Cross road blues in the time of Biden

Sections

I went to the crossroad, fell down on my knees
I went to the crossroad, fell down on my knees
Asked the Lord above “have mercy, now save poor Bob, if you please”

– Robert Johnson, Cross Road Blues

Unelected Bureaucrat

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has a dreadful job. He lords over tens of trillions of dollars. Yet he only pockets $190,000 a year – a fraction of what most CEOs make. Still, he calls it fair.

(Article by MN Gordon republished from EconomicPrism.com)

Powell’s primary duty is setting the price of credit. This is an important job in a centrally planned economy. Nonetheless, in an open economy, where interest rates are determined by willing borrowers and lenders, the job wouldn’t exist.

There are worse jobs out there, however. Just ask Lael Brainard. On February 18, she resigned as Fed vice chair after less than nine months on the job. Now she’s Director of the National Economic Council. Another worthless position.

With Brainard out as vice chair, a simple question arises. Who will be the next sucker to fill this role? As the National Enquirer would put it, “Enquiring minds want to know.”

The question is simple enough. Yet nothing is easy in the time of Biden. Because in America, circa 2023, ‘who’ will be the next Fed vice chair takes a back seat to ‘what’ will be the next Fed vice chair.

As in: What is the color gradation of their skin? What is their gender, and, more importantly, what is their gender identification? Are they privileged benefactors of something called systemic racism?

To clarify, the position of Fed vice chair is that of an unelected bureaucrat. It comes by appointment of the U.S. President, with confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

And being most qualified for the job is a second-tier factor in President Joe Biden’s nomination process.

Here’s what we mean…

Are You a Freak?

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was recently asked by a reporter if Joe Biden is considering diversity in naming a new Federal Reserve vice chair. The bozo who asked the question seemed to think this was an important criteria. Jean-Pierre’s boastful response provided the anticipated confirmation:

“The Cabinet is majority people of color for the first time in its history. The Cabinet is majority female for the first time in history. A majority of White House senior staff identify as female. Forty percent of White House senior staff identify as part of racially diverse communities, and a record seven assistants to the president are openly LGBTQ+.”

According to Jean-Pierre, the nomination will come in the near future. She also added that the President “prides himself” on hiring minority candidates.

Here at the Economic Prism, we endeavor to be creative in our thinking while conservative in our personal habits. Such behavioral customs, these days, whether in academia or the corporate board room, make you a freak. Are you a freak too?

Quite frankly, we don’t give a rip about the color gradation or gender identification of the next Fed vice chair. Rather, what we care about is that they have the fortitude – los cojones – to stand up to Washington and the big bankers.

To tell them the gig is up. That the 40-year gravy train of artificially cheap credit has jumped the tracks. That going forward credit will be dear and should be respected in its use.

We relish the thought of a Fed chair who strives to give savers, wage earners, and pensioners a fair shake. One who will punish debtors and protect the dollar. Is that too much to ask?

State Sovereignty

Alas, standards like these would automatically disqualify any potential Fed candidate from nomination. Because no president will nominate someone who won’t keep Washington’s money sucking vortex in operation.

At this point, Americans that have any inkling as to what’s going on are sick and tired of playing a game that’s increasingly rigged against them. The inflation tax piled on top of the federal income tax is outright theft. The President’s Fed vice chair nomination – irrespective of ethnicity or gender identification – is part of a much bigger story.

That is, over the last 110 years, since the creation of the Federal Reserve and the establishment of the federal income tax in 1913, Washington has grown too big for its britches. The gross overreach and incompetence are inexcusable. Hence, some states desire to diminish the federal government’s control.

In flyover country, where the high school kids place “Buck Fiden” stickers on their pickup trucks, there’s a general aversion to Washington’s policies of control. Here in Tennessee, for example, the State government may reject $1.8 billion in U.S. government education dollars.

The intent is to free local schools from federal rules and restrictions and get busybodies in Washington out of the Volunteer State’s classrooms. Maybe it’s all talk and bluster. No state has said no to federal education funding so far. But that doesn’t mean it cannot happen.

In fact, this proposal comes on the heels of the Tennessee Health Department’s rejection of grant funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for HIV-related services. The State will now assume direct financial and management responsibility of these services.

Reducing dependency on the federal government, in particular the CDC after its terrible performance during the coronavirus panic, is an important step to increasing local autonomy and freedom. Federal money comes with countless strings attached. Those strings are generally unfavorable to state sovereignty.

The more states can sever their strings with Washington, the less pull Washington has to jerk them around.

What to make of it…