I never understand things like this. She looks like a deer caught in the headlights when he asks her the most predictable and basic question about her decisions. How can you be in such a position, make such decisions, and be unable to offer a compelling answer to the most basic questions?
Even if it some sort of a hidden agenda and [further] centralizing banking is just seen as a convenient stepping stone towards CBDCs or whatever, you'd come up with some passable explanation ahead of time. I mean it's not like the Senator there pulled out some gotcha she couldn't have expected.
There is a concept in the armed forces for making decisions in a given timeframe (struggling to find a source for this). Essentially you do the best you can in the time you are given. Then you move on and iterate. If you dither too much you probably don't have to make a decision anymore as the enemy has made it for you. In that framework it is accepted that a solution is not perfect.
I think about these crises the same way. They had 48h to sort it out and they had to make a decision. The decision has side-effect-like consequences. Should she now lie about this?
So now, why did they only have 48h to make a decision? I don't know. I doubt nobody has thought about this before. But I assume that regulating banks is particularly hard, because of lobby pushback and the banks ability to exploit any loop hole quickly. They are literally organisations that look out for how to make money by exploiting asymmetries. These organisations work against the slow democratic decision making that involves non-aligned actors (who are also often not trained in this particular issue) in the upper and lower houses of parliaments of different countries.
Another question is. Why are small banks treated differently than big banks. I have read somewhere that small banks have less regulatory oversight. Maybe the decision is much more to support heavily regulated banks and not so much those which are for various reasons not as much regulated. Why would the government want to hold the bag that it was not allowed to look into?
They had 48h in this case, but who gets bailed out and on what terms is a massive strategic decision that should not be made on the hoof. I must be naive because I thought planning for this kind of problem was part of her job.
First up, I do not have any particular insights what happened behind the doors and how government planning _really_ works. But if business / engineering management is in any way similar, there would have been a huge amount of uncertainty at the moment the hand was forced.
One would hope that there were some specialists at hand that know parts of the system, laws, implications on the overall economy etc.
There are likely a couple of plans available how to deal with this kind of situation. But likely not for this exact situation. Plans that exist but have not been implemented as policy likely are too rough around the edges or have significant opposition for different reasons.
On top of this, at this level of complexity and abstraction everything is kind of an opinion until tested and proven (but no time for that). Because no one truly understands all details and system connections.
On top of this in government you never know 100% what the motivations behind all these suggestions and plans is. What is factual, and what is politically tainted.
So all of the sudden things turn from certain to probabilistic. The leader has to figure out how to weigh the opinions and how to make a coherent enough decision (remember this is a system, and individually good decisions can be bad when taken together) to be net positive until the structured decision making can catch up.
Hopefully this is what is happening now and a general policy is decided on based on structured analysis. And hopefully it is quick enough to be ready before the next crisis hits.
>> you'd come up with some passable explanation ahead of time
Central bankers are appointed based on two criteria:
1. A willingness to print money for the government so it can spend more than it raises in taxes.
2. Looking presentable, sounding sophisticated and emitting enough bafflegab that (1) seems scientific instead of ideological.
Thinking deeply about economics and the role of banking/central banks in society is an anti criteria, because if you did think about those things you'd end up concluding that the only fair and stable solution is way less money printing and quite possibly none. That would directly undermine the government that appoints you. Your salary depends on you not understanding your own area of specialism.
I do feel like the defining characteristic of the 2020s is turning out to be people's struggle to accept the horrible truth that government officials/scientists who claim to be experts systematically have no idea what they are doing.
You can make a point about the administration, but if you’re talking about nepotism, specifically, you’re making a point about the wrong administration. There’s a much better example of a recent administration engaging in “peak nepotism”, a recent one that had the president’s children working in the White House.
I’m assuming the point you’re trying to make isn’t actually about nepotism and you’ve simply misunderstood what the word means.
Sure. I wasn’t trying to declare which administration was “peak nepotism”, only that calling the current one so is disingenuous when you have only to look as far as the previous one to find one that was more so.
You keep using that word nepotism. I do not think it means what you think it means. It’s not like Biden hired his daughter and son-in-law to bring peace to the Middle East and modernize the US govt among other tasks.
This is accurate. Don't you know his son had an infamous laptop that exposed all of his illicit dealings with Ukraine, never mind the straight up insane things regarding their family affairs.
I mean, if there was ever a time to know the people supporting the current regime are in a cult, look no further.
Even if it some sort of a hidden agenda and [further] centralizing banking is just seen as a convenient stepping stone towards CBDCs or whatever, you'd come up with some passable explanation ahead of time. I mean it's not like the Senator there pulled out some gotcha she couldn't have expected.