Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bernanke Says U.S. Economy Faces a ‘Wile E. Coyote’ Moment in 2020

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 228 posts

Re: Bernanke Says U.S. Economy Faces a ‘Wile E. Coyote’ Moment in 2020

#141

Post by WhompingWindows »

alex_young wrote: post #24

Remember that economists have predicted 15 of the last 7 recessions. Hold on to your hats.

I'm sure "economists" generally as a field can not accurately predict recessions, however certain individuals have used sound logic to predict certain downturns in the past. There is a general logic to the market, the debt cycle for instance, the natural hot/cold phases the USA and the world in general go through. So, while your comment is witty and I agree generally, I also think there is a possibility of a major downturn in the near future.

Re: Bernanke Says U.S. Economy Faces a ‘Wile E. Coyote’ Moment in 2020

#142

Post by [deleted] »

burkemw3 wrote: post #50
CompelTechnic wrote: post #21

I have a question about the federal funds rate that I haven't ever had a good explanation for. It is: To what extent is the fed funds rate set to match market demand, and to what extent is it controlled completely independently of market demands? If anyone has a good answer, I would appreciate it a lot. To flesh out my question a little further, let's say that the fed decides one day to change the fed funds rate from…

The fed rate commonly publicized isn't a bond rate. It's like the rate on a personal checking account. It can vary at the fed's desire. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_funds_rate . Changing that rate does cause impacts on the rest of interest rates (e.g. bonds), though.

[deleted]

Re: Bernanke Says U.S. Economy Faces a ‘Wile E. Coyote’ Moment in 2020

#143

Post by kaycebasques »

It’s a fascinating time in the markets. You’ve got all these different forces pulling in different directions. Quantitative tightening, fear of trade war, tax cuts, continuing buybacks, lots of accumulated debt, the rise of high-frequency traders and their tendency to remove liquidity at the hint of any change in fundamentals, strong earnings, low employment, high asset prices. It doesn’t surprise me that ^SPX is swinging between 2600 and 2800 with all of these conflicting signals.

Re: Bernanke Says U.S. Economy Faces a ‘Wile E. Coyote’ Moment in 2020

#144

Post by ben509 »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #130
galieos_ghost wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The housing bubble was caused by Clinton's policies that modified the CRA resulting in all those crappy loans

I can't validate the truth of that perspective, but there was the better part of a decade to correct this issue.

And the democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent corrections for that decade because those policies, in the short term, appeared to help their constituents. They wanted to get lots of new homeowners homes, but those homeowners often found they couldn't afford the mortgages in the long run, which is exactly why the banks hadn't been making those loans prior to government meddling. Those mortgage problems were, naturally, exacerbated by the fact that lots of additional demand drove up home prices.

For the exact same story, see the ongoing student loan debacle.

Re: Bernanke Says U.S. Economy Faces a ‘Wile E. Coyote’ Moment in 2020

#145

Post by bodi »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #130
galieos_ghost wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The housing bubble was caused by Clinton's policies that modified the CRA resulting in all those crappy loans

I can't validate the truth of that perspective, but there was the better part of a decade to correct this issue.

Do you ever get the feeling no one in government wanted the issue corrected?

Re: Bernanke Says U.S. Economy Faces a ‘Wile E. Coyote’ Moment in 2020

#146

Post by ben509 »

mindcrime wrote: post #87

“The economy is already at full employment.” I'm not sure that's actually true. Yes, the govt. reported "official" unemployment number is 3.8% or whatever. BUT... that comes with a couple of big, big caveats: 1. Those numbers by definition don't include job-seekers who have left the market and quit being job-seekers. IOW, people who became so despondent that they gave up. But, there's nothing specific that stops thes…

> that comes with a couple of big, big caveats...

Which have been dusted off again now that a Republican is in office.

> Those numbers by definition don't include job-seekers who have left the market and quit being job-seekers. IOW, people who became so despondent that they gave up.

There's a large pool of people who gave up searching for jobs, and that happened under Obama. It was years of feeling helpless that swung so many Democrats in the rust belt to vote for Trump. Obama's policies greatly benefited coastal areas, DC was a boom town the entire time for instance, while simply ignoring large swaths of the country.

Re: Bernanke Says U.S. Economy Faces a ‘Wile E. Coyote’ Moment in 2020

#147

Post by jjaredsimpson »

mhb wrote: post #71
mhneu wrote: post #46

2020: policies put in place under this administration will come home to roost during the next administration, which will get the blame. This lag between economic policy and outcomes is a big reason the US has such a disingenuous public debate. Getting what you can in the short term, while being deceptive about long term effects, has become a good strategy. [1] [1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/opinion/republi…

Become a good strategy? Pensions for government workers have been a thing for a very long time.

Pensions are fine if employers accurately discount present wages for the expected payment of future wages, and accurately forecast future population growth to maintain a good ratio of workers to retirees.

Some governments seem to be quite bad at this though. States differ in pension liabilities and I haven't looked at the federal level.

Re: Bernanke Says U.S. Economy Faces a ‘Wile E. Coyote’ Moment in 2020

#148

Post by ebbv »

mhb wrote: post #71
mhneu wrote: post #46

2020: policies put in place under this administration will come home to roost during the next administration, which will get the blame. This lag between economic policy and outcomes is a big reason the US has such a disingenuous public debate. Getting what you can in the short term, while being deceptive about long term effects, has become a good strategy. [1] [1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/opinion/republi…

Become a good strategy? Pensions for government workers have been a thing for a very long time.

Pensions are not inherently a problem any more than any other form of retirement account is. HN should be above this kind of ignorant rhetoric.

Re: Bernanke Says U.S. Economy Faces a ‘Wile E. Coyote’ Moment in 2020

#149

Post by maxxxxx »

bodi wrote: post #145
acjohnson55 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't validate the truth of that perspective, but there was the better part of a decade to correct this issue.

Do you ever get the feeling no one in government wanted the issue corrected?

Exactly. Unfortunately Americans have been trained to believe that one party is right and the other is wrong. The concept that maybe both are wrong or support the same thing is foreign to them.

Same with surveillance: It's either Bush's fault or Obama's fault. They don't see the steady progression over the years independently of who is in power.

Re: Bernanke Says U.S. Economy Faces a ‘Wile E. Coyote’ Moment in 2020

#150

Post by ebbv »

ben509 wrote: post #146
mindcrime wrote: post #87

“The economy is already at full employment.” I'm not sure that's actually true. Yes, the govt. reported "official" unemployment number is 3.8% or whatever. BUT... that comes with a couple of big, big caveats: 1. Those numbers by definition don't include job-seekers who have left the market and quit being job-seekers. IOW, people who became so despondent that they gave up. But, there's nothing specific that stops thes…

> that comes with a couple of big, big caveats... Which have been dusted off again now that a Republican is in office. > Those numbers by definition don't include job-seekers who have left the market and quit being job-seekers. IOW, people who became so despondent that they gave up. There's a large pool of people who gave up searching for jobs, and that happened under Obama. It was years of feeling helpless that swun…

They were brought up all the time when Obama was in office too.
Post reply on HN