10 ms·

Unpopular opinion: Declaring the economy in or out if recession does not help anyone outside of propagandists and journalists. High corporate profits and high i

by _8j50 4y ago

Unpopular opinion: Declaring the economy in or out if recession does not help anyone outside of propagandists and journalists. High corporate profits and high inflation. Those need to be addressed regardless of recession or not. If you call it one, they will use it as cause for even more layoffs and price hikes if you don't they will use it as reason to avoid measures to regulate their greed because afterall their greed is preventing a recession. Truth is we will have to wait until 2023 or later to call this a recession. My suspicion is this is all wallstreet's shenanigans. There is a growing labor rights movement and this climate makes it hard to pass any laws that support the movement. "Minimum wage caused low profits and an unrecoverable bear market" is the sentiment they want to spread (by they I mean the market makers and investment bankers of wallstreet).

refurb 4y ago
High corporate profits and high inflation. Those need to be addressed regardless of recession or not. I'm sorry what? Profits now need to be reduced? That seem the opposite of economic growth.
- CoffeeCollector 4y ago
  These companies keep demanding more and more and more from employees and their customers. When will they be satisfied?? We fostered their development and need now to reap from them.
- saurik 4y ago
  In a functioning capitalist market economy, profit margins (which I believe is what is being described here) would generally be low due to competition, and would only spike momentarily due to innovation. If a company consistently has high profits, something is fishy, and maybe they have a monopoly (which sadly seems to happen almost accidentally just from branding, as humans are poor market participants and will refuse a perfectly good alternative if it doesn't have a fancy name on it)... if everyone is making high profits and are even increasing their profits, I think (look: I am not an economist; I just have severe insomnia) that is indicating something is wrong with the labor market or the money supply.
  - refurb 4y ago
    No. Some industries are highly capital dependent. You can't look at profit margin alone. And if high profit means "innovation" it seems like "getting rid of high profit" is the wrong decision?
    - saurik 4y ago
      The transient, company-specific boost from a company managing to innovate on something its competitors haven't gotten to yet isn't something you should see across the board across major companies: they only reasons you see so many companies managing to maintain high profit margins is because of regulatory rent seeking, anti-competitive lock-in, and the exploitation of the working class. The hallmark of a functioning economy isn't "lots of corporate profits", it is "lots of consumer value".
      - gunapologist99 4y ago
        True, but "lots of consumer value" drives inflation, if that consumer value isn't being satisfied. In other words, the supply is insufficient in the face of overwhelming demand, which is why prices increase in a functioning economy. Inflation is always a result of monetary policy; if the cash in the system (low interest rates, quantitative easing, government stimulus, etc) is increased without a corresponding increase in output, then inflation will naturally occur because demand for goods and services will increase beyond the capacity of supply. (h/t Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman) But, if economic output is actually decreasing because of those same economic policies (such as hiking interest rates or external factors such as war in Ukraine), then we can easily enter stagflation, which is stagnant growth with rampant inflation. We've had three periods since WWII where inflation hit double digits: the period immediately following the war (1946-1948), 1974-1975 during the oil crisis, and 1979-1983 following Carter's disastrous presidency (partly what he inherited, and then he made it much, much worse). In the last period (79-83), Paul Volcker immediately took strong action to control inflation by hiking interest rates through the roof. This caused immediate economic pain, but, in concert with lower taxes and reduced regulation, it succeeded in ushering in a strong bull market that lasted, by some definitions, decades. That's why the central banks are acting strongly to reduce inflation by raising rates, assuming they have the stomach to keep it up even as it might force the economy into a temporary stall: controlling inflation by reducing the money supply through higher rates has historically made for a stronger economy in the near future, and rates can always be reduced to inject stimulus into the economy if needed. Here's another Milton Friedman quote: "Inflation is the one form of taxation that can be imposed without legislation."
- lkrubner 4y ago
  When there is a supply-side shock, it can be paid by corporations or by consumers. Who it is paid by depends on how much competition there is. When there is a lot of competition, then corporations have to pay. When there is little competition, then the corporations can easily pass the price hike along to the consumers. So high profits and high inflation suggests an economy dominated by monopolies, that is, a lot of companies that are not facing much competition. That needs to be addressed. The 1970s saw high inflation and low profits, suggesting that corporations were facing enough competition that they absorbed as much of the price shock as they could before they passed price hikes to the consumer.
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    >So high profits and high inflation suggests an economy dominated by monopolies Low unemployment points is a tight labor market, meaning there is also competition to get workers. And the economy is hardly dominated by monopolies. Take a moment to tally where all of your money is spent, and see how many of those companies are anywhere near a monopoly. The vast majority of people's expenses is spent in competitive markets: housing, food, energy (no company is a monopoly in any of those markets - largest housing company has < 10% of market share, largest bank has < 20% of market, largest energy company has < 30% of market share).
    - lkrubner 4y ago
      Competition has decreased throughout the economy. There are several ways to measure this. New firm creation in the USA has been in steady decline since the 1970s, and the explosion of software startups has not been enough to offset the rapid disappearance of industrial startups. Or, to take another measure, in 1999 there were 8,000 companies listed on USA stock markets, but now there are only 3,400 companies. Consolidation has moved at a rapid pace. Here is another take on the subject: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/paul-krugman-monopoly-capitalism-is-killing-us-economy-1.2615956 https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/paul-krugman-mon...
      - ChrisLomont 4y ago
- _8j50 4y ago
  Yes, profits need to be reduced by means of paying employees more when there is inflation. You can't keep wages stagnant with a rising inflation and keep up profits, works out for stock holders in the short term but for those who don't sell fast and for basicall everyone in the economy this isn't sustainable and can even be called the prime cause of a recession.
fennecfoxen 4y ago
> If you call it one, they will use it as cause for even more layoffs and price hikes Let’s go back to the Carter administration standard, then: The US economy is in a banana. Let’s hope it’s not a serious one.
gargs 4y ago
High corporate profits and high inflation are all a result of government's fiscal policies, though. The point is that this is not just because Wall Street has had a mood swing.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  High corporate profits? Are we looking at different stock markets?
  - Hikikomori 4y ago
    What does corporate profits have to do with the stock market?
    - CoffeeCollector 4y ago
      High corporate profits = higher share price ???
      - Retric 4y ago
        Actual profit is a backwards looking statistic, stock prices are a prediction of future profits.
        koheripbal 4y ago
        "stock prices are a prediction of future profits." No better prediction of future profits, than current profits.
        Retric 4y ago
        If that was true you wouln’t see such wildly different P/E ratios. Current profit isn’t irrelevant, but it doesn't tell you much especially if the company just lost money.
- epakai 4y ago
cloutchaser 4y ago
- simonh 4y ago
  If it was under Trump it would be a wonderful recession. Beautiful. The best recession America has ever had, in fact it would recede in ways nobody has ever even imagined.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    That is what Trump would have said... That is not what the media would have said.... Ironically that is what the media is functionally saying about the today's economy., for example repeating the lie that we have had the "most job growth in history" when in reality we still have not gotten back to pre-covid employment
    - simonh 4y ago
      Pretty much every major economy is messed up at the moment. The snap-back from Covid has swung our economies all over the place. I'm a Brit and we're in just as much trouble over here. Would another government in power, here or over there, really have done better? If we'd had the left in power here and the right in power in the US would it really have changed the course of our economies? I don't see it.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        That is not really the issue I am addressing which is more around politically bias and spin by the media and persons in government than about if or how the government can help or harm the economy Given the imperfect information, and the delay in gathering that imperfect information IMO governments attempting to "change" the economy is generally for the worse, and economies get better, faster when there is little or no government manipulation to them. In Short, the best thing the government can do is get out of the way and let the market work. Sadly both the government, and the population want to believe that there is "someone" in control, so they look to government to solve the problem. This is also why conspiracy, and religion are so prevalent. People in general can not accept chaos or randomness, thus someone has to be in charge. at every level pulling the strings and causing the outcomes we see
throw93232 4y ago
Why we have to wait until 2023 to call it "recession"? Because of elections in November? Why not wait until 2025 after presidential election?
- CoffeeCollector 4y ago
  lmao yes, that is precisely why
- lkrubner 4y ago
  NBER typically waits a year before declaring a recession. They want to make sure they have all the facts. Many economic statistics are revised several times, and don't settle to their final form till 6 months after they were announced (not even mentioning the statistics that get revised 20 years later). It wasn't till December of 2008 that they announced the recession, which they said had begun in December of 2007.
  - saalweachter 4y ago
    It's also worth noting that the recession that started in Dec '07 was definitely a factor in the election of Nov '08 despite not being called til Dec '08. It's reasonable to think that the fact of a recession is of more electoral consequence than the declaration; I'm a little curious if the common definition or the NBER definition correlates with incumbent (dis) advantage better.
  - throw93232 4y ago
    Well, that really is just technicality, is it? We could call it recession now, and later correct it, if data show something else. I am worried we will get another wave of censorship about "recession conspiracy".
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      > I am worried we will get another wave of censorship about "recession conspiracy". Yup, without a doubt. Anyone talking about a recession will be an anti-biden conspiracy theorist. Then, shortly after the election, they will admit there is a recession but that they are doing a really good job combating it.
tablespoon 4y ago
> My suspicion is this is all wallstreet's shenanigans. There is a growing labor rights movement and this climate makes it hard to pass any laws that support the movement. "Minimum wage caused low profits and an unrecoverable bear market" is the sentiment they want to spread (by they I mean the market makers and investment bankers of wallstreet). Do you have any evidence from that? Personally, I'm pro-union, etc.; but what you wrote sounds like a bias-affirming conspiracy theory.
- _8j50 4y ago
  It's not even a theory, just a suspicion based on how the 08 recession went down. Bush is about to leave office and Obama announced his candidacy and then you know the rest. What isn't a conspiracy is there are very few people who make markets and wield power greater than the treasury dept.
bedhead 4y ago
"Declaring the economy in or out if recession does not help anyone outside of propagandists and journalists." Correct. This is exactly why the people who are altering the definition are entirely propagandists (sometimes known as politicians) and journalists. In this case, they work in unison because they happen to be on the same team at the moment, so journalists are hoping and begging the government to change the definition so that it provides them sufficient cover so that they don't have to write on their front pages that the economy entered into a recession, which is obviously bad for the cause. It's the tacit "Help me help you!" situation. Their approach is that if the government says it, by journalists' standards (for the moment, of course) that's good enough by itself to validate it. Voila! This is all stupid anyway. Call it anything you want at anytime, it doesn't change reality.
- AinderS 4y ago
  It's fascinating how far this unison reaches. Merriam-Webster changed its definition of "sexual preference" to mark it as offensive after Amy Coney Barret used the term in a congressional hearing. Not even dictionaries are safe. https://web.archive.org/web/20200928131548/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preference https://web.archive.org/web/20200928131548/https://www.merri... https://web.archive.org/web/20201014032220/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preference#usage-1 https://web.archive.org/web/20201014032220/https://www.merri...
  - alasdair_ 4y ago
    Words change in their meaning over time. “Aesthetic” is my current bugbear.
    - AinderS 4y ago
      Sometimes that change is more sudden than others. On September 28th, 2020 (the closest preceding archive) it was not yet offensive. On October 13th, she used "sexual preference" in her congressional hearing. The very next day, on October 14th (the 1st subsequent archive), Merriam-Webster already had the new, "offensive" definition in place. The fluidity of language really is fascinating to behold.
mc32 4y ago
I never saw so much futzing about what is or isn't a recession before. WTF! Even Biden "declared" recessions before (in 2020) and people didn't start questioning him or any economist opining so. But now we have opinions by economists getting 'fact checked". Oh, the irony if fact checkers would get downsized due to "uncertain economic times". Any other administration but his and wed hear "We don't need an official pronouncement by the NBER to tell us we're in a recession!"
marcosdumay 4y ago
Since this is currently the top comment on the article, and there is no single comment disagreeing, I don't think this opinion is unpopular. It just doesn't filter through the bubble of propagandists and journalists that still mostly control our discourse. It's probably unpopular there.
Lammy 4y ago
> propagandists and journalists Why do you repeat yourself? Friendly reminder that Bohemian Club was founded by the San Francisco Chronicle editorial staff of the 1860s.
lamontcg 4y ago
> My suspicion is this is all wallstreet's shenanigans. There is a growing labor rights movement and this climate makes it hard to pass any laws that support the movement. Maybe in the current conditions it feels like just propagandizing. But labor growing at 5-6% and core CPI growing at 5-6% and unemployment being historically low are numbers that are very important to the Fed (commodities inflation and oil is not that important or the Fed would have done something in 2011-2014). They're likely to keep hiking rates until actual pain and a real recession is felt and those inflation numbers fall closer to 2% and unemployment rises sharply. They aren't just trying to propagandize in order to address the labor movement, to hit their stated goals and numbers they need to break its back with a recession. We're just not there yet. Although maybe in the future they'll consider this a double-dip recession and we just hit the first dip.

by _8j50 4y ago

refurb 4y ago

High corporate profits and high inflation. Those need to be addressed regardless of recession or not. I'm sorry what? Profits now need to be reduced? That seem the opposite of economic growth.

CoffeeCollector 4y ago
These companies keep demanding more and more and more from employees and their customers. When will they be satisfied?? We fostered their development and need now to reap from them.
saurik 4y ago
In a functioning capitalist market economy, profit margins (which I believe is what is being described here) would generally be low due to competition, and would only spike momentarily due to innovation. If a company consistently has high profits, something is fishy, and maybe they have a monopoly (which sadly seems to happen almost accidentally just from branding, as humans are poor market participants and will refuse a perfectly good alternative if it doesn't have a fancy name on it)... if everyone is making high profits and are even increasing their profits, I think (look: I am not an economist; I just have severe insomnia) that is indicating something is wrong with the labor market or the money supply.
- refurb 4y ago
  No. Some industries are highly capital dependent. You can't look at profit margin alone. And if high profit means "innovation" it seems like "getting rid of high profit" is the wrong decision?
  - saurik 4y ago
    The transient, company-specific boost from a company managing to innovate on something its competitors haven't gotten to yet isn't something you should see across the board across major companies: they only reasons you see so many companies managing to maintain high profit margins is because of regulatory rent seeking, anti-competitive lock-in, and the exploitation of the working class. The hallmark of a functioning economy isn't "lots of corporate profits", it is "lots of consumer value".
    - gunapologist99 4y ago
      True, but "lots of consumer value" drives inflation, if that consumer value isn't being satisfied. In other words, the supply is insufficient in the face of overwhelming demand, which is why prices increase in a functioning economy. Inflation is always a result of monetary policy; if the cash in the system (low interest rates, quantitative easing, government stimulus, etc) is increased without a corresponding increase in output, then inflation will naturally occur because demand for goods and services will increase beyond the capacity of supply. (h/t Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman) But, if economic output is actually decreasing because of those same economic policies (such as hiking interest rates or external factors such as war in Ukraine), then we can easily enter stagflation, which is stagnant growth with rampant inflation. We've had three periods since WWII where inflation hit double digits: the period immediately following the war (1946-1948), 1974-1975 during the oil crisis, and 1979-1983 following Carter's disastrous presidency (partly what he inherited, and then he made it much, much worse). In the last period (79-83), Paul Volcker immediately took strong action to control inflation by hiking interest rates through the roof. This caused immediate economic pain, but, in concert with lower taxes and reduced regulation, it succeeded in ushering in a strong bull market that lasted, by some definitions, decades. That's why the central banks are acting strongly to reduce inflation by raising rates, assuming they have the stomach to keep it up even as it might force the economy into a temporary stall: controlling inflation by reducing the money supply through higher rates has historically made for a stronger economy in the near future, and rates can always be reduced to inject stimulus into the economy if needed. Here's another Milton Friedman quote: "Inflation is the one form of taxation that can be imposed without legislation."
lkrubner 4y ago
When there is a supply-side shock, it can be paid by corporations or by consumers. Who it is paid by depends on how much competition there is. When there is a lot of competition, then corporations have to pay. When there is little competition, then the corporations can easily pass the price hike along to the consumers. So high profits and high inflation suggests an economy dominated by monopolies, that is, a lot of companies that are not facing much competition. That needs to be addressed. The 1970s saw high inflation and low profits, suggesting that corporations were facing enough competition that they absorbed as much of the price shock as they could before they passed price hikes to the consumer.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >So high profits and high inflation suggests an economy dominated by monopolies Low unemployment points is a tight labor market, meaning there is also competition to get workers. And the economy is hardly dominated by monopolies. Take a moment to tally where all of your money is spent, and see how many of those companies are anywhere near a monopoly. The vast majority of people's expenses is spent in competitive markets: housing, food, energy (no company is a monopoly in any of those markets - largest housing company has < 10% of market share, largest bank has < 20% of market, largest energy company has < 30% of market share).
  - lkrubner 4y ago
    Competition has decreased throughout the economy. There are several ways to measure this. New firm creation in the USA has been in steady decline since the 1970s, and the explosion of software startups has not been enough to offset the rapid disappearance of industrial startups. Or, to take another measure, in 1999 there were 8,000 companies listed on USA stock markets, but now there are only 3,400 companies. Consolidation has moved at a rapid pace. Here is another take on the subject: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/paul-krugman-monopoly-capitalism-is-killing-us-economy-1.2615956 https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/paul-krugman-mon...
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
_8j50 4y ago
Yes, profits need to be reduced by means of paying employees more when there is inflation. You can't keep wages stagnant with a rising inflation and keep up profits, works out for stock holders in the short term but for those who don't sell fast and for basicall everyone in the economy this isn't sustainable and can even be called the prime cause of a recession.

fennecfoxen 4y ago

> If you call it one, they will use it as cause for even more layoffs and price hikes Let’s go back to the Carter administration standard, then: The US economy is in a banana. Let’s hope it’s not a serious one.

gargs 4y ago

High corporate profits and high inflation are all a result of government's fiscal policies, though. The point is that this is not just because Wall Street has had a mood swing.

koheripbal 4y ago
High corporate profits? Are we looking at different stock markets?
- Hikikomori 4y ago
  What does corporate profits have to do with the stock market?
  - CoffeeCollector 4y ago
    High corporate profits = higher share price ???
    - Retric 4y ago
      Actual profit is a backwards looking statistic, stock prices are a prediction of future profits.
      - koheripbal 4y ago
        "stock prices are a prediction of future profits." No better prediction of future profits, than current profits.
        Retric 4y ago
        If that was true you wouln’t see such wildly different P/E ratios. Current profit isn’t irrelevant, but it doesn't tell you much especially if the company just lost money.
epakai 4y ago

cloutchaser 4y ago

simonh 4y ago
If it was under Trump it would be a wonderful recession. Beautiful. The best recession America has ever had, in fact it would recede in ways nobody has ever even imagined.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  That is what Trump would have said... That is not what the media would have said.... Ironically that is what the media is functionally saying about the today's economy., for example repeating the lie that we have had the "most job growth in history" when in reality we still have not gotten back to pre-covid employment
  - simonh 4y ago
    Pretty much every major economy is messed up at the moment. The snap-back from Covid has swung our economies all over the place. I'm a Brit and we're in just as much trouble over here. Would another government in power, here or over there, really have done better? If we'd had the left in power here and the right in power in the US would it really have changed the course of our economies? I don't see it.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      That is not really the issue I am addressing which is more around politically bias and spin by the media and persons in government than about if or how the government can help or harm the economy Given the imperfect information, and the delay in gathering that imperfect information IMO governments attempting to "change" the economy is generally for the worse, and economies get better, faster when there is little or no government manipulation to them. In Short, the best thing the government can do is get out of the way and let the market work. Sadly both the government, and the population want to believe that there is "someone" in control, so they look to government to solve the problem. This is also why conspiracy, and religion are so prevalent. People in general can not accept chaos or randomness, thus someone has to be in charge. at every level pulling the strings and causing the outcomes we see

throw93232 4y ago

Why we have to wait until 2023 to call it "recession"? Because of elections in November? Why not wait until 2025 after presidential election?

CoffeeCollector 4y ago
lmao yes, that is precisely why
lkrubner 4y ago
NBER typically waits a year before declaring a recession. They want to make sure they have all the facts. Many economic statistics are revised several times, and don't settle to their final form till 6 months after they were announced (not even mentioning the statistics that get revised 20 years later). It wasn't till December of 2008 that they announced the recession, which they said had begun in December of 2007.
- saalweachter 4y ago
  It's also worth noting that the recession that started in Dec '07 was definitely a factor in the election of Nov '08 despite not being called til Dec '08. It's reasonable to think that the fact of a recession is of more electoral consequence than the declaration; I'm a little curious if the common definition or the NBER definition correlates with incumbent (dis) advantage better.
- throw93232 4y ago
  Well, that really is just technicality, is it? We could call it recession now, and later correct it, if data show something else. I am worried we will get another wave of censorship about "recession conspiracy".
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    > I am worried we will get another wave of censorship about "recession conspiracy". Yup, without a doubt. Anyone talking about a recession will be an anti-biden conspiracy theorist. Then, shortly after the election, they will admit there is a recession but that they are doing a really good job combating it.

tablespoon 4y ago

> My suspicion is this is all wallstreet's shenanigans. There is a growing labor rights movement and this climate makes it hard to pass any laws that support the movement. "Minimum wage caused low profits and an unrecoverable bear market" is the sentiment they want to spread (by they I mean the market makers and investment bankers of wallstreet). Do you have any evidence from that? Personally, I'm pro-union, etc.; but what you wrote sounds like a bias-affirming conspiracy theory.

_8j50 4y ago
It's not even a theory, just a suspicion based on how the 08 recession went down. Bush is about to leave office and Obama announced his candidacy and then you know the rest. What isn't a conspiracy is there are very few people who make markets and wield power greater than the treasury dept.

bedhead 4y ago

"Declaring the economy in or out if recession does not help anyone outside of propagandists and journalists." Correct. This is exactly why the people who are altering the definition are entirely propagandists (sometimes known as politicians) and journalists. In this case, they work in unison because they happen to be on the same team at the moment, so journalists are hoping and begging the government to change the definition so that it provides them sufficient cover so that they don't have to write on their front pages that the economy entered into a recession, which is obviously bad for the cause. It's the tacit "Help me help you!" situation. Their approach is that if the government says it, by journalists' standards (for the moment, of course) that's good enough by itself to validate it. Voila! This is all stupid anyway. Call it anything you want at anytime, it doesn't change reality.

AinderS 4y ago
It's fascinating how far this unison reaches. Merriam-Webster changed its definition of "sexual preference" to mark it as offensive after Amy Coney Barret used the term in a congressional hearing. Not even dictionaries are safe. https://web.archive.org/web/20200928131548/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preference https://web.archive.org/web/20200928131548/https://www.merri... https://web.archive.org/web/20201014032220/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preference#usage-1 https://web.archive.org/web/20201014032220/https://www.merri...
- alasdair_ 4y ago
  Words change in their meaning over time. “Aesthetic” is my current bugbear.
  - AinderS 4y ago
    Sometimes that change is more sudden than others. On September 28th, 2020 (the closest preceding archive) it was not yet offensive. On October 13th, she used "sexual preference" in her congressional hearing. The very next day, on October 14th (the 1st subsequent archive), Merriam-Webster already had the new, "offensive" definition in place. The fluidity of language really is fascinating to behold.

mc32 4y ago

I never saw so much futzing about what is or isn't a recession before. WTF! Even Biden "declared" recessions before (in 2020) and people didn't start questioning him or any economist opining so. But now we have opinions by economists getting 'fact checked". Oh, the irony if fact checkers would get downsized due to "uncertain economic times". Any other administration but his and wed hear "We don't need an official pronouncement by the NBER to tell us we're in a recession!"

marcosdumay 4y ago

Since this is currently the top comment on the article, and there is no single comment disagreeing, I don't think this opinion is unpopular. It just doesn't filter through the bubble of propagandists and journalists that still mostly control our discourse. It's probably unpopular there.

Lammy 4y ago

> propagandists and journalists Why do you repeat yourself? Friendly reminder that Bohemian Club was founded by the San Francisco Chronicle editorial staff of the 1860s.

lamontcg 4y ago

> My suspicion is this is all wallstreet's shenanigans. There is a growing labor rights movement and this climate makes it hard to pass any laws that support the movement. Maybe in the current conditions it feels like just propagandizing. But labor growing at 5-6% and core CPI growing at 5-6% and unemployment being historically low are numbers that are very important to the Fed (commodities inflation and oil is not that important or the Fed would have done something in 2011-2014). They're likely to keep hiking rates until actual pain and a real recession is felt and those inflation numbers fall closer to 2% and unemployment rises sharply. They aren't just trying to propagandize in order to address the labor movement, to hit their stated goals and numbers they need to break its back with a recession. We're just not there yet. Although maybe in the future they'll consider this a double-dip recession and we just hit the first dip.