this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
128 points (95.7% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2538 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
128
Don’t Be Surprised if Trump Starts Attacking the Fed (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 10 months ago by psychothumbs@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] grue@lemmy.world 37 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What do you mean, "starts?" He was doing that all the way back in 2017.

Frankly, one of the things that doesn't get talked about enough is how the economic disruptions of the pandemic obscured (and thus let him off the hook for) his disastrous corporate tax cut and trade war with China. He was continuously bullying the Fed to lower interest rates from 2017-2019 because the economy was already heading for a crash because of his policies, so the pandemic downturn was a lot worse (and the bailouts a lot more expensive) than it needed to be.

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

He starts and stops. I haven't seen him doing any criticizing lately because the Fed has basically been doing what he'd prefer by trying to slow down the economy via rate hikes. The point of this article is that now that the Fed is shifting back in the direction of cuts, Trump's attacks on it will likely recur.

[–] PlasterAnalyst@kbin.social 23 points 10 months ago (1 children)

To be fair, the FED should have raised interest rates almost ten years ago, but they're a bunch of pussies over there worried about their "legacy." They let the economy run too hot and then when COVID hit the only tool they had left was to print more money. So now they had to raise interest rates and the free money train has ended, all these dickhead investors started buying up housing and other industries in order to commodify them. Bunch of weak bitches over there I'll tell ya whut.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

It frustrates the shit outta me. I mean, always hearing people talking about lowering the fed rates and getting them back down to where it was.

For the longest time we were eating financial junk food. We're finally eating our fucking vegetables. Starting to get things back to a more normal world where having money in the savings account actually earns us interest. I mean fuck one of the biggest problems is americans don't have savings for emergencies. When you have a five percent interest rate on a savings account, it actually makes sense to put money in a savings account. Banks should be paying us to hold our money and then lending it out. That's how it used to be that's how it should be.

We don't need bottomless fucking growth we need healthy sustained Moderate Growth. Don't turn the floodgates back open for political wins every goddamn time You need a boost in the polls Or with your corporate donors.

Save that shit for the real financial economic emergencies like covid. When times are good, we should not be giving money out for free.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

a more normal world where having money in the savings account actually earns us interest

this. I had one as a kid and in college but my interest rate was so close to 0% it may as well have been. I ended up closing it because what's the point? I only just opened one again last month because I was able to get a bit over 4% now, but at a diff rent bank because my old bank doesn't even have higher interest rates anymore. I used to throw my excess money into the stock market because that's where all the gains were but now I can get 4% with no risk thanks to the FDIC so that's what I'm doing now. these interest rates are normal and I'd rather this than the Era of Easy Money

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

If your interest rate is 0 then you're losing money due to inflation

I'm not saying this to accuse you, I'm saying this to educate anyone who may be unaware

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

The S&P 500 is 50% higher than it was before COVID. Unemployment is lower and inflation is under control. There was some shit inflation for a year and wages need to go up, but there was basically no hangover from the low interest rates.

The problem with real estate is mainly a lack of construction workers and equipment combined with housing code requirements. The average person can't build a house like they could in the past. That used to keep costs down. Look at any old house and you'll see some electrical or plumbing work that looks like the worker was drunk. You may even find beer bottles in the walls from those workers.

[–] LeadSoldier@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'm in the dumbest situation. I was a federal employee so I don't know what normal people mean when they say the Fed.

Every comment is only calling it the Fed.

I've read too many New York Time articles to see what we are talking about because I'm not subscribed.

Not just asking for me but for anybody in a similar situation; what is the full organization name of the Fed?

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Which coincidentally, is not part of the federal government.

[–] TwentySeven@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It's definitely part of the federal government. It has more independence than a department of the executive branch, but it's not quite it's own branch of government either (it has no checks against the actual branches) The idea is that it needs to be run by economists and be somewhat insulated from politics.

Overall, they do a pretty good job, and are one of the more competent parts of the government

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 1 points 10 months ago

After reading https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm, it seems you are right from an official standpoint. Since the board is "appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate" and how together the fed and "Congress sets the goals for monetary policy".

Although a lot of the other justifications for it being a government agency seems to follow some flimsy logic.

I guess it's not entirely a private entity since it has those 2 government approval requirements. But at the same time they seem to operate as one and are given a lot of freedom.

It's not like congress or the president approved of the recent interest rate increases. Which directly increased the cost of paying off the national debt. There is clearly some balancing happening.

[–] PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Federal Reserve System, often shorted to 'the Fed'

[–] LeadSoldier@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Thanks. For some reason I was trying to make an acronym out of it. That's what I do for every other government agency.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't be surprised if he put on lederhosen, put a weasel into them, wore a waffle for a hat and whistled Freebird.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I bet he can’t whistle.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Even if he can't and he suddenly whistled better than Roger Whitaker, I wouldn't be surprised.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That’s crazy. He has that weird mouth. And you just know he tried once as a kid and his dad beat the shit out of him.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Literally the only thing that would surprise me about Trump at this point is if he said something either wise or humble.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

Not particularly surprised by anything he does. Depressed, yes. But that's because people feel the need to listen to him.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

What I don’t know is whether the Fed is ready for the political firestorm it’s about to face, and whether it will stand up to the pressure to keep rates too high for too long.

Because it’s a safe prediction that Donald Trump and his supporters will scream that the coming rate cuts are part of a deep-state conspiracy to re-elect President Biden.

Biden, however, is already presiding over a very good economy by normal standards, with solid job growth and plunging inflation.

They will signal to the public that inflation really is under control; they will lead, other things being equal, to higher stock prices and lower mortgage rates.

And when it comes to interest rate policy, Trump has a track record of doing exactly what I’m sure he will accuse Biden of doing: trying to manipulate the Fed.

In a recent dialogue with me about the economy, my colleague Peter Coy suggested that the Fed may be inhibited from cutting rates because it’ll fear accusations from Trump that it’s trying to help Biden.

The original article contains 929 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I'm amazed he hasn't yet. Saving it for later.