Thursday, January 10, 2013

The Root of All Confusion About Liquidity?

commentary by Roger Erickson

Frederick Sheehan argues that Dissention is Overrated.

And summarizes his view that "The notorious free market is the party that will decide when [interest] rates will rise."

It's semantically a valid point, although for reasons outside this particular author's paradigm.

Exactly which free market is it that guides the FOMC's hand in setting rates?

If, as Warren Mosler says, Fed-window access was granted to all banks and their interest rate for creating banking reserves were set at zero, then all liquidity decisions would revert to credit-rating processes, which succeed systemically ONLY with adequate transparency, oversight, and regulation, and timely enforcement.

And that, of course, won't happen without a more transparent, open and active Policy Process. Public Purpose is only as good as the weakest link in it's own causality chain?

Conclusion? If we can't model and honestly expose the real-time outcomes of ALL of our processes, we don't HAVE efficient methods for exploring our own, group options? We can't stay on that path without a hungry, ambitious and audacious electorate used to demanding more, not less.

Where's the "Hell No!" party to oppose the shells of our existing political parties? To continually oppose existing Luddites, it should really be just a junior wing of the "MORE" electorate.  Since both Luddites and Progressives are continuously spawned due to genetic variance, they can provide adaptive checks & balances only if Progressives do more than just innovate, and also organize to the extent required to provide an effective check on Luddite tendencies.


No comments: