What an unhinged moment in time. At some point, they'll need to be courageous people with the ability and funds to speak up and say enough. But will they? It does not appear so.
Statement from Jerome Powell
281–290 of 871 posts
Re: Statement from Jerome Powell
#282This is... just crazy. One of those mostly boring bits of plumbing that has been left to professionals throughout the entire 50 years of my life - and they're trying to wreck it.
It's also for very stupid reasons: The fed dropping rates to the degree that would satisfy Donald Trump would greatly accelerate inflation which in turn would further upset voters, who would in turn blame Donald Trump (just like they did Biden before).
There's no inflation if they don't publish the data.
Re: Statement from Jerome Powell
#283Re: Statement from Jerome Powell
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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
FOX News is workshopping/normalizing the murder of undesirables. Is FOX speaking to/for a small minority? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phYOrM3SNV8
[flagged]
Re: Statement from Jerome Powell
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know anything about how data science works? The algorithm is to be tuned over historical data to optimize for an unchanging reward function. The problem isn't that complicated if you think about it.
I do know how data science works. > The algorithm is to be tuned over historical data So you’re saying that historical data can’t have biases? Data cannot be collected and shared (or not collected a la jobs report) to manipulate the output? Seems a bit of a naïve take if you ask me.
If data is not collected, it is missing. A decent algorithm will be robust to missing data.
How on earth do you think the Fed sets the rate? Each board member probably has a simple spreadsheet, although they use their gut feeling in the end. It's markedly less objective and completely un-transparent.
People here are funny in that when I preach for transparency and objectivity, they preach for obscurity and individual board member bias. Their skepticism of data science shows how uneducated they are about defining and optimizing an objective function.
Re: Statement from Jerome Powell
#286Threats like the ones Powell's receiving would be the end of any other presidency. Why tech elites continue to align themselves with this clownshow will be a source of incredible shame that I'll hold onto forever.
As I've written in another post, everyone is doomed to either align or face his rage.
So, better face his rage then. If those are the options the choice is clear and easy.
Re: Statement from Jerome Powell
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should read up on some market history, if you’re making ridiculous claims like this. > The interest rate can be set via an algorithm. Who writes this algorithm? Are algorithms without biases?
Do you know anything about how data science works? The algorithm is to be tuned over historical data to optimize for an unchanging reward function. The problem isn't that complicated if you think about it.
> The algorithm is to be tuned over historical data
Because as we all know, when it comes to financial markets, past performance guarantees future results. Oh wait . . .
Re: Statement from Jerome Powell
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The libertarian view is that interest rates should be decided by the free market and not a central bank. Mainly due to what we're seeing now (the executive trying to take it over) and that a small board of people can make bad decisions that have reaching effects.
This is actually quite correct. The Fed Funds policy interest rate is a clumsy instrument because it involves chasing the ever-shifting balancing point of an inherently unstable system. You "cut" rates to increase money creation, which actually pushes your long-term rates higher due to expected inflation and leads to even more money creation for a constant policy rate, and vice versa. This can all be fixed very simply by changing the instrument to a crawling exchange rate peg, which has an inherently stabilizing effect, as seen from the effectiveness of currency board systems - that system doesn't shift against you if you stick to a bad peg, whereas it very much does if you stick to a bad policy rate.
The long term policy goal (stability in the path of nominal incomes (prices + real activity) in the very short run, and prices in the medium-to-long run) would be unaffected, but the whole operational aspect would be simplified quite a bit.
Re: Statement from Jerome Powell
#289I’m a little shocked to see the quality of some comments here - I would expect a more grounded discussion. This is like Reddit / YouTube comment history. Someone please tell me this is a Wendy’s. Sure the Fed isn’t perfect. But we don’t really have a better solution as of now because our financial systems are extremely powerful and anyone in office would love to abuse it if they can. Sure, the renovations are ridicul…
Why are the renovations ridiculous?
Re: Statement from Jerome Powell
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know anything about how data science works? The algorithm is to be tuned over historical data to optimize for an unchanging reward function. The problem isn't that complicated if you think about it.
> The algorithm is to be tuned over historical data Because as we all know, when it comes to financial markets, past performance guarantees future results. Oh wait . . .
That's just something they say to scare the children.
In any event, the point of a decent algorithm is that if the result isn't complying with the action, upcoming updates to the weights will fix it. Moreover, changes to the weight would be such that they optimize for maximum learning.
It is so weird seeing people preach for an obscure entity to do something so basic, and being shut down when asking for transparency. Today's AIs could write good model-development algorithms for tasks that are a hundred times more complicated.