71–80 of 104 posts
Ugh. These sort of pseudo-intellectual articles that mix economics and politics are my least favorite things to see on this site. They are super misleading and play towards people's biases about how they view the world while selectively interpreting the sparse data they present to do so. An example: If there was too much money, you would think that bond yields would go down. Look here: https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?sy…
The fed, BOJ and ECB are already busy painting yield curves full time, the market has become so distorted it's not trivial to even orient yourself, nevermind to develop conclusions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Fed is against raising the minimum wage because it will make inflation increase above the allowed 2% per year. Which kind of makes sense because paying workers more will make things more expensive especially service businesses. But, they should still raise the minimum since most service businesses are heading for automation and the bump will help workers have a better job transition.
To the best of my knowledge, the Federal Reserve has no official position in favor of or against raising the minimum wage. Claiming otherwise is speculation and likely misinforming people. Disclosure: Former researcher at the Federal Reserve Board
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine raising the cost of labor in the U.S. would only encourage more outsourcing. Maybe entrenched parties with lots of cash need special incentives to spur investment. I don’t know what those would be, but if all this cash is not being used to invest in public projects or new ventures, we may be witnessing the beginning of a huge socioeconomic shift. Remember war bonds? We need road bonds. Bridge bonds. Somethi…
How do you outsource a Walmart shelf stocker?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precisely why I’m a big fan of tariffs and America-first foreign policy. We need a way to restore manufacturing industry to the US, the loss of which played a large role in the erosion of the middle class. Protecting manufacturing and factory jobs used to be a selling point for Democrats but things have been a little turned upside down lately.
This is just incorrect. A 25% tariff doesn't correct for the difference in labor costs between China and the USA, because the difference in labor costs is > 25%. It just makes stuff more expensive for Americans.
Maybe a patchwork of all sorts of federal programs, better Medicare here, some more govt jobs there, etc? A direct refund would probably work much better.
What about investing it in the planet. Fund lobby groups. Fund companies working on alternative energy tech. There was a (YC funded?) startup on here recently looking to turn air and water into fuel in an efficient enough way. That sort of stuff. Unless the goal is purely to maximise gains of course. Announce "I am investing 10Bn in climate change startups over 50 years", so that people can plan their career around t…
I don't think there's too much money: there are not enough GOOD ways to spend it. Investors don't refuse to fund ethical businesses or finance saving the planet, if it can make them money. It's just that there's no good opportunity on the market. When investors can make more money saving the planet that destroying it, the planet will be saved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just incorrect. A 25% tariff doesn't correct for the difference in labor costs between China and the USA, because the difference in labor costs is > 25%. It just makes stuff more expensive for Americans.
It is more difficult to evade tariffs or VAT on imports, sure. For that to even out the playing field, it would have to be refunded to average Americans, and I am not sure it can even happen given the fiscal structure in the US? Maybe a patchwork of all sorts of federal programs, better Medicare here, some more govt jobs there, etc? A direct refund would probably work much better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there's too much money: there are not enough GOOD ways to spend it. Investors don't refuse to fund ethical businesses or finance saving the planet, if it can make them money. It's just that there's no good opportunity on the market. When investors can make more money saving the planet that destroying it, the planet will be saved.
Maybe there is just too many paper bills (or more like 0 and 1s) chasing relatively slower growing amount of value?
> "How we got here: The Fed's quantitative easing program pushed the cost of borrowing money to next to nothing for nearly a decade, allowing companies to splurge on debt for mergers and acquisitions and to boost revenue." Put another way, the Fed made the rich richer, and the lack of significant "trickle down" has created a socio-political Charlie Foxtrot; of which the Fed is not accountable for.
The "trickle down" story keeps coming up, but it's untrue. It simply doesn't work that way. If someone who is already rich gets even more, it won't be spent in a way that is good for someone poor. More likely, the excess money will be invested in a way that provides yield, like buying real estate, driving up prices and rent. Or merging businesses to lower competition and costs. Leading to money streming 'up' instead…
Nobody actually argues for 'trickle-down' policies. It's a sneer term signifying a deliberately oversimplified version of right-wing economic policies. It's not a real position people hold and push for.
I guess it's a lot easier and more fun to feel righteous attacking strawmen than it is to do the work of interacting with real ideas with serious intellectual backing and real influence.