5 ms·
It appears that we are heading into a recession as we speak. What are law makers doing right now to prepare for the possible effects of this recession? What ar
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
It appears that we are heading into a recession as we speak.
What are law makers doing right now to prepare for the possible effects of this recession? What are we doing to predict which parts of the financial system will collapse? What are we doing to prepare if CO-VID mutates into a deadly strain? We've known for 30 years that the climate will change, have we done anything to prepare for the consequences of that?
Why must we always need to react and pass TARP or PPP within a week time-frame or the entire economy crumbles?
- jjtheblunt 4y ago> We've known for 30 years that the climate will change to your point, archaeologists have been scuba diving to sunken coastal Greek and Roman era cities all around Mediterranean coasts for decades too, sunken from sea level rising may meters over the last couple thousand years. Just another interesting datapoint straight from National Geographic magazines as a kid, before politicians really grabbed hold of global warming.
- Wyoming23 4y agoThat's not a "interesting datapoint" that's an unrelated anecdote. That's the climate change denialism equivalent of "my grandma smoked her whole life and didn't get lung cancer, so these scientists don't know what they're talking about".
- phpisthebest 4y agoIt would not call it denialism I would call it taking a different view that we can or should attempt to stop climate change There are 3 groups 1. People that think we should stop at nothing, including resetting the global economy, to stop climate change 2. People that think Humanity can and will adapt to the changing environment and that is the best course 3. People that think nothing is changing, and everything is fine
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI think you missed the most important group: 4. People that think climate change is real, and investments to mitigate damages should be weighed on a cost/benefit basis. That is to say, for a given change, how much will it hurt people to mitigate it now vs later, given the time value of money and exponential development. People in #1 and #2 dogmatically believe the answer always falls into act now or act later. Luckily, most governments end up taking some sort of a middle road between these extremes.
- ncmncm 4y agoMeaning, of course, tragically.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoIm not actually sure of your meaning.
- ncmncm 4y agoClimate catastrophe is imminent, and governments dragging their feet are directly responsible. It is very far from clear that civilization collapse will be averted.
- phpisthebest 4y agoSo then you are in group 1.... Clearly. Most people disagree
- ncmncm 4y agoNo, because almost everything that could be done about averting climate catastrophe would be massively good for the economy and global prosperity, immediately. It could be uncomfortable for owners of coal mines and oil supply chain companies. You telegraph your sympathies. Global civilization collapse followed by billions starving and thermonuclear war will not end up good for anybody. But with some luck you could die first, something foot-draggers seem to count on. Why should they risk any hint of (expected) discomfort for benefits they would not anyway live to see? What have their grandchildren ever done for them?
- jjtheblunt 4y agoI'm not sure where you're getting that, as I'm not denying climate change at all. I just thought the longer term cycles not man made are interesting.
- ncmncm 4y agoSea level rise finished ~8000 ya. The sunken urban areas explored lately are mostly subsidence, e.g. Heraklion off Egypt. That said, there is a great deal of underwater urban stuff off India not accounted for by subsidence. And a million square miles off southeast Asia still unexplored, that might or might not be urban. That would be any from before 8kya.
- jjtheblunt 4y agoNote : i'm not arguing for denying climate change. I just saw an interesting article about long term cycles that predate the industrial era.
- polski-g 4y agoWe entered a recession at the start of this quarter.
- ac29 4y agoA recession hasn't been declared yet (though may be in the future, retroactively including parts of this year). Laypersons often define it as 2 quarters of negative GDP growth, which has happened, but that is not the official definition in the US. The actual definition is more complex, and includes things like unemployment levels, which are at generational lows.
- seti0Cha 4y agoThis argument always goes the same way, yet for some reason I don't think I've seen it all the way to the end. Let supply the next part: The notion of an "official" definition, and that it must be "declared" were introduced when the prior definition indicated a recession and the powers that be either did not want to admit there was one, or did not think this one should really qualify. Ok, that's part 3. Somebody supply part 4.
- polski-g 4y ago> Laypersons often define it as 2 quarters of negative GDP growth No. No they do not. The official definition is 2 quarters -- the layperson defines it to be whatever they feel like.
- jlmorton 4y agoThis argument over the binary question of whether we are, or not, in a recession is so strange. If we are, it's the strangest recession I've ever encountered, with sky-high, record levels of job openings, rising wages, lots of robust job growth, expanding manufacturing, rising prices, product shortages, etc. There are a lot of headwinds, and the business cycle indeed seems to have turned down. Based on rising rates, reduced credit, and an increasing trend of layoffs, I bet we are indeed heading into a recession. But it sure does not feel like it currently.