4 ms·
Perhaps, but her phrasing seems to imply they will act to reduce unemployment, and we can also assume Trump will mandate that they do so once he takes control o
by root_axis 7mo ago
Perhaps, but her phrasing seems to imply they will act to reduce unemployment, and we can also assume Trump will mandate that they do so once he takes control of the fed.
- almostdeadguy 7mo agoAs any president should in that scenario? I'm sorry, we're going to nuke professional class workers and let tech executives keep their 2026 money from the proceeds and let the losers go jobless? Not likely if you don't want a bloodbath. Let me be clear: fuck Trump, but any president who doesn't do that is out of their mind.
- selridge 7mo agoIt is not at all clear that monetary policy can actually work here, which is what the statement is saying. When your demand side policy doesn't work, it's just pushing rope. It doesn't matter if or how bad you want a certain outcome.
- dghlsakjg 7mo agoThe fed was very intentionally set up to be resistant to tampering from political forces, and especially the executive. The entire governance structure is so that they can take actions that may be painful in the short term without being stopped by politicians. Before Trump it was, for good reason, incredibly taboo to place pressure on the fed or even hint at interfering. Most economists are pretty horrified that particular barrier has been crossed. The fed has a pretty big stick, and a mandate to try to balance inflation with unemployment. Throwing politics into the mix is a very bad idea since politicians worry about very different things, and adhere to election timelines. The president has no business getting involved here.
- recursivedoubts 7mo agothe fed was set up to protect the big banks the rest, and in particular the economics profession, is window dressing
- selridge 7mo agoany other pearls of wisdom from the Mises institute you want to share?
- recursivedoubts 7mo agonope, i'm not a libertarian and don't agree with a lot of what they say i think gold is a terrible money, for example. great savings vehicle though, should be tax free to convert money into and from. they'd throw me out on my ear
- selridge 7mo agoThen what about banking & finance pre central bank era are you nostalgic for? Because if the current system favors the bankers, the previous system sure as hell favored the bankers. Is it the bank runs? I guess I should say this is all academic now, since we're about a month an a half away from Weimarizing the dollar lmfao. We've been kicking the institutional legs out from the stool for a while and we will discover the virtue of an independent central bank whether we like it or not.
- recursivedoubts 7mo agoBankers have been a problem as long as there have been banks with fractionally reserved deposits. The Fed just stabilized the appropriation of surplus value by the banking system through the issuance of credit. There is nothing independent about it: it will preserve the large banks come hell or high water, and soon enough we'll get both. I would prefer a social credit system (not the Chinese kind, the other kind) where the money supply is managed for the public good via a citizens dividend tied to the productive capacity of the economy, coupled with making gold buying/selling tax free as a savings (and monetary disciplinary) mechanism. I have the advantage that this system will never be tried, and therefore I can never be proved wrong.
- selridge 7mo ago
- selridge 7mo agoThe whole point is to not have the central bank in the control of the executive!
- fuzzfactor 7mo agoMaybe too late. Trump just walked on stage for the SOTU and Gold either jumped up a bit or the dollar declined in value, whichever way you want to look at it.
- awesomeMilou 7mo agoWhat bloodbath lmao, most of the "professional class" in the US isn't unionized.
- selridge 7mo agoWe'll see seigniorage. That's about all we can predict from that particular breakdown of civil society.