This is the current talking point du-jour of the American progressive left, but I think it's safe to say the Fed knows what they're doing and have done this before.
Yes, the Fed that stopped the much longer, more frequent, and deeper panics and recessions that occurred before it.
In fact, it did so well for so long compared to previous methods, that the Great Moderation is a term in economics for the stability it gave.
Instead of snarkily listing places you think it failed, compare that to pre-Fed failures, and you'll see that the Fed is a lot better than other solutions.
And there's ample economic evidence central banking is much better than anything before it, which is why every single country in the world has adopted it.
One example does not negate the evidence I just posted including 51 examples, nor does it change the vastly better trends under the Fed.
So why pick a single event, ignore 50 others, ignore the trends shown in US (and 100's of other country) datasets, covering hundreds of years?
I just posted a decent intro to the evidence. Please read it. The economic evidence for the benefits of central banking versus not having a central bank are so thoroughly answered in economic literature that not a single country is stupid enough to go without one, despite those 100s of countries having a lot of other variety.
Because feels before reals is how so many people live their life these days. Reality doesn’t let them blame the people they want to blame, or reality doesn’t assuage the fears they fear, or reality doesn’t let them feel smarter than everyone else, so they fall back to empty platitudes and fantasies to protect themselves from reality.
Those wealthy clients are already heavily "in." You can make up motives for anything, I guess, but the obvious motive for the Feds actions is surging prices.
This is very much me to a T, even including waking up far too early and having difficulty getting back to sleep. It's absolutely bizarre how it seems like difference in 15-30 minutes can have such a negative effect. Hope you can solve your sleep issues!
Yeah I'm not so sure though. I'm 1900 rated tactics on lichess but a middling 1300 on normal games. Perhaps it might be due to playing blitz where I don't have lots of time to think.
They haven't been, in the long view. Historically abortion was a Catholic issue, and sometimes liberal Protestant[1]. It generally wasn't an issue for Evangelicals, who were also mainly on the political left. Then in the late 60s the teenage son of a popular Evangelical pastor/author[2] became concerned for the rights of the unborn, convinced his father to take that message to the masses, it worked, and Republicans figured out that it would be a way to build a new coalition.
If you look at the extreme countercultures of the 60s, you see one side who hated "the system" that produced mass affluence, but loved the fruits of it. The other side loved the system, but hated the fruits. So one way to look at it is as a sort of political shibboleth indicating that you were definitely on one side and not the other.
US evangelicals had a mix of indifference or outright support. However it’s a mistake to confuse “conservatism” with religious organizations and even a party.
That it really took off in the 1960s+ isn’t surprising with Nazi death camps fresh in everyone’s mind, leaving a very bad impression with anything tied to eugenics and its proponents.
While I don’t agree that abortion is equivalent to eugenics—-sorry, if my wife were to die otherwise I’d choose abortion—much of the revulsion has its moral roots in the argument against eugenics.
They haven't. It's a political alliance with the anti-abortion crowd. The 1976 Republican party platform was the first to include a stance on abortion.
It's similar to a lot of the people voting yes on 23: they want to stick it to the dialysis companies. I get that, but how is the prime consideration here not patient care? Drives me crazy how people will gleefully ignore the potential patient effect in favor of "punishing" corporations.
