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

791–800 of 871 posts

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#791

Post by LexiMax »

jasondigitized wrote: post #650
12_throw_away wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even the republicans will not be able to ignore this Oh boy would I love to join you in whatever alternate dimension you live in.

Money rules everything and if there is one thing the donor class will not lose is their money. They are willing to turn a blind eye to the ripping up of the Constitution but as soon as you rip up the money, phone calls will be made, meetings will be had, and Vanguard and JP Morgan and Walmart will get what they want.

And what is stopping the donor class from simply jumping ship, or at least moving portions of their assets into forms that are shielded from what is going on?

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#792

Post by dfxm12 »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #775
dfxm12 wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

well they had quite a few contradictions. They campaigned on "No new wars" and meanwhile the US hit Venezuela and might be trying to do the same on Greenland and Mexico. Campaigned on jobs but manufacturing has been plummeting all year. Campaigned on cheaper groceries but things are more expensive. It's a big maybe, but maybe if Trump actually managed to end the Ukraine War and push out Russia the chaos would have be…

Trump campaigned on "No new wars", but given Trump's history in his first term, his party's history in general, you'd have to have be a rube to believe this. Also why does this earn Trump a vote when his opposition was also running on the status quo in this regard, especially the considering the historical US uniparty approach to foreign affairs?

But, go ahead, set that aside. You think that is a worthwhile tradeoff for Trump sending federal agents to gun down his political enemies (US citizens who hurt their feelings)?

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#793

Post by arrowleaf »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #579
datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s also important to talk about what it means to “read at a 6th grade level” when this is mentioned, because a lot of people (myself included) might assume that just means they could finish and understand a book intended for 6th graders. But there’s actually meaningful criteria that sheds some light on the critical thinking capabilities of people who can or can’t read at certain levels, especially as it per…

This isn't accidental. Religious indoctrination literally teaches generations to make special loopholes in critical thinking and healthy skepticism to maintain their faith. And it has paid off in easy to manipulate masses for centuries.

The more religious people I know are some of the best critical thinkers. Especially those types who enroll their kids in the 'classical' education model. With the decline of religion in the USA, I don't think this is a very coherent scapegoat.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#794

Post by pstuart »

atmavatar wrote: post #737
spencerflem wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s reasonable not to vote for a candidate that supports genocide. Maybe that’s not a line for you but surely you have a line that cannot be crossed somewhere

Neither candidate was ever going to push back against Israel's genocide of Palestinians. While it was very disappointing the Democrats weren't exerting significant pressure against Israel, and Kamala gave no indication she'd act any different, it was delusional to believe Trump was going to be any different. He was very clear that he supported Israel as well, and he went as far as to claim he'd support Netanyahu even…

AIPAC has a terrifyingly strong grip on American politics.

The only way to address this and other similar problems is through campaign finance reform, which the incumbents will never allow. It doesn't mean we shouldn't stop pushing the issue though.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#795

Post by eudamoniac »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #773
eudamoniac wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm imagining a candidate saying something like, "I want to help America with x y z [blue team related] issues. I want to bridge the aisle with Republicans and voters. To that end, I vow to not support any measures for the expansion of abortion. I believe that right now it's more important to help Americans in other ways. This is a contentious issue, but if we can set it aside for the moment, I believe D and R can co…

Again, Democratic politicians routinely made such statements in the era before Roe was overturned. The longstanding Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds from being used in any way to expand, promote, or perform abortions. There was just no way to get around the fundamental problem that, to a critical mass of Republican voters, "I'd like to maintain the status quo so we can focus on other issues" was an unacceptable…

Please link to one such statement.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#796

Post by exe34 »

bluGill wrote: post #788
exe34 wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah, the people of "my God says it's murder, therefore you can't do it" are well known for subtlety and complexity of thought.

It isn't just God says so. There are moral arguements against murder other than God.

it's not murder. it's a ball of cells. they only call it murder because their god allegedly grants a soul upon masturbation or something.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#797

Post by pstuart »

immibis wrote: post #759
paulryanrogers wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think would be "much"? Because even just the boring sanity of Biden Harris was leagues better than what we all saw coming in 2024. (Putting aside that whole constitutional amendment about insurrections.)

Maybe they could promise to make the rent lower. Or to make abortion legal. Or to stop bombing 2 million brown children in the Middle East. Or literally anything people actually want, instead of running on the singular platform or "obviously they'll vote for us because we're not the Republicans". People are getting really tired of the latter. Notice every time a candidate comes out who actually promises things people…

They actually have offered policies along this line but their messaging is weak at best.

It also competes with an opponent (the GOP) that is more than willing to outright lie to sway voters. This isn't to say that the DNC is beyond reproach but we're way past "both sides" at this point.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#798

Post by johnnyanmac »

dfxm12 wrote: post #792
johnnyanmac wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well they had quite a few contradictions. They campaigned on "No new wars" and meanwhile the US hit Venezuela and might be trying to do the same on Greenland and Mexico. Campaigned on jobs but manufacturing has been plummeting all year. Campaigned on cheaper groceries but things are more expensive. It's a big maybe, but maybe if Trump actually managed to end the Ukraine War and push out Russia the chaos would have be…

Trump campaigned on "No new wars", but given Trump's history in his first term, his party's history in general, you'd have to have be a rube to believe this. Also why does this earn Trump a vote when his opposition was also running on the status quo in this regard, especially the considering the historical US uniparty approach to foreign affairs? But, go ahead, set that aside. You think that is a worthwhile tradeoff…

I think we can both admit there's a lot of rubes in this country.

>why does this earn Trump a vote when his opposition was also running on the status quo in this regard, especially the considering the historical US uniparty approach to foreign affairs?

To be frank, because we're applying logic to irrational actors. It shouldn't change anything, but Trump yelled it louder, looked more like the people who voted for him, and it's just one of the many ways they rationalize what they already wanted deep down (but need the not say out loud).

>You think that is a worthwhile tradeoff for Trump sending federal agents to gun down his political enemies (US citizens who hurt their feelings)?

Hard to say, I'm not a utilitarian. But I can see it from that lens. You'd save hundreds of thousands of lives, further constrain Russia on the global level if Ukraine can get into NATO, and even curb off other tensions like China vs Taiwan and Israel v. Palestine. That's a lot of good.

These aren't good directly reflected in the US economy nor jobs, though. That's the issue with utilitarianism in that it ignores the micro socio-economic situations, and those can build up into even worse timelines.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#799

Post by bpt3 »

LastTrain wrote: post #758
bpt3 wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "our lifetime" you must be talking about people who were born after 2004? Reagan was certainly more popular among Republicans, and I think W was at the end of his first term (he definitely was right after 9/11 when approval ratings for anything American were approximately 100% within America).

Your intuition about this is wrong. Reagan's approval among Republicans averaged about 83%, Trump's numbers are typically over 90%, although currently he's down to an all-time low of around 85%. You are quite wrong about GW as well. While he had a mandate, at first, for Iraq, he was deeply polarizing in pretty much every other regard.

My intuition is not wrong, and I am absolutely not wrong about GW Bush's approval ratings right after 9/11 (a peak of 99% approval among Republicans) and his approval ratings afterwards through the rest of his first term: https://news.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ra...

Concerning Reagan, I was looking at his 93% approval rating when he left office, and comparing it to Trump's approval rating at the end of his first term, but I am aware there are metrics where Trump would be seen as more popular than Reagan among Republicans, such as minimum approval rating): https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/ronald-reaga...

Trump's militant support among Republicans is irritating to say the least, but there's no need to rewrite history or double down on incorrect statements on your part.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#800

Post by murph-almighty »

eudamoniac wrote: post #757
murph-almighty wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test The problem (like with voter ID laws in the US) is that it's a very slippery slope to voter suppression, and in the US we have a very creative history when it comes to voter suppression. You'd have poll workers who would present incredibly hard passages to read to voters based on a personal judgement call (read: black voters). I (not OP) agree that dumb people voting is a p…

I don't know why objections to voting tests usually pretend we're in 1850. We have standardized tests, already, nationwide. It's a solvable problem. We wouldn't contingent a vote on a random poll worker's choice of passage to read.

>We have standardized tests, already, nationwide.

And voting is legislated by individual states, that would theoretically implement their own standards though this may be intervened upon by the federal government). Heck, even standardized testing for students is done at a state level. The SATs/ACTs are privately administered. What example of a nationwide standardized test for literacy do you have?

Post reply on HN