Great chart from MarketBeat regarding where all of the Fed Presidents and Governors are on the Dovish Hawkish scale:

>
click for larger graphic

>

Source:
Know Your Fed Heads: Here’s the Hawk-O-Meter
Matt Phillips
Marketbeat, October 11, 2010
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/10/11/know-your-fed-heads-heres-the-hawk-o-meter/

Category: Digital Media, Federal Reserve, Inflation

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

19 Responses to “Know Your Fed Hawks/Doves”

  1. wally says:

    A vertical axis somewhat along the lines of ‘scientific’ vs ‘delusional’ might also be nice. In other words, do they actually track to see if the actions they take have the effects they hope for… and then adjust their thinking to reality as observed?

  2. since when is emmitting more, or less, Currency, hypothecated from Thin Air, either ‘Hawkish’, or ‘Dovish’ ?

    posts, like these, must bring a warm smile to Bernays’ corpse..

    BR,

    this is some beautiful agitprop, no wonder you found it at the WSJ..
    ~~

    http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=Edward+L+Bernays

    http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=Edward+L+Bernays+Propaganda

  3. IS_LM says:

    Bemusing to see Bush-hack Warsh described as a “practitioner.” Of what, pray, is he a practitioner? The only reason he is on the BOG is that he is married to a member of Lauder family.

  4. Mannwich says:

    Does anyone else find it interesting that the most dovish are the ones situated in the biggest financial centers (NY, Boston, SF)?

  5. There are no coincidences . . .

  6. Mannwich says:

    Exactly BR.

  7. IS_LM says:

    By the way, BR, I’m hoping that you will have a post on Greg Mankiw’s weekend <a herf="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.html?_r=1"crie de coeur.

  8. IS_LM says:

    That tag didn’t work because of my mediocre typing skills. Let’s try this.

  9. Gatsby says:

    Interesting as it was Yellen who this weekend conceded that low interest rates “may” lead to/accelerate bubbles. Poor Hoenig, all alone at the Fed…at least the KC Chiefs don’t suck anymore.

  10. franklin411 says:

    They’re all hawks. It’s only a question of those hawks who are realistic about addressing the chronic shortage of money in this economy, and those who insist on tilting at the inflation windmill.

  11. DL says:

    The more important question is the politics within the Fed. How much power to those other governors have versus the Fed chairman?

  12. Mannwich says:

    @f411: When you see $5 gasoline and food prices skyrocketing (mine are already creeping upward), you won’t think there’s a “chronic shortage of money”. Deflation in the things you don’t need, inflation in the things you do.

  13. Dogfish says:

    IS_LM:

    Sure, tax the rich more, it affects everybody. Flip that around a bit and it works just as well in reverse. Tax/underpay the poor (via “free trade”, industry subsidies, bailouts), and it affects everybody as well.

    The author basically said “higher taxes on the rich and they will provide less services”. Reverse: “less pay for the poor and they can’t afford to buy the products of the rich”. Mass wealth depends upon mass production which depends upon mass consumption. And if people can’t afford to consume because all their jobs have been shipped overseas and wage increases were supplanted with credit cards (and thus extra expenses to service debt)… well, what happens is what we see now.

    To me it sounds like the Harvard guy just wants to personally pay less in taxes. Don’t we all. But somebody has to pay, and it sure hasn’t been the poor that have been soaking up the federal dollars. And before anybody trots out some bs about “entitlement programs”, I’d like to go ahead and mention that our defense budget dwarfs all entitlement programs by orders of magnitude… and as recent studies have shown, our foreign policy that wields that military is only exacerbating the situations that it’s supposed to address (terrorism). Gee, is that by design to ensure long-term war profits by trapping us in an inescapable quagmire, or by accident in the quest for war profits and energy reserves? Either way, it’s myopic frat-boy leadership masquerading as sound policy, and that dynamic is applicable across most of our government. It’s all about getting “mine”. This is not even bringing up the bank bailouts, ZIRP policy, discount window, allowing GS to convert itself to take advantage of treasury programs, etc.

    I see a part of the problem as a lack of understanding of how much of a symbiotic relationship we all have. Rich people thinking they can ship jobs overseas to reduce costs and get those personal bonuses with no long term costs. Living in walled gardens and insulated from seeing the suffering their actions impose on their fellow people. Likewise, the poor thinking we should soak the rich to make a fairer playing field, without realizing the effect that would have (theoretically, less jobs for the poor here, but most likely with our trade policy the effect would be less jobs in China). The difference is, only one side has the power, and, cliche as it sounds, with power comes responsibility.

  14. franklin411 says:

    @Mannwich
    Except the reverse is what actually happened–I paid $5/gal for gasoline when the Fed was sucking money out of the economy, and I paid $1/gal for gasoline when it was pouring money into the economy in a desperate attempt to reverse the effects of 30 years of hawkish monetary policy.

  15. Mannwich says:

    And don’t they teach the whole “correlation doesn’t imply causation” thingy in your world of academia? Maybe not on the history side of things? Too complicated? ;-)

  16. franklin411 says:

    @Mannwich,
    I accepted your premise for the sake of argument. Too simple? =P

  17. IS_LM says:

    Actually, the most concise response to Professor Mankiw comes from, according to Professor DeLong, Professor Friedman.

    To spend is to tax

    .

    Dr. Mankiw received, as a Bush advisor, the meal that he ordered. Now the bill is due, but he doesn’t want to pay.

  18. davver says:

    Interesting how the chairmen from cities with large FIRE companies (NYC, Boston, Atlanta) are dovish and the rest are more hawkish.