Have a gander at this interview with Sir Paul Tucker.  Sir Paul is, according to Wikipedia,:

a British economist and central banker. He was formerly the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England.

This Sir Paul describes himself as:

a central banker for over 33 years and a policy maker for a dozen of them.

In this interview, with the Cato Institute of all places, Sir Paul says this:

Whoever holds the monetary instrument can print money or remove money from the economy; can create waves of inflation which essentially would redistribute resources around the economy. That’s kind of (a) taxing power.

So the last people you want to hold that power are the elected executive branch.

That’s right.  Taxing power should not be with the elected but rather the appointed.  Not with the representatives of the people but with the representatives of the intelligentsia.

Sir Paul say that it would be bad for the executive to have control of the monetary levers because they would never need to go parliament to raise taxes to fund activities because they could just print money.  But that is just nonsense.  Government spending still requires appropriations.  Besides, the ability of central banks to print money (actually or virtually) is not a fault.  It is a design feature.

But who needs elections and parliaments when you have the wise supervision of the central bankers.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Speechless

  1. stackja

    GFC courtesy of bureaucrats?

  2. Bruce of Newcastle

    Well he was deputy under Mark Carney who recently was appointed as UN Special Envoy for Climate Change and Finance.

    So if you believe imaginary things about climate it would be even easier to believe imaginary things about financial governance.

  3. miltonf

    He’s been the the Uni doncha know

  4. Professor Fred Lenin

    Can you imagine SirvHumpies definition of the climate catastrophe? Be priceless I would say
    Like his definition of the EU,classic ,”the Germans are still applying for re admission to the human race “

  5. Squirrel

    It may be different in Old Blighty, but our central bank seems keenly attuned to what “the market is looking for” – as those ubiquitous market commentators are fond of saying.

    This might explain why we have a(n elected) federal government still showing some restraint, while our central bank is in full blown bed-wetting mode, with lots of advance warning about when the wetting is likely to happen and how far it will penetrate into the mattress.

Comments are closed.