Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke certainly faces relentless scrutiny. Critics from all corners—be it senators, presidential candidates, or editorial writers—seem to line up to voice their discontent with his performance.
But is this criticism warranted? Hasn’t Bernanke fulfilled, perhaps even exceeded, the expectations of his role?
To clarify, the primary responsibility of the Federal Reserve Chairman is to deliver what the world craves: an ample supply of inexpensive money. By this standard, Bernanke has performed exceptionally well. Initiatives such as the CPFF, MMIFF, TAF, QE, and QE2 demonstrate his adeptness at managing monetary policy. Even his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, may not have envisioned, let alone dared to implement, such ambitious strategies.
Regrettably, critics abound, and instead of expressing gratitude, many seek to push Bernanke aside. For instance, on Tuesday, Bernanke found himself defending against a report from Bloomberg News that alleged the Federal Reserve had covertly lent or guaranteed over $7.7 trillion to bail out banks during the 2008 financial crisis.
In a letter to Congress, Bernanke asserted that the article “contain[ed] a variety of errors and mistakes,” emphasizing that the bailout was interpreted as a necessary measure to prevent a repeat of the mistaken inaction during the Great Depression that allowed the financial system to collapse. Continue reading
According to the Labor Department, the economy added 120,000 jobs in November. This figure consists of 140,000 new private sector positions, offset by a loss of 20,000 public sector jobs. Notably, the unemployment rate dipped to 8.6 percent, its lowest level since March 2009.
At first glance, these numbers suggest an improving job market. However, a closer examination reveals a more nuanced reality.
For instance, the increase of 120,000 jobs in November doesn’t even match the monthly population growth, which is estimated at about 200,000. To substantially decrease the unemployment rate, job creation must outpace both population growth and the expansion of the labor force. Despite a shortfall of roughly 80,000 positions last month, the unemployment rate still declined.
How can this be explained?
It’s simple: the number of job seekers dropped by 315,000. Additionally, 487,000 individuals were added to the count of those not included in the labor force. Remember, Continue reading
By the time the Vandals invaded Rome in A.D. 455, the great empire of the Caesars had long since retreated from Western Europe. Over the course of several decades, vast regions such as Britannia, Hispania, Gallia, and Italia fell, piece by piece, to various barbarian tribes before imperial Rome ultimately crumbled in 476.
Following this infamous collapse, a decentralized feudal system emerged, characterized by lords, vassals, and fiefs throughout Medieval Europe. With survival taking priority, learning and the arts receded, resulting in what is often referred to as the 1,000 years of darkness.
As Medieval Europe transitioned into the Renaissance, independent nation-states began to form. Over centuries, these states coexisted in a state of symbiotic yet disharmonious relationships. Then, as the third millennium dawned, Europe witnessed a reunification reminiscent of the Roman era—a United Europe once again dominated the continent.
However, this unity was not genuinely forged through mutual affection or struggle but rather a calculated monetary union imposed over generations by politicians and central planners. As a result, it was essentially fated to failure. Continue reading
For many aging baby boomers, the past decade provided disappointing results in the stock market, forcing them to either work longer or face a drastically reduced retirement lifestyle. Some may find it impossible to retire altogether, while a fortunate few in Congress have seen their wealth thrive amid this turmoil.
A study published in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis titled “Abnormal Returns from the Common Stock Investments of the U.S. Senate” indicates that Senators have outperformed the stock market by approximately 10 percent. One might wonder if Senators are simply the most astute investors, explaining their extraordinary returns.
This assumption, however, is flawed. Observations suggest the Senate comprises both intelligent individuals and others who display incompetence. Take Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; he once asserted that paying income tax in the United States is voluntary, which raises serious questions about his judgment.
Ultimately, given the blend of intelligence and ineptitude within the Senate, one wonders how they attain such remarkable stock-picking prowess. Are they relying on Elliott Waves? Engaging with Bollinger Bands? Or perhaps consulting tasseography? Continue reading
