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

‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 289 posts

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#161

Post by jpao79 »

simonsarris wrote: post #73

People often note, like another comment here notes: > since 1960 there has been a US economic recession once every 5 to 10 years. The last one ended in 2009, 9 years ago This is an interesting line of thinking, but I think it's a mistake. We can use this fact itself and circumscribe some meta-thinking around it. Put the same fact another way, this is arguing that the 1960's started a brand new paradigm that was mater…

So some random thoughts on the case for this time its actually different are:

1.) The internet and computing has increased the flow of information. Investments in data mining and data science by the Fed lets it make better decisions and test stuff iteratively and react to changes faster. Companies can also track inventory in a more controlled manner and not build too much too fast. Employees can find prevailing wage information easier to find better, more productive jobs. Home buyers can see how overvalued their houses are relative to other cities.

The internet and computing is enabling a much higher control loop (a.k.a. a steeper gradient descent toward optimal economic output based on the production needs for the current population).

2.) Steady reduction in the reliance on oil and gas. Much of the crazy inflation in past cycles was due to oil and gas shortages.

Would love to get opinions and more cases for why its different.

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#162

Post by TimTheTinker »

pnathan wrote: post #62
peterwwillis wrote: post #38

While it's not a very accurate predictor, since 1960 there has been a US economic recession once every 5 to 10 years. The last one ended in 2009, 9 years ago.

Yep. "We're due" is my perspective on bear markets. We've had a bull for a long time now, and there's adequate macro factors that a tipoff into a bear is a fairly reasonable expectation. In other words, it's quite time to make sure your holdings are prepared for a recession.

> make sure your holdings are prepared for a recession

How do you do that? If you're market-invested, there's very little chance of actually predicting the timing of the downturn.

Perhaps sell while confidence is high and then buy like mad when prices have gone way down? Sounds risky...

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#163

Post by fokinsean »

astura wrote: post #157
fokinsean wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same, I remember how much the last one stressed out my Dad. I was in high school and didn't fully appreciate the significance of what was going on. I'm a bit anxious anticipating the next one, but it's part of the game!

As someone had a horse in the race during the previous recession, it's not some sort of "game" and I find this flippant attitude incredibly off-putting to say the least. These are people's livelihoods we're talking about here. The last recession took a huge emotional toll on me, more than can be explained using words.

Sorry my comment came off a little more tongue-in-cheek than I intended. I didn't mean to downplay the seriousness of the topic, it was a bit of nervous laughter if you will.

My naivety is apparent and I will treat future discussions like these with more care. Apologies if I struck a nerve.

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#164

Post by briandear »

jonknee wrote: post #152
briandear wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the tariff is 31%. An increase of 25% over the existing 6% tariff. If Europe is so concerned about tariffs, then why did they have a 6% tariff in the first place? That’s the point of this “trade war” — countries already have tariffs. It’s disingenuous to complain about American tariffs when the EU has built their protectionist model around doing just that. France has a bunch of “protected” industries and the…

The US charges plenty of high tariffs in return, it's not like the US doesn't protect industries. The EU laid these on in response to Trump protecting the domestic steel and aluminum industry (notionally for national security reasons, which is a joke).

Why was there a 6% tariff on motorcycles to begin with? That tax wasn’t in response to Trump. That tax was to protect EU industry which is exactly the problem. The EU has long engaged in protectionism — when the US does the same, somehow that’s a scandal? Let’s be intellectually consistent here. All tariffs are bad except in the case of dumping.

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#166

Post by detaro »

briandear wrote: post #164
jonknee wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US charges plenty of high tariffs in return, it's not like the US doesn't protect industries. The EU laid these on in response to Trump protecting the domestic steel and aluminum industry (notionally for national security reasons, which is a joke).

Why was there a 6% tariff on motorcycles to begin with? That tax wasn’t in response to Trump. That tax was to protect EU industry which is exactly the problem. The EU has long engaged in protectionism — when the US does the same, somehow that’s a scandal? Let’s be intellectually consistent here. All tariffs are bad except in the case of dumping.

And the US has 25% import duty on trucks, why do they have that to begin with? You can play that back-and-forth game quite a bit.

I'd be a bit more sympathetic if the US government had asked the EU to remove duties before creating new ones, but that doesn't appear to be the case. And at the same time people complain that it's totally unfair that the Canadians seek to limit imports of some goods from the US...

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#167

Post by jonknee »

briandear wrote: post #164
jonknee wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US charges plenty of high tariffs in return, it's not like the US doesn't protect industries. The EU laid these on in response to Trump protecting the domestic steel and aluminum industry (notionally for national security reasons, which is a joke).

Why was there a 6% tariff on motorcycles to begin with? That tax wasn’t in response to Trump. That tax was to protect EU industry which is exactly the problem. The EU has long engaged in protectionism — when the US does the same, somehow that’s a scandal? Let’s be intellectually consistent here. All tariffs are bad except in the case of dumping.

Probably for similar reasons the US charges a 2.4% tariff (on a muuuuch higher dollar value of motorcycles since Harley is about the only US motorcycle maker).

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#168

Post by Retric »

timr wrote: post #159
sciurus wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say "don't invest what you can't afford to lose". If you want to eventually retire, what's the alternative? Editing as clarification for downvoters: This was a sincere question. Since no one can afford to lose their retirement savings, but few people will generate enough income to retire without making long-term investments in the stock market, I was curious what strategy timr was actually advocating. My own appr…

If you can't afford to lose it, you should put it in a savings account, a CD or another guaranteed asset until you've accumulated sufficient wealth that you can afford to take risks. This is investing 101. Any financial planner will tell you the same thing. Most will tell you that you shouldn't have money in the stock market if you're going to need it within the next five years. Ten years is a better number.

If your 20 you have up to 100 years worth of investing horizons to consider. Money put to retirement really is something you can lose while young. Investing in low enough to be zero yield instruments like CD's or savings accounts is terrible advice. As is treating investment savings as actual savings you can spend.

Sure, keeping ~3 years income outside of the market if your actually retired is a good idea idea. But, just because the market tanked does not mean you lost money. You have the same share of the same companies if the market goes up or down.

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#169

Post by skygazer »

Analemma_ wrote: post #137
ahelwer wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't those the economists who managed to turn a spreadsheet bug into disastrous worldwide accepted economic policy?

It was even worse than that: the paper had multiple problems, of which the Excel bug was one, but they also chose an outrageously dumb sampling method. Basically, if a country had data for five years, it was weighted five times as heavily as a country that had that data for only one. Which, conveniently, lined up perfectly with overweighting countries whose development matched their hypothesis and underweighting coun…

I coming to this topic from utter ignorance, but if longer term data might be considered more reliable, then might it also be reasonable to preferentially weight the more reliable, longer term data, all else being equal?

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#170

Post by philjohn »

jonknee wrote: post #152
briandear wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the tariff is 31%. An increase of 25% over the existing 6% tariff. If Europe is so concerned about tariffs, then why did they have a 6% tariff in the first place? That’s the point of this “trade war” — countries already have tariffs. It’s disingenuous to complain about American tariffs when the EU has built their protectionist model around doing just that. France has a bunch of “protected” industries and the…

The US charges plenty of high tariffs in return, it's not like the US doesn't protect industries. The EU laid these on in response to Trump protecting the domestic steel and aluminum industry (notionally for national security reasons, which is a joke).

Can't respond to the person below you, so I'll have to do it here - the EU doesn't actually make many motorcycles, and people who buy them don't want a harley - they want something fast and reliable, not loud and showy.

I would suspect it's a general 6% tarriff on things that haven't been included in a trade deal before, and thanks to WTO rules it'll be the same for Japanese motorbikes as well.

Post reply on HN