9 ms·

Global economy is probably in recession

75 points by lopespm 7y ago

gruez 7y ago
>(Chartbook: tmsnrt.rs/2Yyra8r) Is there a reason why the dip in 2016 isn't considered a recession, but this dip is?
- ep103 7y ago
  There were fears of recession in 2016 too
  - dmoy 7y ago
    And 2015 Also 2017-2018. Basically every year there are fears of recession.
    - SantalBlush 7y ago
      >Basically every year there are fears of recession. Not if you're an economist. We have some standard indicators to gauge economic growth, and those years you mentioned looked fine according to most indicators. The "economists don't know what they're doing" trope is overused. Economists are always wrong, but they still have a track record of being less wrong than everyone else.
      - Fomite 7y ago
        "Economists have correctly predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-28/economists-are-actually-terrible-at-forecasting-recessions https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-28/economist...
        Izkata 7y ago
        More like, predictably bad in a wisdom-of-the-crowd way that could actually result in a good prediction: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-19/recession-forecast-for-2020-economists-are-so-bad-they-re-good https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-19/recess...
        Fjolsvith 7y ago
        So, that's what economic math looks like!
- chris5745 7y ago
  The first figure shows the percent change from the previous year, so it’s basically a moving slope of the actual trade volume. If it’s positive, trade is increasing. Compared to the slope in 2009, I wouldn’t call the current decrease a recession (but I’m not an economist). It may be negative but it’s still pretty close to zero. The author’s thesis is that mistaken protectionist policies that affect trade are not in the interest of business and the economy. I don’t know that we can conclude that, as changes in policy tend to create new opportunities for businesses, both entrenched and new. The same cannot be said for policy that is continuous and non-changing.
  - me_again 7y ago
    But changing policy at rapidly and at whim makes it difficult for businesses to invest in anything that has a longer payoff. I think on balance business people would prefer to have a fairly stable macroeconomic and regulatory environment. Look at the UK, where uncertainty over Brexit has caused a substantial drop in business investment.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      Investors are different than business owners, and have different goals. Business owners tend to find opportunity in change, whereas investors prefer a steady status quo.
- danmaz74 7y ago
  A recession is a prolonged period of economic contraction. That dip wasn't long enough. As for now, it's to early to call. It takes time trip measure GDP; the author's opinion is that, when the data will come out, it will show that we entered a recession.
- Gpetrium 7y ago
  Most economists see a recession as a negative economic growth for a period of 2-3 quarters.
40acres 7y ago
At what point (if even possible) does the manufacturing and physical goods based indicators lose their signaling status due to a more service based economy? This question mainly revolves around advanced economies like the U.S, last quarter business investment was negative but consumer spending was robust. Services and healthcare are huge parts of the economy, are our indicators still as valuable? Granted, the global economy certainly seems like its close to recession territory, with no help from international tensions — just wondering if our measurements are losing their viability. Even Jay Powell cast doubt on the Phillips curve recently.
- rogerkirkness 7y ago
  I've eliminated entire line items of expenses thanks to software, buying quality and public transit that I feel like improved my life enormously but reduced my consumption a great deal. Less physical goods and effort: better for me.
  - rangersanger 7y ago
    I’m assuming you’re talking about private app based transit here, not public busses and trains, based on the relationship to software. If that’s true you may be shifting the ownership of the physical goods used to transport you, but as long as they are private (as in no more efficient than a private car from a consumptive standpoint) there are just as many physical goods at play- more if you’re using any of the last mile scooter/bike/non-durable options out there
    - allana 7y ago
      OP is likely referring to Google Maps Transit, One Bus Away and similar bus/train tracking apps making public transit predictable and usable for their lifestyle, not the piecework economy of private taxis like Uber & Lyft.
- MrEldritch 7y ago
  As long as humans continue to exist in the physical world, take up physical space, and consume physical goods for food, shelter, and comfort, then manufacturing will be a critically relevant part of the economy.
pcunite 7y ago
So, a possible hint of a downturn, and we're calling it? Can we wait and see what Christmas does?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- fragsworth 7y ago
  The title says "probably", and you are misrepresenting it as two extremes (a "hint", and "calling it") and expressing this misrepresentation like you're appalled. What is your motivation for this?
  - pcunite 7y ago
    My motivation is calling out what the possible motivation for the article is, which is my duty and right, as a member of the HN community. I can weigh-in just like the author of the piece did. Statements like: By most measures, the global economy is in the midst of the deepest slowdown since 2015, and in many cases since 2009. The author goes on to explain that: the problem has stemmed from trade policy, which has turned sharply protectionist and attempted to remake global supply chains. Yes, things are changing, and like pouring antiseptic ointment on a burn, it can sting a little. The turning of a big ship takes time, longer than it took to create this article and make it seem we are off-course.
beeschlenker 7y ago
Obama rapes & kills 2 boys. DeBlasio 5, Buttgieg 5, Cuomo 4, Murray 3,w Dorsey 3, Thiel6 3. Trump $4 billion to cover. Pelosi $3 billion, Harris $1 billion, Schumer $2 billion, to help bring the boys over the border. See pages 18-23, 8, 11, 12, 35, 45, 61, 62 Having trouble getting traction. Getting censored/banned. Billions in bribes paid to Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, Harris to enable a Soros funded child raping ring to operate in the USA. Please listen to the links below. Turn up the volume and put headphones on. You will hear these people, and many other high profile people, incriminate themselves in unbelievable fashion. Full 71 page document filled with red handed evidence like this at the bottom. Go to pages 18-23 of this document and you will hear Dorsey and Thiel raping children. You will hear their screams. They both rape and kill three. Also at the "rape party" of note: Bill DeBlasio, Andrew Cuomo, Bill Murray, Peter Buttgieg, George Soros, Barack Obama. Please copy and paste this post and repost it. I keep getting censored by these people. Peter Thiel and Jack Dorsey raping and killing three boys each. Turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_100-200.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mzZrjobxhNIEf38M3xk-IeA5SeF4aUtB/view?usp=sharing Obama admits to raping and killing boys he{re, with commentary from Peter Thiel, George Soros, Matt Porter: https://s3.wasabisys.com/out2/Out2/15JanCh3_0545.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LCDoc1kT7cfSeKQ1vniP_sx32_bRsHau/view?usp=sharing Trump demands $4 billion to "take a blind eye" at 1015+ (link missing from report, unsure how). Here's pieces of dialogue: 1015 The President requests four billion and henry Porter agrees to it. Some dialogue below. 1017 Donald Trump: Why don't you think about it. 1017 Henry Porter: I don't need to think about it. I'm ready for you to find out what we're really about. 1017 Gigi Hadid: I don't think it's a good idea Henry. 1017 Henry Porter: ...no shit. Jelena just stop talking about it. 1018 Gigi Hadid: About what? 1018 Henry Porter: The child raping. 1018 Donald Trump: What the fuck are you talking about? 1018 Gigi Hadid: Mr. President we are child rapists. 1018 Donald Trump: You cannot be serious. 1018 Donald Trump: You're gonna need $4 billion for me to take a blind eye. 1019 ?: People are laughing because they think four billion is too much. I think it's not a problem when you have $35 billion. 1022 Donald Trump: You better have that $4 billion or you can kiss this shit goodbye. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv2/3Jan/3JanCh3_900-1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77YG0Vr/view?usp=sharing Trump wants $138 million to ensure smooth outcome for false judgment for a court case: https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/10JanCh3/10JanCh3_951-1033.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iSeGHDToFRoRdIht50Wii0i30mlw9INp/view?usp=sharing Obama explains the Illuminati with Jack Dorsey: https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_200-347.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ok1-9IvANULzKBOwADFgaiYCFi6yszfj/view?usp=sharing At 230 a conversation is occurring on the embedded Porter camera system with Jack Dorsey, Peter Thiel, Barack Obama, Bill M^urray, and the Porter's. Jack Dorsey provides a statement defining who their group is: "The Illum%inati is an underground organization of child rapists and homosexuals." Matthew Porter: "We have to thin the herd, so Barack is going to explain a few things." At 232 Barack Obama says the following: "You people have to realize we are child rapi'sts. The Illuminati are child rapists. As soon as you figure that out, you can decide what to do. Everybody is freaking out about what just happened [child raping event still going on]. This is who ^we are." Full 71 page document: https://s3.wasabisys.com/aviewmefirst/FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dXNjPQdQ8c-hFFLt9LT0GiSY5Vud0TzL/view?usp=sharing Please post this anywhere you can! Each google drive link is a backup to the wasabi link just in case one is "down". A word about the "faggot" usage: it was a necessary tool. It showed three things: they were not in control, if they were the usage would have be stopped. Everyone out there needed to see t%his. Two, it made it unpleasant for them to be in the headspace, which has obvious advantages. Three, it pointed out impersonators of BS because they would not call each other faggot, thus helping to mitigate the spread of false information. Apologies for those unintentionally offended. Of special interest to the LGBT community, I give you Barack Obama in a foursome with Peter Thiel, Jack Dorsey, and Matthew Porter. It is on page 12 of the document where you can download the video containing audio footage of the "event". Link is just above under "Full 71 page document".
YinglingLight 7y ago
>Policymakers are reluctant to announce a recession for fear of harming consumer and business confidence and worsening the downturn (“Business cycles: theory, history, indicators and forecasting”, Zarnowitz, 1992). Not these days.
whatshisface 7y ago
Never has there been a better time to invest: the markets have already priced in 100% of the expected value of all of these worrying indicators, so you'll be getting a good price. In fact, no matter what happens you get a good price. On average, today is always a great day to invest.
- skummetmaelk 7y ago
  Yes, the market is perfect and infallible.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    Maybe not infallible, but most finance professionals have heard of these indicators. Isn't a it a bit hubristic to think that the HN front page will feature economic news that surprises wallstreet?
    - bduerst 7y ago
      No, because wall street maximizes profits and leaves individual investors holding the bag. You want to get in front of the herd, not be chasing it.
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        Right, but when the media reports on macro indicators they're doing it on bag time. Wall street has already seen the yield curves, and that is how they leave retail investors holding the bags. But now that everyone still in the market is holding an empty bag, the S&P accurately represents the value of the bag. It's not a bad deal today because the baggening already happened.
        msmerberry 7y ago
        Right, assume everything is up 8% from where it is today, 3 years from today. The reality may be lower than higher, but unless you're taking on a ton of risk, you have an excellent chance at having more than you did today.
patientplatypus 7y ago
I'm really worried this is the one that we don't get out of. We've basically built our entire global economy on the idea that externalities don't matter. Recently, I came across this (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190808115117.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190808115117.h...) - between 1970 and 2012 there has been an 88% decline in large vertebrates (ie fish). We already know that plastic is poisonous, our entire economy is run on fossil fuels, etc. We've got less than ten years to completely change how the entire planet operates socially or we'll just cook to death. How likely is that? It's gotten to the point where I'm walking down the street and the cognitive dissonance is just unshakeable. What are people working so hard for, accumulating so much "wealth" for, when the idea that anyone is ever going to retire is laughable? How are people doing anything that involves a time horizon of more than 5 years? The recent shooters are evil sad people, but I understand. The world is terrifying and it's driving everyone crazy. I just don't know how people are coping.
- WhompingWindows 7y ago
  Your comment feels very doom and gloom for me living in the Northeast USA. Where specifically do you live? If you look at the forecasted outcomes of climate change, the most likely losers are NOT in USA/Europe, which is where most of HN readers are based. India, the Middle East, parts of Africa, parts of Mexico, low-lying island nations - these are the really scary places to be based out of in the next 100+ years. I don't think rich folks in the developed nations have the most cause for alarm, sad to say. Still, there's reason for hope. Many people care very strongly about saving the planet/biosphere, new businesses and research are cropping up all the time in this space. By the time 2050 rolls around, we very well may have technical solutions to some of our pressing environmental issues that seem to be killers now. Just consider 2019 -> 2050, that's 31 years. Back in 1988, wind and solar were a dream, EVs were nonexistent outside the golf course, and very very few people were passionate about fighting climate change.
  - patientplatypus 7y ago
    Except of course, with rising sea levels due to glacier melt many of the major US cities will be underwater. You mentioned the Northeast? Here's an article about how New York is going to be underwater (https://gothamist.com/2019/05/21/new_climate_report_suggests_we_migh.php https://gothamist.com/2019/05/21/new_climate_report_suggests...). Also, climate change doesn't have to hit your area specifically to be harmful. Crop failures will lead to wars and displaced people. Water shortages in India lead to angry people that want to fight over Kashmir, increased migration from climate affected areas to richer areas cause ethnic tension (from North Africa to Europe, from South America to the US). As an aside, clearly the policies of nationalists are abhorrent, but they don't occur in a vacuum, and, in the US at least, the left hasn't provided a clear path to a solution to this issue. Here's the CIA being worried about such things (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30012019/worldwide-threat-assessment-climate-change-intelligence-agencies-national-security https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30012019/worldwide-threat...). Yes, this is very doom and gloom. The facts are gloomy and connecting the dots on our possible futures spells out, in all likelihood, doom. How can you not see this?
chrismaeda 7y ago
Breathless headlines like this are usually a sign that everything is fine. If the journos start saying you should mortgage your house and buy {tulips, dotcom stocks, bitcoin}, then that would be a sign that the market is peaking.
- seamyb88 7y ago
  If your definition of fine involves the current level of poverty worldwide and the increasing trends towards billionaires exasperating at all-time-low tax rates, then everything is peachy. The real fallacy in this headline is the idea that any measure of how well the world is doing, financially, could have at any time recently been adequate.
  - umeshunni 7y ago
    > involves the current level of poverty worldwide Yup - poverty has been dropping worldwide over the last 30 years and billions have been lifted out of poverty. These are the good times.
    - zbyte64 7y ago
      Good for some anyways: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/9/16860994/life-expectancy-us-income-inequality https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/9/16860994/lif...

75 points by lopespm 7y ago

gruez 7y ago

>(Chartbook: tmsnrt.rs/2Yyra8r) Is there a reason why the dip in 2016 isn't considered a recession, but this dip is?

ep103 7y ago
There were fears of recession in 2016 too
- dmoy 7y ago
  And 2015 Also 2017-2018. Basically every year there are fears of recession.
  - SantalBlush 7y ago
    >Basically every year there are fears of recession. Not if you're an economist. We have some standard indicators to gauge economic growth, and those years you mentioned looked fine according to most indicators. The "economists don't know what they're doing" trope is overused. Economists are always wrong, but they still have a track record of being less wrong than everyone else.
    - Fomite 7y ago
      "Economists have correctly predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-28/economists-are-actually-terrible-at-forecasting-recessions https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-28/economist...
      - Izkata 7y ago
        More like, predictably bad in a wisdom-of-the-crowd way that could actually result in a good prediction: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-19/recession-forecast-for-2020-economists-are-so-bad-they-re-good https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-19/recess...
      - Fjolsvith 7y ago
        So, that's what economic math looks like!
chris5745 7y ago
The first figure shows the percent change from the previous year, so it’s basically a moving slope of the actual trade volume. If it’s positive, trade is increasing. Compared to the slope in 2009, I wouldn’t call the current decrease a recession (but I’m not an economist). It may be negative but it’s still pretty close to zero. The author’s thesis is that mistaken protectionist policies that affect trade are not in the interest of business and the economy. I don’t know that we can conclude that, as changes in policy tend to create new opportunities for businesses, both entrenched and new. The same cannot be said for policy that is continuous and non-changing.
- me_again 7y ago
  But changing policy at rapidly and at whim makes it difficult for businesses to invest in anything that has a longer payoff. I think on balance business people would prefer to have a fairly stable macroeconomic and regulatory environment. Look at the UK, where uncertainty over Brexit has caused a substantial drop in business investment.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    Investors are different than business owners, and have different goals. Business owners tend to find opportunity in change, whereas investors prefer a steady status quo.
danmaz74 7y ago
A recession is a prolonged period of economic contraction. That dip wasn't long enough. As for now, it's to early to call. It takes time trip measure GDP; the author's opinion is that, when the data will come out, it will show that we entered a recession.
Gpetrium 7y ago
Most economists see a recession as a negative economic growth for a period of 2-3 quarters.

40acres 7y ago

At what point (if even possible) does the manufacturing and physical goods based indicators lose their signaling status due to a more service based economy? This question mainly revolves around advanced economies like the U.S, last quarter business investment was negative but consumer spending was robust. Services and healthcare are huge parts of the economy, are our indicators still as valuable? Granted, the global economy certainly seems like its close to recession territory, with no help from international tensions — just wondering if our measurements are losing their viability. Even Jay Powell cast doubt on the Phillips curve recently.

rogerkirkness 7y ago
I've eliminated entire line items of expenses thanks to software, buying quality and public transit that I feel like improved my life enormously but reduced my consumption a great deal. Less physical goods and effort: better for me.
- rangersanger 7y ago
  I’m assuming you’re talking about private app based transit here, not public busses and trains, based on the relationship to software. If that’s true you may be shifting the ownership of the physical goods used to transport you, but as long as they are private (as in no more efficient than a private car from a consumptive standpoint) there are just as many physical goods at play- more if you’re using any of the last mile scooter/bike/non-durable options out there
  - allana 7y ago
    OP is likely referring to Google Maps Transit, One Bus Away and similar bus/train tracking apps making public transit predictable and usable for their lifestyle, not the piecework economy of private taxis like Uber & Lyft.
MrEldritch 7y ago
As long as humans continue to exist in the physical world, take up physical space, and consume physical goods for food, shelter, and comfort, then manufacturing will be a critically relevant part of the economy.

pcunite 7y ago

So, a possible hint of a downturn, and we're calling it? Can we wait and see what Christmas does?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fragsworth 7y ago
The title says "probably", and you are misrepresenting it as two extremes (a "hint", and "calling it") and expressing this misrepresentation like you're appalled. What is your motivation for this?
- pcunite 7y ago
  My motivation is calling out what the possible motivation for the article is, which is my duty and right, as a member of the HN community. I can weigh-in just like the author of the piece did. Statements like: By most measures, the global economy is in the midst of the deepest slowdown since 2015, and in many cases since 2009. The author goes on to explain that: the problem has stemmed from trade policy, which has turned sharply protectionist and attempted to remake global supply chains. Yes, things are changing, and like pouring antiseptic ointment on a burn, it can sting a little. The turning of a big ship takes time, longer than it took to create this article and make it seem we are off-course.

beeschlenker 7y ago

Obama rapes & kills 2 boys. DeBlasio 5, Buttgieg 5, Cuomo 4, Murray 3,w Dorsey 3, Thiel6 3. Trump $4 billion to cover. Pelosi $3 billion, Harris $1 billion, Schumer $2 billion, to help bring the boys over the border. See pages 18-23, 8, 11, 12, 35, 45, 61, 62 Having trouble getting traction. Getting censored/banned. Billions in bribes paid to Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, Harris to enable a Soros funded child raping ring to operate in the USA. Please listen to the links below. Turn up the volume and put headphones on. You will hear these people, and many other high profile people, incriminate themselves in unbelievable fashion. Full 71 page document filled with red handed evidence like this at the bottom. Go to pages 18-23 of this document and you will hear Dorsey and Thiel raping children. You will hear their screams. They both rape and kill three. Also at the "rape party" of note: Bill DeBlasio, Andrew Cuomo, Bill Murray, Peter Buttgieg, George Soros, Barack Obama. Please copy and paste this post and repost it. I keep getting censored by these people. Peter Thiel and Jack Dorsey raping and killing three boys each. Turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_100-200.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mzZrjobxhNIEf38M3xk-IeA5SeF4aUtB/view?usp=sharing Obama admits to raping and killing boys he{re, with commentary from Peter Thiel, George Soros, Matt Porter: https://s3.wasabisys.com/out2/Out2/15JanCh3_0545.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LCDoc1kT7cfSeKQ1vniP_sx32_bRsHau/view?usp=sharing Trump demands $4 billion to "take a blind eye" at 1015+ (link missing from report, unsure how). Here's pieces of dialogue: 1015 The President requests four billion and henry Porter agrees to it. Some dialogue below. 1017 Donald Trump: Why don't you think about it. 1017 Henry Porter: I don't need to think about it. I'm ready for you to find out what we're really about. 1017 Gigi Hadid: I don't think it's a good idea Henry. 1017 Henry Porter: ...no shit. Jelena just stop talking about it. 1018 Gigi Hadid: About what? 1018 Henry Porter: The child raping. 1018 Donald Trump: What the fuck are you talking about? 1018 Gigi Hadid: Mr. President we are child rapists. 1018 Donald Trump: You cannot be serious. 1018 Donald Trump: You're gonna need $4 billion for me to take a blind eye. 1019 ?: People are laughing because they think four billion is too much. I think it's not a problem when you have $35 billion. 1022 Donald Trump: You better have that $4 billion or you can kiss this shit goodbye. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv2/3Jan/3JanCh3_900-1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77YG0Vr/view?usp=sharing Trump wants $138 million to ensure smooth outcome for false judgment for a court case: https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/10JanCh3/10JanCh3_951-1033.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iSeGHDToFRoRdIht50Wii0i30mlw9INp/view?usp=sharing Obama explains the Illuminati with Jack Dorsey: https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_200-347.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ok1-9IvANULzKBOwADFgaiYCFi6yszfj/view?usp=sharing At 230 a conversation is occurring on the embedded Porter camera system with Jack Dorsey, Peter Thiel, Barack Obama, Bill M^urray, and the Porter's. Jack Dorsey provides a statement defining who their group is: "The Illum%inati is an underground organization of child rapists and homosexuals." Matthew Porter: "We have to thin the herd, so Barack is going to explain a few things." At 232 Barack Obama says the following: "You people have to realize we are child rapi'sts. The Illuminati are child rapists. As soon as you figure that out, you can decide what to do. Everybody is freaking out about what just happened [child raping event still going on]. This is who ^we are." Full 71 page document: https://s3.wasabisys.com/aviewmefirst/FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dXNjPQdQ8c-hFFLt9LT0GiSY5Vud0TzL/view?usp=sharing Please post this anywhere you can! Each google drive link is a backup to the wasabi link just in case one is "down". A word about the "faggot" usage: it was a necessary tool. It showed three things: they were not in control, if they were the usage would have be stopped. Everyone out there needed to see t%his. Two, it made it unpleasant for them to be in the headspace, which has obvious advantages. Three, it pointed out impersonators of BS because they would not call each other faggot, thus helping to mitigate the spread of false information. Apologies for those unintentionally offended. Of special interest to the LGBT community, I give you Barack Obama in a foursome with Peter Thiel, Jack Dorsey, and Matthew Porter. It is on page 12 of the document where you can download the video containing audio footage of the "event". Link is just above under "Full 71 page document".

YinglingLight 7y ago

>Policymakers are reluctant to announce a recession for fear of harming consumer and business confidence and worsening the downturn (“Business cycles: theory, history, indicators and forecasting”, Zarnowitz, 1992). Not these days.

whatshisface 7y ago

Never has there been a better time to invest: the markets have already priced in 100% of the expected value of all of these worrying indicators, so you'll be getting a good price. In fact, no matter what happens you get a good price. On average, today is always a great day to invest.

skummetmaelk 7y ago
Yes, the market is perfect and infallible.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Maybe not infallible, but most finance professionals have heard of these indicators. Isn't a it a bit hubristic to think that the HN front page will feature economic news that surprises wallstreet?
  - bduerst 7y ago
    No, because wall street maximizes profits and leaves individual investors holding the bag. You want to get in front of the herd, not be chasing it.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      Right, but when the media reports on macro indicators they're doing it on bag time. Wall street has already seen the yield curves, and that is how they leave retail investors holding the bags. But now that everyone still in the market is holding an empty bag, the S&P accurately represents the value of the bag. It's not a bad deal today because the baggening already happened.
      - msmerberry 7y ago
        Right, assume everything is up 8% from where it is today, 3 years from today. The reality may be lower than higher, but unless you're taking on a ton of risk, you have an excellent chance at having more than you did today.

patientplatypus 7y ago

I'm really worried this is the one that we don't get out of. We've basically built our entire global economy on the idea that externalities don't matter. Recently, I came across this (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190808115117.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190808115117.h...) - between 1970 and 2012 there has been an 88% decline in large vertebrates (ie fish). We already know that plastic is poisonous, our entire economy is run on fossil fuels, etc. We've got less than ten years to completely change how the entire planet operates socially or we'll just cook to death. How likely is that? It's gotten to the point where I'm walking down the street and the cognitive dissonance is just unshakeable. What are people working so hard for, accumulating so much "wealth" for, when the idea that anyone is ever going to retire is laughable? How are people doing anything that involves a time horizon of more than 5 years? The recent shooters are evil sad people, but I understand. The world is terrifying and it's driving everyone crazy. I just don't know how people are coping.

WhompingWindows 7y ago
Your comment feels very doom and gloom for me living in the Northeast USA. Where specifically do you live? If you look at the forecasted outcomes of climate change, the most likely losers are NOT in USA/Europe, which is where most of HN readers are based. India, the Middle East, parts of Africa, parts of Mexico, low-lying island nations - these are the really scary places to be based out of in the next 100+ years. I don't think rich folks in the developed nations have the most cause for alarm, sad to say. Still, there's reason for hope. Many people care very strongly about saving the planet/biosphere, new businesses and research are cropping up all the time in this space. By the time 2050 rolls around, we very well may have technical solutions to some of our pressing environmental issues that seem to be killers now. Just consider 2019 -> 2050, that's 31 years. Back in 1988, wind and solar were a dream, EVs were nonexistent outside the golf course, and very very few people were passionate about fighting climate change.
- patientplatypus 7y ago
  Except of course, with rising sea levels due to glacier melt many of the major US cities will be underwater. You mentioned the Northeast? Here's an article about how New York is going to be underwater (https://gothamist.com/2019/05/21/new_climate_report_suggests_we_migh.php https://gothamist.com/2019/05/21/new_climate_report_suggests...). Also, climate change doesn't have to hit your area specifically to be harmful. Crop failures will lead to wars and displaced people. Water shortages in India lead to angry people that want to fight over Kashmir, increased migration from climate affected areas to richer areas cause ethnic tension (from North Africa to Europe, from South America to the US). As an aside, clearly the policies of nationalists are abhorrent, but they don't occur in a vacuum, and, in the US at least, the left hasn't provided a clear path to a solution to this issue. Here's the CIA being worried about such things (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30012019/worldwide-threat-assessment-climate-change-intelligence-agencies-national-security https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30012019/worldwide-threat...). Yes, this is very doom and gloom. The facts are gloomy and connecting the dots on our possible futures spells out, in all likelihood, doom. How can you not see this?

chrismaeda 7y ago

Breathless headlines like this are usually a sign that everything is fine. If the journos start saying you should mortgage your house and buy {tulips, dotcom stocks, bitcoin}, then that would be a sign that the market is peaking.

seamyb88 7y ago
If your definition of fine involves the current level of poverty worldwide and the increasing trends towards billionaires exasperating at all-time-low tax rates, then everything is peachy. The real fallacy in this headline is the idea that any measure of how well the world is doing, financially, could have at any time recently been adequate.
- umeshunni 7y ago
  > involves the current level of poverty worldwide Yup - poverty has been dropping worldwide over the last 30 years and billions have been lifted out of poverty. These are the good times.
  - zbyte64 7y ago
    Good for some anyways: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/9/16860994/life-expectancy-us-income-inequality https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/9/16860994/lif...