I realize that The value of Fed independence, and Trump’s threat to it, is something that people should stop, register, and take action on. I realize that practically no information about what...
Trump corrupts everything he touches. He has corrupted the Republican Party, and he has corrupted the Supreme Court. If elected, he will surely corrupt the Fed as well.
"And, of course, what I hear as near-total silence from the macroeconomists who have chosen to be professional Republicans speaks very loudly indeed."
They will not speak up, because doing so needs some spine. And I wouldn't be too sanguine about any of the Fed Governors' terms. They can be intimidated to leave "voluntarily." In that type of world, security for self and family can play a major role. (I entertained that possibility only after reading the debates here). Further, how many journalists have covered the contrasting positions (along with implications) of the two campaigns on the Fed's independence on monetary policy?
On another issue, why does the media insist that she should show her economic policy platform when so little is known about his potential economic policies? They're sounding very fair and balanced aren't they? What a farce.
Trump also seems to want to replace income taxes with tariffs. Apparently, MAGA means a return to the economic policies of the 1800's that we long ago wisely abandoned.
"But every single year starting in 2000 in American governance, something has happened that I would have, beforehand, characterized as way, way, way out in the statistical-distribution tales. The fall of Federal Reserve independence in a Trump-launched analogue to Andrew Jackson is certainly way out in the tales."
I am pretty sure that it should be 'tails' instead of 'tales'.
There are professional Democratic economists, who put their loyalty to the party and ideology above rigorous research. (I will decline to name names here but I would bet many folks can think of some.)
There are Democratic professional economists, which is to say, serious economists whose opinions about how to run the economy align with the Democratic party, and they aren't shy about saying so. (In that camp you'd find Krugman, Sahm, and our gracious host here.)
There are professional Republican economists (hacks, like Kevin Hassett of "Dow 36000" infamy).
And there _used_ to be be Republican professional economists, but no longer, because the party actively pushes out people who put loyalty to reality above loyalty to Dear Leader.
I agree that a Trumpified Supreme Court will not read "for cause" dismissal of Board Governors to mean "at will." But such a court is fully capable of finding a "for cause" statute unconstitutional. Unitary executive, y'know.
Perhaps wishcasting? There are fairly good reasons to think that the 2% target that the Bank of New Zealand pulled out of the ether is too low, given the demographic shifts that trend toward secular stagnation. We need more room to cut rates to avoid recession. Given that we've decisively proven we _can_ get inflation back down to 2% (because we did), now would be a good time to declare victory and then say that we're going to intentionally start trimming rates to let inflation come back up a bit, and then stabilize it at a higher target going forwards. Maybe 2.5, maybe even 3.
Trump corrupts everything he touches. He has corrupted the Republican Party, and he has corrupted the Supreme Court. If elected, he will surely corrupt the Fed as well.
"And, of course, what I hear as near-total silence from the macroeconomists who have chosen to be professional Republicans speaks very loudly indeed."
They will not speak up, because doing so needs some spine. And I wouldn't be too sanguine about any of the Fed Governors' terms. They can be intimidated to leave "voluntarily." In that type of world, security for self and family can play a major role. (I entertained that possibility only after reading the debates here). Further, how many journalists have covered the contrasting positions (along with implications) of the two campaigns on the Fed's independence on monetary policy?
On another issue, why does the media insist that she should show her economic policy platform when so little is known about his potential economic policies? They're sounding very fair and balanced aren't they? What a farce.
Trump also seems to want to replace income taxes with tariffs. Apparently, MAGA means a return to the economic policies of the 1800's that we long ago wisely abandoned.
Just a note. In this bit:
"But every single year starting in 2000 in American governance, something has happened that I would have, beforehand, characterized as way, way, way out in the statistical-distribution tales. The fall of Federal Reserve independence in a Trump-launched analogue to Andrew Jackson is certainly way out in the tales."
I am pretty sure that it should be 'tails' instead of 'tales'.
There are professional Democratic economists, who put their loyalty to the party and ideology above rigorous research. (I will decline to name names here but I would bet many folks can think of some.)
There are Democratic professional economists, which is to say, serious economists whose opinions about how to run the economy align with the Democratic party, and they aren't shy about saying so. (In that camp you'd find Krugman, Sahm, and our gracious host here.)
There are professional Republican economists (hacks, like Kevin Hassett of "Dow 36000" infamy).
And there _used_ to be be Republican professional economists, but no longer, because the party actively pushes out people who put loyalty to reality above loyalty to Dear Leader.
I agree that a Trumpified Supreme Court will not read "for cause" dismissal of Board Governors to mean "at will." But such a court is fully capable of finding a "for cause" statute unconstitutional. Unitary executive, y'know.
Off-topic today, but on-topic other days (neoliberalism and its discontents) ...
https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/seeing-like-a-matt
You marked the fed target inflation rate at 2.5% on the chart, but shouldn't it be 2%?
Perhaps wishcasting? There are fairly good reasons to think that the 2% target that the Bank of New Zealand pulled out of the ether is too low, given the demographic shifts that trend toward secular stagnation. We need more room to cut rates to avoid recession. Given that we've decisively proven we _can_ get inflation back down to 2% (because we did), now would be a good time to declare victory and then say that we're going to intentionally start trimming rates to let inflation come back up a bit, and then stabilize it at a higher target going forwards. Maybe 2.5, maybe even 3.