Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
alhambrapartners.com
Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
1–10 of 37 posts
Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#2[deleted]
Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#3Can anyone summarize this in a more accessible way?
Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#4The article assumes a shared context of facts and interpretation that makes it unreadable for someone encountering it for the first time.
Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#5Can anyone summarize this in a more accessible way?
Paraphrasing article: US monetary policy has failed consistently because it is predicated on a rise in inflation caused by decreases in the unemployment rate, but this hasn't occurred - probably because the unemployment rate (or how its measured) doesn't correctly capture the change in spending power in the labour market.
/Paraphrasing
It's kinda the same in my country - for the statistical purposes of the official Statistics Department unemployment rate, you are no longer unemployed if you a) work 1 hour a week or b) have actively stopped seeking employment.
I guess it's designed that way according to international best practice or something, but it means we have rather odd situations where the unemployment rate decreases, but the amount of people seeking income support increases.
Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#6Can anyone summarize this in a more accessible way?
Paraphrasing article: US monetary policy has failed consistently because it is predicated on a rise in inflation caused by decreases in the unemployment rate, but this hasn't occurred - probably because the unemployment rate (or how its measured) doesn't correctly capture the change in spending power in the labour market. /Paraphrasing It's kinda the same in my country - for the statistical purposes of the official S…
US monetary policy has not "failed" pretty much since Nixon. Janet Yellen's tenure is really the only blemish, but only because she didn't raise rates when we could have.
I think you're confusing the "Dual Mandate" of the Fed to minimize inflation and maximize employment with some misplaced belief in economics. Every American economist of the last century has realized these are often competing ideals. It's their raison d'etre, without it the Fed doesn't exist.
Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#7The article assumes a shared context of facts and interpretation that makes it unreadable for someone encountering it for the first time.
Thanks, seeing someone else point this out makes me feel less bad about being monumentally confused.
Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#8The article assumes a shared context of facts and interpretation that makes it unreadable for someone encountering it for the first time.
Yeah. Good lord. I have no clue what’s going on.
Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#9The article assumes a shared context of facts and interpretation that makes it unreadable for someone encountering it for the first time.
While the Federal Reserve talks a lot about how its rate policies have improved the economy, actual figures from inflation and unemployment don't back up any of the improvements they're claiming, and haven't for years. Now, the Fed is moving the goalposts -- saying low unemployment can no longer be a reason for a rate increase, only inflation, since inflation has also stayed lower than the target metric. As inflation generally rises when people have more money to spend, this implies that even though the unemployment figures are way down, and the stock market is way up, people and businesses aren't actually spending any more money. Why not? Simplest answer is "they don't have money to spend".
Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#10The dollar is gonna get f’d. Maybe Thomas Jefferson was right about central banks after all... probably not.