Suppose the Fed was actually little more
than a collection of incompetents trapped in a broken system that is
beyond repair.
For a variety of reasons, the Federal
Reserve is viewed by many as the financial Master of the
Universe. Given how the media hangs on every pronouncement
and the visible power of the Fed’s policies to move markets, this
view is understandable.
But suppose rather than being masters of all
things financial, the Fed was actually little more than a collection
of incompetents trapped in a broken system that is beyond repair.
Many reasons have been proposed to explain the
Fed’s policies,and most (including my own expressed here) focus on
the Fed’s need to protect the banking sector and the Status Quo,
lest the whole rotten contraption collapses in a heap of worthless
derivatives and various Ponzi schemes.
An alternative view is that the members of the
Fed have been selected for incompetence by a system that fosters
incompetence by its very nature, i.e. a centralized power center.
Longtime correspondent Harun I. recently
offered this explanation of the incompetence of those atop the heap:
Regarding
the competence of the Deep State and Federal Reserve:When one merges
the Peter
Principle and Pareto
Principle one realizes that, not only are they incompetent,
it is inevitable. Complexity does not equal competence. And because
complexity is a form of leverage it does not require a majority of
systems inoperable to fail.
Modern developed civilizations rest upon
several inverted pyramids. How many people out of any random sampling
know how to produce their own food, make their own clothing, build
their shelter, or tap into their own water source? As complexity
increases and the division in labor grows increasingly in areas that
have nothing to do with core survival the civilization becomes
increasingly incompetent.
Since a civilization is a hierarchal system,
its leaders (the vital few) will eventually be incompetent. Inverted
pyramids and inept leadership are a toxic mix. As history would
indicate this situation eventually disintegrates then reorganizes…
to be repeated.
Another
key characteristic of such centralized systems is the way they trap
participants, even those at the top. Analyst
Catherine Austin Fitts has discussed this attribute, for example, in
this interview: Catherine
Austin Fitts on Wall Street’s Corruption, the Austrian School and
Who’s ‘Really’ in Charge.
One way to think about this is to ask: let’s
say the voting members of the Fed knew that the best way to re-start
sustainable growth was to normalize interest rates by ending the
Fed’s zero-interest rate policy (ZIRP) and quantitative easing.
Even if they knew these changes would
ultimately profit the banking sector and the economy as a whole,
could they withstand the pressure that would be exerted by everyone
benefiting from the Status Quo?
I have long maintained that the Fed’s vaunted
independence is actually contingent, i.e. the Fed is a political
entity and as a result it responds to political pressure like any
other political entity. And like any hierarchy, it is prone to
group-think and the urge to conform to norms.
This raises another question: even
if the voting members of the Fed wanted to fix the nation’s broken
financial system, do they have the ability to do so?
I have posited that whatever
consensus/group-think dominated the various factions that comprise
the Deep State has eroded, and the cracks of profound
disunity are opening between powerful factions in the Deep
State.
Rather than Masters of the Universe, the Fed’s
governors are increasingly looking more like deer caught in the
headlights of a transformation they cannot understand, much less
control.
Is
the Deep State Fracturing into Disunity? (March
14, 2014)
Why
Is Our Government (and Deep State) So Incompetent? (March
6, 2014)
The
Fed Has Failed (and Will Continue to Fail), Part 1 (March
11, 2014)
How
The Fed Has Failed America, Part 2 (March
12, 2014)
No comments:
Post a Comment