Opinion First Thing: Trump says he is firing Fed governor Lisa Cook in escalating attack on bank’s independence

He stated how lowering interest rates historically caused inflation
Lowering interest rates put inflationary pressure yes, that's why countries who are on the verge of going to deflation will lower rates even to the negative, because deflation is worse than moderate inflation.

As to whether lower interest rates cause inflation depends on many factors sometimes the lowering of the interest rate is not enough to off-sent a demand shock, like during COVID-19.
 
@nostradumbass

The study is 2 decades old and was primarily about mismatch. Some people misinterpreted that and the conclusions that it was about. It's really important that people understand law school to understand this study.

The first thing to understand is that law school grades on a ranked curve. Your grades reflect your ranking in the class, not necessarily your grasp of the material. In a class of 20 kids, the professor will give the top 2 students an A, the next 5 students a B, the next 10 students a C, and the bottom 3 students a D. The grade distribution is established before the tests are taken. So, the A students and the D students could have 95% identical tests but there will be 2 As and 3 Ds, no matter what. It's meant to prepare lawyers for the reality that it doesn't matter how good your case is, the job is competitive. Someone wins, someone loses and the margins can be extremely small.

The second thing is about academic mismatch and that matters in light of the first thing. Law schools generally admit based on LSAT scores. And law students are generally told to go to the best law school that you get admitted to. However, knowing that some students come from disadvantaged backgrounds, they might be admitted to law schools where their LSAT scores put them in the bottom quartile of their class. Still within the admissions criteria but closer to the bottom.

This creates the "mismatch". If the best school the student gets into is also a school where their LSAT score is near the bottom, the ranking curve in the grading system almost guarantees that they'll be at the bottom of their law school class. This is independent of whether or not they've mastered the material. The gap between the top students and the C students is real but it's also manufactured.

This isn't as much of an issue in undergrad where students are often tested purely on if they know the material and can apply it.

Anyway, for the people who care about this stuff, there was a conversation back then about if the law school admission process was actually harming the production of black lawyers by creating this mismatch. And many black law students who would have been A students at one law school ended up as C students because they picked the best law school they could get into rather than the law school where their LSAT scores put them in top 10% of admitted students.

So understanding mismatch in law school is extremely important.

However, this has nothing to do with performance in the real world. And that's other part. The best lawyers are often not the best law students because much of the practice of law is not what is taught in law school. Law school is theoretical, it's memorization, it's very broad. Real law is practical, full of compromises and often very narrow. So plenty of phenomenal lawyers, white, black, etc., were not the best law students because real law and law school diverge immediately upon graduation.

None of that has any bearing on Lisa Cook. Her accomplishments are pretty straightforward. She's got ascertainable positions and she's written research papers that people can read and thus judge her scholarship.

Moreover, the alleged mortgage fraud, is sadly common in many, many high income households. It's still fraud and, if she's guilty, she should lose her job but I know far too many people who are doing the same thing to get better loan terms, lol. It's essentially the same thing Trump was accused of -- lying on banking documents to get better loan rates -- except this was residential instead of commercial.
That doesn't contradict anything I posted. Like I told the other poster, the paper being 20 years bolsters the claim because that is when these appointments were in school. If you have anything that disputes it from them, or claims that it's different now, feel free to post it, but it wouldn't really be relevant to political appointments who are 45-60 years old.

She has written research papers, and was apparently quite the plagiarist. I'm perfectly fine taking your word for it that lots of people commit mortgage fraud, and they shouldn't be in charge of money printing and setting interest rates for everyone else either.
 
again, you moron it is not down to me to disprove a claim you made, it is down to you to prove your claim. You have not done this. The numbers from 20 years ago are irrelevant because guess what YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN YOUR CLAIM!!!!! do you get it now?
Holy shit, your low IQ crying is getting even worse. OK, hypothetically, let's say there has been some massive turnaround and 90% of law school students from this year were black. That's as dumb as you clearly are, but what the fuck would that have to do with judicial appointments who are 45-60 years old? They aren't appointing people who just graduated law school, you complete boob.

You were hoping the numbers were fake, which blew up in your face when you found out they weren't, and you been crying like a bitch hoping for some way out of it since. Either put up your imaginary source that contradicts it or keep crying into your pillow.

If you'd like the American Bar Association's numbers from just 2 years ago, it's not getting any better for you. Black people are just over 7% of law school students, and that is men and women, so cut that number in half for women, and they have the lowest rate of passing the bar exam on the first try at 58% and 1/4 of them never pass it at all. Probably right at the top of their class and just "bad test takers", eh? <lol>






img.jpg




img.jpg
 
Last edited:
again, you moron it is not down to me to disprove a claim you made, it is down to you to prove your claim. You have not done this. The numbers from 20 years ago are irrelevant because guess what YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN YOUR CLAIM!!!!! do you get it now?
But he provided a source and everyone knows you can't question a source during a debate
 
Holy shit, your low IQ crying is getting even worse. OK, hypothetically, let's say there has been some massive turnaround and 90% of law school students from this year were black. That's as dumb as you clearly are, but what the fuck would that have to do with judicial appointments who are 45-60 years old? They aren't appointing people who just graduated law school, you complete boob.

You were hoping the numbers were fake, which blew up in your face when you found out they weren't, and you been crying like a bitch hoping for some way out it since. Either put up your imaginary source that contradicts it or keep crying into your pillow.

the numbers were NOT PROVEN - How can you be this dumb? Again, you said that black women are 2% of practicing lawyers and the majority are in the bottom 10% of their class.

This was not proven as :

- the study did not isolate for black women so this not been proven
- the results are based on testimony not actual analysis of the grades at the universities
- its does not reveal how much of the grades are due to mismatch

DO YOU GET IT NOW? WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING?
 
Last edited:
But he provided a source and everyone knows you can't question a source during a debate
That's cute calling you clowns getting wrecked again "a debate" where you provided exactly nothing but your feelings.

That dummy didn't even have the balls to say what he thinks the numbers are, let alone provide a source for it, and you obviously haven't either. You got your feelings hurt by reality, threw a tantrum, and took another L like you always do.
 
the numbers were NOT PROVEN - How can you be this dumb? Again, you said though black women are 2% of practicing lawyers and the majority are in the bottom 10% of their class.

This was not proven as :

- the study did not isolate for black women so this not been proven
- the results are based on testimony not actual analysis of the grades at the universities
- its does not reveal how much of the grades are due to mismatch, meaning it does not matter if they scored higher than the rest of the class, they will be assigned to their specific percentile group hence the term MISMATCH.

DO YOU GET IT NOW? WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE NOT UNDERTSTANDING?
Lol, the US commission on civil rights is lying to you, and american bar association is lying to you saying it's exactly the same over the last decade, which are the same numbers you're praying were wrong from a decade before that, this pro black woman lawyer non profit is also lying for some reason, but the voices in your head have the real scoop. Do you think the number of black women is somehow higher than the total number of black people?

At least have the balls to say what you think the REAL number might be, instead of panic wrestling and scrambling for excuses.




Only 2% of attorneys in the U.S. are Black women. While this percentage is shockingly low, it is reflective of limited resources and the additional hardships Black women face as they attempt to enter the legal industry.

Legally BLK Fund cuts through common barriers that disproportionately impact Black women— lack of mentors in the field, limited knowledge on the process, financial costs to access quality tutoring and admissions consultants, and a community of others going through it.

Our mission is to provide Black women with the tools, knowledge and confidence to achieve their legal aspirations. Legally BLK Fund’s vision is that Black women have the opportunity to succeed in the law school application process and beyond.




Meanwhile, the number of Black lawyers is unchanged over the past decade, according to the survey. Black lawyers were 5% of the profession in 2014 and 5% in 2024. That’s far less than the percentage of Black people in the U.S. population (13.7%).
 
Lol, the US commission on civil rights is lying to you, and american bar association is lying to you saying it's exactly the same over the last decade, which are the same numbers you're praying were wrong from a decade before that, this pro black woman lawyer non profit is also lying for some reason, but the voices in your head have the real scoop. Do you think the number of black women is somehow higher than the total number of black people?

At least have the balls to say what you think the REAL number might be, instead of panic wrestling and scrambling for excuses.




Only 2% of attorneys in the U.S. are Black women. While this percentage is shockingly low, it is reflective of limited resources and the additional hardships Black women face as they attempt to enter the legal industry.

Legally BLK Fund cuts through common barriers that disproportionately impact Black women— lack of mentors in the field, limited knowledge on the process, financial costs to access quality tutoring and admissions consultants, and a community of others going through it.

Our mission is to provide Black women with the tools, knowledge and confidence to achieve their legal aspirations. Legally BLK Fund’s vision is that Black women have the opportunity to succeed in the law school application process and beyond.




Meanwhile, the number of Black lawyers is unchanged over the past decade, according to the survey. Black lawyers were 5% of the profession in 2014 and 5% in 2024. That’s far less than the percentage of Black people in the U.S. population (13.7%).
again you seemed to have reading comprehension problems, I did not say it was not true, I said your study which you initially quoted did not prove it. It is down to you, to prove your claim not for me to provide counter evidence as you dont actually know what my position is on the matter. So now that the 2% claim has more sources to prove this, you still have yet to prove your other claim of black women being in the bottom 10% of their graduating class.
 
That's cute calling you clowns getting wrecked again "a debate" where you provided exactly nothing but your feelings.

That dummy didn't even have the balls to say what he thinks the numbers are, let alone provide a source for it, and you obviously haven't either. You got your feelings hurt by reality, threw a tantrum, and took another L like you always do.
Lol we can add delusional to your litany of shortcomings.
 
That doesn't contradict anything I posted. Like I told the other poster, the paper being 20 years bolsters the claim because that is when these appointments were in school. If you have anything that disputes it from them, or claims that it's different now, feel free to post it, but it wouldn't really be relevant to political appointments who are 45-60 years old.

She has written research papers, and was apparently quite the plagiarist. I'm perfectly fine taking your word for it that lots of people commit mortgage fraud, and they shouldn't be in charge of money printing and setting interest rates for everyone else either.
I didn't say anything was contradicted. I said that people misinterpreted it (and I didn't say this but it's usually non-lawyers who stumble across it in environments that probably aren't about law school or lawyers and are more likely looking for proof to support racial grievances...but I digress). I'm going out on a limb and assuming you haven't read anything about the actual mismatch theory underlying that report?

The misinterpretation was that the issue was race based admissions. But the actual issue ended up being about the intersection of law school grading systems and how law students pick law schools. There was more in there about the failure to demonstrate similar outcomes in schools that don't work like law school or how some of the other issues disappeared in the elite law schools. If it was solely about race based elements, those issues would have been present in B-schools or undergrad. Or elite law schools would have seen the same drop off in bar passage rates and post graduation outcomes as the lesser schools, they didn't.

The real story ends up being far more complex. Hence "misinterpretation", not "contradiction".
 
You misspelled mortgage fraudster and BLM activist. At this point it would be a tall order to find one of these DEI bozos who hasn't committed mortgage fraud, grifted donations to buy mansions, or gave big payouts of public money to their fuck buddy.

I find this post amusing. In the same breath that you would assume an accusation without any evidence offered makes Lisa Cook a "mortgage fraudster", you would demand that we wait for evidence of Trump being an Epstein client, or a fraudster himself, when he has documented instances of similar behavior in the past.
 
What? lower interest rates lead to higher consumption because people borrow more when loans are cheaper


No, people spend more money because borrowing costs are lower, not because prices are lower on the contrary prices tend to go up.


Yup, and demand goes up when borrowing prices are down.
People can’t afford houses but I know o know they’re all fascists with their wanting to live indoors
 
I find this post amusing. In the same breath that you would assume an accusation without any evidence offered makes Lisa Cook a "mortgage fraudster", you would demand that we wait for evidence of Trump being an Epstein client, or a fraudster himself, when he has documented instances of similar behavior in the past.
That's diffe(R)ent.
 
I find this post amusing. In the same breath that you would assume an accusation without any evidence offered makes Lisa Cook a "mortgage fraudster", you would demand that we wait for evidence of Trump being an Epstein client, or a fraudster himself, when he has documented instances of similar behavior in the past.
<JagsKiddingMe>

Do you not know what "any evidence offered" means? Mortgages aren't a verbal agreement, it's a matter of fact that she claimed properties in different states as her "primary residence", and even fucking CNN has acknowledged that.

I didn't demand you wait for evidence of Trump being an "Epstein Client", I said you have none, because you don't.





In mortgage documents filed in 2021 and reviewed by CNN, Cook pledged to live in her Ann Arbor home as her primary residence for at least one year, unless her lender agreed otherwise or unforeseen circumstances arose.


Just two weeks later, she made the same pledge in mortgage documents for her Atlanta condo, according to records reviewed by CNN.


Under IRS rules, a person can claim only one primary residence, the place they live most of the time, per year. The Fed declined to comment on CNN’s request asking if Cook is currently based in Washington and whether she rents or owns in the area.
 
You misspelled mortgage fraudster and BLM activist. At this point it would be a tall order to find one of these DEI bozos who hasn't committed mortgage fraud, grifted donations to buy mansions, or gave big payouts of public money to their fuck buddy.

The very same people who said that Trump's crimes weren't real crimes and thus shouldn't be punished about it.

Whether she is guilty or not, this isn't about Trump wanting justice, but Trump wanting to take control of the Fed which is a big ass red flag, this is like the first step towards REAL socialism.
 
Back
Top