The article assumes a shared context of facts and interpretation that makes it unreadable for someone encountering it for the first time.
Agreed! Here's Reuters to the rescue: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/...
Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
21–30 of 37 posts
Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#22Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#23Can 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…
The most common number is the U3, which measures all the people who want to get back to work. That number is a good way to track all the labor that could easily be pulled into the market if the right jobs were available. Shorter term shocks might move this number around, as people get laid off and find new employment.
There is also the U6 rate, which includes a lot of people that have fallen out of the market, and those who have taken up part time work because they couldn’t find full time work.
You have to look at both to get a good picture of the employment situation. There are a lot of cases where the U3 might drop, a good thing in normal times, because the economy is so bad that a lot of workers have either given up on finding work, or have taken up part time work since they can’t find a full time job. Both rates are useful, but focusing on only one will certainly lead you astray.
Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#24How do I go from not understanding economics/finance, to pretending to understand it? I feel like that finance uniquely is a field that every time I have tried to penetrate I get a mix of unintelligible jargon and mathematics as a facade of rigor. I am comfortable reading both math and programming textbooks, but every finance book I've picked up so far seems to quickly not make any sense to me at all.
Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#25How do I go from not understanding economics/finance, to pretending to understand it? I feel like that finance uniquely is a field that every time I have tried to penetrate I get a mix of unintelligible jargon and mathematics as a facade of rigor. I am comfortable reading both math and programming textbooks, but every finance book I've picked up so far seems to quickly not make any sense to me at all.
but seriously, from a quick skim, this article seems to be mostly macroeconomics, with a little finance sprinkled in. for a cursory understanding, no (additional) math is needed, just micro, macro, and basic finance. you could take online courses for those and use investopedia as a quick reference.
Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#26Can anyone summarize this in a more accessible way?
Powell has essentially responded to things by equivocating and shifting some language around so that facilitating increased employment is now a higher priority to the feds than a stabilized interest rate.
Much of the economy, banking, and finance is fundamentally about trust. Without that, people don't spend, or take risks. Money doesn't flow, and businesses can't thrive. Lack of a thriving business environment chokes the ability of the entire economic/financial system.
Keynesian economic theory calls for governments to start spending in a big way. This "rallies" people and generally inspires confidence which drives demand. The main point is to get people paid for doing something not even necessarily useful,and get them to stop worrying about whether the Sun will rise tomorrow.
The article author finds hope in the Fed's equivocation that they at least appear to be coming to terms with the fact this is the right thing to do.
What I'm not clear on is how in the hell the Fed can justify "Haha, money printer goes brrr..." Without a matching Act of Congress, but it's hard to take anything seriously when you start getting into the more arcane aspects of how monetary policy works, because monetary policy is nigh indistinguishable nowadays from "Quick! Look busy so that everyone thinks everything will be okay!"
That's the gist of the article as I get it at least.
My understanding is the balance sheet is unimportant as long as the economy continues to grow; debt is outpaced by the growth. To that end, what's most important is that people are comfortable, capable, and willing to participate in keeping the economy growing. Something not happening because there's a physical risk to recklessly engaging in massive unconstrained economic activity, and no one knows how long until people stop ranking fear of Coronavirus a more pressing concern than the crashing of the economic machine.
Personally, I think this is a reckoning a long time coming, and something the Fed can't use it's traditional tools to fix since the last 40 or so years fundamentally shifted the economic capabilities away from decentralized industry due to a regulatory environment that highly favored consolidation and centralization. That isn't something you necessarily bounce back from quickly, which is actually an opportunity in it's own way. The bigger, more omnipresent and impossible seeming a problem the government can get everyone on board (and paid) to solve the better. If only enough unity materialized to do it.
Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#27The beginning of the text feels really odd, almost GPT-3-like at some points. At least, that's the way it seems when you do not know the jargon. It just rambles on and on. Thankfully it gets more coherent later on, but I am not sure what the author intended to say in this piece.
Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#28Can anyone summarize this in a more accessible way?
Essentially, the Fed seems to be putting more effort into appearing like they are doing something to help the economy in the hopes it assuaged people's fears and gets them to transact than actually doing anything to help. Powell has essentially responded to things by equivocating and shifting some language around so that facilitating increased employment is now a higher priority to the feds than a stabilized interest…
Re: Has to Be a Joke, Because If It’s Not
#29Hopefully with more clarity, as this is opaque and suggestive as duck (sic)...