TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Aug 23, 2019 19:33:23 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 19:37:39 GMT -5
Merry Xmas everyone.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,304
|
Post by tashoya on Aug 23, 2019 19:46:51 GMT -5
Ok. So to take the war analogy a bit further, wars are fought and planned for to the nth degree by analysts and generals. They look at contingencies and what-ifs to decide what to do. This war, on the other hand, is being led by a baby that changes his mind at the drop of a hat, depending on who’s offended him that day / minute. He makes pronouncements, and pulls them back. And as far as I can tell, there doesn’t appear to have been any planning, war gaming, or strategy to actually win the damn thing except to parade around Tienenman Square screaming “Us Americans have such giant Editeds, and yours are so small so you should bend the knee.” How in hell can an independent entity set a plan for that? I actually think your issue is that Trump does have a strategy-it is just not the globalist model of enhancing and supporting multinational corporations. large trading blocks and transnational enterprises of all types, that people with elitist backgrounds support with a near religious zeal. His strategy is a nationalist one that seeks to enhance and improve outcomes for the American nation-state versus the global order. You just don't like his strategy. Fair enough. But insisting he doesn't have one is just not true. What about his tax policies haven't been of huge benefit to multinational corporations? In addition to which, he's "bigly" pro financial deregulation. That doesn't help the non-existent mom and pop banks of old. He's about the illusion of being for the American worker. Especially the American workers that work in industries that are dying. No amount of fiscal policy will change that. The tariffs are BS posturing he's hoping to leverage for votes. It's why he's panicking that the effects of them are being seen in the Dow. He was hoping to have his tariffs (i.e., his blue collar voters) with Dow numbers staying high until 2020. If he loses one or the other, his chances or re-election drop significantly.
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Aug 23, 2019 19:50:19 GMT -5
As each article lays out, there were differences in timing but not the basic policy direction. This is especially true in the Reagan case where he was deeply committed to ending runaway inflation. And critically and importantly Martin and Volker were proven to be right in what they did. Powell's actions last Fall through December were clearly wrong. Powell does not have "past performance, I know best" laurels to support him.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,713
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Aug 23, 2019 20:24:28 GMT -5
So you want the Fed to do Trump's bidding? IS that what the Fed is there for? Suggestions: Stop reading Trump's tweets. Stop watching Fox News in the morning and night. Yes, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board should support the major policy direction of the President of the United States. If the Fed chair does not do this and acknowledge that we are a democracy, his mandate will soon end. It is much like the military who are the experts in warfare, but accede to the policy direction of the duly elected leader of the country.The military follows the Presidents orders because he's the Commander & Chief of the armed forces, the President is their boss... Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the President holds that ranking over the Fed Chairman...
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Aug 23, 2019 20:48:55 GMT -5
The Fed Chair can be fired "for cause" which is really ambiguous. Some legal scholars say this means sins like embezzlement, murder and the like while others see it as more broadly performance or policy related (like for instance failing to appear before congress to give legislatively required reports or lower interest rates to align with competing nations).
I think it fair to say that no official in the federal government can be a four year totally unaccountable and untouchable God who is not responsive to the some policy direction by the Congress, and the President in accordance with enabling law.
I remember hearing Ron Paul's criticisms of the Fed and its power in one of the early 2000s presidential races and did not think of it as a big issue then. With this friction between the President and Fed Chair which has gone public for the first time in my memory, it is now a very big issue and Congress should modify the Federal Reserve Legislation to formalize what "cause" means. and I think the concept of "cause" is going to be tested very rigorously very soon.
And I might add if cause is interpreted very narrowly and the Fed Chair outranks everyone and has no accountability to anyone elected, we are in real trouble and perhaps only realizing it now.
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Aug 23, 2019 21:05:02 GMT -5
Could Powell decide to print money and buy Greenland or Amazon? The Fed is the only entity in America that can create money from thin air.
My mind is really racing, if Andrew Yang became President, could Powell, who will still be in office, print the $1000 a month we will all be receiving if Yang wins?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Aug 23, 2019 22:13:04 GMT -5
I think it fair to say that no official in the federal government can be a four year totally unaccountable and untouchable God who is not responsive to the some policy direction by the Congress, and the President in accordance with enabling law. Hold on and brace yourself before I tell you about the Supreme Court terms because this is going to blow your mind.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,713
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Aug 23, 2019 22:17:53 GMT -5
The Fed Chair can be fired "for cause" which is really ambiguous. Some legal scholars say this means sins like embezzlement, murder and the like while others see it as more broadly performance or policy related (like for instance failing to appear before congress to give legislatively required reports or lower interest rates to align with competing nations). I think it fair to say that no official in the federal government can be a four year totally unaccountable and untouchable God who is not responsive to the some policy direction by the Congress, and the President i n accordance with enabling law.I remember hearing Ron Paul's criticisms of the Fed and its power in one of the early 2000s presidential races and did not think of it as a big issue then. With this friction between the President and Fed Chair which has gone public for the first time in my memory, it is now a very big issue and Congress should modify the Federal Reserve Legislation to formalize what "cause" means. and I think the concept of "cause" is going to be tested very rigorously very soon. And I might add if cause is interpreted very narrowly and the Fed Chair outranks everyone and has no accountability to anyone elected, we are in real trouble and perhaps only realizing it now. What law or laws are you referring to here? Also, congress is not in lockstep with the President in this trade war...
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Aug 23, 2019 23:27:49 GMT -5
The Fed Chair can be fired "for cause" which is really ambiguous. Some legal scholars say this means sins like embezzlement, murder and the like while others see it as more broadly performance or policy related (like for instance failing to appear before congress to give legislatively required reports or lower interest rates to align with competing nations). I think it fair to say that no official in the federal government can be a four year totally unaccountable and untouchable God who is not responsive to the some policy direction by the Congress, and the President i n accordance with enabling law.I remember hearing Ron Paul's criticisms of the Fed and its power in one of the early 2000s presidential races and did not think of it as a big issue then. With this friction between the President and Fed Chair which has gone public for the first time in my memory, it is now a very big issue and Congress should modify the Federal Reserve Legislation to formalize what "cause" means. and I think the concept of "cause" is going to be tested very rigorously very soon. And I might add if cause is interpreted very narrowly and the Fed Chair outranks everyone and has no accountability to anyone elected, we are in real trouble and perhaps only realizing it now. What law or laws are you referring to here? Also, congress is not in lockstep with the President in this trade war... The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 or whatever it was as amended
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Aug 23, 2019 23:30:04 GMT -5
I think it fair to say that no official in the federal government can be a four year totally unaccountable and untouchable God who is not responsive to the some policy direction by the Congress, and the President in accordance with enabling law. Hold on and brace yourself before I tell you about the Supreme Court terms because this is going to blow your mind.[/quote You are quite correct with respect to judges Should make my statement no unelected official in the executive and legislative branches can be....
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,304
|
Post by tashoya on Aug 23, 2019 23:41:15 GMT -5
The glaring difference is that, in previous administrations, presidents made a point to not politicize the Fed. Case in point: Greenspan. Presidents disliked his "irrational exuberance," Ayn Rand loving policies (except for W). But they didn't replace him, largely, because it would have been seen as a political move. Granted, it's also very difficult to replace a person in charge of oversight of the Fed in a roaring Dow/Nas but he also survived 9/11 and the tech bubble. It has been verboten to politicize the Fed chair. To not acknowledge that is to be avoiding the truth.
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Aug 23, 2019 23:47:20 GMT -5
The glaring difference is that, in previous administrations, presidents made a point to not politicize the Fed. Case in point: Greenspan. Presidents disliked his "irrational exuberance," Ayn Rand loving policies (except for W). But they didn't replace him, largely, because it would have been seen as a political move. Granted, it's also very difficult to replace a person in charge of oversight of the Fed in a roaring Dow/Nas but he also survived 9/11 and the tech bubble. It has been verboten to politicize the Fed chair. To not acknowledge that is to be avoiding the truth. And maybe as Ron Paul cautioned us and we see the mess before us it shouldn't be.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,304
|
Post by tashoya on Aug 23, 2019 23:51:57 GMT -5
The glaring difference is that, in previous administrations, presidents made a point to not politicize the Fed. Case in point: Greenspan. Presidents disliked his "irrational exuberance," Ayn Rand loving policies (except for W). But they didn't replace him, largely, because it would have been seen as a political move. Granted, it's also very difficult to replace a person in charge of oversight of the Fed in a roaring Dow/Nas but he also survived 9/11 and the tech bubble. It has been verboten to politicize the Fed chair. To not acknowledge that is to be avoiding the truth. And maybe as Ron Paul cautioned us and we see the mess before us it shouldn't be. Because Ron Paul is know as a visionary? Puh-leeze.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,304
|
Post by tashoya on Aug 23, 2019 23:56:09 GMT -5
The glaring difference is that, in previous administrations, presidents made a point to not politicize the Fed. Case in point: Greenspan. Presidents disliked his "irrational exuberance," Ayn Rand loving policies (except for W). But they didn't replace him, largely, because it would have been seen as a political move. Granted, it's also very difficult to replace a person in charge of oversight of the Fed in a roaring Dow/Nas but he also survived 9/11 and the tech bubble. It has been verboten to politicize the Fed chair. To not acknowledge that is to be avoiding the truth. And maybe as Ron Paul cautioned us and we see the mess before us it shouldn't be. You're clearly coming from a financial background and advocating for the benefit of the financial sector. That doesn't, necessarily, jibe with what is best for the vast majority of the people in this country. A high Dow number may get a president re-elected that shouldn't be but, increasingly, it's not indicative of much other than wildly out of whack tax laws and employment compensation considerations.
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Aug 24, 2019 0:06:30 GMT -5
And maybe as Ron Paul cautioned us and we see the mess before us it shouldn't be. Because Ron Paul is know as a visionary? Puh-leeze. I think he is now in his mid 80s so the vision may no longer be there
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,304
|
Post by tashoya on Aug 24, 2019 0:15:49 GMT -5
Because Ron Paul is know as a visionary? Puh-leeze. I think he is now in his mid 80s so the vision may no longer be there Can't lose what one never had.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,198
|
Post by hoya9797 on Aug 24, 2019 8:53:15 GMT -5
Yes, it is Powell's fault. The President clearly as a matter of policy wants to use monetary policy to weaken the Dollar to counteract the currency manipulation, failure to buy US agricultural products, failure to cease the shipment of fentynol, and increases of tariffs on U.S. goods by China. I can’t believe that you think trump knows what any of this means.
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Aug 24, 2019 14:37:00 GMT -5
Ok. So to take the war analogy a bit further, wars are fought and planned for to the nth degree by analysts and generals. They look at contingencies and what-ifs to decide what to do. This war, on the other hand, is being led by a baby that changes his mind at the drop of a hat, depending on who’s offended him that day / minute. He makes pronouncements, and pulls them back. And as far as I can tell, there doesn’t appear to have been any planning, war gaming, or strategy to actually win the damn thing except to parade around Tienenman Square screaming “Us Americans have such giant Editeds, and yours are so small so you should bend the knee.” How in hell can an independent entity set a plan for that? I actually think your issue is that Trump does have a strategy-it is just not the globalist model of enhancing and supporting multinational corporations. large trading blocks and transnational enterprises of all types, that people with elitist backgrounds support with a near religious zeal. His strategy is a nationalist one that seeks to enhance and improve outcomes for the American nation-state versus the global order. You just don't like his strategy. Fair enough. But insisting he doesn't have one is just not true. First - anyone using the argument “elite” and “globalist” on a GU message board needs a bit more self awareness. Second, I understand he has a “strategy”... but it’s about as well thought through as the classic Simpsons trope: Step 1: Raise tariffs Step 2: ?? Step 3: Profit! Finally, to blame the Fed for this when a) Trump’s economic advisors forecast much higher interest rates when they were passing the tax plan, b) Tariffs increase the cost of goods for consumers and manufacturers alike, which is a natural lead-in to higher inflation (Fed mandate #1), c) Trump himself is setting policy by Twitter and by which segment just aired on Fox and Friends, and d) Trump himself has Editeded off the allies that would be useful to actually try and reign in the Chinese government. Bottom line, when Occam is showing you his razor, don’t assume that it’s a garden hoe.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Aug 25, 2019 9:34:19 GMT -5
[ Second, I understand he has a “strategy”... but it’s about as well thought through as the classic Simpsons trope: Step 1: Raise tariffs Step 2: ?? Step 3: Profit! I thought the Underpants gnomes were South Park - or did the Simpsons already do it?
|
|