Listen, I don’t know the first thing about Beth Hammack.
No matter how many times I say this, nobody believes me, but to reiterate: I’m not from this world. The world of high finance, I mean. I got an MBA because the coursework was a joke compared to the coursework I was accustomed to after a dozen years in philosophy and political science. I could’ve breezed through that MBA program stone drunk. I say that with the utmost confidence because… well, because I was stone drunk for every second of it. And even in my dim condition, I was R136a1 in a room full of candles with that bunch of hopeless dullards, all of whom could be aptly described as “generic humans.”
I stumbled into this arena — which is comprised almost entirely of generic humans whose only talent is failing upward — purely by accident. And God knows I wish I hadn’t. Finance is unimportant in the grand cosmic scheme of things, which makes it uninteresting to me. And at the risk of underscoring a penchant for arrogance I’ve tried very hard to shake over the years, I know just about everything there is to know about it by now.
All of that to say that my relationship to Wall Street is incidental and tangential, which means if I’ve ever been in the same building, let alone the same room, with Beth Hammack or anybody like Beth Hammack, it was purely by accident.
Given that, I have no legitimate claim on an informed opinion regarding Beth’s suitability to fill Loretta Mester’s soon-to-be-vacant shoes at the Cleveland Fed.
But just seeing the headlines on Wednesday — e.g., “Goldman Sachs partner Beth Hammack to succeed Mester” on CNBC — I couldn’t resist the temptation to shout, despairingly, and on behalf of everyone in America who isn’t a Goldman partner: “Of course they did!” “Of course they chose a Goldman partner.”
Let me be clear about something, because this often gets lost in translation when I opine on Wall Street. I don’t give a single damn about your Goldman Sachs conspiracy cork board. The one in your basement that looks like a 1980s FBI diagram of a mafia family. Nor do I care about the latest “Government Sachs” narrative. The “Vampire Squid” moniker was always juvenile, and never clever. Goldman runs the world. Whatever. Who cares? Somebody’s gotta do it. Better Goldman than me.
Here’s the thing: Main Street doesn’t care either. Not about your cork board, not about any “Vampire Squids” and unless Donald Trump’s talking (or Fox is on), not much about any other nefarious, shadowy conspiracies either. Rather, Main Street — and here I mean actual Main Street, which is to say people who don’t have time to read Matt Taibbi’s latest bullsh–t or anybody else’s for that matter because they’re too goddamn busy working three jobs to put food on the table — cares about the out-in-the-open reality of an aristocratic society where everything’s an “Of course” moment. A Hammack moment. With apologies to Beth — she could be Mother Teresa in her spare time for all I know, and she’s anyway a far better person than I’ll ever be pretty much by default — but every time regular people look up, they’re gettin’ Hammack’d.
Bloomberg recapped Hammack’s career. 52, she “joined Goldman in 1993, holding a variety of roles dealing with agency bonds, rates and repo trading [and] was once seen internally as a top choice to become the next CFO.” Her most recent role was co-head of global financing. Hammack will vote on monetary policy starting with the September meeting.
So, nothing to see here, folks. Not in the conspiratorial sense. But rather literally. There’s literally nothing to see here. Mester’s leaving, insert 30-year Goldman veteran and move along. Because what else would we do, right? Hire a Walmart clerk?
Coming full circle, I said I didn’t know the first thing about Beth Hammack. That isn’t true. I know one thing about her: She’s not impacted by inflation. Or at least not to the same extent as a line cook. Or a barista. Or a factory worker. Or… well, or a Walmart clerk.
The Fed’s very proud of its community engagement efforts, including and especially “Fed Listens,” a kind of traveling roadshow where Fed officials interact with everyday people “in the wild,” so to speak, as part of the Committee’s multiyear policy review process.
That outreach program puts officials, including the Fed Chair, in front of “union members, small business owners, residents of low- and moderate-income communities, workforce development organizations, community colleges [and] retirees,” all in an effort “to hear about how monetary policy affects peoples’ daily lives and livelihoods,” as the official “Fed Listens” informational page puts it.
Here’s an idea: If the Fed really wants to “listen” to everyday people, the Committee could consider hiring one! Instead of a Goldman repo trader, maybe replace Mester with a small business owner. Or a union member. Or — gasp! — a “resident of a low-income community.”
Hammack on Wednesday said it’s “a great privilege to serve the country.” “All Americans,” she declared, should “have the opportunity to prosper.”
Live long and prosper, Main Street. (You got Hammack’d.)
Because we don’t need Federal Reserve bank heads to know anything about banking, monetary systems, economics, markets, trading, investors, etc? Lost me here.
I don’t think the Federal Reserve needs to know a lot about Main Street or even Poor Street’s lived experience. The Fed’s job is to hold inflation and employment to a target range/level, to regulate the banking system, to protect the stability of the broader financial and monetary system, and to be the global liquidity provider of last resort in times of crisis. I don’t see why one would choose experience driving a union truck or living on minimum wage over experience with the things the Fed is actually responsible for.
Of course I lost you, John. You’re not Main Street.
(The more of these types of comments I get, the more of these types of articles I want to write. I’m about done writing for the 1%. Or even the 2% or the 3% or the 4% or the 5%. I don’t like ’em to be totally honest.)
I hope everyone who finds their way to this comment section reads the comment above, from John, and particularly this bit: “I don’t think the Federal Reserve needs to know a lot about Main Street or even Poor Street’s lived experience.”
It’s almost comedy. Understated, dry comedy. That’s something you’d see as a caption on a New Yorker cartoon showing two bankers talking over drinks.
Also, just to drive home the point, how effective are these folks at their job anyway?
Mary Daly presided over one of the worst bank runs in modern American history last year. I don’t know what the Walmart clerk equivalent of that would be (accidentally burning the store down, maybe?) but I can assure you the clerk would’ve been fired.
How effective would a random union member or low-income community resident be or have been?
We’ll never know, John. Because they’ll never get a shot. And you’re anyway constructing a straw man. I didn’t mean we should literally go hire a “random” homeless person and install them at the helm of the Cleveland Fed. If you want to pretend you don’t understand what I’m saying here, that’s your prerogative. I couldn’t care less. It’s just another article.
One reason is that central banks only exist at the pleasure of governments and, by extension, voters. They are a political construct whose existence can be altered or eliminated at will.
One alternative which could replace our current system is the old gold standard. The Fed was created partly in reaction to that happy experience.
Probably should hire one of those philosopher types who cannot get a job with the degree who has lived on the bottom of society.
I will wager can hire a philosopher for less money than Hammack. Or is she getting her pay under the table like Javanka?
Parks & Rec had it all figured out.
H, I have to say, every once in a while, something in you snaps. This seems to be one of those moments in the comments. Just like all of us, certain things trigger us in real life memories. You write because it gives you peace and hope. I read that and hear that in all of your writings. But I also often times read an uncomfortable combination of arrogance, righteousness, and unfulfilled efforts at lived empathy.
Please consider an alternative thought on John’s comments.
I am a retired and still licensed attorney. I now help and represent children in the foster care system. I do not believe that I have the need to have been in the foster care system, or to have experienced the devastation caused by it, to be able to apply the skills that I have learned through my education and years of experience to assist them in the real world of their horror.
Empathy, combined with the elixir of education and lifelong professional experience can go a long way to helping folks when you have not lived their ”life experience“.
Last, trashing all who have received an MBA as somehow lessers is just uncool. Come on now.
“See, my heart been black, ain’t no hope in here.”