11–20 of 112 posts
I have been enjoying Paul Krugman's writing, now that he's free from the shackles of the New York "both sides!" Times https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/its-beginning-to-smell-a-... He's obviously got a political angle, but doesn't let that completely color his economic analysis.
>Currently, the data suggest that reduced labor supply is likely the key driver It's interesting as far as people I know looking for jobs, they're supply ... and having a hard time finding jobs. Reduced supply you'd hope you'd get a job. Granted the article addresses this both in the types of jobs and: >The stability of the unemployment rate masks effects of the low-hiring, low-firing labor market. I do wonder, if th…
I have been enjoying Paul Krugman's writing, now that he's free from the shackles of the New York "both sides!" Times https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/its-beginning-to-smell-a-... He's obviously got a political angle, but doesn't let that completely color his economic analysis.
Title is clickbait (we all know why) but its a great read. Its so many shocks to the economy at the same time, and with no goal other than to cause harm that I don't think anything the FED does will have any real impact in the real world. The author goes for an OR between reasons but I really don't see it like that, its an AND, all jumbled together and pushing the economy down.
> with no goal other than to cause harm My read is not that it is to cause harm / break things down per sé, but instead to deglobalize. At various times, the left and the right have made globalization the bogeyman and something to fight, so this idea has been in the ether. For many reasons (economic, geopolitics, peace), globalization is a great thing. Even if deglobalization were a great idea, then the execution is…
Title is clickbait (we all know why) but its a great read. Its so many shocks to the economy at the same time, and with no goal other than to cause harm that I don't think anything the FED does will have any real impact in the real world. The author goes for an OR between reasons but I really don't see it like that, its an AND, all jumbled together and pushing the economy down.
> with no goal other than to cause harm My read is not that it is to cause harm / break things down per sé, but instead to deglobalize. At various times, the left and the right have made globalization the bogeyman and something to fight, so this idea has been in the ether. For many reasons (economic, geopolitics, peace), globalization is a great thing. Even if deglobalization were a great idea, then the execution is…
I don't think it's true that there's no other goal than to cause harm, at least with the tariffs.
By the same token, though, while I think deglobalization is something that people around Trump would say they're shooting for, it's not really something Trump cares about in that sense.
No; I think Trump's primary goal with the tariffs is to flex his power and enjoy the feeling; he doesn't really care what the effect is on everyone else. With the ICE crackdowns, he definitely wants to hurt everyone nonwhite in America.
Increasing wealth inequality, drives prices inflation, wage stagnation and less disposable income, driving less consumption, driving less revenue for businesses, meaning cuts happen and hiring freezes, drives slowing growth in new job market.
> Increasing wealth inequality, drives prices inflation
How does increasing wealth inequality drive price increases?
Title is clickbait (we all know why) but its a great read. Its so many shocks to the economy at the same time, and with no goal other than to cause harm that I don't think anything the FED does will have any real impact in the real world. The author goes for an OR between reasons but I really don't see it like that, its an AND, all jumbled together and pushing the economy down.
> with no goal other than to cause harm My read is not that it is to cause harm / break things down per sé, but instead to deglobalize. At various times, the left and the right have made globalization the bogeyman and something to fight, so this idea has been in the ether. For many reasons (economic, geopolitics, peace), globalization is a great thing. Even if deglobalization were a great idea, then the execution is…
Doesn't this apply to globalization as well? Saying "learn to code" to people who lose their jobs due to globalization is not great execution either and sets the stage for backlash.
>Currently, the data suggest that reduced labor supply is likely the key driver It's interesting as far as people I know looking for jobs, they're supply ... and having a hard time finding jobs. Reduced supply you'd hope you'd get a job. Granted the article addresses this both in the types of jobs and: >The stability of the unemployment rate masks effects of the low-hiring, low-firing labor market. I do wonder, if th…
The ICE crackdowns are both directly removing large numbers of nonwhite people from the labor pool, and indirectly scaring much larger numbers of them away from it, lest they be the next ones sent to the camps.
Aside from that, though? No, I think talking about reduced labor supply is anti-labor propaganda at best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> with no goal other than to cause harm My read is not that it is to cause harm / break things down per sé, but instead to deglobalize. At various times, the left and the right have made globalization the bogeyman and something to fight, so this idea has been in the ether. For many reasons (economic, geopolitics, peace), globalization is a great thing. Even if deglobalization were a great idea, then the execution is…
The execution and evaluation (granted, that's part of the execution). If for some reason someone smart (with an education and who did something other than default to praise Trump's ego in press conferences) were to decide we should go to the mattresses wildly with tariffs to fight globalization: I would hope they would care to actually evaluate if it is working / the impact, and not fire government workers when they…
And even then, tarrifs right off the bat are the wrong approach. It takes time, a lot of time, to reorganize supply chains and spin up manufacturing. It also requires a ton of capital. It requires a slow roll, local incentives, subsidies, and long term planning.
It wouldn't be feasible to expect it to happen over the course of a single presidential term. If I'm a big company and I've got the cash reserves, I'm better off laying off a bunch of people and buckling down for the next 4 years rather than spending a bunch of capital to bring supply chain to the USA.
>Currently, the data suggest that reduced labor supply is likely the key driver It's interesting as far as people I know looking for jobs, they're supply ... and having a hard time finding jobs. Reduced supply you'd hope you'd get a job. Granted the article addresses this both in the types of jobs and: >The stability of the unemployment rate masks effects of the low-hiring, low-firing labor market. I do wonder, if th…
But funny enough, we can't just ship 100k software developers from the bay to the central valley and it just work.