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

861–870 of 871 posts

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#861

Post by malshe »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #811
malshe wrote: post #769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is likely because for many young people the only source of news is social media. And they are unlikely to be targeted to see the political ads. Interestingly, occasionally I see political ads on Willow.tv which I use to watch Cricket. And most of these ads have Noem threatening to deport people ("if you are here illegally, we are coming after you..."). I am a US citizen.

on top of that, you need to register as a voter in many places and that process ends months before the actual ballots come. These aren't things they teach in most schools (nor their parents, apparently).

Yeah totally bonkers. In general, most people severely underestimate how long the government agencies take to process something.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#862

Post by bakies »

presto8 wrote: post #826
bakies wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%.

I believe that's the inflation goal, which is one of the two mandates. The other goal being maximum employment.

But I was wrong about ZIRP anyway. It's not a goal to get there it's what was used to strengthen the economy after 2008 and 2020 economic hardships.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#863

Post by casey2 »

mmooss wrote: post #217
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.

> I fear this is all going one way That belief isn't the consequence of the situation, but the cause. 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. They do it in Iran. The Republicans and MAGA movement have made changes that would have been unbelievable ten years ago.

Most people, myself include, believe Powell has been a DNC puppet for his entire tenure. This has pretty much nothing to do with our republic.

For most of this countries history you would have been laughed at if you used the D-word, and that's when the quality of voters meant something.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#864

Post by Marsymars »

eudamoniac wrote: post #855
fzeroracer wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a contentious issue, but if we can set it aside for the moment, I believe D and R can come together to solve x y and z I'm curious: Where does your line of thought actually end? Do you agree that they should perhaps meet Republicans in the center around vaccine issues and dismantle vaccine requirements? What about issues of climate change? Corruption?

It ends when they can win powerful majorities in elections again. What I said is only controversial because the topic is relatively well supported. But if you look at it as a party supporting a topic that is preventing them from winning elections, it doesn't really matter what that topic is, they need to rethink their platform until they can win elections again. It might sound unsavory to say that they should drop ,…

I don't know that opinion numbers really back that up: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opini...

i.e. Abortion is generally supported by 63% of the overall population, 85% of Democrats and 67% of moderate/liberal Republicans. I don't see how you'd ever convince Democrats to drop it to cater primarily to conservative republicans.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#865

Post by beepbooptheory »

aisengard wrote: post #860
beepbooptheory wrote: post #829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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's the thing - we already know that each given interest group has common interests. That's how you build coalitions, by finding those common interests and tamping down on the differences. The problem with the youth vote that we know, is that if we cater to anyone other than them, or god forbid have any opinion they disagree with, they get disillusioned or even outright hostile (very much to their own detriment),…

Ok well then I guess there really is no hope here for this. I guess it's just a shame it's such a helpless case with the kids here!

But really, if you have a democracy where there seems to be one uncompromising bloc that no one can really satisfy, that too is democracy in action in a way! Or rather, it maybe says something about the state and the parties that this is the case with regard to the youth. Given all of history, we can't just say in general "kids are intrinsically uncompromising, short term idealists fundamentally incompatible with democracy." Right?

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#866

Post by avierax »

YY438723874623 wrote: post #104

America has reached the inter-departmental warfare stage of failed states it seems. As an appreciator of all sorts of banana republics, kleptocracy and military juntas, this is a very familiar pattern of behavior.

Couldn't disagree more. Failed states normally have a single department (the military, often) dictating without opposition what other departments should do. Here we see a functioning system, the President presses, the Fed disagree and push back. The President weaponizes the judicial, yes, but it'll be a long shot. Nothing here smells to a failed state.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#867

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

eudamoniac wrote: post #859
fzeroracer wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked you , specifically, where your line was at. If the dems were losing because they thought people getting shot in the street by government agents were bad, should they instead say 'actually, a little murder is alright'? What about gay marriage? First amendment rights? The notion that they should compromise with people whose ideals align with literally killing people or taking away rights is a notion I reject. I…

Well I typically vote Republican, so I can only speculate. But let's imagine that 70% of people support ICE, and those people would never ever vote against ICE, because they think that is evil; everything else is the same. In such a world, the Dems have no power, because they get 30% of the vote at most. They should stop fighting ICE so that they can at least do something on their agenda. The choice is between passin…

But your whole train of thought presupposes that activism can't change people's support and votes. The hypothetical you're describing played out with gay marriage over the past few decades, and the folks on the 30% side of the issue won completely - gay marriage is now completely legal, supported by a majority in every state, and so well-established that opposing it would be electoral poison.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#868

Post by eudamoniac »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #867
eudamoniac wrote: post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I typically vote Republican, so I can only speculate. But let's imagine that 70% of people support ICE, and those people would never ever vote against ICE, because they think that is evil; everything else is the same. In such a world, the Dems have no power, because they get 30% of the vote at most. They should stop fighting ICE so that they can at least do something on their agenda. The choice is between passin…

But your whole train of thought presupposes that activism can't change people's support and votes. The hypothetical you're describing played out with gay marriage over the past few decades, and the folks on the 30% side of the issue won completely - gay marriage is now completely legal, supported by a majority in every state, and so well-established that opposing it would be electoral poison.

True and good point, however I do not believe that activism can change anyone's support for abortion, for reasons I've stated. That specifically is a special case. Maybe it can implant ideas into the youth so they don't need their minds changed, but that's a long game.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#869

Post by JumpCrisscross »

scoofy wrote: post #711
Dusseldorf wrote: post #9

He certainly doesn't beat around the bush here. Very nice too see someone of his stature stand up and call out these shenanigans for what they are.

His term ends on May 15, 2026, so it's almost pointless to file these charges now. I see what's happening now as game-theory signaling, not as a real threat to Powell. I would suggest that this action is better seen as a latent threat to the next Fed chairman to let them know that they will either enact Trumps desired Fed policies or they will be prosecuted for anything that the administration can manufacture. It's a…

> His term ends on May 15, 2026, so it's almost pointless to file these charges now

His term as chairman ends in May. He remains on the Board of Governors after that. Following this fight, he may remain the most prominet voice despite losing the chairmanship.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#870

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

> There were only two possible outcomes: Democrats or Republicans

This is the civic illiteracy a higher comment refers to. Beyond the primaries, there are numerous down-ballot initiatives that don't tend to cleanly sort along party lines.

Post reply on HN