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

Most of the US economy is in a recession

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 257 posts

Re: Most of the US economy is in a recession

#231

Post by thrance »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #72
vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good economy is an economy that benefits most of the population and not just a few percent at the top. I would argue it should be a political goal to keep income distribution relatively stable. A good economy is also relatively stable. Big booms with a crash following are very devastating to not-rich people. In a crash rich people lose a lot of paper money but not-rich people may have trouble affording shelter or f…

> it should be a political goal to keep income distribution relatively stable This penalizes economic dynamism and moves economic decision making from risk taking to whoever defies the baseline distribution. > A good economy is also relatively stable. Big booms with a crash following are very devastating to not-rich people Not necessarily–plenty of social systems let the market boom and bust without causing social di…

> Not necessarily–plenty of social systems let the market boom and bust without causing social distress. And again, smoothing out the business cycle penalizes risk taking.

The wealthy are shielded from most negative consequences of their degenerate gambling. The working class ends up bearing the full cost of their reckless actions, literally every time. What the modern world needs isn't insane risk-taking, it's robust chains of prductions that can accomodate a shifting climate, while redistributing the global production more fairly.

Re: Most of the US economy is in a recession

#232

Post by cassepipe »

tartoran wrote: post #138
cassepipe wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't China negotiate with Iran safe passage for its own oil only?

Not very likely. If only China bound oil passes through the strait all others would oppose, even destroy the tankers.

That would be a bit crazy that a neutral third-party would get attacked by the US coalition just for being... neutral ?

Re: Most of the US economy is in a recession

#233

Post by cassepipe »

bluegatty wrote: post #183
tartoran wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not very likely. If only China bound oil passes through the strait all others would oppose, even destroy the tankers.

Goodness, no. The only entity interested in attacking tankers is China. Everyone else - even the US, wants the tankers to pass, even if it's to China. China has huge leverage with Iran. The issue is one of risk - the mere existence of hostilities means nobody can get insurance. All Iran had to do was say 'it's shut down' - and insurance prices go through the roof. No more oil. The business math goes nuts.

> The only entity interested in attacking tankers is China

I don't understand how that makes sense

> China has huge leverage with Iran.

Which is why it could negotiate safe passage for itself

Overall I don't get your point

Re: Most of the US economy is in a recession

#234

Post by JumpCrisscross »

thrance wrote: post #231
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it should be a political goal to keep income distribution relatively stable This penalizes economic dynamism and moves economic decision making from risk taking to whoever defies the baseline distribution. > A good economy is also relatively stable. Big booms with a crash following are very devastating to not-rich people Not necessarily–plenty of social systems let the market boom and bust without causing social di…

> Not necessarily–plenty of social systems let the market boom and bust without causing social distress. And again, smoothing out the business cycle penalizes risk taking. The wealthy are shielded from most negative consequences of their degenerate gambling. The working class ends up bearing the full cost of their reckless actions, literally every time . What the modern world needs isn't insane risk-taking, it's robu…

> wealthy are shielded from most negative consequences of their degenerate gambling

Huge difference between boom and bust and gambling. (As there is a difference between a business cycle and total boom and bust.)

Healthy ecologies have an overpopulate-underpopulate cycles. It turns out it's a good strategy for finding and efficiently filling niches in a dynamic environment.

> What the modern world needs isn't insane risk-taking, it's robust chains of prductions that can accomodate a shifting climate, while redistributing the global production more fairly

This is the myth of central planning. Like, yes, if you could predict the future this would be better. But you're always going to be constrained by your leadership's assumptions about what the world will look like. It works–sometimes fabulously–until the context changes. A new technology. A new climate. A new idea. Then the system, overoptimised for the past, reveals itself as the brittle thing it always was.

Forests beat golf greens.

Re: Most of the US economy is in a recession

#235

Post by tonyedgecombe »

Intermernet wrote: post #224
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s well established in economic circles that unemployment goes up as inflation falls. We are seeing signs of this in the UK at the moment. Letting it run away causes its own problems though. Take a look at South America to see what happens if you can’t manage inflation.

Inflation and unemployment are seen as results of demand. They're both regarded as effects. One isn't the cause of the other. At least in most economic theory... Which is possibly not the best theory to put much weight in, considering how changeable and unproven it is.

No but they are inversely correlated. As you bring inflation down you expect unemployment to rise.

Re: Most of the US economy is in a recession

#236

Post by JumpCrisscross »

lovich wrote: post #201
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What specifically has changed? >> Realizing that GDP growth can be achieved while average joe on Main Street is struggling Me: that’s not new. That didn’t change. > that this is an acceptable state? If we’re in a Cat 3 hurricane and someone complains about it being Cat 5, pointing out that’s wrong isn’t pro-hurricane.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47303072 can you please look at this comment that you replied to at the beginning of this thread, and understand why I might be irate at your response. I had multiple paragraphs typed out that I have deleted so I could have a real conversation. Why do you think I responded to you the way I did?

> Why do you think I responded to you the way I did?

How is the rhethorical-question style working out?

I'm pointing out an ahistorical claim in the top post. You want to broaden the discussion without acknowledging that, and without actually saying anything, which isn't particularly interesting to engage on.

Re: Most of the US economy is in a recession

#237

Post by lovich »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #236
lovich wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47303072 can you please look at this comment that you replied to at the beginning of this thread, and understand why I might be irate at your response. I had multiple paragraphs typed out that I have deleted so I could have a real conversation. Why do you think I responded to you the way I did?

> Why do you think I responded to you the way I did? How is the rhethorical-question style working out? I'm pointing out an ahistorical claim in the top post. You want to broaden the discussion without acknowledging that, and without actually saying anything, which isn't particularly interesting to engage on.

You didn’t point out an ahistorical claim. They didn’t claim that GDP wasn’t growing. They said that it wasn’t helping the common man and you jumped in with an equivalent of “but the DOW is over 50k”

Re: Most of the US economy is in a recession

#238

Post by thrance »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #234
thrance wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not necessarily–plenty of social systems let the market boom and bust without causing social distress. And again, smoothing out the business cycle penalizes risk taking. The wealthy are shielded from most negative consequences of their degenerate gambling. The working class ends up bearing the full cost of their reckless actions, literally every time . What the modern world needs isn't insane risk-taking, it's robu…

> wealthy are shielded from most negative consequences of their degenerate gambling Huge difference between boom and bust and gambling. (As there is a difference between a business cycle and total boom and bust.) Healthy ecologies have an overpopulate-underpopulate cycles. It turns out it's a good strategy for finding and efficiently filling niches in a dynamic environment. > What the modern world needs isn't insane…

To me, there is little difference between the stock market, prediction markets and horse betting. I just don't believe speculation is necessary to a healthy economy, and often ends up hurting millions accross the world in the "burst" phases of the cycle.

Also, I don't think we should model our economies and societies after actual jungles. Let's strive for a system where everyone gets enough instead of chasing perfect efficiency and leaving a large part vulnerable to be crushed by any moderately strong wind.

> This is the myth of central planning. Like, yes, if you could predict the future this would be better. But you're always going to be constrained by your leadership's assumptions about what the world will look like. It works–sometimes fabulously–until the context changes. A new technology. A new climate. A new idea. Then the system, overoptimised for the past, reveals itself as the brittle thing it always was.

I am not advocating for central planning or any form of communism. I'm just noticing that nowadays, it takes remarkably little for things to go horribly wrong, and we ought to address that somehow.

Re: Most of the US economy is in a recession

#239

Post by Herring »

jkmcf wrote: post #87
Herring wrote: post #68

Since the end of WW2, and especially since the end of the Cold War, Democratic administrations have presided over significantly higher job growth than Republican administrations. https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.c...

I was going to use this quote yesterday, but correlation is not causation. I prefer the one where the national debt increases more under "fiscally responsible" republicans. More correlation: more jobs are created and inflation is lower under democratic administrations. GDP is also better with a Dem president, but it partially depends on the makeup of congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_b…

At this point it's like claiming blue states have better policies than red states. Even kids in middle school understand that. They get older and try very hard to forget.

Re: Most of the US economy is in a recession

#240

Post by JumpCrisscross »

thrance wrote: post #238
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wealthy are shielded from most negative consequences of their degenerate gambling Huge difference between boom and bust and gambling. (As there is a difference between a business cycle and total boom and bust.) Healthy ecologies have an overpopulate-underpopulate cycles. It turns out it's a good strategy for finding and efficiently filling niches in a dynamic environment. > What the modern world needs isn't insane…

To me, there is little difference between the stock market, prediction markets and horse betting. I just don't believe speculation is necessary to a healthy economy, and often ends up hurting millions accross the world in the "burst" phases of the cycle. Also, I don't think we should model our economies and societies after actual jungles. Let's strive for a system where everyone gets enough instead of chasing perfect…

> there is little difference between the stock market, prediction markets and horse betting. I just don't believe speculation is necessary to a healthy economy

The speculation I’m describing is entrepreneurship. That is the core risk taking that makes market systems competitive. To the extent stock markets support that, they’re socially useful. (In America, liquid stock markets support liquid private markets that support entrepreneurship pretty directly.)

> it takes remarkably little for things to go horribly wrong, and we ought to address that somehow

I’d argue the opposite. The economy is doing remarkably well given we’re at war (kinetic and trade) and just getting over Kristi Noem.

That aside, I suspect the problem is leverage.

Post reply on HN