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

821–830 of 871 posts

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#821

Post by johnnyanmac »

watwut wrote: post #816
johnnyanmac wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It shouldn't change anything, but Trump yelled it louder, No, he did not. This is simply not true. The thing about Trump being pro peace was just one more pure bad faith lie. And people who voted for Trump did not believed in Trump for peace thing. Maybe we should stop projecting positive motivations on people who were about something else entirely

>The thing about Trump being pro peace was just one more pure bad faith lie.

Okay, the reverse logic works as well. People didn't trust either candidate so it came down to all the above, superficial factors or much deeper, unspoken motivations.

My main point is more on "people already knew who they wanted" more than whatever their outward facing words say.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#822

Post by anonymars »

nkohari wrote: post #741
anonymars wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 whi…

Appointing judges to overturn Roe v. Wade was a focal point in the 2016 election. Dangling that possibility was the entire point of the confirmation shenanigans.

"Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that ... will happen automatically in my opinion because I am putting pro-life justices on the court" https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trumps-justices-dec...

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#823

Post by throwaway902984 »

marcusverus wrote: post #751
throwaway902984 wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wrote that the FCC wasn't a government agency. Hard to argue that is correct, or that their political pursuit of one of trump's "enemies" isn't actually political. It was more that a tweet no, but an interview with Benny johnson, an avowed political figure paid by Russians at one point?

> He wrote that the FCC wasn't a government agency. Hard to argue that is correct You're harping on a detail that hardly matters in order to avoid the broader point, which is rather silly. The FCC is a government agency. Brendan Carr made an ill-advised tweet, which doesn't hold a candle to Biden's use of the FBI to spread misinformation and induce censorship for political purposes. > or that their political pursuit…

I feel it bears repeating, Benny Johnson has been paid a lot of Russian money.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#824

Post by f33d5173 »

JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #547
f33d5173 wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My working theory is that the ai bubble is caused by trump. People are too uncertain to want to invest in most industries, but they have to put their money somewhere, so they put it in ai stocks. Since the supreme court is likely to rule trump's tariffs illegal in a week or so, this may lead to a stock market crash. As people reallocate their portfolios, they will sell their ai stocks, which will pop the bubble and c…

I don't think so. Remember the first time you wanted to buy a stock. You used a product or a service that you liked immensely, realized it had a stock and wanted to be involved. 1 billion people are using AI, not dramatically changing their lives yet of course but for sure they go 'wow incredible I want to be part of this' when they make a video with Sora or generate a pamphlet without having to work

That's not why I bought stocks for the first time. I had extra money and wanted it to grow rather than sit around. I think the same is true of the majority of people.

I don't think we're disagreeing with each other in that we both think that ai will continue to be a successful industry, and furthermore that we both think that investors think the same. I'm simply hypothesizing an origin for the widely acknowledged bubble in ai stocks.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#825

Post by paulryanrogers »

arrowleaf wrote: post #793
paulryanrogers wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Religion isn't the only factor, nor did I claim it was.

But it's the only one I've seen convince PhDs to believe self contradictory "scriptures", cherry picked "evidence", appeals to authority, parrot useless platitudes, indoctrinate their kids, dismiss injustices, other people even for the most trivial differences in doctrine, and consistently vote against their own interests.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#826

Post by presto8 »

bakies wrote: post #614
JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #172

I am surprised by the negative comments, the low interest rates = better thesis has always been somewhat popular on HN , now just because Trump is saying it (and operating to get there) it becomes an issue or something not to be aligned with. There are countless comments and discussions on this board about how: 1) interest rates should be zero, 2) interest rates being non-zero create a misallocation of capital where…

the fed's goal is zero interest rate, it's not that people are negative because "tRuMp SaId So" it's because he's trying to influence the fed's decision with criminal prosecution of the chair and not through his economic policy. His policy is ass and that's why the fed can't get back to their ZIRP goal

The Fed's interest rate goal (which is half of their dual mandate) is 2%.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#827

Post by bpt3 »

LastTrain wrote: post #815
bpt3 wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 en…

Your own sources show that Trump is more popular than Reagan among Republicans. Just because there was a moment in history where his numbers were better than Trump's doesn't undo the fact that over the long term, on average, Trump is more popular with Republicans than Reagan was. Demonstrably. Is there a conservative left in America willing to have an honest conversation?

I explained why I mentioned Reagan and acknowledged that Trump is more popular by some metrics, but he doesn't matter ultimately because GW Bush was more popular than Trump with Republicans more recently by absolute highest level of support, an average over basically any time period over his first term, or the lowest level of support, which is why I said you must only be talking about people born after 2004.

You're just as bad as the conservatives you dislike, because the issue is that you're all ideologues, not the specific ideology.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#828

Post by busyant »

class3shock wrote: post #419
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.

When I first watched a bunch of Adam Curtis stuff I thought it a long winded way of stating bad things have happened and have resulted in these bigger, overarching, bad things. Thinking about it now 10 years later it feels alot different. The pervasiveness of tolerance of lies and fakeness has gone so far past anything I could have imagined being a big contributor to that.

I have to say, I'd never heard of Adam Curtis or the HyperNormalisation documentary.

I just watched the first ~30 min and I'm not seeing the "bit picture". Hopefully, it won't take me another 10 years to achieve enlightenment.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#829

Post by beepbooptheory »

aisengard wrote: post #801
beepbooptheory wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but what does this mean? Like ok we know not to solely cater to the youth vote, great. That wouldn't imply to me then that the correct thing to do instead is alienate or anger that same vote, right? Shouldn't we see nominees that cater to all of them, or a lot of them at least? Or, what's wrong with wanting that?

We do not need to start from the point of view that each given interest or group is totally opposed, that we are locked in some zero-sum death spiral where "the youth vote" shares absolutely no overlap with anybody else. Politics is possible at all because we believe in something else. You could decompose everything down into a list of people to blame with stuff like this, but it won't tell you what to actually do!

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#830

Post by OutOfHere »

oenton wrote: post #491
OutOfHere wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is the second or third comment I’ve seen online that says this. I’m curious how do you conclude the fed has “never been non-political?” Is this just a matter of using the right terminology? The term “non-political” (also “independent”) isn’t concerned with each board member’s individual party affiliation, or how they vote in elections. It just means that management of the fed and importantly its monetary policy…

I have looked at individual votes for far too many years, and they often are politically aligned as per the respective state of the voter. This is not a coincidence, and it's not something to overlook. If the votes were guided by data alone, this pattern would not exist, but it does.
Post reply on HN