I was thinking the other day that, besides Romney's utter idiocy, Obama practically owes his second term to Ben Bernanke and even then the election only had a difference of about five million in the popular vote.

Regardless of specifics, if you agree that the state of the economy can count either for or against a president, then it'd seem the Chair of the Fed has a lot of influence on that. And, during terms, too, despite being appointed, the power of the economy is still quite substantial.

I suppose it depends how powerful you think monetary policy is.

This thread is just asking for a certain happy merchant man to appear >_>

Eh?

The president chooses the Chair and the board, so ultimately he's more powerful. In practice the president can act on his authority without needing the approval of a board.

Both have the power to manipulate the geopolitical spectrum.  I'd say that they're about even.

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 24, 2014, 10:52:22 AM

The president chooses the Chair and the board, so ultimately he's more powerful. In practice the president can act on his authority without needing the approval of a board.

Just seems like an unnecessary regression to be honest, especially given the reciprocal power of the Chair to influence presidential elections.

If I give you a gun out of a line-up of people, I may have bestowed that power upon you but, ultimately, it still leaves you in a position of more power relative to me.

If I know who you're going to shoot, does holding the gun (and subsequently the responsibility and blame) still feel like you're wielding more power?

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 24, 2014, 11:02:14 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 24, 2014, 10:56:43 AM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 24, 2014, 10:52:22 AM

The president chooses the Chair and the board, so ultimately he's more powerful. In practice the president can act on his authority without needing the approval of a board.

Just seems like an unnecessary regression to be honest, especially given the reciprocal power of the Chair to influence presidential elections.

If I give you a gun out of a line-up of people, I may have bestowed that power upon you but, ultimately, it still leaves you in a position of more power relative to me.

If I know who you're going to shoot, does holding the gun (and subsequently the responsibility and blame) still feel like you're wielding more power?

What? I'm giving you a gun, not shooting anybody.

Ex post facto, you're more powerful than I in that situation.

Metaphors aside, the president delegates power by nominating the board and chair that suits his interests. It's a benefit for him because when policy fails, the Fed will take the flack for it. The president holds significantly more power.