ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


Reminds me of something I said on Twitter about a month ago (summarizing one of Scott Sumner's blog posts).
I've never thought of the central bank independence thing as being particularly a progressive idea, though. "Neo-liberal" maybe. The left never really accepted it. Moderate progressives accepted it grudgingly because moderate conservatives made convincing arguments for it (or arguments that seemed convincing at the time). I suppose conservatives would have preferred a strict mechanical policy rule, but they surely made the case that an independent central bank was better than a political one. I'm guessing that libertarians have tended to be split on the issue, with the ones who favored private money seeing a democratically controlled central bank as the lesser of two evils and the ones who favored a mechanical policy rule seeing an independent central bank as their second best.
Er, wasn't it traditionally the progressives who didn't want central bank independence and conservatives who did?
I thought it was obvious after Geithner's stress tests that the strategy was to recapitalize the banks through easy profits, especially with a steep yield curve. Now, with a flatter yield curve, the profits are less, so the recapitalization process is going more slowly in the last couple of months.
Savers are bailing out the banks. Yields on money markets, CDs, and short term bond funds are at record low yields. Fortunately, inflation is low, so the wipeout could be worse.
Andy,
What are your thoughts on a third alternative of no central bank at all? In theory it may have some justification, but I think the empirical record points to it being beholden to powerful political interests, much like any other federally introduced institution. And at present the Fed is more active in intervening in the private economy and determining winners and losers than at any other point in its history.
It is not true that banks make profits by holding deposits in interest-bearing reserves at the Fed. Deposits are assessed an FDIC fee which depends on the bank's risk structure. The lowest fee is 7 basis points, which suggests an opportunity to make profits holding onto reserves (which earn 25 basis points). However, most banks are in riskier categories, in which the fee can run up to 77.5 basis points. (FDIC fee schedule is at http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/insurance/calculator.html). The average assessment runs around 33 basis points. So accepting a non-interest-bearing deposit and holding it at the Fed is a money-loser for the average bank.