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.
Name?
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.”
Thanks for the reply and the citation. I may weigh in later. Right now I'd just point out that SCOTUSblog is headed by an Alito acolyte.
@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.
I always find it amusing when people complain about inequality when the poorest have cell phones and food. They need to re-educate themselves on the Depression and just how terrible of an experience that was for most across the globe.
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.”
Thanks for the reply and the citation. I may weigh in later. Right now I'd just point out that SCOTUSblog is headed by an Alito acolyte.
I know nothing about its makeup, other than it is still regarded as one of the most neutral sources for SCOTUS coverage by Al Fontes, Media Bias Fact Check and All Sides Media.
Thanks for the reply and the citation. I may weigh in later. Right now I'd just point out that SCOTUSblog is headed by an Alito acolyte.
I know nothing about its makeup, other than it is still regarded as one of the most neutral sources for SCOTUS coverage by Al Fontes, Media Bias Fact Check and All Sides Media.
I thought the same until I saw her on CSPAN this weekend,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollie_Hemingway
EDIT TO ADD:
I was wrong it appears. She's the editor of the Federalist, not SCOTUSBlog. I saw someone else on CSPAN (from SCOTUSBlog) as well, and got them mixed up.
@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.
Bail us out so we don't end up in bread lines? That's a good campaign slogan.
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.
Name?
@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.
I always find it amusing when people complain about inequality when the poorest have cell phones and food. They need to re-educate themselves on the Depression and just how terrible of an experience that was for most across the globe.
You and twenty sound a lot like those Covid zealots. What year was their big fear tactic? Was it 1918? 1926? Or was it the black plague?
@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.
You have no idea what would have happened. I can't disprove your imaginary world. Also, it always makes me laugh when people instantly jump to 1930s depression. Why not jump to 1400s productivity levels if we don't bail out the banks in 08. You know, make it really scary. You got to sell the fear, buddy.
@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.
First off all you have no idea what would have happened. I can't disprove your imaginary world. Also, it always makes me laugh when people instantly jump to 1930s depression. Why not jump to 1400s productivity levels if we don't bail out the banks in 08. You know, make it really scary. You got to sell the fear, buddy.
The idea that the economy was a stable paradise before 1913 is a total myth. The 'free banking era' was defined by wild boom-and-bust cycles, wildcat banks printing worthless local currencies, and regular panics that wiped out everyday citizens' life savings. Central banking isn't perfect, but going back to a system with zero liquidity backstops is a recipe for perpetual economic chaos.
You talk about the 'depression', as it was a one time event. Instead of the fact that there were 4 depressions in the century prior to the creation of the Fed. Most of similar root causes (financial panics/bank failures). 1893 was almost as bad as the 1930s....25%+ unemployment and a 30% loss to GDP.
Only a complete goober would want to return to such a world. Instead of the system that in the last century created the most powerful and robust economy in human history. And your best bitch is wealth inequality has grown?
@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.
First off all you have no idea what would have happened. I can't disprove your imaginary world. Also, it always makes me laugh when people instantly jump to 1930s depression. Why not jump to 1400s productivity levels if we don't bail out the banks in 08. You know, make it really scary. You got to sell the fear, buddy.
The idea that the economy was a stable paradise before 1913 is a total myth. The 'free banking era' was defined by wild boom-and-bust cycles, wildcat banks printing worthless local currencies, and regular panics that wiped out everyday citizens' life savings. Central banking isn't perfect, but going back to a system with zero liquidity backstops is a recipe for perpetual economic chaos.
You talk about the 'depression', as it was a one time event. Instead of the fact that there were 4 depressions in the century prior to the creation of the Fed. Most of similar root causes (financial panics/bank failures). 1893 was almost as bad as the 1930s....25%+ unemployment and a 30% loss to GDP.
Only a complete goober would want to return to such a world. Instead of the system that in the last century created the most powerful and robust economy in human history.
You missed my point. I was arguing a depression today wouldn't be as bad as the 30s because we're far more productive today because of the innovations over the past 100 years. It's a silly assumption for someone to make.
Human advancement comes from us humans making better tools and becoming more productive, not monetary policy. We have progressed in spite of the monetary system, not because of it. And no I'm not arguing a depression is a good thing.
You missed my point. I was arguing a depression today wouldn't be as bad as the 30s because we're far more productive today because of the innovations over the past 100 years. It's a silly assumption for someone to make.
Human advancement comes from us humans making better tools and becoming more productive, not monetary policy. We have progressed in spite of the monetary system, not because of it. And no I'm not arguing a depression is a good thing.
Using that theory, shouldn't the 1929 depression have been less severe than previous US depressions? Our tech in 1929 was far better than 1873, 1857, and the others.
@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.
First off all you have no idea what would have happened. I can't disprove your imaginary world. Also, it always makes me laugh when people instantly jump to 1930s depression. Why not jump to 1400s productivity levels if we don't bail out the banks in 08. You know, make it really scary. You got to sell the fear, buddy.
The idea that the economy was a stable paradise before 1913 is a total myth. The 'free banking era' was defined by wild boom-and-bust cycles, wildcat banks printing worthless local currencies, and regular panics that wiped out everyday citizens' life savings. Central banking isn't perfect, but going back to a system with zero liquidity backstops is a recipe for perpetual economic chaos.
You talk about the 'depression', as it was a one time event. Instead of the fact that there were 4 depressions in the century prior to the creation of the Fed. Most of similar root causes (financial panics/bank failures). 1893 was almost as bad as the 1930s....25%+ unemployment and a 30% loss to GDP.
Only a complete goober would want to return to such a world. Instead of the system that in the last century created the most powerful and robust economy in human history.
You missed my point. I was arguing a depression today wouldn't be as bad as the 30s because we're far more productive today because of the innovations over the past 100 years. It's a silly assumption for someone to make.
Human advancement comes from us humans making better tools and becoming more productive, not monetary policy. We have progressed in spite of the monetary system, not because of it. And no I'm not arguing a depression is a good thing.
I get your point. And it's completely asinine. There is no tools and advancement without a stable capital system underlying.
How exactly do you think we build those 'better tools'? They require massive, long-term capital investment. Without a stable monetary framework, central liquidity backstops, and a functional banking system, risk capital vanishes and innovation grinds to a halt. We didn't progress in spite of the system; our central banking system provided the stable economic runway that allowed that explosive innovation to take off in the first place.
I think you have it completely backwards. In the 1930s, a huge portion of the population lived on farms and could feed themselves. Today the 'high productivity' you talk about is the result of global, just in time supply changes, and stable access to credit markets are imperative to how most all businesses operate. We are significantly more dependent upon the financial system in our modern credit economy than we were a century ago. I think your general dismissal of this reality is incredibly naive.
@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.
First off all you have no idea what would have happened. I can't disprove your imaginary world. Also, it always makes me laugh when people instantly jump to 1930s depression. Why not jump to 1400s productivity levels if we don't bail out the banks in 08. You know, make it really scary. You got to sell the fear, buddy.
The idea that the economy was a stable paradise before 1913 is a total myth. The 'free banking era' was defined by wild boom-and-bust cycles, wildcat banks printing worthless local currencies, and regular panics that wiped out everyday citizens' life savings. Central banking isn't perfect, but going back to a system with zero liquidity backstops is a recipe for perpetual economic chaos.
You talk about the 'depression', as it was a one time event. Instead of the fact that there were 4 depressions in the century prior to the creation of the Fed. Most of similar root causes (financial panics/bank failures). 1893 was almost as bad as the 1930s....25%+ unemployment and a 30% loss to GDP.
Only a complete goober would want to return to such a world. Instead of the system that in the last century created the most powerful and robust economy in human history.
You missed my point. I was arguing a depression today wouldn't be as bad as the 30s because we're far more productive today because of the innovations over the past 100 years. It's a silly assumption for someone to make.
Human advancement comes from us humans making better tools and becoming more productive, not monetary policy. We have progressed in spite of the monetary system, not because of it. And no I'm not arguing a depression is a good thing.
I get your point. And it's completely asinine. There is no tools and advancement without a stable capital system underlying.
How exactly do you think we build those 'better tools'? They require massive, long-term capital investment. Without a stable monetary framework, central liquidity backstops, and a functional banking system, risk capital vanishes and innovation grinds to a halt. We didn't progress in spite of the system; our central banking system provided the stable economic runway that allowed that explosive innovation to take off in the first place.
I think you have it completely backwards. In the 1930s, a huge portion of the population lived on farms and could feed themselves. Today the 'high productivity' you talk about is the result of global, just in time supply changes, and stable access to credit markets are imperative to how most all businesses operate. We are significantly more dependent upon the financial system in our modern credit economy than we were a century ago. I think your general dismissal of this reality is incredibly naive.
I didn't say there wouldn't be any capital. I've always argued an inflationary system is detrimental to growth, causes bigger boom bust cycles, and society would be much better off if we had a deflationary system. The fiat system is fragile and requires more and more centralization to exist. Eventually, it will collapse on itself like all other Ponzi Schemes.
By the way 1% of the U.S. population produces enough food to feed all of us fat Americans. I have no idea why you think we couldn't be more productive than they were in the 1930s when most of them were using a horse and plow.
You missed my point. I was arguing a depression today wouldn't be as bad as the 30s because we're far more productive today because of the innovations over the past 100 years. It's a silly assumption for someone to make.
Human advancement comes from us humans making better tools and becoming more productive, not monetary policy. We have progressed in spite of the monetary system, not because of it. And no I'm not arguing a depression is a good thing.
Using that theory, shouldn't the 1929 depression have been less severe than previous US depressions? Our tech in 1929 was far better than 1873, 1857, and the others.
The FED wasn't around in the 1800s. The money supply grew by 70% in the 1920s and then it contracted by about 1/3 in the early 30s. The severity of the depression was driven by the monetary system. You can't taper a Ponzi for too long. The two time periods aren't accurate comparisons.
As for 2008, not bailing out the banks wouldn't have been as damaging, in my opinion, and even if they were I think we would be able to out produce people who used horses and plows.