Live data from Hacker News

Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

huffingtonpost.com

31–40 of 99 posts

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#31
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, the most frustrating part is that despite our hyperconnectedness, people still believe the propaganda that we're not in a depression or that our leaders got us out of the recession. Future economists will call the decade the "longest depression" not out of 20/20 hindsight, but simply because there will no longer be a need to make things seem rosy.

If anything the story of communication has been one of ever greater methods to spread disinformation. Russians are swarmed on social media with paid shills for the government, and it makes it almost impossible to discern a genuine opinion or paid propaganda. I doubt there is a single person who is truly immune to misinformation, except perhaps the Beatles' "Fool on the Hill."

Fortifying myself against propaganda is one of my perpetual personal development projects... the internet is probably the most difficult information media for this task.

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#32
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, the most frustrating part is that despite our hyperconnectedness, people still believe the propaganda that we're not in a depression or that our leaders got us out of the recession. Future economists will call the decade the "longest depression" not out of 20/20 hindsight, but simply because there will no longer be a need to make things seem rosy.

If anything the story of communication has been one of ever greater methods to spread disinformation. Russians are swarmed on social media with paid shills for the government, and it makes it almost impossible to discern a genuine opinion or paid propaganda. I doubt there is a single person who is truly immune to misinformation, except perhaps the Beatles' "Fool on the Hill."

[deleted]

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#33

We already have a "Long Depression": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression There are some interesting parallels to the current time - that was the era of the robber barons, for instance.

Big difference was dependence on gold and/or silver for currency at the time.

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#34
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, the most frustrating part is that despite our hyperconnectedness, people still believe the propaganda that we're not in a depression or that our leaders got us out of the recession. Future economists will call the decade the "longest depression" not out of 20/20 hindsight, but simply because there will no longer be a need to make things seem rosy.

> people still believe the propaganda that we're not in a depression Is there a source for this? Everyone I know believes that we still are in a depression, so it's probably just my social circles. I'd be interested to see the stats behind that.

The housing costs alone in high growth cities like San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and so on should be enough to show that for many people, things are just fine. At least, for them. The longer things work out for you financially, the less of a problem you see around you. That's the difference between seeing a homeless person and thinking "how unfortunate that the vulnerable fall through the cracks in such a rich society and have to fend for themselves to survive" and "get a job, you bum!"

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#35
post #27
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, it could be this very abundance of ideas which is so paralyzing. The more choices you have, the harder it is to choose. That being said, I agree that this problem has its roots in corrupt politics.

I think it's more in the increasing centralization of power. The central power is bigger and thus harder to move by sheer inertia, more risk-averse, and also more able to simply implement whatever it likes regardless of what anybody else thinks because it is isolate from the trenches. I think one of the top-3 issues facing the US right now is we need a lot more power devolved back to the states... not out of a "state…

I doubt that shifting power to the states will solve many problems; after all it's the states that want to force Christianity on students, ban the teaching of science, deny healthcare to those most in need of it, lower standards for students so many HS grads are still illiterate, defund universities, and hand monopolies to oil, mineral, and telecom companies.

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#36
post #29
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of things probably won't work very well at the state level, but might nationally. Consider what could happen if just a single state offered universal basic income, for instance.

"Consider what could happen if just a single state offered universal basic income, for instance." Roughly the same thing as one country that offers universal basic income but doesn't control its borders, for the exact same reason? Also, UBI isn't magic. If it would not work in a state individually, it does not become practical by banding 50 states it doesn't work in together. In fact, with the size of most US states,…

I know I'm contradicting my previous point, but a federal program would inhibit tax-paying citizens and corporations from moving to the most convenient nearby location to do the same business but for cheap.

One example to look at would be the cities of Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington. A lot of people choose to live in Vancouver because Washington has no income tax and spend their time and money in Portland, which has no sales tax. So one could argue that the insufficient resources of a state are a function of the expected tax base exodus if it is cheaper to move and keep doing business than to stay and pay.

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#37
It's the decade(s) where it took a really long time for us to figure out we just can't have our cake and eat it too.

If we want to continue with our economic preferences toward growth and capitalism, fine, but we also need to make sure the people at the bottom have enough to contribute meaningfully too, or we blunt the potential in all of that.

It really is like a field. Farmer grows some years of high yield, high drain on the soil crops. Good times, until they aren't.

Greed may see sucking it dry as a good thing, but the expectation of high profit at low investment just won't last. What happens when the bounty in a rich, fertile soil is gone?

Tepid returns, that's what. Increases in risks and costs too.

Edit: One could seek new, fresh ground, and repeat this. At some point, there is a lot of sour, drained ground with the winners all fighting over the ever shrinking fertile ground remaining, a clear case of diminishing returns at the macro level, despite many success stories suggesting otherwise.

On the other hand, either taking a little less, say by staggering crops or resting ground, or reinvesting some of what is gained to keep the ground healthy and fertile, act together and the bounty possible goes from an awesome peak to something less, still good, but sustainable longer term. Wealth can still be accumulated, but perhaps less liquid and larger amounts happen over longer periods of time.

In a very general sense, this all feels a lot like placing blame and shifting risks and costs around to avoid the more simple, direct and growing issue of how many of us just aren't able to participate in the economy in a growth meaningful way.

In this sense, disruption is like crack. Big gains are often had, and we like, want and need those, but it's all just buying more time, not actually getting at root causes. Because of that, many larger gains are offset by problem growth and tepid demand growth, neither of which do any of us longer term good.

And while each success appears to hint at an answer, we in a macro sense, just can't seem to string enough of them together to make sustainable gains.

GDP limps along, while we all chase bright spots... and for many, standard of living declines, despite some growth which should seemingly preserve at least parity.

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#38

In the course of selling his New Deal to the impoverished American public, president Franklin Delano Roosevelt pitched his reforms by stating: "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another, but above all try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach." The most frustrating par…

Ironically, FDR's economic policy amounted to "we'll try every kind of beating until morale improves". Completely incoherent market interventions aren't good for markets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937–38

People that want to buy and sell will do that, unless someone is interferring with price or threatening profits.

The Federal Reserve expanded credit to give us the Roaring 20s stock market. Eventually, there HAD to be a correction. Instead of letting things correct, government interferred and made it worse. And then kept repeating that.

And we've done the same thing with the housing bubble.

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#39
post #16
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, the most frustrating part is that despite our hyperconnectedness, people still believe the propaganda that we're not in a depression or that our leaders got us out of the recession. Future economists will call the decade the "longest depression" not out of 20/20 hindsight, but simply because there will no longer be a need to make things seem rosy.

The terms "depression" and "recession" aren't just catch alls, they have actual definitions. And "we" (depending on the country, i'm assuming USA) are not in either.

Depends. If you look at the bottom 90% and their economy - we are in depression. Or extremely deep recession. The top 10% are both capturing the lion's share of new growth and siphoning wealth from the rest.

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#40
First off, that prime age employment graph is a problem. The best way to lie with a graph is to fuck with the scale, so unless your intentionally misrepresenting data, your graphs should start at 0.

Secondly, his reasoning is, as he says,

"Back before 2008, I used to teach my students that during a disturbance in the business cycle, we'd be 40 percent of the way back to normal in a year."

Yet, this has never been the case after a major crash. Not in 2008, nor '99, '87, '78, etc. Compared to history, we are doing a bit better than previous recoveries.

Sounds like he's just pissed off that the US is the doing well despite not following his political beliefs regarding economic policy. It's like a preacher on the street corner talking about how we are all on the path to hell, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Post reply on HN