Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12-21-2018, 04:30 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Maybe the financial system could one day integrate AI and weave it into the economy so that it be even better at predicting risky financial activity and which sectors of the economy its coming from, and how to avoid having smaller amounts of risk snowball into something else.
Nah I feel like the future of AI is an endless fitting of past data sets that doesn't at all generalize to the future.


Quote:
First of all, McCain literally had no idea what his plan was - he had no comprehensive plan.
I absolutely agree with your political assessment there. But I feel like he would have figured it out, or at least responded to the electorate. My point is that Obama was in the same process of figuring it out, but for some unfathomable and totally not-racist reason, the Tea Party decided they weren't buying anything he was selling.

Quote:
Obama continued to succeed by recognizing the need to implement TARP 2, and thank fuck he had Democrats to work with. If he'd had to get the consent of the Freedom Caucus, we could have well gone from deep recession to possible financial collapse.
Hearty agreement.

Quote:
John McCain would have been a disaster as president, and he would have been so almost from the beginning. He would under pressure from his increasingly angry base on the right to make very bad decisions, like not supporting the automotive industry.
I feel like the nutty right would have simmered down in the aftermath of a McCain victory. Simmered down all the way to acceding to vigorous economic stimulus, and well on the path to understand that debt-fighting is a thing we do when the economy is strong.

Quote:
We were very, very lucky that people elected Obama and the Democrats in 2008.
I'm on board.

Quote:
But I think the real underlying problem we have is wealth inequality, and the only solution that makes sense is fairer taxation and then using the revenue on things that the public can use like low-cost (not necessarily free) education and training programs, affordable housing, access to quality healthcare and food.
This is above my pay grade, but I'll say I have put some thought into things and concluded that the progressive marginal income tax is the best way to go. The fetish for simpler taxes and fewer tax brackets is stupid, we should have 741 progressive tax brackets like the Eisenhower administration. That can't possibly be more complicated than all the myriad loopholes we have now.
  #102  
Old 12-22-2018, 09:19 AM
Linden Arden Linden Arden is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 584
Bloomberg reports:

Trump Discusses Firing Fed's Powell After Latest Rate Hike, Sources Say

It’s unclear how much legal authority the president has to fire Powell. The Federal Reserve Act says governors may be “removed for cause by the President.” Since the chairman is also a governor, that presumably extends to him or her, but the rules around firing the leader are legally ambiguous, as Peter Conti-Brown of the University of Pennsylvania notes in his book on Fed independence


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...test-rate-hike

Last edited by Linden Arden; 12-22-2018 at 09:21 AM. Reason: source
  #103  
Old 12-22-2018, 09:22 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,073
Yeah, I saw that article this morning.

Dammit, it's like Trump WANTS the markets to tank incredibly. If not, he's pursuing a strange, long game.
  #104  
Old 12-22-2018, 09:27 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Yeah, I saw that article this morning.

Dammit, it's like Trump WANTS the markets to tank incredibly. If not, he's pursuing a strange, long game.
He is very limited in his thinking and is far far beyond his ability to undrestand what he is supposed to be managing. Since he only ever managed before a non structured family enterprise that by the track record was chaotically unmanaged in its actual non marketing operations....

it is very damaging this to come out at the same time as you have lost your defense minister who was widely respected.
  #105  
Old 12-22-2018, 10:09 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linden Arden View Post
Trump Discusses Firing Fed's Powell After Latest Rate Hike, Sources Say

Itís unclear how much legal authority the president has to fire Powell....
It was only several months ago that Trump appointed Powell ó I guess those were happier, saner days.

I wondered at the time why Trump appointed Powell; he's a scholar, former high-ranking Treasury official, etc. and didn't wear a MAGA hat. Wasn't Don, Jr. available? Couldn't Jared have led the Fed in addition to his other important duties?
  #106  
Old 12-22-2018, 01:47 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Still not clear on the premise of why you think the fed would have "yielded", as you phrased it. They are an independent institution who is more usually known to push back when a nervous President gets too demanding about rates.

If anything, the Fed 'yields' to the stock market trends. But having said that, I'm surprised they raised rates this week since all the indices are down for the month, week, quarter, and year.
There have been cases where in retrospect at least Fed chairmen have been accused of political accommodation. Arthur Burns is often accused of caving to pressure from Nixon. But it's just as plausible, probably more likely, any given chairman will ignore pressure from a president, as Powell just did (or even be more likely to if the pressure was public).

Also lots of market participants believe Fed action is a 'put option' on the stock market. But it's again just as likely or more IMO the Fed means it when it says it considers the overall tightness of financial conditions relative to its 'dual mandate' for price stability and full employment, rather than making investors happy via stock market gains. Sometimes a stock market retreat is enough to tighten general financial conditions enough for the Fed to take counter action, other times it's not. The recent retreat from arguably overvalued highs wasn't likely candidate to change Fed behavior this soon and it's not a surprise it didn't, IMO.
  #107  
Old 12-23-2018, 02:10 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
There have been cases where in retrospect at least Fed chairmen have been accused of political accommodation. Arthur Burns is often accused of caving to pressure from Nixon. But it's just as plausible, probably more likely, any given chairman will ignore pressure from a president, as Powell just did (or even be more likely to if the pressure was public).

Also lots of market participants believe Fed action is a 'put option' on the stock market. But it's again just as likely or more IMO the Fed means it when it says it considers the overall tightness of financial conditions relative to its 'dual mandate' for price stability and full employment, rather than making investors happy via stock market gains. Sometimes a stock market retreat is enough to tighten general financial conditions enough for the Fed to take counter action, other times it's not. The recent retreat from arguably overvalued highs wasn't likely candidate to change Fed behavior this soon and it's not a surprise it didn't, IMO.
I remember when Yellen caved to a mere market tantrum at least once if not more than that. If she or Bernanke were still in charge, the decision would have been different.
  #108  
Old 12-23-2018, 02:13 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I can't speak to Japan's economy, but if I'm interpreting your post correctly, you seem to be misidentifying causation of the Great Depression and Recession.

The Great Depression had several root causes, but it wasn't caused by cheap credit. As I've pointed out on at least one other thread, cycles inevitably bust. That's just the way economics works. What matters is how financial institutions respond, and the Fed and the United States government simply didn't respond before 1933 as it has learned to since that time. Money supply actually choked starting in 1928 or 1929, which came before the worst of the Depression. It needs to be pointed out that the Depression wasn't the market crash of 1929 - for one thing the market actually went lower in 1931-32, but for another there was time for policy makers to intervene and stop the bleeding. Instead they made the problem worse, but it wasn't by expanding money supply; the exact opposite happened.

The Great Recession was probably caused, at least in some part, by greater money supply, though better legislative and regulatory mechanisms might have prevented the worst of the fallout from that crisis. But just to be clear, inflation was never a major threat before 2007. The Fed wasn't printing money so quickly that there was an inflation threat; the problem was that it was essentially underwriting speculative investment practices.

What we've learned from both crises is that putting more and more money into the hands of fewer and fewer people...is a baaaaad way to run an economy. It's bad because you give plutocrats more economic power, and by virtue of that, more political power as well. The rest of the economy depends more and more on their decisions on how to spend their money. Actually, I'd argue it's our money, but in any event, when wealth is concentrated, when policies encourage the concentration of wealth, government tends to move away from sound macroeconomic policy and instead tends to be more concerned with addressing the rich man's problem: how do people who already have money use that money to make even more than they already have? Since more of the population has less money, the population as a whole tends to borrow more to live the middle class lifestyle, which means lower interest rates. If interest rates are lower, the rich man's problem is that he can't make money on lending the way he used to. So he needs to get a little creative. He needs to balance the political optics of giving the bourgeoisie access to capital while getting creative, and thus, taking on more risk to make money from the money he already has. That's a recipe for a financial disaster.

And here's the fun part. Wealth inequality is probably as bad as it has been since around 1913. So we know what's coming next: the mother of all financial meltdowns that even the FDIC and Congress won't be able to save us from. It's not a matter of if, but when.
What school of economics holds that income inequality causes downturns? Seems like ideological fluff.
  #109  
Old 12-23-2018, 08:09 AM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor's Avatar
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 30,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Yeah, I saw that article this morning.

Dammit, it's like Trump WANTS the markets to tank incredibly. If not, he's pursuing a strange, long game.
Maybe Putin does.
I'm not kidding.
  #110  
Old 12-26-2018, 08:47 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,540
Fed raises rates despite Trump opposition

Quote:
Officials at the US central bank voted to lift the Fed's key interest rate by 0.25%, to a target range of 2.25%-2.5%.

But they also said future increases could come at a slower pace amid concerns about global growth.
Maybe the yielding will start in 2019.
  #111  
Old 01-04-2019, 02:21 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,256
How prescient.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-cha...ar-11546616769

CarnalK can I subscribe to your newsletter?
  #112  
Old 01-04-2019, 02:35 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,406


"Fed Chair says what every Fed Chair says, now here's Bob with sports."
  #113  
Old 01-04-2019, 02:43 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post


"Fed Chair says what every Fed Chair says, now here's Bob with sports."
So perhaps he will do what every chair does, I.e. prop up the market in a Greenspan Put. Exactly what his boss wants. Imagine that.
  #114  
Old 01-04-2019, 04:02 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
So perhaps he will do what every chair does, I.e. prop up the market in a Greenspan Put. Exactly what his boss wants. Imagine that.
So they're going to yield to Trump by doing exactly what they always do?
  #115  
Old 01-04-2019, 04:27 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
So they're going to yield to Trump by doing exactly what they always do?
It seems like you're unacquainted with the praxis known as "owning the libs".
  #116  
Old 01-04-2019, 04:36 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 21,222
Federal Reserve Chair: If Individual-1 asks me to quit, I'll go 'lulz, backatcha'.

Not a direct quote, but close enough.

Last edited by JohnT; 01-04-2019 at 04:36 PM.
  #117  
Old 01-05-2019, 01:24 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
So they're going to yield to Trump by doing exactly what they always do?
Powell was supposed to be the hawk. The course was set. We may never know if he changed course due to Trump or the Put.
  #118  
Old 01-05-2019, 02:32 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Powell was supposed to be the hawk. The course was set. We may never know if he changed course due to Trump or the Put.
If you have evidence the Fed is bending to Trump's will, present it.

"We may never know" isn't convincing.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #119  
Old 01-05-2019, 04:50 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,369
100% certain prediction: whenever the Fed stops raising rates in this cycle, assuming Trump is still president, some people are going to say 'the Fed yielded to Trump', no matter what the actual reasons.

But probably not important people, in terms of influence on the market.
  #120  
Old 01-06-2019, 12:54 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
100% certain prediction: whenever the Fed stops raising rates in this cycle, assuming Trump is still president, some people are going to say 'the Fed yielded to Trump', no matter what the actual reasons.

But probably not important people, in terms of influence on the market.
Of course nobody will come out and say Trump is responsible for the Fed changing course. That would give up the whole game.
  #121  
Old 01-06-2019, 01:00 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 21,222
Lol, so this "yielding" is known only by you and select top insiders. Gotcha.
  #122  
Old 01-06-2019, 08:14 AM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Of course nobody will come out and say Trump is responsible for the Fed changing course. That would give up the whole game.
There's been no yielding to Trump by the Fed. Everything they've done for years was driven by data and their views on the economy, in light of their dual mandate on employment and inflation. If they've yielded to Trump, they have a strange way of doing it, by saying they will raise rates when he doesn't want them to. Everything they've done has been the opposite of what he's wanted.

As for whether or not they should raise rates, there are arguments in both directions. Personally, I didn't have a problem with the Fed raising rates over the last few years, starting during the Obama era. And I don't have a problem with them slowing down their hawkishness, as there is a danger of them tipping us back into recession. But I don't see them bending just because Trump wants them to.
  #123  
Old 01-06-2019, 10:25 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,073
You see, it's a brilliant plan by Trump.

1. Accuse Powell of raising rates too fast.
2. Powell refuses. Trump raises fist at him.
3. Trade war. Markets get shaky.
4. Threaten to fire Powell. Markets collapse.
5. Powell bends on rates because economy now shaky - caused by Trump.

Brilliant!
  #124  
Old 01-06-2019, 02:14 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Of course nobody will come out and say Trump is responsible for the Fed changing course. That would give up the whole game.
OK, this officially just became a conspiracy theory.
  #125  
Old 01-06-2019, 03:25 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
There are folks who would claim that Trump has won if I brush my teeth before going to bed, even if I always have.

Itís like almost the opposite of what Trump does, in that if they worked for government before Trump was inaugurated. Like, Mattis? Obama guy. Mike Flynn? Obama guy. Some dude who has been punching his time card for 20 years in the Bureau of Inanity? Obama guy. Adlai Stevenson? Obama guy. Alexander Hamilton? Obama guy from Purrrrrto Rico.
  #126  
Old 01-06-2019, 06:57 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
There's been no yielding to Trump by the Fed. Everything they've done for years was driven by data and their views on the economy, in light of their dual mandate on employment and inflation. If they've yielded to Trump, they have a strange way of doing it, by saying they will raise rates when he doesn't want them to. Everything they've done has been the opposite of what he's wanted.

As for whether or not they should raise rates, there are arguments in both directions. Personally, I didn't have a problem with the Fed raising rates over the last few years, starting during the Obama era. And I don't have a problem with them slowing down their hawkishness, as there is a danger of them tipping us back into recession. But I don't see them bending just because Trump wants them to.
No offense, but any analysis of the Fed without mentioning the Put is naive. Yelled capitulated to the markets. It had nothing to do with ďdataĒ short of what the day to day returns were saying at the time.
  #127  
Old 01-06-2019, 06:59 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
OK, this officially just became a conspiracy theory.
The Put is not a conspiracy theory. All market watchers are aware of this Fed policy.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 01-06-2019 at 06:59 PM.
  #128  
Old 01-06-2019, 07:02 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
There are folks who would claim that Trump has won if I brush my teeth before going to bed, even if I always have.

Itís like almost the opposite of what Trump does, in that if they worked for government before Trump was inaugurated. Like, Mattis? Obama guy. Mike Flynn? Obama guy. Some dude who has been punching his time card for 20 years in the Bureau of Inanity? Obama guy. Adlai Stevenson? Obama guy. Alexander Hamilton? Obama guy from Purrrrrto Rico.
Who is saying Trump won? I explicitly stated that the next downturn will be blamed on his tariffs. Not winning. Losing bigly.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017