John wrote:It's all just a gambling addiction, isn't it?
According to Chairman Bernanke, it is "maximum employment", "price stability" and "stimulate investment". And he wants you to know that he runs the casino.
CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. So I’m not going to get involved in political rhetoric. I’m just going to stay completely away from that. I have a job to do, and as long as I’m here, I will do everything I can to help the Federal Reserve achieve its dual mandate of price stability and maximum employment. That’s my answer to the last part as well. I’m not going to be thinking about hypothetical situations in the future. In the case of savers, you know, we think about all these issues, and we certainly recognize that the low interest rates that we’re using to try to stimulate investment and expansion of the economy also impose a cost on savers who have a lower return. And we do hear about that, obviously, and we do think about that. I guess the response I would make is that the savers in our economy are dependent on a healthy economy in order to get adequate returns. In particular, people own stocks and corporate bonds and other securities as well as, say, Treasury securities, and if our economy is in really bad shape, then they are not going to get good returns on those investments. So I think what we need to do, as is often the case when the economy goes into a very weak situation, then low interest rates are needed to help restore the economy to something closer to full employment and to increase growth and that, in turn, will lead ultimately to higher returns across all assets for savers and investors. So that’s—I think that’s how we would explain it.