Kevin Warsh Is Viewed As A Future ‘Adult' At The Fed. That's Dangerous
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 18: Jon Hilsenrath, Author, chats with Adam Posen, President, Peterson ... More Institute, Kevin Warsh, Former Member, Federal Reserve Board of Governors; and Karen Karniol-Tambour, Co-CIO, Bridgewater at The Semafor 2024 World Economy Summit on April 18, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Photo byfor Semafor)
High prices beget low prices. It's the high prices that summon more supply, more innovative production processes that ultimately result in lower prices, and often both.
That high prices foretell lower prices rates more discussion as Republicans and conservatives rush to anoint former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh as the next Fed Chairman. They seemingly view Warsh as another 'adult' with whom they have history with in the Trump economic room, while Warsh likely fits Trump's preference for good-looking people.
Ok, but what about Warsh the economic theorist? This is the real danger associated with Warsh that happy-talking conservatives don't seem willing to acknowledge, or grasp.
Warsh is an interventionist by his own admission. He still defends his former Fed boss Ben Bernanke's 'try everything' response to financial uncertainty in 2008. Warsh also defends the Fed's 'quantitative easing' efforts in 2008-2009 meant to push down interest rates.
If we forget for a moment that the Fed can't alter reality opposite Bernanke and others who buy into (and practiced) central-banking mysticism, stop and think about what it signals about Warsh that he thinks otherwise: it's a sign that he's fully willing to substitute himself for the information-pregnant marketplace when it's sending crucial signals. Lest readers forget, prices are how the market economy organizes itself, yet Warsh thinks it's alright for government officials to intervene when market prices are communicating what they don't like.
Here lies the danger of 'adults' like Warsh, and arguably 'free market' Republicans more broadly. Just as hardline anti-communist hardliner Richard Nixon could go to China, Republicans can meddle with markets. That's the stuff of crises. More on this in a bit.
For now, it's useful to contemplate the speech Warsh gave last week and that had conservatives rapturous. In one editorial Warsh was lionized for observing that the Fed 'has undermined its own credibility in recent years by failing to fulfill its core duty of providing price stability.' Really? Market prices, much like credit prices, are an effect of wildly sophisticated cooperation among man and machine (we don't borrow money, we buy what money can be exchanged for) around the world, and the infinite prices of either could never, ever be managed or overseen by central bankers.
From there, Warsh promoted the fiction that the quantitative easing he initially supported ultimately 'disguised the true cost of capital,' and the latter allegedly 'subsidized government deficit spending by keeping the cost of borrowing artificially low.' No, that's not serious. Just the same, it's remarkable the veiled disdain conservatives have for the market signals they claim to embrace. Seriously, do they really believe the deepest markets in the world in which are traded the most owned assets in the world (Treasuries) were really tricked by men and women with last names like Bernanke, Yellen, and Powell on the way to much easier borrowing than would have taken place if markets hadn't been duped? Hopefully the question answers itself.
Contra Warsh, the danger isn't that the Fed can trick markets and control credit prices (what a laugh), it's Warsh himself. It's that conservatives view him as their adult in the room. Except that Warsh joined with other adults in 2008 to intervene in a healthy correction, one that logically included financial institution failure, and that if left alone would have taken place absent what some who should know better claim to this day was a 'financial crisis.'
No, no such thing. Markets just are. They're a mirror. The only crisis is one of intervention, and the adult in Warsh situationally embraces intervention. Which is the stuff of crises by its very name.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
Amid backlash, Tesla remained resilient in Texas
Even as Tesla deliveries plunged nationally this year amid Elon Musk's very visible (if short-lived) alliance with President Trump, there was at least one state where Tesla registrations were up: Texas. Why it matters: The registration data, obtained by Axios through public information requests, indicates loyalty to the brand in its home base, including Texas' large urban and suburban counties. The depth of conservatives' enthusiasm for Musk's automobiles now faces a major test amid the absolute meltdown last week between the Tesla CEO and the president. By the numbers: Texans registered 12,918 new Teslas in the first three months of 2025, a period when Musk, who contributed more than $250 million to a pro-Trump super PAC during the 2024 election campaign, was enmeshed in the Trump administration as the overseer of DOGE, the president's cost-cutting initiative. Over the same period in 2024, Texans registered 10,679 Teslas. That's a 21% increase year over year. The intrigue: The spike in Texas registrations came as Tesla was flailing elsewhere. Tesla's vehicle deliveries plunged 13% globally in the first quarter of 2025 (336,681 electric vehicles) compared with Q1 2024 (386,810). Tesla vehicles were torched at showrooms and the brand's reputation cratered. Zoom in: Tesla saw year-over-year improvements in its sales in some of the most populous Texas counties. In Travis County, new Tesla registrations grew from 1,369 in the first quarter of 2024 to 1,424 during the first quarter of 2025. In Harris County, they grew from 1,526 to 1,837 during the same period. Tesla registration grew from 1,316 to 1,546 in Collin County and from 990 to 1,146 in Dallas County. In Bexar County, registrations grew from 631 to 664. What they're saying:"It's homegrown pride," is how Matt Holm, president and founder of the Tesla Owners Club of Austin, explains the car company's resilience to Axios. "And regardless of all the drama going on these days, people can differentiate between the product and everything else going on, and it's just a great product." "Elon has absolutely and irreversibly blown up bridges to some potential customers," says Alexander Edwards, president of California-based research firm Strategic Vision, which has long surveyed the motivations of car buyers. "People who bought Teslas for environmental friendliness, that's pretty much gone," Edwards tells Axios. Yes, but: The company had been enjoying an increasingly positive reputation among more conservative consumers. Musk was viewed favorably by 80% of Texas Republicans polled by the Texas Politics Project in April — and unfavorably by 83% of Democrats. In what now feels like a political lifetime ago, Trump himself even promoted Teslas by promising to buy one in support of Musk earlier this year. "In some pockets, like Austin, you have that tech group that loves what Tesla has to offer, can do some mental gymnastics about Musk, and looks at Rivian and says that's not what I want or might be priced out," Edwards says. Between the lines:"Being in the state of Texas, you're naturally conditioned to think you're better than everyone else in the U.S. And when you buy a Tesla" — a status symbol — "that's what you're saying. It doesn't surprise me that there's an increase in sales" in Texas, Edwards says. Plus: Tesla's resilience in Texas could have practical reasons as well, Edwards says. Texas homes — as opposed to, say, apartments in cities on the East Coast — are more likely to have a garage to charge a car in, he adds. What's next: Musk said late last month that Tesla was experiencing a "major rebound in demand" — without providing specifics. But that was before things went absolutely haywire with Trump and Tesla stock took a bath last week.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market
Dario Amodei, CEO of the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, published a guest essay in The New York Times Thursday arguing against a proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation. Amodei argues that a patchwork of regulations would be better than no regulation whatsoever. Skepticism is warranted whenever the head of an incumbent firm calls for more regulation, and this case is no different. If Amodei gets his way, Anthropic would face less competition—to the detriment of AI innovation, AI security, and the consumer. Amodei's op-ed came in a response to a provision of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which would prevent any states, cities, and counties from enforcing any regulation that specifically targets AI models, AI systems, or automated decision systems for 10 years. Senate Republicans have amended the clause from a simple requirement to a condition for receiving federal broadband funds, in order to comply with the Byrd Rule, which in Politico's words "blocks anything but budgetary issues from inclusion in reconciliation." Amodei begins by describing how, in a recent stress test conducted at his company, a chatbot threatened an experimenter to forward evidence of his adultery to his wife unless he withdrew plans to shut the AI down. The CEO also raises more tangible concerns, such as reports that a version of Google's Gemini model is "approaching a point where it could help people carry out cyberattacks." Matthew Mittelsteadt, a technology fellow at the Cato Institute, tells Reason that the stress test was "very contrived" and that "there are no AI systems where you must prompt it to turn it off." You can just turn it off. He also acknowledges that, while there is "a real cybersecurity danger [of] AI being used to spot and exploit cyber-vulnerabilities, it can also be used to spot and patch" them. Outside of cyberspace and in, well, actual space, Amodei sounds the alarm that AI could acquire the ability "to produce biological and other weapons." But there's nothing new about that: Knowledge and reasoning, organic or artificial—ultimately wielded by people in either case—can be used to cause problems as well as to solve them. An AI that can model three-dimensional protein structures to create cures for previously untreatable diseases can also create virulent, lethal pathogens. Amodei recognizes the double-edged nature of AI and says voluntary model evaluation and publication are insufficient to ensure that benefits outweigh costs. Instead of a 10-year moratorium, Amodei calls on the White House and Congress to work together on a transparency standard for AI companies. In lieu of federal testing standards, Amodei says state laws should pick up the slack without being "overly prescriptive or burdensome." But that caveat is exactly the kind of wishful thinking Amodei indicts proponents of the moratorium for: Not only would 50 state transparency laws be burdensome, says Mittelsteadt, but they could "actually make models less legible." Neil Chilson of the Abundance Institute also inveighed against Amodei's call for state-level regulation, which is much more onerous than Amodei suggests. "The leading state proposals…include audit requirements, algorithmic assessments, consumer disclosures, and some even have criminal penalties," Chilson tweeted, so "the real debate isn't 'transparency vs. nothing,' but 'transparency-only federal floor vs. intrusive state regimes with audits, liability, and even criminal sanctions.'" Mittelsteadt thinks national transparency regulation is "absolutely the way to go." But how the U.S. chooses to regulate AI might not have much bearing on Skynet-doomsday scenarios, because, while America leads the way in AI, it's not the only player in the game. "If bad actors abroad create Amodei's theoretical 'kill everyone bot,' no [American] law will matter," says Mittelsteadt. But such a law can "stand in the way of good actors using these tools for defense." Amodei is not the only CEO of a leading AI company to call for regulation. In 2023, Sam Altman, co-founder and then-CEO of Open AI, called on lawmakers to consider "intergovernmental oversight mechanisms and standard-setting" of AI. In both cases and in any others that come along, the public should beware of calls for AI regulation that will foreclose market entry, protect incumbent firms' profits from being bid away by competitors, and reduce the incentives to maintain market share the benign way: through innovation and product differentiation. The post This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market appeared first on
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Legislature to repeal MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults
Demonstrators gather for a protest organized by the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee calling for the continuation of MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults at the Minnesota State Capitol Tuesday, May 27, 2025. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer) Despite Democratic-Farmer-Labor control of the state Senate, the governor's office, and half of the House, Republicans forced Democrats to roll back one of their signature accomplishments from the 2023 legislative session: health care for undocumented people. The Legislature is expected to vote Monday to repeal undocumented adults' eligibility for MinnesotaCare, the state-subsidized health insurance program for the working poor. Children would still be covered. Republicans successfully used their leverage — the threat of a government shutdown starting July 1 — to force the Democrats' hand on an issue that is of supreme importance to GOP lawmakers. The DFL pulled out all nearly of the stops to avoid cutting health care access for undocumented adults. During negotiations, DFL leaders offered Republicans concessions related to paid leave, earned sick and safe time, and noncompete agreements — but Republicans didn't budge, said Sen. Alice Mann, DFL-Edina. 'They turned all of those things down, because all they wanted…was to make sure that the 17,000 people were left out to die, that we worsen our health care system and that we decrease our tax revenue,' Mann said at a press conference Monday decrying the move. When Gov. Tim Walz and legislative leaders announced a budget deal — contingent on repealing MinnesotaCare eligibility for undocumented adults — on May 15, lawmakers with the People of Color Indigenous Caucus protested outside the door. They told reporters later that they were blindsided by the deal. After the announcement, POCI caucus members brought alternatives to legislative leaders, said Rep. Liish Kozlowski, DFL-Duluth. The POCI caucus suggested capping undocumented enrollment in MinnesotaCare, raising premiums, allowing children currently enrolled to retain coverage instead of aging out, or making exceptions for elderly people or those with chronic conditions. None of those options made it into the bill, which is expected to be heard first on the House floor during a 21-hour special session beginning at 10 a.m. Republicans have repeatedly exaggerated the cost of providing health care to undocumented people enrolled in MinnesotaCare. Enrollment has exceeded the state's expectations, however, with more than 17,000 undocumented people currently enrolled. Meanwhile, per-person spending on the undocumented population has been lower than expected, according to the Department of Human Services. Federal politics and funding have complicated the issue: A budget bill passed by the GOP-controlled U.S. House would cut funding to states that provide health care to undocumented people, including Minnesota. And while the federal government pays for some of the cost of MinnesotaCare, it doesn't contribute any money for undocumented enrollees. Walz is expected to sign the bill into law.
