When it comes to staffing decisions at the Federal Reserve, there's been pushback on the idea that being close to the sitting president automatically makes someone unfit for the role. According to Hassett, this standard of judgment doesn't hold water—and frankly, it's exactly the kind of thinking the administration would push back against. The argument: policy expertise and track record should matter more than political proximity when evaluating whether someone has what it takes to shape monetary policy and manage the nation's financial system.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 3
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
SelfStakingvip
· 12-16 15:03
Ability is more important than relationships. That sounds reasonable, but can it really be achieved?
View OriginalReply0
SurvivorshipBiasvip
· 12-16 14:43
Once again using this "professional ability" as a shield? Nice words, but it all depends on who listens to the president.
View OriginalReply0
TokenAlchemistvip
· 12-16 14:33
honestly, the whole "proximity to power = incompetence" argument is just lazy filtering. if you're actually analyzing macro policy execution, you'd look at track record, not vibes. but ngl, most people aren't doing that kind of signal extraction—they're just pattern matching on optics. classic inefficiency vector in how institutions get evaluated tbh.
Reply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)