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

We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

erienewsnow.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 198 posts

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#151

Post by twblalock »

tsimionescu wrote: post #118
joshuaheard wrote: post #70

We aren't "stuck" in a recession. It is entirely man-made. In the past, a recession was significant because it was a market indicator. Now, however, this recession is artificial, so it does not indicate any market defects. I believe we will have a V-shaped recovery and we will get back to normal soon. In a market-based recession, the fear is how to get back to normal. In this artificial recession, there is no fear, w…

If we get rid of all of the lockdowns, and force people to act as if everything is normal (they won't) how will we handle the millions of people dying?

Do you honestly think that the lockdowns saved lives, rather than simply delaying deaths for several months? Keep in mind that the lockdowns are merely a rate limit, not a cure.

We are already in an uncontrolled situation re: covid. We are not seeing millions of deaths. In most parts of the country literally nothing is being done, yet we are not seeing bodies piled up in the streets.

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#152

Post by freeone3000 »

tsimionescu wrote: post #118
joshuaheard wrote: post #70

We aren't "stuck" in a recession. It is entirely man-made. In the past, a recession was significant because it was a market indicator. Now, however, this recession is artificial, so it does not indicate any market defects. I believe we will have a V-shaped recovery and we will get back to normal soon. In a market-based recession, the fear is how to get back to normal. In this artificial recession, there is no fear, w…

If we get rid of all of the lockdowns, and force people to act as if everything is normal (they won't) how will we handle the millions of people dying?

Same as we do every year? It's not an economic problem for a few million people to die. Even if tens of millions die, we can make up the labor market shortage with immigration.

The issue is that we shouldn't cause millions of people to die for rich people to make more money.

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#153

Post by nkozyra »

iso1631 wrote: post #149
nkozyra wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can special case any city or town. I don't think WFH is endemic to SF, for example. And economic effects cascade down.

> I don't think WFH is endemic to SF, for example Certainly not. I don't think it's bad either, but some people (owners of expensive offices) do. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53925917 -- Warnings of 'ghost towns' if staff do not return to the office As to shareholders of chain coffee/lunch stores -- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53939526

> I don't think it's bad either,

Of course, but it has a significant, fundamental impact on huge aspects of "the economy" as we know it. Large segments of commerce - particularly in the U.S. - pivot heavily on people spending time and money commuting, spending time in an office, eating and drinking at nearby establishments, etc.

The effects will take some time to shake out.

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#154

Post by TheCowboy »

127 wrote: post #119
TheCowboy wrote: post #92

The grandstanding against economists is disappointing. Let's say you were driving at night with someone in the country, and because they either knew the road or could see farther ahead they said, "There's a boulder in a road ahead, we're likely going to hit it if you don't slow down and turn to avoid it." And you do slow down and it allows you to turn to avoid a crash. How do you respond? Mock them for always being w…

Economists are a priest class that enables the ruling class to make stupid and short sighted decisions.

Many weren't on board with the tax cut bill that passed under the current administration.

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2/

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#155

Post by chrisco255 »

mywittyname wrote: post #121
twblalock wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no credit given to economists for the recessions or depressions avoided. I don't think we have avoided any recessions, ever, based on the advice of economists. They just aren't that good at forecasting. They don't even agree on the policy that is appropriate to fight recessions when we know there is one. The "grandstanding" against economists in this thread is entirely justified.

Also, economies aren't easy to control: We can't even get people to wear masks even though the economic impact of not doing so is obvious and relatively straight-forward to calculate. An economist could come from the year 2100 with 500TB of economic data and news for the past 100 years, and there's a 0% chance that the public would ever heed their warnings.

Not at all. Sweden never wore masks and never shut down schools and yet they achieved comparable results to draconian lockdowns. They already have herd immunity.

It's likely we would get 2 economists from the year 2100 both giving opposite reasons for the next 80 years of events.

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#156

Post by freeone3000 »

twblalock wrote: post #151
tsimionescu wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we get rid of all of the lockdowns, and force people to act as if everything is normal (they won't) how will we handle the millions of people dying?

Do you honestly think that the lockdowns saved lives, rather than simply delaying deaths for several months? Keep in mind that the lockdowns are merely a rate limit, not a cure. We are already in an uncontrolled situation re: covid. We are not seeing millions of deaths. In most parts of the country literally nothing is being done, yet we are not seeing bodies piled up in the streets.

Lockdowns prevent disease spread when actually implemented. The US never bothered with an actual lockdown, and instead did arbitrary, self-enforced partial closures. These half-measures predictably slowed the spread, but did not stop it. US is at 181,000 deaths total and 1500 deaths per day (which is increasing). Canada fully locked down for two months, and is at 0.8 deaths per day, and decreasing. Canada will have saved lives. The US did not.

As for "no bodies in the streets": This is a long-lasting disease, you're sick for days before you die. People don't die in the streets, they die in hospitals and they die in their homes. The bodies are piled in morgues and refrigerator trucks.

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#157

Post by AngrySkillzz »

twblalock wrote: post #147
AngrySkillzz wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Backing you up here. There is a clearregime change in the data before and after the advent of central banking. Recessions and financial panics are less frequent, and less severe. Just looking at the US, there were ~15 recessions since the adoption of central banking in the 1910's. In the same time period during the 1800s there were >25 recessions, and that's not even comparing for severity. You can see the Wiki[1] fo…

Are you counting the recessions caused by central banking policies being mistaken or outright wrong? There have been at least two in the USA in the past century that can be directly linked to the Federal Reserve, and who knows how many in other countries. In the USA the two are the Great Depression (which the former Fed chief Ben Bernanke has argued was largely the result of Fed policies) and the early 1980s recessio…

Sure, many people make that argument. The recessions happened regardless of their source. But the financial panics that preceded lenders-of-last-resort and countercyclical monetary policy were significantly more frequent and severe than anything we've seen in recent history.

Edit: just noticed your edit, Bernanke never said that monetary policy caused the Great Depression, but it is the consensus view that policy was too tight during that period and exacerbated it. A mistake that no one is keen to repeat. Certainly the interest rate rises in the 80's caused a contraction, one could argue whether the subsequent recession was worth the cost of fighting inflation. I think all would agree that the stagflation that prompted that maneuver was not ideal.

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#158

Post by luckydata »

chrisco255 wrote: post #155
mywittyname wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, economies aren't easy to control: We can't even get people to wear masks even though the economic impact of not doing so is obvious and relatively straight-forward to calculate. An economist could come from the year 2100 with 500TB of economic data and news for the past 100 years, and there's a 0% chance that the public would ever heed their warnings.

Not at all. Sweden never wore masks and never shut down schools and yet they achieved comparable results to draconian lockdowns. They already have herd immunity. It's likely we would get 2 economists from the year 2100 both giving opposite reasons for the next 80 years of events.

They don’t have yet herd immunity and their results are worse with respect to all comparable countries that had a lockdown. What you say is categorically false.

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#159

Post by AngrySkillzz »

save_ferris wrote: post #134
eloff wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In our lifetimes, economists largely balked at the idea that the housing market could collapse, and then boom, 2008 happens. I don't buy that without citations. Everyone knows housing markets are like most other markets and go both up and down in cycles. Like most other markets, the bigger the boom, the bigger the bust that follows. To say that a majority of economists believed otherwise seems like pure hyperbole t…

From an analysis by the Wharton school[0]: “It’s not just that they missed it, they positively denied that it would happen,” says Wharton finance professor Franklin Allen, arguing that many economists used mathematical models that failed to account for the critical roles that banks and other financial institutions play in the economy. “Even a lot of the central banks in the world use these models,” Allen said. “That’…

Obviously no one knew what form it would take, but people were pointing out inflated housing prices[1] and other shady tactics in the mortgage market for YEARS. There's always cranks on TV saying This Time Is Different (2000, anyone?), but its just incorrect to say that serious economists were "unwilling to entertain the idea that the housing market could collapse."

[1] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=467926...

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#160

Post by TheCowboy »

pantsforbirds wrote: post #120
TheCowboy wrote: post #92

The grandstanding against economists is disappointing. Let's say you were driving at night with someone in the country, and because they either knew the road or could see farther ahead they said, "There's a boulder in a road ahead, we're likely going to hit it if you don't slow down and turn to avoid it." And you do slow down and it allows you to turn to avoid a crash. How do you respond? Mock them for always being w…

As a counter argument it seems to me that if you are an expert in a field you can generally predict disasters and be wrong and people tend to not care so much, but if you predict a more positive outcome and you are wrong people will never forget. I think this kind of societal reaction pushes experts to being more willing to give severely negative predictions.

Another factor that might cause economists to sound doom and gloom is that once you do hit a certain point it's much more difficult to get out of it using conventional policy tools. You run an increased risk for an actual prolonged depression and start doing greater amounts of long-term economic damage.
Post reply on HN