Trump Nominates Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve Chair
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:15:47 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  Trump Nominates Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve Chair
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Trump Nominates Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve Chair  (Read 3087 times)
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 19, 2017, 03:31:13 PM »
« edited: November 02, 2017, 05:54:28 PM by Frodo »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/19/jerome-powell-trump-candidate-federal-reserve-chair-243957
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2017, 09:39:41 PM »

Is he in favor of raising interest rates to deflate bubbles.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2017, 09:41:07 PM »

Is he in favor of raising interest rates to deflate bubbles.

From what has been said, Trump favors low interest rates. So I don't know what that says about his preferred choice.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2017, 10:40:07 PM »

Neel Kashkari, R. Glenn Hubbard, Roger W. Ferguson, Meg Whitman, Larry Lindsey, or Keith Hennessey would all be much better choices. Oh well.
Logged
mvd10
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2017, 07:36:03 AM »
« Edited: October 20, 2017, 07:38:09 AM by mvd10 »

Neel Kashkari, R. Glenn Hubbard, Roger W. Ferguson, Meg Whitman, Larry Lindsey, or Keith Hennessey would all be much better choices. Oh well.

Why exactly? Powell seems like a relatively sensible choice, he isn't as dovish as Yellen but he also wouldn't scare the markets as much as Taylor. I guess him not having an economics PhD is a downside, but he's been member of the Fed board for 5 years now so he likely knows what he's doing (and the Fed has tons of smart PhD economists anyway).

Is he in favor of raising interest rates to deflate bubbles.

He's more hawkish than Yellen (and he's also more in favour of financial deregulation and Trump's tax policies, although he's not as right-wing as some other candidates), but Powell wouldn't signal a drastic change in monetary policy. Kevin Warsh and especially John Taylor would be the most hawkish candidates (and they're also very supportive of Trump's tax policies and financial deregulation). Powell, Warsh and Taylor are all Republicans btw. Trump himself is in favour of low interest rates (like someone already noted), so appointing a hawk wouldn't make much sense in that case. But Trump probably wants to appoint a supply-sider/Republican who is supportive of his policies but most of them also are quite hawkish. So Powell probably is the logical choice.
Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2017, 08:53:59 AM »

It was telling when even Marketplace on NPR - a general supporter of the market status quo - is criticizing the Fed essentially saying they don't understand the role of inflation. Why then the whole 2% assumption?

https://www.marketplace.org/2017/10/20/economy/fed-might-not-have-inflation-all-figured-out

I don't particularly take it as 'reassuring' like the guest on this segment that they admit a lack of understanding but still consider to act upon it as a part of the Fed's mission of controlling money supply and balancing the economy/employment.

The Fed's mission has not been fundamentally changed based on the considerable lessons from 2008 - they still have the same overall mission - and the beneficiaries of the current low rate system are corporations and wealthy investors. Trump of course appreciates this mission and status quo despite his 2016 bromides about the debt bubble and the Fed's role in it as a member of this class of institutional investors, hedge fund managers, and big business moguls.

Logged
Tintrlvr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,285


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2017, 10:07:58 AM »

It was telling when even Marketplace on NPR - a general supporter of the market status quo - is criticizing the Fed essentially saying they don't understand the role of inflation. Why then the whole 2% assumption?

https://www.marketplace.org/2017/10/20/economy/fed-might-not-have-inflation-all-figured-out

I don't particularly take it as 'reassuring' like the guest on this segment that they admit a lack of understanding but still consider to act upon it as a part of the Fed's mission of controlling money supply and balancing the economy/employment.

The Fed's mission has not been fundamentally changed based on the considerable lessons from 2008 - they still have the same overall mission - and the beneficiaries of the current low rate system are corporations and wealthy investors. Trump of course appreciates this mission and status quo despite his 2016 bromides about the debt bubble and the Fed's role in it as a member of this class of institutional investors, hedge fund managers, and big business moguls.



The reason inflation is staying below 2% is obvious. The Fed says that 2% inflation is a target but acts like 2% inflation is a ceiling, which means they're *really* targeting inflation somewhere below 2%, and the market is pricing itself accordingly.
Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2017, 01:01:58 PM »

It was telling when even Marketplace on NPR - a general supporter of the market status quo - is criticizing the Fed essentially saying they don't understand the role of inflation. Why then the whole 2% assumption?

https://www.marketplace.org/2017/10/20/economy/fed-might-not-have-inflation-all-figured-out

I don't particularly take it as 'reassuring' like the guest on this segment that they admit a lack of understanding but still consider to act upon it as a part of the Fed's mission of controlling money supply and balancing the economy/employment.

The Fed's mission has not been fundamentally changed based on the considerable lessons from 2008 - they still have the same overall mission - and the beneficiaries of the current low rate system are corporations and wealthy investors. Trump of course appreciates this mission and status quo despite his 2016 bromides about the debt bubble and the Fed's role in it as a member of this class of institutional investors, hedge fund managers, and big business moguls.



The reason inflation is staying below 2% is obvious. The Fed says that 2% inflation is a target but acts like 2% inflation is a ceiling, which means they're *really* targeting inflation somewhere below 2%, and the market is pricing itself accordingly.

The question of 2% is just a piece of the overall picture. Of course I am coming at it from a different POV than a lot of people here - and to me the statements don't sound very reassuring to main street small-scale investors. Surely, Trump & others think that low interest rates will be the recipe for re-election.

An outsider candidate is Stanford University professor and former George W. Bush administration Treasury official John Taylor. Professor Taylor is a leading advocate of a “rules-based” monetary policy. Advocates of forcing the Fed to follow specific rules say this will bring stability and predictability to monetary policy.

Again I think they are missing the whole point.

Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2017, 04:05:49 PM »

Neel Kashkari is uniquely qualified for this role.
Logged
mvd10
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2017, 12:44:40 PM »

Neel Kashkari is uniquely qualified for this role.

I'd say that being uniquely qualified involves having an economics PhD (and he's a bit too young imo), but he'd be an acceptable choice. I'm not really sure who I back. John Taylor is uniquely qualified, but he's too hawkish. Warsh doesn't have an economics PhD and was terribly wrong about inflation in 2008-2010, Powell doesn't have an economic PhD either and Yellen is a bit too dovish. In the end I suppose I'd support reappointing Yellen (as she is extremely qualified) or appointing Powell (he doesn't have an economics PhD but he's worked at the Fed for years and the Fed has tons of PhD economists anyway). The Fed balance sheet should be reduced, but not as fast as Warsh or Taylor want (but preferably a little faster than Yellen wants).
Logged
#gravelgang #lessiglad
Serious_Username
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2017, 09:30:21 PM »

Neel Kashkari is uniquely qualified for this role.

I'd say that being uniquely qualified involves having an economics PhD (and he's a bit too young imo), but he'd be an acceptable choice. I'm not really sure who I back. John Taylor is uniquely qualified, but he's too hawkish. Warsh doesn't have an economics PhD and was terribly wrong about inflation in 2008-2010, Powell doesn't have an economic PhD either and Yellen is a bit too dovish. In the end I suppose I'd support reappointing Yellen (as she is extremely qualified) or appointing Powell (he doesn't have an economics PhD but he's worked at the Fed for years and the Fed has tons of PhD economists anyway). The Fed balance sheet should be reduced, but not as fast as Warsh or Taylor want (but preferably a little faster than Yellen wants).

Good take. Real damage can be done to the economy by raising rates too quickly and seems like Yellen or Powell would take a reasonable tactic on rates. I'm with you that Yellen is probably a smidge slow on her rate of raising rates, but I also firmly believe in maintaining continuity at the Fed for a period of time maintain the stability of markets. If I could bet on it, I'd put money on Powell, but obviously my preference is Yellen.
Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2017, 09:35:59 PM »

Neel Kashkari is uniquely qualified for this role.

I'd say that being uniquely qualified involves having an economics PhD (and he's a bit too young imo), but he'd be an acceptable choice. I'm not really sure who I back. John Taylor is uniquely qualified, but he's too hawkish. Warsh doesn't have an economics PhD and was terribly wrong about inflation in 2008-2010, Powell doesn't have an economic PhD either and Yellen is a bit too dovish. In the end I suppose I'd support reappointing Yellen (as she is extremely qualified) or appointing Powell (he doesn't have an economics PhD but he's worked at the Fed for years and the Fed has tons of PhD economists anyway). The Fed balance sheet should be reduced, but not as fast as Warsh or Taylor want (but preferably a little faster than Yellen wants).

Good take. Real damage can be done to the economy by raising rates too quickly and seems like Yellen or Powell would take a reasonable tactic on rates. I'm with you that Yellen is probably a smidge slow on her rate of raising rates, but I also firmly believe in maintaining continuity at the Fed for a period of time maintain the stability of markets. If I could bet on it, I'd put money on Powell, but obviously my preference is Yellen.

What will you do with your screen name when she leaves?

#EndTheFed
Logged
#gravelgang #lessiglad
Serious_Username
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2017, 09:37:45 PM »

Neel Kashkari is uniquely qualified for this role.

I'd say that being uniquely qualified involves having an economics PhD (and he's a bit too young imo), but he'd be an acceptable choice. I'm not really sure who I back. John Taylor is uniquely qualified, but he's too hawkish. Warsh doesn't have an economics PhD and was terribly wrong about inflation in 2008-2010, Powell doesn't have an economic PhD either and Yellen is a bit too dovish. In the end I suppose I'd support reappointing Yellen (as she is extremely qualified) or appointing Powell (he doesn't have an economics PhD but he's worked at the Fed for years and the Fed has tons of PhD economists anyway). The Fed balance sheet should be reduced, but not as fast as Warsh or Taylor want (but preferably a little faster than Yellen wants).

Good take. Real damage can be done to the economy by raising rates too quickly and seems like Yellen or Powell would take a reasonable tactic on rates. I'm with you that Yellen is probably a smidge slow on her rate of raising rates, but I also firmly believe in maintaining continuity at the Fed for a period of time maintain the stability of markets. If I could bet on it, I'd put money on Powell, but obviously my preference is Yellen.

What will you do with your screen name when she leaves?

#EndTheFed

Change it to Jerome Powell Tongue
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2017, 05:53:52 PM »
« Edited: November 02, 2017, 05:56:08 PM by Frodo »

Trump has made his choice, and it is Jerome Powell.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2017, 07:06:04 PM »

in the grand scheme of things, Powell is not at all a bad choice for a Republican President. Considering Trump's bizarre rhetoric on the fed, this could've gone a lot worse.

Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2017, 10:17:24 AM »

He will be similarly cautious in terms of raising rates but reportedly friendlier to the big banks.

That's not very good.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2017, 03:42:00 PM »

He will be similarly cautious in terms of raising rates but reportedly friendlier to the big banks.

That's not very good.
I still maintain Neel Kashkari, Larry Lindsey, or R. Glenn Hubbard would have been better.
Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2017, 02:18:38 PM »

He will be similarly cautious in terms of raising rates but reportedly friendlier to the big banks.

That's not very good.
I still maintain Neel Kashkari, Larry Lindsey, or R. Glenn Hubbard would have been better.

Despite being a Republican, Trump ended up nominating an Obama-era Fed appointee who is the closest to the Yellen mold. It's a sign that there's really very little difference in the post-election view of the two parties.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 13 queries.