I’m really laughing at myself now (and with you). I thought my decade of righteously indignant henpecking was nearly finished and then I saw this on the front page at Bloomberg.com:
Somewhere toward the end of the article, of Mester, it says this:
Mester, 59, is known for her mildly hawkish views on monetary policy. In 2017, she argued for four interest-rate hikes when the Federal Open Market Committee lifted rates three times.
In my view, “mildly hawkish” is quite an understatement of the substance of Mester’s public statements as head of the Cleveland Fed. Though, given persistent undershooting of up to 50% during her tenure, even at face value the characterization of Mester’s views here speaks volumes about whether she belongs on the BoG. Being mildly obsolete and mildly wrong can’t really hurt THAT much. Right? What’s a few extra hundreds of thousands of unnecessarily unemployed people between political cronies? NBD.
The optics of the situation naturally leads to some amount of consideration of what the job of Vice Chair and consideration of Mester for it is really about. Is it about Mester and what gym buddies can do for one another or is it about the hundreds of millions of nameless, faceless, and voiceless people who have to deal with the policy choices that are made? I’d like to think it’s all about the latter. But while I was born at night, it wasn’t last night.