> I have to wonder if Central Bankers are feeling more and more politicized these days I don't think the big ones feel anything. (Fed, ECB) ECB's frontman was

> I have to wonder if Central Bankers are feeling more and more politicized these days I don't think the big ones feel anything. (Fed, ECB) ECB's frontman was a Goldman Sachs alumni, accountable to no one, doing private placements with his buddies, issuing corporate bonds directly to the ECB instead of the ECB picking them up on the secondary market. The US Fed gets a chairman to just the Board of Governors, who is more accountable to the other people on the board of governors, and then the actual Federal Reserve. They are not accountable to the US President or the American people in any capacity. They transcend administrations and are completely divorced from main street rhetoric. They don't care and don't have to. They emerge from their screens a few times a decade and say "huh, there's new pronouns now" and go back to resource management monopoly that they've been playing for 100 years. > and will now employ these "creative" options without regard for any long term consequences I think so, when you look at the incentives. The consequences are very few: there is a risk that the people are disillusioned by how resources are distributed since not everyone has to exchange labor or capital for resources (ECB buying newly issued bonds for billions of euros that didn't previously exist). there is a risk of hyperinflation if there is a real disruption in the need for the monetary union's currency, but uncontrollable need to inject more of the currency into the market. In the mean time, they can keep assets on their balance sheet forever, with only a slight embarrassment if those assets cause losses (such a bonds that default).