I am bewildered, and not very impressed, by the visceral, naked, irrational hatred spat out by some defenders of Jason Arday. If a Cambridge professor is accused of being an unqualified charlatan, the accusation might be racially motivated. On the other hand it might not, depending on the evidence. The correct question to ask is not, ”What is the colour of his skin” but “Is it in fact true that he is an unqualified charlatan?” Please examine the evidence before leaping to the assumption of racism.
As for the idea that journalists “piled in on him” and “hounded him to his death”, most attacks were against Cambridge University. Jason himself was widely regarded as an unfortunate victim of foolish promotion way beyond his ability to cope. In appointing him to a professorship for which he was manifestly unqualified – in ludicrously describing him as “the best in the world” – certain senior members of the university showed a level of patronising condescension towards black people that could fairly be described as racism, while at the same time making him tragically vulnerable to such attacks as came his way.
Remember when 4% 10y caused equities to correct? Then it was 4.2%. Then 4.5%.
Now at 4.7%, stocks barely react and the dollar actually falls.
The wealth effect is so enormous that it becomes harder and harder to tighten FCI the longer they allowed this to persist.
Imagine "debating" whether rate hikes are appropriate after 6 years of missing your inflation target when we have the lowest jobless claims in 60 years.