Bernanke doesn't care about high unemployment, Daniel Gross says, perhaps because the Fed is...


Bernanke doesn't care about high unemployment, Daniel Gross says, perhaps because the Fed is "simply exhausted... having used up all its resources in saving the system," or it's a "failure of imagination." Either way, he says, "expecting this Fed to have a sense of urgency about the unemployment rate may be as futile as looking for a Cadillac at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box."
Comments (21)
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    Unemployed people do not mean anything to Bernanke, they do not pay interest, they do not take out loans, they do not buy stuff, in essence they do not make his world go round.

     

    However, they do vote for handouts, so Obama will most certainly care and will promise them the world. You've never seen handouts promised like those that will be promised between now and the November elections.
    24 Jun 2010, 05:25 PM Reply Like
  • Hitbyatruck
    , contributor
    Comments (77) | Send Message
     
    What exactly is the Fed supposed to do about unemployment? Lower interest rates? Add to bank reserves? Let the black helicopters fly?
    24 Jun 2010, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    Hitbyatruck, cut taxes, enforce laws, abide by the constitution. In essence, reaffirm that America is a premiere capitalist country. If this happens, with everything else going on in the world corporations will flock here. As it is, with the government taking over everything and behaving like Chavez or Putin, assets in America are no longer safe from Government. That means that America is losing it clear advantage, all so a bunch of do-gooders can feel good about themselves while the rest of us starve and deteriorate from the socialist malaise.
    24 Jun 2010, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • Hitbyatruck
    , contributor
    Comments (77) | Send Message
     
    The Fed is supposed to cut taxes? Abide by the Constitution? Umm. Talk to Congress.
    24 Jun 2010, 06:04 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    Hitbyatruck, sorry of course the Fed can't do these, but it can support these ideas to the administration and congress and remind them what capitalism means. Oh my, what am I thinking again, they are the administration. Guess we are just doomed.
    24 Jun 2010, 06:12 PM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1455) | Send Message
     
    another liberal turning angry.

     

    just a few months ago he was a cover story - the amazing comeback.

     

    www.newsweek.com/2010/...
    24 Jun 2010, 05:45 PM Reply Like
  • dfbell
    , contributor
    Comments (1462) | Send Message
     
    Employment, isn't that the CO-mandate of the Fed?
    24 Jun 2010, 05:48 PM Reply Like
  • Hitbyatruck
    , contributor
    Comments (77) | Send Message
     
    I'm a conservative. What are Bernanke's options? I honestly lack the knowledge to answer this question? Could someone please explain.
    24 Jun 2010, 05:50 PM Reply Like
  • dinamo7
    , contributor
    Comments (186) | Send Message
     
    ah yes the "conservative" that loves obama? how about, stop paying interest on excess reserves? how about, stop stuffing cash in obama banks and encouraging them to play the auction games? how about having the obama banks use that free taxpayer, freshly printed ben money, to lend to consumers (at less than 20%). the fed has great power to affect the largest employers in america and can free up real credit to small business. the fed can stop enabling obama banks by loading its balance sheet with toxic assets and making the banks actually deal with them (write down princ., modify in good faith, etc.). not sure you are interested in a serious answer.
    24 Jun 2010, 06:18 PM Reply Like
  • farmer448
    , contributor
    Comments (229) | Send Message
     
    For one he can quite paying interest on excess reserves the banks have at the fed. Maybe the banks will then loan it to local/national businesses. And then surprise surprise, those businesses might hire the unemployed who can then buy stuff and take out loans.
    24 Jun 2010, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • Hitbyatruck
    , contributor
    Comments (77) | Send Message
     
    Yes. I'm interested in a real answer. I'm not sure that Bernanke can stimulate demand anymore - interest rates are at all time low, bank have excess reserves.

     

    WHAT OTHER MONETARY POLICY TOOLS ARE THERE? <-- this is my question.

     

    Are you asking for more quantitative easing? He could complain to Congress for more stimulus or repeal of all regulations or lower taxes?

     

    I'm a conservative, but I value being fair and not some dude with a republican stick up his rear.
    25 Jun 2010, 10:00 AM Reply Like
  • labas112
    , contributor
    Comments (496) | Send Message
     
    When did it become the Fed's job to worry about unemployment? That is not their job. Their job is simply to insure the power of the currency, which they do not do now anyways.
    24 Jun 2010, 05:50 PM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1455) | Send Message
     
    sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't reflect reality. look at the fed balance sheets. can you argue the fed's not "in" the markets, not buying mortgages, not in the RE finance market, not an indirect owner of stock?
    24 Jun 2010, 07:01 PM Reply Like
  • dfbell
    , contributor
    Comments (1462) | Send Message
     
    it is their co-mandate, along with inflation. read their charter.
    the "since" is answer from their creation.
    24 Jun 2010, 07:05 PM Reply Like
  • joro_ianev
    , contributor
    Comments (400) | Send Message
     
    Whoever this Gross guy is, he is on drugs. The role of the Fed is to ensure stable currency and stable financial system. It is NOT to finance wasteful government spending. Period. The last thing we want is to turn the Fed to the politicos and the socialist quacks; as if 0% interest rates weren't bad enough already... What a stupid article.
    24 Jun 2010, 06:38 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    Sorry, but you are a year too late. The President appoints the top Fed posts. How can anyone say its independent, with this President? There is nothing independent about Chicago thug politics.

     

    Disclaimer: I live in metro Chicago.
    24 Jun 2010, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • Jackson999
    , contributor
    Comments (471) | Send Message
     
    When people talk about the FED worrying around unemployment, it is only form the sense of the effects that higher unemployment has on the ability of the economy to recover or to stabilize.

     

    As dianmo7 pointed out, there ARE some things that the FED could do that might obliquely do that might have an effect on the unemployment numbers.

     

    But IF they were to take these actions, then bank profits might be hurt and politicians then might get upset when the bank lobbyists complained to them, etc.
    24 Jun 2010, 06:58 PM Reply Like
  • Ohrama
    , contributor
    Comments (568) | Send Message
     
    It is as much failure of Ben Bernanke as the greed of the working population (including myself or my children). Instead of matching our talents (which has gone down during the last 40 years that I have personally observed) and the existing competition to the possible income, we start with how much we need (and we need infinite amount if we can pull it through!) and expect to be paid. The politicians (mostly lawyers) responded to the greed by legislating how much we need to paid, listened to the unions etc. The result is the jobs moving abroad etc. We are not going to get out this mess by banning the others (the foreigners) getting into the country or banning imports. We need to fight our way back through making our work indispensable, and reduce our expectations (or match it to what is the reality.
    24 Jun 2010, 07:10 PM Reply Like
  • TraderMark
    , contributor
    Comments (2421) | Send Message
     
    How dare you! Ben cares about all his sheeple. His dual mandate is to be use the country's currency to make sure his banksters are profitable and to do whatever is necessary to make sure bankers are protected from the evils of the rest of society.

     

    Err, I mean his dual madate is to protect the value of the currency (which has fallen well over 90% since the Fed was created) and keep unemployment low. On that front they have been a total failure but since its pseudo government work as long as you grade out a 40 (out of 100) it's good enough. In fact he would be promoted if their was a higher level - but bankster in chief is about as high as it gets. Oh well he still has Time Man of the Year.

     

    Now stop yer complaining and put your moey into the bank so it can receive that 0.22% return on savings, or if your a good little sheeple they will pay you 1.2% over 3 years. Empty your pockets and know your role!
    24 Jun 2010, 07:30 PM Reply Like
  • ebworthen
    , contributor
    Comments (2799) | Send Message
     
    In the stale wisdom of Bernanke and his cronies, unemployment is a lagging indicator.

     

    They don't realize this is Depression II and that unemployment is a leading indicator.

     

    The string pushing and sleight of hand from the Greenspan or any other era going back to 1939 won't work in our current scenario.
    24 Jun 2010, 10:26 PM Reply Like
  • sa_member_520531
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    The Fed received the dual mandate of keeping price stability and employment high back in 1946. The US had lost over 3.6m jobs (out of a population of of 140m) over the last two years as war-time factories were being shut down.

     

    At the time it looks to have been a simple Act that was good for the country but the Act has been obviously outlived. You won't hear a negative speech form any Fed member on having too much responsibility but Donald Kohn did remark back in May that he was unsure if monetary policy was the right tool to ensure that both mandates could be met.

     

    If the Fed really wanted to create jobs today they could just hire and add to their $2.5t balance sheet as what is another few billion? They have proven that their staffing levels are inadequate.

     

    Congress should change the mandate the next time that we are in a 'new economy' but as the Fed says 'we can't spot bubbles with confidence'.
    25 Jun 2010, 07:35 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs