211–220 of 514 posts
[flagged]
This goes back to 2016, when Dems decided it was better to nominate one of the least popular American politicians in living memory than the alternative candidate who had broad working class appeal. Not to mention they juiced up Trump's campaign because that was the only candidate Mi Abuela was projected to win against. Yeah Trump may be the Antichrist but we wouldn't be here without him being able to run against some…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The interest rates were wild in 1982. My dad said that no one would lend for a mortgage, and we ended up doing seller financing to buy my childhood home. Also, not enough people talk about housing prices in high interest rate environments. Mortgage payments are the thing that tether housing prices, and act as a lever. We see it today with just an extra 4% with low housing volume and people reluctant to sell, because…
I remember my parents being excited about the opportunity to refinance their mortgage to something in the high teens. And now these days headlines act like the apocalypse is occurring when mortgage rates are in the 6-7 range.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We survived with 30% inflation ok key goods during the Biden years due to endless spending, we’ll survive this one too. You’re welcome to short the market though if you feel strongly otherwise
"key goods" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement.
There could be various reasons Trump wants to report bad numbers, such as pressuring the Fed to lower rates, or to establish a horrible baseline from which he can then report improvement on by the midterms.
It reminds of the soviet union reporting all sorts of bogus improvement statistics by implicitly using the worst possible baseline they could - from decades earlier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct. We’re not reversing things anytime soon, and the longer things stay like this, the more damage will be done.
At least on the US tariffs thing, congress can put Trump back in his box and revert to normalcy any time it wants to; the threat of stagflation might make it do that. The previous stagflation incident was more driven by outside forces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of current conservative grousing about the deficit is priming the electorate for destroying social security. That's why they always highlight it as the main cause of the deficit, even though it has a totally separate income stream from the rest of the budget. Republicans have done the exact opposite of balancing the budget at least since Reagan (inclusive) non-stop, zero R presidents have even done as well as d…
Expect this to get much worse soon. Even left-leaning youth will probably start to agree with the idea of destroying it out of spite, and even if they know it won't actually help them. At some point we'll have to admit, it's not easy to explain why youth need to subsidize things for an older generation that enjoys housing, healthcare, and stocks when they themselves have not had the disposable income for any of that.…
If unemployment continues to rise, and the one-time impact on prices of tariffs leads to self-reinforcing high inflation, we'll have stagflation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation I sure hope not , because stagflation would be extremely unpleasant for everyone. Central banks like the Federal Reserve would be forced to raise interest rates, to put stress on businesses and consumers, so businesses find themsel…
The good news is that these economic problems are entirely the result of bad policies and can be reversed. If we were to also raise broad based taxes, it would allow the Fed to cut interest rates, stoking long term investment, loosen up the housing market (which would allow more people to move), lower the Federal deficit, and improve the trade balance (as if that actually mattered).
What I'm saying is that these types of systems have "inertia" and can be exceptionally long lived in their 'bad' state, regardless of the policies used to try to get them out of that state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the furthest thing from a null hypothesis. This is dressing your conscious biases in sciensism.
> This is the furthest thing from a null hypothesis "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it" Q: Why would one trust initial BLS jobs figures under this - or indeed any other - administration? > This is dressing your conscious biases in sciensism BLS figures being revised downward month after month after month is data, not bias.
Actual data would be measuring predictions vs accuracy over several decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the trust in the US can be repaired for a very long time.
Yup. Even if Americans vote out the current administration, there’s no guarantee they won’t vote in another administration like this again. They’ve already done it twice.
The administrative state is a good thing, not a bad thing, and people like Steve Bannon are cancers on American success.
Ideally, we would also ban gerrymandering, revoke unlimited anonymous political spending, and implement ranked choice voting.
[flagged]