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

U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 345 posts

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#121

Post by omginternets »

watwut wrote: post #82
omginternets wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don’t want to sound calloused because caring for the weak and the elderly is a pillar of civilizations, but my impression was that the bulk of “excess deaths” were not among the most economically active populations. I could just as easily see this having the opposite economic effect: reducing the burden on the state for such things as retirement and Medicaid.

The excess death were among active demographics too. And in addition, the long term covid was affecting active demographics too. And also, the parents who had to drop out of workforce due to childcare being much more difficult were also active demographic too.

>The excess death were among active demographics too.

In what proportion?

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#122

Post by dragonwriter »

omginternets wrote: post #51
matthewdgreen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe also losing 1.1 million people (according to the CDC's "excess deaths" website) wasn't that good for our economy either.

I really don’t want to sound calloused because caring for the weak and the elderly is a pillar of civilizations, but my impression was that the bulk of “excess deaths” were not among the most economically active populations. I could just as easily see this having the opposite economic effect: reducing the burden on the state for such things as retirement and Medicaid.

> I really don’t want to sound calloused because caring for the weak and the elderly is a pillar of civilizations, but my impression was that the bulk of “excess deaths” were not among the most economically active populations

Really? The elderly may not be likely to work, but they still consume (they consume lots of medical services in proportion to their numbers, for instance.)

> reducing the burden on the state for such things as retirement and Medicaid.

“the burden on the state for such things as ... Medicaid” is a chunk of economic activity. With taxes the same and that spending gone, alone, the economy shrinks.

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#123

Post by giantrobot »

colinmhayes wrote: post #83
bitcurious wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my neck of the woods, by far the largest and most impactful inflation has been in the housing sector - 50% price inflation over the past two years. This is entirely attributable to the Fed's pumping of soft assets like stocks, leading to a bunch of paper millionaires cashing out.

Also due to the fact that we stopped building new homes after 08. If supply keeps up with rising demand prices don't change.

I'm currently sitting in a house that completed construction in December. I suspect your information might not be right.

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#124

Post by omginternets »

AYBABTME wrote: post #91
omginternets wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don’t want to sound calloused because caring for the weak and the elderly is a pillar of civilizations, but my impression was that the bulk of “excess deaths” were not among the most economically active populations. I could just as easily see this having the opposite economic effect: reducing the burden on the state for such things as retirement and Medicaid.

> caring for the weak and the elderly is a pillar of civilizations I'm not sure that's true. Many civilizations, up to and including now, have the cultural practice of the weak and elderly destroying themselves (or being destroyed) when they become a burden on their relative/society. The most obvious example being the concept of east asian (Korean/Japanese) elders "going to the mountain to die".

This is absurd. Eastern civilizations most certainly care for their weak, sick and elderly. Removing oneself from society by going up the proverbial mountain does not contradict this.

You have to look very hard for a successful civilization that doesn't do this. Sparta, perhaps?

(This is also not really the point of the original comment.)

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#125

Post by taylodl »

adolph wrote: post #77
taylodl wrote: post #55

The fact the Fed is even contemplating a rate hike tells me they're misreading what's going on. The inflation we're seeing isn't a result of a hot economy needing to be kept in check, it's the fact that 40% of China's production is on lockdown and just about every product made, regardless of where it's made, is relying on part(s) coming from China. Supply is constrained and therefore prices are rising. Likewise, supp…

> supply is constrained and money is not constrained. What could go wrong?

Inflation should take care of demand. A constrained supply is going to move the demand curve to higher prices - which we're seeing. The higher prices will bring demand in alignment with supply.

Traditionally, to deal with the problem of constrained supply you would lower rates to make more capital available in order to create more supply-producing assets. I don't think the Fed should lower rates in this situation because we all know that building more factories won't solve the supply chain issues due to the pandemic. However, we need to balance that against investing more in automation since having fewer workers due to the pandemic.

They're in quite the pickle!

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#126

Post by incomingpain »

alexk307 wrote: post #100
incomingpain wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

What are you talking about? Biden is going to use nuclear weapons against US citizens? I assure you, there is no food shortage in the United States. The S&P500 went down 15%, calm down, it'll go back up.

No post body was provided.

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#127

Post by danaris »

pjc50 wrote: post #49

Always wondering exactly what people mean when they talk of "civil unrest", and who and how will it start. Do the various riots in 2020 America or the Jan 6 storming of the capitol count? On the other hand, Elon Musk Twitter purchase: $44bn. There's plenty of money out there still. I think it's unlikely that merely raising rates will do anything, for two reasons: firstly there's a real need to do some fiscal policy a…

Sure, there's "plenty of money out there", but so much of it is held by the super-wealthy that the rest of us might as well be a rounding error. (Disclaimer: numbers not intended to be literal)

Increasingly, money and power are concentrating at the top, with people who are also increasingly insulated from the negative consequences of....well, all the bad stuff that's happening. That's a recipe for things spiraling out of control.

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#128

Post by colinmhayes »

giantrobot wrote: post #123
colinmhayes wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also due to the fact that we stopped building new homes after 08. If supply keeps up with rising demand prices don't change.

I'm currently sitting in a house that completed construction in December. I suspect your information might not be right.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041889/construction-yea...

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#129

Post by krapp »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #120
krapp wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A whole lotta people, mostly outside the HN demographics, are real pissed off about a decade of public policy that has amounted to making their lives worse and worse at every juncture and now it's finally getting to the point where ends are hard to meet. They had four years under Trump threatening the city-dwellers and neo-liberals, a literal armed rioting mob, sympathy within the government and law enforcement and…

>If they couldn't make it happen then, when all of the stars were aligned and the winds of populist ferver were at their backs, I don't think anything more than an occasional riot is going to happen in the future. Gas was cheap and shelves were full then.

I remember $5.00 a gallon gas during the recession, and there were two gas crises in the '70s and '80s. We've been here before.

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#130

Post by danaris »

dntrkv wrote: post #61
usrn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People got along a lot better with their neighbors in the 80s than they do now.

I think you’re confusing people’s online rhetoric with their IRL interactions. If there was no civil war after 2008, there sure as hell won’t be one this time when people are doing better by most metrics. American’s financial situations are actually quite good right now. Everybody is just anxious as fuck, for many reasons.

Um...that sounds like the words of someone in a bubble.

People are not doing that well right now, and there's a lot of anger between the people who are doing the worst, and the people who are doing fine and saying "America's financial situations are actually quite good right now."

Post reply on HN