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

691–700 of 871 posts

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#691

Post by bluGill »

exe34 wrote: post #674
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…

being against abortion is equivalent to condemning women to death when their pregnancy is going wrong. you see how moral absolutes (don't) work?

That was the point. democrats often point out those rare cases where the womens life is in danger and then use that as the absolute we must allow all abotions. Nobody will argue for the compromise and so you lose a lot who won't acpept the absolute.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#692

Post by jscottmiller »

jacquesm wrote: post #304

Shots fired. Even the republicans will not be able to ignore this and they know that if Powell caves in the American economy will likely collapse. So who will speak up in his defense?

I don’t believe this will cause the collapse in the economy (short to mid term) that you are expecting, where I am defining “this” as a federal funds rate that is politically driven and lower than what Chair Powell would have otherwise set. On the contrary, I think it will largely benefit the kinds of affluent asset holders that comprise the top say 5% of the country, which probably accounts for most members of congress and the senate. I think those people will look around them and think this is ugly but otherwise fine. The inflation that follows will be painful to the rest of the country and, with any luck, an opposition party will be able to create a political narrative out of some solution to that pain.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#693

Post by hvb2 »

malshe wrote: post #670
Aurornis wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * As (ostensibly) a representative Democracy America's fate is dictated by the majority of it's citizens. No, it's determined by the people who actually go out and vote. Bizarrely, voter turnout among younger people remains low. It's beyond frustrating to work with large groups of young people who are seemingly always talking politics and angry about something political, then to watch as half of them either forget…

I remember watching a clip from Jimmy Kimmel on YouTube where they asked people on the street in LA whether they planned to vote in the 2024 presidential election. The twist was that they were doing this one day AFTER the election. It was so disappointing to see that many young people had no idea that the election was over and yet they said they planned to vote. One guy even asked who was running.

I would envy the person who can live in the US and be unaware a presidential election was yesterday...

Like, they start running ads 18 months ahead of it... How do you miss all of those ads

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#694

Post by mrheosuper »

Aurornis wrote: post #435
mapontosevenths wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder where you guys are headed. You need to know only two facts about America to guess that: * Fifty three percent of Americans now read below the sixth grade level. * As (ostensibly) a representative Democracy America's fate is dictated by the majority of it's citizens. Our future is to become a broken nation governed by middle-school student level thinking. The only way to build a better America is to build a…

> * As (ostensibly) a representative Democracy America's fate is dictated by the majority of it's citizens. No, it's determined by the people who actually go out and vote. Bizarrely, voter turnout among younger people remains low. It's beyond frustrating to work with large groups of young people who are seemingly always talking politics and angry about something political, then to watch as half of them either forget…

And those young people are manipulated by the older part of population.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#695

Post by dfxm12 »

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…

Have you really never voted for a candidate who went on to do things you didn't agree with?

I'm having a hard time thinking of things this admin and their party has done but hasn't directly campaigned on, directly praised someone else doing, etc. On the flip side of that, which empty promise, if fulfilled, would be worth the situation we're otherwise in?

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#696

Post by nxobject »

derangedHorse wrote: post #682
Loughla wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Well, Bessent. Somehow I don’t see Trump reasoning like that.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#697

Post by marcusverus »

Avshalom wrote: post #662
0ckpuppet wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing some history that pushed former Democratic vorers to vote Trump. Taxpayer funding of NGOs that were writing grants to organizations that were effectively censoring onlinespeech. This and the Disinformation Board, and the direct phone calls from US senators and Congressmen to takedown opposition ideas n social media was a direct attack on the First Amendment by the Democrats. Yes Trump's FCC threats ove…

>>Yes Trump's FCC threats over Jimmy Kimmel were also wrong, but he didn't have a government agency doing it to citizens. so in this sentence do you think the FCC isn't a government agency or that Jimmy Kimmel isn't a citizen?

He's clearly alluding the fact that the Biden admin did far worse.

The great sin of Trump's FCC was a single ill-advised tweet by FCC chair Brendan Carr... in which he threatened to enforce the law as written. For comparison, the Biden admin's FBI actively engaged in purely political media manipulation in service of the sitting president's campaign, such as when they lied to Facebook (and presumably others) to "prebunk" the Hunter's Laptop story, which directly lead to a near-total ban of a factual news story.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#699

Post by dionian »

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…

impeached and acquitted at trial

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#700

Post by kccoder »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #641
rjbwork wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>tried to put him in jail They really didn't. It was a dog and pony show under the belief that he would not make his way back into power. The dems/reps did not want to set a precedent of holding a president to account for doing terribly illegal things. They didn't intend to actually do anything to prevent this. And so here we are.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. I wonder if the Democrats didn't delay prosecution until late 2023/early 2024 in order to have it be a headwind against Trump running again. If so, they have been well-paid for that bit of "strategy". Trump was able to delay the cases long enough that the election came first, and now he has immunity at least while in office.

> I wonder if the Democrats didn't delay prosecution until late 2023/early 2024 in order to have it be a headwind against Trump running again.

I think they didn't realize the moment the country was in. They put a judge in charge of the justice department when we needed a bull-dog prosecutor. It was a bad choice.

Post reply on HN