Bernanke y Diamond

En cuanto al discurso de Bernanke, quisiera destacar esto:

Besides the prospect of more-stable commodity prices, two other factors suggest that inflation is likely to return to more subdued levels in the medium term.  First, the still-substantial slack in U.S. labor and product markets should continue to have a moderating effect on inflationary pressures.  Notably, because of the weak demand for labor, wage increases have not kept pace with productivity gains.  Thus the level of unit labor costs in the business sector is lower than it was before the recession.  Given the large share of labor costs in the production costs of most firms (typically, a share far larger than that of raw materials costs), subdued unit labor costs should remain a restraining influence on inflation.  

Envidiable flexibilidad del mercado laboral USA, en el que los salarios aumentan menos que la productividad, dada la  relación desigual oferta demanda: ¿sería concebible en este justiciero país nuestro? No, ni de coña.
Ahora bien, si los salarios no solo no transmiten, sino que obturan, el proceso inflacionista, ¿Porqué retirar la política monetaria de apoyo? Sigamos leyendo a ver si lo aclara...
AL final del papel, dice algo que NO lo aclara, y que indica que es simplemente miedo. ¿Miedo a los halcones del Tea Party? pues esos no hacen prisioneros:

Although it is moving in the right direction, the economy is still producing at levels well below its potential; consequently, accommodative monetary policies are still needed.  Until we see a sustained period of stronger job creation, we cannot consider the recovery to be truly established.  At the same time, the longer-run health of the economy requires that the Federal Reserve be vigilant in preserving its hard-won credibility for maintaining price stability.  As I have explained, most FOMC participants currently see the recent increase in inflation as transitory and expect inflation to remain subdued in the medium term.  Should that forecast prove wrong, however, and particularly if signs were to emerge that inflation was becoming more broadly based or that longer-term inflation expectations were becoming less well anchored, the Committee would respond as necessary.  Under all circumstances, our policy actions will be guided by the objectives of supporting the recovery in output and employment while helping ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with the Federal Reserve’s mandate. 

Si Bernanke, como recomiendan algunos economistas, siguiera como indicador de inflación los salarios, estaría ante signos inequívocos de deflación. Entonces actuaría  expansivamente para abortar ese riesgo. (A mí no me parecería una locura proseguir el QE hasta que los aumentos de salarios rebasaran los de la productividad) El mercado de trabajo está tan débil que, él mismo lo explica en el texto, casi la mitad del paro es de larga duración (6 meses) y el empleo creado es temporal. ¿Vendría mal un aumento de la demanda de inversión que tirara del empleo? No entiendo a Bernanke.
Curiosamente, Peter Diamond, el premio Nobel rechazado por los senadores republicanos para miembro del FOMC, decía en su discruso de aceptación de Nobel:

In my Nobel acceptance speech in December, I discussed in detail the patterns of hiring in the American economy, and concluded that structural unemployment and issues of mismatch were not important in the slow recovery we have been experiencing, and thus not a reason to stop an accommodative monetary policy — a policy of keeping short-term interest rates exceptionally low and buying Treasury securities to keep long-term rates down. Analysis of the labor market is in fact central to monetary policy.

¿Curiosa la coincidencia, ¿no?  Nos hace pensar que si hubiera estado en el FOMC, hubiera recomendado a Bernanke que prosiguiera su política monetaria de QE. 
En todo caso,él -Bernanke- ya tiene hecha la reforma que aquí nos exigen (y que nuca llegaremos a perfeccionar como ellos), y eso demuestra, una vez más, que eso no crea fortaleza económica ni empleo.