This is not authorized by law and it is not consistent with past practice. Nowhere is the Fed Board authorized to name Powell the chair pro tempore and the Fed has never named an outgoing chair as pro tem chair.
When China was taking jobs and destroying U.S. businesses, we were told that people should “learn to code” and that new, better jobs would replace the old ones.
Now we’re supposed to be in a panic because businesses are import dependent on China.
If you’ve built your business on imports from China and are facing ruin from tariffs, you made an incredibly risky business decision and then stuck with it even when the risks became too obvious to overlook.
Being dependent on China’s ability to continue to export cheap goods for you to sell in the U.S. exhibits a lack of prudential judgment. China is not a secure or safe trading partner and its current economic and political system is not sustainable.
Trump’s enemies push this line—that Trump is threatening to undermine Fed independence—because they see it as a way of defending other agencies. It’s a sort of slippery slope argument: if you let Trump boss around US AID, the Fed is toast.
The logic that it is unconstitutional to shield the CFBP or the FHFA from executive control does not imply that it is unconstitutional to shield the Fed in a similar way. The resemblance is only superficial.
What makes the Fed different? At least when it comes to monetary policy, it is carrying out a role assumed by the constitution to the legislative branch.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof.”
After more than 50 years, legendary broadcast journalist Chuck Scarborough stepped down from his daily duties anchoring the news at NBC 4 New York.
So now seems a good time to finally tell everyone the true story of Scarborough that no one knows.
Some background.
I’m a journalist myself. I started out at the very edge of journalism. I worked for a blog called Dealbreaker. We had no access and no one knew who we were.
Every story we broke was built on literal shoe leather. That’s how I found out about Scarborough.
At the start, I was pretty introverted and did not really like talking to strangers. I was so shy that I did not even like talking to shop clerks to ask where something was.
I had to train myself to overcome that when I started covering Wall Street.
Let's play: Who is more wrong about economics according to economists?
Round 1:
The same survey @JustinWolfers points to below shows that ZERO economists disagree with the statement: "There is little empirical evidence that price gouging is causing high grocery prices."
Round 2.
What share of economists agree that capping rent increases by corporate landlords at 5% would make middle-income Americans substantially better off over the next ten years?
Two percent.
Round 3.
What share of economists disagree with the idea that rent caps would REDUCE the amount of apartments available?
Just 6 percent! (A large uncertainty group here, though.)
I see a lot of people are wondering why the government bothers to issue bonds when it could just print money to pay for the labor and resources it needs for its projects.
The answer is deceptively simple but I doubt even a half dozen economists could explain it to you.
So here's a thread.
Let's start from the beginning.
The government needs real resources to carry out its projects. It needs labor and it needs stuff. Maybe it wants to build a dam or take Normandy back from the French.
In a free society, to acquire the resources, it has to pay for them. The trouble is that the government has almost no income of its own. It has to get people to agree to allow it to finance the project in some way.