Vignettes from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, March 23-24, 2007: Monetary Policy, Transparency, and Credibility
Janet Yellen: "I don't see any reporters in the room, so let me venture a few words on Federal Reserve transparency..."
John Williams guides the perplexed in the proper interpretation of what the Federal Reserve means when it utters the phrase "business casual"...
Alex Cukierman quotes Alan Greenspan from 1987:
Since I have become a central banker I have learned to mumble with great incoherence. If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said...










ah, "business casual" -- a minefield. For me there's a very slippery slope between dressed up and disheveled -- the slightest hint of casual and it all gets undone. Plus there are far too many golf overtones in "business casual."
Posted by: David | March 27, 2007 at 12:40 PM
"For me there's a very slippery slope between dressed up and disheveled"
Far, far preferable that US businessmen dress like English gentry chasing foxes in the early 19th Century, so that we look properly formal. And of course, that handy tie constricting the flow of oxygen to the brain--why if it weren't for that, we might be able to think straight, and then where would we be?
Posted by: rea | March 27, 2007 at 01:16 PM
rea -- when I wrote "for me" I meant "for me," as in "with respect to my own habilitude" -- no social recommendations should be inferred. If you consult the enjoyable blog www.englishcut.com or common sense, you'll learn (a) English gentry in the 19th century didn't dress much like someone in a modern business suit, and probably tended to dishevelment, and (b) if your tie is cutting off oxygen flow to the head, you probably need a larger shirt size (or you should let up a bit when you are finishing off the tie).
geez
Posted by: David | March 27, 2007 at 01:41 PM
What a coincidence! Appropriate attire was also a subject of discussion in Guantanamo:
"This was followed by one of those almost-surreal moments that the Military Commissions routinely produce. The judge had just issued rulings that effectively deprived Hicks of two of his three lawyers. So he decided the time was right to address an issue of fundamental importance: Hicks’s clothes. Hicks had arrived in court wearing beige prison attire. The judge said that he thought that a suit and tie, or business casual – which he helpfully defined – would be more appropriate. This practice was “designed to protect the presumption of innocence,” the judge explained, because Commission members who observed the accused in prison clothing might be subconsciously prejudiced against him."
http://blog.aclu.org/index.php?/archives/159-A-Tailor-Made-Guilty-Plea.html
Posted by: BroD | March 27, 2007 at 07:12 PM
The San Fran Fed sponsors a shrimp fest. Hooray! for the politization of all departments and fiefdoms of the government.
[There were shrimp? How come I did not get any of the shrimp?]
Posted by: christofay | March 27, 2007 at 08:53 PM
What more if anything does the W administration and the RNC need to do to quality for RICO status?
Posted by: christofay | March 27, 2007 at 09:05 PM
"What more if anything does the W administration and the RNC need to do to quality for RICO status?"
When you get an answer, could you kindly forward it to them, to expedite the completion of their application?
Posted by: prostratedragon | March 27, 2007 at 10:22 PM
So what's the point of the Fed's notorious Delphism? Surely economic/market theory suggests that full transparency would reduce any distoriting effect.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 28, 2007 at 02:44 AM
The fed makes money on uncertainty. If they cannot find uncertainty, they would create it.
Posted by: Matt | March 28, 2007 at 02:40 PM
While here, I can be specific.
Right now the fed wants to signal its member banks to dump old debt instruments while signaling the rest of us that raising interest rates will come soon.
Posted by: Matt | March 29, 2007 at 11:25 AM