Who tf cares about Pol Pot memes
I've got an anime girl version of Pol Pot on a throne of skulls from that anime girl dictator collection but that's off topic!
We need to somehow make that about Sanders since I want to see this.
Who tf cares about Pol Pot memes
I've got an anime girl version of Pol Pot on a throne of skulls from that anime girl dictator collection but that's off topic!
Those unique perspectives are utterly useless without a background in the field at a very high level. Ben Bernanke, the guy who was an expert on the great depression and who happened to coincidentally be in charge of the Fed when the Great Recession hit, was raised in a middle-class family. Janet Yellen was raised in a middle class family. Paul Volcker was raised in a middle class family. Having a PhD in economics is generally going to put you in the upper-middle class, yes, because a Econ PhD is super valuable on the job market. Not because it's only "rich bankers" who get appointed to the fed.
Those voices have plenty of room to exercise their preferences in other ways through our political system. But the Fed is deliberately cordoned off and taken incredibly seriously because it's there to keep a guy like Trump from trainwrecking the economy single handedly. The powers the Fed have make it so a mismanaged Fed can set the US economy back decades with the wrong decisions.
Let's take a look at dictatorships around the world...
Hyperinflation you say.
It's anti-intellectualism when you claim that having farmers on the board that sets economic policy would be better than people who have PHDs in economics and have studied the field their entire life, yes.
Yes, you don't need laborers to tell you how things will effect working class people when you have left of center economists who can do that and make recommendations while actually knowing the field and the candidates' work. The idea that they're an out of touch cabal is ridiculous.Find me the person who has said there should be no one with an economics degree making decisions. Is it really so much to ask that you have some laborers in there who can provide the perspective on how decisions being made by those elites would hit working class people? Is it so vital that the economists making decisions never be subject to having to be in the same room with a working person or a farmer?
The idea that only "bankers" put up nominees to the Fed is nonsense. We have the AEA, liberal think tanks, and all sorts of other places giving input to Presidents on the topic. Brookings is going to have far more of an impact on who gets picked than say, Goldman Sachs, in a Dem admin.
Who tf cares about Pol Pot memes
I've got an anime girl version of Pol Pot on a throne of skulls from that anime girl dictator collection but that's off topic!
Asking people who are making recommendations on economics staffing to have a background in economics and familiarity with the people involved is not "classism", it's establishing a minimum bar of credentials.it doesn't suck as hard as your "meritocratic" classism
there's nothing actually precluding someone without a career in investment banking from having some say in america's monetary policy other than elitism
there do exist people in varied backgrounds who have studied economics
AOC was a fucking bartender and she can talk around a lot of people in D.C. as well as every online right wing dipshit like Ben Shapiro
kind of a broad brush here tbhit doesn't suck as hard as your "meritocratic" classism
there's nothing actually precluding someone without a career in investment banking from having some say in america's monetary policy other than elitism
there do exist people in varied backgrounds who have studied economics
AOC was a fucking bartender and she can talk around a lot of people in D.C. as well as every online right wing dipshit like Ben Shapiro
is that supposed to make people feel better? liberal think tanks have way too much power and are uniformly garbage
Asking people who are making recommendations on economics staffing to have a background in economics and familiarity with the people involved is not "classism", it's establishing a minimum bar of credentials.
Ah yes, like that time Labour economist Ann Pettifor predicted the 2008 crash and was heeded and the crash stopped in time to save hundreds of thousands of middle class people from having to take on the burden of the crisis.Yes, you don't need laborers to tell you how things will effect working class people when you have left of center economists who can do that and make recommendations while actually knowing the field and the candidates' work. The idea that they're an out of touch cabal is ridiculous.
https://www.intheblack.com/articles...-and-why-we-should-listen-to-them-from-now-onPettifor's 2006 publication – The Coming First World Debt Crisis – bombed on its release, but became a bestseller after the GFC. The then little-known British economist claimed levels of private debt were unsustainable and that the debt crisis "will hurt millions of ordinary borrowers, and will inflict prolonged dislocation and economic, social and personal pain on those largely ignorant of the causes of the crisis, and innocent of responsibility for it."
In the book, Pettifor blames the US Federal Reserve, politicians and mainstream economists for endorsing a framework to support unsustainably high levels of borrowing and consumption under the guise of propping up the economy. Continuing the theme in her most recent writing, Pettifor attacks the "small elite that controls the global finance sector" and suggests government bailouts protecting speculative private wealth holders mean "we are no longer dealing with anything resembling a free market system".
It's a real galaxy brain moment when you realize being socially liberal but economically conservative isn't really a thing, because those two things are intertwined. It's saying you support the marginalized on a conceptual level, but you don't want to actually do anything about their situation or the causes of it.
bernie/ratatouille 2020I think, in the same sense as Warren's co-management proposal to have employees on the boards of corporations, it would be good to have some representatives of labor on the Fed board, but farmers are not particularly representative of modern American labor or economics and choosing them rather arbitrarily is a little too redolent of anti-cosmopolitanism to me.
Put the head of a culinary worker's union on there instead.
how's this for a broad brush
Yes, it absolutely would be. I have a bachelor's in the subject and I'd be horribly unqualified to pick out a fed chair beyond vetoing the obvious crazies because I don't know the work of the candidates well enough to do that. And if I don't know enough, someone who doesn't even do anything related to the field certainly wouldn't be there.well i don't accept your premise that farmers for instance who meet that bar don't exist
it certainly wouldn't be akin to passengers flying an airliner
I'm not saying they're perfect (Greenspan suuuuuuucked, and Navarro is accellerating the inevitable recession as we speak.) but Navarro would not pass a Senate vote for a Fed chair because he's fucking crazy, which is why Trump ended up having to nominate someone really boring.Ah yes, like that time Labour economist Ann Pettifor predicted the 2008 crash and was heeded and the crash stopped in time to save hundreds of thousands of middle class people from having to take on the burden of the crisis.
https://www.intheblack.com/articles...-and-why-we-should-listen-to-them-from-now-on
Oh wait no that's the good timeline. Sorry, my feeds are messed up we're in the bad one.
Trump is President, so not really.
This is an astoundingly bad take, at least when it comes to the Fed. It's very much applicable to Trump and co though.how's this for a broad brush
no one running the american economy knows what the fuck they are doing, they make decisions that will benefit the richest people- not ones that will prevent the economy from crashing again, which is why it probably will within the next two years
Not everyone can be a president, but a president can come from VermontIsn't the message of that film like "Not everyone can be a cook, but a great cook can come fron anywhere?"
I think the moral was "Bernie is a rat, and criticism is fake news spread by petty assholes who miss their mommies"Isn't the message of that film like "Not everyone can be a cook, but a great cook can come fron anywhere?"
Isn't the message of that film like "Not everyone can be a cook, but a great cook can come fron anywhere?"
You are being really dense here. It's almost like you don't understand that there is such a thing as consumer advocacy, and banking is a service to be "consumed". No one thinks that we should put a farmer in charge of monetary policy. Im almost 100% sure Bernie is talking about consumer advocacy and how it makes no sense for the bankers to be influencing that aspect.Yes. Not only would it be a bad thing, It'd be a catastrophically terrible idea.
You think a farmer knows monetary policy? Dealing with the IMF? Interest rates? International Trade?
It's a real galaxy brain moment when you realize being socially liberal but economically conservative isn't really a thing, because those two things are intertwined. It's saying you support the marginalized on a conceptual level, but you don't want to actually do anything about their situation or the causes of it.
I don't really find that your analogy fits the situation. Your doctor is paid to help you and has every reason to, the bankers don't (and will in many cases profit off of what hurts you). I tried to think of a better analogy with the doctor, but there really isn't one that fits (that I can think of).Asking my doctor to have a medical degree and license is not "elitism." Asking someone who's going to be in charge of managing the economy to have a background in economics isn't "elitism" either.
Not just an American phenomenon.It's largely an American phenomenon. We are taught that all of us can make it by our bootstraps but to also treat everyone equally. Except the poor, they're lazy. And those lazy poor people often tend to be nonwhite...hm. But the bootstraps!
Economists are not bankers.I don't really find that your analogy fits the situation. Your doctor is paid to help you and has every reason to, the bankers don't (and will in many cases profit off of what hurts you). I tried to think of a better analogy with the doctor, but there really isn't one that fits (that I can think of).
Once again, not saying this is a real solution, but it's not terrible to have some people that represent working class people. It's elitist to say there isn't a smart farmer with the best of intentions (and some understating of economics), who will do better than some guy who is a banker, with the worst of intentions.
I know. But that's the point of his article. Did you read it?
Good thing bankers don't run the Fed then.
You are being really dense here. It's almost like you don't understand that there is such a thing as consumer advocacy, and banking is a service to be "consumed". No one thinks that we should put a farmer in charge of monetary policy. Im almost 100% sure Bernie is talking about consumer advocacy and how it makes no sense for the bankers to be influencing that aspect.
They don't. They only have a reason to help farmers tho.
This is a bullshit dodge. You know what I mean, you understand verbal shorthand right? A lot of the people influencing monetary policy or consumer banking policy are waaaay too cozy with Wall Street. This inevitably is what keeps leading to decisions at the top that aren't helpful to middle and working class people.
It's this part I take exception to:I'm not saying they're perfect (Greenspan suuuuuuucked, and Navarro is accellerating the inevitable recession as we speak.) but Navarro would not pass a Senate vote for a Fed chair because he's fucking crazy, which is why Trump ended up having to nominate someone really boring.
You imply a sort of openness to soliciting outside advice which is not born out by how the 2008 crisis was handled, or do you feel the 2008 crisis is an exception here?Yes, you don't need laborers to tell you how things will effect working class people when you have left of center economists who can do that and make recommendations while actually knowing the field and the candidates' work. The idea that they're an out of touch cabal is ridiculous.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mo...nancial-crisis-now-shes-predicting-the-sequelWhile regulators around the world knew a lot about regulated banking, there was a giant "shadow banking" system of lending between banks and other financial institutions, and little was known in aggregate about it.
"The central banks don't know. Nobody knows," Pettifor said.
"We don't know what the deal is. Nobody is overlooking it.
"Nothing has been done to fix, or constrain the shadow banking system."
Central banks had been signalling that they would soon begin raising interest rates, which is another warning sign for Pettifor.
"The really ironic thing is the Federal Reserve and other central banks really believe they have to tighten [monetary policy] to provide what they call 'headroom' to deal with the next crisis," she said.
Jerome Powell, the Fed's chairman, said on Friday he expected there to be four interest rate rises in the US this year.
"He is … playing a part in triggering the next crisis by raising rates. I find it bizarre."
She has no advice to give to Kiwi households on how to protect themselves.
"The only thing we can do, and this is my mission, which is to spread knowledge of how the system works, and challenge the orthodoxy.
Here's a useful way to think about it: Bernie Sanders sees the problem of shadow banking primarily as a problem of major institutions. Tackle the biggest banks, weakening their political power and their ability to engage in questionable financial practices by breaking them up, and that largely solves the problem. Hillary Clinton, however, sees the problem of shadow banking as primarily one of activities. In this case, you need to cast a wider regulatory net, aiming at the specific types of actions financial people are taking rather than the size and strength of specific institutions.
In advance of the Iowa primary, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have duked it out over who would tackle Wall Street best. Clinton's reform package aims wide, extending scrutiny from the banks to smaller players who played an outsized role in the financial crisis. Sanders—who, unlike Clinton, has rejected Wall Street money—actually takes a narrower approach that favors a popular but insufficient strategy to "break up the banks." If Sanders wants to challenge modern finance, he should incorporate and surpass Clinton's plan.
It's helpful, first, to understand why many find Sanders's approach insufficient. Sanders wants to break up the banks in two ways: by size and by line of business. Picture a horizontal cut making the largest banks smaller. Then picture a vertical cut separating ordinary banks from the investment banks. That would be the reintroduction of the Depression-era Glass–Steagall Act, which is at the core of Sanders's proposed reforms.
However, the financial crisis started with the failure of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. Neither of these were traditional banks, so Glass–Steagall wouldn't have changed them. The panic created by those two failures spread through many other financial institutions, creating, for example, runs on money-market mutual funds. These, too, exist outside the traditional banking sector and would not be addressed by Sanders's plan.
It's a real galaxy brain moment when you realize being socially liberal but economically conservative isn't really a thing, because those two things are intertwined. It's saying you support the marginalized on a conceptual level, but you don't want to actually do anything about their situation or the causes of it.
What's Bernard's position on single-payer universal healthcare?
That's why Bernie's proposal was to have people from all walks of life involved. Farmers don't have every incentive to help me necessarily (but probably more than an economist would), but they do have an incentive to help other farmers. Laborers would have an incentive to help me as a fellow laborer, etc.
Bingo. Monetary policy experts and economists know the intricacies of the economic system, but that doesn't magically mean that they don't have gaps in their perspective on how their policy decisions effect everyday regular people.That's why Bernie's proposal was to have people from all walks of life involved. Farmers don't have every incentive to help me necessarily (but probably more than an economist would), but they do have an incentive to help other farmers. Laborers would have an incentive to help me as a fellow laborer, etc.
I would disagree with the analogy. Piloting a plane requires science-backed expertise (objective reality) while being an "expert economist" is a more blurry space, since "The Economy" is not purely scientific itself and is traversed by both ideological bias + its object of study being subjectivity (value itself).
I agree anti-intellectual populism sucks, but so does the liberal elitism that enables it.
If we extend this analogy further, the pilot and the co-pilot have parachutes (of the golden variety) in the case of plane failure while the passengers have nothing except the reassurances of the pilot that everything's okay:The analogy has an even simpler issue; the pilot is trustworthy because if he doesn't do his job he dies too.