Chris Hayes makes the case for a more aggressive Fed
And he does it with folksy analogies!
The idea that the Fed should shift its stance and do everything possible to get the recovery moving is still a minority position. But the argument doesn't seem to have joined: I haven't seen members of the Fed, or people who agree with members of the Fed, explaining clearly why the Fed should hold back, what the downsides of a more aggressive intervention would be, why the risk of a soft and slow recovery isn't greater than the risk of the Fed pushing into the market. Instead, they're just not doing any of it.
I'm sure the Fed has reasons for its reluctance, and it's possible that its members have made their arguments in forums I've not noticed. But I'd like to understand the other side of this debate in more detail than I currently do.
Update: This Economist roundtable airs both sides of the argument, and is well worth a read.
August 17, 2010; 10:31 AM ET
Categories: Federal Reserve
Save & Share: Previous: The mosque non-story
Next: The case for a temporary extension of all the Bush tax cuts
Posted by: Patrick_M | August 17, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: bdballard | August 17, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: strobes | August 17, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: JamesCody | August 17, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: MassachusettsLiberalinDC | August 17, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse