5 ms·
>Who is benefiting from a scary headline like this? My wider, lay understanding of this is that the powers-that-be (hereafter "PTB") do not like the FRB's inte
by Dalewyn 4y ago
>Who is benefiting from a scary headline like this?
My wider, lay understanding of this is that the powers-that-be (hereafter "PTB") do not like the FRB's interest rate hikes, so from the PTBs' perspective:
1. Create fear and more fear and further fear among the public in the hopes of triggering further bank runs ("ohnoes the gov can't bailout savings no more!") and other fiscal destruction.
2. FRB is eventually forced to reconsider their current (read: undesirable) fiscal plans. Ideally go back to zero interest rates?
3. ????
4. PTBs PROFIT once more?
All journalism is propaganda and exist strictly to benefit someone out there, so I would be particularly skeptical if that propaganda is also fearmongering.
- wolfi008 4y ago> All journalism is propaganda Such a derogatory statement detached from reality. It's like saying all health professionals are out there to get your money by keeping you as sick as possible. Or all teachers are out to indoctrinate your kids. Or all firefighters are arsenists. I have quite a few journalists as friends or acquaintances, and many of them are the most honest people I know, with strong ethics and admireable ideals. Of course there are bad apples out there. In any profession. But your statement is just ridiculous.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bryanlarsen 4y agoBad apples is a very apt term. A few bad apples spoils the bunch. You can have thousands of apples in a barrel, but a couple of bad ones can quickly make the whole barrel worthless. For example, the New York Times makes the right call on integrity vs profits, access, etc dozens of times a day for years. Then one time 20 years ago they make the wrong call vis a vis Iraq weapons of mass destruction, and they've almost completely destroyed their integrity. Seems unfair, but as a consumer we can no longer trust them, and probably never should have.
- boringg 4y agoSure some damage from that but destroyed their credibility - I think it sounds like your coming at them with a significant grudge.
- PathOfEclipse 4y agoNYT have destroyed their credibility for numerous reasons, both past and present: https://www.amazon.com/Gray-Lady-Winked-Misreporting-Fabrications/dp/1736703307 https://www.amazon.com/Gray-Lady-Winked-Misreporting-Fabrica...
- boringg 4y agoPretty poor source of information. I just spent a couple seconds going over the authors twitter feed confirms what I would have suspected.
- PathOfEclipse 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy This is probably one of the most commonly-used fallacies I see people used to deal with cognitive dissonance caused by information that might make them uncomfortable.
- boringg 4y agoI mean to get through life without having to run every single thing down you use heuristics to evaluate whether it is worth pursuing the details or not. My heuristic wrote off whether looking at pursuing his perspective is worth it or not based on the comments in his twitter feed which seem to match up perfectly with his charges. It's why credentials have value.
- PathOfEclipse 4y agoI don't know what's on his twitter feed, but I've yet to see a single rebuttal to any of the main highlights of that book. Don't be blind to the truth because of your own personal biases. I just scanned his twitter feed and I don't see anything terribly problematic, so I'm not even sure what you're referring to that would make you ignore him.
- peteradio 4y agoPropaganda is just information released to push a particular point of view. Propaganda is far more derogatory sounding than it should be. The analogy to healthcare is way too extreme.
- wolfi008 4y agoThen you are halfway to realizing how extreme the claim is that all journalists actively push a particular point of view, i.e., are engaging in propaganda.
- AndrewKemendo 4y agoThe problem isn't with the individual journalists, it's that the structural incentives of for-profit journalism require that editors, writers et al. bias their thinking to assume that the current structure is valid and generally whomever the highest bidder over the longest term determines what the structure is. That is to say, every human act is political whether you acknowledge it or not because it either maintains the current system or attempts to change it. So we should question the motives of anyone who is structurally incentivized to give you information that benefits the owners of the periodical.
- wolfi008 4y agoBias sure. But that does not imply propaganda which is a much stronger accusation. There obviously is propaganda here and there, but not every person having a bias is engaging in propaganda.
- sfifs 4y agoI wonder if the bank run on SVB wasn't planned or coordinated in some way by VCs & private to create a scare in the financial system to force rate hikes to stop or slow down as VCs and Private Equity did very well in the era of free money and now are facing headwinds. It is not as if the VCs who triggered the collapse are not very smart people who would not have understood the exact implications of what they were doing.
- hksoftware 4y ago[flagged]
- bigfudge 4y agoI don’t understand this comment so may have this completely wrong. But using Jewish stereotyping in articles about a kind of banking conspiracy theory is something I would avoid though.
- concordDance 4y agoThere is no unified Jewish conspiracy. Only a portion of bankers are even Jews and plenty of non-banker Jews like higher rates.
- dmn322 4y agoAbsolutely delusional to think the powers that be don't like the rate hikes.
- tempaway45734 4y agoThe 'Powers that be' are corporations. They dont want rate hikes.
- dmn322 4y agoIf you want to know what the powers that be want, just look at what Pelosi and McConnell agree on. If you want to see what they’ve specifically adopted as a wedge issue to divide people, look at what they disagree on. It’s not the businesses that are the powers that be but their board members. They’ll tank one company if it will help the others
- tmn 4y agoI mean Lagarde openly pleaded for Powell to not raise rates..
- chalst 4y agoSome like them, more hate them.
- intrasight 4y agoMy smart friends - rich and poor - universally approve of the rate hikes, because they understand, like me, that price stability is their primary mandate. Many also believe, like me, that the Fed really screwed this up in the last few years. If by "PTB" you mean the market, then of course it hates rate hikes. Also just hates uncertainty.
- dmn322 4y agoSeems like a convenient coincidence that all your "smart" friends agree with you lol. Actually the fed has a dual mandates: price stability and unemployment. Price stability can also be achieved by taxation. And in this case the massive inflation we saw was mostly due to supply chain issues. So many businesses shut down during the pandemic. Others were hanging on by a thread. Which sounds like it will help supply chains recover? Increasing interest rates for loans? Or keeping access to lots of liquidity? Hmmm, seems like if we're wanting to expand capacity again, we want liquidity. Then prices can go back down due to capacity going back to normal, rather than artificially reducing demand by getting everyone fired. If we need critical immediate measures to stem inflation, then we can raise taxes. Get some of that PPP money back. Make everyone who was speculating on housing sell their investment homes. That will drive inflation back down without starving the recovering supply chains.