Based on the most recent reports, inflation has ticked down while unemployment has ticked up. The Fed makes it's decisions not only based on what the numbers are right now but also which way they are trending. It's like driving a car: you need to apply the brakes before your car reaches the point you want it to stop.

How many months in advance??

Devil's advocate here... what is your educational background in geology?

Oh....... I've noticed!

What is white17's educational background in geology?

I have taken college-level coursework in chemistry and physics. What are the mechanisms by which new gold atoms are created within the earth?



Well, a bunch of smart people on a committee at the Fed meet roughly every 6 weeks to talk about it and potentially change interest rates.

Well.... I reckon that's his place to say and not mine.

Then why don't you ask him?

I know. Why don't YOU? He'll be here tomorrow and I am sure he'll reply.

It seemed, from your question, that you're arguing that someone must have a particular credential before they're allowed to weigh in on a topic, but this principle is being selectively enforced by you, since you asked me but not him.

Why would I ask him, when I already know his educational background? I was just trying to ascertain whether you had a similar background or if you just took a class in physics and chemistry like every other college level student.....

So, if one must have an educational background in geology to post about the creation of new gold atoms within the earth, and you are "allowing" white17 to post about it, does that not logically imply that he has an educational background in geology? Or are you selectively applying the rule?

This showed up on my feed this morning,,,,, it’s pretty good

Former Fed Chairs and Treasury Secretaries are now warning us that the U.S. is “acting like an emerging market.”

The irony is thick.

The U.S. started acting like an emerging market under their direction and leadership when they debased the currency, monetized the debt, and backstopped insiders.

These are the same leaders who spent decades eroding the Fed's credibility by normalizing Fed intervention, turning monetary policy into a backstop for fiscal excess and financial markets.

They helped create an environment drowning in debt and moral hazard, and now that the politicization of the Fed becomes more overt, they’re suddenly worried about weak institutions and Fed independence?

I'm sorry but you don't get to destroy the Fed's credibility for 30+ years, then clutch your pearls when the consequences arrive.

I asked Grok to summarize the irony of these signatories lecturing us about Fed independence and inflation, and it delivered...

Alan Greenspan: The Maestro of Bubbles

Greenspan, the five-term Fed chair who spanned Reagan to Bush Jr., is the godfather of easy money.

He kept interest rates artificially low in the early 2000s, inflating the housing bubble that exploded into the 2008 financial crisis. His "Greenspan Put" essentially signaled to Wall Street that the Fed would always bail them out, encouraging reckless risk-taking.

This guy chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under Ford and basically wrote the playbook for moral hazard. Now he's signing a letter about "weak institutions" and "negative consequences for inflation"?

Bro, you created the inflation monster by flooding the system with cheap credit.

If the U.S. feels like an emerging market, it's because you treated it like one—printing to prop up cronies while savers got wrecked.

Ben Bernanke: QE King and Bailout Baron

Bernanke, two-term Fed chair and Bush's economic adviser, took Greenspan's mess and supersized it. Post-2008, he unleashed Quantitative Easing (QE), aka money printer go brrr, buying trillions in assets to bail out failing banks and prop up the stock market.

This wasn't "stabilizing" the economy; it was wealth transfer from Main Street to Wall Street, inflating asset bubbles while real wages stagnated.

Bernanke's actions politicized the Fed more than any "criminal inquiry" ever could, making it a tool for endless intervention. Now he's whining about undermining independence? You undermined it yourself, Ben—by turning the Fed into a central planner's wet dream.

Timothy Geithner and Henry Paulson: The Bailout Bros

Geithner (Obama's Treasury Secretary and NY Fed President) and Paulson (Bush's Treasury Secretary) were the dynamic duo of the 2008 bailouts.

They orchestrated TARP, funneling hundreds of billions to banks and institutions—often with no strings attached—while homeowners drowned in foreclosures.

Geithner famously argued for "foaming the runway" for banks, meaning soft landings for the elite at the expense of everyone else.

Paulson, a former Goldman CEO, basically used public funds to save his old buddies. These moves entrenched "too big to fail," making the financial system more fragile and dependent on government backstops.

Fast-forward to today: inflation from their era's policies has eroded savings, and the debt they piled on is why politicians are now meddling with the Fed. Hypocrisy level: expert.

Janet Yellen: From Fed Chair to Treasury Printer

Yellen's resume is a fiat hall of fame: Fed Chair under Obama/Trump (2014–2018), Treasury Secretary under Biden, and earlier roles under Clinton.

As Fed Chair, she inherited Bernanke's $4.5 trillion balance sheet monster from QE rounds and kept the printer humming—reinvesting maturing securities to maintain that bloated size for years, while holding rates near zero. The easy-money era she extended blew up asset bubbles, widened wealth gaps, and primed the pump for the 2020s inflation surge.

As Treasury head, she oversaw trillions in stimulus during COVID, much of it funded by Fed money creation. Remember when the Fed's balance sheet hit $9 trillion? That's Yellen's world.

Her policies directly contributed to the "highly negative consequences for inflation" she now decries. And let's not forget her flip-flopping on inflation being "transitory"—a lie that cost everyday people dearly as prices soared. Irony level: nuclear.

Just today, Yellen went on CNBC blasting threats to Fed independence as "extremely chilling" and warning that pressuring the Fed to cut rates to manage federal debt payments is "the road to a banana republic."

Ma'am, they literally paved that road under your leadership and policies. As Fed Chair, you spent years normalizing a massive, interventionist balance sheet and near-zero rates that turned the Fed into Wall Street's perpetual backstop—eroding its credibility long before any political pressure became more obvious. Peak hypocrisy.

I'd like to revisit this and perhaps request a clarification. I stand by my post that no new gold atoms are being created within the earth. If anybody disagrees, whatever their credentials, I challenge them to explain to me how new gold is being created.

However, there are geological processes that can create new gold deposits with gold that was previously inaccessible. The earth's crust is but a sliver of the earth's mass and I'm sure there's gold located deeper than any of our mines that we have no means of extracting. Is this, perhaps, what you mean, that there are still processes in motion that will continue to create new gold deposits in the crust from stores that were previously within the bowels of the earth?

I agree with you at the atomic level absolutely.
I was referring to geologic processes being the same as they have been throughout geologic time. My thoughts at the time concerned processes like plate tectonics and old material being re-melted an redistributed via magma plumes . That is why I made the comment to Warrior about poor distribution.

We know that there are new atoms forming all the time in the Earth's crust due to the radioactive decay of other atoms. I am not saying that the number of atoms is increasing. That is fairly constant.. but for example uranium decaying into lead or potassium into calcium and argon.

But I certainly didn't mean to imply that new gold atoms are being created. But new ore bodies certainly are.

Hope that explains where I was coming from

So I was correct then. Gold is a finite resource.

No,,, above ground supply of gold increases every year

The higher the price,,,, the more gold is discovered

Similar to oil. Boone Pickens was a little off in his projections.

But he just said no more is being created. Hence what is available to be mined is indeed finite.

It’s scarce,, not finite

Although not practical,,,, it can, and has been created in a lab

This might help you understand what he was talking about..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_genesis