There's a much deeper rot in the practices and culture of central bank governance than many are willing to admit
https://twitter.com/SteveMatthews12/status/1444097666707820544
Easy to dismiss this as a one off, a bad apple, even a sign of the need to tighten up around the edges. But it's deeper, there's a more fundamental legitimacy crisis at play around the technocratic presumptions of central bank dominance and this feeds right into it.
Because reality is that before you can even begin to contemplate the kind of ethics violation that Clarida did, you have to be in a certain economic class where that kind of temptation exists. I dont know many elementary school teachers with investment portfolios like Clarida.
Maybe if we want people to trust in technocratic governance, whether it be courts or central banks, we have to grapple seriously with the fact that right now those institutions are dominated by people more like Clarida and less like the average elementary school teacher
If you're leaving a work meeting in your job at global capitalism central HQ, where the subject of the work meeting is "how do we deal with the fact a global pandemic is causing unprecedented economic disruption", and your first thought is "what will this do to my investments"..
Even before we get to the question of ethical vs unethical behavior, what does that say about what you were doing in the room, where your priorities were, etc, that this could even be your first thought upon leaving? What does that say about the room itself?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
