The Fed

Fed policy makers are telling us that they have to stabilize the price level in order to allow the efficient functioning of the market: a contradiction in terms.

Some of the results developed by RBC proponents, can reinforce the claims made by Austrian business cycle theorists.

Despite market monetarism’s recent popularity, nominal GDP targeting fails to achieve the end of aiding macroeconomic coordination.

From the session on “Studies in Economic History,” presented at the Austrian Economics Research Conference.

A subset of the end-the-Fed crowd opposes the Fed for peripheral or entirely wrongheaded reasons.

Bernanke, like the famous engineer Casey Jones, is often held up as a popular hero. However, Jones was the engineer of a major train wreck, which was due to his errors in judgment and his own overconfidence. Bernanke's current monetary policy is a train wreck waiting to happen.

Needless to say, those who benefit from bubble activities are not going to like this, since the diversion of real wealth to them from wealth generators will slow down or cease all together. A fall in economic activity in this case would in fact be the demise of various bubble activities.

As we review the Fed’s operations in 2012 we see the usual outcomes. The banking sector has benefited from its operations (unusually so, thanks to the
    continued interest on reserve policy) and the government has received a free lunch by having a ready buyer for its ever-increasing debt.

The signs of an incipient asset bubble, induced by the Fed become more evident every day.

If the economy improves, the banking sector will increasingly loan out its reserves and bring inflationary pressure to prices. If the economy does not
    improve, the Fed will not be able to unload the low-quality assets on its balance sheet, and thus the inflationary pressures will remain. The so-called
    win-win solution to the crisis has become a lose-lose scenario.