Blogging Bayport Alameda

August 26, 2019

National Horror Story: we live in the dumbest timeline

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:06 am

What is actually going on here people?  How can all of this happen over just a few days?


  1. Wait a minute. I thought the national press was claiming President Trump, who contributes his salary to charity, was unduly “profiting” from his presidency…

    Not all our political class is suffering. President Obama just bought a 29 acre estate on Martha’s Vineyard for $15 Million to go along with there $8.1 million house in DC. The Obamas were worth about $1 M when he became president. And good for Andrew McCabe. After being fired for lying by the FBI he just got hired by CNN. Isn’t our country great!

    Comment by Nothingtoseehere — August 26, 2019 @ 7:53 am

    • Quite a bit of ink has been spilled over Trump profiting from diplomats, lobbyists et all using his DC hotel. You might be aware that the Doral resort is A) a separate property and B) about 1000 miles from DC.

      Note also that the Doral G7 proposal is a brazen attempt to profit from the Presidency by taking in cash from foreign nations.

      Perhaps you are also aware that Obama is No. Longer. In. Office. He is a private citizen and free to sell books and charge for engagements. There were no credible attempts by Obama to profit from foreign persons or entities, which is what the foreign emoluments clause prevents. Text as follows:

      And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

      Comment by dave — August 26, 2019 @ 8:50 am

  2. How about sticking to the local whore story on Monday.

    Comment by Jack — August 26, 2019 @ 8:09 am

    • What did your mom do this time, Jackie boy?

      Comment by Rod — August 26, 2019 @ 10:02 am

  3. well it looks like there are two, count them two trumpers in Alameda.

    Comment by trumpisnotmypresident — August 26, 2019 @ 8:16 am

    • Who you got to replace him Trumpsnot?

      Comment by Jack — August 26, 2019 @ 1:07 pm

      • You see, we have these things called primary elections to determine that, genius. What else do you need explained today?

        Comment by Rod — August 26, 2019 @ 2:55 pm

        • What happened to your blog?

          Comment by Jack — August 26, 2019 @ 5:01 pm

        • Who’s your favorite dim that’s thrown the hat in the ring?

          Comment by Jack — August 26, 2019 @ 5:33 pm

  4. time to get back to the good old days when Greenland was on the table

    Comment by MP — August 26, 2019 @ 4:55 pm

  5. Lots of chatter on Wall Street this morning about a letter posted on Bloomie by Bill Dudley, former head of the New York Fed and Vice chair of FOMC.

    “Wall Street” while not monolithic, is typically a very Republican group. They never much cared for Trump — how can business people respect a guy who bankrupted 4 casinos? — but he did bring them a tax cut, which is their #1 Holy Grail, so they tolerated him for a while.

    But tied for #1 on The Street’s articles of faith is central bank independence and an ironclad belief to let the professionals run things. In this credo, politicians have only two jobs: cut taxes and ease bank regs. The president has crossed a few major red lines lately, like a pointless and deeply misguided trade war and “hereby ordering” private businesses how & where to operate. The reddest line of all, though, has been messing with the Federal Reserve.

    The scuttle this morning is about the degree of Powell’s involvement in this letter. Sentiment ranges from acquiescence in advance to to active ghost writer, but all generally agree it was done with Powell’s blessing. This may not make the 6 o’clock news tonight, but this level of pushback from the Fed is highly unusual and augurs Wall Street abandoning the President.

    Text below:


    U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war with China keeps undermining the confidence of businesses and consumers, worsening the economic outlook. This manufactured disaster-in-the-making presents the Federal Reserve with a dilemma: Should it mitigate the damage by providing offsetting stimulus, or refuse to play along?

    If the ultimate goal is a healthy economy, the Fed should seriously consider the latter approach.

    The Fed’s monetary policy makers typically take what happens outside their realm as a given, and then make the adjustments needed to pursue their goals of stable prices and maximum employment. They place little weight on how their actions will affect decisions in other areas, such as government spending or trade policy. The Fed, for example, wouldn’t hold back on interest-rate cuts to compel Congress to provide fiscal stimulus instead. Staying above the political fray helps the central bank maintain its independence.

    So, according to conventional wisdom, if Trump’s trade war with China hurts the U.S. economic outlook, the Fed should respond by adjusting monetary policy accordingly — in this case by cutting interest rates. But what if the Fed’s accommodation encourages the president to escalate the trade war further, increasing the risk of a recession? The central bank’s efforts to cushion the blow might not be merely ineffectual. They might actually make things worse.

    Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has hinted that he is aware of the problem. At the central bank’s annual conference in Jackson Hole last week, he noted that monetary policy cannot “provide a settled rulebook for international trade.” I see this as a veiled reference to the trade war, and a warning that the Fed’s tools are not well suited to mitigate the damage.

    Yet the Fed could go much further. Officials could state explicitly that the central bank won’t bail out an administration that keeps making bad choices on trade policy, making it abundantly clear that Trump will own the consequences of his actions.

    Such a harder line could benefit the Fed and the economy in three ways. First, it would discourage further escalation of the trade war, by increasing the costs to the Trump administration. Second, it would reassert the Fed’s independence by distancing it from the administration’s policies. Third, it would conserve much-needed ammunition, allowing the Fed to avoid further interest-rate cuts at a time when rates are already very low by historical standards.

    I understand and support Fed officials’ desire to remain apolitical. But Trump’s ongoing attacks on Powell and on the institution have made that untenable. Central bank officials face a choice: enable the Trump administration to continue down a disastrous path of trade war escalation, or send a clear signal that if the administration does so, the president, not the Fed, will bear the risks — including the risk of losing the next election.

    There’s even an argument that the election itself falls within the Fed’s purview. After all, Trump’s reelection arguably presents a threat to the U.S. and global economy, to the Fed’s independence and its ability to achieve its employment and inflation objectives. If the goal of monetary policy is to achieve the best long-term economic outcome, then Fed officials should consider how their decisions will affect the political outcome in 2020.

    Comment by dave — August 27, 2019 @ 6:42 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at