Economic News | Trump removes Fed Gov Cook
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 3K
- Views: 137K
- Politics
- Messages
- 609
Trump has bought $100 million in bonds since taking office. His portfolio is poised to get a boost if the Fed cuts rates.
Trump has bought $100 million in bonds since taking office. His portfolio is poised to get a boost if the Fed cuts rates.
Trump has repeatedly pressured the Fed to cut rates, something that could boost bond portfolios, including his own.
www.businessinsider.com
- Messages
- 2,446
grifter gonna griftTrump has bought $100 million in bonds since taking office. His portfolio is poised to get a boost if the Fed cuts rates.
Trump has bought $100 million in bonds since taking office. His portfolio is poised to get a boost if the Fed cuts rates.
Trump has repeatedly pressured the Fed to cut rates, something that could boost bond portfolios, including his own.
"If you want to get rich, start a religion,"
_ L. Ron Hubbard
" If you want to get really really rich, get elected as an immune corrupt president of the United States"
-Donald J. Trump
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 9,569
For the record, I think Trump will lose this one. Of course, I've said that before when he didn't. But in this case, I'm not relying on the Supreme Court's integrity. I'm relying on their venality.
SCOTUS is in the process of eliminating all independent agencies because originalism and executive power and all that. It is letting Trump run amok, and it will probably overturn the leading case about independent agencies just because. BUT in one of the recent opinions, they said, more or less, none of this applies to the Fed, because the Fed has constitutional underpinnings in the first and second national banks, blah blah blah. There's no bank in the constitution. There is no constitutional underpinnings in a bank that didn't purport to (and couldn't technically) control monetary policy. There wasn't even anything called monetary policy.
So why did they specifically exempt the federal reserve? Because they have stock portfolios. Because they don't have skin in the game if the authoritarian is deporting migrants to Uganda, but they are affected by a spike in inflation. And exempting the fed from the previous order was basically saying, "OK Trump, you can have the whole government; what you cannot have is this court and the stuff that's really important to us. Like our portfolios. And monetary policy." Of course he pushed the limit, as he was intending all along.
Maybe they bend over, but maybe they grow a spine on this one. I think I'm being pretty cynical here.
SCOTUS is in the process of eliminating all independent agencies because originalism and executive power and all that. It is letting Trump run amok, and it will probably overturn the leading case about independent agencies just because. BUT in one of the recent opinions, they said, more or less, none of this applies to the Fed, because the Fed has constitutional underpinnings in the first and second national banks, blah blah blah. There's no bank in the constitution. There is no constitutional underpinnings in a bank that didn't purport to (and couldn't technically) control monetary policy. There wasn't even anything called monetary policy.
So why did they specifically exempt the federal reserve? Because they have stock portfolios. Because they don't have skin in the game if the authoritarian is deporting migrants to Uganda, but they are affected by a spike in inflation. And exempting the fed from the previous order was basically saying, "OK Trump, you can have the whole government; what you cannot have is this court and the stuff that's really important to us. Like our portfolios. And monetary policy." Of course he pushed the limit, as he was intending all along.
Maybe they bend over, but maybe they grow a spine on this one. I think I'm being pretty cynical here.
- Messages
- 2,556
The Dow has become a near pure speculation and vibes market. Concerning economic data barely moves the needle for a day before the day trader speculation (bots) and mafia style manipulations take effect.
Eventually this shit causes foreign investment to seek more predictability and political stability. In the interim, greed takes hold and there’s a gold rush to get a piece of the volatility. I assume that’s what we’re seeing right now, bc the prediction data, both economic and political, point towards an eventual collapse and Russia style raiding of distressed assets.
- Messages
- 2,446
The logical answer is that if Trump can't fire her, she's not fired and her vote should count. So, take a guess. Everybody else has to.
Last edited:
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 9,569
I don't know much about Trump's appointees, but if they have any integrity, they will vote with Powell as a sign of solidarity. I just do not see big business and Wall St. supporting fucking with monetary policy. Like, those big Wall St. fortunes like Mercer -- their ideal is a powerful autocratic government with low tax rates for them, and an independent monetary authority providing cheap capital.
- Messages
- 2,446
So the Fed says it will abide by the ruling of the court regarding the outcome of Cook's case.
Let's just hope this case doesn't reach SCOTUS for a decision.
Let's just hope this case doesn't reach SCOTUS for a decision.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 9,569
As I said before, there is reason to think that SCOTUS will treat this situation differently than it did the NLRB.
- Messages
- 2,446
So if this bullshit reaches SCOTUS we don't have to worry about them finding firing a Fed governor an executive act ?
You always have to worry when this SCOTUS is involved in anything.
That said, the Court has already created a separate Fed exception.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 9,569
I'm with Calheel: I'm never going to be super confident with this SCOTUS.
But I continue to believe, with fair justification, that the Justices do what they care about. They aren't anti-vax so they have zero tolerance for anti-vaxxers and mostly they rejected the COVID vaccine bullshit. But they are either anti-union or they don't care, so they are happy to eviscerate federal worker protections. They don't care about USAID, so it's gone.
They do care about independent monetary policy, I would imagine. They all understand the significance of an independent fed. They don't want an economic collapse or 20% inflation.
In this case, I'd be counting on their lack of principles. That's why I think they will do the right thing, for the wrong reason. As Calheel and I noted, they have already signaled on this issue.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 9,569
Sort of. They said that the Fed stood on different ground than the FTC. Most people interpret that as saying, "why would they bother to distinguish if they didn't think it was a distinction," and I agree. But it was not quite the "we definitely created a separate Fed exception" that you suggest here.
Yes, I simplified/overstated it.
For the laymen, the Court claimed that the "The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States."
In other words, we want our retirement portfolios to stay high so we need to come up with an arbitrary rule that keeps Trump in check when it comes to the Fed.