Progressives like Yglesias recognize the danger of money in politics. They should consider the danger of politics in money, as well. And not just when it suits their interests.
Shelton is right to criticize the full-employment aspect of the Fed’s dual mandate.
For hundreds of millions of citizens across the world, digital currencies like Bitcoin, Ripple, and potentially even the Libra don’t pose a threat to financial stability. They offer an escape from chronic financial instability and high and variable rates of inflation that result from poorly managed government monies.
A decade has passed since the financial crisis of 2008-9. Unfortunately, the Fed is more politically exposed (and policy constrained) than ever.
The trade war is heating up. Unfortunately, the Fed’s current framework will exacerbate the damage.
The jury is still out on whether Dodd-Frank has made the financial system more robust. But we are starting to get a clearer picture of what impact it has had on compliance cost, bank lending, and bank consolidation.
Some scholars argue that ordinary citizens should be allowed to open bank accounts at the Fed. Is this the best way to reduce financial exclusion?
Some politicians are calling for the return of postal banking. Should we heed their call?
We can’t predict exactly what solutions will emerge from financial liberalization. The results will likely differ from country to country or region to region, depending on unique cultural and socio-economic factors.
The Fed’s failure to shrink its balance sheet and commitment to paying above-market interest on reserves could undermine its ability to combat the next recession.