Flows the chapter where it is treated well. Remember this endless jawboning by Jerome Powell’s Trump. According to Trump, along with his various cheerleaders inside and outside the administration, Fed’s failure to reduce the percentage of his funds is what holds an even greater explosion. If you conclude that Republicans are shouting market intervention in the naive case that they will raise the economy, you are on the right track.
Forget for a moment that the drivers themselves of economic and brokerage vivality right now (think of Nvidia, Meta, Amazon, Apple, Tesla, etc.) were very dangerous by many exhibitors to achieve the interest rate-up-to-date funding on their way, and to think about all the jawbonings, Cheerleading and insults: All of this shows the interest rate interest rate can exceed the market. A strong need for those who have a title in capital to place it where it will be treated best.
This is just a comment that if Trump’s alleged thriving economy does not grow as it should, the Fed is not the culprit. The only closed economy is the global economy and to the extent that the Fed acts as a credit provider (not), as some people believe, global markets go beyond the lack in a matter of seconds. On the contrary, assuming the economy is not thriving, the outflows of capital will quickly flood any false perceived capacity of the central bank to do what is not.
It brings us to a question: How was wisdom accepted that Fed market interventions can change the truth in the proverbial table? Ironically, the origin of Trump and the relentless greasy grease of its cheerleaders can be detected in the hero of the libertarian free market Milton Friedman.
For much of his career as an academic and expert, Friedman promoted the fiction that the Fed caused the great recession. Although the so-called “money supply” is always and everywhere a result of production, Friedman turned the last upside down to the wild anti-market assumption that a dynamic market economy was based on a central bank to “supply” money to increase.
Taking further and as mentioned above, the capital flows are strong and global. Assuming that the Fed was able to silence valuable “money” from the American economy (it was not), he would have created the mother of all opportunities for world sources of capital to achieve significant returns, providing the capital that the Fed is allegedly making it rare.
It’s a lot of way to say that there was never a reasonable basis for the 1930s Friedman theory. It took it backwards. The limited capital and the alleged inadequate development of the so -called “money supply” were the impact of bad economic policy rather than the promoters.
One feels that more than a few types of free market know that Friedman theories of the 1930s are completely false, but the free market free market does not get Friedman’s reviews well. To name some who had the courage to do it, late Journal Wall Street The editor of the editorial page Robert Bartley has taken over Friedman’s theories of depression in a 2003 book review for Jim Powell’s “FDR’s Folly”, Jude Wanniski Countless times, including 1981 New York Times EK-EDTogether with Steve Forbes and George Gilder more modern. It would be great if more would do the same.
If so, we could save the annoying mysticism of Trump’s administration on the Fed and its ability to develop the economy with central bank interventions. Too bad this was the consensus on the free market for much more than Donald Trump was a political personality. More than they will admit, he learned a few things (though the wrong) of them.
