DEEP STATE DEEP STATE!!

Well played. Actually what I'm expecting is a Ballwasher to swing by to state "the article doesn't mention Trump by name, so how do we know they're talking about him?"

    Trump is not interfering, despite his efforts, the fed, under a couple different chairmen, have pretty much told him "blow me". Trump is just being Trump and making inappropriate remarks. Any proof otherwise?

Yes, glad we all agree Trump’s remarks are inappropriate.

It has potential greater effect than just being inappropriate. It undermines the credibility of the world's most important central bank. E.g. no matter how much the Fed chair says they don't pay attention to politics, when Trump lobbies hard for lower rates, and then a few months later the Fed lowers rates it's really hard to judge whether the Fed made that decision on its own, or was influenced by politics.

-
Fed responded to the economy (eg big manufacturing slow down), that's what the fed does. If Trump wants further lowering he can just continue the tariff war and that will ensure a slowing economy...and that will get the fed to act again. All that will happen whether he says anything or not. Trump just wants the fed to act in a bigger way to offset the effects of his fight to force China to act like a good player on the intl trade field. No reason to worry about the fed that I see at this point. No problem if you disagree with my take, that's just where I am right now.

That's what it does on paper, and what we'd like the rest of the world to believe.

So you're saying an effort to interfere does not constitute interference? Not sure I buy that.

Sure that. And an effort to collude is not collusion. An attempt to rape is not rape.

Trump always skates because he is incompetent at everything.

He is the Forrest Gump president.

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

Gump went to Vietnam.

Notable piece by former NY Fed President Bill Dudley, particularly the highlighted section at the end. I suspect Trump calling Powell an "enemy" was a step too far for some:

The Fed Shouldn’t Encourage Trump’s Trade War: Bill Dudley
The central bank should refuse to play along with an economic disaster in the making.
By Bill Dudley

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.