By Ron Paul
Former President and current Republican Presidential Nominee Donald Trump recently renewed his criticisms of the Federal Reserve.
pull down to refresh
related posts
67 sats \ 3 replies \ @IamSINGLE 21 Aug
He had also said that Harris is president of USA.
Does the dementia thing starts creeping after 75?
reply
32 sats \ 1 reply \ @SatsMate 22 Aug
I mean right now Harris technically is the President of the USA given how far gone Biden is...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 22 Aug
I think Trump referring to her as the president was a not so subtle reference to this state of affairs.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 21 Aug
There's a reason they picked Vance. He can translate Trump's rambling.
reply
43 sats \ 1 reply \ @TheMorningStar 22 Aug
What does Donald Trump know except bragging about himself and his billionaire status?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 22 Aug
Presumably commercial real estate
reply
43 sats \ 24 replies \ @kepford 21 Aug
Dr. Paul :)
reply
0 sats \ 23 replies \ @Bell_curve 21 Aug
Why can’t the federal funds rate be tied to the 30 day treasury yield?
The Fed should be concerned with the quantity of money. The focus on interest rates is misguided.
reply
58 sats \ 22 replies \ @kepford 21 Aug
Don't ask me.
The Fed claims they have a dual mandate. Full employment and stable prices.
Interest rates are simply the lever they use. Not the point.
Sounds like communism to me ;)
reply
0 sats \ 21 replies \ @Bell_curve 21 Aug
The dual mandate is fabricated. The primary and only goal is price stability.
reply
21 sats \ 7 replies \ @kepford 21 Aug
So one thing to consider here is that price stability and employment levels are tied. Put another way, employment compensation is very tied to prices. They don't overtly say they are trying to keep wages down but they are. Just as they don't say they are trying to incite a recession but they are. Or at least a mild one.
reply
77 sats \ 6 replies \ @Bell_curve 21 Aug
Good call about employee compensation which is not the same as 'full employment'.
Full employment is about getting the unemployment rate under 3 percent. The benchmark in 1997 was 5 percent.
reply
41 sats \ 5 replies \ @kepford 21 Aug
They say full employment for marketing reasons but its more about the cost of employment. If the econ gets to hot certain skilled workers start getting paid a lot more and that drives up prices. I've enjoyed being on the receiving end of that a few times.
Honestly, I am impressed with the Fed in many ways. But even with the smartest people in the world you can't really replicate the free market hive mind that sets market prices.
Its like having an AI that has access to all the data in the world and has sensors everywhere. There are so many feedback loops we can't even account for them all. The invisible hand is really underselling the pricing system.
And this applies to money or the cost of money as well as other goods.
But I better stop or I will get something wrong and Dr @Undisciplined will have to correct me.
reply
21 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 21 Aug
One addition, and I know you know it, but it's the reason none of this central planning stuff can ever even hypothetically work: the market has access to data that is fundamentally unknowable outside of the individual.
Our subjective preferences are not even comparable interpersonally, much less quantifiable by some group of Fed nerds, and yet, through the near magic of market forces, the result is an efficient allocation of resources.
view replies
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 21 Aug
1999 was a good year for 'skilled workers' in a 'tight labor market'.
Cost of employment makes more sense as it pertains to wage and price
reply on another page
21 sats \ 10 replies \ @kepford 21 Aug
I think those goals are real actually. If your think about it, it makes sense. They don't want unemployment to hi or the plebs get restless. If prices rise to high to fast you have the same problem.
reply
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @Bell_curve 21 Aug
From 1979 to 1983, unemployment, interest rate and inflation were in double digits. Ergo, high unemployment is caused by high interest rates.
Then in the 1990s, the Fed response to a 'smaller deficit' or a 'surplus' was lower interest rates (and a crazy stock market, irrational exuberance).
Another sign of fragility
reply
61 sats \ 8 replies \ @kepford 21 Aug
What's your point? That they suck at it? That it changed? That you don't buy it? That's all right.
reply
27 sats \ 7 replies \ @Bell_curve 21 Aug
Setting interest rates is part of monetary policy but it shouldn't be the bedrock of economic activity
Something changed after 1995 and then another big change in response to the 2008 financial crisis
view replies
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 21 Aug
The whole thing is fabricated. That's what "fiat" means.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 21 Aug
Exactly
reply