Donald Trump's first year in office could be a rough one, and not necessarily due to anything he does:
CNN Money:
The Federal Reserve is expected to raise its key interest rate on Wednesday. It would be only its second rate hike since 2006. The first was in December 2015.That last one is the concern. If the Fed starts hiking rates at an accelerated pace, it could tank the markets.
...Here's how the Fed's rate hikes could affect you.
...1. Savings accounts will pay more
...2. Big ticket buyers: rates are rising but still low
...3. Fed likely won't end the Trump market rally Wednesday
...4. Trump could have to handle a hawkish Fed in 2017
However, we have had rates too low for too long. The Keynesian economists (I'm looking at you Paul Krugman!) will probably say they haven't been low enough for long enough, as if near zero percent interest isn't low enough, and 8 years isn't long enough.
There's a medical saying that applies here: Sometimes, you have to cut to heal. In the financial world, just the opposite is true: Sometimes, you have to raise (rates) to heal the economy. Rate increases may hurt the economy in the short term, but they may heal it in the long term.
In other Trump news...
Newsweek:
Donald Trump hasn’t been sworn in yet, but he is already making decisions and issuing statements to world leaders that radically depart from American foreign policy, all to the benefit of his family’s corporate empire. Because of this, the next president of the United States is already vulnerable to undue influence by other nations, including through bribery and even blackmail.Before digging into this Leftist hit piece, keep the following in mind:
1. The voters were well aware of Trump's potential conflicts of interest and elected him anyway.
2. The voters were also aware of Hillary Clinton's conflicts of interest, and voted against her.
3. It is possible, not likely but possible, that Trump could still be a good president in spite of OR because of his conflicts of interest. If his interests align with America's interests, we could all be better off in 4-8 years.
Number 3 above is necessary in the consideration because we knew after 8 years of Obama that Clinton's policies wouldn't be far removed from Obama. At least the voters were cognizant enough to recognize another 4-8 years of Democrats would not make any positive changes.
That said, the article does make an intriguing case about Trump's conflicts of interest. but this is no different than the conflicts of interest facing federal legislators and their personal stock holdings, even as they regulate and legislate over said industries. The problem here isn't Trump per se, but rather what we allow our politicians to do with their money.
Frankly, the federal government should require all of a politician's wealth to be invested in government bonds during their time in office. This will serve two purposes:
1. Limit potential conflicts of interest.
2. Force them to make sure our government's finances are in order, and that bonds pay a reasonable rate of interest.
Unfortunately, that is just a practical solution, and not a realistic one.
No comments:
Post a Comment