5 ms·

It is not possible to disable downturns. It sounds different if framed as the longest economic bender in history. The hangover is likely to be brutal. Altern

It is not possible to disable downturns. It sounds different if framed as the longest economic bender in history. The hangover is likely to be brutal. Alternatively one might argue that what is happening is a kind of bifurcation. The wealthy and well measured get an ongoing expansion while the poor, shiftless, and unrecorded fall through the cracks at alarming rates. We didn't have homeless families in significant numbers when I grew up and now they are pervasive. That is pretty poor real performance for a best ever economy.

not_a_cop75 7y ago
By that same logic, you might also argue it's not possible to stifle success. The very formation of the central bank was (besides self enrichment) made to stabilize the economy. So in that sense you're quite wrong.
sjg007 7y ago
Right, the fix would be some form of govt regulation to break the bifurcation or maybe more social net support.
- whb07 7y ago
  it was the government that caused this in the first place. I always wonder why people suggest this, when the "cure" to the ailment is more of the disease.
  - sjg007 7y ago
    Randian economics is not a solution.
    - whb07 7y ago
      All this "growth" is largely driven by the debt and grand wisdom of the Fed's monetary policy. Those closest to the money printing press get undiluted gains and by the time that money circulates back down to the general population, they are robbed from their wealth by devaluing the currency. Furthermore, looking at the money supply, the banks aren't actually distributing and lending out that capital like they should. Long story short this is a direct causation of government policy.
  - Miner49er 7y ago
    How does the government cause downturns?
    - gagege 7y ago
      By trying to fix the economy in one area and ignoring the effects of the fix in a bunch of other areas.
      - neuronic 7y ago
        Oh right, the free market should fix this! /s
        hackeraccount 7y ago
        who knows more - a large number of people who have no idea what they're doing or a small number of people who have no idea what they're doing?
        neuronic 7y ago
        Let's pick EPA for a second here. It's a bit rich to claim they have no idea what they are doing and should be abolished because the free market would fix the world around it. For example, let's cherry-pick the Clean Air Act and its effects: "In addition, because air quality across the United States improved; it is estimated 205,000 premature deaths and millions of other respiratory complications were prevented which resulted in an economic savings of $50 trillion versus the $523 billion invested to meet the Clean Air Act standard." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)#...
    - mtgx 7y ago
      By doing stuff like "guaranteeing" student loans, encouraging policies of buying homes with high credit, getting the Fed to lower interest rests too much (making credit so cheap and easy companies don't even use their profits to buy/invest in stuff anymore; they even use credit to buy back their stock. Insanity), etc All of that distorts the market and makes everyone spend money they don't actually have. Eventually all of this catches up with everyone, on a country-wide scale.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
swebs 7y ago
Huh? The homeless rate has been going down across the country over the past few years. Maybe you're just in one of the few states where it has been increasing, like New York, California, or Massachusetts. https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/ https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/
- sandworm101 7y ago
  Totally depends on definition of "homeless". Some use a definition based on whether someone has a roof over their head most nights, the narrowest definition possible. I prefer a definition based on legal rights: Does the person have property rights (owners/renters/housing benefits etc) in a stable domicile. That means those couch surfing, in shelters and illegal residences are counted as homeless alongside the people literally sleeping in the open air. Few would doubt the rise of the "working homeless" across the western world. The concept of someone having a fulltime job and still not able to afford rent is new. It is today's sharecropping imho. And then there is the other modern phenomena: the legally mandated homeless. Every large city in the US now seems to have a bridge or overpass filled with people who are not legally allowed to live anywhere else. Stringent limitations on where certain convicts may live is also new.
  - swebs 7y ago
    >The concept of someone having a fulltime job and still not able to afford rent is new Does that happen anywhere outside of San Francisco?
    - sandworm101 7y ago
      I'm nowhere near SF and the cheapest rent in town is 1400/month. That's a one-room basement, quasi-legal, basement suite under a house beside the airport. So ... ya.

not_a_cop75 7y ago

By that same logic, you might also argue it's not possible to stifle success. The very formation of the central bank was (besides self enrichment) made to stabilize the economy. So in that sense you're quite wrong.

sjg007 7y ago

Right, the fix would be some form of govt regulation to break the bifurcation or maybe more social net support.

whb07 7y ago
it was the government that caused this in the first place. I always wonder why people suggest this, when the "cure" to the ailment is more of the disease.
- sjg007 7y ago
  Randian economics is not a solution.
  - whb07 7y ago
    All this "growth" is largely driven by the debt and grand wisdom of the Fed's monetary policy. Those closest to the money printing press get undiluted gains and by the time that money circulates back down to the general population, they are robbed from their wealth by devaluing the currency. Furthermore, looking at the money supply, the banks aren't actually distributing and lending out that capital like they should. Long story short this is a direct causation of government policy.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  How does the government cause downturns?
  - gagege 7y ago
    By trying to fix the economy in one area and ignoring the effects of the fix in a bunch of other areas.
    - neuronic 7y ago
      Oh right, the free market should fix this! /s
      - hackeraccount 7y ago
        who knows more - a large number of people who have no idea what they're doing or a small number of people who have no idea what they're doing?
        neuronic 7y ago
        Let's pick EPA for a second here. It's a bit rich to claim they have no idea what they are doing and should be abolished because the free market would fix the world around it. For example, let's cherry-pick the Clean Air Act and its effects: "In addition, because air quality across the United States improved; it is estimated 205,000 premature deaths and millions of other respiratory complications were prevented which resulted in an economic savings of $50 trillion versus the $523 billion invested to meet the Clean Air Act standard." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)#...
  - mtgx 7y ago
    By doing stuff like "guaranteeing" student loans, encouraging policies of buying homes with high credit, getting the Fed to lower interest rests too much (making credit so cheap and easy companies don't even use their profits to buy/invest in stuff anymore; they even use credit to buy back their stock. Insanity), etc All of that distorts the market and makes everyone spend money they don't actually have. Eventually all of this catches up with everyone, on a country-wide scale.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

swebs 7y ago

Huh? The homeless rate has been going down across the country over the past few years. Maybe you're just in one of the few states where it has been increasing, like New York, California, or Massachusetts. https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/ https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/

sandworm101 7y ago
Totally depends on definition of "homeless". Some use a definition based on whether someone has a roof over their head most nights, the narrowest definition possible. I prefer a definition based on legal rights: Does the person have property rights (owners/renters/housing benefits etc) in a stable domicile. That means those couch surfing, in shelters and illegal residences are counted as homeless alongside the people literally sleeping in the open air. Few would doubt the rise of the "working homeless" across the western world. The concept of someone having a fulltime job and still not able to afford rent is new. It is today's sharecropping imho. And then there is the other modern phenomena: the legally mandated homeless. Every large city in the US now seems to have a bridge or overpass filled with people who are not legally allowed to live anywhere else. Stringent limitations on where certain convicts may live is also new.
- swebs 7y ago
  >The concept of someone having a fulltime job and still not able to afford rent is new Does that happen anywhere outside of San Francisco?
  - sandworm101 7y ago
    I'm nowhere near SF and the cheapest rent in town is 1400/month. That's a one-room basement, quasi-legal, basement suite under a house beside the airport. So ... ya.