Of course our leaders are responsible for leading us. That goes without saying. But you've got to at least put forth a little bit of effort into understanding

Of course our leaders are responsible for leading us. That goes without saying. But you've got to at least put forth a little bit of effort into understanding our leaders arguments. The Fed has two forces at play that meet at committee meetings. The Hawks argue for tighter policy, while the doves argue for looser policy. Many arguments are made at these meetings, and their meeting notes are public. There are also crappy websites that push conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with real data. Your arguments are closer to these conspiracy theories than the real data that has been brought forth at these public Fed Meetings. If you don't like the Fed process or discussion or data, sure I guess. That's fine. But you are pushing effectively disproven conspiracy theories and that's where you are misstepping IMO I dunno if this 'Greedflation' idea is true btw. But at least it's not the same incorrect conspiracy theory I've heard for the past decade. I'm willing to give 'greedflation' some degree of thought before discarding it. -------- 'Greedflation' is obviously discredited by Powell (current Fed Chairman), according to the article. So maybe its a fully bunk theory too. But its extremely odd to come to this topic to push alternative theories of monetary policy without at least trying to talk or criticize the topic at hand?