Robert Aro
\nMises Institute<\/p>\n
Imagine if a member of the Federal Reserve\u00a0Board of Governors said the\u00a0following<\/a>:<\/p>\n When governments manipulate exchange rates to affect currency markets, they undermine the honest efforts of countries that wish to compete fairly in the global marketplace. Supply and demand are distorted by artificial prices conveyed through contrived exchange rates.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Or something honest like:<\/p>\n The Fed should focus on stable money as a key factor in economic performance. Given that central banks today are the world\u2019s biggest currency manipulators, it\u2019s imperative that the next chairman prioritize the integrity of the dollar.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And what if they showed an understanding of both history and sound money principles with something intelligent:<\/p>\n For all the talk of a \u201crules-based\u201d system for international trade, there are no rules when it comes to ensuring a level monetary playing field. The classical gold standard established an international benchmark for currency values, consistent with free-trade principles.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n While she\u2019s not a governor yet, the quotes were from Trump\u2019s appointee Judy Shelton, approved\u00a0this week<\/a>\u00a0by the Senate banking committee on party lines, at a vote of 13\u201312. To be nominated to the board of directors, Ms. Shelton will now be put forward to be voted on by the full senate, fifty-three of the hundred being Republicans.<\/p>\n Yet below\u00a0we can see everything wrong with the mainstream media (MSM), mainstream economists, and American politics\u00a0starting with the\u00a0New<\/em>\u00a0York Times<\/em>\u00a0article entitled\u00a0“God Help Us if Judy Shelton Joins the Fed.<\/i>“\u00a0<\/i>Former counselor to the Treasury secretary during the Obama administration\u00a0Steven Rattner\u00a0began with<\/a>:<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s latest unqualified nominee to the Federal Reserve Board must be rejected.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The defaming article shows Mr. Rattner has no care nor understanding of economics. According to him, Ms. Shelton is known for taking \u201clong-discredited positions in the monetary system,\u201d referring to the gold standard, as he claims it was the \u201cculprit in deepening the Great Depression.\u201d Clearly he is no fan of (or perhaps isn\u2019t educated enough to have heard of) Mises or Rothbard.<\/p>\n Mr. Rattner, fueled by ignorance, continues with what some may describe as laudable on Ms. Shelton\u2019s part:<\/p>\n Among other heretical stances, she has supported the abolition of the Federal Reserve itself, putting her in a position to undermine the very institution she is being nominated to serve.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A similar tone was found in the\u00a0National Review<\/em>, a magazine which characterizes itself using the highly nebulous and ill-defined \u201cmodern conservative movement.\u201d Going back several months, the \u201ccontroversy\u201d surrounding Judy Shelton was shared in an oxymoronic\u00a0write-up<\/a>\u00a0called: “The Wrong Kind of ‘Intellectual Diversity’\u00a0at the Fed.” It is nothing more than a rant showing that the senior editor also knows little about history or economics\u00a0but, being in a position to publish, does so with a vociferous opinion. He begins with the usual appeal to popularity:<\/p>\n First, she has been a single-minded advocate of a policy that most economists rightly reject: the revival of the gold standard.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What is popular is not always true, especially regarding economics. The article cites quotes from 2009 in the\u00a0Wall Street Journal\u00a0<\/em>in an attempt to discredit Shelton by showing she has not always been consistent in her stances over the past decade. The rant implies that all other members of the Fed and economists have.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, some people claim to like diversity, but not when it\u2019s different from their own bias. The senior editor who wrote the hit piece can be found on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>.<\/p>\n Unlike the\u00a0New York Times<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0National Review<\/em>, surprising as it may seem, CNBC\u2019s position was\u00a0more neutral<\/a>\u00a0when discussing the Senate hearing:<\/p>\n She faced persistent and at-times hostile questions about her support for the gold standard, her beliefs on whether bank deposits should be insured and whether the Fed should be independent of political influences.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n