With its latest announcement, the Fed has finally shifted focus to its long-neglected other mandate, employment. Riddled throughout the official statement are mentions of labor and employment concerns, such as "Growth in employment has been slow, and the unemployment rate remains elevated." That's the second sentence of the statement, proof that Bernanke wanted to emphasize up-front that he's had enough of the waiting for things to get better.
Further evidence of this new focus is the Fed moderately bumped up its economic forecast for next year, meaning Bernanke could've made the case that conditions were expected to improve and thus no additional QE was needed. However, the Fed did announce more QE is on the way, and lots of it (open-ended).
In my opinion, to some extent Bernanke may have used the continuing unemployment problem as political cover, enabling him to put inflation worries aside and go ahead and act fairly aggressively despite pressure from Republicans to stand down. He also needed to skirt criticism for the Fed doing anything at all with an election just two months away.
I commend Bernanke for not giving in to intimidation by Republicans. You had the likes of Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee say that Bernanke “is beginning to do serious damage to the Fed as an institution.” If anything, the fact that more than a few Republicans are so upset about the Fed's actions has me believing they simply fear it will help to improve things -- heaven forbid! We can't have that!
The Fed's announcement is being characterized as if it's throwing the kitchen sink at the economy, and in many ways that's true. But whereas in the past the Fed has received harsh criticism from the left for not doing enough, I've always felt at least some sympathy for Bernanke's predicament (and wrote about it).
The fact remains the Fed alone cannot solve all the problems of this economy. It needs help from Congress in the form of fiscal stimulus and other spending measures in order to spur hiring and increase demand. This time around is no different from other times in the past as the Fed could never do it alone, with Volcker and Greenspan likewise depending on a more cooperative Congress, both parties working together to get the economy moving again. Also, in the past the Fed could just cut interest rates to boost the economy, but with rates currently at near zero this tool has been rendered useless. All the more reason the Fed needs help!
Republicans have refused to do anything that could improve the economy and Bernanke knows this sad truth all to well. On several occasions, whether it be Q&A or in statements, Bernanke has commented on the impotent Congress, stressing or inferring that the Fed cannot fix what's wrong all by itself, that the help of Congress is needed. To that end if Republicans choose to scold Bernanke, they're being disingenuous (surprise!).
What's ironic is the more the Fed is forced to do on its own, without congressional assistance, the higher the likelihood that some time down the road we may see inflation truly creep higher. Needless to say, Republicans greatly fear inflation given more than a few wealthy donors would be quite annoyed to think that their precious capital may erode in real dollar value. My read is there remains a great deal of slack in the economy which translates into low velocity of money and thus continued low inflation. If wages and prices do begin to finally rise in earnest, the Fed will certainly pick this up well ahead of time and take measures to slow the increase. That said, if not and inflation does shoot up exponentially, in large part the Republicans will be to blame.
Again I remind, the Fed has a dual-mandate, price stability and full employment, and with inflation remaining very low Bernanke realized he could no longer ignore the other much larger problem. To do so would've been willful negligence. But he wasn't alone in understanding the need for action as 11 of the 12 FOMC members voted in favor of the policy measures, further making evident the degree to which the entire Fed brain trust believes our unemployment situation is, as Ben put it, of "grave concern."
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query fed do it ALONE. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query fed do it ALONE. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, September 17, 2012
Sunday, August 28, 2011
I spent a few days away with family and friends. Needless to say, many are Republicans and worse yet, Tea Baggers.
I'm sure many of you can sympathize (empathize?) with this situation, looking to spend some R&R time away, visiting loved ones, catching up with old acquaintances, and yet knowing all the while the political leanings of those you will meet and that there's always the chance of something being said -- whether it be by them or you -- where if not handled delicately could domino into a full-blown squabble. On the one hand, you simply want to meet/greet/converse and keep things light, not because you want to but rather because you have to. Been there, done that, and past occurrences have dictated that's the way it has to be (unfortunately).
On the other hand, if something is said politically, you do not want to just let things go with a nod and grin, wanting instead to respond to whatever was said. Odds are it was something about Obama, or the deficit, or the woeful economy. Whatever was said, you know it was likely something paraphrased from FOX News and is either based on fiction or incorrect assumptions, or both.
Do you dare say something that undoubtedly will be perceived as "elitist" (code word for factually correct AND liberal-leaning)? Or do you just suck-it up, not wanting to risk having a brief statement mushroom into an ugly scene?
You never know which way things will go. Republicans and esp. Tea Baggers seemingly by nature harbor much inner-anger and are quick to jump all over you if they sense they're not discussing something with like-minded-thinking folks.
I have a tendency to try and go half way, perhaps injecting some facts into the dialogue (without mentioning sources up front since too often if you say NY Times or the like, it's immediately dismissed as leftist dogma), but stopping well short of giving a fleshed-out basis for my thoughts on the matter. I must say though that at times even this brief attempt at introducing something other that what Rush or Hannity might say does ignite some sparks. I must then make a quick decision: do I look to change the subject, if not for anyone else than for the sake of the kids if an argument ensued, or do I gingerly but forcefully rebuff the stoked-up incitement? Do I want to be another wet noodle? Another spineless liberal ala Harry Reid? Or do I do what Republicans and Tea Baggers do best, meet their intimidation and anger head-on with a dose of my own??
Again, for the sake of the kids, you want to avoid what could easily become an embarrassing spectacle. But also I am frequently outnumbered by this crowd and they appear to be fully aware of this and use it to full advantage, pressing their views while knowing they have numbers in bodies and can bully thanks to children being present.
Fortunately this time around, I was able to make some brief comments unscathed, deftly side-stepping any openings or possibilities for eruptions. Whew.
A relief, yes. But still it never ceases to amaze me the things I hear uttered by someone only to later hear something else said by the same person that contradicts or conflicts with what he or she said just a short time earlier.
For example, someone mentioned an article in the latest National Geographic magazine that informs of the women in Brazil having fewer babies thanks to their educating themselves about birth control alternatives. This person felt the article was very interesting and understood that in part Brazil's success over the last several years is due to their population becoming more developed and progressive in their thinking. However, this person is very much against abortion, actually he's against all forms of birth control, and also has a personal situation involving a teen pregnancy -- will leave at that, but I don't believe it was lost on him that education and birth control could have prevented that teen pregnancy.
Conflicting logic and dare I say hypocrisy is the norm when one is with Republicans and Tea Baggers. Yet as I mentioned, it's always amazing to observe their lack of realizing or acknowledging these many conflicts, that they live their day-to-day lives with so much incongruence, denial and (willful?) blindness.
Some other examples of topics that surfaced which I either elected to briefly offer comments and keep fingers crossed heated debate didn't follow, or I just let it go without comment (have to conserve energy, can't risk entanglement at every turn):
As much as I love vacations and seeing family and friends, this aspect of the visit never changes and serves to spoil what should be an enjoyable time. I have no problem with differences of opinions, as long as the arguments involved are based on facts, reason, logic and non-conflicting beliefs. As you can see, rarely do I encounter any of this. A shame.
I'm sure many of you can sympathize (empathize?) with this situation, looking to spend some R&R time away, visiting loved ones, catching up with old acquaintances, and yet knowing all the while the political leanings of those you will meet and that there's always the chance of something being said -- whether it be by them or you -- where if not handled delicately could domino into a full-blown squabble. On the one hand, you simply want to meet/greet/converse and keep things light, not because you want to but rather because you have to. Been there, done that, and past occurrences have dictated that's the way it has to be (unfortunately).
On the other hand, if something is said politically, you do not want to just let things go with a nod and grin, wanting instead to respond to whatever was said. Odds are it was something about Obama, or the deficit, or the woeful economy. Whatever was said, you know it was likely something paraphrased from FOX News and is either based on fiction or incorrect assumptions, or both.
Do you dare say something that undoubtedly will be perceived as "elitist" (code word for factually correct AND liberal-leaning)? Or do you just suck-it up, not wanting to risk having a brief statement mushroom into an ugly scene?
You never know which way things will go. Republicans and esp. Tea Baggers seemingly by nature harbor much inner-anger and are quick to jump all over you if they sense they're not discussing something with like-minded-thinking folks.
I have a tendency to try and go half way, perhaps injecting some facts into the dialogue (without mentioning sources up front since too often if you say NY Times or the like, it's immediately dismissed as leftist dogma), but stopping well short of giving a fleshed-out basis for my thoughts on the matter. I must say though that at times even this brief attempt at introducing something other that what Rush or Hannity might say does ignite some sparks. I must then make a quick decision: do I look to change the subject, if not for anyone else than for the sake of the kids if an argument ensued, or do I gingerly but forcefully rebuff the stoked-up incitement? Do I want to be another wet noodle? Another spineless liberal ala Harry Reid? Or do I do what Republicans and Tea Baggers do best, meet their intimidation and anger head-on with a dose of my own??
Again, for the sake of the kids, you want to avoid what could easily become an embarrassing spectacle. But also I am frequently outnumbered by this crowd and they appear to be fully aware of this and use it to full advantage, pressing their views while knowing they have numbers in bodies and can bully thanks to children being present.
Fortunately this time around, I was able to make some brief comments unscathed, deftly side-stepping any openings or possibilities for eruptions. Whew.
A relief, yes. But still it never ceases to amaze me the things I hear uttered by someone only to later hear something else said by the same person that contradicts or conflicts with what he or she said just a short time earlier.
For example, someone mentioned an article in the latest National Geographic magazine that informs of the women in Brazil having fewer babies thanks to their educating themselves about birth control alternatives. This person felt the article was very interesting and understood that in part Brazil's success over the last several years is due to their population becoming more developed and progressive in their thinking. However, this person is very much against abortion, actually he's against all forms of birth control, and also has a personal situation involving a teen pregnancy -- will leave at that, but I don't believe it was lost on him that education and birth control could have prevented that teen pregnancy.
Conflicting logic and dare I say hypocrisy is the norm when one is with Republicans and Tea Baggers. Yet as I mentioned, it's always amazing to observe their lack of realizing or acknowledging these many conflicts, that they live their day-to-day lives with so much incongruence, denial and (willful?) blindness.
Some other examples of topics that surfaced which I either elected to briefly offer comments and keep fingers crossed heated debate didn't follow, or I just let it go without comment (have to conserve energy, can't risk entanglement at every turn):
* Weather. Irene was obviously a subject of discussion, but so also was the torrential rains this summer coupled with parts of the country experiencing consecutive days of excruciating heat (e.g. Austin had 70 straight days of 100+ degree heat). You'd think maybe climate change would receive a mention as a possible factor in all of this -- nope. Instead, the usual babble about how weather is cyclical, this admittedly strange weather is no different than times in the past, it's just Mother Nature "getting angry", etc. Please. I did state that in fact the trends are not cyclical, that the charts all show the direction of heat and CO2 heading in one direction: up. Cyclical infers an up/down pattern -- over time, it's just not there. I also asked my favorite question, "where do you think the CO2 and pollutants go, into outer space?" and as per usual, never received a response.You get the point. It went on and on over several days. Some retired folks who were proud government workers for many years (decades), and yet recited more than a few anti-government GOP talking points. Mind you these same people had stated they loved their Medicare (when I asked) and even enrolled their name/address/phone# on a government website to receive robo-calls about Irene. I even heard one person seemingly slip up and tell me that in his town children attending a Catholic school receive busing to that school on the town's dime, via the public school bus system. I asked how could this be, why should the local public there pay for transportation to a non-public school -- never received a coherent answer.
* Riots in Philadelphia. I heard accolades given to the mayor of Philly, saying finally that city gets a good mayor, tough on "hoodlums" and enforcing curfews. I didn't think establishing something close to martial law in a U.S. city was a good thing, and was certainly a worrisome development to say the least, not so much warranting congrats to one individual but rather demanding analysis. Why is this happening? What are the root causes and how can those be addressed? I had to remind it's not likely just a coincidence that similar riots had been occurring elsewhere in the world (London, Chile, Egypt, Libya, etc.). The non-rich and non-elite are growing increasingly weary and frustrated with the state of things, whether it be high unemployment, rising food prices, ballooning wealth disparity, entrenched corruption, to name a few. People are getting pissed. Extending unemployment insurance is not just the right thing to do, it may also help to prevent further civil unrest -- but the GOP and Tea Baggers are too short-sighted to recognize such an act as a wise "investment."
* Stock portfolios. There was much chatter about the stock market. Will it go up from here or continue to go down? Do I have too much in stocks? Should I buy gold? Any advice?? No mention about how the stock market began its descent right after the Tea Party debt ceiling victory, effectively initiating a massive austerity program which leaves the economy sputtering on its own, with the government in a fiscal straight-jacket, not able to help. The stock market decline simply reflected the fragile state of the economy but more so it being sent out alone on the high-wire with no balance pole, no net, no nothing. S&P literally stated their downgrade was due largely to the Tea Party hostage-taking maneuver, and according to Sen. Mitch McConnell it will be used repeatedly in future. Heck, even Bernanke strongly hinted that the economy could use more help than just what the Fed could offer in monetary cures. But all of this was lost on this Tea Party crowd, who simply wanted to blame Obama, period.
* Libya/Gaddafi. Much grousing about why are we there at all. Oh boy. So it's OK for GW/Cheney to invade another oil-rich country that had nothing to do with 9/11, spending over $1 trillion to do so, using "shock and awe" methods to both scare and impress the world, and heavily reward a company called Halliburton -- and yet it's not OK for Obama to spend very little regarding Libya, doing so quietly, and obviously getting good results...? Gads, I just let this one go....
As much as I love vacations and seeing family and friends, this aspect of the visit never changes and serves to spoil what should be an enjoyable time. I have no problem with differences of opinions, as long as the arguments involved are based on facts, reason, logic and non-conflicting beliefs. As you can see, rarely do I encounter any of this. A shame.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Who's being duped?
National Review's Rich Lowry recently wrote that young Americans were being "duped" by Obama. What Lowry apparently doesn't understand is these "youthful idealists" of which he labels "saps, patsies and suckers" are actually anything but naive idiots. Quite the contrary.
The fact is most young folks today are smart enough to realize that Obama inherited a cluster-f*cked economy, namely the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Given the extent to which the situation was grave, with economic activity lacking a pulse, most intelligent voters appreciated that to fully recover from this mess in a mere three years was highly unlikely. After all, it took the New Deal and arguably WWII to successfully get the nation back on course over fifty years ago, and we have yet to see anything close to that degree of stimulus in relative terms. As it is, even after three bouts of quantitative easing (QE), you can still hear Bernanke strongly infer in his most recent comments that he and the Fed cannot do it alone, that help is needed in the form of additional fiscal stimulus. Yet such pleas for assistance are of course in vain.
To state that Obama is fully to blame for this continued economic malaise is simply disingenuous and frankly makes Lowry appear to be willfully duped by Republicans. Let's first remind him that this economy was inherited, with GW/Cheney overseeing eight years of reckless spending to the tune of about $2 trillion in unfunded wars and tax breaks for the top 1%. And it wasn't Obama who sat in the White House for years while the financial and housing sectors ballooned and popped, in large part due to inadequate regulation and oversight. But never mind all of that, past history, right? (Yet imagine what Lowry et al would say if things were reversed, if it was a Democrat as president during those eight years and a Republican running things since 2009 -- to this day, it would be 24/7 blame for the 2001-2008 years, make no mistake).
Then when Obama finally enters the scene in early 2009, eventually offering more than few proposals and solutions to help reverse our down-slide, who is there every time to obstruct and insure the economy remains woefully moribund? Yes, the Republicans, who are suddenly obsessed with the deficit and spending cuts. This is the party claiming to be about "Country First" and yet really is all about making sure a supposed Kenyan imposter is booted out of office after one term. When Reagan looked to address his recession, the Democrats at that time most often worked with him to get things done for the betterment of the country. We see nothing of the sort today from these Republicans, choosing instead to be craven, partisan hacks for their corporate and wealthy masters.
So again, these "young dupes" as Lowry calls them are well-aware of the reality of what has occurred -- or better yet, what hasn't occurred. Fortunately, most of them don't watch Fox News, with that channel possessing one of the most elderly audiences on TV (average viewer age is 65 years old), meaning young Americans are likely more fact-based and fabrication-free.
But while Lowry's on the subject of being duped, maybe he can comment on the long-standing puzzle regarding red-state voters and Republicans. You talk about individuals getting duped! It's a fact many if not most red states receive more money from the big-bad federal government than they contribute in tax dollars, i.e. they're "welfare queens" dependent on the federal government for needed funds. And yet voters in these states regularly vote for the political party that rails against federal assistance and welfare programs. Call it denial, call it ignorance (likely a mix of both), the odd truth remains that voters in red states too often side with representatives who are against those things that most benefit people in those states. It's flimflam at its best, using propaganda, lies and fear-mongering to convince people to vote against their own interests -- something I believe is best described as dupery.
But I'm sure Mr. Lowry would disagree. Only Obama possesses the skill and power to hypnotize an entire generation, fooling them into supporting him one more time. This kind of mass deception and manipulation has never and would never occur on the other side, it would be unheard of and frankly impossible to do.
Gads.
The fact is most young folks today are smart enough to realize that Obama inherited a cluster-f*cked economy, namely the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Given the extent to which the situation was grave, with economic activity lacking a pulse, most intelligent voters appreciated that to fully recover from this mess in a mere three years was highly unlikely. After all, it took the New Deal and arguably WWII to successfully get the nation back on course over fifty years ago, and we have yet to see anything close to that degree of stimulus in relative terms. As it is, even after three bouts of quantitative easing (QE), you can still hear Bernanke strongly infer in his most recent comments that he and the Fed cannot do it alone, that help is needed in the form of additional fiscal stimulus. Yet such pleas for assistance are of course in vain.
To state that Obama is fully to blame for this continued economic malaise is simply disingenuous and frankly makes Lowry appear to be willfully duped by Republicans. Let's first remind him that this economy was inherited, with GW/Cheney overseeing eight years of reckless spending to the tune of about $2 trillion in unfunded wars and tax breaks for the top 1%. And it wasn't Obama who sat in the White House for years while the financial and housing sectors ballooned and popped, in large part due to inadequate regulation and oversight. But never mind all of that, past history, right? (Yet imagine what Lowry et al would say if things were reversed, if it was a Democrat as president during those eight years and a Republican running things since 2009 -- to this day, it would be 24/7 blame for the 2001-2008 years, make no mistake).
Then when Obama finally enters the scene in early 2009, eventually offering more than few proposals and solutions to help reverse our down-slide, who is there every time to obstruct and insure the economy remains woefully moribund? Yes, the Republicans, who are suddenly obsessed with the deficit and spending cuts. This is the party claiming to be about "Country First" and yet really is all about making sure a supposed Kenyan imposter is booted out of office after one term. When Reagan looked to address his recession, the Democrats at that time most often worked with him to get things done for the betterment of the country. We see nothing of the sort today from these Republicans, choosing instead to be craven, partisan hacks for their corporate and wealthy masters.
So again, these "young dupes" as Lowry calls them are well-aware of the reality of what has occurred -- or better yet, what hasn't occurred. Fortunately, most of them don't watch Fox News, with that channel possessing one of the most elderly audiences on TV (average viewer age is 65 years old), meaning young Americans are likely more fact-based and fabrication-free.
But while Lowry's on the subject of being duped, maybe he can comment on the long-standing puzzle regarding red-state voters and Republicans. You talk about individuals getting duped! It's a fact many if not most red states receive more money from the big-bad federal government than they contribute in tax dollars, i.e. they're "welfare queens" dependent on the federal government for needed funds. And yet voters in these states regularly vote for the political party that rails against federal assistance and welfare programs. Call it denial, call it ignorance (likely a mix of both), the odd truth remains that voters in red states too often side with representatives who are against those things that most benefit people in those states. It's flimflam at its best, using propaganda, lies and fear-mongering to convince people to vote against their own interests -- something I believe is best described as dupery.
But I'm sure Mr. Lowry would disagree. Only Obama possesses the skill and power to hypnotize an entire generation, fooling them into supporting him one more time. This kind of mass deception and manipulation has never and would never occur on the other side, it would be unheard of and frankly impossible to do.
Gads.
Saturday, December 02, 2017
The Flynn plea deal is just one more step towards the truth
As I often do, I watched Fox News coverage of the Michael Flynn plea deal (always must check in to see what propaganda is being fed to "the base"). And as is often the case, it's as if I'm watching a channel from another planet. A little bit of Flynn news, followed by the tax bill, Steinle verdict, Conyers, Franken, the failure of liberalism, etc. It's no wonder Obama recently said, "Those who watch Fox News and those who read the New York Times occupy completely different realities. If I watch Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me."
Something I continue to hear on Fox is the refrain, "this latest bit of news is primarily bad for X, but still doesn't show or prove anything towards collusion with Russia." And "X" in this case is Flynn, but not long ago it was Manafort and Papadopoulos.
Rather than look at the bigger picture and how this Flynn plea fits into a progression of events leading to what will likely be a momentous conclusion, Fox News (and those on the right) prefers to compartmentalize each new revelation, judging it in isolation and framing it as "no big deal." Flynn's plea deal simply means Flynn lied and now he alone is paying the price for that misdeed, period. It says nothing about any wrongdoing by Trump, namely collusion with the Russians.
This is like watching the Super Bowl last year and at half-time stating the Patriots suck and the Falcons rule. Not so fast....
Mueller is currently fighting (and winning) battles to eventually win the war. The Flynn deal is just another step taken towards resolving the investigation. Mueller is leveraging players by obtaining their cooperation through plea deals as a means to discovery of what truly occurred, whether it be colluding with the Russians OR obstructing justice, or both. This is Law School 101 stuff.
And mind you, the fact that Flynn's deal is so lenient (plead guilty on just one count?!) given the laundry list of violations and possible criminal acts against him, it says Flynn had much to offer Mueller, which should make Trump et al VERY worried. Notice also no word of Flynn's son, who likely was saved as part of the deal -- again, emphasizing that Flynn presumably has ample significant information to hand over to Mueller.
As they say, this is a marathon, not a race. It's why Trump has repeatedly wanted to shut down the investigation. The longer it drags on, the closer Mueller gets to the actual truth. And if Trump was not afraid about the actual truth coming out, then he would have no problem with Mueller's investigation. But he does have a problem with it, biggly.
Something I continue to hear on Fox is the refrain, "this latest bit of news is primarily bad for X, but still doesn't show or prove anything towards collusion with Russia." And "X" in this case is Flynn, but not long ago it was Manafort and Papadopoulos.
Rather than look at the bigger picture and how this Flynn plea fits into a progression of events leading to what will likely be a momentous conclusion, Fox News (and those on the right) prefers to compartmentalize each new revelation, judging it in isolation and framing it as "no big deal." Flynn's plea deal simply means Flynn lied and now he alone is paying the price for that misdeed, period. It says nothing about any wrongdoing by Trump, namely collusion with the Russians.
This is like watching the Super Bowl last year and at half-time stating the Patriots suck and the Falcons rule. Not so fast....
Mueller is currently fighting (and winning) battles to eventually win the war. The Flynn deal is just another step taken towards resolving the investigation. Mueller is leveraging players by obtaining their cooperation through plea deals as a means to discovery of what truly occurred, whether it be colluding with the Russians OR obstructing justice, or both. This is Law School 101 stuff.
And mind you, the fact that Flynn's deal is so lenient (plead guilty on just one count?!) given the laundry list of violations and possible criminal acts against him, it says Flynn had much to offer Mueller, which should make Trump et al VERY worried. Notice also no word of Flynn's son, who likely was saved as part of the deal -- again, emphasizing that Flynn presumably has ample significant information to hand over to Mueller.
As they say, this is a marathon, not a race. It's why Trump has repeatedly wanted to shut down the investigation. The longer it drags on, the closer Mueller gets to the actual truth. And if Trump was not afraid about the actual truth coming out, then he would have no problem with Mueller's investigation. But he does have a problem with it, biggly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)