"independent" central banks?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by s0meguy, Jul 6, 2012.

  1. s0meguy Worship me or suffer eternally Valued Senior Member

    It always struck me as a little strange that central banks are called independent even though they are ruled by bankers from that country's banks that represent their commercial interest. Why does almost everyone seem to think it is a good idea to let bankers with commercial interests for their own banks control central banks and essentially wield such great power over an entire country's currency? And then give them almost no oversight?

    It seems to me that those bankers would rather represent their own interests than the interests of the people of that country.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cavalier Knight of the Opinion Registered Senior Member

    Central bank leaders, at least those I am familiar with, are not private bankers representing their own financial interests. They are generally economists appointed by the government and then left to their own devices without political pressure being (directly) brought to bear on them for unpopular decisions.

    Their independence is important as sometimes it can be a good idea to do things people will hate in the short run, to achieve a long term goal. For example, Pual Volcker is often credited with ending "stagflation" and double digit interest rates in the late 1970s-early 80s, but his doing so threw the economy into a short but severe recession.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    And how much better it would be if only credit unions were allowed to take deposits...from depositors who are also the shareholders.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page