U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bentsen said during an interview with CNBC:
"The Federal Reserve has thousands of PhD economists, paying them high salaries and lifetime jobs. I don't know what they are doing. They have never predicted correctly... If air traffic controllers did that, no one would dare to fly."
This was the statement made by Treasury Secretary Scott Bentsen earlier this year, in the context of President Trump's repeated requests for the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, which were not fulfilled, leading to criticism of the Federal Reserve.
This is a sharp and public critique of the Federal Reserve's ability to forecast the economy and its institutional efficiency. He is not merely complaining about inaccurate predictions; the core issue is questioning an institution composed of elite scholars, which consumes a large amount of public resources, whether its output (economic forecasts and policies based on them) is commensurate with the input, and whether it is sufficiently accountable to the public.
Bentsen's criticism is worth taking seriously because it touches on deep issues related to the effectiveness, independence, and accountability of public institutions. However, comparing the Federal Reserve to an engineering console that should be "100% accurate" may oversimplify its functions and the real challenges of macroeconomic management.
The real focus should not be limited to using the question of "accuracy of predictions" as a pretext, but rather on whether the Federal Reserve's decision-making framework, internal decision-making process, and communication with the market can be optimized to better serve economic stability.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1850976158607372/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author himself.