What do all candidates to be the next chairman of the Fed have in common?

[backintown]

What do all candidates to be the next chairman of the Fed (Yellen, Summers, Kohn, Fischer, Geithner) have in common among themselves and also with all the Chairmen in charge over the previous +20 years and also in common with the Treasury Secretaries in charge for 11 out of the last 20 years?

Tip: They are all part of a group representing about 2% of the U.S. population.

[spdrun]

If this is the beginning of an anti-Semitic rant of some type: Geithner isn’t what you think he is 🙂

Nice try, bozo.

[SK in CV]

Shit, nice catch dude. I was thinking they were all financially well off and well educated and couldn’t figure out why that would be a bad thing.

[Rich Toscano]

There are so many legitimate reasons to be critical of the Fed… THAT’S what you pick to complain about?

[earlyretirement]

[quote=Rich Toscano]There are so many legitimate reasons to be critical of the Fed… THAT’S what you pick to complain about?[/quote]

Yeah! No kidding. I do agree that several of those guys were asleep at the wheel. Especially in the early years during the Great Recession when it was OBVIOUS that were were heading for problems in the housing market and they were saying everything is ok and we can see “the light at the end of the tunnel”. (Only they didn’t know that light was an oncoming speeding train!)

But I WILL say that these are pretty sharp guys. I have met Tim Geithner a few times and he is an extremely level headed and intelligent guy. You’re always going to get Monday morning quarterbacking going on.

The reality is that most people complaining couldn’t do any better. The task these guys have is tremendous and even if they want to do something individually they really can’t.

I’ve found that the people that complain the most, you ask them what their plan would have been and really they can’t begin to comprehend how complicated and difficult everything is.

Yes, LOTS to complain about but also their task is an almost impossible task sometimes.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=earlyretirement]
Yes, LOTS to complain about but also their task is an almost impossible task sometimes.[/quote]

Yes, but it needn’t have become the impossible situation that it is… that’s really the biggest complaint imho.

[earlyretirement]

Oh I totally agree Rich. They made some big blunders but then again so did many other individuals, institutions and lenders and other governmental agencies.

I’m no fan of the Fed. One of these days we will have to have lunch and I will show you some other blogs I posted on. I used to tear these guys apart with complaints for their stupidity.

I actually know several players at the Federal Reserve Bank as they were a former client of mine.

[FlyerInHi]

I like Bernanke. He’s an academic who’s focused on doing his job and he doesn’t seek out the limelight.

Greenspan and Summers socialize too much with the fatcats, it seems.

[earlyretirement]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I like Bernanke. He’s an academic who’s focused on doing his job and he doesn’t seek out the limelight.

Greenspan and Summers socialize too much with the fatcats, it seems.[/quote]

I’m blah on Bernanke. He was REALLY asleep at the wheel just before and during the crises, IMHO. I still remember him making bonehead comments at the start of the crises when it was clear that things would turn out VERY bad.

It’s almost as if he thought if he kept repeating that things would be ok they would. That he could somehow wish things to normalize and they would. LOL. He pretended that housing wasn’t going to get as bad as he clearly knew it would. That’s the main thing I have against him.

I spent several years strongly criticizing the guy. He should have been upfront and honest and not been in denial or at the very least not told people that things weren’t as bad as they were.

Read some of his past comments right before the crash and even after the crash happened. Just obscene some of the comments/thinking/denial.

Goldspan got too caught up on the image of “Goldspan”. His problem is he started getting a God complex and thought he was more important and knew more than he did. Seeing himself on CNBC almost gave him instant “wood” and he probably fantasized about watching himself with that stupid briefcase.

He plays a HUGE role in the blame for housing and didn’t do what he should have to reign in oversight and leverage. He let things turn into the monstrosities of mass destruction and kept fighting in the need to reign in that leverage.

[backintown]

No rant here, it just appears so unbalanced that it catches the attention. It is highly unlikely this would go unnoticed if they were all Italian American (who are way more numerous) or something.

This fairly significant over-representation should be surprising to someone who believes these appointments should be blind to such a variable. After all, how statistically likely are these appointments to be so disproportionally distributed to such a tiny percentage of the population if such a variable plays no role?

I would expect to see more diversity in those ranks. Not a single woman (50% of the population), African-American (13%), Asian American (5%) or Hispanic (17%), ever. I find it especially interesting in contrast to its total lack of representation/interest for some other (arguably much less important) posts such as Secretary of Veteran Affairs or Secretary of Interior (none, ever). Those are the types of posts you historically find some of the token ‘diversity’ appointments to ‘minorities’.

I guess if we have Yellen, we will at least introduce have some gender diversity for a change. Let’s see.

[spdrun]

Yellen is Vice Chair of the board of governors as a woman. Also, Esther George is on the BoG. Roger Ferguson (Black American) was Vice Chair for a time and was being considered for the chairmanship.

Not that I actually give a flying hoot about diversity for the sake of diversity. Let the best (wo)man get the job — race or gender should not be considerations either way.

Keep in mind that groups that were traditionally under-represented need to rise through the ranks. I’m NOT for promoting someone just to have a token individual of a given race or gender at the top. Equality and balance will come in time, but it has to be a natural process.

[zk]

[quote=backintown]No rant here, it just appears so unbalanced that it catches the attention. It is highly unlikely this would go unnoticed if they were all Italian American (who are way more numerous) or something.

This fairly significant over-representation should be surprising to someone who believes these appointments should be blind to such a variable. After all, how statistically likely are these appointments to be so disproportionally distributed to such a tiny percentage of the population if such a variable plays no role?

I would expect to see more diversity in those ranks. Not a single woman (50% of the population), African-American (13%), Asian American (5%) or Hispanic (17%), ever. I find it especially interesting in contrast to its total lack of representation/interest for some other (arguably much less important) posts such as Secretary of Veteran Affairs or Secretary of Interior (none, ever). Those are the types of posts you historically find some of the token ‘diversity’ appointments to ‘minorities’.

I guess if we have Yellen, we will at least introduce have some gender diversity for a change. Let’s see.[/quote]

You say that it is statistically unlikely that the fact that they’re all (you really should just come out and say it) Jewish doesn’t play a role. What role do you think it plays?

[backintown]

I couldn’t agree more, minorities should rise on their own, but it is very difficult if a small clique has a strong hold on the most powerful positions using collective resources to give strong preference in training, grooming and investing to their own. While this fairly small minority might actually have been hurt in the past from this exact issue and has successfully conquered a well deserving a seat on the table, today it seems it wants all the seats on it. It ends up dictating policy on behalf of the whole country and a mirroring clique on the private side (many switch sides at some point) has benefited tremendously from the policies this group has put in place. To be clear, it is not as if this group has absolute control over everything, but for a meager two percent of the population it seems to be amazingly influential.

If you extend the analysis to other areas of policy or levels of government, this group also appears to have completely disproportional power and influence. When I count the number of Assemblymen and Senators in such group, I find it astonishing the huge over representation, especially in the Senate. Again, if say Chinese Americans had even close to such disproportional clout, this wouldn’t go unnoticed especially if they had a powerful lobby in DC and were allowed to dictate American policy towards China, where there is an obvious huge potential for conflicts of interests. So I am left wondering for example if the unbelievable amounts of our tax dollars we spend on the Middle East (even subsidizing a fairly wealthy country with its own nuclear weapons like Israel and brutal dictatorships friendly to it to the tune of several billions every year) and the unending fights we seem to pick with the >1 billion Muslims out there are all justified on their own merits based on American interests or if there is something else behind the surface.

[SK in CV]

[quote=backintown]I couldn’t agree more, minorities should rise on their own, but it is very difficult if a small clique has a strong hold on the most powerful positions using collective resources to give strong preference in training, grooming and investing to their own. While this fairly small minority might actually have been hurt in the past from this exact issue and has successfully conquered a well deserving a seat on the table, today it seems it wants all the seats on it. It ends up dictating policy on behalf of the whole country and a mirroring clique on the private side (many switch sides at some point) has benefited tremendously from the policies this group has put in place. To be clear, it is not as if this group has absolute control over everything, but for a meager two percent of the population it seems to be amazingly influential.
[/quote]

This really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It simply does not pass the smell test. In what way have Jews used their tiny “clique” to give “strong preference in training and grooming”. Have “they” kept non-Jews out of top universities or banking positions across the country? If so, how so?

It’s hard to fault any individual who has risen through the ranks of their industry to want to the top position in their field. How did they get there? By being hired by non-Jews. Not a single one of those Fed bankers or Treasury Secretaries was hired for that position by another Jew. Not a single one. Any evidence whatsoever that those choices were inappropriately influenced?

Do you understand that this claim dates back to medieval anti-Semitism? It is textbook following of the anti-Semitic hoax “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” promoted by Adolf Hitler and Henry Ford, probably the most virulent anti-Semite this country has ever seen. That’s the hateful company you’re hanging with.

[SD Realtor]

Backintown don’t forget they also own all the media outlets and Hollywood as well. Good to see there are viligant people like you on the case.

[Author]

Posts