> > Mathew Forstater posted:
> >
> > > > "The Fed...has become a highly theatrical
> > > enterprise, eager to seize
> > > > attention and create attitudes.
> >
> > > Martin Mayer, Editorial pg., WSJ
> >
> > Is the push for televising Fed meetings still
> > considered by progressives, or is it out of
> fashion
> > for whatever reason?
> >
> > Alec
> =========
>
> Has C-Span made Congress better?
>
> Ian
>From Doug's _Wall Street_ (1997):
. . . the Fed remains an intensely secretive institution. This opaqueness has spawned an entire Fed-watching insdustry, a trade reminiscent of Kremlinology, in which every institutional twitch is scrutinized for clues to policy changes. Fed watchers "earn" salaries well into the six figures for such work; greater openness at the Fed would reduce their importance, if not put them out of business, a rare form of unemployment that would be entirely welcome. The Fed also manipulates the media [the theme of origin for this thread] ably; reporters, eager for a leak from a central bank insider, will print anything whispered in their ears, whether or not it's true--leaks sometimes designed to mislead or enlighten the markets, and other times the product of some internal struggle.
Even though FOMC members would no doubt invent all sorts of clever euphemisms to express the dangers of excessively low unemployment, televising the FOMC's proceedings on C-SPAN would still provide an enlightening glimpse into the mentality of power. (from _Wall Street_, pp. 97-98)
[end]
Is this still the case, Doug? Would televising meetings force the board's hand, and would it still be worth a glimpse into the mentality of power, as a venue that severely circumscribed the Fed's ability to manipulate it (not to say TV's an innocent medium)? Could business be done by other means?
The number of people who would watch it is another matter entirely.
Alec
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/