3 ms·
Second, of the fourteen sentences here, a full six are trivially true None of those things are trivially true to people who regularly post contrarian and/or c
by staticman2 4y ago
Second, of the fourteen sentences here, a full six are trivially true
None of those things are trivially true to people who regularly post contrarian and/or conspiracy theory takes about the fed on this very web site. It makes sense for the fed to restate these "trivial" matters rather than ceding the discussion to "alternative" facts spread by contrarians.
- setgree 4y agoI meant that they are trivially true in the sense that they, e.g., * restate the fed's mandate to keep to full employment * say that the fed will consult many sources when it makes its verdicts (I should hope so!!) * say that their verdict might change if they get new input or new guidance Surely even a true dissident on monetary matters would still acknowledge that the fed's mandate says what it says?
- staticman2 4y agoHere's an example of what I mean. The article states "The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent over the longer run." Someone on this thread stated the interests rates are actually being raised because the committee seeks to crush unions. So if that "obvious" sentence was removed I'd only be hearing one side of the story if I read the poster's take and the attached press release.
- setgree 4y agoAh so this might be non-obvious context — the fed’s mandate is 1) maximum employment and 2) stable prices, which the Fed has, historically, defined as 2%. So saying this in the press release is basically like if i restated my company’s publicly known OKRs every time I made an announcement. More on the mandate: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2022/02/23/how-does-the-fed-define-maximum-employment/amp/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2022/02/23/how-does-...