Andrew Ross Sorkin

So that's going to be the distinction.

Look, I do in the following way.

I think the lesson of 1929 in a certain way was that politics do matter with the Fed.

And you want a Fed that feels completely independent.

from political pressure.

One of the reasons the Fed didn't do more than it did in 1929, and they were talking about what to do in advance of the crash, meaning in terms of trying to tamp down speculation, they were worried about the politics in the moment.

They were worried

that if they actually raised interest rates too high to stamp out speculation, that they would get slaughtered politically.

And back then, the Fed was so new, it was considered still an experiment to some degree.

It had just been born in 1913.

They thought Congress could shut down the whole thing.

So it wasn't back then so much that they were worried that Hoover was going to come after them so much as they thought Congress could come after them.

And the reason that's important

is because one of the lessons we've learned about a financial crisis is you often have to do things that are super politically unpopular, like bailouts, for example.

Think 2008.

That is the playbook.

That is the right thing to do.

But if you're under the thumb politically, and therefore you decide not to do that because it's politically unpopular, you could really have a problem.

And that's why...

The independence piece matters.