The [US Economy] thread--and not those unrelated things

KarozKaroz Registered User regular
33gqmcv9cspd.jpg
STOP AND THINK: If your post isn't even tangentially related to the US Economy, don't post it.

OP stolen and edited from the previous thread by silence1186
silence1186's synopsis on the original reason for this thread
So tangential to many discussions I've been following in D&D (taxes, the budget, the Russia investigation) have been posts about the state of the economy, and the potential for an economic downturn in the very near future. Rather than have off-topic discussions in those threads, I feel like there's enough meat for a discussion about the current US economy, the signs of a potential recession, how such a recession could affect the world economy, and what the political ramifications such a downturn might cause.

I wrote those words almost a year ago, and honestly, I figured we'd have had some kind of economic crisis that would precipitate a sudden and painful downturn in the economy. Look at who's at the helm, after all. There are still worrying signs, but I feel like we've been waiting for the shoe to drop for quite some time.
The present and future outlook
The last economic crisis was ~10 years ago, and conventional wisdom says the boom and bust cycle is also ~10 years, so in that sense we're "due" for one. Conventional wisdom doesn't always hold. For example, unemployment is historically low (cite), but there's no upward pressure on wage growth (cite). AresProphet had an effort post about it.

In the last year Mr. Trump decided since Trade Wars are the easiest thing in the world to win, he would go ahead and start them with basically the entire world. This has led to a tit for tat escalation with China, with no signs of either side backing down. For the last few quarters, companies have been stockpiling materials in anticipation of increased costs (leading to deceptively high economic growth), but this could have catastrophic long term consequences for the US. For example, Chinese buyers are shifting away from US soybeans, and even if a future president ends the tariffs, there's no guarantee they'll ever come back to US markets.

Also worrying is the impending no-deal Brexit. Although the finer points can be discussed in the relevant thread, if it goes forward as is it promises to be a disastrous exogenous shock to the global economy.
Useful US Economy Info Links
US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Economic Research at the St. Louis Fed

Investopedia -- for those crazy economic terms and subjects you need to deep dive on

There's lots going on, and plenty of in depth, high level discussion to be had, so be excellent to each other, and let's watch and see what happens to the economy this year.

Again, this is the US economy thread. Keep it about the US economy.

Previous threads links
Last thread

Last Last thread.

Link to ronya's last excellent Economy thread.

Karoz on
ForarJebus314Captain InertiaL Ron HowardRingopainfulPleasance
«13456799

Posts

  • QanamilQanamil life cheated us all and i'm full of angst Registered User regular
    Some relevant stuff from last couple of pages of the previous thread:
    Sam Stein of The Daily Beast/MSNBC: There it is: Deficit projection passes $1t


    Karoz
  • OghulkOghulk Negative externality Low-energy fuckwitRegistered User regular
    The deficit news isn't really a big deal to me, except in that Republicans harped on it for damn near a decade and now don't seem to care about it.

    The growth news is significant though since sub 2% is a recession and it looks like we're slowly creeping our way into a structural recession rather than a bubble burst

    raoADVy.png
    DoodmannCommander ZoomKarozKetBraDuke 2.0BlackDragon480Lord_AsmodeusGaddezSkeithShadowfireKamarCelestialBadgerpainfulPleasanceGiggles_FunsworthMegaMek
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    It is pre-infuriating (prefuriating?) to know that when the next Democratic president is inaugurated (yes yes, I can already hear the doom and gloom posts) it will once again be their responsibility to clean up.

    There is some fundamental disconnect with American voters that I so dearly wish I could correct. It is an indictment of the US's education system that something so obvious (to an outsider like me) is missed or misunderstood by so many people.

    Like, one doesn't need to be an economist to see the cause and effect here.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
    emp123monikerJragghenBlackDragon480QuidL Ron HowardRingochrishallett83MvrckCelestialBadgerpainfulPleasanceKristmas Kthulhu
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    The deficit news isn't really a big deal to me, except in that Republicans harped on it for damn near a decade and now don't seem to care about it.

    The growth news is significant though since sub 2% is a recession and it looks like we're slowly creeping our way into a structural recession rather than a bubble burst

    Can you explain how sub-2 is a recession? Not keeping up with some other index?

  • OghulkOghulk Negative externality Low-energy fuckwitRegistered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    The deficit news isn't really a big deal to me, except in that Republicans harped on it for damn near a decade and now don't seem to care about it.

    The growth news is significant though since sub 2% is a recession and it looks like we're slowly creeping our way into a structural recession rather than a bubble burst

    Can you explain how sub-2 is a recession? Not keeping up with some other index?

    Sub 2% is generally considered a recession to allow buffer space for a depression, which is negative growth. I believe that was the determining point during periods of regular 2% inflation growth, but I may be mistaken.

    raoADVy.png
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    The deficit news isn't really a big deal to me, except in that Republicans harped on it for damn near a decade and now don't seem to care about it.

    The growth news is significant though since sub 2% is a recession and it looks like we're slowly creeping our way into a structural recession rather than a bubble burst

    Can you explain how sub-2 is a recession? Not keeping up with some other index?

    Sub 2% is generally considered a recession to allow buffer space for a depression, which is negative growth. I believe that was the determining point during periods of regular 2% inflation growth, but I may be mistaken.

    The most accepted definition from what I can tell is two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    monikerCaptain InertiaJragghenUrsuschrishallett83ShadowfireSanguinius666264
  • KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    The deficit news isn't really a big deal to me, except in that Republicans harped on it for damn near a decade and now don't seem to care about it.

    The growth news is significant though since sub 2% is a recession and it looks like we're slowly creeping our way into a structural recession rather than a bubble burst

    Literally no one other than some subsection of DC reporters, and moderate Democrats actually cares about the deficit

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
    painfulPleasanceoverride367
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    The deficit news isn't really a big deal to me, except in that Republicans harped on it for damn near a decade and now don't seem to care about it.

    The growth news is significant though since sub 2% is a recession and it looks like we're slowly creeping our way into a structural recession rather than a bubble burst

    No, a Recession is 2 quarters (6 months) of contraction. I believe that is also Real GDP rather than nominal, so it takes our roughly ~2% average inflation into account.

    It's an okay number. Not great, but also not terrible. Though only okay after this long of an expansion to build off of itself isn't a great sign for the future. Again, especially since the Federal Government is running such a massive deficit, which filters into helping economic growth and the Fed having had to cut rates recently while they are already extremely low. The next Recession is going to be more devastating because there isn't really any room to run with a policy response.

    Gnome-InterruptusBlackDragon480CelestialBadger
  • OghulkOghulk Negative externality Low-energy fuckwitRegistered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    The deficit news isn't really a big deal to me, except in that Republicans harped on it for damn near a decade and now don't seem to care about it.

    The growth news is significant though since sub 2% is a recession and it looks like we're slowly creeping our way into a structural recession rather than a bubble burst

    Can you explain how sub-2 is a recession? Not keeping up with some other index?

    Sub 2% is generally considered a recession to allow buffer space for a depression, which is negative growth. I believe that was the determining point during periods of regular 2% inflation growth, but I may be mistaken.

    The most accepted definition from what I can tell is two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

    Yeah I'm not sure where I got the 2% number from. I recall a professor using that, but I think it might've been a 2% increase in unemployment

    raoADVy.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    The deficit news isn't really a big deal to me, except in that Republicans harped on it for damn near a decade and now don't seem to care about it.

    The growth news is significant though since sub 2% is a recession and it looks like we're slowly creeping our way into a structural recession rather than a bubble burst

    Literally no one other than some subsection of DC reporters, and moderate Democrats actually cares about the deficit

    I mean, I do, but mostly because of the need for progressive policies to be self sustaining in order to help insure against sabotage.

    OghulkGnome-InterruptusSkeithoverride367
  • OghulkOghulk Negative externality Low-energy fuckwitRegistered User regular
    I care about the deficit with regard to things like, say, a medicare for all program

    I don't care about the deficit with regard to things like a massive infrastructure bill

    The type of asset (human capital vs. physical capital) is important when looking at the funding source

    raoADVy.png
    monikerColanutoverride367
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    I care about the deficit with regard to things like, say, a medicare for all program

    I don't care about the deficit with regard to things like a massive infrastructure bill

    The type of asset (human capital vs. physical capital) is important when looking at the funding source

    Also overall macroeconomic conditions. Cut the deficit during an expansion (like now) so that you can more readily expand it during a contraction. Letting the deficit grow during the boom is just idiotic.

    Duke 2.0Gnome-InterruptusKaputaBlackDragon480OrcaStabbity Styleemp123ToxschussLord_AsmodeusshrykeSkeithShadowfirepainfulPleasanceGiggles_FunsworthLovelyMrMisterRawkking GoodguyCommunistCowoverride367
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    In other news today, Amazon has passed the one trillion dollars mark in revenue.

    To try to head the inevitable tax conversation off at the pass, they also release some tax information.
    geekwire wrote:
    According to regulatory filings, Amazon will pay $162 million in federal income taxes for 2019 now, and an additional $900 million over time due to deferrals for which the company is eligible. That adds up to the $1 billion federal income tax expense Amazon says it’s on the hook for in 2019.

    Amazon will pay an additional $2.4 billion in other federal taxes, like payroll and custom duties, the company said, and $1.6 billion to state and local governments for the year. In addition, Amazon paid $9 billion in sales and duty taxes last year, the company said.

    I find it interesting, but not surprising, that they threw in the payroll and custom duties as those are not part of the financial sorts pay much attention to, not to mention that they dwarf the income tax side.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    How long until Amazon has more revenue than the US Gov

  • OghulkOghulk Negative externality Low-energy fuckwitRegistered User regular
    How long until Amazon has more revenue than the US Gov

    Basically never.

    Walmart, which has been around longer, has 0.5 trillion in revenue. The US fed is at 3+

    raoADVy.png
    FencingsaxmonikerDuke 2.0OrcaMoridin889schussSkeithShadowhopeMegaMek
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    In other news today, Amazon has passed the one trillion dollars mark in revenue.

    To try to head the inevitable tax conversation off at the pass, they also release some tax information.
    geekwire wrote:
    According to regulatory filings, Amazon will pay $162 million in federal income taxes for 2019 now, and an additional $900 million over time due to deferrals for which the company is eligible. That adds up to the $1 billion federal income tax expense Amazon says it’s on the hook for in 2019.

    Amazon will pay an additional $2.4 billion in other federal taxes, like payroll and custom duties, the company said, and $1.6 billion to state and local governments for the year. In addition, Amazon paid $9 billion in sales and duty taxes last year, the company said.

    I find it interesting, but not surprising, that they threw in the payroll and custom duties as those are not part of the financial sorts pay much attention to, not to mention that they dwarf the income tax side.

    So they paid 1.4% in taxes?

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Torchlight | Steam | ART
    VishNubKayne Red RobekimeVeagle38thDoechrishallett83MvrckMegaMeknever dieoverride367
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Revenue is a very bad number to use for calculating tax rates since they pay taxes on income

    And the 1 trillion is market cap which is meaningless from a tax perspective

    OrcaschussBlackDragon480Marty81Shadowhope
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    A recession is typically two quarters of negative real gdp growth. Economists have other definitions (because like duh) and the definition we have is a lay definition from the nyt. 2% nominal may or may not be negative real

    The definition doesnt really matter. As “a recession” doesnt trigger any definite policy differences that would not be applicable at “just above a recession”. Recessions are usually defined after they happen as an example as gdp estimates get revised.

    Either way i am not sure a “recession” is possible in the US right now. Growth is a function of both where you are and where you are going.

    I think the US is below potential gdp and has been for years. If that is the case its harder for the normal financial mechanisms to produce a “recession” because overinvestment is more difficult

    wbBv3fj.png
    OghulkCaptain InertiaBlackDragon480
  • OghulkOghulk Negative externality Low-energy fuckwitRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    A recession is typically two quarters of negative real gdp growth. Economists have other definitions (because like duh) and the definition we have is a lay definition from the nyt. 2% nominal may or may not be negative real

    The definition doesnt really matter. As “a recession” doesnt trigger any definite policy differences that would not be applicable at “just above a recession”. Recessions are usually defined after they happen as an example as gdp estimates get revised.

    Either way i am not sure a “recession” is possible in the US right now. Growth is a function of both where you are and where you are going.

    I think the US is below potential gdp and has been for years. If that is the case its harder for the normal financial mechanisms to produce a “recession” because overinvestment is more difficult

    Found the secular stagnation perspective

    raoADVy.png
  • AresProphetAresProphet I see a darkness in my fate I'll drive my car without the brakesRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    A recession is typically two quarters of negative real gdp growth. Economists have other definitions (because like duh) and the definition we have is a lay definition from the nyt. 2% nominal may or may not be negative real

    The definition doesnt really matter. As “a recession” doesnt trigger any definite policy differences that would not be applicable at “just above a recession”. Recessions are usually defined after they happen as an example as gdp estimates get revised.

    Either way i am not sure a “recession” is possible in the US right now. Growth is a function of both where you are and where you are going.

    I think the US is below potential gdp and has been for years. If that is the case its harder for the normal financial mechanisms to produce a “recession” because overinvestment is more difficult

    In a lot of typically fast-growing (or at least, reliably-if-slowly-expanding) industries, growth is becoming more and more difficult to sustain.

    Tech has seen its first major sacrificial unicorn (WeWork) and you can expect a lot more scrutiny in future tech IPOs, as well as a trend toward investors seeking out start-ups that are, you know, profitable at some point. Banks are being as careful as corporately possible; even the great vampire squid Goldman is beginning a shift away from proprietary trading and into servicing consumers. Retail is weathering the Amazonocalypse, but only just; meanwhile the private equity vultures circle.

    I have doubts that, if the U.S. is in fact below potential GDP, it can ever return to whatever baseline you're assuming. I've seen the charts, I know that typically recessions see a return to previous GDP trends after a period of time. But we're going on 12 years since the last one and GDP remains suppressed. It's time to consider whether something is wrong with the predictive model and that assumption of a return to normal is flawed, or if a decade of suppressed wages and accelerating inequality has artificially distorted the world we live in.



    Reading back to my post from October of 2018 in the OP (that's a surprise) many of the same pressures on consumers and investors are still in play. So in 15 months none of that came to a head enough for GDP growth to take a hit, which makes it look like shoddy prediction. But people still struggle to make ends meet, investors are chasing yield that is harder and harder to attain, and somehow the world lurches from one crisis to the next without quite falling on its face. That can't sustain forever.

    I still maintain that nobody in a position of power is going to acknowledge the fragility of global and regional markets until something catastrophic happens, and the political will to do anything about it simply won't exist. No bailouts, no stimulus, no nationalization, no nothin'. I can only hope that it happens slowly enough for people to adapt.

    oh, gimme some time
    show me the foothold from which I can climb
    yeah, when I feel low
    you show me a signpost for where I should go
    Ticaldfjam
  • BrainleechBrainleech 機知に富んだコメントはここにあります Registered User regular
    So I found It odd the governor of Nm has a news conference talking about how two companies are coming to the Formerly Virgin Galactic space port White Sands Research and TMD Defense
    White sands is doing payload research TMD is doing ballistic missile research but that company has an interesting ideal


    Just saying these two companies will help create jobs and move the state out of poverty doesn't bode well

    chrishallett83
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Re: secular stagnation. My understanding is that this refers to real reductions in growth. I do not believe that this is the case. Rather than there is a financial or structural flat reduction in potential. If you do 400 bn less work every year you can still grow at the same rate. You just are missing 400bn of work every year.
    I have doubts that, if the U.S. is in fact below potential GDP, it can ever return to whatever baseline you're assuming. I've seen the charts, I know that typically recessions see a return to previous GDP trends after a period of time. But we're going on 12 years since the last one and GDP remains suppressed. It's time to consider whether something is wrong with the predictive model and that assumption of a return to normal is flawed, or if a decade of suppressed wages and accelerating inequality has artificially distorted the world we live in.

    I think its the latter. If its the former we can still have recessions, the fundamental thing that makes recessions (from an economists point of view) is being under potential GPD (or losing ground to potential gdp). Negative real gdp is just a handy way to determine it.

    If we arent going to “return to normal” for non structural reasons then there is a new normal and the new normal is the new potential gdp spot for which to ocilate around. And if youre at that new potential gdp spot then all the old tricks and financial effects that produce recessions should still be in effect.

    I like to think of recessions like the old farming spiderweb but with finance (and over a longer scale and with less rationality and more feedback effects). There is some equilibrium food production but because of error there is an incorrect “initial” production. This leads to an increase or decrease in price. The next term the farmers respond by targeting the production set by the price in the last term and since it was not equilibrium they overcorrect, producing an overproduction or underproduction based on whether or not the prior price was too high or too low. This produces an ocilation around the equilibrium. But it doesnt work if the error doesnt oscliate around the equilibrium. If the correction is on the same side as the equilibrium then you move towards it.

    wbBv3fj.png
    shryke
  • KarozKaroz Registered User regular
    edited February 1
    Did a first pass on the OP, mostly prettying it up and putting things behind spoilers.

    Anything people want to add? Statistics, places to look at economic status, other?

    Actually having a list of important economic vocab would be a good idea.

    Reply here, @ me or PM me for any ideas.

    Edit: Also to clarify is this thread mostly about the US Economy or the worldwide economy?

    Cause if it's the former I'd change the title to [US Economy] instead of just [The Economy]

    Karoz on
    silence1186
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    https://www.bls.gov/ is the official US Gov site for US economy data.

    I will sometimes pop by Investopedia if there's a term I'm not familiar with.

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

    KarozQuidMazzyxMartini_Philosopher
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
  • KarozKaroz Registered User regular
    Thanks, threw those into the OP.

    I like this thread hence I was willing to start up the new one but I don't really have a good pulse on what's going on in the broader picture of the economy.

    If someone(s) would like to write a new brief synopsis for "US Economy: Where we are now and what may be coming" I'd love to post that and update that in the OP with each new thread and keep the previous ones in a posterity spoiler.

    Seriously though, thanks for all your hard work, I'm just some guy who has time to format an OP.

  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    As was mentioned in the last thread, while the deficit itself isn't that big of a deal, the fact that Trump ballooned it so much in such a short time and we got literally nothing for it, is really frustrating.

    It all went to tax cuts for the super rich.

    And whenever the next Democrat is in charge, Republicans are going to use the fact that the deficit is over $1 trillion to justify cuts to everything under the sun, and blame Democrats for it.

    It's just really goddamn annoying.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
    monikerSmrtnikKarozJragghenLord_AsmodeusshrykeBlackDragon480davidsdurionsQanamilkimeToxTicaldfjamemp123GiantGeek2020brynhrtmnSkeiththatassemblyguychrishallett83VeagleBullheadMartini_PhilosopherIlpalaQuidEncGennenalyse RuebenShadowfireGiggles_FunsworthCojo MojoCaptain InertiaZonugalMrMisterwebguy20ShadowhopeDoctorArchMegaMekFoolOnTheHillnever dieKristmas KthulhuCommunistCowMild Confusion
  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    edited February 1
    Brainleech wrote: »
    So I found It odd the governor of Nm has a news conference talking about how two companies are coming to the Formerly Virgin Galactic space port White Sands Research and TMD Defense
    White sands is doing payload research TMD is doing ballistic missile research but that company has an interesting ideal

    Just saying these two companies will help create jobs and move the state out of poverty doesn't bode well

    For high tech firms, their websites are of early GeoCities quality. I like that White Sands has a visit ticker on its home page that's under 10k views and a lovely picture in the about page prominently featuring grifter extrodinare Linda McMahon.

    Signs point towards bullshit.

    BlackDragon480 on
    First they came for the Muslims and we said...NOT TODAY MOTHERFUCKERS!
    Moridin889BrainleechTicaldfjamchrishallett83Bullhead
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    The yield curve inverted again.

    st1krcf7r76r.jpg

    It doesn't mean anything is imminent, but it's not exactly a good sign.

    BlackDragon480KarozL Ron HowardElldren
  • BrainleechBrainleech 機知に富んだコメントはここにあります Registered User regular
    Paul Krugman was on Seth Meyers last night

    thatassemblyguyMartini_PhilosopherBlackDragon480painfulPleasancechrishallett83Lord_AsmodeusHappylilElf
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Looking at that thumbnail, I find myself thinking of The Newsroom episode where they have a climatologist on, and he bluntly lays out that "oh, we're already past the point of no return."

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    KarozMartini_PhilosopherBlackDragon480painfulPleasanceRingoLord_AsmodeusHappylilElfMorganV
  • OghulkOghulk Negative externality Low-energy fuckwitRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    The yield curve inverted again.

    st1krcf7r76r.jpg

    It doesn't mean anything is imminent, but it's not exactly a good sign.

    There's a recent episode of The Weeds podcast between Matt Yglesias and Claudia Sahm about recessions. They end up getting into her recent work on the Sahm Rule that's a much better predictor of recessions than most anything else.

    raoADVy.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    The yield curve inverted again.

    st1krcf7r76r.jpg

    It doesn't mean anything is imminent, but it's not exactly a good sign.

    There's a recent episode of The Weeds podcast between Matt Yglesias and Claudia Sahm about recessions. They end up getting into her recent work on the Sahm Rule that's a much better predictor of recessions than most anything else.

    What does it suggest?

  • OghulkOghulk Negative externality Low-energy fuckwitRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    The yield curve inverted again.

    st1krcf7r76r.jpg

    It doesn't mean anything is imminent, but it's not exactly a good sign.

    There's a recent episode of The Weeds podcast between Matt Yglesias and Claudia Sahm about recessions. They end up getting into her recent work on the Sahm Rule that's a much better predictor of recessions than most anything else.

    What does it suggest?

    Yeah I guess I should've followed up with that.

    Sahm Rule uses the three-month moving average of the national unemployment rate. When that value increases by 0.5 percentage points or more relative to its low during the previous 12 months, we're in a recession.

    It's basically been a skyrocket in terms of predictive power. FRED has already included it in their data.

    raoADVy.png
  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    I just googled it and it looks like it tracks the acceleration of job losses. It's smelling smoke from a fire, it's an indicator and not a predictor.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SAHMREALTIME

    TuminElldren
  • OghulkOghulk Negative externality Low-energy fuckwitRegistered User regular
    Hoz wrote: »
    I just googled it and it looks like it tracks the acceleration of job losses. It's smelling smoke from a fire, it's an indicator and not a predictor.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SAHMREALTIME

    Except it more accurately represents whether or not we're entering a recession before most other indicators. Stuff like the inverted yield curve can be explained by animal spirits more than any actual underlying economic shifts

    raoADVy.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    I just googled it and it looks like it tracks the acceleration of job losses. It's smelling smoke from a fire, it's an indicator and not a predictor.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SAHMREALTIME

    Except it more accurately represents whether or not we're entering a recession before most other indicators. Stuff like the inverted yield curve can be explained by animal spirits more than any actual underlying economic shifts

    Yeah, the inverted yield curve means a Recession is pretty likely within a year or so. Which... a year is a long time.

  • Stabbity StyleStabbity Style Warning: Mothership Reporting Kennewick, WARegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    I just googled it and it looks like it tracks the acceleration of job losses. It's smelling smoke from a fire, it's an indicator and not a predictor.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SAHMREALTIME

    Except it more accurately represents whether or not we're entering a recession before most other indicators. Stuff like the inverted yield curve can be explained by animal spirits more than any actual underlying economic shifts

    Yeah, the inverted yield curve means a Recession is pretty likely within a year or so. Which... a year is a long time.

    A year, huh. Just in time for a Dem to win the presidency and take the blame for it again.

    SijLqhH.png
    Steam: stabbitystyle | uPlay: stabbitystyle | b.net: Stabbity#1528 | XBL: Stabbity Style | PSN: Stabbity_Style | Twitch: stabbitystyle
    IncenjucarHybridCommander Zoomemp123painfulPleasanceTicaldfjamGiggles_FunsworthAistanEncSmrtnikCojo MojoBlackDragon480VeagleFleur de AlysBullheadchrishallett83DevoutlyApatheticL Ron HowardOrcaShadowfireHefflingdavidsdurionsHozthatassemblyguySkeithAimSleepdurandal4532ZonugalLord_AsmodeusMoridin889David WalgasLucedesCelestialBadgerEinzeldispatch.oShadowhopeGONG-00never dieKristmas KthulhuCommunistCowMild Confusion
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    I just googled it and it looks like it tracks the acceleration of job losses. It's smelling smoke from a fire, it's an indicator and not a predictor.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SAHMREALTIME

    Except it more accurately represents whether or not we're entering a recession before most other indicators. Stuff like the inverted yield curve can be explained by animal spirits more than any actual underlying economic shifts

    Yeah, the inverted yield curve means a Recession is pretty likely within a year or so. Which... a year is a long time.

    A year, huh. Just in time for a Dem to win the presidency and take the blame for it again.

    You're being optimistic I see.

  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    So a Trump nominee to the Federal Reserve has called for an end to the FDIC.

    That seems like something that should concern people.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/06/gop-senators-face-new-loyalty-test-whether-approve-trumps-controversial-fed-nominee-judy-shelton/
    An outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve, Shelton is best known for her controversial views on monetary policy. She has suggested that the United States does not need a fully independent central bank and has advocated for the nation to return to something akin to the gold standard.

    Commander ZoomJragghenBullheadTicaldfjamElldrenButtersLord_AsmodeusL Ron HowardMoridin889EinzelTNTrooperdispatch.oRaijuGONG-00chrishallett83DisruptedCapitalist
Sign In or Register to comment.