╌>

The Message of Sarah Raskin's Defeat

  
Via:  Vic Eldred  •  2 years ago  •  10 comments

By:   The Editorial Board (WSJ)

The Message of Sarah Raskin's Defeat
The Senate is saying it doesn't want the Fed to allocate capital.

Leave a comment to auto-join group The Deplorables

The Deplorables


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Sarah Bloom Raskin on Tuesday withdrew her nomination for vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the message of her defeat is more important than the fate of one would-be regulator. Her defeat is a warning to the Fed that a majority of the Senate doesn't believe the central bank should use its power to allocate capital for political purposes.

President Biden blamed Ms. Raskin's defeat on "baseless attacks from industry and conservative interest groups." But Ms. Raskin's most significant opponent was her oft-expressed view that the Fed and other regulators should deny credit to companies that produce or heavily consume fossil fuels. We've documented those views in several editorials.

While she and her supporters tried to say she wouldn't use her powers that way at the Fed, everyone knew that was false. Those views are the reason that Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse pushed her so hard for the job.

This isn't part of the Fed's dual mandate, which is full employment and stable prices. Congress gave the central bank additional regulatory power after the financial panic, but in the name of bank safety and soundness, not to steer capital to one industry or deny it to another. But Democrats now want the Fed to use those powers to promote their political goals.

This would be economically destructive if it ever became Fed policy because politicians inevitably distort investment decisions. It would also lead to the corruption of the Fed itself, as the central bank became another avenue for political and industry lobbies to implement their policy goals without having to do the messy business of passing legislation.

This has been Ms. Warren's explicit mission since she created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and insulated it from Congressional appropriations and executive oversight. Ms. Raskin was her agent to do the same at the Federal Reserve.

Her defeat should give Fed Chairman Jerome Powell more confidence to oppose attempts by others on the Fed Board of Governors to politicize financial regulation in the name of climate change. It should also instruct the White House not to replace Ms. Raskin with a nominee with the same views, though it probably won't.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 years ago
"President Biden blamed Ms. Raskin’s defeat on “baseless attacks from industry and conservative interest groups.”


From the puppet who claimed he was going to build consensus and unify the nation. Instead, he calls dissent for any of his far left appointments "baseless". The reason they are going to be defeated is because they are radical and Biden via his terrible poll numbers, has given the GOP the political Capital to stop them.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2  bbl-1    2 years ago

Absolutely.  The right wing abhors anything even remotely connected with 'Consumer Protections' for the American people.

Corporate will be corporate rule.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  bbl-1 @2    2 years ago

"Ms. Raskin's most significant opponent was her oft-expressed view that the Fed and other regulators should deny credit to companies that produce or heavily consume fossil fuels. "

It's right there in the article

She is a climate quack.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
2.1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    2 years ago
She is a climate quack.

Meh, you may soon be in the position to trumpet a fossil fuel quack.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @2.1.1    2 years ago

Mediocre at best.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
2.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    2 years ago

That they are.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.2  Ronin2  replied to  bbl-1 @2    2 years ago

Didn't read the article? 

She isn't about "Consumer Protections" or protecting the American people. She is an environmental nut job that would cause gas, oil, and coal prices to sky rocket even further by denying those industries credit. How high do Democrats want the damn prices to go for both fuel and inflation?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.2.1  mocowgirl  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2    2 years ago
How high do Democrats want the damn prices to go for both fuel and inflation?

Interesting article about how the US manipulates the price of oil.  (A google search about oil price manipulation will show it isn't just the US that does this.  This practice has been on repeat since the disastrous 1970s by OPEC with or without US government cooperation.)

Article from 2017.  (I haven't verified the numbers, but I do remember (& appreciated) the cheap gas prices when oil prices crashed over the years.)

How the United States manipulates global oil prices (yenisafak.com)

The oil price is like the two inseparable sides of a coin: one side is economics and the other is geopolitics.

The United States understands this dictum well. That is why it has been manipulating global oil prices in order to achieve its geopolitical objectives. The U.S. has at its disposal two weapons: one is the false information it spreads through the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) about increases in U.S. shale oil production and U.S. oil stocks using mainstream media in an attempt to depress oil prices; and the other weapon is the petrodollar.

In the 1980s the United States in connivance with Saudi Arabia manipulated the oil price causing it to crash to $10 thus leading to the collapse of the Soviet oil-dependent economy and thereafter the Soviet Union itself.

Now Washington is at it again. And once again it has set its sights on Russia. There are visible parallels between the current manipulation of oil prices and sanctions pressure on Russia and the situation in the 1980s when Washington also used sanctions and manipulated oil prices to precipitate the collapse of the Soviet economy and the subsequent political turmoil.

But Russia has been gradually diversifying its economy since the oil crash in 2014 and has adjusted to low oil prices and sanctions. Russia’s economy could now live perpetually with an oil price of $40 a barrel or less. Moreover, the Russian economy is back in growth having achieved a 2.5 percent growth rate in the second quarter of 2017, the fastest since 2012.

Because of U.S. manipulation, crude oil prices have been hovering between $45 and $51 a barrel, unable to break through the $60 barrier despite very positive oil fundamentals and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) production cuts.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has been announcing regular increases in U.S. shale oil production at a time when production has been in decline. U.S. shale oil production peaked at 4.9 million barrels a day (mbd) in 2015 and has since fallen by 1 mbd to 3.90 mbd in 2017 whilst total U.S. oil production has declined from 9.42 mbd in 2015 to 8.49 mbd in 2017.

U.S. oil production this year is on course to be significantly lower than official forecasts while drilling costs are starting to rise. As a result, U.S. oil production is projected to decline further by 360,000 barrels a day (b/d) this year.
 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.2.2  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.1    2 years ago
manipulates the price of oil.

One case of manipulation might still be moving through the US courts.  

Fraudulent Oil and Gas Price Manipulation - National Whistleblower Center (whistleblowers.org)

Atlantic Trading USA, LLC et al. vs. BP P.L.C. et al.

As the oil and gas industry faces increasing financial challenges, oversight of how companies report transactions that determine futures prices will be important. An ongoing fraud case, involving allegations against multiple oil and gas companies, demonstrates the potential necessity.

In 2013, a group of New York Mercantile Exchange traders alleged that several oil companies were conspiring to manipulate spot prices. In a case that has split American courts, the trader filed a   class-action lawsuit   in federal court naming Shell, BP and Statoil as defendants, along with three oil trading houses and two banks.

The suit alleges the companies reported false transactions to Platts, a company that incorporates daily market information into a benchmark price for Brent Crude oil, over the course of several years. The suit claims that the false information provided by the companies caused oil prices to dip, benefitting the companies’ selling plans but causing commodities traders—and, ultimately, consumers—to lose money. Traders argued the behavior violated sections of the Commodities Exchange Act prohibiting manipulation of prices.

The case moved through one district court and two appellate courts before lawyers for the traders petitioned the   U.S. Supreme Court   in March 2020 to hear the case. The district court and one of the appellate courts dismissed the case on grounds that because the oil was extracted, and partially traded, outside the United States, the wrongdoing occurred outside the CEA’s domestic jurisdiction. Another appellate court sided with the traders in a decision that generated support from the U.S. Solicitor General and the CFTC.

In “friend of the court” briefs filed with the Supreme Court, two former CFTC officials and two financial reform advocacy groups asked the Court to hear the case, arguing that US markets were a major instrument and victim of the defendants’ alleged fraudulent activity.

“As a result of the Respondents’ alleged manipulation, the prices at which those transactions were executed were artificial, distorted, and unreflective of genuine economic conditions,” the advocacy group brief   states . “As such, their manipulation did not just injure the Petitioners, but the U.S. futures markets themselves.”

The case is currently waiting to be heard.
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @2    2 years ago
Absolutely.  The right wing abhors anything even remotely connected with 'Consumer Protections' for the American people.

What a crock!

Baseless lie.

 
 

Who is online

Drinker of the Wry


83 visitors