The Fed is like that character in Clerks who keeps saying he wasn't even supposed to be working that day. Yes, I'm genuinely sorry, this does suck, but it's your job right now and you have to do it. Saying you're not supposed to be political and hoping it passes will not make it pass.
this paradigm seems to apply to most bureaucrats right now. extraordinary circumstances require that we step out of our comfort zones or job descriptions. and people are chafing that they might be expected to do so.
I worked at the Fed and it’s more about hawks versus doves than Dem versus Republican 🤷🏼♀️
Are there any (political) doves in existence?
what's this in reference to specifically?
Funny. I was actually thinking about this from you bsky.app/profile/pear...
Ah yeah I mean...they're only saying this because she named Powell in the suit, and she only did that to foreclose on the possibility that the President could instruct him to keep her out of the building. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to take an affirmative view in this litigation.
Sure it is.
you want them writing an amici brief as a federal agency? can you give an example of a federal agency ever doing something like this contrary to the interest of the executive branch?
To be clear, I'm not a lawyer and don't have a legal strategy for the Fed. But I do have a lot of experience with the way they communicate, and right now their communications are saying "let's see what happens." If Fed independence is important, now is the time to defend it, clearly, to the public.
All they're saying is "we're going to operate under the assumption she will receive her injunction and we won't oppose that injunction". Which seems pretty reasonable to me.
Is it a federal agency or a public-private bank? The Supreme Court seems to think it's a public-private bank, borne of the heritage of the First and Second Banks of the United States.
After direct attacks not seen in two generations the Fed chose not to discuss its independence at JHole last week. I think that shows the lengths they will go to keep this a congress/executive matter.
Well they're also flying by the seat of their pants and playing Calvinball so I wouldn't use whatever standard they're using tbh
Nicholas Biddle wouldn't have put up with this crap.
I...don't think the guy who died in penury as fraud lawsuits mounted is the example you want to point Jerome Powell toward.
(It was a joke. Nicholas Biddle went to war and clearly lost.)
amicus not amici* plurals amiright
No, they have to file a response as a party to the case. And as they acknowledge in that filing, they have the ability to litigate independently from DOJ. Instead, they have decided to show up and take no position on the merits. bsky.app/profile/grah...
I hope you can see the irony in arguing the Fed should not litigate independently in a case *about central bank independence.*
But they can litigate independently viz-a-viz Cook's claim, you're asking them for something differemt.
I am?
Attorneys general everywhere thank you for your service.
The whole Board is a defendent, and they're not going to defend themselves against Cook. That's really as much as you can expect overtly. I would hope they do some OTR to the Fed whisperers though.
You mean contrary to the position of the President? Agencies are part of the executive branch. I don't know if there is such a precedent, but it would be a small N to draw from: attempts to remove previous appointees have been exceedingly rare
Yes, is it rarer than a President firing a Fed Governor, which is an N of zero? My view is that either this is an existential threat to the Fed or it’s not. If it’s the former, then neutrality on this issue isn’t really an option.
I mean we can look at previous firings of independent agency heads or even args that independent agency heads are unconstitutional. Including Humphreys and this administration, its...5?
This is fair. I think more broadly the Fed's work is political no matter what the institution says about itself. I'd rather the Fed articulate its politics and defend them than pretend it has no politics. The decades-long pretense has now left the Fed utterly without tools to defend itself.
Powell didn't hesitate to refute Trump's BS in person at Fed Some heds labeled Powell "defiant" I don't think he was defying anyone with legitimate authority over him Likewise NYT described Trump as cracking down on the Fed Nah Powell + Cook are going about their business, is that political?
Maybe they are being political Or even partisan Against the executive claim of prerogative power and arbitrary rule If Cook has access to her desk and phone etc I think the Fed is not capitulating completely yet to Trump and has some tools to resist a thuggish president
All the money people thought they were exempt from whatever oath they took, was never supposed to get messy. Ooops, here we are
"She lowered interest rates thirty-seven times!" "In a row?"
Ok, this brought a chuckle
A sensible chuckle I hope.
Is there any other type of chuckle … one can while at work at least.
I kind of think it should be the politics (like the congress) should protect the Fed, not the Fed should doing all the self-defense If it play politics, it will lose, always
It would be better if Congress helped, yes, but the Fed has always been an intensely political organization. Money is political. I would rather they articulate their politics and defend them, rather than pretending they're above politics.
ok~ I get that point, which is a good point Then my adjusted position is the Fed I won't blame the Fed for going along with the political wind, rather than leaning against it. Both are harmful, and I think we better try to change the wind (which is a strange thing to say🤔)