While the move to central clearing has made the system safer, we need to make sure that the central counterparties have the resources and risk-management practices to withstand plausible but severe shocks.
Jerome PowellRead
Long experience, in the United States and in other advanced economies, has demonstrated that monetary policy is most successful when decisions are rendered independent of influence by elected officials.
Interpretation
Monetary policy works best when it's independent from political influence.
Jerome Powell highlights the importance of maintaining the independence of monetary policy from elected officials to ensure its effectiveness. Experience in advanced economies shows that when central banks make decisions free from political pressure, they can achieve more stable economic outcomes, suggesting that political interference can undermine sound economic practices.
In practice
During a lecture on economic stability, one might quote Jerome Powell to emphasize the need for central bank independence.
While the move to central clearing has made the system safer, we need to make sure that the central counterparties have the resources and risk-management practices to withstand plausible but severe shocks.
I am unable to think of any critical, complex human activity that could be safely reduced to a simple summary equation.
Long-term economic growth depends mainly on nonmonetary factors such as population growth and workforce participation, the skills and aptitudes of our workforce, the tools at their disposal, and the pace of technological advance. Fiscal and regulatory policies can have important effects on these factors.
It is worth noting that 'too big to fail' is not simply about size. A big institution is 'too big' when there is an expectation that government will do whatever it takes to rescue that institution from failure, thus bestowing an effective risk premium subsidy. Reforms to end 'too big to fail' must address the causes of this expectation.
There is no risk-free path for monetary policy.
My own experience is that the best outcomes are reached when opposing viewpoints are clearly and strongly presented before decisions are made.
Capitalism is not an 'ism.' It is closer to being the opposite of an 'ism,' because it is simply the freedom of ordinary people to make whatever economic transactions they can mutually agree to.
The value of a currency is, ultimately, what someone will give you for it - whether in food, fuel, assets, or labor. And that's always and everywhere a subjective decision.
Having a decent share of the national wealth for the middle class is not bad for growth. It is actually useful both for equity and efficiency reasons.
Capitalism and market forces are very powerful in producing wealth and innovation. But we need to ensure that these forces act in the common interest.
The only way to make sure no bank is too big to fail is to make sure no bank is too big.
I believe myself to be writing a book on economic theory which will largely revolutionize - not, I suppose, at once but in the course of the next ten years - the way the world thinks about economic problems.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.