This piece is from Alejandro Chafuen and it is 2 years old. But in light of the current Fed confab in Jackson Hole and the ongoing market twitches, drops, and government induced rallies I think it deserves another view.
Transparency in monetary affairs is an issue of justice and morality, not only economics. Several of the first books devoted to economics focused on the perils of government monetary manipulation and were written by moralists of the late middle-ages. Oresme in Italy, Copernicus in Poland, and Juan de Mariana in Spain were prime examples. Oresme wrote: “The stamp on money is a sign of the honesty of its material . . . to change this is to falsify the money.” Copernicus, better known as a scientist than as an economist and canon, argued that although everyone is concerned about social divisiveness, mortality, and the sterility of the land, only the most learned people are concerned about monetary debasement. Its ill effects happen so gradually, that few notice them, especially with paper money. Mariana argued that easy money was like a drug, in the short run it might cause pleasure, but has devastating effects in the longer run…
…If we can’t count yet on price increases to mobilize public opinion to battle the current statist monetary system and scrutinize the Fed, is it possible to rely on arguments describing the immorality of the manipulation of money and credit? Making a credible case against credit manipulation is more difficult than making a case against price inflation. It requires a more elaborate analysis and getting into specifics: which banks and credit institutions were benefited, which suffered? Within banks, which executives lobbied for privileges and received big bonuses? It is not enough to blame “corporate welfare,” “crony capitalism” or the “banksters.” Sound money advocates should describe and have access to data from the Federal Reserve to study how they distributed their favors.