There is a great debate underway regarding the successor to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. The choice is seems comes down to two economists, Lawrence Summers or Janet Yellen. The debate is full of interesting insight, but it is the immediate challenges of the Fed that matter more.

Both Summers and Yellen have remarkable credentials. Both have led the council of economic advisors and both are related to Nobel Prize winners; Yellen's husband, two of Summers' uncles. Summers has been the secretary of the U.S. Treasury; Yellen was president of the San Francisco Fed. Yellen is a former dean at Cal Berkeley; Summers is a former president of Harvard. Both are center left economists whose academic research is foundational to our understanding of many major problems the world now faces. Both are fine classroom teachers. In our cynical world of politics it is worth recognizing that both of them could easily earn ten times the Fed chairman's salary in the private sector. We are fortunate indeed to have people like this in public life.

Both are well qualified for the position, but many in the president's party are pushing hard for Yellen because of gender and against Summers because he is linked to the financial services sector. Both of these arguments are silly of course. To raise Yellen's gender as a particular qualification diminishes her astonishing accomplishments. She is as well-qualified as anyone living.

The anti-Summers argument is equally absurd, but for the American left, the financial sector has replaced mining as public enemy number one. I don't know why this is the case, for the financial sector—especially Wall Street—has long been a friend of Democrats. I can only surmise that the left’s hatred shifted from mining to finance following the 2008 election ‘when the rise of the oceans began to slow.’ It could be that the EPA has so slowed mining that it has dropped off the radar of alleged evildoers, or it could also be that the recession dried up campaign donations from the financial sector. Whatever the cause, many on the left hate bankers of all sorts, and Summers for his tenuous links to them. The absurdity of this is that the Federal Reserve is the largest regulator of the banking system. Intimate familiarity with the financial sector is necessary for the job, but that is not the prime challenge facing the Fed.

The great problem facing the Federal Reserve in the years to come lies in deciding how and when to tighten monetary policy. The next Fed chair must communicate these decision points to a skeptical public and policymakers. This involves explaining the results of complex mathematical models to reporters and members of congress, which is not a trivial task. If these were normal times, Summers would have an edge. He is a masterful macroeconomic researcher. However, these are especially abnormal times, and Yellen's research, including important macroeconomic work, gives her the edge. I doubt the president will heed my counsel, but whichever economist he chooses is ready for the job.

There is a great debate underway regarding the successor to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. The choice is seems comes down to two economists, Lawrence Summers or Janet Yellen. The debate is full of interesting insight, but it is the immediate challenges of the Fed that matter more.

Both Summers and Yellen have remarkable credentials. Both have led the council of economic advisors and both are related to Nobel Prize winners; Yellen's husband, two of Summers' uncles. Summers has been the secretary of the U.S. Treasury; Yellen was president of the San Francisco Fed. Yellen is a former dean at Cal Berkeley; Summers is a former president of Harvard. Both are center left economists whose academic research is foundational to our understanding of many major problems the world now faces. Both are fine classroom teachers. In our cynical world of politics it is worth recognizing that both of them could easily earn ten times the Fed chairman's salary in the private sector. We are fortunate indeed to have people like this in public life.

Both are well qualified for the position, but many in the president's party are pushing hard for Yellen because of gender and against Summers because he is linked to the financial services sector. Both of these arguments are silly of course. To raise Yellen's gender as a particular qualification diminishes her astonishing accomplishments. She is as well-qualified as anyone living.

The anti-Summers argument is equally absurd, but for the American left, the financial sector has replaced mining as public enemy number one. I don't know why this is the case, for the financial sector—especially Wall Street—has long been a friend of Democrats. I can only surmise that the left’s hatred shifted from mining to finance following the 2008 election ‘when the rise of the oceans began to slow.’ It could be that the EPA has so slowed mining that it has dropped off the radar of alleged evildoers, or it could also be that the recession dried up campaign donations from the financial sector. Whatever the cause, many on the left hate bankers of all sorts, and Summers for his tenuous links to them. The absurdity of this is that the Federal Reserve is the largest regulator of the banking system. Intimate familiarity with the financial sector is necessary for the job, but that is not the prime challenge facing the Fed.

The great problem facing the Federal Reserve in the years to come lies in deciding how and when to tighten monetary policy. The next Fed chair must communicate these decision points to a skeptical public and policymakers. This involves explaining the results of complex mathematical models to reporters and members of congress, which is not a trivial task. If these were normal times, Summers would have an edge. He is a masterful macroeconomic researcher. However, these are especially abnormal times, and Yellen's research, including important macroeconomic work, gives her the edge. I doubt the president will heed my counsel, but whichever economist he chooses is ready for the job.