vet him first to make sure he paid his taxes ).
I believe Fed chairmen have to be chosen from among Fed boardmembers.
RE: I believe Fed chairmen have to be chosen from among Fed board members.
Why can’t Ron Paul first be made a board member and then after some time, the Chairman?
Or is the chairman selected by the board members themselves?
Keep the Bernanke. He’s doing such a fine job. The printing presses are running at full capacity.
Larry Kudlows my guy for Sec Tres.
As long as it’s someone who won’t tighten the money supply. That would be an epic disaster. See 1937-38 for why...
I am more than ready for a debate on the gold standard. Currencies should be related to precious metals, whose values are fixed and not based on manipulations or the arbitrary thoughts of the members of the Fed.
Well, if Milton Friedman were still alive ...
Either Peter Schiff, who is a tiger to be respected, or Ron paul, to ‘put his money where his mouth is’.
Yes, I did catch that in all the debates that Paul kept Romney as ‘off limits’, and even ‘tag-teamed’ another debate candidate.
A return to the Gold Standard would be interesting to watch.
As a side note: a return to the Gold Standard, also carried with it the return of the Silver Standard, as well. If you remember, our dollar bills were once certificates of ‘one dollar silver’. IMHO, it is the preppers, the hoarders, and the speculators of silver, that drove Kodak out of business, being no longer able to afford silver metal to manufacture photographic film.
That’s why I suggested Richard W. Fisher, Inflation Hawk.
“IMHO, it is the preppers, the hoarders, and the speculators of silver, that drove Kodak out of business, being no longer able to afford silver metal to manufacture photographic film.”
Wouldn’t that have more to do with the rise of digital photography gutting the demand for film? If it was the silver prices, Kodak would have just raised the price of film and passed it along.
Kodak simply wasn’t able to produce a decent digital camera while SONY took their electronics expertise and now makes some of the best cameras there are.
You can still buy film but its expensive and goes mostly to the purists.
0’pinhead’s “The Folks” seem to just assume things will go back to “business as usual” soon, and .....
Notice how the prime question is just ignored/skipped over—does the usurper just walk away scot-free?
Col Sellin is the only one I have seen who addresses this issue multiple writings advising the prime issue must be brought to a head n4 the 2012 election, but......
Hee Hee, I would love to see Ron Paul clean house at the fed!
Yes, it would be cool to have an intelligent Brit in there!
and i would love to see dr rp tell him where to stick it!!!!!
>> Well, if Milton Friedman were still alive <<
then he’d tell the gold bugs (like Ron Paul and company) to pound sand. Friedman was well-known for opposing a return to the gold standard.
The hardest job the next president will have in choosing Ben Bernanke’s replacement is finding someone foolish enough to take the job.
Unlike every other banking chairman in the world, our Federal Reserve Chairman has been given two mutually exclusive goals — maintain the value of the dollar while at the same time solving our economic-growth and unemployment problems.
This is mission impossible, yet the Fed Chairman gets blamed for everything wrong with our economy. It’s the responsibility of Congress to enact budgets that will spur growth in the economy, yet it has abdicated this responsibility and placed everything on the shoulders of the Fed Chairman.
No intelligent Atlas would accept impossible burdens, and neither would intelligent candidates for the Fed Chairmanship. So, until Congress repeals its rule that the Fed must both maintain the dollar and spur economic growth, we’ll have fools for Fed Chairmen.
They will not change a thing. You are just kidding yourself if you think there will be a change.
My pick would be John Mauldin, the investment writer, analyst and speaker. He seems to have a really good handle on economic history, the functioning of the markets, and is a strong capitalist.
The last two Republican picks were Alan Greenspan (Reagan) and Ben Bernanke (G.W. Bush). Hopefully Romney can do better.
Reality- SSDD. Keeping those printing presses and bill cutters at full speed.
Better watch it before FR’s small clique of “free trade” Wall Street arbitrageurs show up to call you an economic Neanderthal, a drooling gold bug, or tinfoil hat fashionista, hehehe....
Oh, I’ve battled them before!
Yes, of course, but as in all things, there is always the concept of "inside baseball". In this context, it's not that anything will change, it's that people actually respond to a thread with earnest & sincere attempts at voicing "solutions".
The inside game related to this exercise is that it provides even more evidence that among the very, very small percentage of people who even understand the subject matter, so few really understand what it means.
Denninger is one of the very few - a couple of days ago he discussed the IMF paper that revealed that US balance sheet debt must go to $55T in order to keep the ponzi afloat:
Once you understand the math, the political equation is trivial: the debt must exponentially expand, or the game is up. As in, revolution, tanks in the street, civil war, etc.
So, tasked with the job of expanding the debt, all one must do is look around at potential asset/service classes that can be 'financialized' ie leveraged into even more debt.
We already have the MIC (perpetual global war), war on drugs (justice-industrial complex), housing, pensions, etc. If any of these were to experience cut-backs ie enter recession, it would also be game over.
So, what are the biggest demographic slices? Who owns the assets & who's gonna need them to finance their coming health care needs? What part of the economy is already experiencing rapid cost escalations, but is only getting warmed up?
Don't waste your time thinking about solutions, focus on thinking how you can get a piece of pie in order to save your own skin.