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

681–690 of 871 posts

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#681

Post by nathan_compton »

croon wrote: post #542
rhubarbtree wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is disingenuous and a way to rationalise your feelings by blaming trump voters. Firstly, it’s a two party state and choice is limited. People vote for the least worst option, or for a candidate that shares at least some of their values. Second, many people did not vote. Third, approval ratings show that many trump voters do not approve of his actions. Fourth, where did “annex Greenland, abduct Maduro, remove ind…

These are all before the 2024 election: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-could-try-buy-greenlan... https://www.wired.com/story/trump-cia-venezuela-maduro-regim... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-trumps-wish-for-more-f... https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/publications/end-f... Trump voters are either willfully ignorant or gleefully supportive. Maybe not the first time, but definitely the second and…

Propagandized to by targeted media.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#682

Post by derangedHorse »

Loughla wrote: post #19
spamizbad wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Is it just a cynical view that enough voters can be convinced it's the other side at fault? Someone who supports trump, please let me know the logic on this. Genuinely. I'm trying to read other places about these charges but they're just so slanted that they're not really trustworthy. Is there anything to this, or is it really just to pressure the federal reserve?

I don't support Trump but I see the reasoning him and Bessent have. They want to lower the interest rate so that they can also drop the rate at which they issue debt/treasuries. They seem to think they are too financially constrained but will bankrupt themselves even faster if they hold big treasury auctions at today's rates.

It'll also lead to the general public feeling inflationary impacts. I think the government would cut relief checks to mitigate this and stir public sentiment their way, but it probably wouldn't be enough to maintain current standards of living.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#683

Post by antonvs »

socksy wrote: post #538
danaris wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not American, then you may not understand the way the American voting system works. We only have two parties. (Technically, there are some third parties, but they're effectively worse than negligible—voting for them is guaranteed to either do nothing or harm the cause you're interested in, unless the candidate is already a member of a major party and merely cross-endorsed.) This means that if you care about…

> If you're not American, then you may not understand the way the American voting system works. This is incredibly unlikely, given how pervasive American politics is, and how much the results of the American elections affects the rest of the world. Additionally, having a two party system is unfortunately pretty common.

I've seen plenty of comments from people outside the US that clearly don't understand how the US system works. For that matter, that's not limited to people outside the US.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#684

Post by eudamoniac »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #672
eudamoniac wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm convinced that abortion is the worst thing the Democratic party could have ever taken up. You simply cannot sway a vote of a person who believes you support murdering babies. (I am pro abortion, but a substantial amount of people think it is morally murder.) Those people have to vote R their whole life no matter what. Nothing is worse than murdering babies. Democrats would probably never lose again if they public…

Abortion is an emblematic example of how this kind of triangulation doesn't do what you're expecting. The Democratic party didn't take abortion up on the federal stage, repeatedly declining to create any new statutory protections and endorsing things like the Hyde amendment that acknowledge it's a contested issue. I think that was probably the right decision even in retrospect, but it didn't earn them even a modicum…

I mean, everyone knows that D widely supports abortion. It's been shouted from the rooftops for decades. It wouldn't be very believable in one cycle even if they tried, which they didn't; neglecting to bring up the topic is not close to publicly dropping support. Part of why it's so bad for them is because it will be very difficult to get disentangled from it.

From a pro-life perspective, "well they didn't make it easier to murder babies or bring it up much" is not compelling.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#685

Post by jb3689 »

neom wrote: post #54

So I'm sitting here as a Canadian wondering what the American people are going to do? I understand a lot of what the President of The United States says - I even agree with some of it, the problem is I don't feel like we're engaging with the American people anymore. I really wonder where you guys are headed and what it means for the rest of us, I spent 15 years in the states, built a public company there, I really li…

The problem is that a lot of what is happening is within the executive branch's power and/or democratic. A nontrivial number of Americans support everything that has been happening. The expectation at a time like this would be that you have checks and balances working, but all other branches have yielded their power. I find that jaw dropping personally, but it's where we are. Midterms are happening soon and are the right place to disrupt congress.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#686

Post by [deleted] »

skissane wrote: post #673
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ex post facto can be ignored, and a new law of the land passed voiding pardons during 47s term. Because repealing pardons isn't weaponizing the person pardoned's behavior after the fact, it's against Presidential authority, so isn't ex post facto when it comes to the person who's behavior was legally determined to be criminal. Voiding a commutation for cause would be tougher and potential ex post facto, but not a par…

What are the odds the current Supreme Court majority are going to uphold voiding Trump's pardons? Pretty to close to zero. The only way you could do this would be if you changed the SCOTUS composition through court packing or impeachment or constitutional amendment. If you wait for the conservative justices to retire and be replaced through death/resignation – by the time that happens, the issue of voiding pardons wi…

[deleted]

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#687

Post by sethev »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #668
kasey_junk wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was impeached years ago…

> He was impeached years ago… "was impeached" means different things in context. Sometimes it means "articles of impeachment were brought against an official". (1) i.e. that the process starts. Sometimes it means a later stage in the process, such as those article not being voted down, and a trial proceeding. In the strictest sense, it means that the process completes - "the official is found guilty, removed from off…

If you're going to be nitpicky about definitions it helps to be correct. In this case, the person you're replying to is absolutely correct.

The government site you linked says the same thing:

> If the House adopts the articles by a simple majority vote, the official has been impeached.

Trump has been impeached twice. I think the confusion comes in when people misuse these terms, often when they want to say things like "Trump was never impeached!". He definitely was by the only definition that actually matters, which is that the House passed articles of impeachment. He was not found guilty.

Call me old fashioned, but I think these confusions are intentional and should be met with correcting the definitions - not making up new meanings of words - especially in this case where it's formally defined in the law.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#688

Post by noncoml »

Aurornis wrote: post #429
JeremyNT wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is ample ability to change events, but people must believe they can act and act together, as they have for centuries of democracy and for all human history. This is the political will of a plurality of American voters. They certainly can't claim they didn't know what they would get, and they seem unconcerned by any of these actions that many of us find terrifying. It is difficult to see how we can democracy o…

> This is the political will of a plurality of American voters. This fallacy gets repeated over and over, but it's obviously false. Have you really never voted for a candidate who went on to do things you didn't agree with? It's a quintessential fact of politics that voting for a candidate is not equivalent to an endorsement of everything that candidate does in the future. It's a premise that is obviously false when…

Isn’t their approval rating 40% or something?

As much as I hate what’s happening, that’s how democracy works. Sometimes the majority chooses to burn the house down and all you can do is sit and watch

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#689

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

sethev wrote: post #687
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He was impeached years ago… "was impeached" means different things in context. Sometimes it means "articles of impeachment were brought against an official". (1) i.e. that the process starts. Sometimes it means a later stage in the process, such as those article not being voted down, and a trial proceeding. In the strictest sense, it means that the process completes - "the official is found guilty, removed from off…

If you're going to be nitpicky about definitions it helps to be correct. In this case, the person you're replying to is absolutely correct. The government site you linked says the same thing: > If the House adopts the articles by a simple majority vote, the official has been impeached. Trump has been impeached twice. I think the confusion comes in when people misuse these terms, often when they want to say things lik…

OK, though I refer you to the sibling comment about the use of "and" in sentences.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#690

Post by AuthAuth »

ryandrake wrote: post #643
twixfel wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a real choice in 2016, 2020 and 2024. Trumps opponent was every single time very different to him.

Democrats continue to offer up horrible candidates, and their idiotic primary system confirms those horrible candidates every 4 years. A slice of cheese could have beaten Trump, but somehow the DNC managed to offer up the most boring, milquetoast, unlikable, uncharismatic, centrist candidates they could find and beat him once out of three times. They're just kicking own-goals over and over, and they're not learning w…

Biden was not centrist he was left. He was a good president I do not understand why Americans complain as if the choice between the two was so hard.
Post reply on HN