Author: haroldblackphd

Antoni nomination to head the BLS is withdrawn

The president has withdrawn the nomination of A.J. Antoni to be the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The previous head Erika McEntarfer was fired (YOU’RE FIRED!) after the bureau reported dismal job growth in August. The president accused her of rigging the numbers to make him look bad and that she was a Biden appointee – so she had to be anti-Trump. McEntarfer was described as a mild mannered statistician with no obvious political bias and had been confirmed almost unanimously by the Senate. I had said earlier that he should have fired his Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick instead because Lutnick had dismissed the two unpaid advisory boards who were providing input on how to improve the reporting of the data. But Trump shot the messenger instead.

Antoni, who is the chief economist for the Heritage Foundation had been roundly criticized by economists both on the left and right for being less than knowledgeable about labor statistics. His nomination was seen as another politicalization of an organization generally known as having little if any partisan bias. Surely his charge was to make the numbers look good so the president would look good. That the president had contended without evidence that the numbers had been rigged and that Antoni had been a vocal critic in the media of the job data added to his being labelled as a partisan hack by those on the left. However, conservative economists were critical as well with one saying “There are a lot of competent conservative economists that could do this job. E.J. is not one of them.” Yet one of Antoni’s suggestions was one that I had thought had merit. It was to stop publishing the monthly jobs reports until its data collection processes improved and to rely on quarterly data based on actual employment filings with state unemployment offices. This suggestion was almost universally opposed, even by Trump ally, Stephen Moore despite his earlier endorsement of Antoni. I guess bad data are better than no data?

It was somewhat of a surprise that Trump withdrew the nomination given Antoni’s historical support for the president and his criticism of the Biden Administration. By the way, the jobs report for September showed a decline of 36,000. I wonder who is at the BLS to fire now? The agency also announced that due to the shutdown that it had stopped all data releases.

I won’t speculate on why Antoni’s nomination was withdrawn and it is highly unusual to see nothing on the matter. I doubt it was because of the criticism that he was not qualified. If that standard applied then half of all cabinet members in every administration would have been withdrawn as well. However, such is not the case with another nominee whose name was also withdrawn. Brian Quintenz, the president’s nominee to head the Commodities Future Trading Commission was also withdrawn. Quintenz was considered a lock. He was a former CFTC commissioner who had worked at the venture capital giant Andreessen Horowitz and the prediction market startup Kalshi. He had wide support but crypto billionaires Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss opposed the nomination and Trump withdrew it. Sort of tells you where the power is now in the White House. There is consideration for the CFTC to regulate cryptocurrencies and the Winklevoss brothers did not consider him an ally. Also the gaming industry opposed Quintenz due to his association with Kalshi which is shaking up that industry with its entry into sports betting. The democrat representing Las Vegas expressed approval with the decision to withdraw the nomination.

Random Thoughts #72

The Supreme Court just ruled that Lisa Cook can stay at the Fed – for now. It will hear arguments in January as to whether the president can fire her “because” (rather than “for cause”.

The Wall Street Journal still calls it the Defense Department. I wonder if they still say “Gulf of Mexico”?

Birthright citizenship

The Trump Administration has finally gotten around to asking the Supreme Court to rule on whether the president has the power to rescind birthright citizenship. Recall that the 14^th Amendment has been interpreted as anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen, with the exception of children born to foreign diplomats. When John McCain decided to run for president, his citizenship was called into question because he was born in Panama where his father who was in the Navy was stationed. Article II of the constitution states: “No person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Also the status of Barry Goldwater arose because he was born in Arizona when it was a territory and not a state. In both cases, it was determined that they were “natural born” citizens. The 14^th Amendment states that all “persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” President Trump’s executive order declared that only newborns whose parents have permanent legal status are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and therefore eligible to be citizens. Two lower courts ruled against the president. Now the Supreme Court will hear the case in its next session. Although I may be incorrect, I am assuming that the issue will concentrate on those children born after the Court’s ruling rather than to take away citizenship from those already born. As I wrote before, if it is the latter then Colin Powell would lose his citizenship as well as perhaps the vice president’s wife.

Trump’s American socialism grows more tendrils

Trump who has told Big Pharma how to price their drugs is now threatening to investigate the rising costs of farm inputs. His agriculture secretary says that the costs of fertilizer, seeds, fuel and equipment will be scrutinized by the antitrust division of the Department of “Justice”. I wonder if the administration is going to do a repeat of Nixon’s foray into wage and price controls when in 1971 he declared “I am ordering today a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States.” He just might if inflation now over 3 percent keep rising. 

More government intrusion into the private sector was when Trump invoked his “golden share” authority denying US Steel the ability to close one of its plants. The “golden share” gives the president the power to veto certain corporate decisions – in this case a plant closure. The “golden share” is only new to the US. Other countries like Brazil and China exercise this power over certain of their businesses. Now the question will be whether the use of the “golden share” will significantly reduce the profitability of US Steel to the point where the owner Nippon Steel will ask for relief. Other examples of Trump’s socialism are Nvidia and paying the administration 15 percent of their sales from chips sold to

China, the president’s $8.9 billion stock deal with Intel, the arrangement with MP Materials that makes Defense Department the principal shareholder of the rare earth miner and an equity stake in Lithium America.

Now the president has demanded that Microsoft fire Lisa Monaco, its vice president of global affairs. Trump dislikes Monaco for her role as deputy attorney general in the Biden Administration and their various investigations of him. Trump tweeted “She is a menace to US national security especially given the major contracts that Microsoft has with the United States Government.” Am I the only one who thinks this is vindictive and a bit overwrought? Let’s see how Microsoft responds to this latest incursion of the president into private enterprise.

Call it what you will MAGA people but it is American socialism.

LB and OZ?

I can’t be the only one who has wondered why “pound” is abbreviated “lb” and ounce is abbreviated “oz”. Southern Living magazine tells us that pound comes from ancient Rome, where the unit of measure was “libra pondo,”which meant “a pound by weight.” The abbreviation lb. is derived from “libra.”  Ounce is from the Latin word “uncia” which medieval Italian turned it into “onza.” Hence the abbreviation “oz.”

Socialist nirvana?

A reader sent me the following quote asking me to comment on it.

“One need not idealize any of these nations or ignore the ways in which they differ in balancing public and private financing of civic services. But all of them are, broadly speaking, places where — without any unsustainable burden on the national economy — the cost of health care per capita is far lower than it is here and yet coverage is universal, where life spans are longer, where working people are not made destitute by serious illnesses, where a choice between food or pharmaceuticals need never be made, where the poor cannot be denied treatments by insurance adjusters, where pre-existing health conditions could never be denied coverage, where most people have far more savings and much lower levels of debt than is the case here, where very few families live only a paycheck away from total poverty, where wages generally keep pace with inflation, where every worker has decent vacation time each year, where suicide and opioid addiction are not the default lifestyle of the working poor, where homelessness is exceedingly rare, where retirement care is humane and comprehensive and where the schools are immeasurably better than ours are.”

I found the source in order to read the entire piece. It is in

Since I am not a subscriber I cannot download the article. If anyone can would you please send me a pdf so I can review it?

Thanks!

To Vaccine or not to vaccine?

Just like Howard Lutnick fired the members of the two advisory boards consulting on labor statistics, RFK, jr fired the 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory board. He then replaced them with 8 new members of his choosing. Pardon me but this sucks. I know that it is likely that all of the old board were probably appointed by the HHS or CDC head under Biden and were probably all gung-ho for all vaccines (of this I am not certain) and that Kennedy is a vaccine skeptic, but that is a reason for modifying the board. A healthier dialogue would occur if let’s say Kennedy had dismissed half of the old board and added his 8 new members. The board, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, helps to determine which vaccines children and adults receive, what gets covered by insurance and which shots are made available free of charge to  low-income children.

Just like the old board was probably vaccine supporters I would presume that Kennedy’s new board are all critics of current vaccine policies. In fact, one member is has served on the board of the National Vaccine Information Center — an advocacy group that warns against vaccine risks. Other members have cautioned against the COVID vaccines and have questioned the safety of some vaccines. A former director of the CDC’s immunization program says “I have spent a career of more than 50 years in vaccinology, and I have never seen the names of most of those people.” The HHS said in a statement that the new members are “highly credentialed doctors, scientists, and public health experts committed to evidence-based medicine, gold standard science, and common sense” and that the group “will demand definitive safety and efficacy data for any new vaccine recommendations.” If true then I hope it shows us the evidence that corroborates its recommendations.

One of the first actions of the newly constituted committee was to recommend that adults and children no longer receive flu vaccines containing trace amounts of thimerosal, a form of mercury that sometimes was added to vaccines for sterilization. However, thimerosal is rarely used in vaccines anymore. Then to the surprise of some of Kennedy’s critics, a majority of the panel voted to reaffirm the existing CDC recommendations that anyone over six months receive the annual flu shot. They also voted 5-2 in favor of a monoclonal antibody shot made by Merck that offers protection against respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, for infants younger than 8 months. (See https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5438485/cdc-acip-rfk-thimerosal-vaccines).

Also surprising to some the vote on thimerosal was not unanimous, there was one dissenter who said “There is no scientific evidence that thimerosal has caused a problem.”

Kennedy, of course, has a long history of warning about the dangers of vaccines and has been labelled as “anti-vax.” He, in his senate confirmation hearings said – somewhat unconvincingly – that he would do nothing that makes it difficult or discourages people from taking vaccines and that he was not going to “take people’s vaccines away from them.” Yet early on he fired Dr. Susan Monarez as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for not preapproving recommendations made without scientific evidence. She said in a Senate hearing that more children will die of vaccine-preventable illnesses under Kennedy’s leadership. I am surprised that she took the job in the first place, knowing Kenney’s history.

One of Kennedy’s first directives was to announce that the CDC would no longer recommend COVID shots for healthy children and pregnant women. This reverses an earlier statement by the CDC that the vaccine was “crucial for pregnant women to protect themselves and their infants.” Kennedy said “”We are now one step closer to Donald Trump’s promise to Make America Healthy Again.” Kennedy’s two major heads at CDC were with him when he made the announcement, FDA commissioner Dr. Martin Makary and National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya – both of whom I respect. “It’s common sense and it’s good science,” Dr. Bhattacharya said. “There’s no evidence healthy kids need it today and most countries have stopped recommending it for children,” said Dr. Makary who is a surgeon at Johns Hopkins is noted for his criticism of Biden’s health officials for ignoring natural immunity during COVID. Dr. Bhattacharya (of Stanford University) also endorsed natural immunity as was one of the authors of AIER’s the Great Barringon Declaration. https://aier.org/the-great-barrington-declaration/

Naturally, members of the medical establishment sharply criticized the announcement. Dr. Steven J. Fleischman, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said “As ob-gyns who treat patients every day, we have seen firsthand how dangerous COVID infection can be during pregnancy and for newborns who depend on maternal antibodies from the vaccine for protection,” he said in a statement. “The science has not changed. It is very clear that COVID infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability.”

Who to believe and what to do? First, there is even less access to studies critical of vaccines than there are studies critical of global warming. For instance, I was once told that while the shingles vaccine was effective in preventing the disease among seniors, but that the probably of actually getting shingles increased dramatically between the first dosage and the second shot. Yet I could not find the source of that observation even though I was assured that it existed. Second, given all the skepticism about vaccines one has every right to be wary. Initially all the reporting on the effects of the COVID shots was positive until evidence kept mounting over possible dangerous side effects. To date, most reporting will say that such effects are exceedingly rare and findings to the contrary are labelled “contentious.” Third, flu shots are notoriously ineffective for a variety of reasons. Yet doctors keep recommending almost without caveat that seniors take the enhanced flu vaccine. Once again, googling whether seniors should not take the shot yields vitually no citations. The sole exception this one finding that the flu shot was not as effective for seniors as advertised.

https://drmatthewmccoy.substack.com/p/the-flu-shot-doesnt-really-keep-older

Pardon me if I am a skeptic. I know that there are contrary studies on the efficacy of certain vaccines out there, yet that information is not readily available. I would like all the relevant information to be easily assessable. Perhaps, if there is one good thing that Kennedy, his people and advisors can do is to make sure that the public is well informed about vaccines from both advocates and critics.

Lastly, the president has had several rants about giving vaccines to children and the amount of vaccines given. The president has also weighed in on whether the childhood vaccines should be given together or separately. Pardon me but I wish he would be quiet and let the experts talk instead. I had all the childhood diseases but one of the few times I remember having fear was due to polio. I had a couple of classmates who had polio and wore braces on their legs. There was an epidemic when I was in elementary school and I remember that my parents were scared for us, for the children in our church and Mom’s school. The Salk vaccine came to our rescue in 1955 when I was in the 5^th grade. We were all vaccinated and I do not recall any of my future classmates being stricken. We later got the Sabin boosters given to us on a sugar cube. So let us all have a measured and open discussion of the efficacy of vaccines. Let us see the research that has heretofore not been published by the medical journals that are contrary to the views of the medical establishment, big pharma and the government. But let’s tone down the rhetoric and limit the unhinged remarks. There are few things more important than the nation’s health especially that of its children.

Fed funds and Mortgage rates

I hate doing the eye-ball thing but although mortgage rates are more closely aligned with the 10 year treasury, it sure looks like they do have some relationship with the Fed funds rates. There is obvously a correlation coefficient out there and if I were still at the university I could tell you what it is.

But again eyeballing it shows an even stronger relationship with the 10 year treasury. What do mortgage rates do now that the Fed has lowered the Fed funds rate by 25 basis points? Very little. In fact the Mortgage Bankers’ Association is predicting a rise in mortgage rates by year end. Why? Because the 10 year treasury is expected to rise because of the continued inflation. Again, in order to preserve purchasing power, buyers of long term bonds demand higher yields when there is expected inflation. So even if the tariffs cause only a one time jump in the price level, bond holders will still want higher yields.

Mortgage rates typically are between one to two basis points higher than the 10 year Treasury which is used as a benchmark rate because their durations are almost the same as that of mortgages. This is because many mortgages mature well before their term (houses are sold and/or mortgages are refinanced). Duration (often called the Macauley duration) is defined as the length of time it takes to recoup an investment or as we tell our students it is the weighted average time until cash flows are received where the weights are the present values of the cash flows. Thus duration is less than maturity since there are interim cash flows – Treasury bonds pay a semi-annual coupon making duration shorter than term to maturity. The only bond whose duration is equal to its maturity is a zero coupon bond.

Here is the formula for Macauley’s duration:

You are fired! And this time I mean it!

As per usual, in these days of continuing resolutions we are again faced with the possibility of a government “shutdown”. Mind you, the government doesn’t really shutdown but “nonessential” government services are suspended. I have always said that if they are nonessential then why are they needed in the first place? The answer is that they extend the government’s reach and power but otherwise are just a subsidy from some of us to the rest of us. It also keeps the lobbyists employed and gives government employees something to do. In the past when these shutdowns have occurred, the government always shuts down stuff intended to inconvenience or anger people like closing museums and access to national parks.

This time it is a bit different since Trump is in the White House. He and his aides have passed another continuing resolution in the House (with no democrat votes) and it is stalled in the Senate where it takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. The republicans only have 53 senators and Rand Paul (no surprise) has pledged to vote against it since it does not reduce the level of government spending. The democrat leadership, Chuck Schumer in the Senate and Hakeem Jeffries in the House (both New York democrats) have threaten to shut down the government. Trump says go ahead because that is exactly what I want you to do.

Why? Because it offers him the opportunity to further pare federal government employment. To date Trump has terminated 300,000 federal workers. But with a workforce of over 3.8 million, he wants to cut even more. In the past, there have always been negotiations between the two parties. No more. The republicans have totally cut out the democrats saying that their demands are laughable and would increase Federal spending by $1 trillion over the next decade. The democrats want to make permanent the Biden expansion of health care which the republicans reject. Mind you, like all continuing resolutions, this is only a stop gap measure that expires in seven months.

The republicans say that funding will continue for “essential” services such as the military, social security, medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Health administration, law enforcement and air traffic controllers. I wonder if the tariff bean counters are considered “essential”? In the past federal workers were furloughed and returned to work with back pay – a paid vacation! This time not so much. The president has instructed his budget office director Russ Vought to tell the federal agencies to draw up plans to permanently reduce their workforce by firing those workers in programs that have no current funding, have no outside funding source, and that are “not consistent with the President’s priorities.” These workers would not be rehired – at least not by this administration.

Schumer says that if this occurs the democrats would sue (naturally) to protect their constituents (the vast majority of federal employees are democrats) and Jeffries has called Vought a “malignant political hack.” So much for niceties. Schumer is probably still smarting from all the criticism from the left when he voted for the previous CR. Some say he is vulnerable to a challenge from AOC and is trying to hold together his base. Regardless neither he nor Jeffries appear to back down meaning that other more “moderate” democrats – if they really exist – will have to vote to keep the government running and their constituents from being fired.

Life sure is more interesting with this president.

“Justice” comes for Comey, soybeans and more crony capitalism

To no one’s surprise Trump’s “Justice” Department filed charges against former FBI director James Comey that he lied to the congress when he asserted that he did not authorize leaking information regarding the FBI’s investigations into then-President Donald Trump or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The indictment came only two days after Trump castigated his attorney general Pam (Blondie) Bondi to prosecute Comey along with Adam Schiff and Letitia James. Comey’s indictment was first largely because the statute of limitations expired in only a few days. Comey, of course, claims he is innocent. Now the question is whether Trump’s insurance attorney, the new DA for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan can persuade a jury in democrat dominated eastern Virginia and a Biden appointed judge, Michael Nachmanoff, to convict Comey.

Also to no one’s surprise the president went on his social media machine and trumpeted “JUSTICE IN AMERICA! One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to is James Comey.” It also only took a millisecond to hear the thread worn phase “No one is above the law.” And right on cue came Pam (Blondie) Bondi saying “No one is above the law. Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case.” 

For his part Comey said “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system. I’m innocent, so let’s have a trial and keep the faith” He then added “My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn’t imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn’t either.” Wow! We will not live on our knees – a phase to be remembered regardless of who is in the White House. Lest we forget that Comey is no Trump fan having stupidly arranged “8647” in sea shells on a beach. What does “8647” mean, well Homeland Security Secretary Kristi (of the false eyelashes and hair extensions) Noem claimed that it called for the assassination of Trump. “86” means “to kill” while Trump is the 47^th president of the United States. Comey claimed that he saw the shells as he was strolling down the beach. Sure.

Trump has already attacked the judge who was selected randomly to hear the case.  “Whether you like Corrupt James Comey or not, and I can’t imagine too many people liking him, HE LIED! It is not a complex lie, it’s a very simple, but IMPORTANT one. There is no way he can explain his way out of it. He is a Dirty Cop, and always has been, but he was just assigned a Crooked Joe Biden-appointed Judge, so he’s off to a very good start.” Stay tuned.

Argentine vs Iowa soybeans

What’s with Trump bailing out Argentina to the tune of $20 billion? Treasury Secretary Bessant had hinted of the possibility that the aid would be given to help out Trump’s buddy Javier Milei who is in trouble at the polls. Farm state politicians especially Iowa’s Chuck Grassley (great name for someone from a farm state) are having a cow. Grassley posted on X “Why would USA help bail out Argentina while they take American soybean producers’ biggest market??? We should use leverage at every turn to help hurting farm economy Family farmers should be top of mind in negotiations by representatives of USA.” Grassley is upset because after the bail out the Argentines eliminated their excise tax on soybeans and sold 20 boatload of beans to the Chinese. Wow (again). Grassley said that American soybean growers cut off from the Chinese markets are “upset”. Do tell. Trump told the farmers to cool it because he was going to throw them a bone – their own bailout using money from tariffs. Ok but what are we going to do with the 3 billion bushels of soybeans sitting at the farms? Make a lot of tofu, soy milk and hummus I guess. Maybe Chuck should tell Trump to cool it on those Chinese tariffs. Oh and Trump put a 50% tariff on Brazil, guess where they are selling their soybeans? Sorry Chuck but it looks like China doesn’t need to buy US soybeans – and won’t until Trump’s tariffs go away. Bully versus bully.

The Pending Sale of Tik Tok

In an overt display of crony capitalism, the president has declared Tik Tok ready for sale to American investors with a laughable value of only $14 billion. Mind you, Tik Tok has 170 million US subscribers with the president having 15 million subscribers on his own personal account. Tik Tok’s valuation is estimated to be between $30 to $40 billion without its famous algorithm. But the $14 billion, conjured out of thin air by the president, means that his buddies who are going to be the buyers of American Tik Tok get cut a deal. Those buyers include Michael Dell, Rupert Murdoch (I guess they patched over their differences), Oracle and private-equity firm Silver Lake which is closely associated with the president. Some people have called this another presidential shakedown but let’s just call it crony capitalism.

This has not gone unnoticed by Trump’s adversaries, Susan Rice (remember her?) called the deal “a model of corruption” accusing Trump of negotiating a deal that “lines the pockets of his cronies.” I think Ms Rice forgot that the forced sale of Tik Tok came during the Biden Administration and that Trump’s sin was that he’s got to hand out the goodies rather than Joe Biden. The democrats were leading the way wanting to either ban or restrict Tik Tok. The republicans were worrying about its use for espionage purposes while the democrats were concerned about its content using its famous algorithm. Virginia’s Mark Warner whined “The Chinese Communist Party can twist that algorithm to make it the news that they see reflective of their views.” So while it would be unseemly for the US to actually ban Tik Tok (like the Chinese would have done were it not their own) it was decided to force its sale to US interests (rather to the interests of the current administration). Don’t be shocked if somehow Trump gets a cut of the deal. I do know for certain that the government will exact a multibillion dollar “finders” fee. When Tik Tok is sold, Oracle will control its algorithm and manage user data. The sale prohibits “any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm” between ByteDance (Tik Tok’s parent) and the American ownership group. Hey, we can trust Larry Ellison – can’t we?

A (college) football lament

It’s a football Saturday and it seems a bit weird for me to wish for the good old days because I am usually glad that those days are behind us. But college football is the exception. With degrees from the University of Georgia and Ohio State, I only care about two football conferences, the SEC and the Big “10” and now I am even starting to care less about both. When the SEC started to expand and added South Carolina and Arkansas in 1992, I thought Clemson and Florida State made more sense. But rumor had it that then FSU coach Bobby Bowden felt that his chances at winning more championships lay in the ACC. He was right.

Then the conference added Missouri and Texas A&M in 2012. I guess Missouri borders Tennessee and Texas borders Louisiana so maybe that was okay so long as traditional rivalries could be preserved. Although not a traditional rivalry, having Georgia and Tennessee in the same division was actually a factor in my joining the Tennessee faculty. I was mulling over a couple of offers when Tennessee called asking if I would come for an interview. At first, I said no. But the chair of the search committee was an old friend and was persistent. I half jokingly told him that the only reason I would come interview was because they played the Bulldogs every year in football and twice yearly in basketball. They made me a offer I couldn’t refuse and I joined the Tennessee faculty. I was on the athletics board for a while as well. The Volunteers became my third favorite team (I only have three favorites) and since 1987 I have never missed a UT-UGA football game including this year’s thriller.

Since I retired, aside from going back to teach a course last spring, I only go to campus every other year for the Georgia game. Now even that has ended with the SEC announcement of annual rivalries given the addition of Oklahoma and Texas and ending the divisions. Georgia and Tennessee will no longer meet every year. Georgia’s annual games are Florida, Auburn and South Carolina while Tennessee’s are Alabama, Kentucky and Vanderbilt. Those make sense for Tennessee while Florida and Auburn must be on Georgia’s schedule. If Georgia Tech were still in the conference (it left my sophomore year at Georgia) then it would have been Georgia’s third school. That means no more trips to Neyland Stadium until they meet there in 2029. Who knows if I will be physically able to attend? Who knows if I will even be alive? 

As to the Big “10” it only proves that institutions of higher learning cannot count. There are now 18 schools in the Big “10”. I was ok with the addition of Penn State and Nebraska but Maryland and Rutgers? Rutgers? You have got to be kidding me. Rutgers? Then the conference went west and decimated the Pac 12 by grabbing Southern California, UCLA, Washington and Oregon. Somehow Oregon as the Big “10” champ just doesn’t seem right. How about that storied Washington – Northwestern rivalry? Now I only care about seeing Ohio State play and none of the rest. And I was even uneasy about Ohio State spending all that NIL money to pay for a team that won last year’s national championship. It is apparent that the Big “10” and the SEC want to dominate college football and have most of the spoils to themselves. I understand avarice but it just pushes me further away from the two conferences.

Right now the best part of college football is the Ohio State band doing script Ohio, the Tennessee band forming the “T” for the football team to run through and the “It’s Saturday in Athens” intro to the Georgia games. I know the world has changed and my friends say I should get with the program. But I can’t. I don’t think that I can force myself to watch pro football, but I never dreamed that I would ever tire of college football. Now I only care about Georgia, Ohio State and possibly Tennessee – sometimes. Even then my loyalties are tested by the money grab by the conferences, schools and the athletes, some of whom are on their fourth school. Don’t misunderstand, I do not fault either the conferences, the schools or the players for seeking to maximize their value. But as a fan, I feel just a wee bit turned off by it all.

When my mother was living, I would take her to the Fort Valley State football games. My mother received Fort Valley’s first four year degree and is considered the mother of the university. She had great seats and box lunches. We actually sat near Denzel Washington when his son played for Morehouse College. One of life’s embarrassing moments was when the announcer said that a famous father was at the game and please treat him like any other fan – no autographs please. Then my other half looked around and Washington winked at her and she yelled out “IT’S DENZEL!!!”. Those games were fun and the skill level was only a bit higher than that of big city high schools. I have been invited to the Mercer-VMI game by a Mercer season ticket holder. Maybe I will go and also go back to see Fort Valley. When they played my Dad’s alma mater Savannah State, those games were fun and I miss the playful repartee between my parents that would last from one season to the next.

Today’s Fed and Friedman’s monetary rule

Monetarists, that branch of monetary policy inhabited by conservative economists, have long stated that monetary policy is oversold. That was the thinking of the sainted Milton Friedman and my PhD advisor the great Karl Brunner. Both emphasized the destabilizing effects of discretionary monetary policy and the benefit of a monetary policy rule. I remember Friedman once saying that we did not know enough to conduct discretionary policy – the manipulation of monetary policy tools – without destabilizing the economy. The economy writ large is just too complicated for monetary policy to work effectively without disrupting its workings. 

Freidman argued that the central bank did have a role to play but it should not be one of casting uncertainty in the economy. Rather it should be one of certainty. Friedman argued that if monetary policy were too expansive, it would invariably lead to inflation (inflation is everywhere a monetary phenomenon). If the growth in money were too little, it would lead to deflation and possible recession. Fiddling around with monetary policy tools would be disruptive to the economy with households and businesses being unsettled by the uncertainty of what the Fed is going to do next. Friedman thought that discretionary policy was often the source of economic ails causing the Fed to have to fix problems that it had created itself.

The solution is a monetary rule. Friedman suggested that the Fed should allow the money supply to grow at a rate equal to the real long term rate of growth in the economy and leave it alone. No cutting the Fed funds rate. No raising the Fed funds rate. Just let the market determine the rate and leave it alone. Of course, the economy is dynamic and if there is an economic slowdown, the Fed would increase the money supply to maintain the targeted rate of change in real long term GDP. Conversely, it the economy were starting to grow faster than the target, the Fed might decrease the rate of growth in money to get the economy back on course.

It should come as no surprise that not a single central banker in the world would adhere to Friedman’s monetary rule. They are too self-important to do that. Fiddling with stuff keeps them busy and shows their worth to all to see. Yet that same fiddling is the source of criticisms regardless of what they do. Right now President Trump wants the Fed to lower rates. His representative at the Board, Stephen Miran has called for lowering the Fed funds rate by 50 basis points at each of its next two meetings. Why he just doesn’t opt for 100 basis points now and get it over with is beyond me. The president (and Miran) seem to think that lowering the Fed funds rate will overcome the woeful jobs numbers and lower the government’s borrowing costs (and other pipe dreams). But lowering will do no such things as I have detailed before. It will likely only increase inflation because the mere process of lowering rates entails creating more money. Lower rates will not increase employment and will not lower the cost of borrowing since only a small proportion of the debt is in short term Treasurys and longer term Treasury rates will likely rise due to inflationary expectations.

The other members of the Open Market Committee have varying opinions as to what to do next. One is open to lowering the Fed funds rate by 25 basis points at the next two meetings. At least three others have expressed caution about changing the rates period while two others have been quoted as indicating that they might favor a rise in rates. The Fed chairman, Jerome Powell, who increasingly is looking forward to May 2026 when his term ends, is the standard bearer for caution. Powell reminds us of the Fed’s dual mandate of price stability and full employment is now at odds. Rising inflation means to increase rates while high unemployment means to lower rates. But now with both increasing, what should the Fed do? Well it lowered the rate by 25 basis points, a move intended to give Trump a little satisfaction but do little to change the economic narrative. 

This is a classic middle of the road approach and is typical of Powell’s tenure as chairman. With all the diverse opinions about what the Fed’s course of action should be, Powell seeks compromise. In my experience, the chairman talks with each member of the Board of Governors individually prior to the meeting of the Open Market Committee. The intention is to reach a decision in which they all agree – a classic compromise. Then the chairman seeks that the reserve presidents are on board with the compromise resulting in a unanimous vote at the meeting. On those rare occasions where a compromise cannot be reached, dissents are recorded. I can guarantee that Miran will never agree to a compromise unless okayed by the president. Miran wants to go back to his cushy job on the Council of Economic Advisors where his only duty is to produce statistical confirmation of whatever Trump wants – something any graduate student could do.

I have said it before and I will say it again, the Fed should concentrate on inflation and eschew unemployment. Inflation does more long term harm to the economy while employment numbers constantly change in a dynamic economy. Putting the economy on a stable path of economic growth will virtually guarantee low unemployment numbers. 

Of course, as per usual, my solutions will never be adopted because there would be no need for all those international conferences, all the press conferences, meetings at ritzy resorts and feelings of self-importance. But a plus would be that we would be rid of those contentious congressional hearings and the constant badgering of the central bank.

Now my not so last word on free trade

I am certain by now, everyone knows my position on free trade. I am largely against tariffs and only under very specific circumstances favor them on specific items. Some agree and some disagree. That is fine with me. I believe – like a true free trader – that even if one country practices free trade by lowering its trade barriers that it will be better off (see Singapore). I know all the arguments to the contrary and shake my head in disbelief at those who argue that we will be better off if we make ourselves poorer by erecting trade barriers. I have detailed extensively on this blog the arguments for and against and have offered suggestions that will forever go unheeded. On occasions I will revisit these arguments but for now, I recommend Don Boudreaux’s website Café Hayek where almost daily he writes about free trade engaging in spirited dialogue with his readers. 

Here is an example of Don’s posting and is a recommended read.

Enough With Protectionists’ Rampaging Presumptions

Was the president’s warning on Tylenol irresponsible?

Was the president’s warning on Tylenol irresponsible? Maybe and maybe not. If it was irresponsible, it was in the way the message was conveyed. The president said that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will begin notifying physicians immediately that it is “strongly recommending that women limit Tylenol (acetaminophen) use during pregnancy unless medically necessary” and that the FDA would update the label for acetaminophen with enhanced information about the possible link. All well and good. That statement sounds reasonable to me.

What was irresponsible was what else that the president said at the news conference. “If you’re pregnant, don’t take Tylenol, and don’t give it to the baby after the baby is born. There are certain groups of people that don’t take vaccines and don’t take any pills that have no autism. They pump so much stuff into those beautiful little babies, it’s a disgrace.” The president then told women to “tough it out” rather than take Tylenol for fever or pain during pregnancy. The president said that “taking Tylenol is not good. All right, I’ll say it. It’s not good.” “Don’t take Tylenol. Don’t take it. Fight like hell not to take it.”

Pardon me if I think that those statements are a bit overboard. It gives the impression that researchers are certain that there is a causal link between taking acetaminophen during pregnancy and autism in newborn babies. There is no such definitive link found in the research. In fact, one large scale study in Sweden of two million children ruled out the relationship. However, others have not and have been cautious in their conclusions.

The mainstream medical groups have expressed alarm at the president’s statements saying that that acetaminophen is a safe medication for pregnant women to take and that no studies have found a direct cause-and-effect between use in pregnancy and autism. For instance, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that asserting a relationship between acetaminophen in pregnancy to autism is “highly concerning,” “irresponsible” and “not backed by the full body of scientific evidence.”

The president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said “Acetaminophen is one of the few options available to pregnant patients to treat pain and fever, which can be harmful to pregnant people (pregnant people?) when left untreated. Maternal fever, headaches as an early sign of preeclampsia, and pain are all managed with the therapeutic use of acetaminophen, making acetaminophen essential to the people (people?) who need it. The conditions people use acetaminophen to treat during pregnancy are far more dangerous than any theoretical risks and can create severe morbidity and mortality for the pregnant person (pregnant person?) and the fetus (baby?).” (Note: It is a bit disconcerting that the president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists apparently doesn’t know what a woman is.)

One group of researchers published an analysis of 46 previous studies on Tylenol, autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Many found no link between the drug and the conditions, while a few suggested Tylenol might occasionally exacerbate other potential causes of autism such as genetics. The authors called for more judicious use of the drug. Yet even the research that found a link with prenatal Tylenol say that it would occur in on a fraction of the cases.

It is interesting that autism experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were neither consulted for the president’s announcement nor asked to review a draft of the findings and recommendations.

A White House spokesman said “President Trump pledged to address America’s alarming rising rate of autism, and to do so with Gold Standard Science.” Yet there is considerable controversy as to whether there an “alarming rising rate of autism” although it seems so. In the 1970s, autism was considered rare, perhaps 1 in 5,000 to 10,000 children. In 2000, an estimated one in 150 children aged 8 had the disorder. By 2010, that number had risen to one in 68 and by 2022 it was one in 31. However, the diagnosis of autism has changed. Once those with autism were “missed, misdiagnosed or labeled differently” say doctors. One expert says that over time, as awareness has grown, diagnostic definitions have expanded and screening has became more routine. So it’s not a surprise to see more autism diagnoses. The biggest misconception is that rising numbers mean autism itself is suddenly becoming more common. That’s scary to some people, but there does not appear to be new autism ‘epidemic.” 

So who to believe? The president, the medical establishment, your doctor or the researchers? To recap. The president says with certainty Tylenol causes autism in children. The medical establishment says it isn’t so. The researchers seem to say that if there is a link, it is a statistically small one. In that light, it depends on the severity of the mother’s (er, pregnant person’s) symptoms and the dosage of Tylenol given. I haven’t a clue as to what the doctors will do. I know some that write a prescription for every ailment and others that don’t.

So the jury’s out but expect to see the number of lawsuits rising dramatically as the tort attorneys are licking their chops. One would have expected to see the shares of Renvue (the maker of Tylenol that was spun off from Johnson and Johnson) to tank. And yes, there was a sell off but only by 7 percent and 60 percent of that decline was made up the following day. So apparently, the market must think that the risk of a massive settlement is low and that Renvue will only have to put warning labels on Tylenol. I presume this is true for all the generics as well.

Lastly, did you see the stories of pregnant women “guzzling” Tylenol in defiance of Trump? The Daily Mail reports several women have gone viral on social media posting videos of themselves taking Tylenol in protest. ‘Here’s me, a PREGNANT woman, taking TYLENOL because I believe in science and not someone who has no medical background,’ one woman wrote over a video of herself taking the pill and dancing. (Note that the woman refers to herself as a “woman”). Another woman said “About to take Tylenol for my headache while pregnant, because I don’t take my medical advice from a man who doesn’t have a degree in science, healthcare, or medicine, and who had a parasitic brain infection. Yeah, I’ll trust my doctors, who have a degree.” One advisor to RFK jr was exasperated saying “Democrats are now chugging bottles of Tylenol on TikTok.” Even women outside the US are protesting the president. One Brit who is 36 weeks pregnant said “I do not believe for one second that Tylenol causes autism, these claims have been debunked before and Trump has given no scientific evidence to back up his claims. I am from the UK and our NHS guidance still stands that Tylenol/ Paracetamol is the safest form of pain medication during pregnancy.” Yikes! With their track record, would you trust the NHS?

TDS knows no boundaries or borders.