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

741–750 of 871 posts

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#741

Post by nkohari »

anonymars wrote: post #721
aisengard wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, some people can win. Other people will simply die of massive blood loss. As long as it's not you, right?

If Roe v. Wade is gone now, what point are you trying to make?

Roe v. Wade isn't gone because of the will of the people. Nobody voted to overturn it. It's gone because of a unique scenario involving the balance of power in the SCOTUS.

Congressional Republicans simply refused to confirm a legally appointed justice, allowing a conservative justice to be appointed in their place after the next POTUS was elected. Then, another liberal justice passed away creating another vacancy which was again filled by a conservative. If either or both of those things hadn't happened, Roe v. Wade would not have been overturned.

And sure, you can say it was the will of the people that a conservative was in office at the time, and appointed the justices, but that's not the same as voting for or against federal abortion rights.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#742

Post by sethev »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #689
sethev wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was just nitpicking the nitpicking, especially the implication that using a word correctly is confusing the issue. The sentiment in the original sentence is straightforward to understand, even if the sentence is a bit ambiguous.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#743

Post by aisengard »

eudamoniac wrote: post #654
jordanpg wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stated differently, if things really are so bad (and I would be the first to agree that things are pretty bad), then why are so many comfortable people (like me) not out on the street every day? There are a lot of reasons for that, of course, but the bottom line is that when things get bad enough -- much worse than they are today -- then more people will take to the street, along with whatever sacrifice that entails.…

A protest is meaningless without the implicit threat of violent revolution behind it. Trump et al can just ignore your protests, unless he thinks you might break in and start killing. Today's protests have no teeth. Nobody is uncomfortable enough to risk prison or death. Seriously, if you turn off the TV and the Internet, what is wrong with your life? Is ousting Trump going to fix that? Is it worth dying for? Nope.

I feel like you shouldn't get to criticize protests for not being violent enough if you're not already performing sufficiently-violent protests. "Firebombing a Walmart" meme really is evergreen.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#744

Post by warkdarrior »

morgan814 wrote: post #733
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…

> Bizarrely, voter turnout among younger people remains low I understand why my age group has low turnout. It's a disgusting chore that I force myself to do. In part, it might be a chicken and egg situation. My age cohort doesn't vote because candidates suck. Candidates suck because they pander to those who do vote. Now to show my political biases: In 2016 Sanders had a huge amount of support from young people but th…

> Young people put in effort showed up. It bought them exactly one legally rigged primary.

It is certainly wise to give up after one failed effort. Never try again. /s

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#745

Post by RobLach »

cal_dent wrote: post #203

The US drift into Adam Curtis' broad thesis in hypernormalisation(a) continues apace I see. Great to see J Pow putting up a fight but I fear this is all going one way. (a) >We live in a world where the powerful deceive us. We know they lie. They know we know they lie. They don't care. We say we care but do nothing.

People do nothing because they believe others are doing nothing and it's a suppressive feedback loop that's exploited. Repeating that people know and do nothing reinforces it and falls into the broad category of criticism for the the sake of social flagging and not towards actual growth.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#746

Post by paulryanrogers »

beej71 wrote: post #634
derangedHorse wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The eradication of the Fed and fiat money. As others have expressed, I also think the interest rate mechanism is clumsy and that bailouts do more harm in the long term than good (see one of the most recent examples [1]). [1] https://www.wsj.com/finance/banking/the-fed-launched-a-bank-...

What are some of the problems with eradication of fiat currency?

Gold is heavy and difficult to verify it's purity and authenticity

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#747

Post by atmavatar »

mrtksn wrote: post #503
sapphicsnail wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are out there protesting right now even though ICE and the police have a history of shooting unarmed protestors. Leftists protestors are and always have been more harshly treated by this government than the other side.

> People are out there protesting right now even though ICE and the police have a history of shooting unarmed protestors I never understand what's the point of those protests. They should be taking over power by force or GTFO. Notice that successful revolutions storm the HQ, destroy some building of iconic significance or kill/capture the leader, not just enduring the atrocities of the foot-soldiers of the people who…

> I never understand what's the point of those protests.

For one, it's about showing politicians just how unpopular these policies are. If you can convince a large enough swath of Republican congressmen their seats aren't so secure, they may start to break with the administration.

On the more extreme end: I doubt many of the protesters are familiar with it, but there is a 3.5% rule[1] in political science that states when nonviolent protestors grow to about 3.5% of the population, authoritarian regimes become likely to fall from power.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.5%25_rule

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#748

Post by NickC25 »

ryandrake wrote: post #635
tharmas wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All true but what about his proposal to increase defense spending by a Whopping $500 Billion? Are his supporters 'down' with that?

His supporters are down with whatever he says needs to be done. It's about him--there's no ideological consistency at all. As long as he's for it today, his supporters are for it today. If he's against it tomorrow, they will immediately fall in line and be against it tomorrow.

This is why he's a Republican. He said it in his book (who knows if he actually wrote it) that if he ever ran, he'd run as a Republican because they don't think, they just fall in line.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#749

Post by throwaway902984 »

AuthAuth wrote: post #690
ryandrake wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

His policies were tempered, image-wise and often in substance, by his affinity for Joe Manchin alongside his disdain for Bernie Sanders. Balanced alongside the middle eastern foreign policy, he comes across as centrist despite the BBB.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#750

Post by UncleMeat »

eudamoniac wrote: post #665
pjc50 wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Throwing an awful lot of maternal lives away for that one. Similar story for lots of other unpopular issues, like the Civil Rights act.

Well you can be right, or you can win. This thread is a consequence of being right.

So, we've seen large disproportionate electoral success from pro-life democrats? Referenda protecting abortion rights in red states were totally crushed?

Wait no. That's not what has happened.

Further, democratic voters are democrats because they support the policies that the democratic policy supports. Democrats suddenly being down with a federal ban on abortion isn't going to exactly get pro choice dems (the huge majority of their voting population) to run to the polls.

Dems tried the "actually we are right wing too" approach on immigration. Do people who hate illegal immigrants vote dem now? No.

Post reply on HN