3 ms·
Car crashes are also identified after the fact. Doesn't make it unreasonable to declare one when you first notice your wheels have lost traction on the ice. htt
by Phiwise_ 4y ago
Car crashes are also identified after the fact. Doesn't make it unreasonable to declare one when you first notice your wheels have lost traction on the ice. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2YM https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2YM
- thinkmcfly 4y agoPlenty of people spin out without hitting anything.
- Phiwise_ 4y agoYou should probably click through the link before trying to extend the metaphor.
- thinkmcfly 4y agoDoes it explain why someone would say their car crashed without it having crashed
- Phiwise_ 4y agoIt explains why you should try to learn anything about a subject before trying to comment on it. Jesus I need to stop expecting better from this website.
- thinkmcfly 4y agoIt doesn't inspire confidence that you refuse to make comments that can stand up logically without adding a context dump link. Hard pass
- Phiwise_ 4y ago>It doesn't inspire confidence that you think my aggressive misreading of your statement matters less than your ability to back it up empirically that I don't know how to read Oh how will I ever live with myself
- shrimp_emoji 4y ago>I need to stop expecting better from adult /g/
- Phiwise_ 4y agoYou are correct, but technology generally necessitates an almost ideological commitment to optimism. Therefore I blame the subject matter instead of myself.
- heavenlyblue 4y agoIf a car is 5 meters from a wall going at 80mph straight into it, the car will 100% crash into a wall. No ice conditions needed. The example with icy conditions though is that once your car noticeably lost traction you know perfectly well you are no longer in control and that there's nothing you can do to save yourself rather than betting on getting lucky.
- oneoff786 4y agoDo you think this analogy captures the nuances of this situation? Or is it just vaguely aligned with your opinion?
- Phiwise_ 4y agoThe nuances of this situation is that the yield curve hasn't been this inverted in 40 years, and successfully indicated every actual recession in that time. Like I said to the other user, you should click through to the link. There's something deeply troubling about this pattern of response: >>>>We're headed for a recession. >>>Are you sure you don't just wish we were headed for a recession, for vindication of your opinion? >>I derived this opinion from a longstanding indicator, which you can see here: [LINK] >Are you sure you don't just wish that was a longstanding indicator, for vindication of your opinion?
- oneoff786 4y agoThen share your opinion, share your evidence, explain and Your thinking instead of providing a dumb analogy that gets people debating the nuances of the ANALOGY instead of the actual issue.
- Phiwise_ 4y agoAre you just blind to text in the form of a url? I did both. It's not my fault you, or anyone else, finds it convenient to pretend I didn't.
- credit_guy 4y agoOne way to read the negative spread between the 10 year Treasuries and the 2 year Treasuries is that at some point beyond 2 years the Fed will lower the rates and keep them low for a while. That's consistent with a recession. But not in 2023. Maybe in 2025.
- Phiwise_ 4y agoSomething tells me the Centre for Economic and Business Research is looking at slightly more information than the single graph I bothered to pull off fred for the sake of an internet comment implying we weren't going to have a recession period.