In trying to answer the big questions about the central banks and global economy- I think it is important to note these historical facts and ask what their relevance might be:
Paul Volcker was appointed by liberal Jimmy Carter to be the head of the Fed, and was re-appointed by conservative Ronald Reagan. Alan Greenspan was appointed to head the Federal Reserve by Reagan, and then was re-appointed by President Bush I, Clinton, and again Bush II. This begs the question of how such a powerful position in managing our nation’s monetary policies can remain so “above” all the political cat-fighting between so-called “liberal” politicians and so-called “conservative” politicians. Shouldn’t there be a real difference of opinion when it comes to who should hold such key positions of power in the overall economy? I will add that Paul Volcker was named by President Obama to be “First Chair of President’s Economy Recovery Advisory Board”- so the musical chairs continues- is this some kind of a game?
As a secondary set of troubling “coincidences”, I would present the fact that the architect for the Vietnam War, Robert McNamara, was appointed by the President to be the President of the World Bank, where he remained from 1968-1981. Fast forward to 2005 and Iraq War architect, Paul Wolfowitz, is appointed by President Bush to be President of World Bank- he resigned under pressure 2 years later due to a girlfriend controversy. What is it about dubious war promotion that seems to be part of the resume for leadership at the World Bank?
Now what are we to make of all this? Is there really a liberal Democratic and conservative Republican difference at the top of the heap when it comes to the monetary policies and politics, and the way in which foreign aid and loans are administered within the global community via IMF/World Bank- where the U.S. has very strong influence obviously.
I’m not looking for Conspiracy Theories, but I am wondering aloud how these facts should play out in our national debate on economics. The bail-out shell game of printing money to protect the economic interests that are “too big to fail”, seems to be a bipartisan gentleman’s agreement. What are your thoughts?