Secretaries of the Treasury
No. | Name | Term of Office | ||
55 | 21-Jan-53 | 29-Jul-57 | ||
56 | 29-Jul-57 | 20-Jan-61 | ||
57 | 21-Jan-61 | 1-Apr-65 | John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson | |
58 | 1-Apr-65 | 20-Dec-68 | ||
59 | 21-Dec-68 | 20-Jan-69 | ||
60 | 22-Jan-69 | 10-Feb-71 | ||
61 | 11-Feb-71 | 12-Jun-72 | ||
62 | 12-Jun-72 | 8-May-74 | ||
63 | 8-May-74 | 20-Jan-77 | Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford | |
64 | 23-Jan-77 | 4-Aug-79 | ||
65 | 7-Aug-79 | 20-Jan-81 | ||
66 | 22-Jan-81 | 1-Feb-85 | ||
67 | 4-Feb-85 | 17-Aug-88 | ||
68 | 15-Sep-88 | 17-Jan-93 | Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush | |
69 | 20-Jan-93 | 22-Dec-94 | ||
70 | 11-Jan-95 | 2-Jul-99 | ||
71 | 2-Jul-99 | 20-Jan-01 | ||
72 | 20-Jan-01 | 31-Dec-02 | ||
73 | 3-Feb-03 | 30-Jun-06 | ||
74 | 10-Jul-06 | 20-Jan-09 | ||
75 | 26-Jan-09 | present | ||
Federal Funds Rate VS Chairmen of the Federal Reserve
Chairmen of the Federal Reserve
William McChesney Martin, Jr. (April 2, 1951 — February 1, 1970)
Arthur F. Burns (February 1, 1970 — January 31, 1978)
G. William Miller (March 8, 1978 — August 6, 1979)
Paul A. Volcker (August 6, 1979 — August 11, 1987)
Alan Greenspan (August 11, 1987 — January 31, 2006)
Ben S. Bernanke (February 1, 2006 — )
My reaction: I made these charts a while ago. They strongly suggest that Secretaries of the Treasury have more influence over the Federal Funds Rate than Chairmen of the Federal Reserve.
So much for the "independent" Fed...
What I see is a long-term cycle bottoming!! :-)
Timmy was the Chairman of the New York Branch of the Federal Reserve last year. Its a revolving door between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Its all the same organization just a different duty assignment within the organization.
Interesting article about how Russia and India are working on a supersonic missile to counter US missile defence:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article14267.html
The article says the missile can fired in groups and would be able to take out an entire naval battle group.
The US military "might" rests upon obsolete technology, namely aircraft carriers which can be moved near the "rogue" state needing to be punished. A fast tactical nuclear missle can negate the US aircraft carrier threat.
Net effect is the power of the US military is negated completely. The US is vehemently against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, not because it fears terrorists will use them, but because the US cannot bully any state with nuclear capability.
The changing technology of the world is leaving the US military force where it should be: irrelevant. Truly the US military buildup represented nothing but pork barrel politics at its finest.
@dashxdr
Is it me, or is it strange to find to find such an article at Market Oracle?
It might be true that the technology of the US lacks in some areas...
In others though it's far superior...
However, be that as it may...
This might interest you:
Israel may attack Iran after December
The question of the war to come is not one of if dashxdr, but of when...
If for nothing else, history demands it.
Keep it coming, Eric. Your stuff is terrific.