6 ms·

This is the current talking point du-jour of the American progressive left, but I think it's safe to say the Fed knows what they're doing and have done this bef

by hornd 4y ago

This is the current talking point du-jour of the American progressive left, but I think it's safe to say the Fed knows what they're doing and have done this before.

r00fus 4y ago
The "Fed" isn't some apolitical entity. It's lobbied and banks want to crash the economy so their wealthy clients can get in at the bottom. They have an agenda.
- WillPostForFood 4y ago
  >banks want to crash the economy so their wealthy clients can get in at the bottom This is like the left wing version of q anon craziness. Banks don't want the economy to crash - they are big losers when it crashes.
  - r00fus 4y ago
    This is your point to prove. I proved Fed gets lobbied (see GP comment).
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - yunwal 4y ago
    Banks are big losers when the economy crashes and they don't anticipate it. Overall if there's no turbulence there's no way to make money as a bank.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Those wealthy clients are already heavily "in." You can make up motives for anything, I guess, but the obvious motive for the Feds actions is surging prices.
connorgutman 4y ago
Ah yes, the almighty Fed which knew exactly what to do in 2020, 2008, 2001, 1990, 1987...
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  2008 was clearly a failure for the Fed but I would love to see the counterfactuals of no Fed action for many of the other times you are mentioning.
- SideQuark 4y ago
  Yes, the Fed that stopped the much longer, more frequent, and deeper panics and recessions that occurred before it. In fact, it did so well for so long compared to previous methods, that the Great Moderation is a term in economics for the stability it gave. Instead of snarkily listing places you think it failed, compare that to pre-Fed failures, and you'll see that the Fed is a lot better than other solutions. And there's ample economic evidence central banking is much better than anything before it, which is why every single country in the world has adopted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_Unit...
  - HPsquared 4y ago
    The Great Depression wasn't so good.. that came after the Fed.
    - SideQuark 4y ago
      One example does not negate the evidence I just posted including 51 examples, nor does it change the vastly better trends under the Fed. So why pick a single event, ignore 50 others, ignore the trends shown in US (and 100's of other country) datasets, covering hundreds of years? I just posted a decent intro to the evidence. Please read it. The economic evidence for the benefits of central banking versus not having a central bank are so thoroughly answered in economic literature that not a single country is stupid enough to go without one, despite those 100s of countries having a lot of other variety.

by hornd 4y ago

This is the current talking point du-jour of the American progressive left, but I think it's safe to say the Fed knows what they're doing and have done this before.

r00fus 4y ago

The "Fed" isn't some apolitical entity. It's lobbied and banks want to crash the economy so their wealthy clients can get in at the bottom. They have an agenda.

WillPostForFood 4y ago
>banks want to crash the economy so their wealthy clients can get in at the bottom This is like the left wing version of q anon craziness. Banks don't want the economy to crash - they are big losers when it crashes.
- r00fus 4y ago
  This is your point to prove. I proved Fed gets lobbied (see GP comment).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- yunwal 4y ago
  Banks are big losers when the economy crashes and they don't anticipate it. Overall if there's no turbulence there's no way to make money as a bank.
whimsicalism 4y ago
Those wealthy clients are already heavily "in." You can make up motives for anything, I guess, but the obvious motive for the Feds actions is surging prices.

connorgutman 4y ago

Ah yes, the almighty Fed which knew exactly what to do in 2020, 2008, 2001, 1990, 1987...

whimsicalism 4y ago
2008 was clearly a failure for the Fed but I would love to see the counterfactuals of no Fed action for many of the other times you are mentioning.
SideQuark 4y ago
Yes, the Fed that stopped the much longer, more frequent, and deeper panics and recessions that occurred before it. In fact, it did so well for so long compared to previous methods, that the Great Moderation is a term in economics for the stability it gave. Instead of snarkily listing places you think it failed, compare that to pre-Fed failures, and you'll see that the Fed is a lot better than other solutions. And there's ample economic evidence central banking is much better than anything before it, which is why every single country in the world has adopted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_Unit...
- HPsquared 4y ago
  The Great Depression wasn't so good.. that came after the Fed.
  - SideQuark 4y ago
    One example does not negate the evidence I just posted including 51 examples, nor does it change the vastly better trends under the Fed. So why pick a single event, ignore 50 others, ignore the trends shown in US (and 100's of other country) datasets, covering hundreds of years? I just posted a decent intro to the evidence. Please read it. The economic evidence for the benefits of central banking versus not having a central bank are so thoroughly answered in economic literature that not a single country is stupid enough to go without one, despite those 100s of countries having a lot of other variety.