https://twitter.com/PerryALPHA/status/2071607108882108642?s=20
Imagine that, the bankers aren't beholden to the voting public.
They cited the Fed's historic independence in ruling against Trump. But in the FTC case they blew that off and even overturned precedent to do it.
Make it make sense.
They cited the Fed's historic independence in ruling against Trump. But in the FTC case they blew that off and even overturned precedent to do it.
Make it make sense.
Imagine that, the bankers aren't beholden to the voting public.
I believe congress passed a bill, and a president signed said bill, making a law creating the Fed. The voters can demand congress pass a bill, and the President sign said bill, eliminating it or any parts of it. Isn't that how every law works? I don't recall you wanting to give Biden the right to cancel student loan debt just because people wanted it cancelled.
Imagine that, the bankers aren't beholden to the voting public.
I believe congress passed a bill, and a president signed said bill, making a law creating the Fed. The voters can demand congress pass a bill, and the President sign said bill, eliminating it or any parts of it. Isn't that how every law works? I don't recall you wanting to give Biden the right to cancel student loan debt just because people wanted it cancelled.
Don't bother using such logic with populists.
Imagine that, the bankers aren't beholden to the voting public.
I believe congress passed a bill, and a president signed said bill, making a law creating the Fed. The voters can demand congress pass a bill, and the President sign said bill, eliminating it or any parts of it. Isn't that how every law works? I don't recall you wanting to give Biden the right to cancel student loan debt just because people wanted it cancelled.
Thanks for explaining how laws are passed. And the voting public didn't wanted the FED to be created in 1913 or have any idea what it was.
The point of the tweet is the rulings seem to contradict themselves. The cynic in me says it's because they're never giving up the power the FED allows them. I'm not a lawyer and open to reasonings why they ruled the way they did?
I could try, but you wouldn't accept it.They cited the Fed's historic independence in ruling against Trump. But in the FTC case they blew that off and even overturned precedent to do it.
Make it make sense.
@snarlcakes Kavanaugh explained his reason, he is willing to risk the FTC failing but not the economy.
@snarlcakes Kavanaugh explained his reason, he is willing to risk the FTC failing but not the economy.
Thanks for the answer. That's scary and a sh#t reasoning. The economy wouldn't fail. Does he think we all just roll over and die🤣🤣 Ignorance shouldn't be a valid reason for a ruling. That's disappointing, I like Kavanaugh.
Roberts gives some history relevant to its importance. Blame Mortimer and Randolph:@snarlcakes Kavanaugh explained his reason, he is willing to risk the FTC failing but not the economy.
Thanks for the answer. That's scary and a sh#t reasoning. The economy wouldn't fail. Does he think we all just roll over and die🤣🤣 Ignorance shouldn't be a valid reason for a ruling. That's disappointing, I like Kavanaugh.
[After Jackson killed the 2nd Bank]
It would take almost 80 years before Congress would try
again, and only after an era of ruinous financial panics—
the ones of 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, and 1907. These crises
were in no small part attributable to Jackson’s crusade. See
R. Lowenstein, America’s Bank 11–28, 59–76 (2015). Without an independent central bank, there was no way to contain the damage whenever a major institution fell—no
lender of last resort that could allow sound banks with good
but temporarily illiquid assets to access cash, no elastic currency that could expand to meet demand, and no mechanism to ensure that small banks issued loans only within
their means in the first place. See 1 Markham 168–180,
330–333, 380. It was a system “devised for fair weather,
not for storms,” said President McKinley’s Secretary of the
Treasury. Dept. of Treasury, L. Gage, Ann. Rep. of the Secretary of the Treasury 73 (Doc. No. 2238, 1901). It took the
Panic of 1907 to force action. A failed attempt by speculators to corner the copper market led to the quick collapse of
two banks, and the contagion spread from there, ultimately
toppling some 2,000 firms and 130 banks. See 2 Markham
29–41. A bipartisan congressional commission eventually
recommended the creation of a central bank to assume “the
serious duty of protecting public and private interests at
times when they are imperiled.” Report of the National
Monetary Commission, S. Doc. No. 243, 62d Cong., 2d Sess.,
36 (1912).
@bradstevens banks failing is much much preferred to banks being bailed out. Business and banks destruction is a good thing for an economy. It means capital was being misallocated and it's the markets way of course correcting.
He's just arguing to socialize the losses to the average joes, which is morally repugnant in my opinion. And it doesn't solve the problem. Since, the great financial crisis inequality has only grown and society, in my opinion, is less stable than it was prior. A major reason for that is because the bailout intervention prevented needed destruction of assets.
I personally prefer a deflationary system, however if we're going to have a fiat system, you can't keep inflating assets at the detriment of wages (aka most of the human beings). Well you can, until you can't. The FED is just putting a bandaid on the problem and hoping for a productivity miracle or baby boom (this one isn't coming anytime soon).
I could try, but you wouldn't accept it.They cited the Fed's historic independence in ruling against Trump. But in the FTC case they blew that off and even overturned precedent to do it.
Make it make sense.
What you say might be true, but like many rationalists and system builders who are convinced you are right, I think you downplay the importance of current reliance issues among the population and our institutions along with the friction (transaction costs) that comes with changing to what you want. Change--even to a system you believe is better--has a cost. And the quicker the change and the larger, and more embedded, the institution, the higher the cost.@bradstevens banks failing is much much preferred to banks being bailed out. Business and banks destruction is a good thing for an economy. It means capital was being misallocated and it's the markets way of course correcting.
He's just arguing to socialize the losses to the average joes, which is morally repugnant in my opinion. And it doesn't solve the problem. Since, the great financial crisis inequality has only grown and society, in my opinion, is less stable than it was prior. A major reason for that is because the bailout intervention prevented needed destruction of assets.
I personally prefer a deflationary system, however if we're going to have a fiat system, you can't keep inflating assets at the detriment of wages (aka most of the human beings). Well you can, until you can't. The FED is just putting a bandaid on the problem and hoping for a productivity miracle or baby boom (this one isn't coming anytime soon).
They cited the Fed's historic independence in ruling against Trump. But in the FTC case they blew that off and even overturned precedent to do it.
Make it make sense.
I can't speak for precedent and strict legal interpretation, but there is a clear distinction in the enactment of these organizations, no? The Fed was literally established to be independent of Presidential and Congressional oversight. While they nominate, vote on, and confirm the President, they have no ability to influence policy. Trump's behavior is exactly why.
From SCOTUSblog:
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts contended that, if the Trump administration were correct, it “would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment—an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference.”
Conversely, the FTC was established as a government agency that enforces laws and exercises regulatory authority outside of the judicial system. Although Congress established its authority and oversees its funding via budgets, its actual role functions as part of the Executive branch.
More broadly, Monday’s decision was a major victory for proponents of the “unitary executive” theory – the idea that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. Under this theory, the president should be able to fire any member of the executive branch, and laws – like the one that the court struck down – that restrict his ability to do so violate the separation of powers.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts contended that “the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”
@snarlcakes not many desire a cycle of booms and depressions. Maybe you would like to stand in bread lines for the sake of your principles, but most of the population wouldn't.