Catherine Rampell Biography
Catherine Rampell(Full name: Catherine Chelsea Rampell) is an American opinion journalist and nationally syndicated opinion columnist.
She is an opinion columnist for The Washington Post and a member of The Washington Post Writers Group. Rampell also is a CNN Political Commentator. Before joining The Washington Post, Rampell was an economics journalist, theater critic, and blogger for The New York Times.
Catherine has been a guest political commentator on National Public Radio and some news networks such as CBS, CNBC, PBS, MSNBC, NPR. She is also a regular commentator on Marketplace Edition on public radio.
Rampell has received many awards, including the 2016 “Helm Alumni Leadership Award” and the 2010 Weidenbaum Center Award for Evidence-Based Journalism. Also, she was a finalist for the 2012 Gerald Loeb Award for business journalism.
Catherine Rampell Age |Catherine Rampell Southern Florida
Catherine Chelsea Rampell is an American opinion journalist and nationally syndicated opinion columnist. She was born on November 4. 1984 in South Florida. Rampell is 34 years old as of 2018.
Catherine Rampell Parents | Catherine Rampell Family
Christine is the daughter of Ellen, also called née Kahn who is an accountant and Richard Rampell both of the parents are Princeton alumni, Catherine also has a brother.
Catherine Rampell Husband | Catherine Rampel Christopher Colon
Catherine is married to Christopher Colon (professor of economics at Columbus Univesity). the couple joined together in the year 2014.
Christopher Conlon(Catherine Husband) is an Applied Mathematics BA graduate from Harvard University. More importantly, he has a master’s degree from the same on campus.
He also owns a Ph.D. in Economics from Yale University. as in 2018, Christopher is employed as Assistant Professor of Economics at the NYU Stern “School of Business”, he has ever worked for Columbia University.
Catherine Rampell Net Worth
Catherine Chelsea Rampell is an American opinion journalist and nationally syndicated opinion columnist. Her estimated Net Worth is $1 million dollars as of 2019. Rampell is an opinion columnist for The Washington Post and a member of The Washington Post Writers Group. Rampell also is a CNN Political Commentator.
Catherine Rampell Advise on Wedding
On 28/ 08/ 2014 -Catherine talks to couples who are planning to join hands together in life through marriage, she said Betrothed women of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your husbands’ names.
I’m getting married in a few days, and as I’m told happens with most weddings — lots of exhausting fights over minuscule details have broken out along the long, treacherous road to the altar. But the biggest blow-ups, in my case, were over names.
Specifically, women’s names. Or lack thereof.
Here’s how it began. My mother was in charge of paper products — invitations, envelopes, and seating cards — mostly because she had much stronger preferences about these things than I did. I didn’t particularly care if the paper stock came from ancient Egyptian papyri burgled from an archeological dig, or from recycled toilet paper or if we had dead-tree invitations at all. I’m pretty cool with Evite.com.
I had but one unyielding, Bridezilla demand, championed by my feminist fiance as well: how women’s names were rendered. Specifically, that they are rendered at all. I have always hated the tradition of calling married women, in formal correspondence, by their husband’s full names. You know what I mean: “Mr. and Mrs. Robert Smith,” as opposed to some version of “Mr. Robert Smith and Mrs./Ms. Jane Smith.”
I understand why women often choose to adopt their husbands’ surnames upon marriage for family unity or avoiding confusion at preschool pickup, or whatever — even if I have personally decided to hang onto my own name. But why must we confiscate married women’s first names as well? Even wedded women have their own identities; they are not mere appendages of their spouses.
So when it came to planning my own wedding, I decreed that any time we referred to a married couple, we would spell out the woman’s full first and last name. My mother initially resisted, saying she was reluctant to mess with tradition, but she ultimately agreed to respect my wishes.
This turned out to be much harder than either of us realized.
When my mother instructed a stationery vendor to begin our wedding invitation with “(Mother’s name) and (Father’s name) request the pleasure of your company . . . ,” the stationery was aghast. In all her years of crafting wedding invitations, she squawked, not once had she veered into such utterly tacky territory.
My mother called me in a panic, convinced that my requested wording would subvert the proper order of the universe.
I told her to fire the stationery and find another who would accept whatever damn phrasing we chose. Ultimately, she did.
Then it came time to have the invitations addressed, and my mother decided to splurge and hire a calligrapher. She sent the calligrapher an Excel spreadsheet with all our invitees’ names and told her to transcribe them exactly as we had them or else suffer the wrath of Bridezilla. The calligrapher agreed.
But guess what form of address was on the envelopes that my married friends received? “Mr. and Mrs. Robert Smith.” Even, in at least one case, where the wife had kept her maiden name.
At first, I thought we’d just been unlucky in our choice of vendors. Perhaps the calligrapher had made an honest mistake. Then I started looking around online.
The Web, it seems, is also conspiring to uphold this awful, antifeminist tradition.
Online addressing guidelines from obscure artisans and well-established stationery companies alike — including Crane & Co. and Hallmark — still generally recommend excising a married woman’s name.
(The Emily Post Institute waffles somewhat in its recommendations.) Meanwhile, there are just as many wedding Web sites and message boards from brides-to-be agonizing over how to get around this dumb tradition without appearing déclassé.
Of course, the Mr.-and-Mrs.-His-Name tradition is not isolated to wedding invitations. It appears on mailings from alumni organizations, church groups, charities, and junk-mail marketers.
I’ve even heard of women’s social clubs whose directories list their impressive, professionally accomplished members as “Mrs. Husband’s Name.”
But it’s during the wedding planning process — when a couple is figuring out exactly what it means to form a legal and spiritual union of two separate beings — that the pressure to perpetuate this archaic tradition, of wholly subsuming the wife’s identity into her husband’s, especially rankles.
So I urge all you fellow brides-to-be out there: If you choose just one detail to fight over with your family, friends, and vendors — and, oh, there are so many less meaningful, more expensive ones to choose from — let it be this one. Call your married female friends by their given names, and then, post-wedding, insist they do the same for you.”
Catherine Rampell Post In Washington
Move over, Illuminati. The conspiracy against Trump’s economy is massive.
When Barack Obama was president and the economic statistics were good, then-candidate Donald Trump said they were fake. When Trump became president and inherited the exact same stats, they suddenly became real.
Now that they’re turning south, they’re apparently fake once more.
Trump, aided by his economic brain trust of cranks and sycophants, believes any indicator showing the U.S. economy could be in trouble must be fabricated. It’s all part of an anti-Trump conspiracy, he rants, according to reports in The Post, the Associated Press and the New York Times.
And move over, Illuminati, because this particular conspiracy is massive.
It’s led by the Federal Reserve, Democrats, and the media, of course, or so say Trump and his Fox News minions. But it also includes the entire U.S. bond market, which flashed a warning sign last week when the Treasury yield curve inverted (meaning long-term bonds had lower interest rates than short-term ones, which usually predates a downturn).
Also colluding are the many farmers, retailers, manufacturers and economists who have been warning for more than a year that the burden of Trump’s tariffs is mainly borne by Americans, not China or other trading partners, and also that uncertainty over trade tensions can paralyze hiring, investment and purchasing decisions, which we need to keep the economy expanding.
The cabal even transcends borders. Besides Trump’s trade wars, after all, the main risk to the U.S. economy involves contagion from abroad. And right now, nine major economies are either in a recession or on the verge of one. Never fear, though: All nine countries’ statisticians are surely cooking their books to hurt Trump, too.
The White House has reportedly declined to develop contingency plans for a downturn because it doesn’t want to validate this “negative narrative.” This is, in a word, idiotic. As others have analogized, it’s like refusing to buy a fire extinguisher because you’re afraid of feeding a “negative narrative” that you might someday face a fire.
Administration officials decided the best way to deal with recession risk, which they, of course, aren’t personally worried about, was through a show of force on TV. There, Trump’s economic advisers assured Americans they definitely, certainly, cross-their-hearts-and-hope-to-die don’t see a reason to worry.
White House trade adviser Peter Navarro’s strategy was to deny that the data show Americans are paying higher prices on tariffed goods (though we are) and also that the yield curve had recently inverted (though it did). On that latter point, Navarro said the curve was merely “flat” and therefore doesn’t signal a possible recession. In virtually identical language across interviews, he told audiences that he had authority in this matter because he “didn’t write the book on the yield curve,” he wrote “several books on the efficacy of the yield curve as a leading economic indicator.”
What Navarro failed to mention, though, is that these books say that both inverted and “flat” yield curves are usually signs of an impending recession. One such book, from 2006, explicitly mocked business leaders for failing to prepare for the 2001 recession because they had ignored “the ominous progression of the yield curve” that began with the curve’s flattening.
So, yeah, you can add mid-2000s-era Navarro to the list of anti-Trump conspirators, too.
Trump’s National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow hit the Sunday shows, too. For his part, he bizarrely pretended other troubling economic data (in this case, on consumer sentiment) didn’t exist. He also repeatedly told viewers: “Let’s not be afraid of optimism.”
And look, yes, it would be unhelpful for public officials to go on TV and tell everybody to panic, pull their money out of the market and stuff it under their mattresses. The White House obviously wants to project confidence instead.
But that confidence is convincing only if it’s credible — because, say, the White House has acknowledged how its own trade policies are contributing to recession risk and is committed to reversing them. Or because it has a competent team in place if recession strikes.
Neither is true.
Instead, Kudlow’s call for optimism has a whiff of Peter Pan logic about it: If only we believe in fairies hard enough, we can always save Tinker Bell — even when we’re sending her out into a hailstorm. If you believe, clap your hands; don’t let Tink die!
It’s hard to imagine nervous Americans are really this credulous. Then again, perhaps we were never the intended audience for such performances. Sure, maybe White House aides are trying to fool the public into believing recession warning signs don’t exist. But maybe they’re actually just trying to fool their boss.
Catherine Rampell Articles
Rampell: A dangerous pick for the Fed
milforddailynews.com — By Catherine Rampell/The Washington Post Saturday, Jul 13. 2019, at 4:20 AM Let’s say you are deciding between two models of Federal Reserve candidates. One has no fixed principles and embraces whatever is most politically expedient; the other has a blind commitment to a dangerously wrong set of beliefs.
To borrow from “Hamilton”: I know it’s lose-lose, but if you had to choose? Or maybe you don’t. Because with Judy Shelton, you can get both.
Rampell: A dangerous pick for the Fed
metrowestdailynews.com — By Catherine Rampell/The Washington Post Saturday, Jul 13. 2019, at 4:20 AM Let’s say you are deciding between two models of Federal Reserve candidates.
One has no fixed principles and embraces whatever is most politically expedient; the other has a blind commitment to a dangerously wrong set of beliefs. To borrow from “Hamilton”: I know it’s lose-lose, but if you had to choose? Or maybe you don’t. Because with Judy Shelton, you can get both.
Judy Shelton is a dangerous pick for the Fed board
mysanantonio.com — By Catherine Rampell, Washington Post Writers Group Published 4:55 pm CDT, Friday, July 12. 2019, President Donald Trump has nominated economist Judy Shelton to the Federal Reserve Board, but do her policies even align with the presidents? President Donald Trump has nominated economist Judy Shelton to the Federal Reserve Board, but do her policies even align with the presidents?
Catherine Rampell: Judy Shelton is a dangerous pick for the Fed board
sltrib.com — FILE – This Feb. 5, 2018, file photo shows the seal of the Board of Governors of the United States Federal Reserve System in the ground at the Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building in Washington. President Donald Trump says on Twitter he will nominate economists Christopher Waller and Judy Shelton to fill two vacancies on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
Opinion | Judy Shelton is a dangerous pick for the Fed board
washingtonpost.com — Judy Shelton in Washington on May 29. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg) July 11 at 7:01 PM Let’s say you are deciding between two models of Federal Reserve candidates.
One has no fixed principles and embraces whatever is most politically expedient; the other has a blind commitment to a dangerously wrong set of beliefs. To borrow from “Hamilton”: I know it’s lose-lose, but if you had to choose? Or maybe you don’t. Because with Judy Shelton, you can get both.