“The elephant in the room is whether you’re going to be renominated. Renominating you means gambling that, for the next five years, a Republican majority at the Federal Reserve, with a Republican chair who has regularly voted to deregulate Wall Street, won’t drive this economy over a financial cliff again.
Doomberg has been duped. He writes, "he Fed Chair is probably the second-most powerful person in the country. " The truth is he slavishly takes his marching orders from the banks that own the Fed. Warren wants Powell's head because he hinted at tightening, but the fact is the banks that own the Fed garner trillions, virtually interest-free to the extent that the national debt can be expanded (and even oppose roll calls on doing so). And yet Warren this Paragon of the People never takes. note of the raging inflation due to this expansion of debt.
"In contrast, Powell and the other members of the Fed are political rookies, new to the game they inadvertently invited themselves into." Is hilariously accurate if one ever watches Fed members speak.
I typically of Elizabeth Warren as a vestige of the 2008 response administration but you made me think about how she has been effective here. Thank you
I'm a bit puzzled why you seem to feel Powell's choices were to cave to Trump's demands or resign. He could have done neither, thus forcing Trump to tolerate him or explain why Trump was firing him for cause, which would have required Trump to explain himself.
Members of the Fed serve staggered terms of 14 years and may not be removed for their policy opinions. The president nominates a chair and vice-chair, both of whom the Senate must also confirm. The chair and vice-chair are appointed to four-year terms and can be reappointed, subject to term limitations.
Your comment was wrong and I was correcting your error. Fed Chiefs are not appointed to 14 year terms UNLESS you meant Fed OMC individual bank heads. I assumed you were referring to Powell as the FED "chief"?
Indeed. I wish he had done neither. It would have been interesting to see if Trump would have actually fired him (quite possible), and would have leaned into the idea that the Fed is supposed to ignore politics, though I admit that seems a quaint notion and probably has been since long before I realized it.
I don't totally disagree with the overall point you're making here, but it's a little baffling that you would use the *rejection* of Robert Bork as a SCOTUS nominee as the point where hyperpartisanship took over confirmation hearings, especially when you seem to be suggesting that what happened was a radical departure from the uncontroversial confirmations of Stevens, O'Connor, and Scalia (and it's a little disingenuous to even put those three justices in the same sentence). Stevens and O'Connor leaned conservative but they followed the same theory of jurisprudence as the overwhelming majority of the legal community and would clearly continue to consider themselves bound by the rule of law and the Constitution even when they felt personally that it would be better if the law was otherwise. Scalia taught conservative legal lobbyists that they could sneak through an arch-conservative with one of the most breathtakingly radical, fringe theories of jurisprudence--who could conveniently find a way to rule the way a Republican politician would legislate every time, because his jurisprudence contained no principle that would constrain him from ruling the way he thought things ought to be, regardless of what the law actually said--as long as they made sure he didn't reveal the absurd lengths he could twist the Constitution to before he was actually confirmed. Scalia's confirmation made it clear that if you played it right, it was possible to get a justice who believed that the proper interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment did not include *public floggings*. Scalia's beliefs were identical to Robert Bork's, because Bork wrote the damn book--literally, meaning that shit was on paper and couldn't just be suppressed until the votes were in. That's the context that you have to take Robert Bork's confirmation hearings in. (That's not even getting into the fact that Bork was initially promised a seat on the Court by Nixon in return for his compliance in the Saturday Night Massacre, which seems like it should probably be disqualifying.) If you think that point marked the rise of contentious, hyperpartisan Supreme Court nomination hearings, then it was the fact that Bork was actually nominated to the highest court in the land that was the triggering event. And since you led off with the three justices confirmed prior, you should probably note that Anthony Kennedy, who was ideologically conservative enough to approve Brett Kavanaugh as his successor, was also confirmed 97-0. I recognize that you're not trying to make a point entirely about the Supreme Court, but it's really hard to take your argument seriously when you're suggesting there's some kind of comparison between Jerome Powell and Robert Bork. I think the point about Powell is a valid one and an important one to be talking about! I think there's also a connection to the Supreme Court worth making! It's a real problem that we're hesitant about allowing someone who was an appropriately moderate nominee to stay in a role he's been effective in, because he's on the conservative side of moderate and we're afraid that if we pass up a chance to pull the ideological center of government power harder towards the left we'll regret it when the next Republican president names a hardcore conservative who yanks the balance dramatically to the right. But that's *because* Bork's failed confirmation (and David Souter declining to be an obedient partisan) hasn't led us to a court stacked with moderately conservative cucks dominated by radical leftists, it's given us a court stacked with arch-conservative fringe wingnuts who rule exactly the same way Bork would have.
I'm inclined to think that means you don't have the knowledge to agree or disagree with it. I know that's my situation. I like the comment because it is advancing the discussion.
The markets need to crash hard so that the Obama administration 2.0 can continue its scorched earth policy of build back better. Those that truly rule the world insist on it. Those same true rulers own the Fed.
Great piece. I suspect the Kaplan & Rosengren information coming out when it did was part of the same process of politicization & “Borking” of Powell as well. “Why are we reading this now?”
I read Bork's book many years ago. The contrast between that book and the ink spilled in the NY Times at the time was astounding. I was expecting radical conservative fire and brimstone. Not even close. It's a well written, carefully thought out case as to some of the reasons why the USA was cooked. He was 30 years ahead of his time.
The fact that a midwit ticket taking clod like Biden could divebomb an intelligent man's career is a snapshot of why the Balkanization of the USA is a foregone conclusion. Biden's masters (you can read about them in the first two chapters of John Beaty's "Iron Curtain Over America") couldn't allow someone like Bork to be on the SCOTUS, so they got their dimmest bulb to sabotage the hearings. Their minions in the corporate press followed suit. It almost worked with C. Thomas' hearings as well.
Bork was right. The Dallas FED fiasco is indicative of what Bork was writing about many years ago. Unlimited corruption and pleasure is OK for them ... WE have to just take it and bow and scrape before our betters.
It is ALL about preserving the stock market. Nothing else matters. I am looking at you Jerome Powell.
"They" don't want taper, they don't want higher rates... they want MMT. Remove Powell and replace with your own guy/girl.
Doomberg has been duped. He writes, "he Fed Chair is probably the second-most powerful person in the country. " The truth is he slavishly takes his marching orders from the banks that own the Fed. Warren wants Powell's head because he hinted at tightening, but the fact is the banks that own the Fed garner trillions, virtually interest-free to the extent that the national debt can be expanded (and even oppose roll calls on doing so). And yet Warren this Paragon of the People never takes. note of the raging inflation due to this expansion of debt.
"In contrast, Powell and the other members of the Fed are political rookies, new to the game they inadvertently invited themselves into." Is hilariously accurate if one ever watches Fed members speak.
I typically of Elizabeth Warren as a vestige of the 2008 response administration but you made me think about how she has been effective here. Thank you
I'm a bit puzzled why you seem to feel Powell's choices were to cave to Trump's demands or resign. He could have done neither, thus forcing Trump to tolerate him or explain why Trump was firing him for cause, which would have required Trump to explain himself.
Since when can a President "fire" a Fed chief?- they are appointed to 14-year terms, not subject to recall
Members of the Fed serve staggered terms of 14 years and may not be removed for their policy opinions. The president nominates a chair and vice-chair, both of whom the Senate must also confirm. The chair and vice-chair are appointed to four-year terms and can be reappointed, subject to term limitations.
I know- so why do you write "Jerome Powell is now an elephant, and we predict he will be donkey-kicked to the curb of history in short order."?
Your comment was wrong and I was correcting your error. Fed Chiefs are not appointed to 14 year terms UNLESS you meant Fed OMC individual bank heads. I assumed you were referring to Powell as the FED "chief"?
Well, you seem to agree he took the worst choice on offer...
Indeed. I wish he had done neither. It would have been interesting to see if Trump would have actually fired him (quite possible), and would have leaned into the idea that the Fed is supposed to ignore politics, though I admit that seems a quaint notion and probably has been since long before I realized it.
I don't totally disagree with the overall point you're making here, but it's a little baffling that you would use the *rejection* of Robert Bork as a SCOTUS nominee as the point where hyperpartisanship took over confirmation hearings, especially when you seem to be suggesting that what happened was a radical departure from the uncontroversial confirmations of Stevens, O'Connor, and Scalia (and it's a little disingenuous to even put those three justices in the same sentence). Stevens and O'Connor leaned conservative but they followed the same theory of jurisprudence as the overwhelming majority of the legal community and would clearly continue to consider themselves bound by the rule of law and the Constitution even when they felt personally that it would be better if the law was otherwise. Scalia taught conservative legal lobbyists that they could sneak through an arch-conservative with one of the most breathtakingly radical, fringe theories of jurisprudence--who could conveniently find a way to rule the way a Republican politician would legislate every time, because his jurisprudence contained no principle that would constrain him from ruling the way he thought things ought to be, regardless of what the law actually said--as long as they made sure he didn't reveal the absurd lengths he could twist the Constitution to before he was actually confirmed. Scalia's confirmation made it clear that if you played it right, it was possible to get a justice who believed that the proper interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment did not include *public floggings*. Scalia's beliefs were identical to Robert Bork's, because Bork wrote the damn book--literally, meaning that shit was on paper and couldn't just be suppressed until the votes were in. That's the context that you have to take Robert Bork's confirmation hearings in. (That's not even getting into the fact that Bork was initially promised a seat on the Court by Nixon in return for his compliance in the Saturday Night Massacre, which seems like it should probably be disqualifying.) If you think that point marked the rise of contentious, hyperpartisan Supreme Court nomination hearings, then it was the fact that Bork was actually nominated to the highest court in the land that was the triggering event. And since you led off with the three justices confirmed prior, you should probably note that Anthony Kennedy, who was ideologically conservative enough to approve Brett Kavanaugh as his successor, was also confirmed 97-0. I recognize that you're not trying to make a point entirely about the Supreme Court, but it's really hard to take your argument seriously when you're suggesting there's some kind of comparison between Jerome Powell and Robert Bork. I think the point about Powell is a valid one and an important one to be talking about! I think there's also a connection to the Supreme Court worth making! It's a real problem that we're hesitant about allowing someone who was an appropriately moderate nominee to stay in a role he's been effective in, because he's on the conservative side of moderate and we're afraid that if we pass up a chance to pull the ideological center of government power harder towards the left we'll regret it when the next Republican president names a hardcore conservative who yanks the balance dramatically to the right. But that's *because* Bork's failed confirmation (and David Souter declining to be an obedient partisan) hasn't led us to a court stacked with moderately conservative cucks dominated by radical leftists, it's given us a court stacked with arch-conservative fringe wingnuts who rule exactly the same way Bork would have.
Tell me how you really feel
I'm inclined to think that means you don't have the knowledge to agree or disagree with it. I know that's my situation. I like the comment because it is advancing the discussion.
The markets need to crash hard so that the Obama administration 2.0 can continue its scorched earth policy of build back better. Those that truly rule the world insist on it. Those same true rulers own the Fed.
Great piece. I suspect the Kaplan & Rosengren information coming out when it did was part of the same process of politicization & “Borking” of Powell as well. “Why are we reading this now?”
I read Bork's book many years ago. The contrast between that book and the ink spilled in the NY Times at the time was astounding. I was expecting radical conservative fire and brimstone. Not even close. It's a well written, carefully thought out case as to some of the reasons why the USA was cooked. He was 30 years ahead of his time.
The fact that a midwit ticket taking clod like Biden could divebomb an intelligent man's career is a snapshot of why the Balkanization of the USA is a foregone conclusion. Biden's masters (you can read about them in the first two chapters of John Beaty's "Iron Curtain Over America") couldn't allow someone like Bork to be on the SCOTUS, so they got their dimmest bulb to sabotage the hearings. Their minions in the corporate press followed suit. It almost worked with C. Thomas' hearings as well.
Bork was right. The Dallas FED fiasco is indicative of what Bork was writing about many years ago. Unlimited corruption and pleasure is OK for them ... WE have to just take it and bow and scrape before our betters.
What's the name of the book that Bork wrote? Would love to read it.
I dont expect Powell even wanted another term. If he has any sense, he could see whats coming and they the hell outta Dodge