HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Is Trump Ripping Off Bern...

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 12:46 PM

Is Trump Ripping Off Bernie Sander's Again? - This Time Its The Federal Reserve

It seems like Trump and Republicans are jumping on the Bernie Sander's populist band wagon without giving him the credit for one of his policy proposals, which is to reign in the independence of the Fed. Bernie Sanders has long railed against the efforts of the fed to control inflation by raising interest rates. Now, Trump and many Republicans are feeling the Bern in blaming the Fed for diluting the growth of their magical tax cuts with interest rate increases. First, trade. Second, immigration and guest workers. Now, Federal Reserve independence. Does Trump have any original ideas?

Perhaps this proves that Trump sees Bernie Sanders as the greatest threat to his 2020 re-election, which is why Trump is digging deep into the Bernie Sander's playbook to try to blunt his populist appeal.


President Trump has expressed dissatisfaction with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, blaming him for the appointment of a Federal Reserve chairman who has been raising interest rates, a move Trump worries will jeopardize economic gains as his 2020 re-election campaign approaches, people familiar with the matter said.

In conversations with advisers in recent weeks, President Trump also has voiced displeasure with Mnuchin over the turbulent stock market and the Treasury chiefís skepticism toward the sort of punitive trade actions the White House has taken against China, the people said.

Looking back to his appointment of Mnuchin in 2016, President Trump has mused to advisers about whether he should have tapped someone else, mentioning JPMorgan Chase & Co. JPM, -0.92% Chief Executive James Dimon as an alternative. A spokesman for Dimon declined to comment.

Aides fall in and out of favor in a White House known for high turnover, and Mr. Trumpís pique doesnít necessarily mean Mnuchin is in danger of losing influence or being replaced. As President Trump prepares for a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping at the Group of 20 summit on Nov. 30, he has relied on Mnuchin in sounding out Beijing on a trade deal.

Here is Bernie Sander's New York Times Op-Ed describing the approach that Trump is now trying to steal:


Bernie Sanders Op-Ed: To Rein In Wall Street, Fix the Fed

WALL STREET is still out of control. Seven years ago, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department bailed out the largest financial institutions in this country because they were considered too big to fail. But almost every one is bigger today than it was before the bailout. If any were to fail again, taxpayers could be on the hook for another bailout, perhaps a larger one this time.

To rein in Wall Street, we should begin by reforming the Federal Reserve, which oversees financial institutions and which uses monetary policy to maintain price stability and full employment. Unfortunately, an institution that was created to serve all Americans has been hijacked by the very bankers it regulates.

The recent decision by the Fed to raise interest rates is the latest example of the rigged economic system. Big bankers and their supporters in Congress have been telling us for years that runaway inflation is just around the corner. They have been dead wrong each time. Raising interest rates now is a disaster for small business owners who need loans to hire more workers and Americans who need more jobs and higher wages. As a rule, the Fed should not raise interest rates until unemployment is lower than 4 percent. Raising rates must be done only as a last resort ó not to fight phantom inflation.

What went wrong at the Fed? The chief executives of some of the largest banks in America are allowed to serve on its boards. During the Wall Street crisis of 2007, Jamie Dimon, the chief executive and chairman of JPMorgan Chase, served on the New York Fedís board of directors while his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Next year, four of the 12 presidents at the regional Federal Reserve Banks will be former executives from one firm: Goldman Sachs.

11 replies, 1053 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is Trump Ripping Off Bernie Sander's Again? - This Time Its The Federal Reserve (Original post)
TomCADem Nov 2018 OP
Small-Axe Nov 2018 #1
Wintryjade Nov 2018 #2
TomCADem Nov 2018 #3
Small-Axe Nov 2018 #4
JonLP24 Nov 2018 #6
Hortensis Nov 2018 #11
Adrahil Nov 2018 #5
TomCADem Nov 2018 #7
Small-Axe Nov 2018 #8
hexola Nov 2018 #9
tritsofme Nov 2018 #10

Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 01:32 PM

1. Populism is toxic.


No ideology is more antithetical to liberalism and liberal democracy than Populism.

These are scary times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Small-Axe (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 01:37 PM

2. Yes it is.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Small-Axe (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 05:31 PM

3. New Yorker - Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Ride the Populist Wave

You do know that populism along with nattivist, anti-trade agreement, isolationist, anti-immigrant policies can be popular on both the left as well as the right? As discussed below, in Europe, some leftist political parties have ridden populist movements to power while also scapegoating trade and immigration.


Letís start with the qualifiers. New Hampshire is a small state tucked away in the northeast corner of the country, with a population that is, in many ways, unrepresentative of the United States as a whole. Compared to the rest of the country, it is whiter, quirkier, and more willing to turn its back on establishment candidates of both parties. Since 1988, no non-incumbent Democrat or Republican who has won a New Hampshire primary has gone on to win the Presidency.

All of that said, in the grand sweep of political history, what happened last night was remarkable. In the first primaries of the 2016 campaign, two candidates who are only barely members of their respective parties won the Democratic and Republican contests. And they didnít just win. They* *trounced their opponents.

In the Democratic primary, Bernie Sanders, who once described himself as an independent socialist and now uses the term ďdemocratic socialist,Ē won about sixty per cent of the vote. He defeated Hillary Clinton, who was long widely regarded as a shoo-in for the nomination, by more than twenty-one percentage points. In the Republican primary, Donald Trump, who calls himself a Republican but whose very name sends many longtime G.O.P. politicians and supporters into fits, got more than thirty-five per cent of the vote and defeated the second-place finisher, John Kasich, the governor of Ohio, by more than nineteen percentage points.

On the basis of recent opinion polls, which showed Sanders and Trump well ahead, these results werenít entirely unexpected. But it is worth stepping back a bit. Nine months ago, when Sanders launched his campaign in New Hampshire, most political observers dismissed him as a fringe candidate. In June, when Trump entered the Republican race, most analysts, myself included, didnít think he would go the distance. The pundits now stand embarrassed. The two New YorkersóSanders is from Brooklyn; Trump is from Queensóhave campaigned as insurgents, each with a clear message. They rode to last nightís victories on a populist wave, the limits of which will determine the outcome of the primaries, and, quite possibly, the general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to TomCADem (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 05:38 PM

4. I am aware that Populism is a rising threat on both the right and the left.


Neither is a good development.

Populism and liberalism are not compatible ideologies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Small-Axe (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 05:51 PM

6. I don't think Bernie Sanders is a threat

If we had it is his way we wouldn't have gone into Iraq and he would have policies that benefit the middle class.


I remember Democrats were pushing the payroll tax cut to make the GOP look like hypocrites on tax cuts but Sanders had a level hard and stated that they were supposed to be temporary and was concerned about the future of social security which he has good ideas for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to TomCADem (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 26, 2018, 06:57 AM

11. Absolutely. It's larger on the right, but most dangerous

when bad leaders manage to draw resentful people from both sides and turn them to weakening and destabilizing their democratic governments, and sometimes destroying it. The dangers of right wing movements are obvious. But we need to recognize the huge danger sign of left wing calls for reform that peculiarly insist it cannot happen without replacing a large number, even most, of the left's current mainstream representatives. Huh?!

Sincere, true belief of the initial leaders in the righteousness of their cause and corruption of those who don't agree with their solutions, btw, hasn't brought even one dead democracy back. Hitler had his initial true-believer socialist partner executed once he was no longer needed to draw in left-wing populists. For that matter, one he consolidated power, left wing populists themselves were no longer needed.

Our democracy has been a great success for well over 200 years now, but it could still be voted out of existence by a temporary majority drawn to populist leaders. That we do have populist factions on both right and left is clear warning of danger. Trump would not have been elected without just a little crossover from the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 05:42 PM

5. The Fed has issues, but....


Subjecting it to direct political control is a poisonous idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Adrahil (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 26, 2018, 01:22 AM

7. WaPo: Trump wants to copy Venezuela's biggest economic mistake

So, Nixon and now Trump have famously tried to bully the Fed into keeping interest rates low, yet somehow having a more pro-growth or less independent Fed has somehow been seen as a progressive idea? Sort of how Herbert Hoover, a Republican, pushed for the Smoot-Hawley tariff act, which helped lead to the Great Depression, yet protectionism is still seen as a Democratic/progressive idea.


If you canít remember why the United States made the Federal Reserve independent, take a look at Venezuela. If you canít remember and you happen to be the president of the United States, look twice.

Since the start of 2012, you see, Venezuelaís government has forced its central bank to print so much money that its currency, going by black market rates, has lost 99.9999 percent of its value. In the meantime, the regimeís response has been to lop five zeros off all their money in an attempt to pretend things arenít as bad as they are. Which, of course, doesnít solve anything. Itís like trying to lose weight by changing your clothes. It might make you feel better about yourself for a little while, but itís no substitute for the real solution: not printing any more money.

This, as you can probably tell, is pretty much the worst-case scenario for what can happen when politicians are allowed to make monetary policy decisions. Indeed, it has gotten to the point that the International Monetary Fund has all but admitted that it has no idea how much higher Venezuelaís inflation will go. Thatís what increasing your estimate of it from 12,000 percent to 1 million percent is really saying. Well, that and the fact that this is probably the worst inflation the world has seen since Zimbabwe was reduced to printing 100 trillion dollar bills a decade ago.

You donít have to reach wheelbarrows-full-of-cash levels of inflation, though, for political meddling in central bank decisions to be a problem. Double-digit inflation is more than bad enough, and it can take only a little interference to get there. Thatís something weíve learned firsthand. The stagflation of the 1970s, after all, was in no small part a result of the way President Richard Nixon bullied the Fed into keeping interest rates inappropriately low during his reelection campaign. The simple story, then, is that itís better for central banks to be independent, because easier money is always in a politicianís short-term interest, but isnít always in the economyís long-term one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to TomCADem (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 26, 2018, 02:40 AM

8. Too many people confuse being a Populist with being a Progressive.


Populism by its nature is a regressive ideology that replaces reason with anger & outrage.

Liberalism depends on using reason to find complex solutions to complex problems. There is no nuance in populist ideologies, just simplistic rhetoric.

Liberalism embraces the division of powers and maintaining checks and balances to avoid demagoguery. Populists find this sort of stuff most inconvenient as it is at root a dictatorial ideology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2018, 03:01 AM

9. Nah - being Anti-Fed is all part of the Nationalist schtick



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to hexola (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 26, 2018, 03:37 AM

10. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!

Hot rhetoric on monetary policy has always been part of our politics, some things never change!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread