Stephen Moore could inflict more long-term damage than any of Trump’s other nominations

The Washington Compost ^ | March 25 at 7:26 PM | Catherine Rampell

[E. Pluribus Unum]

President Trump has made a lot of ill-advised nominations. But perhaps no single choice could inflict more long-term damage than the one he announced Friday: Stephen Moore, Trump’s pick to join the Federal Reserve Board.

Moore’s many economic claims over the years have revealed him to be, shall we say, easily confused.

A decade ago, as the Fed was battling deflation (that is, price declines ) during the financial crisis, Moore preposterously fearmongered that hyperinflation (that is, out-of-control price increases ) was nigh: Americans could soon be carting “wheelbarrows full” of cash a la Weimar Germany. Moore has also repeatedly predicted that tax cuts would pay for themselves — both at the federal level, and in Kansas — despite all evidence to the contrary.

It’s not only his forecasts for the future that have proved chronically incorrect; it’s his characterizations of past and present, too.

A newspaper banned him from its pages because of his struggles in getting basic statistics right. During the dozens of times I’ve debated him on TV, he has persistently misstated easily Google-able facts. These include whether the country is experiencing deflation, whether Canada’s tariffs are “twice as high as” ours, and whether the Fed predicted that Trump would crash the stock market. (Nope, nope, and huh ? )

Now, somehow, Moore has been nominated to the Fed. To understand why this is concerning, consider a brief primer of what the Fed does.

Congress gave the Fed, the world’s most powerful central bank, a dual mandate: maximum employment and stable prices. For decades — beginning with former chairman Paul Volcker — it has also worked to achieve a reputation for political independence, which is crucial to its ability to achieve these dualobjectives.

[reasonisfaith]

Ultimately your disagreement is not due to an inability to understand systems, although such inability would produce similar disagreement.

Yours is due to whatever passion drives your conclusion that the Fed should continue.

Although I could be wrong—maybe you truly don’t understand the structure of systems and which layers are ontologically most fundamental.

What I’m saying here is that the moral foundation is more important to the structural integrity of a system of credits and debits.

This might help you: there is nothing magic about the Federal Reserve in its role as a lender. Lending institutions, including lenders of last resort, can be built up as easily as a child builds a sand castle on the seashore.

[Pelham]

“Yours is due to whatever passion drives your conclusion that the Fed should continue.”

It’s called “study” and “knowledge”. I’ve read a bit on the subject... The Theory of Money and Credit (Ludwig von Mises 1912), The Rationale of Central Banking (Vera Smith 1936), A Monetary History of the United States (Milton Friedman & Anna Schwarz 1963), The House of Morgan (Chernow 1990), Money of the Mind (James Grant 1992), Capital and Finance in the Age of the Renaissance (Ehrenberg) . Those are all germane to understanding money and banking in the United States both with and without the Federal Reserve System.

“Although I could be wrong—maybe you truly don’t understand the structure of systems and which layers are ontologically most fundamental.”

You’re wrong.

And I’m surprised that you omitted “epistemologically’ from that sesquipedalian bit of self aggrandizement.

“What I’m saying here is that the moral foundation is more important to the structural integrity of a system of credits and debits.”

I’ve asked you before to give an example of this ‘lack of morality’ that you keep mentioning. You still haven’t done so. The fact that you won’t or cannot come up with an example of what you mean speaks for itself.

“This might help you: there is nothing magic about the Federal Reserve in its role as a lender. Lending institutions, including lenders of last resort, can be built up as easily as a child builds a sand castle on the seashore.”

Well why don’t you describe one then. You could at least demonstrate that you know what you’re talking about by suggesting that we go back to the Lender of Last Resort that existed prior to the Fed.

Of course you’d have to know what Lender was to name it. So what was it?

[reasonisfaith]

A lender is an entity that provides monetary resource, or credit, to an entity stating need for that resource which is known as a debit.

All you need to be a lender is to have the resource. It’s not magic, and it can be given any name. Any name whatsoever. So don’t let yourself get hung up on the name. You could even name it the “I Thought the Fed Ran on Magic But Then Trump Killed It” bank.

Meanwhile, if you do think there’s something magic about the Fed, you might want to reconsider.

[Pelham]

In other words, you have no idea what a Lender of Last Resort is for retail banks or why one is necessary.

Thanks for playing.

Go find some subject you know something about- although a complete lack of knowledge hasn’t dissuaded you so far.

[reasonisfaith]

I’m not trying to upset you.

But it does seem you believe there’s something magic about the Federal Reserve that prevents us from getting rid of it.

For your own sake, let it go. The Fed is just a thing. There’s nothing supernatural about it.

[Pelham]

The condescending act doesn’t work any better than the rest of your nonsense.

[reasonisfaith]

I’m not condescending or acting.

You really do talk about the Fed like there’s something hidden, unknown, unseen and supernatural about the way it works. As though it can’t be replaced with a better component.

Because that’s all the Fed is. A temporary component of our system.

[Pelham]

“You really do talk about the Fed like there’s something hidden, unknown, unseen and supernatural about the way it works. “

You must be some kind of an idiot to have come up with that gem. Sounds like projection on your part, seeing as you have the usual crackpot’s delusions about the Fed.

“As though it can’t be replaced with a better component.”

So tell us what your “better component” will be. This is the third time I’ve asked you to describe your idea of a replacement for the Fed- but since you haven’t the slightest idea of what it’s job actually is you just bloviate empty phrases like “replace it with a better component”.

[reasonisfaith]

And what I’m asking you is what exactly you think the Fed has that can’t be replaced.

I say the Federal Reserve needs to be replaced because it’s built on secrecy and lies. Think of it this way: secrecy and lies are not good in any business model. If it were good, then the liars wouldn’t have to hide it, like rats hiding in a sewer.

But you provide no substance to your argument. You say we can’t replace the Fed, but you seem to have no idea why you say this. In fact, you never even state it outright, apparently aware of the complete absence of any argument.

[reasonisfaith]

To make this clear. I’ve provided reason to abolish the Fed—they’re liars.

Meanwhile, you sit there and whine about my proposition, hinting, but never stating or explaining intelligibly, that you believe there’s something magic or special about the Fed that prevents us from getting rid of it.

So come on out with it. What is this magical thing the Fed has that makes it so special?

[reasonisfaith]

All you need to replace a broken lending system is the right attitude. The rest is nothing but transient details.

[RocketMan1]

If by “damage” they actually mean audit and end the Fed, then I am all for his damage. Make it happen. There is NO such thing as “free market capitalism” as long as the Fed exists.