Here's an interesting take: throughout most of history, the world actually thrived without independent central banks. Look at the numbers - post-WW2 era shows solid growth paired with manageable inflation. Yet nowadays? The picture's quite different. It raises a genuine question about whether central bank independence truly delivers what it promises, or if we've been chasing the wrong playbook for decades. Worth considering when you're thinking about long-term economic cycles and how they shape asset markets.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
5 Likes
Reward
5
3
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
StrawberryIce
· 7h ago
This logic has some issues. Which country after WW2 wasn't stabilized by the independence of its central bank...
View OriginalReply0
DegenWhisperer
· 7h ago
ngl, this historical narrative is a bit selective, the post-WW2 period really wasn't that perfect...
View OriginalReply0
FloorSweeper
· 7h ago
nah this is actually the weak signal everyone keeps missing... central banks are just paper hands on steroids at this point lol
Here's an interesting take: throughout most of history, the world actually thrived without independent central banks. Look at the numbers - post-WW2 era shows solid growth paired with manageable inflation. Yet nowadays? The picture's quite different. It raises a genuine question about whether central bank independence truly delivers what it promises, or if we've been chasing the wrong playbook for decades. Worth considering when you're thinking about long-term economic cycles and how they shape asset markets.