
Trump's Fed visit shows he ‘takes this seriously,' observes correspondent

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
Mace teases decision on S.C. governor bid: ‘Couple of days'
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) said Sunday she plans to decide in the coming days whether to launch a bid for South Carolina governor. In an interview on Fox News's 'Fox Report Weekend,' Mace hinted that she 'may be forced' to enter the race. 'I will be making a decision over the next couple of days about my future,' Mace said. 'I believe I may be forced to run for governor because I can't watch my beautiful red state of South Carolina go woke. It's gone woke over the last couple of years.' The congresswoman was asked about local coverage of her Friday event in New Hampshire, which anchor Jon Scott said that the local paper reported, 'all but confirms a run for South Carolina governor.' Mace would enter a crowded GOP primary race, with candidates including state Attorney General Alan Wilson, state Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who launched his campaign in recent days. But Mace, in the Sunday interview, sought to present the election as a two-person race against Wilson. 'This is a two-man race, if I get in, between me and Alan Wilson, the South Carolina Attorney General, who likes to put pedophiles on trial and give them one day in jail serve,' she said. 'And so I don't believe that the South Carolina people will go for that,' she continued, 'but we'll be making a decision about my future over the next couple of days, and we're excited about it.'


Forbes
40 minutes ago
- Forbes
What Most People Don't Know About Our 250-Year History, Part I
The Fed allowed one-third of U.S. banks to fail during the Depression. FPG/Hulton Archive. As we approach our country's 250th birthday, there is no better time to reflect on where we have been and how we got here. Yet Americans are surprisingly ignorant about our past. One reason: So much bad history has entered the popular culturecourtesy of bad historians, a few bad economists, and some talented writers like Charles Dickens and Upton Sinclair, who didn't understand history or economics at all. To remedy this problem, I highly recommend The Triumph of Economic Freedom: Debunking the Seven Myths of American Capitalism by Phil Gramm and Donald J. Boudreaux. Gramm is a former U.S. senator and Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Together they have combed through the scholarly literature and savagely dismantled myths about our economic history – myths that are routinely taught in high schools and colleges across the country. In this essay, I will address two severe economic downturns: the Great Depression and the more recent Great Recession. The Great Depression There are five myths here, beginning with the assertion that the depression was caused by capitalism and greed. Put differently, it's the idea that the worst economic downturn in our country's history occurred because of too much individual freedom and too little government. In contrast, the authors write, The worst failure was that of the Federal Reserve System, created to be a lender of last resort, providing liquidity to banks in times of a credit crisis. In fact, the Fed stood by, allowing one-third of the nation's banks to go out of business. A second myth is the idea that in the early stages of the depression, Herbert Hoover stood by and did nothing. In fact, Hoover was a very activist president. In response to the economic downturn, he raised taxes, increased spending, signed the Davis-Bacon Act (ensuring higher wages on federal construction projects) and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Like many of Franklin Roosevelt's policies, most of what Hoover did made things worse, not better. A third myth is that Roosevelt's policies saved us from the depression. In fact, they almost certainly caused the depression to extend for 12 years— longer than it did in any other industrialized country except for France. The authors write: A fourth myth is that Roosevelt united the public in times of crisis. In fact, Roosevelt was a divider, not a uniter. He vilified successful industrialists who opposed his policies as 'economic royalists' who made up an 'economic autocracy.' In fact, it is probably no exaggeration to say that Roosevelt vilified the rich in the United States the way Hitler, at the same time, was vilifying the Jews in Germany. University of Texas historian Henry W. Brands says that 'Roosevelt came disturbingly close to the demagoguery not only of Father Coughlin and the late Huey Long, but also of the fascists of Europe.' The final myth is the idea that it took the enormous increase in government spending during World War II to pull us out of the depression. Were that really true, when the war ended and government spending precipitously retracted, we should have been right back into the depression again. In the four years following the end of World War II, government spending fell by 75 percent. The federal deficit fell by more than 50 percent and then eased into a small surplus. Yet income, output and economic wellbeing continued to rise. The Great Recession Following the Great Depression, the Great Recession—from 2007 to 2009—was our nation's most severe economic downturn. It encompassed a sharp fall in housing prices, accompanied by a spike in mortgage defaults, especially on subprime loans. The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)—two government-sponsored enterprises established to support home ownership—went into receivership. There are four myths here, beginning with the assertion that the recession was caused by too much private sector greed and risk-taking and too little government supervision. If anything, the reverse is true. Subprime lending actually became a goal of the federal government—beginning under the Clinton administration, primarily through the expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The authors explain: Using newly expanded CRA requirements, bank regulators began to pressure banks to make subprime loans. Guidelines turned into mandates as each bank was assigned a letter grade on its making of CRA loans. Banks could not even open ATMs or branches, much less acquire another bank without a passing grade—and getting a passing grade was no longer about meeting local credit needs. Increasingly, passing grades were gotten by making subprime home loans. By 2008, roughly half of all outstanding mortgage loans in America—28 million in all—were high-risk loans. The second myth is that the crisis was caused by lack of regulatory authority. In fact, there were a slew of federal and state banking laws, which gave rise to an army of regulators with the power to investigate, mandate corrective action, and fine and even imprison violators. The problem was that the traditional interest in meeting community credit needs with sound banking practices was overridden by a new federal policy designed to make 'affordable housing' available to more and more people. A third myth is that the recession was caused by banking deregulation—in particular by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB). In fact, GLB removed barriers to competition in banking—making the financial sector more efficient. But regulatory authority did not decrease. It increased. The Congressional Budget Office actually scored GLB as increasing regulatory costs. Regarding GLB, President Clinton said, 'There's not a single solitary example that it had anything to do with the financial crash.' The final myth is the idea that the length of the recession was somehow caused by banking practices. In fact, an unusually weak recovery was more likely caused by increased penalties for working and increased subsidies for not working. During the Obama years, the authors say, the 'American economy was hit with a tidal wave of new rules and regulations across health care, financial services, energy and manufacturing.' At the same time there was an explosion in the enrollment numbers for disability benefits, food stamps and cash welfare. So why are these facts so important to know? George Santayana is reputed to have said, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." The experiences of the Great Depression and the Great Recession are events that no sane person should want to experience again.


Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
'Daily Show' co-creator sounds off on cancellation of Colbert's show, accuses CBS of being 'afraid'
Lizz Winstead, the co-creator of "The Daily Show", sounded off during an MSNBC interview about the cancellation of late-night host Stephen Colbert's show, accusing CBS of being afraid. "To just drop the franchise itself, right, its not like Stephen Colbert, its a double, its a twofer, right? And that says to me, you're afraid, because we've watched, with 'The Daily Show,' with John Oliver, we've watched how people who do not have a dog in the fight, and what I mean by that is people who call BS no matter who the powerful person is, on their hypocrisy or screwing up. And that's what Stephen has done brilliantly, Jon [Stewart] has done brilliantly, John Oliver has done brilliantly," Winstead said. Winstead wrote a piece for Rolling Stone on Friday about the cancellation of Colbert and said she didn't believe CBS' explanation for canceling the show. CBS announced that Colbert's show would be canceled at the end of its broadcast season and said it was a "purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night." "So when the truthtellers are the comics and those comics are actually resonating with the people that Donald Trump has not been able to reach, then he's got to go plan b and plan b is, 'oh, look at me, I have a merger I need, look at me. I can ask for what I want, and I can silence those voices because my, lardo-thin skin cannot take the ridicule,' that most people can who are grown adults running a nation," she continued. Liberals have overwhelmingly argued that Colbert's show was canceled for political reasons. Days before the cancellation, Colbert slammed Paramount's recent settlement with President Donald Trump over his lawsuit against "60 Minutes" as a "big fat bribe" ahead of a pending merger between Paramount and Skydance Media. Winstead argued Colbert, along with other comedians, was an authentic voice on late-night television. "When you are authentic, people gravitate to you, and there is nothing and no one more authentic than Stephen, John. You look at these passionate pleas that they give nightly, and you're like, that is real. And the fire is what makes people come back. And if you lack the fire, man, do you hate it. And if that fire is directed at you, you have no other choice, because you're small, to want to squelch it and put it out," Winstead continued. Winstead wrote in Rolling Stone that she didn't believe CBS' financial excuse and suggested networks didn't want progressive voices. "This is why Colbert's cancellation hits different. Not just because he's one of the greats, but because his ousting is a warning shot. It tells comedians — even the white, male, successful ones — that there's a line. And if you cross it, they'll find an excuse to take you out," Winstead, who identified herself in the commentary essay as a loud and proud, pro-abortion progressive, wrote. "Underneath those thinly veiled excuses is fear. Fear of the power comedians have. Fear that people might actually listen while they are laughing," she continued.