61–70 of 243 posts
cool fun times. glad we just gave billionaires and mega corporations a trillion dollars
Bully: Give me $5 today. Bully: Give me $5 today. Bully: Give me $5 today. Bully: Give me $4 today. You: That bully just GAVE his victim $1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole economy is powered by belief. No bank would be able to handle a bank run.
Because people believe in the FDIC, not that there won't ever be a bank run.
How is 4 years a decade? I think people should think twice before posting garbage blog posts to hackernews...
It's been the most _Q1_ layoffs in a decade
> The impact: It's the highest number of job cuts in a quarter since 2015. Highest since 2015 is less surprising than “ highest in a decade”
Headline:> The U.S. just had the most Q1 layoffs in a decade Article:> The U.S. saw its highest level of layoffs in a first quarter since 2009 This seems like a reasonable headline for the article.
https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2019/04/comments-on-march...
Summary:
The headline jobs number was above expectations, and the previous two months were revised up slightly. The headline unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.8%.
This was a solid jobs report, and was probably boosted by some bounce back from the poor weather in February.
What's with the HN editor's obsession with posting "bad economy" reports lately? It certainly conflicts with their boosting SV unicorn IPOs.
That's what left wing economists have been saying for ages. Cutting taxes for the rich does not create more jobs. Cutting welfare programs for the poorest destroys jobs. Trump did both: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-official-the-trump-tax... https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/12/18260271/t... According to them, cutting taxes can create some short-term growth spurs (like what we have been seeing) b…
The layoffs are almost all lead by the retail sector, which is undergoing a shift due to digital disruption from the likes of Amazon. There is no evidence the tax breaks have created (many) jobs...but there is even less evidence that it has "destroyed" jobs. If you can point me to a peer reviewed study that says that, and not a Vox article, I'll gladly read it. But I skim FRED sometimes and have never seen such claim…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The one where interest rates aren't being artificially lowered.
"artificially" - is that a thing? Isn't it just "lowered"? What is artificial about it?
Interest is basically the adjustment made to value having money now vs having money in the future (how much would I have to pay you next year in order for you to not ask me to pay you now). An interest rate of 0% means $100 now vs some arbitrary point in the future are of equal use to you, which is irrational. Obviously getting $100 now is better than getting $100 in 5 years.
In fairness, interest rates aren't that low. I'm not sure if interest rates equal to inflation would be the same thing as interest of 0% in a 0 inflation world. I'm not an economist.
And yet: "Applications for US Unemployment Aid Fall to 49-Year Low"[0] "Unemployment Rate Reached a Record Low in 19 States Last Year"[1] [0] https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2019-04-04/app... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-23/unemploym...
Meanwhile, the laborforce participation of 63% remains lower than 2014. I remember a time, when there was a different president, that this number was constantly referenced as evidence of a poor recovery. If the labor market is so robust why aren't people joining the workforce? [1] https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns11300000
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2016/...
I would expect percentage of employed over age of 18 to be declining simply because the number of people retiring (or unable to work due to age) is greater than # of entering labor force.
And yet, markets are nearly at all time highs. I'd like to see a breakdown of who's buying stocks/equities. EDIT: I know earnings are high, but much of our growth over the last 20 years has been during 2-4% GDP deficit. I don't think that's been priced into the markets. Markets may be assuming that the deficit party will continue.
I have a theory (it's a totally unproven one, I hasten to add). There's been a huge move into passively managed index funds over the last 10 years, with many smart investors touting them as a better long term bet than actively managed funds. Passively managed funds don't look at what's coming down the road, they invest to fixed formula. So where an active fund might predict a fall and get out of equities, all the pas…
How do you identify an active fund manager that will outperform the market over a long time period?
Do they still outperform the market when you also price in their fees?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because people believe in the FDIC, not that there won't ever be a bank run.
The FDIC couldn’t handle a run on every bank. If people thought there would be a massive run, they’d rush to withdraw their money despite the FDIC. So it’s really both: belief in the FDIC’s ability to handle small runs gives people the belief that there won’t be big ones.