Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement from Jerome Powell

federalreserve.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 871 posts

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#231

Post by zamadatix »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #194
zamadatix wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I suppose people can see words in very different ways. If you're mother asked why the printer never works for her would you tell her she's uneducated and unsophisticated for not knowing before sending a link to the manual? It sounds like perhaps you would, but I wonder how many would really agree that's a neutrally worded approach. Not for me to decide alone any more than anyone else alone I suppose. Thanks for…

Yes, and she would understand why, but that is certainly different than a throwaway account making antagonistic, inflammatory political statements without citations and ignoring facts, no? Context, intent, and nuance, like facts, matter (imho).

It seems likely she would, and we are often similar to our kin I guess, but I still wonder if that's what the average person would consider neutral. I have no good way to answer that absolutely more than the next person though.

I tend to think that's because it doesn't matter who it is, it's always most productive to reply in a way which focuses on substance alone when one can't otherwise be positive. Particularly in pure text, it's so easy for things to come off worse than intended (something which has hit me quite well in the past as much as any). I've always assumed that's why the comment guidelines are so universally worded, mentioning what throwaways should be used for but with no mention of how they should be exempted from the usual approach. I.e. it's very easy for two people to feel like they are being neutral in text as the conversation escalates.

I've got to hop off for to get ready for work tomorrow. Thanks again for both taking the time to share your perspective as well as taking the time to respond to mal-intended throwaways with solid facts - it matters (thumbs up).

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#232

Post by collinfunk »

gruez wrote: post #156
collinfunk wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if one grants that it is a small minority, aren't they still voting for someone who advocates for jailing and killing political opponents?

>Even if one grants that it is a small minority It is. What's more, such support is roughly the same across both parties, but both parties vastly overestimate the other side's support. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116851119 https://x.com/JustinGrimmer/status/1966997411060215960

I don't think this addresses the main point of my question, though. Do you know any prominent Democrats, e.g., representatives, senators, or presidents, who have called for a Republican to be killed?

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#234

Post by pixelatedindex »

mrstackdump wrote: post #185
colejhudson wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the Fed do exactly that though? And without political influence? What would a different pro-labor system look like that could deal with national monetary crises?

I would argue that the Fed manipulating our financial system causes monetary crisis. The Fed is under the influence of capital which doesn't have the benefit of being even nominally checked by democracy. Were we (speaking as an American) to invest in our country and people we would have a healthier society and the means to deal with actual crisis.

> I would argue that the Fed manipulating our financial system causes monetary crisis.

Well, get ready because you aint seen nothin yet if you thought the Fed was manipulating our financial system. Do you honestly think a partisan system would be better?

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#236

Post by jgalt212 »

Trump is, of course, wrong. But the independence of the Fed being at stake is a myth. Since the bursting of the dot com bubble, the Fed has operated as if the well being of the investor class is their number one priority.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#237

Post by m0llusk »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #149
pluralmonad wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy shit. If you believe even a small minority actually want that, please unplug and talk to real people in meat space.

I know many. They’re good people. But they’re willing to be indifferent to violence if the perpetrators are not on their team. Everyone does this to some degree, but their tendency to align on messaging is much higher than e.g. folks going at each other about their pet war.

They put a great deal of effort into talking about political violence and implying that Democrats are a source of rioting and terrorism. The indifference is only to their own violence.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#239

Post by toomuchtodo »

zamadatix wrote: post #231
toomuchtodo wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and she would understand why, but that is certainly different than a throwaway account making antagonistic, inflammatory political statements without citations and ignoring facts, no? Context, intent, and nuance, like facts, matter (imho).

It seems likely she would, and we are often similar to our kin I guess, but I still wonder if that's what the average person would consider neutral. I have no good way to answer that absolutely more than the next person though. I tend to think that's because it doesn't matter who it is, it's always most productive to reply in a way which focuses on substance alone when one can't otherwise be positive. Particularly in…

Thanks for telling me to do better. It matters too, and does not fall on deaf ears.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#240

Post by seanmcdirmid »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #218
derangedHorse wrote: post #144

I dislike the existence of the Fed, but I dislike the idea of the executive branch being in control of monetary policy even more. I'll be tuning in to see how the case progresses.

Do you have an alternative to the Fed? Likes and dislikes has nothing to do with it. Or let me ask you another way — why do you dislike the Fed?

You can dislike a solution but admit that you can't think of a better solution, or specify that it is better than an even worse solution.

I can see why someone would have a issues with "a bunch of rich bankers appointed by politicians" controlling American monetary policy. But I can't really see a better way at least, until we can achieve a post-scarcity economy or something.

Post reply on HN