Another Republican President, Another Recession.

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Lmao, you posted a link of 15 people, but lets remove 11 and 12 because they're all the same fortune, now you have a list of 13 people of which 2 (15%) are women, 1 is african, several are immigrants, four (30%) are jews and seven are white (if you count slavs as white, which I don't, but I'm being generous) or 54% total are white and only 38% are white cis male. This is in a 70% white country and you think this is proof of a lack of diversity? Proof of a lack of advantages for immigrants? Wow.
How much of the wealth of our nation are wrapped up in those 15 people?

Also the fact that you are counting two white women who are tied to other people on the list and I am guessing a troll of somehow a african is white(?) ( Because I am not sure who you are talking about), mean that my description is false, I don't notice in my description there being a 'immigration status'.

I stand by what I have correctly described as a Wealthy White Heterosexual Male Only agenda being alive and strong as the only demographic that the Republican party legislates for. Just because a Wealthy White Heterosexual Female benefits from their legislation doesn't mean that it was aimed at helping them.

One of the things I have learned about people who are stuck in troll mode. Like you seem to be. Is that they never learned how to be wrong and accept new information or facts that are counter to the bullshit narratives they have convinced themselves is true.

You are saying that '54%' are white on the top 15 richest in America shows how bad you are at math (at best).

Damn, that is crazy that you look at half of the people on that list as not white.Screen Shot 2020-11-15 at 7.25.32 PM.pngScreen Shot 2020-11-15 at 7.26.18 PM.png


Seriously are you for real?
 

TrippleDip

Well-Known Member
Damn, that is crazy that you look at half of the people on that list as not white.

Seriously are you for real?
Ya mon. Jews, asians, slavics, and africans aren't white. Light skin africans exist but you don't seem willing to acknowledge it.

You call me a troll but even your list of 15 people is cherrypicked because there are 5 white people from two families padding it out. You want to pretend that whites are overrepresented in a country that is 70% white, but less than 70% of the people on your list are white. If you have a problem with jews being overrepresented just come out and say it man. Don't hide your antisemetic attitude behind "middle easterners are white too" rhetoric.

And don't give me no melanin content = race bs because that's just stupid. Don't just assume everyone with less melanin is white, like you don't assume everyone with big lips is black. Next you will be claiming punjabis as white as well.

And no sht you didn't mention immigrants. Flys right in the face of your narrative. How are all these immigrant families making it big if there's really some "old cis white male's club" hmmm?

Ps: look south - hispanics have some 60 or 70 words to describe different types or black. We're not some solid block you can call black. To a south afrikan a north african is not black. You would call me black but to a hispanic I am not negro, and my children would be claro or mullato ben claro or smth. All separate, it's not at all black vs white like you want it to be.

This is america and it is everyone for themselves, do what's best for you and the opportunity to make it big is there. Don't believe me? How come more than 70% of families end up in the top 20% of earners for at least part of their life. Your fixation on the 1% causes you to ignore the huge amount of diversity inclusiveness and opportunity for the middle and upper middle class.

 
Last edited:

Wattzzup

Well-Known Member
How much of the wealth of our nation are wrapped up in those 15 people?

Also the fact that you are counting two white women who are tied to other people on the list and I am guessing a troll of somehow a african is white(?) ( Because I am not sure who you are talking about), mean that my description is false, I don't notice in my description there being a 'immigration status'.

I stand by what I have correctly described as a Wealthy White Heterosexual Male Only agenda being alive and strong as the only demographic that the Republican party legislates for. Just because a Wealthy White Heterosexual Female benefits from their legislation doesn't mean that it was aimed at helping them.

One of the things I have learned about people who are stuck in troll mode. Like you seem to be. Is that they never learned how to be wrong and accept new information or facts that are counter to the bullshit narratives they have convinced themselves is true.

You are saying that '54%' are white on the top 15 richest in America shows how bad you
How much of the wealth of our nation are wrapped up in those 15 people?

Also the fact that you are counting two white women who are tied to other people on the list and I am guessing a troll of somehow a african is white(?) ( Because I am not sure who you are talking about), mean that my description is false, I don't notice in my description there being a 'immigration status'.

I stand by what I have correctly described as a Wealthy White Heterosexual Male Only agenda being alive and strong as the only demographic that the Republican party legislates for. Just because a Wealthy White Heterosexual Female benefits from their legislation doesn't mean that it was aimed at helping them.

One of the things I have learned about people who are stuck in troll mode. Like you seem to be. Is that they never learned how to be wrong and accept new information or facts that are counter to the bullshit narratives they have convinced themselves is true.

You are saying that '54%' are white on the top 15 richest in America shows how bad you are at math (at best).

Damn, that is crazy that you look at half of the people on that list as not white.View attachment 4743338View attachment 4743339


Seriously are you for real?
guess numbers do lie. Well people lie about numbers. Yes this guy makes his own shit up.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Ya mon. Jews, asians, slavics, and africans aren't white. Light skin africans exist but you don't seem willing to acknowledge it.
Pretty fucked up mindset you have there. How did you come to believe this?

You call me a troll but even your list of 15 people is cherrypicked because there are 5 white people from two families padding it out. You want to pretend that whites are overrepresented in a country that is 70% white, but less than 70% of the people on your list are white. If you have a problem with jews being overrepresented just come out and say it man. Don't hide your antisemetic attitude behind "middle easterners are white too" rhetoric.
No your fucked up definition of what makes someone white leads you to use bullshit percentages of all the white people on that non-cherry picked list (because it is just a top 15, not 1-4, 8, 10, 12-15 on the list which would be cherry picked).

100% of the people on that list are white. Your just too radicalized to understand that.

Your troll about your calling me 'antisemetic' (just because you say something doesn't make it true), is also bullshit. You check out the grand children of most minorities after mixing with white people here in the states and they become indistinguishable from other white people. Which does mean a lot in important life choices like employment that over the last couple hundred years has had a very big impact from race.

And don't give me no melanin content = race bs because that's just stupid. Don't just assume everyone with less melanin is white, like you don't assume everyone with big lips is black. Next you will be claiming punjabis as white as well.

And no sht you didn't mention immigrants. Flys right in the face of your narrative. How are all these immigrant families making it big if there's really some "old cis white male's club" hmmm?

Ps: look south - hispanics have some 60 or 70 words to describe different types or black. We're not some solid block you can call black. To a south afrikan a north african is not black. You would call me black but to a hispanic I am not negro, and my children would be claro or mullato ben claro or smth. All separate, it's not at all black vs white like you want it to be.

This is america and it is everyone for themselves, do what's best for you and the opportunity to make it big is there. Don't believe me? How come more than 70% of families end up in the top 20% of earners for at least part of their life. Your fixation on the 1% causes you to ignore the huge amount of diversity inclusiveness and opportunity for the middle and upper middle class.

Immigration does not fly in the face of what I am saying. Rich people don't lose their money when they immigrate to America. And for the last 2000 years or so, it has been pretty dominate that white men are the ones with all the wealth in western civilization.

The rest is just you being stupid AF.

You actually fall for cherry picked statistics and accuse others of doing so. You are trying to paint me into a corner with your 1% bullshit. I sure as shit am not talking about 3 million people. The truly mega rich are far less than that. '1% is just bullshit populist messaging.

20% of the population is what about 66 million people, no shit that after working a lifetime most people who keep jobs (historically white men) will have earned enough to move them into a middle class lifestyle, even breaking into a higher level of upper middle class.

You are really invested in your bullshit racist narrative. That sucks. And I really hope that you eventually step back from having to try to defend your bullshit and try to understand that you have (at best) been tricked into thinking it has any merit when it does not.

Why are you picking the 'top 20% of earners'?
 

TrippleDip

Well-Known Member
Why are you picking the 'top 20% of earners'?
You think that the top 1% live better than the top 20%? Like they have 28 hours in their day and no work?


>Jews, asians, slavics, and africans aren't white. Light skin africans exist but you don't seem willing to acknowledge it. (Me)

Pretty fucked up mindset you have there. How did you come to believe this?
How is that fucked up? Guess you judge whiteness only based on skin pigmentation then. That is what's really fucked up. So when does a tan redneck become black again?
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
You think that the top 1% live better than the top 20%? Like they have 28 hours in their day and no work?
I am not playing the top 1% game, that is over 3 million people.

Let's just say the richest in our nation. Maybe a couple thousand people? Because yes, the richest in our nation do not have any real danger of ever needing money again. And more important to that IMO is that their children, and children's children don't ever have any worries about money either.

Trump was never part of that group. Which is why he was able to roll through daddies money so easily.

How is that fucked up? Guess you judge whiteness only based on skin pigmentation then. That is what's really fucked up. So when does a tan redneck become black again?
What you don't seem to want to understand is that the children are indistinguishable from white people in America. Those children will have better opportunities at getting hired, not getting arrested, not being discriminated against while taking out a loan, etc.

There is a clear division in how people of color are treated in our nation unfortunately. And no amount of pretending otherwise because of bullshit racist propaganda tricking you into believing otherwise changes that fact.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Socialism is just a dog whistle word for them, it's not even about ideology, most don't even know the meaning of either word. It's about forming a sharing community with others they don't like. Look at the military as a good example, they used to be all for it, but much of the military are made up of minorities now and equality and merit are the ethos of the organizations, the ideas they are asking these people to fight for.

Respect for the Military among these people is lip service only, many who were inclined, eschew service, because a black female NCO will be ordering their ass around and they have to compete for promotion with them. May racists who serve with black people have their attitudes changed too, in large and small ways. The military vote went for Biden by 80% and that was before Trump tried to disenfranchise them across multiple states. Socially the military were ahead of society with integration starting after the second world war and don't ask don't tell, they would like to go further, but that is political.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Don't call be madam, I work for l living you asshole!
Yes sergeant, if you don't wanna be called a lady fine.
Gimme 20 dog face! :lol:
 

TrippleDip

Well-Known Member
What you don't seem to want to understand is that the children are indistinguishable from white people in America.
Wrong. You can tell a jew from a slav from an asian from a white guy. You still know an albino black person is black.


There is a clear division in how people of color are treated in our nation unfortunately
Got any proof for that? We've had black astronauts for 60 years. Black billionaires. Even in the jim crow south there were black land owners free and could legally own slaves themselves.

This is what I will never understand about you. How can you take situations like floyds where two minority business owners call the police for help because another minority is committing crimes and acting erratically. The police show up, half of whom are people of colour. And this is racism?

Didn't they have a black woman chief of police in seattle? How can you say that black people are held back from advancement *by* white people. Black people are held back by the crime and lack of proper role models in their community. Doesn't matter if your racism bogeyman created those problems, those are the problems that need to be fixed.

And no evidence of disparity doesn't prove some crackpot conspiracy of white people systematically discriminating against blacks. There are many better, simpler, more probable reasons to consider without inventing something you cannot see, prove, or fix.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Wrong. You can tell a jew from a slav from an asian from a white guy. You still know an albino black person is black.



Got any proof for that? We've had black astronauts for 60 years. Black billionaires. Even in the jim crow south there were black land owners free and could legally own slaves themselves.

This is what I will never understand about you. How can you take situations like floyds where two minority business owners call the police on another minority committing crimes and acting erratically. The police show up, half of whom are people of colour. And this is racism?

Didn't they have a black woman chief of police in seattle? How can you say that black people are held back from advancement *by* white people. Black people are held back by the crime and lack of proper role models in their community. Doesn't matter if your racism bogeyman created those problems, those are the problems that need to be fixed.
Jesus Christ, you've been reading Nazi trash on race, individual differences exceed ethnic propensities, to the extent they exist at all. You are not an Aryan, they do not exist except in ancient northern India, you are a fool who was conditioned to believe you should better better than the brown folks, but know you are not. That is when you are honest with yourself, which is not much, introspect much?
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Wrong. You can tell a jew from a slav from an asian from a white guy. You still know an albino black person is black.



Got any proof for that? We've had black astronauts for 60 years. Black billionaires. Even in the jim crow south there were black land owners free and could legally own slaves themselves.

This is what I will never understand about you. How can you take situations like floyds where two minority business owners call the police on another minority committing crimes and acting erratically. The police show up, half of whom are people of colour. And this is racism?

Didn't they have a black woman chief of police in seattle? How can you say that black people are held back from advancement *by* white people. Black people are held back by the crime and lack of proper role models in their community. Doesn't matter if your racism bogeyman created those problems, those are the problems that need to be fixed.
That right there is called gaslighting.


Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes, including low self-esteem, thereby rendering the victim additionally dependent on the gaslighter for emotional support and validation. Using denial, misdirection, contradiction, and misinformation, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's beliefs.

There are mountains of data and shelves of reports from studies that show systemic racism exists in this country. We all saw George Floyd's murder and the cold blooded cop who did it in front of the crowd. There is no taking back that image. We know what you are doing. Trump and Republicans have used this tactic so many times in the last four years that it doesn't work any more. Gaslighting is an abusive tactic and we are kicking the Abuser In Chief out of our House.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Wrong. You can tell a jew from a slav from an asian from a white guy. You still know an albino black person is black.
Bullshit, you really are snowballed into thinking some fucked up racist shit man.
Got any proof for that?
lmao for real what is the point with you?

What is it that radicalized you with your bullshit mindset that you currently have about race?

We've had black astronauts for 60 years.
Wow, you mean sciences are more likely to have a more progressive understanding of race not being a factor in ones ability?

Black billionaires.
Yeah, lots of people have first generational wealth. There are even black people that have had wealth handed down to them form their elders. It doesn't make it the norm or change the fact that by underfunding the cities our government sanctioned our minority communities to stay in until the last couple decades have caused systemic racist economic and societal factors that harm a large percentage of those people trapped in those communities.

Even in the jim crow south there were black land owners free and could legally own slaves themselves.
Sure sure, and then we get to see Tulsa and Georgia in the 1900s wipe that growth away when white men started burning down their property and murdering the minorities that tried to make themselves better.

This is what I will never understand about you. How can you take situations like floyds where two minority business owners call the police for help because another minority committing crimes and acting erratically. The police show up, half of whom are people of colour. And this is racism?
You just putting shit out there again and acting like it is in anyway reality. You should just stop trying to pretend that you know what someone else is thinking and unless you point to something I have said, I call bullshit.

The thing I think you may be wrongly describing above in your troll post, is that I am talking about the fact that you can have a area 170 square miles being policed by over 2200 cops, while a couple counties over you have almost 700 square miles being policed by 160 cops. It is systemic issues like that (and allowing banks to not provide mortgages or minorities to buy land if the neighborhood didn't want them) that is the racism that has left our nation in the state that it is in.

Didn't they have a black woman chief of police in seattle? How can you say that black people are held back from advancement *by* white people. Black people are held back by the crime and lack of proper role models in their community. Doesn't matter if your racism bogeyman created those problems, those are the problems that need to be fixed.
You are really worked up about race today, why is that? Have you been getting spammed a bunch of nonsense from trolls looking to get you in a froth?

You should check in on why you are feeling like you are.

How many police chiefs are in America? You think that being able to show some examples means shit except for your wanting to not accept the reality of the entire situation and not just whatever it is that makes you feel better about your very racist propaganda beliefs.

That is on you to find your own way out of your bigotry.
And no evidence of disparity doesn't prove some crackpot conspiracy of white people systematically discriminating against blacks. There are many better, simpler, more probable reasons to consider without inventing something you cannot see, prove, or fix.
There is no 'conspiracy'. White men have been making the laws of this land for hundreds of years, and now are finally to the point that we have one political party legislating for 100% of the population. They were also the ones in charge of the economy, and unfortunately have put their mark on everything for so long that their very narrow view has made it hard for people who are not white men to rise up as easily and consistently because of the very real systemic racism that you are programmed to not want to believe.
 

TrippleDip

Well-Known Member
Bullshit, you really are snowballed into thinking some fucked up racist shit man.
Bruh, my eyes don't deceive. I can tell an asian from a slav from a jew from a white man and so can you and everyone else.


The thing I think you may be wrongly describing above in your troll post, is that I am talking about the fact that you can have a area 170 square miles being policed by over 2200 cops, while a couple counties over you have almost 700 square miles being policed by 160 cops.
What is population density, and amount of crime. Totally proportionate to the amount of crime. How come when we see less police, such as in baltimore in the 90s, crime goes up and peoples lives get worse?


their very narrow view has made it hard for people who are not white men to rise up as easily and consistently because of the very real systemic racism
Point to it, show me systemic racism today. Please. Not some effects of yesteryears racism tyvm. You keep saying it exists but give no solvable problems.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Bruh, my eyes don't deceive. I can tell an asian from a slav from a jew from a white man and so can you and everyone else.
Bullshit, as soon as they marry a white woman and pop out a couple kids, those kids look just like everyone else that is white in America.

You have to be trying to look real hard to give a shit about what flavor they are.
What is population density
This is the racist shit that you fail to understand. Instead of 'What' you should be asking yourself 'Why' the population density.

We forced our minortiy communities into very small areas of our nation in my lifetime. This is not enough to overcome the generational headstart that our minority communities were kept out of. And those small areas have been chronically underfunded and underinvested in.

This is your roadblock and why everything else you tend to say falls apart.

and amount of crime
If you don't have a cop arresting someone or reporting it, was it a crime?

Once you understand the large population areas and over-policing these communities, you should be able to understand why a area with 160 cops for 700 square miles leads to less crime than what is going on in the cities.
Totally proportionate to the amount of crime.

How come when we see less police, such as in baltimore in the 90s, crime goes up and peoples lives get worse?
Because someone looked up a cherry picked example to try to use as some rebuttal to trick people into believing racist propaganda?

Also I don't think you can say 'lives get worse'. I call bullshit on that. You are full of shit if you think that 1990s life of black people was worse than it was in the 50s.

Point to it, show me systemic racism today. Please. Not some effects of yesteryears racism tyvm. You keep saying it exists but give no solvable problems.
Screen Shot 2020-11-16 at 1.54.29 PM.pnghttps://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-discrimination-lawsuits-seattle-real-estate-brokers-b834276621c7e604a1b03c8c142a0c6e
SEATTLE (AP) — Several fair housing organizations accused Redfin of systematic racial discrimination in a lawsuit Thursday, saying the online real estate broker offers fewer services to homebuyers and sellers in minority communities — a type of digital redlining that has depressed home values and exacerbated historic injustice in the housing market.

In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, the organizations said that during a two-year investigation they documented the effect of Redfin’s “minimum price policy,” which requires homes to be listed for certain prices to reap the benefits of Redfin’s services.

The company was vastly less likely to offer realtor services, professional photos, virtual tours, online promotion or commission rebates for homes listed in overwhelmingly minority neighborhoods than it was in overwhelmingly white ones, the investigation found.

That meant homes in minority neighborhoods were likely to stay on the market longer and sell for lower prices than they otherwise might have, the lawsuit said.

“Redfin’s policies and practices operate as a discriminatory stranglehold on communities of color, often the very communities that have been battered by a century of residential segregation, systemic racism, and disinvestment,” the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit comes as the nation reckons with generations of systemic racism, including in real estate. Mortgage lenders and brokers long discriminated by drawing lines on maps — known as redlining — and refusing to provide services for homes outside of white areas, preventing minority residents from building wealth through homeownership. Though the practice was outlawed decades ago, it has had severe consequences in perpetuating poverty and restricting access to good schools, health care and other amenities.

Litigation in the 1990s and 2000s helped erase similar minimum value policies in the insurance industry, where companies would provide substandard homeowners policies or no policies based on a home’s age and market value.

Redfin, based in Seattle, launched in 2006 and has grown to offer residential real estate brokering, mortgage, title and other services in more than 90 markets in the U.S. and Canada. In a statement Thursday, CEO Glenn Kelman insisted that the company had not violated the federal Fair Housing Act, “which clearly supports a business’s decisions to set the customers and areas it serves based on legitimate business reasons such as price.”

However, he said, the lawsuit raised important questions that Redfin has struggled with.

“Our long-term commitment is to serve every person seeking a home, in every community, profitably,” Kelman said. “The challenge is that we don’t know how to sell the lowest-priced homes while paying our agents and other staff a living wage, with health insurance and other benefits. This is why Redfin agents aren’t always in low-priced neighborhoods.”

Redfin might seem an unlikely target for such a lawsuit: It has previously said it is devoted to eradicating systematic discrimination in the industry and that enabling people of color to find listings online — rather than relying on an agent to show them what homes are available — could help end segregation. Two years ago Kelman hosted a symposium on racial prejudice in real estate.

The company once experimented with awarding realtors commissions based on customer satisfaction rather than sale price, as a way to promote the sale of less expensive homes, but found it difficult to recruit agents who expected to make more money for selling more expensive homes.

But Redfin’s minimum price and other policies have had the opposite effect, according to the National Fair Housing Alliance, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit dedicated to eliminating housing discrimination, and nine of its member organizations. With financial support from U.S. Housing and Urban Development, they studied the policy’s effect in Baltimore; Chicago; Detroit; Kansas City; Long Island, New York; Louisville, Kentucky; Memphis, Tennessee; Milwaukee; Newark, New Jersey; and Philadelphia.

Under the minimum price policy, Redfin doesn’t offer its full services unless homes are listed for certain prices, which vary by market. When potential buyers click on homes that fall below those minimums, they receive a message saying, “Redfin is currently unable to show this property.”

The lawsuit disputed the notion that Redfin’s practice was justified by business concerns, noting the company charges a minimum commission for the sales it handles.

In Chicago last June, the company didn’t offer services unless the homes were listed for at least $400,000, the lawsuit said. In adjacent, predominantly white DuPage County, however, the minimum price was just $275,000.

In Detroit the same month, the minimum was set at $700,000. In the surrounding, mostly white areas outside the city limits, it was $250,000.

Further, it alleged, Redfin sometimes failed to provide services even when a home’s price topped the minimum. That was much more common in predominately minority neighborhoods, including Chicago’s South Side, the organizations said.

Using Census data to compare ZIP codes that are at least 70% white with those that are at least 70% minority, the organizations compared listings for which Redfin offered its “best available service” with those for which it offered no service on multiple dates over the past two years.

On June 12, for example, there were 218 homes posted on Redfin in non-white neighborhoods in the Kansas City area. Of them, 16 had Redfin’s best service and 127 were offered no service.

By contrast, there were 4,550 homes in predominately white neighborhoods of Kansas City. More than half received the best available service and only 14% had no service, the lawsuit said.

Similar disparities were found in other cities, it said. On Long Island last Aug. 20, listings in white ZIP codes were 55 times more likely to receive Redfin’s best service.

In minority ZIP codes of Louisville, none of the 108 homes posted on Nov. 21, 2018, or the 31 homes listed on June 11, 2020, received Redfin’s best service, the groups found.

The lawsuit asks the court to block any Redfin policies found to violate federal fair housing law and seeks punitive damages.

Brandon Scott, Baltimore’s City Council president and mayoral candidate, sent a letter to Redfin on Thursday calling for an end to the policy.

Lisa Rice, president and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance, said the groups did not share their findings with Redfin before filing the lawsuit because past experience with the industry sometimes resulted in long, unsuccessful negotiations that only protracted the issues.

“We have had decades and decades and decades of discriminatory practices in the real estate field,” she said. “Real estate agents are some of the most well-trained professionals in the industry. They know what redlining is.”
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Republicans throwing up another roadblock to our economy by pushing through another Trump troll appointment.
link to Washington Post story
Screen Shot 2020-11-16 at 9.28.30 PM.png
Republican lawmakers are about to start an arms race politicizing a government institution critical to the country’s functioning, one that spent decades painstakingly establishing its credibility as a neutral, apolitical body of professionals.

No, not the Supreme Court. This time it’s the Federal Reserve.

The Senate is expected to vote as soon as this week on Trump’s nomination of Judy Shelton to the Fed. Simply put, Shelton is a demonstrably unqualified partisan quack who has no business working at the world’s most powerful central bank. Her nomination has been condemned by hundreds of economists and Fed alumni, including prominent Republicans and at least seven Nobel laureates. The senators poised to confirm her appear to know she is unfit; ahead of February hearings, a former Republican Senate Banking Committee aide said that “the idea of even calling her as a witness for something was beyond the pale” not long ago.

Republican lawmakers who now support Shelton’s appointment to one of the most important economic policymaking jobs in the world have struggled to explain why. In damningly faint praise, they admit that sure, she might believe ridiculous things, but she’d serve alongside competent people. So she can’t cause that much damage, right?

To be clear, these lawmakers have generally not endorsed Shelton’s stances.

Perhaps most objectionable is her multi-decade effort to bring back the gold standard. This might be popular among the right-wing fringe, but it was abandoned worldwide long ago and remains almost unanimously rejected by economists. For good reasons, including that gold prices are volatile. Linking the dollar to gold can also restrict liquidity when the economy needs it most — as happened during the Great Depression.

Neither Shelton nor her Senate supporters have adequately accounted for her abrupt about-faces on other beliefs — flips that coincide with her party’s political interests.

For example: When a Democrat was president, she fearmongered about impending “ruinous inflation” and called for higher interest rates even though the economy was weak. (The Fed, quite responsibly, ignored her.) Then, once Trump was elected, she called for cutting interest rates “as expeditiously as possible,” even while the economy was strong. Likewise, pre-Trump, she accused the Fed of nefariously weakening the dollar to boost exports; under Trump, she agreed with the president that the Fed should weaken the dollar to boost exports.

She has also questioned whether the Fed should even exist — before she was nominated to serve on its board.

Senate Republicans have confirmed other unqualified cranks to senior Trump administration jobs — including to helm departments that nominees themselves earlier said shouldn’t exist. But both parties have long seen the Fed as too important to the domestic and global economies to politicize. A central bank requires political independence, real and perceived, to function, as events in Argentina and pre-euro Italy have amply demonstrated.

The four sitting Fed officials appointed by Trump and confirmed by the Senate are all knowledgeable, apolitical professionals. And when Trump tried last year to appoint a couple of partisans to join them, GOP senators admirably blocked the nominations.

It’s unclear why Republicans are lowering the bar now — in the midst of a historic economic crisis. Another pending Fed nominee, Christopher Waller, is qualified for the job and still hasn’t gotten a vote; yet somehow Shelton is getting jammed through ahead of him.

One possible explanation: a desire to salt the earth for incoming President-elect Joe Biden.

Once a Democrat is back in the White House, Shelton might revive her previous forewarnings about “ruinous inflation” and insist on hiking interest rates. On this she would likely be outvoted, of course. Still, she might cause substantial damage because she may effectively have veto powerover emergency lending programs the Fed is using to fight the pandemic recession. This could happen if at least two sitting board members vacate their posts early — which seems quite possible given recent Fed turnover.

Shelton’s confirmation could represent a point of no return for corrupting the mission and functionality of the Fed, and destroying whatever bipartisan resolve remained to not tank the economy for political gain. For the past several years, many on the left have agitated for more monetary and fiscal stimulus, even though a stronger economy might have boosted Trump’s reelection chances. But as we recently saw with the partisan effort to confirm Trump’s Supreme Court nominee — and the calls for retaliatory “court-packing” that followed — Democrats may come to resent this sort of unilateral disarmament. An arms race to put increasingly ideological or partisan people on the Fed may not be far off.

I hope I’m wrong — both that Shelton is about to be approved and that her confirmation would escalate efforts to sabotage the job market or price stability while the other party is in power. But if I’m right, a dark new economic era looms.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/19/emergency-lending-programs-fed-treasury/Screen Shot 2020-11-20 at 6.00.14 AM.png
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Thursday said he would not extend most of the emergency lending programs run in tandem with the Federal Reserve, a move the central bank immediately criticized, citing the fragile recovery.

The Fed’s exceedingly rare public response reflected a government divided on how to act as the pandemic surges across the nation, threatening a new wave of shutdowns and marking an inflection point of the economic recovery.

In a letter to Fed Chair Jerome H. Powell, Mnuchin not only said that several of the programs would wind down at the end of the year, but he also requested that unspent money allocated to the Fed under the first stimulus effort, the Cares Act, be reallocated by Congress. However, the Treasury Department does not have the sole authority to reallocate the funds and would need to secure Fed agreement.

The letter triggered a rare public statement from the Fed on Thursday evening.

“The Federal Reserve would prefer that the full suite of emergency facilities established during the coronavirus pandemic continue to serve their important role as a backstop for our still-strained and vulnerable economy,” the central bank said.

The Treasury Department’s move would end most of the Fed’s emergency lending facilities, as well as two highly-scrutinized programs — the Main Street lending program and the municipal liquidity facility — which issue loans to struggling businesses and local governments. Mnuchin also requested a 90-day extension for a few of the programs that operate through the markets.

The Treasury and the Fed jointly established a suite of emergency programs in the early days of the pandemic — and they have at times clashed over how the programs should be structured and how effective they can be. The shared responsibility also means that certain decisions can’t be made by either Powell or Mnuchin alone, setting the stage for the surprisingly outward-facing clash.

Raging virus triggers new shutdown orders and economy braces for fresh wave of pain

“There have been disagreements in the past, but they’re usually handled out of public sight,” said David Wessel, director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution. “It’s unusual. But then these are really unusual times.”

The decision to curb the Fed’s lending powers comes as new economic data signals the U.S. economy is being newly battered by a spike in coronavirus cases, triggering a new wave of government-ordered closures, restrictions and shutdowns. Unemployment insurance claims rose last week for the first time since early October.

Democrats swiftly criticized Mnuchin’s decision as a politically motivated attempt to hurt the economy President-elect Joe Biden is set to inherit. They expressed concern that Senate Republicans could push for the funding to be repurposed in the next stimulus package, decreasing the overall amount Congress approves in economic relief.

“Secretary Mnuchin is removing critical support from a weak economy against the Federal Reserve’s wishes. This is economic sabotage,” Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement. “Secretary Mnuchin is salting the earth in an attempt to inflict political pain on President-elect Biden.”

There is also the broader concern among Democrats and economists that ending programs would eliminate a backstop to the markets before the recovery is fully formed. In a statement Thursday night, Neil Bradley, executive vice president and chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, called for the programs to be extended and warned that “American businesses and workers are weary of these political machinations when they are doing everything in their power to keep our economy going.”

The Fed has given no signal that it’s ready to wind down these programs. Earlier this week, Powell said that the Fed was committed to using all of its tools “for as long as it takes until the job is well and truly done” and that “when the right time comes, and I don’t think that time is yet or very soon, we will put those tools away.

At a press conference earlier this month, Powell said that the Fed was only beginning to turn to questions around extending the facilities.

“And in terms of the process, this is a decision that of course we have to make and will make jointly with the Treasury Department,” Powell said.

As Washington scrambles for more bailout money, the Fed sits on mountain of untapped funds

Although the Main Street lending program and municipal liquidity program have been widely criticized for their onerous loan terms and meager uptake, Fed officials have argued for months that it would be premature to cut off that support until the recovery is sustained and the economy survives the dark winter ahead.

In March, Congress allotted $454 billion to the Treasury Department to support the central bank’s emergency lending programs, including those for struggling businesses and local governments. Those lending programs have recently become a kind of political football.
Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), who could soon take the helm of the Senate Banking Committee, said those programs have served their purpose.

In a statement Thursday evening, Toomey said Congress’s intent with the Cares Act made clear the programs were meant to be temporary.

“These facilities, which were established in response to the unprecedented market turmoil caused by the covid-19 pandemic earlier this year, have successfully achieved their intended purpose: stabilizing credit markets so private credit could once again flow to businesses, states, and municipalities,” Toomey said. “These temporary facilities helped to both normalize markets and produce record levels of liquidity.”

Even so, much of the money entrusted to the Fed has hardly been touched,and it’s unclear how much money could get out the door given specific rules about how the money should be spent. Of the $454 billion pot allotted from the Treasury Department under the Cares Act, only $195 billion has been specifically committed to cover any losses the Fed might take through its programs, including through loans that companies fail to repay. As of last month, the remaining $259 billion still has not been committed to any of the Fed’s specific programs or for any other purpose.
 
Top