The State of the Economy Thread - “Falling inflation, rising growth give U.S. the world’s best recovery”

[CousinsCowgirl84]

11 minutes ago, Barry.Randolphe said:

I may be confusing people....but isn't @PeterMP an economist? 🤔

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

 

https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/insight/2014/economics-art-not-science/

 

Economics is not a science, it's an art. It is often very complex and difficult. You often get many different answers about how the economy behaves.

 

Fun fact: I have a masters degree in economics. I’m not saying therefore I’m an expert. But I do know something about it.

Edited July 12, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[PeterMP]

7 hours ago, Barry.Randolphe said:

I may be confusing people....but isn't @PeterMP an economist? 🤔

 

No. mclsuggo is.

[gbear]

There is an additional benefit for the U.S. in our being a global reserve currency.  When the government spends more money than we take in through taxes, they are barrowing money from somewhere or creating money with a click on a key board.  If they are creating it with a click, people worry it will drive the value of existing money down (greater supply with same demand should drive the price of dollars down).  Alternatively, if we barrow the money, they has to be somebody who wants us to owe them dollars.  The amount of dollars out in the world to the number of governments who use it as a reserve means the number of countries who want our dollar to maintain its value is large.  There is an old economist joke about when the bank lends you 100k, it owns you.  However, when the bank lends you 100 billion, you own the bank.  To a large extent, there are already a number of countries who can not have the value of the dollar go down too far without it killing their savings.  

 

The ability of our government to spend its way out of recessions/create a softer landing for us is a luxury we have because it is in nobody's interest for our currency to plummet in value.  Thus, they will still try to trade it for a relatively stable value.  As long as we are thought more stable than other currencies, we will keep this advantage, and we will likely maintain our status as the richest country in the history of the world.

Edited July 12, 2022 by gbear

[PeterMP]

8 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

 

https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/insight/2014/economics-art-not-science/

 

Economics is not a science, it's an art. It is often very complex and difficult. You often get many different answers about how the economy behaves.

 

Fun fact: I have a masters degree in economics. I’m not saying therefore I’m an expert. But I do know something about it.

 

Just because things are complex and experts give different answers to certain questions, that doesn't mean something isn't a science.

 

Biologist have different ideas about how life evolved.  Biologist also don't agree on how various species will respond to climate change from an evolutionary stand point.  That doesn't mean that evolutionary biology isn't a science.  It just means there are some difficult and contentious issues in evolutionary biology.

 

The idea that economics isn't a science isn't a mainstream idea in economics (your one link is even a debate on the idea).  But most mainstream ideas define economics as a science.

 

e.g. wikipedia:

 

"Economics (/ˌɛkəˈnɒmɪks, ˌiːkə-/)[1][2][3] is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services."

 

The wiki page doesn't even mention the word art.

 

dictionary.com:

 

"Economics definition, the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind."

 

And again, doesn't mention art.

 

You've given your view of economics as an art and a science before.  It is not a main stream view among economists.  Economics is a social science.  As with all the social sciences and even some of the non-social sciences, there is a lot of complexity and testing models is hard if not impossible.  And so models can end up being used extensively and for a long time that are wrong.  And if your model is wrong then predictions from the model are likely to be wrong and ideas (policy, etc.) on those predictions are likely to be wrong.

 

Because some small subset of people associated with economics don't think economics is a science and use the history of models used in economics being wrong doesn't make it so.

 

As for your comment about Putin, at some level yes it is good for Putin.  But the argument that it is somewhat circular.

 

A potential recession in the EU zone partly the result of sanctions (and Russia's response to said sanctions) is good for Putin.  Yes, that's true.  But the better thing for Putin would be if Europe just lifted all of the sanctions (and in doing so minimized having a recession).

 

Whether it is really good for Putin will depend on our (the US, NATO, EU zone, etc.) response.  If it results in a relaxing of sanctions or a decrease in support for Ukraine, it is good for Putin.  If not, it isn't really good for Putin.

 

If long term, the result is a more a more reasonable and integrated energy plan in Western Europe (independent of Russia), that isn't good for Putin.

Edited July 12, 2022 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

16 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Just because things are complex and experts give different answers to certain questions, that doesn't mean something isn't a science.

 

But economics is an art.

 

16 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

Whether it is really good for Putin will depend on our (the US, NATO, EU zone, etc.) response.  If it results in a relaxing of sanctions or a decrease in support for Ukraine, it is good for Putin.  If not, it isn't really good for Putin.

 

High energy prices are good for Putin. The west relaxing sanctions is good for Putin. Either way, it’s good for Putin.

 

16 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

If long term, the result is a more a more reasonable and integrated energy plan in Western Europe (independent of Russia), that isn't good for Putin.

In the long term we will all be dead. Putin included.

Edited July 12, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Ball Security]

Thanks a lot Brandon.

 

 

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

10 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

That's literally not true.  Overall it might be bad but if you are planning on visiting Europe it is good (as your link states)

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

9 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Fun fact: I have a masters degree in economics.

Oh, so you my master now?

[PleaseBlitz]

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/tucker-carlson-accuses-biden-of-lowering-gas-prices

 

Quote

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a blistering takedown of the President, Tucker Carlson accused Joe Biden of cynically leveraging the power of his office to lower gasoline prices.

 

“For weeks, Biden has been saying that he’d do something about the price of gasoline,” the Fox News host said. “Now, lo and behold, gas prices are lower. Joe Biden has been acting in plain sight.”

 

“The American people aren’t dumb,” Carlson continued. “When they fill up their tanks, they notice that it costs less. They can tell that something’s going on, and they’re not going to put up with it.”

 

After gas prices showed their biggest one-day drop in almost fifteen years, Carlson said, “It’s time to call out the man behind this conspiracy: Joe Biden.”

 

Carlson demanded that Congress “stop investigating January 6th and focus its attention on a real scandal: Joe Biden’s corrupt plot to lower gas prices.”

 

“This is worse than anything Hunter has done,” Carlson charged.

 

[gbear]

Is Tucker Carson complaining about lowering prices?  Did Fox not just run stories complaining about inflation?  A guy could get whiplash trying to figure our with what they would be happy.

Edited July 12, 2022 by gbear

[CousinsCowgirl84]

26 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Oh, so you my master now?

Hmm main degree?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Hmm main degree?

It was a joke. I love you cowgirl but if I ever throw an ES party, I’m not sure you’re getting an invite. Can’t have you bringing down the mood not getting jokes and telling us that the entire universe is gonna be consumed and how we’re all gonna be dead soon.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[CousinsCowgirl84]

6 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

It was a joke. I love you cowgirl but if I ever throw an ES party, I’m not sure you’re getting an invite. Can’t have you bringing down the mood not getting jokes and telling us that the entire universe is gonna be consumed and how we’re all gonna be dead soon.

I know it was a joke. I was saying main degree like how they say main bedroom now 😭 😭 😭 

 

I wanna be invited to your party! I’ll bring my Elon cutout!

Also I’m much happier when I’m buzzed. But it’s 11 am on Tuesday. One more hour to go.

Edited July 12, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Also about the in the long run we’ll all be dead

 

https://www.simontaylorsblog.com/2013/05/05/the-true-meaning-of-in-the-long-run-we-are-all-dead/

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

But economics is an art.

 

 

High energy prices are good for Putin. The west relaxing sanctions is good for Putin. Either way, it’s good for Putin.

 

In the long term we will all be dead. Putin included.

 

  

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Also about the in the long run we’ll all be dead

 

https://www.simontaylorsblog.com/2013/05/05/the-true-meaning-of-in-the-long-run-we-are-all-dead/

 

Repeating something doesn't make it (more) true.

 

Yes high energy prices are good for Putin, but as with your point in the last post, that just leads to a bit of a circular discussion.  High energy prices are the result of the sanctions and lifting sanctions is good for Putin too.

 

I don't see an easy/quick way forward to maintaining sanctions and lowering energy prices. Do you?  What is your point?

 

I don't see a way to do that, so to me the question is which is worse for Putin?

 

And the answer is clearly the sanctions.  So to me you maintain sanction, do the best you can to deal with the high prices of energy in the short term, and come up with a longer term plan for the future.

 

Are you suggesting there is another option?

 

Relatedly, in terms of we'll all be dead, I'm not advocating that nothing be done about the economic problems associated with the Russian sanctions.  Stating that Western Europe needs a reasonable energy plan that allows them to not be independent of Russia and if that happens it is bad for Putin is not at all equivalent or should be compared to stating that recessions/depressions should just be allowed to happen without the government doing nothing.  The historical point being made with respect to long term we are all dead has no significance to anything I've said.    Is there some point relevant to that idea in anything I've said?  Is there an actual connection to anything I've said?

 

Keynes point wasn't that we should completely disregard the future when making plans.

 

Your posts seem to have zero actual points related to what I'm actually saying.

Edited July 12, 2022 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

22 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

  

 

Repeating something doesn't make it (more) true.

I know. It was true before and it was true when I said it a second time. I can post 5 times as many articles saying that economics is a art as you can referring to economics as a “social science”

 

22 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Yes high energy prices are good for Putin, but as with your point in the last post, that just leads to a bit of a circular discussion.  High energy prices are the result of the sanctions and lifting sanctions is good for Putin too.

 

I don't see an easy/quick way forward to maintaining sanctions and lowering energy prices. Do you?  What is your point?

 

My point was that either way it was good for Putin, so a recession is good for Putin, so you are right that a global recession isn’t bad for everyone. You said you can’t tell if it would be good or bad for Putin because it would depend on whether or not we removed sanctions; no it doesn’t.

 

 

22 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Are you suggesting there is another option?

 

 

Nuclear war 😎 

 

22 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Relatedly, in terms of we'll all be dead, I'm not advocating that nothing be done about the economic problems associated with the Russian sanctions.  Stating that Western Europe needs a reasonable energy plan that allows them to not be independent of Russia and if that happens it is bad for Putin is not at all equivalent or should be compared to stating that recessions/depressions should just be allowed to happen without the government doing nothing.  The historical point being made with respect to long term we are all dead has no significance to anything I've said.    Is there some point relevant to that idea in anything I've said?  Is there an actual connection to anything I've said?

 

Keynes point wasn't that we should completely disregard the future when making plans.

no, but the future is impossible to predict. So you suggesting we make plans for the future is nice, but for now the dollar reaching parity with the euro is bad for everyone*

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I know. It was true before and it was true when I said it a second time. I can post 5 times as many articles saying that economics is a art as you can referring to economics as a “social science”

 

 

My point was that either way it was good for Putin, so a recession is good for Putin, so you are right that a global recession isn’t bad for everyone. You said you can’t tell if it would be good or bad for Putin because it would depend on whether or not we removed sanctions; no it doesn’t.

 

 

 

Nuclear war 😎 

 

no, but the future is impossible to predict. So you suggesting we make plans for the future is nice, but for now the dollar reaching parity with the euro is bad for everyone*

 

The number of things you can post doesn't make it so.  That there are a few people that believe something that post it over and over again, doesn't make it more true.  Making your point would actually mean engaging with what I actually said about models, etc.

 

Saying that you are right because you can post more things that agree with you is essentially the equivalent to the logical fallacy that you pointed out before.  That is somebody made a bad argument before, you rightly pointed out it, but then you are essentially doing the same thing again.  And in doing so you are failing to actually make an actual credible argument.

 

Assuming a global recession does happen, I'm not sure that's good for Putin.  A global recession will certainly cause lower energy consumption and even if energy prices stay high (which is unlikely) will lower Russian earning.  And if through the recession we continue to support the Ukraine militarily, that would be bad for Putin.  I don't think less money while continued strong global support for the Ukraine is good for Putin.

 

Do you?

 

If somehow we could keep the sanctions in place and not have a recession, that would be best.  But that might not be practical.  But if there is a recession if that is really actually good for Putin will depend.

 

You again have jumped from one thing to another. 

 

The euro reaching parity with the dollar doesn't necessarily mean a global recession.  It is possible that there will (soon) be a global recession.  But it also might not.

 

On one hand you say that you can't plan for the future, but then your post is dependent on something happening that isn't happened as if it has happened or at least is a certainty.

 

Your posts have no logic or reason to them.

 

You go from to the euro and the dollar causing or being tied to a global depression (previously) and recession and announce the future can't be predicted in the same conversation.  You simultaneously cast doubt on essentially anything in the future while making points with certainty that aren't reflected by reality or many people's opinions.  Everything everybody else posts is questionable but your statements are clearly black and white.

 

Right now, I suspect there are a lot of people that aren't really being hurt because of euro and dollar reached parity.

 

Anybody here wake up and say, I'm worse today than last week because the dollar and euro have reached parity?

 

I doubt it.  The issue is what that suggest is coming (a recession for at least the industrial base of the EU zone and potentially larger economic issues).

Edited July 12, 2022 by PeterMP

[China]

Average Manhattan rent breaks $5,000 for the first time in history

 

The average rental price in Manhattan has topped $5,000 for the first time in Big Apple history, according to a jaw-dropping June market report compiled by Douglas Elliman and Miller Samuel.

 

Specifically, the study tallied an average Manhattan rent of $5,058 per month, which alone would set a city tenant back nearly $61,000 a year. That figure marks a 1.7% month-over-month climb from the $4,975 average rent recorded in May, as well as a 29% year-over-year spike from the $3,922 average found in June 2021.

 

Last month, Elliman and Miller Samuel revealed that Manhattan’s median rent reached $4,000 for the first time ever in May, a 25.2% year-over-year jump from the $3,195 median the previous May.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Larry]

Damn those $1,000 stimulus checks, giving people too much money.  

[China]

Damn Millennials, it's all their fault!

 

The size of the millennial generation is to blame for sky-high inflation, strategist says

 

Soaring inflation is putting markets on edge and triggering fears of a recession. The latest consumer price index data this week revealed a searing 9.1% increase year over year in June, prompting Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to say that inflation in the U.S. is “unacceptably high.”

 

The causes behind the steep jumps include high commodity and energy prices triggered by supply shortages and Russia’s war in Ukraine, record government spending packages on economic stimulus and low interest rates amid the Covid-19 pandemic, and continuing labor shortages and supply chain problems meeting increased demand. 

 

But one investor is arguing that there’s another major factor to blame: millennials. 

 

“See, what everyone is not including in the conversation is what really causes inflation, which is too many people with too much money chasing too few goods,” Bill Smead, chief investment officer at Smead Capital Management, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on Thursday. 

 

Smead explained that in the U.S. there are an estimated 92 million millennials, primarily in the 27- to 42-year-old age bracket. “The last time we saw what we call ‘wolverine inflation’ — which is inflation that is hard for policymakers to stop — was when 75 million baby boomers had replaced 44 million silent generation people in the 1970s.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[The Evil Genius]

There are no 42yo millennials. At least, not until 2023. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[TheDoyler23]

7 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

There are no 42yo millennials. At least, not until 2023. 

Nah, the 38-42 year old Oregon Trail millennials are ELITE. 
 

Got to grow up in an analog world before the internet took over with way less neglect abuse from parents who chose not to parent. 

[The Evil Genius]

7 minutes ago, TheDoyler23 said:

Nah, the 38-42 year old Oregon Trail millennials are ELITE. 
 

Got to grow up in an analog world before the internet took over with way less neglect abuse from parents who chose not to parent. 

 

Confused because GenX stopped in 1980. So unless my math is wrong, all millennials would be 41 or younger right now. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[TheDoyler23]

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Confused because GenX stopped in 1981. So unless my math is wrong, all millennials would be 41 or younger right now. 

I've always thought the cutoff was 1980. But I do think how one was raised has a lot to do with your mindset over a hard date. A log to this stuff may as well be astrological signs, it’s so irrelevant. 

[China]

PhD students told to consider selling Avon products to make ends meet

 

Postgraduates chosen for their “excellent potential” to become future leaders in environmental science and sustainable business should consider selling Avon products, pet-sitting and joining clinical trials to cope with the cost of living crisis.

 

The advice – issued on Wednesday by the prestigious Aries Doctoral Training Partnership funded by the Natural Environment Research Council at the University of East Anglia – provoked outrage among researchers who described the letter as “appalling”, “ridiculous” and “unbelievable”.

 

An email to PhD students on the programme recognised that many were finding it “increasingly challenging” to live on their stipends, £15,600 a year at present, and attached a three-page document from the UEA careers office setting out options to make ends meet.

 

Before making specific recommendations, the document warns that many students are not allowed to do more than six hours of paid work a week, because to do so would interfere with them completing their course on time.

 

The letter describes how PhD students can boost their finances with university level teaching and training, tutoring, and exam work, and goes on to suggest dog-walking, pet-sitting, paid-for clinical trials and selling Avon products as alternative sources of income.

 

Click on the link for the full article