Talk:European Central Bank
As I began translating text from the French Wikipedia article (fr:Banque Centrale Européenne), I soon realized that the French article is copy-and-paste from the ECB's website. :*( I did check the ECB copyright, and it does seem fine to reproduce the material. Still, I would rather insert more original, translated materials. - Guppy
Totalitarian?
Making a reference to totalitarian institutions such as the Nazi regime or the Franco regime is inappropriate and out of all proportions. Therefore I removed this phase.
central bank of the eurozone
The ECB is not the central bank of the whole European union, but just for the eurozone.
I think minutes of meetings aren't published (unlike for instance at the Bank of England) so that representatives from each country can make the decisions best for the Eurozone as a whole, and not be pressured into soley concentrating on the benefit for their country, rather than not to reveal internal splits. -- Joolz 14:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Criticism
Forgive my bad English and fix my additions with a more proper English. Anyway I came here to say... what is happening in European Union pages? I see too many "point of view", to be exact, British point of view, ehich usually is quite euroesciptic (this is not bad, but it can be for the wikipedia if it falls in the POV).
I study economy, so i dont see many sense in the criticism about the independence of the eurobank. For an economist should not be doubt that a central bank should be independent for a better management. And antidemocratic? Well, so antidemocratic as the judicial power, we dont vote the judges... (well, I think in USA they do...).
And the low rates. Well of course is a bad thing when the economy is growing too fast, and actually it happens in some countries of the eurozone, as for example Ireland and Spain. So it can happen the bubble stuff (although the low rates is not the only guilty factor). So the criticism should be about in a region so big and diverse, all countries with the same currency has to use the same macroeconomic tools, so what it is necessary in one country is bad in another. Thats the real problem. But it can also happen inside of a country, for example if Minnesota is not growing and California is doing it fast, the suitable interest rate in Min is different than in Cal, so eurozone is not the first one having this problem. You must say that there are less advantadges than disavantadges for other economic reasons than "bubbles".
And Japan and USA had a lower interest rate, so you cant neither say eurobank was doing weird stuff with so lowe rate... at least not more weird that the most important economies of the world.
And there is economic reason that is an advantadge to say you only care inflation to get ride of that, because it changes teh expects of teh economy, and doing "this trick" you can have a better result in social meanings that saying you care social stuff...
Difficult to explain myself in English, sorry. But please, if you write a paragraph of criticism in the Wikipedia, explain more of 1 POV.
Not an English native myself - still I found the term criticism in-appropriate: economic culture I believe is more neutral to whatevereverybody in here wants to add.
I would also like to see (that is to say: read) a bit more of the Bundesbank spirit - in terms of definition of the bank and our perception (to me pro-European as the institute).
Another viewpoint
The reason that the ECB was designed to be independant of political influence is to protect against the tendancy of governments to engage in competitive devaluations, such as those common in the run up to the ERM and EMU. This is when a government decreases interest rates below the appropriate level, stimulating short-term economic growth but ultimately leading to higher inflation and devaluation of the currency. The idea at the time was that governments would be tempted to do this around election times and, if they won, deal with the consequences later or, if they lost, sabotage the opposition taking power.
The reason for the secrecy of the ECB is to do with the financial markets and the vast amounts of money that are made or lost by companies and funds based on interest rate desicions. It is inevitable, in every economy, for companies and individuals to be exposed to interest rate risk. The level of risk people are willing to take depends, to a large extent on the accuracy with which rates can be predicted. If the ECB is too explicit about its moves, firms will take on more risk which, in turn, increases the consequences of any unexpected rate moves by the bank & ultimately hampers thier ability to pursue thier stated goals. If the bank is a little more coy, then companies and individuals will be a lot more reluctant to make large, leveraged bets on currency & interest rate moves, which is ultimately better for themselves, the bank and the economy generally.
The Money Masters
I don't know much about economics (and don't, for example, understand why there has to be increases and decreases in money supply in the first place - one of the jobs of central banks), but this extreamly critical documents towards private central banks and their power over the economy, and thus the whole world, has got me on my toes. For sure there can be lots of ways politicians could use central banks harmfully, but at least politicians are democratically elected and thus, at least in priciple, serve the interest of the people. So i guess the question is this: how can we be sure, that the "experts" runing the central banks at the moment use their expertise to serve the interest of the people and not the interest of rich elite? If this documentary is to be believied, the history does not speak very highly of them, and i would assume that its the history of Bank of England and US Federal Reserve (both private), that has also led to private European central bank.