As I read this post at American Prospect on the National Urban League’s push to diversity employment at the Federal Reserve, I couldn’t help but wonder why now? Wouldn’t a better time to worry about diversity have been in 2007-2010 when small banks were being persecuted and big banks bailed out? The effect of that was to reduce the number of women and minorities in banking.
Meanwhile, I’ll just observe that about a quarter of economists are women (about an eighth of full professors) and fewer than 2% are black.
Assuming that we need a Federal Reserve at all, my formula for reform would be more bankers, fewer economists.
Election season:Sicilian Wedding. BTW, how many minority owned credit unions, banks, savings club went kaput in the recession?
The National Urban League is like most conservatives and progressives. They believe that banks use deposits to create loans, and they keep those loans on their books. Progressives believe that Mr. Potter is evil, and conservatives is a good businessman.
There is no way to convince either side that banks actually lend money they do not have. They are bankrupt at all times. This is how the system works. Furthermore, they mostly originate loans. They keep the highest quality ones, and the others get securitized.
There is no big stash of cash waiting to be passed around. There is only a stash of IOU’s being hidden in the basement.
If the economy is doing so rip roaring well, why does anybody want to alter such a winning formula. They should be trying to get Hillary Clinton elected for another 8 years of this wonderful economy.