The interview was published on February 7. I first saw it today.
Select Quotes
Inequality: People perceive that Fed policy has tricked down to the top 1 percent. The Fed has facilitated the inequality divide. I found it highly ironic to read the chairman [Jerome Powell] remarks last night because the Fed has been instrumental in widening this inequality by looking like they are trying to prop up wall street and the top 1 percent of Americans who own 80 percent of stocks.
European Recession: We’ve seen Germany and Italian factory orders come in very week. It looks like Europe is going into recession.
China Recession: If you could get clean statistics, it looks like China is also in recession.
US Rate Cuts: I think the forces outside the US are going to be sufficient that we could see the Fed indeed cut rates before the end of 2019.
Goldilocks: There is no doubt that Goldilocks has prevailed so far in 2019. And I think most people are looking for that to continue. But again, we’ve seen weakening even here in the United States. We’ve seen weakening in jobless claims, layoff number pick up; We’ve seen tremendous, record levels of CEO turnover. So under the surface of the water, I would say that things are not all they they appear to be right now, if you are just looking through the lens of the stock market.
Excellent comments from DDB.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
“Danielle DiMartino Booth Blasts the Fed for Inequality”
Disparity. Everyone earning $10,000 a year is equal to all others earning the same. Everyone earning $100,000 a year is equal to the same, even if someone else earns $1,000,000 a year. However, there is a huge disparity between those making $100,000 a year and those making $1,000,000 a year.
There has never been income equality. Stable prices is ZERO inflation, not 2% inflation. Even .01% inflation is not stable prices. There has always been a disparity in income between people for various reasons.
There have always been the rich and the poor, thus there has always been wealth/income inequality. Even when the top tax rate was 90%, Howard Hughes earned far more and was far richer than the average worker.
If someone working in a bank makes $100K, and someone who works in a grocery store makes $50K, that’s income inequality. Has nothing to do with the Fed.
If the Fed institutes a policy to print $1million, then hand $500K to everyone who works in a bank, and $500K to everyone who makes $100K or above, for no reason aside from people working in banks and making $100K have kids in the same school as those working at the Fed, that is the Fed contributing to income inequality.
“… that is the Fed contributing to income inequality.”
There is no such thing as income equality, except among those who earn the same income. There is higher income disparity however, which the FED may contribute to. The FED is not contributing to income inequality. My income remains equal to all people to all people earning the same amount, regardless what the FED does.
In most people’s use of the word, there are differences in the degree of inequality. Heck, some will even stoop to the inaccuracy of saying two guys making a billion each have an equal income, despite one of them making a fractional cent more than the other…. Channeling Heisenberg, is it even possible to determine if two incomes are exactly equal?
With that insurmountable exercise in pedantics past us, it is indeed possible for the Fed to contribute to increasing inequality between incomes. Which you are at least as correct, when describing as increasing disparity.
The truth is also Trump has done more extending and pretending. When the economy tanks the next time down wont be pretty. Whomever seizes on what both parties have done can capitalize.
Have her run on a Presidential ticket with Nikki Haley in 2020. The DNC won’t know how to react.
Why Nimrata? We already had a rabid female war criminal candidate in Hillary.