UN Says Fed, Other Central Banks Risk Pushing Global Economy Into Recession, Requests Halt on Interest-Rate Increases (wsj.com) 192
The Federal Reserve and other central banks risk pushing the global economy into recession followed by prolonged stagnation if they keep raising interest rates, a United Nations agency said Monday. From a report: The warning comes amid growing unease about the haste with which the Fed and its counterparts are raising borrowing costs to contain surging inflation. India's central bank Friday said that the global economy was facing a third major shock after the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in the form of aggressive rate increases by central banks in rich countries. In its annual report on the global economic outlook, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development said the Fed risks causing significant harm to developing countries if it persists with rapid rate rises. The agency estimated that a percentage point rise in the Fed's key interest rate lowers economic output in other rich countries by 0.5%, and economic output in poor countries by 0.8% over the subsequent three years. UNCTAD estimated that the Fed's rate increases so far this year would reduce poor countries' economic output by $360 billion over three years, and further policy tightening would do additional harm. "There's still time to step back from the edge of recession," UNCTAD Secretary-General Rebeca Grynspan said. "We have the tools to calm inflation and support all vulnerable groups. But the current course of action is hurting the most vulnerable, especially in developing countries and risks tipping the world into a global recession."
Is there a better tool to fight rampant inflation? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had a similar question. Is inflation really preferable to recession? Money loans were probably far too cheap for far too long.
In theory, you have more people working during high inflation than you do a recession, so it might be preferable in that sense.
But it really sucks for people on fixed incomes or who don't get raises to keep up.
As for other mechanisms. I know central banks can have stock holdings. Maybe they could sell those holdings to remove money from circulation without changing the interest rate? I suspect there's some maco reason I'm unaware of why they don't or that doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a similar question. Is inflation really preferable to recession? Money loans were probably far too cheap for far too long.
In theory, you have more people working during high inflation than you do a recession, so it might be preferable in that sense.
But it really sucks for people on fixed incomes or who don't get raises to keep up.
As for other mechanisms. I know central banks can have stock holdings. Maybe they could sell those holdings to remove money from circulation without changing the interest rate? I suspect there's some maco reason I'm unaware of why they don't or that doesn't work.
The company where I work figured the inflation was a temporary thing, so they gave an average 2% raise at the end of last year. New hires received less based on number of months with the company. Even CDs are currently earning less than 4%.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see...8% inflation this past year. 2% payraises. Effectively your pay is about 6% lower than the year before.
If things continue this way, it'll take, what, about 8 years for your pay to be half what it was last year?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I thought we were already in a recession.
The US is in a recession (unless you allow a political party change the definition of a recession to make themselves seem more competent), but I don't know which other countries are. They're talking about the possibility of a global recession in this article.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no one definition of a recession, but the most commonly used one is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, and by that measure, we are in a recession.
The labor market, with under 4% unemployment and hundreds of thousands of jobs being added every month, doesn't look like any recession of the past.
It's a ver
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Is there a better tool to fight rampant inflat (Score:2)
I'm in a "fixed" income. It doesn't change every week or month, regardless of what prices are doing or how much I work.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a similar question. Is inflation really preferable to recession?
I believe their main argument is the method we are choosing to fight inflation is not the best method, and it has a larger negative impact on developing nations than it does on developed nations. Both are potentially reasons to look to other methods to fight inflation.
But good luck getting other methods, like direct investments into the supply chain and an increase in legal immigration, through today's political landscape (in the US at least). So Fed interest rates are likely all we will see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it wants to continue as the reserve currency for the world, it does owe them proper handling of valuations.
The Fed Reserve is a group of US Bankers, not an agency of the US government. It's quasi-government where the president appoints a chair to the Fed (congress rubberstamps it), but that's about it. It is this way because politicians are horrible at doing the correct thing for the money, choosing to get re-elected rather than promoting healthy businesses thru proper banking. That being said, greed
Re: (Score:2)
Depends how dependent they are on US demand -- if we can cause demand for non-essentials to crater in the US (people will survive even if they have to keep a TV or phone for 5-10 years), it will hurt the manufacturing countries far more than us.
This is a good way to fight China without firing a shot.
Re: Is there a better tool to fight rampant inflat (Score:2)
The Fed has a two-fold mission:
1). Keep U.S. inflation in check.
2). Protect the U.S. economy
It only needs to concern itself with world issues to the extent necessary to do jobs 1 and 2.
Re:Is there a better tool to fight rampant inflati (Score:5, Interesting)
Another important question is what is the cause of the inflation? Ordinarily when the money supply gets excessive, all that cheap money leads to a massive growth in demand which causes inflation until supply catches up. If this current inflation was caused by the excessive money supply, massive inflation would have occurred a decade ago due to all the quantitative easing back in 2008 and latter. And in fact people widely expected this to be the case. However this did not occur. There's zero evidence that our current inflation is caused by excessive demand brought about by too much money supply. Rather it's caused by a decrease in supply across the boards. Even though both the money and the demand are there, supply is not increasing to catch up. Hence the runaway inflation. Supply shortage is being caused by lots of things including covid-induced choking of supply chains and shipping systems. Many industries furloughed workers and cut production during the pandemic because they simply could not operate under restrictions placed on them. Now, though, things are easing yet there's little incentive for companies to pick things up again. Companies are making money hand over fist at these higher prices and at lower production rates. And they have no intention of changing that. Corporate-driven scarcity is the new normal. Analysts figure that post pandemic, we likely won't see car dealer lots full of cars any more. Instead they will be produced to order only and at much higher prices. Everyone who can is profiteering.
Cutting the money supply will do very little to fix these issues. I believe such policies will dramatically make things worse. Going to be a wild ride for the next few years. The only way to fix inflation I'm afraid, is for governments to "fix" the supply issues. Make incentives for companies to stop profiteering and get back to business actually producing things again. Fix the supply chain issues, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the 1970's and early 1980's, there's a theory you need a deep recession to finally wring out inflation. A mild recession wasn't good enough to slow it in the 1970's. It only got back to normal after the nasty 82-84 recession. That hit our family hard. We had to push-start both our family cars because we couldn't afford to fix the starters*. We always tried to park on hills. I got skilled at hopping in the driver's side after getting it rolling. Obviously that's risky, but desperate people do desper
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the 1970's and early 1980's, there's a theory you need a deep recession to finally wring out inflation. A mild recession wasn't good enough to slow it in the 1970's. It only got back to normal after the nasty 82-84 recession.
It only really got under control when the Fed raised rates to over 20% in December, 1980. That of course provoked the recession, 20% interest rates being the equivalent of a concrete block being dropped onto an interstate highway. But notice the time lag between rates and recession. We're in for a bumpy ride.
Inflation can last a long time (Score:3)
Is inflation really preferable to recession?
I'm not an economist but given how long inflation can last if it really gets embedded into an economy and how recessions typically only last a year or two I'd go for a recession over inflation. If you only have two painful choices, go for the one with the least pain integrated over time.
Re: (Score:3)
No
The trouble is that inflation/deflation are inherently unstable.
In times of inflation, you're better off spending than saving, which increases demand and causes more inflation.
In times of deflation, you're better off saving than spending, which decreases demand and causes more deflation.
So it's a balancing act, sort of like balancing a marble on the top of an inverted bowl. You may need active intervention to keep it there, but any disturbance causes it to
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is there a better tool to fight rampant inflati (Score:4, Insightful)
Stopped enforcing antitrust laws?
I'll take your word that we did that - it wouldn't surprise me.
But the best way to avoid inflation was to NOT print an extra $2.2T+. If you want a textbook case of inflation, print money without increasing the amount of stuff to buy with money...
Re: (Score:3)
Well companies are consolidating all over. And they have figured out that if they produce maybe half as much of anything (blame it on covid supply problems), but jack the price way up, they can actually make more money. So that's what they are doing. In all industries, in all sectors. COVID turned out to be amazingly profitable for many companies and they don't want to go back to the way things were before when they actually had to compete with each other. Heck car makers don't even compete anymore. C
Re: (Score:2)
To make matters worse, it's been hard to get the supplies to make more stuff.
Re:Is there a better tool to fight rampant inflati (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, I feel for other countries, and I don't wish them ill, but the primary responsibility for any country's government is to do what's best for THEIR citizens, plain and simple.
I will grant that since things are generally more global in dependence, some externalities need to be considered, but not because of external effects, but how they can come back on you and effect you internally.
I feel bad for India, but I want my US politicians and our Fed to work policies that benefit US citizens first and foremost over any other concerns.
I would expect the same for any other country for their citizens too.
We are not one big kumbaya world...this is a competition.
Cooperation where it benefits you, sure...but that is not the primary concern for a country's government.
They can tell anyone anything they want (Score:2, Troll)
And yeah it's basically impotent here but the point is to make you aware that your government is actively trying to cause a recession instead of dealing with the systemic issues that led to inflation. Namely supply chain issues brought on by over reliance on jit sourcing for high profi
UN only has interest in UN (Score:2)
you would think the United Nations has a vested interest in the inner workings of its member states
Why would anyone think that? It's certainly not from historical actions the U.N. has taken.
No, what the U.N. has a strong interest in is propping up the U.N., and that means more moment printing so they get more of the printed money and can keep bloating... I mean expanding. Just like any cancer has a "vested interest" in the inner workings of the human body as a breeding ground.
Re: (Score:3)
The U.N. doesn't collect a percentage of a country's money supply [betterworldcampaign.org], dumbass. A budget is set by the General Assembly and then assessments based upon that budget are made based upon negotiated rates.
But sure, cut off funding to the UN, just like Trump sought to cut off funding to the WHO. Because the international organization
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"Why the hell do all these migrants keep showing up uninvited [fordfoundation.org]? All I did was ruthlessly maximize my own economy while ignoring how it turned other countries into pits to be escaped from."
-The right wing
Re: (Score:3)
Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining [taxfoundation.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Formal rationing can achieve similar ends, as can price controls. The problem is that both of those mechanisms tend to produce clandestine markets. This results in worsening shortages due to goods being diverted to the, more profitable, clandestine markets.
The only remaining quesion is if the rationing and
Re: (Score:3)
They could stop giving away enormous amounts of free money, stop government spending that exceeds what has been claimed through taxation, and invest in getting supply chains healthy again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Federal reserve isn't going to listen to the UN because the Federal reserve is actively trying to cause a recession. You can find Jerome Powell literally saying his goal is to create unemploymen
Typical right wing conservative (Score:2)
Go read some books from Robert Reich and Elizabeth Warren. They have a few very good books written at a layman's level describing how to maintain a stable economy without abusing people who work for a living. Or go read Wikipedia summaries if the whole book is a bit much.
We absolutely can solve these problems but the first step is acknowledging that we can solve them and not just throwing up our hands and givin
Re: (Score:2)
Smart Keynesian policy and sufficiently taxing the rich can indeed work under normal circumstances, if DC can learn to think longer-term. The problem is that the pandemic gave us something there's not many history lessons for, jerking the economy, raw materials, and factories back and forth. Thus, any fix is pure speculative theory. All economic theories need to be road-tested before you can reliably say "I have a fix". The Ukraine war didn't help either.
Re: (Score:2)
In the face of rampant inflation worldwide, do central banks have another tool they can use to tame it? We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Many central banks are choosing to induce a recession. And I can't say I blame them.
Arguably the Fed raising interest rates will not have much effect given the reason for the current inflation anyway. Increasing the interest rates mostly works when inflation is caused by an overheating economy or massive wage increases, but that isn't the case today. Lack of workers in advanced economies along with international shipping challenges are the primary culprits, neither or which are going to improve much when interest rates increase.
At least in the US, the critical thing we should do is increas
Re: Is there a better tool to fight rampant inflat (Score:4, Insightful)
Central banks donâ(TM)t, but governments do. They could effectively pull the money out of the economy by raising corporate income tax, and the taxes on their wealthiest citizens. I know itâ(TM)s heresy in libertarian Slashdot, but itâ(TM)s another lever that can be used.
Itâ(TM)s basically one of the tenets of âoeModern Monetary Theoryâ where taxation goes hand-in-hand with other monetary policies (such as quantitative easing) to create a stable economy. The problem is that weâ(TM)ve been doing the latter, without touching the former.
Re: (Score:2)
They could have done QT first. Make governments feel the pain of their borrowing.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, my understanding is that monetary policy can slow entry into a recession or lessen its severity, but not prevent one all on its own. Keeping inflation in check is not "inducing" a recession, the recession is happening because of a bunch of real external factors, reducing the money supply (which is what higher fed rates do, not just "increase the cost of borrowing") just allows those factors to be addressed directly instead of papering over them with inflation.
The real problem today is that a member
Yes (Score:2, Interesting)
Undo all the stuff Biden did in the first days of his administration and get the economy moving again.
It's all about growth. Not managed growth. Not growth, but only in politically-favored inefficient sectors. TOTAL growth of the entire economy.
If you restore the economic growth, you grow the economy to absorb all the newly printed money. When you print a huge amount of money that is not tied to economic growth, there's too much paper chasing too few goods and prices naturally rise because of the law of sup
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
What do you imagine Biden did in his first days in office that have caused supply chain shortages or inflation in general? You understand that it was Trump that gave away the bulk of the money, he even made sure his name was on the checks!
He also implemented tens of billions of dollars in tariffs which lead to retaliatory tariffs and massive shifts in supply chain even before Covid hit. China was already changing their sourcing for soybeans from the American midwest to Brazil who sped up slashing and burning of the Amazon to create more farmland.
It was also Trump that tore up the TPP which would have created more competition for China.
Seriously, how far mis-informed do you have to be to blame all of this on Biden. Trump spent more in 4 years than Obama did in 8 and by a wide margin. Biden is on track to reduce the rate of increase in spending significantly. It is Democrat Presidents that have always been the ones to balance budgets. They believe in taxing and spending while Republicans just believe in spending.
Re: (Score:3)
In the face of rampant inflation worldwide, do central banks have another tool they can use to tame it? We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Many central banks are choosing to induce a recession. And I can't say I blame them.
It depends on why there is inflation in the first place. Demand-side inflation, where more people are using an excess of debt to drive up prices and therefor inflation, is readily tamed with a few interest rate rises.
This round of inflation, though, is different. It seems to have come about because of supply-chain issues from Covid and a sudden increase in energy prices because of Russia / Ukraine, then other companies jumped on the inflation bandwagon and jacked up their prices just because. Look at how th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> have another tool they can use to tame it?
Not really. There are a variety of approaches taken in terms of the details, but
all the meaningfully effective ones come down to essentially the same thing: you
control inflation by controlling the size of the money supply. If inflation is too low
(yes, that is a thing that can happen, occasionally), you increase the effective
amount of currency in circulation, and when inflation is too high (a mor
Re: (Score:3)
-Tax the rich
-control corporations (instead of the the other way around)
-Limit how many homes corps and the rich can rent out or Air-BnB
Would you like a pony with that?
Re: (Score:2)
It is way cheaper to live in France because they control things.
I lived in France a while ago and it is much cheaper to live in France but it has to be because after you have paid all your tax you can't afford anything expensive!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yes.
-Tax the rich -etc.
E.G.: It is way cheaper to live in France because they control things.
Go ahead. Every time in every damn country the leftists are screaming about "taxing the rich" and every time they get in power and actually try to do that, they end up hitting middle class and small businesses, while the rich take their money overseas, and megacorps just get their lawyers to find enough loopholes in that huge volumes of legislation that leftists have a fetish for. But yeah, I'm sure that after 16358 failed attempts, your attempt number 16359 will finally be successful.
Oh, *now* they are concerned (Score:5, Insightful)
Where was the UN when the world's governments were spending trillions they didn't have, which forced the central banks to choose between fighting inflation or risking recession?
Re: (Score:2)
Money Supply (Score:2)
I was going to say this. The federal reserved has doubled the money supply over the last two years. They have to hoover it back out somehow, and increasing interest rates is really the only tool they have to do so.
https://tradingeconomics.com/u... [tradingeconomics.com]
Re:Money Supply (Score:5, Insightful)
I was going to say this. The federal reserved has doubled the money supply over the last two years. They have to hoover it back out somehow, and increasing interest rates is really the only tool they have to do so.
It is the only tool the Fed has access to, but not other federal government agencies. Taking money out of the money supply with taxes would also work, and it can target those who are doing well financially. Instead of fed rate hikes which target the poor and working class much more harshly than they target higher net worth individuals.
We could also increase legal immigration so goods and services could be provided more freely, which would arguably have the largest impact on reducing inflation. We pumped excessive amount of money into the economy for decades without inflation, but the moment the worker supply became limited here it came. It is shocking that this doesn't get more attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to target those taxes specifically to reduce demand for scarce goods and services. Hopefully the inflation reduction act will not be as stimulating as it appears.
Increasing immigration seems good right now, as a primary means of cooling the job market, though it might just bring more stored money out of companies to chase the increases in production. It's a complicated, vicious set of feedback loops to crank up and down through policy of any sort.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the only tool the Fed has access to
Not quite. They could also increase the reserve requirements [wikipedia.org] member banks must maintain to write loans.
There would be down sides to this, including a run on banks that run up against their limits. But perhaps the greatest effect would be to demonstrate an intent to claw back at least a part of the money creation process from the private banking system. And the private banking system won't like that at all. The resulting hissy-fit could very well be a full blown depression.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxation would take money out of supply if it went to pay down debt, if it's spent back into government spending then it is a net-zero impact versus inflation.
Generally speaking what happens when taxation rises, it causes employment to rise as wealth then uses labor instead of buying assets, because labor is a tax deduction. Net effect short term is definitely deflationary, but also drags the economy at the same time.
Adding immigration probably reduces food costs and in some ways inflation, but won't solve
Re: (Score:2)
The money supply increased, but consumer spending didn't. The major contributors to inflation, in the US at least, are supply constraints. That means that increasing interest rates will make inflation *worse*.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh, *now* they are concerned (Score:5, Insightful)
When a government that directly control their central bank spends money, they have their central bank create it out of nothing. When they tax, the money they collect gets destroyed again. It's not useful to think of them as a household budget with "a certain amount of trillions", because not a single household can create its own money supply, force others to use it, or tax it back.
While it's absolutely true that such governments cannot create an infinite supply of money without massive causing inflation, nor get rid of taxes at will without causing inflation (hi Liz Truss), it's much less simple than "bigger money supply = more inflation" (as the past couple of years have shown). The current inflation is not driven by too big a supply of money causing massive spikes in consumer demand, but by high energy prices (Russian/Ukraine war) and still not fully recovered supply chains and production after covid.
Furthermore raising interest rates is what is more likely to trigger a recession than not: it will make more people default on their mortgages and unable to pay other bills, which will have a domino effect on other spending and businesses. Inflation has that effect as well, but central banks cannot fight this kind of inflation in a meaningful way by raising interest rates. It's not going to stop Putin, reduce energy prices (although I'll grant you that kicking people out of their houses and business shutting down will reduce demand for electricity and gas on those premises), or fix supply chain problems.
A more in-depth explanation: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk... [taxresearch.org.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
The spending was done because the early days of COVID basically had economies going from normal to halted - with everything closed down and people losing their jobs everywhere. This happened before during the Great Depression, and something like that would've have devastated the economy. So government spends to alleviate that risk - you don't want people unable to pay rent and get evicted, because that means that family is no longer able to easily participate in the workforce, and with mass unemployment hap
Re: (Score:2)
You did not in any way explain how the quantitative easing/stimulus/whatever-you-want-to-call-it of the past couple of years is causing the current inflation spike. You really think everyone saved up that money and is now using it to buy gas and oil, thereby driving up demand and prices?
I don't think you know what the United Nations is (Score:2)
Every time you didn't spend a half hour googling the candidates and reading up on their histories and positions before deciding who
Re: (Score:2)
Where were they? Doing what they are doing today, living loud-mouthedly off taxes on others.
Meanwhile, anybody who managed to save money for retirement is seeing it flow down the drain. $100,000 is now worth about $85,000. Thanks , politicians!
Recession is the point (Score:3, Insightful)
They want a recession. Workers are getting too uppity. The white collar workers are demanding to work from home and the proles are unionizing their coffee shops and warehouses. Wages are up. "No one wants to work here.", and "Quiet quitting" are the refrain of the capital class. An occasional manufactured bust is good for the wealthy. It puts more people into precarity so they stop asking for things and drives wages down. Anyone who matters knows this is coming and will get out of the market in time so it won't hurt them. Retirees, 401ks, and pension funds will be left holding the bag.
Re: (Score:2)
Not going to get far (Score:2)
asking the USA to help the most vulnerable. Might as well just put out a press release that says "global meltdown imminent, start buying gold".
The UN? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess it sucks to be in debt. (Score:3, Interesting)
-Short sighted? Sure - but I have glasses for that.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't take it with you, but you can take someone else's before you go. In the end it doesn't matter for you, maybe only for the next generations.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
O
Erdogan is right (Score:4, Funny)
Energy policy is not helping. (Score:4, Insightful)
The United Nations and nearly every member state are not helping the economy with their energy policies. If governments remove the lowest cost energy sources from the market with their mandates that is going to have an impact.
Can we all agree that fossil fuels are bad? Great. It's practically the definition of fossil fuels that they are bad.
Now that we agree that fossil fuels are bad can we also agree on the very simple principle that rising energy costs are bad for the economy? Remove the idea from your mind that fossil fuels are involved, as I know that's going to upset people if there is any way that this is take as an endorsement for fossil fuels. I do not suggest we use fossil fuels. Can we all agree that high energy costs are bad for the economy? Can we? Great.
Now that I'm clear that this should not be taken in any way to endorse use of fossil fuels I'm going to point out that government policies are making energy expensive with their policies. We can't have it all so something has to give if we are to keep the economy going and not burn fossil fuels. Clean air, clean water, safety, CO2 emissions, and all the other regulations surrounding energy might need some room so we don't have a far greater problem of people cutting down trees to burn so they don't freeze to death. Fossil fuels are bad, but so is cutting down trees faster than they can regrow.
Every nation has done studies on environmental protection and energy, and I'm getting the feeling these studies aren't getting the attention they deserve. This need to be put in proper priority or nothing gets done. Producing energy is an inherently messy business, there's no getting around that. If some tiny increase in NOx or particulates in the air means we can reduce energy prices so people aren't freezing to death then maybe we should tolerate some of that so we don't have millions dead before spring thaws out the corpses.
We need to set some sane priorities before things get worse. Yes, that includes the priorities on just how bad fossil fuels are for everyone. Again, again, again, that's not saying we need more fossil fuels but if we can't understand what is important then there's no preventing global warming. What are the nations of the world willing to do to stop people from burning coal to stay alive? Put seams of coal under armed guard? How are we going to convince soldiers to guard the coal if they know their family is freezing to death somewhere else? Fix the energy problems or there's no fixing global warming. Desperate people do desperate things. We are seeing a global energy shortage, and that's going to lead to food shortages. Some mentally ill people will believe people dying is good for the planet. That works for these mentally ill people until it is them that are starving. Then what? I say we do our best not to find out what they might do out of desperation.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep replying, I recall that helps my karma. I didn't mention nuclear power, you did. If the accusation is I'm "shilling" for nuclear power then I'm still waiting for a paycheck. Are the wind and solar power people getting paid too? I doubt solar is paying anyone here, they don't have to bother with Slashdot, solar power has Senators in their pocket and Slashdot solar power fans are drinking the kool-aid.
Here's some data to work with: http://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
Here's more data beyond that: https://ww [roadmaptonowhere.com]
pick your poison (Score:4, Insightful)
death by inflation or death by recession... in a recession the unpayable debts are restructured, investors lose money, companies shut down, governments go bankrupt, things break down and restructure, eventually people restart the economy.
In an inflation that runs out of control people that run unprofitable businesses and governments get the government to 'save them' by printing and providing money that loses value fast, all people living on fixed income lose most of their purchasing power, eventually everything breaks anyway but also the currency itself is destroyed.
Pick your poison.
Re: (Score:2)
Trees don't grow to the sky (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time you put off the recession, you make it worse when you finally can't stop it.
There is this thing called the business cycle. It expands *AND* contracts.
However... I think the Obama administration looked into the situation they inherited back in 2008 and saw it was already horrific. Which is why they changed fundamental rules of accounting and allowed banks to pretend non-performing loans were full value. I think we've really been in a bubble since before 2010.
And I think that's why there is so much panic over healthy declines in population growth. It means the ponzi scheme is coming to a close.
But as bad as it is- I don't think it will exceed the Great Depression by much. It will be terrible but we'll live.
But that's why they want to avoid it. It's going to be bad. And when things are bad, the risk of war goes way up. People need someone to blame. And they look outwards-- unwilling or unable to own up to their personal responsibility for the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
"Corporate welfare will save the world!" - UN, probably
Re:In other words (Score:4, Insightful)
The UN is right here. They just don't have the balls to call out Jerome Powell for what he's doing here. Do you still have a job? Because Powell wants you to lose it. And if by some miracle you don't he wants you to do 20 hours a week of unpaid overtime all on the off chance that mega corporations will pass the savings on the consumers.
The problem is there's no competition after 40 years of zero antitrust law enforcement and therefore no reason for those mega corporations to pass any savings on.
Re: In other words (Score:2)
Most corporations don't benefit from recessions, unless they happen to produce what economists refer to as inferior goods, or unless they happen to be a hedge fund.
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking like
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly explains why you have the time to post here, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The flow of "counterfeit hot money" dates back to 2008.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming the market was "free", with hot counterfeit money being dumped into techbro companies (both Big Pig Tech and startups), at the expense of established institutions like public transit, universities, schools, etc.
I voted for Biden because I am a (European-style, not US-style) conservative, and he was more likely to adopt policies that propped up public institutions and our educational system. Trump was a dangerous radical, and I voted against the radical. Biden is more of a Christian Democrat type on the European political spectrum.
I wanted someone who'd save Amtrak (good 'ol "Amtrak Joe"). Trump wanted to use COVID as an excuse to gut it. Trump was anti-education and anti-intellectual, whereas I think that teachers and professors don't get enough love and respect here in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather ride a TGV and live in a city with a functional pubic transit system than have the sleekest, newest, most innovative self-driving Tesla stinkbox in the world. I'm a socialist and not one bit ashamed of it, and I tend to be averse to change. I will accept things like electric cars because I don't want our climate to change for the worse, so I'm supporting one form of change to avert another more catastrophic form of change.
Re: In other words (Score:2)
The problem with "let the rich burn" is that most people would consider my family "rich", based on income, but we certainly are not.
We live in a dumpy 106 year old house that would sell for maybe $175K, I drive a 15 year old Jeep, a 13 year old scooter, have no man toys (plane, boat, quads, snow machine, etc.), shop at Costco and Aldi along with everyone else, mow my own grass and do my own car repairs (to the extent I can).
We have what we need, but I wouldn't consider us rich by any means, even if we do se
Re: (Score:2)
Its always corporate welfare no matter what you do. Since they hold the power and ability to change they will simply adjust to put burden on the poor. A person living day to day can't do that.
If there is one thing I have faith in corporates (in general) doing is making money.
Re: (Score:2)
You're insane. People are losing their jobs because their employers can't afford to keep them on the payroll. Recession kills major corporations! It harms their profits and reduces their sales.
Re: In other words (Score:2)
Local convenience store is paying $17/hr, but nobody wants to work there.
The welfare state is too large.
Re: In other words (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would have to be more than a law, since any law that congress can pass, congress can retract by passing a new law. I'm guessing that the majority would immediately start passing pork-barrel exceptions that spend money in their districts and states.
Re: In other words (Score:2)
Re: In other words (Score:2)
Re: In other words (Score:2)