As you all know, the Fed has enormous power/impact on the economy (US and global) both through monetary and regulatory levers.

Historically, we've been lucky to have had Fed members that were mostly experts in monetary and macro policy/markets with a blend of highly prominent academics and highly experienced practitioners. For the most part, the group has been non-partisan. Even with some of the best and brightest, we've had policy mistakes by the Fed.

While employment has recovered, the Fed is now facing a challenging, delicate mix of issues....fastest inflation in 40 years with deeply negative real interest rates, bloated balance sheet, highest budget deficit in history with debt to gdp well in excess of 100%, and a labor market that has recovered but still has a worker participation rate that is well below where it was in Feb of 2020. Equity market is near an all time high, but has been volatile since more hawkish stance was announced at last Fed meeting.

In the midst of these challenges, the administration forwarded three nominees to the fed that aren't exactly the model of non-partisan moderate monetary/macro/market experts.

Sarah Bloom Raskin, despite not having a graduate degree in econ (she has BA in econ and a JD from Harvard and is on the law faculty at Duke) actually does have monetary chops through experience. But she is far from moderate (has advocated using Fed regulatory power to impact energy company access to capital) or non partisan (husband is Jamie Raskin who managed second Trump impeachment trial). Personally, I agree with a lot of her climate views, but think the Fed should stick to its dual mandate.

Lisa Cook is a professor of economics and international relations at Michigan State (Harvard, MIT, UChicago, Princeton are no longer the Fed feeder programs they used to be). She would bring diverse experiences and perspectives to the Fed, but her writings/academic aren't focused on inflation, the fed balance sheet, or monetary policy. Rather they are more focused on topics of racial and gender inequality and history....important topics that need to be addressed...but not part of the Fed's dual mandate (stable prices, maximum sustainable employment). I've linked her CV below (check out her working papers....interesting important research topics....but far afield from the Fed mandate).

Philip Jefferson, a Wahoo (Vassar undergrad, PhD at UVA). Currently VP of academic affairs, dean of faculty, and professor of economics at Davidson College. Previously chair of Swarthmore economics department (a terrific liberal arts school, but not exactly MIT, Princeton, or U Chicago). Also brings diversity to the Fed. Economic writings are focused on poverty....obviously an important topic...but outside of typical preparation for the Fed.

Judy Shelton was nominated by Trump but was blocked by Rs Romney and Collins (thank goodness). She was clearly not qualified and had some views that most market participants and economists viewed as being disastrous. Hopefully, the above Fed nominees will get a full vetting with at least a few members setting aside partisanship to determine if these nominees are truly strong candidates for the Fed. At this point, seems like Raskin will have the toughest time getting approved due to her position on using the Fed to promote climate policies. An ethics complaint regarding a stock payoff will likely be an excuse to block her. If she is blocked, I hope the administration nominates someone else who is truly an expert on monetary policy...the Fed is too important for sub optimal picks.