Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Pete W's avatar

The interesting part of the New Yorker article was the point that before the Fed was created, the elites had to self-fund bailouts to prevent the hoi polloi from rioting outside their Park Avenue penthouses. Post-Fed, the elites no longer had this “noblesse oblige” arrangement, creating another layer of remove from the general population while also preserving their wealth from costly bailouts. Not sure if entirely historically accurate.. but interesting. And reason #247 to end the Fed.

Expand full comment
Alan Erickson's avatar

Open borders are simply a response to Trump. Trump ran on the platform of building a wall, then our response to that is opening the border. Trump was tough on Iran, so we'll throw money at them and eliminate sanctions. Trump put the Houthi rebels on a terrorist list, so we'll take them off (until we need to put them back on). It's a pretty long list opposite responses, and it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not.

Back to the market, didn't you have a chart a couple of articles back that indicated there is often a decline in the market after rate cuts start? And I thought cuts were typically a response to a slowing / worsening economy, as opposed to causing a worse economy? I get that lower rates increase the money supply, but given past history it doesn't seem very wise to be betting on the market once rate cuts start. What am I missing?

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts