Fed Nominee Blocked By GOP Senator As Unqualified Just Received The Nobel Prize

The Nobel Committee may think a lot about MIT economist Peter Diamond, but he is currently blocked as a nominee for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Sen. Richard Shelby has objected that Diamond is not qualified for the Board because his specialty is not in monetary policy.

The 2010 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science was awarded on Monday to Peter A. Diamond, Dale T. Mortensen and Christopher A Pissarides for their work on labor markets and other markets where buyers and sellers have difficulty finding each other.

What is curious about the hold on Diamond’s nomination is that three of the five board members are not specialists in monetary economics and one of the Bush appointees did not even have an advanced economics degree.

Source: Washington Monthly

113 thoughts on “Fed Nominee Blocked By GOP Senator As Unqualified Just Received The Nobel Prize

  1. Byron,

    O.k. let’s try this again. You want the umpire to abide by the existing rule book. Which you admit may be faulty. Who gets to change the rules when they are faulty?

    This isn’t hard. You can say “Oh, well I guess the government should,” or “The people,” or “Jebus,” or “The tallest lefthanded man currently living somewhere with an address that’s a multiple of 3,” the options are endless.

    Your evasive language and insistence on Euphemisms would make Orwell drop kick a kitten.

    At some point you’re going to have to either say that a)Government should only enforce contracts and defend from violence and theft.
    or
    B) you agree with the everyone that doesn’t fantasize about Dagny Taggart, that there might be some other reasons for the government to exist.

  2. ” ‘The tallest lefthanded man currently living somewhere with an address that’s a multiple of 3,’ the options are endless.

    Your evasive language and insistence on Euphemisms would make Orwell drop kick a kitten.”

    roflol

  3. Buddha:

    an hallucination and an optical illusion are 2 different things. One is an absence of external stimulus and occurs only in the mind, the other is a problem of conception. A stick may look bent but it is not. It is an optical illusion based on the properties of water. It is not an hallucination.

    Once you understand the properties of water you understand the stick is not bent. Do railroad tracks converge in the distance? If you don’t know that the tracks are parallel and if you don’t understand perspective, then you would swear the tracks converge. It is not a problem with your senses.

  4. Byron,

    Do you understand that both involve your senses lying to you?

    A hallucination is an experience without stimuli. It seems perfectly real at the time. I can tell by your statement you have never hallucinated, have you?

    An optical illusion is your senses lying to you because the input is false by an aberration of physics and your brain interprets it in a way that is divergent from reality.

  5. Gyges:

    what is the mechanism for the changes to be made? The rules are there already for us to follow. So the answer is the people can change it or their elected representatives. I think they have changed it too much, what’s wrong with that?

    I suppose the other reason is transfer of wealth, which it is very good at.

    By the way I don’t fantasize about Dagny Taggart, Dominique Francone on the other hand . . . .

    I think I have explained myself as fully as this venue provides for. And I am a little confused as to why you would ask who makes the rules. The rules have already been made a couple of hundred years ago. The rules as originally made seem pretty good to me.

    Isnt that the place to start? As I mentioned earlier a few things need to be changed but hey they [founders] gave us a way. I just think that we have moved too far away from the original concepts and are off track.

    I dont know how much clearer I can be.

  6. Byron,

    Off hand the only subject that the “Founding Fathers” agreed on was that they didn’t like the British policies. So, while cries of antiquity are appealing, saying you agree with “this principles this country was founded on” is going to lead to some pretty heated arguments with yourself.

    By the way, I think pretty much everyone on this site agrees that we should follow the Constitution, and you have yet to explain how a mixed economy isn’t Constitutional. Before you get too excited, I’ve got a book of stamps on the desk next to me that you’ve got to overcome.

    I’m frustrated because I keep asking simple and specific questions and you keep giving vague answers. Look at my description as to why I think a mixed market is the best system for economic policy, and compare that to your responses to why you believe in a free market. I’ve been there, one of the hardest intellectual exercises is to figure out why your basic assumptions are your basic assumptions, but believe me it’s worth it.

  7. Byron,

    I had misread a couple of things in your penultimate response, I apologize.

    However, you do keep saying we’ve strayed to far from the original foundational philosophies of this country, etc. You just don’t say what exactly those foundations are, or how they’re related to the discussion of free\mixed markets.

    To answer your question, I ask who makes the rules because the way you defined the government’s role, nobody made the rules. If the government made the rules, then by necessity you’ve added another function to the ump with a gun you envision.

  8. Gyges: “Off hand the only subject that the “Founding Fathers” agreed on was that they didn’t like the British policies. So, while cries of antiquity are appealing, saying you agree with “this principles this country was founded on” is going to lead to some pretty heated arguments with yourself.”

    Seriously??

Comments are closed.