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.
Many markets work best with little or no outside interference. But others - especially those subject to big 'externalities' - need a helping hand.
I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.
The accepted ideas of any period are singularly those that serve the dominant economic interest...What economists believe and teach, whether in the United States or in the Soviet Union, is rarely hostile to the institutions - the private business enterprise, the Communist Party - that reflect the dominant economic power. Not to notice this takes effort, although many succeed.
There's nothing in Keynesian economics that would allow you to solve stagflation. But there's nothing in neoclassical economics that would allow you to solve stagflation, either.
The law of property determines who owns something, but the market determines how it will be used.
And you can't have a prosperous economy when the government is way overspending, raising tax rates, printing too much money, over regulating and restricting free trade. It just can't be done.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.