Bernake
He's quoted in a Washington Post article as saying "If we did not place some limits on the downside risks to individuals affected by economic change, the public at large might become less willing to accept the dynamism that is so essential to economic progress."
Notice here, an intermediate goal (or obstacle rather) is public acceptance. I do not know what sort of limits he's proposing -- I guess it might be an indicator that he won't let rates go any higher. Maybe he's advocating for longer periods of unemployment and funding for job training.
Certainly public acceptance is a good thing, maybe a necessary thing.
But I would have liked to have seen some sort of affirmation of the affected individuals themselves, but I suppose that's really not his business. Can I infer from his statement, that if somehow we could shield "the public at large" from the knowledge of the hardship of the "individuals affected", that we wouldn't need those "limits on the downside risks to individuals" ??
Individual workers are still an asset.... perhaps the most important asset.
But I suppose most of them aren't paying attention to what he says anyway.
Notice here, an intermediate goal (or obstacle rather) is public acceptance. I do not know what sort of limits he's proposing -- I guess it might be an indicator that he won't let rates go any higher. Maybe he's advocating for longer periods of unemployment and funding for job training.
Certainly public acceptance is a good thing, maybe a necessary thing.
But I would have liked to have seen some sort of affirmation of the affected individuals themselves, but I suppose that's really not his business. Can I infer from his statement, that if somehow we could shield "the public at large" from the knowledge of the hardship of the "individuals affected", that we wouldn't need those "limits on the downside risks to individuals" ??
Individual workers are still an asset.... perhaps the most important asset.
But I suppose most of them aren't paying attention to what he says anyway.