Revisiting Arthur Burns

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
Very interesting article from the Fed writer for the New York Times. Burns, rightfully IMO, has not been looked upon kindly by history because he was too close to Nixon and kept rates lower than they should have been to appease him and as a result let inflation embed further in the economy instead of stamping it out. Volker replaced him and didn't play games and it took him creating a massive recession in '81-'82 to finally wring it out of the system.

In an ironic twist, some liberal economists and historians* today are now revisiting Burns' legacy and saying maybe he wasn't so bad. The reason? They want Powell to follow the Burns path by not raising rates higher and hurting the employment market. That was always Burns' justification for not putting his foot on the neck of inflation, that doing so would hurt the economy and specifically cost people jobs. Of course his actions only made it worse down the road but if we're only thinking short term then sure, pulling back early can be beneficial.

Edit: * I changed to liberal economists and historians as the article referenced so it doesn't imply your regular run of the mill liberal is having this discussion


https://twitter.com/x/status/1649404352220594177
 
Last edited:
ThatOwlWoman said:
"Liberals...." *yawn*
Click to expand...

It's not being said in a derogatory manner per se, it's just where this push is coming from. Not all people on the left are doves and not all people on the right are hawks but clearly more calls for stopping current rate increases are coming from Democrats/liberals and thus this article and Burns' legacy. The New York Times isn't writing this because people on the right are now speaking out on behalf of Burns and saying Powell should stop what he is doing.
 
Rune said:
End the FED.
Click to expand...

If you haven't read it this book may appeal to you.


Fed Up: An Insider's Take on Why the Federal Reserve is Bad for America

https://www.amazon.com/Fed-Up-Insiders-Federal-Reserve/dp/0735211655



I just finished reading this new book from the author of the article in the OP who covers the Fed for the New York Times. She takes a more Center-Left view.


Limitless: The Federal Reserve Takes on a New Age of Crisis

https://www.amazon.com/Limitless-Federal-Reserve-Takes-Crisis/dp/0593320239
 
cawacko said:
If you haven't read it this book may appeal to you.


Fed Up: An Insider's Take on Why the Federal Reserve is Bad for America

https://www.amazon.com/Fed-Up-Insiders-Federal-Reserve/dp/0735211655



I just finished reading this new book from the author of the article in the OP who covers the Fed for the New York Times. She takes a more Center-Left view.


Limitless: The Federal Reserve Takes on a New Age of Crisis

https://www.amazon.com/Limitless-Federal-Reserve-Takes-Crisis/dp/0593320239
Click to expand...

Have you seen the policy they are about to implement?
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
Liberals really has a lot of Republican's panties all up in their ass crack don't they?

Well, good! That is a measure of success right there!
Click to expand...

You don't have to find an element of irony in the article. It focuses on the (liberal) professor and others (like the professor) who think Burns' overall work should be reevaluated and simply labeling him a failure doesn't tell his whole story (because they see parrels to what they would like to be done today).

This isn't Breibart writing this article, this is in the New York Times. Because someone makes reference to liberals or conservatives doesn't have to mean its being done in a negative manner. Does the New York Times have their panties in their *ss crack allowing this discussion/article to take place/be printed?
 
cawacko said:
Very interesting article from the Fed writer for the New York Times. Burns, rightfully IMO, has not been looked upon kindly by history because he was too close to Nixon and kept rates lower than they should have been to appease him and as a result let inflation embed further in the economy instead of stamping it out. Volker replaced him and didn't play games and it took him creating a massive recession in '81-'82 to finally wring it out of the system.

In an ironic twist, liberals today are now revisiting Burns' legacy and saying maybe he wasn't so bad. The reason? They want Powell to follow the Burns path by not raising rates higher and hurting the employment market. That was always Burns' justification for not putting his foot on the neck of inflation, that doing so would hurt the economy and specifically cost people jobs. Of course his actions only made it worse down the road but if we're only thinking short term then sure, pulling back early can be beneficial.

]
Click to expand...

Politically, makes sense, heading into 2024 the Democrats will live with gradual inflation rather than threatening recession and unemployment, but I doubt many are intellectualizing it deep enough to debate past Fed Chairman. GOP would rather have the reverse, but argue the same if they were in the White House.

Not arguing either side, just that it is not surprising
 
archives said:
Politically, makes sense, heading into 2024 the Democrats will live with gradual inflation rather than threatening recession and unemployment, but I doubt many are intellectualizing it deep enough to debate past Fed Chairman. GOP would rather have the reverse, but argue the same if they were in the White House.

Not arguing either side, just that it is not surprising
Click to expand...

You are correct that this is not the type of conversation most would have but it still presents an interesting twist, some on the left trying to rehab to a degree a (failed) conservative Fed chairman. It's a twist for me as well, agreeing that another conservative is a failure but he was. I guess I'm more hawkish that way and being a dove and hawk doesn't have to fully correlate with liberal and conservative.
 
cawacko said:
You don't have to find an element of irony in the article. It focuses on the (liberal) professor and others (like the professor) who think Burns' overall work should be reevaluated and simply labeling him a failure doesn't tell his whole story (because they see parrels to what they would like to be done today).

This isn't Breibart writing this article, this is in the New York Times. Because someone makes reference to liberals or conservatives doesn't have to mean its being done in a negative manner. Does the New York Times have their panties in their *ss crack allowing this discussion/article to take place/be printed?
Click to expand...

I was referring to our resident Republicans here in the forum.

Not even so much Republicans, and perhaps I should have been a little more specific.

I should have limited my opinions to specifically Trumptards.

We know Trumptards hate us- Real Republicans see Democrats as their political competition, and I do not believe all Republicans hate Democrats just because we do not agree on some very controversial political issues.
 
cawacko said:
You are correct that this is not the type of conversation most would have but it still presents an interesting twist, some on the left trying to rehab to a degree a (failed) conservative Fed chairman. It's a twist for me as well, agreeing that another conservative is a failure but he was. I guess I'm more hawkish that way and being a dove and hawk doesn't have to fully correlate with liberal and conservative.
Click to expand...

Understandable, I think Ike was a decent President, better than JFK, and Nixon, in some ways, stressing some, competent Executive, probably better choice than McGovern, and both thoughts contradict my political leanings
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
I was referring to our resident Republicans here in the forum.

Not even so much Republicans, and perhaps I should have been a little more specific.

I should have limited my opinions to specifically Trumptards.

We know Trumptards hate us- Real Republicans see Democrats as their political competition, and I do not believe all Republicans hate Democrats just because we do not agree on some very controversial political issues.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm still not following as the article itself makes reference to the monetary policy positions of liberal economists and historians - it's kind of the basis of the article. I'm not sure why the New York Times referencing that is viewed so negatively.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
Liberals really has a lot of Republican's panties all up in their ass crack don't they?

Well, good! That is a measure of success right there!
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Just look at all the goofy names they have for us: progressives, progs, socialists, commies, woke, fascists, Nazis, etc. The more names, the more fear, eh?
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
It's what Butt-Hurt looks like! :laugh:
Click to expand...

Eh, I’m butt hurt over the A’s likely leaving Oakland for Las Vegas. I’m not butt hurt over a revisiting of Arthur Burns legacy. I understand this is not everyone’s cup of tea but I like history.

My understanding from what I’ve read is Volker was not popular during his time in office for what he put the country through. Today though he is largely lionized because it is recognized that his actions were necessary. History has not look kindly upon Burns. If it’s offensive that The NY Times is writing about some liberal economists and historians attempting to revisit his record (largely in justification of actions they would like to see taken by Powell today) and place nuance to it that is your right.

But I don’t follow the idea that having this discussion is name calling or being butt hurt (unless like I said you heard me and a large number of A’s fans cursing the name of A’s owner John Fisher. You want to hear name calling, listen to what the locals have to say about him.)
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
Eh, I’m butt hurt over the A’s likely leaving Oakland for Las Vegas. I’m not butt hurt over a revisiting of Arthur Burns legacy. I understand this is not everyone’s cup of tea but I like history.

My understanding from what I’ve read is Volker was not popular during his time in office for what he put the country through. Today though he is largely lionized because it is recognized that his actions were necessary. History has not look kindly upon Burns. If it’s offensive that The NY Times is writing about some liberal economists and historians attempting to revisit his record (largely in justification of actions they would like to see taken by Powell today) and place nuance to it that is your right.

But I don’t follow the idea that having this discussion is name calling or being butt hurt (unless like I said you heard me and a large number of A’s fans cursing the name of A’s owner John Fisher. You want to hear name calling, listen to what the locals have to say about him.)
Click to expand...

I worked here at FRB Dallas Station K from 1970 - 1980. And I always thought that Burns worked with our president, Nixon at that time, and his Treasury Department- better than anyone that ever followed him as Fed Chair. And I never blamed him for the inflation of the 70's, or ever accused him of just looking after the Federal Reserve Banks best interests that may have contrasted from the Nixon Administration'S BEST INTERESTS OF THE people. And I do believe the Fed should look back at his approach of keeping interest Rates low during higher than normal inflationary periods.

I have always been a downer on the FRB interest rate increases. The FRB should want to raise them during the good times, in my opinion, not the bad times.

Two factors that were not the case in the 70's- One, a SHUTDOWN RECOVERY after a WORLD-WIDE pandemic, and TWO- an adjustment in inflation caused by the cost of labor increases after the states started increasing their own minimum wages. The only thing that is in common with the 70's inflation situation and now, is the availability of Crude oil resources being diminished because of the conflicts in the world. SAME NOW AS THEN.

So I am not the one on Burns ass, in fact, I'll be the first to defend him and his FRB policies OF THE 70'S.
 
Last edited:
serendipity said:
I truly can't make you out, sometimes you're just a fool like now but other times you can be quite profound.
Click to expand...

I don't have problems with people that differ with my opinions on Policy issues- But I have a huge problem with the Hatred expressed and poor disregard I hear about liberals from Republicans.

Now, we can either address that, or I'll just defend my position on REPUBLICANS IN GENERAL- and that is- I believe you people are BUTT-HURT and spoiled sports- when you don't get your way in elections.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
I worked here at FRB Dallas Station K from 1970 - 1980. And I always thought that Burns worked with our president, Nixon at that time, and his Treasury Department- better than anyone that ever followed him as Fed Chair. And I never blamed him for the inflation of the 70's, or ever accused him of just looking after the Federal Reserve Banks best interests that may have contrasted from the Nixon Administration'S BEST INTERESTS OF THE people. And I do believe the Fed should look back at his approach of keeping interest Rates low during higher than normal inflationary periods.

I have always been a downer on the FRB interest rate increases. The FRB should want to raise them during the good times, in my opinion, not the bad times.

Two factors that were not the case in the 70's- One, a SHUTDOWN RECOVERY after a WORLD-WIDE pandemic, and TWO- an adjustment in inflation caused by the cost of labor increases after the states started increasing their own minimum wages. The only thing that is in common with the 70's inflation situation and now, is the availability of Crude oil resources being diminished because of the conflicts in the world. SAME NOW AS THEN.

So I am not the one on Burns ass, in fact, I'll be the first to defend him and his FRB policies OF THE 70'S.
Click to expand...

Wow. It's like Jekyll & Hyde ITT. Haha. Appreciate the response though.

As I understand it, Nixon pressured Burns to keep rates low. Now Nixon is far from the first, or the last, President to pressure the Fed to do his bidding. But if you believe that the Fed should be an independent entity then Nixon rightfully gets sh*t for doing so. But you're taking the position that those discussed in the article are taking which is a more dovish position, that Burns did the right thing by thinking more of employment and the economy rather than strictly inflation and not going full bore on raising rates. It's very similar to the arguments today, the fear that Powell and the Fed will go too far in tightening and hurt employment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top