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

801–810 of 871 posts

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#801

Post by aisengard »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #765
aisengard wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, they tried that in the primaries and young people still stayed home. If they actually came out in force for Bernie like you said they would, he would have won every primary. Young people simply don't vote because of a lot of different reasons. Probably some of the reasons are immaturity and a lack of belief that they have agency, which is understandable given how society works in the US. You have basically ze…

I guess I just didn't realize that was the settled reason why Bernie lost! I just think even granting this framing, what is the point or the lesson here? Is the idea that Clinton in 2016 was more well-rounded, had broader appeal as a candidate and young people were too immature to realize this?

The lesson is that making your sole priority driving youth turnout is a losing strategy, for reasons that are not that confusing. The Bernie lamenters would do well to learn lessons from his failures, rather than blaming everyone else.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#802

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

gruez wrote: post #619
Erem wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!!" Trump went on. "LOCK THEM UP???" He also called for the lawmakers' arrest and trial, adding in a separate post that it was "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/trump-says-democra...

So more broadly, calling for any sort of capital punishment is also "political violence"? Even if you're against capital punishment, comparing it to something like Charlie Kirk getting shot is disingenuous. When people think of "political violence" they're thinking of the former, not capital punishment. Lumping the two together is like "do you support criminals? No? Why do you support Nelson Mandela, a convicted crim…

> calling for any sort of capital punishment is also "political violence"?

No, of course not, but I'm sure you knew that, hence constructing this straw man so you can knock it over and claim victory.

However, and more to the actual point, calling for capital punishment strictly because you disagree with the factual words someone chose to write might reasonably be considered "political violence". Especially when the words in question clearly call out your potential political intentions and remind people that said intentions can be battled in a particular way.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#803

Post by johnnyanmac »

CodingJeebus wrote: post #219
this_user wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In his first term, he probably didn't yet understand how much power the office truly holds and how to wield it and just how far you can go with that. Because the main restriction on all of that power has always been convention rather than any actually robust guard rails. But no one, not even someone like Nixon, has ever dared to truly test that out.

He knew how much power he had back then. The difference was that the government bureaucracy worked hard to counter his agenda throughout his term. It’s why The Heritage Foundation came up with Project 2025: an organizated and cohesive plan to dismantle the bureaucracy and consolidate power. And it is working.

well it tried to be organized, "cohesive" is a stretch.

And it's really fumbling as of now. The tarrifs were 100% on Trump and it's clearly thrown a monkey wrench in everything. the federal judges have slowed everything to a crawl, and these spectacles with immigration have activated American eyes in ways we haven't seen in decades. These kinds of plans work in the shadows and as of now it's all out in the open.

It will reverse in November at this rate, but even a few more reisngations or deaths in the house can dramatically shift plans.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#804

Post by margalabargala »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #714
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.

Who is "we"? I'm not doing nothing. Why are you doing nothing?

Nothing that effects real change.

Evidence, the lack of change.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#805

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

eudamoniac wrote: post #795
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The official Democratic platform for every cycle from 1976 to 2000 (except 1984-88 when abortion was not mentioned at all) explicitly acknowledged that abortion was controversial, that abortion opponents were welcome in the party, and that decreasing the number of abortions that are necessary is a worthy goal. The issue got more polarized when it became clear that no compromise or detente less than overturning Roe v. Wade would ever be accepted. I don't know of any specific pledges not to expand abortion access, again because the Hyde amendment prevented any proposals to expand abortion access.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#807

Post by johnnyanmac »

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…

>Bizarrely, voter turnout among younger people remains low.

in the grand scheme of history, it's not odd. Voter turnout correlates decently with age. It's an anamoly when they do get out and vote, like in 2008.

That's partially an effect of

1. not having compulsory voting

2. needing to actively register in order to be viable to vote, as opposed to simply being delivered a ballot like many other countries

3. the decades of "no politics at the table" policies to help expose the civic duties to the youth. And since it's not a flashy topic to talk about, they won't really bring it up themselves, or simply have non-informed views.

4. careful strategies to try and disenfranchise voters who may otherwise oppose a party. This is what "both sides are the same" does in a system without #1.

Not to mention the proliferation of social targeted media ads changing the landscape and active loopholes used to try and de-register voters. These all hit youth the most to vote a certain way (or not at all).

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#808

Post by danaris »

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 talked with a number of people online from Europe (particularly the UK) who came in with the assumption that a parliamentary system was the default. (I don't consider this a mark against them: everyone is likely to start out with the assumption that the first thing they learn about is the default. They were just part of that day's lucky 10,000.)

There are a great many reasons why people might misunderstand why so many people voted for Trump, and most of them start with assuming your own experience is universal, at least in certain realms. I suspect that, for people outside the US, not really understanding our voting/electoral system is one of the top ones, and it's a very understandable one. I prefer to go for it first, because the one I consider next most likely is a bit less charitable: assuming that everyone shares your privileges. (ie, "surely no one could possibly be so uneducated as to think that Trump was anything but a liar and a fascist." Buddy, you can't even imagine how bad the American education system can be, or how hard it is to care about anything other than the bare necessities when you're poor...)

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#809

Post by johnnyanmac »

Youden wrote: post #762
Aurornis wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Margins in recent elections have been thin enough that higher voter turnout among young generations could have easily changed the outcome. Blaming broken democracy is just a cop out. Youth voter turnout for primary elections, where there are many candidates, is also low. More parties isn’t going to change anything.

You're missing the point. There were only two possible outcomes: Democrats or Republicans. Both were bad and unappealing. Both are too dependent on the status quo to serve as vehicles for real change (so primaries are pointless too). "More parties", through elimination of first past the post, absolutely changes things. It allows you to vote for someone who truly represents you and your interests without "throwing awa…

Dems didn't really get primaries in 2024, so that certainly didn't help.

>"More parties", through elimination of first past the post, absolutely changes things.

Indeed. But that's the one single thing D's and R's can agree on not doing. It'll need to be done state by state to get any real leverage.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#810

Post by sergiogjr »

"In every case, I have carried out my duties without political fear or favor, focused solely on our mandate of price stability and maximum employment."

I take any claims of absolute neutrality with a huge grain of salt. Besides, he's an unelected bureaucrat. He can only pretend to represent the interests of the people.

Post reply on HN