Europe is like a kid copying the US homework, trying to make the equations work.
Well, compared to most other countries I know about, US rates work a little differently.
Homeowner mortgages are (AFAICT) almost all fixed for the full term of the loan. So a rate hike doesn't immediately take money out of the pockets of a large proportion of the population. It may slow new home finance agreements, and affect a lot of other credit agreements, including the ability of business to borrow, but it doesn't kick a huge number of people right in the domicile.
Whereas here in Aus and in the UK (two places I've held mortgages) fixed terms are only available on a relatively short basis (1-5 years) and people won't take them out at all if they feel the rates are already a little elevated (like now), as there are penalties for refinancing in the fixed period. So interest rate rises directly impact people's pockets and threaten their housing stability.
So over here mortgage holders really do hate rate rises and feel personally aggrieved when the central bank raises them.
This situation conceivably makes tackling inflation easier - public spending plummets when rates go up - but it is massively unpopular.
You can be sure that the day the USD isn't viewed as the global currency, all this printing will come bite back hard and probably cause a collapse.
Maybe China will have strong consumers in the future but then it'll have to ensure it can compete with US wages which erodes its competitiveness.
House always wins.
They based their economy way too much on export and real estate to grow at a normal rate. The worst covid lock down in the world certainly didn't help.
The country is lagging behind because of their contradictions.
Encouraging consumption by creating more welfare programs, spreading corporate wealth to citizens via share schemes etc would be a way of changing this but I don't see this fitting into the Marxist production machine.
They’re still human so they can be swayed by Presidents and obviously have their own political leanings. In general the ability to not listen to politics allows them to make choices that are inconvenient for an election cycle but good for the US economy.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/does-the-president-have-le...
Also, removing Powell doesn't let any president put someone in who will set whatever rate they want. It must be a member of the Board, of which two are his nominees from his term. They also don't have to listen to him.
When it comes to setting rates, Powell is chairman, not supreme leader. The FOMC sets rates and that is a group of twelve.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fomc.asp
Given Trump wouldn't see sworn in until 2025 and would have the usual problems of any new President rather than the benefit of a second term, and as Powell was confirmed in 2022, under current case law, Trump at best simply gets to nominate a new chair a number of months before he'd do so in 2026.
Powell's single 14 year term on Fed board ends in 2028 so there will be a new Chair no matter what after that.
While from a Political standpoint, I don't like what he may do, I am ok with how this is setup. This is not as easy as simply replacing his cabinet members and that is a good thing.