Looks like trickle down works after all

[brenthutch 444]

With the record low unemployment, we don't have enough workers to fill the jobs created by new industries.  BTW we now export oil and gas.

[billvon 2,991]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

With the record low unemployment, we don't have enough workers to fill the jobs created by new industries. 

All the better.  Wages will go up as employers try to attract workers to those new industries.

[brenthutch 444]

Wages are going up now, no need for a government boondoggle.  Besides, creating an artificial demand for labor in this market would be highly inflationary, forcing the Fed to raise interest rates and plunging us into recession. 

[gowlerk 2,191]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Wages are going up now, no need for a government boondoggle.  Besides, creating an artificial demand for labor in this market would be highly inflationary, forcing the Fed to raise interest rates and plunging us into recession. 

Just like a tax cut?

[billvon 2,991]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Wages are going up now, no need for a government boondoggle.  Besides, creating an artificial demand for labor in this market would be highly inflationary, forcing the Fed to raise interest rates and plunging us into recession. 

You mean - like a tariff?  You just argued that the artificial, inflationary demand that a tariff created was a good thing.  And if you are trying to use government policy to push demand, it is absolutely better to push demand for something high tech that we really can do better than other countries - at least for a decade or so.

[brenthutch 444]

11 minutes ago, billvon said:

You mean - like a tariff?  You just argued that the artificial, inflationary demand that a tariff created was a good thing.  And if you are trying to use government policy to push demand, it is absolutely better to push demand for something high tech that we really can do better than other countries - at least for a decade or so.

Uh, Bill tariffs raise prices and REDUCE demand, it's kind of their thing.  The tariffs reduce demand and slow the economy, deregulation and lower taxation stimulate it.  

Edited December 31, 2019 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,991]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Uh, Bill tariffs raise prices and REDUCE demand, it's kind of their thing. 

No, they increase demand for local products, thus increasing local employment and protecting local industry, at the cost of demand for foreign products.  This isn't a side effect, it is their goal - to stimulate local production.  From Wikipedia: "[A tariff] is a form of regulation of foreign trade and a policy that taxes foreign products to encourage or safeguard domestic industry. " Here's the Wikipedia page on it if you are interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff

As you mentioned, they are a drag on the economy overall, as several recent studies have shown.  But they absolutely are designed to increase local employment - and protect local industries.  Econ 101.

[brenthutch 444]

It depends, if the tariffs are directed at a single country (China) it may redound to the benefit of other countries (Viet Nam and Mexico), not just domestic producers.  As the tariffs are being implemented currently, that is the case.  We are diversifying rather than consolidating our supply chain. (Econ 601)

Edited December 31, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 235]

17 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The tariffs are tapping the breaks on what might otherwise be an overheating economy. 

I agree with this.  If the economy moves to quickly a slowdown causes concern with investors and consumers when the slowdown happens equally as fast and can lead to a runaway fallout in the market.  In my industry (building design/construction) I've watched two times now as we go from a glut of new projects in which builders want to go so fast that they don't even care if the plans are done to nobody picking up the phone.  When these tariffs started to fuck up the current period of rapid growth I cheered.

[brenthutch 444]

Given that the definition of Recession is two consecutive quarters of economic contraction, and you said "I am predicting that the start of a recession will occur prior to Q2 2020" you are already wrong.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

51 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Given that the definition of Recession is two consecutive quarters of economic contraction, and you said "I am predicting that the start of a recession will occur prior to Q2 2020" you are already wrong.

Oh look, you make the same mistake in two places. See if you can go for three?

[brenthutch 444]

 

 

19 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Oh look, you make the same mistake in two places. See if you can go for three?

Ring the bell, class is in session!

 "In economics, a recession is a business cycle contraction when there is a general decline in economic activity. Recessions generally occur when there is a widespread drop in spending (an adverse demand shock). This may be triggered by various events, such as a financial crisis, an external trade shock, an adverse supply shock, a pandemic, or the bursting of an economic bubble. In the United States, it is defined as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the market, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales" In the United Kingdom, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters"

So you see, whichever metric you choose, you loose.

Class dismissed

[SkyDekker 1,465]

So if the next 6 months show contraction you think the recession didn't start before the end of Q2?

 

You simply have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

[billvon 2,991]

Just now, SkyDekker said:

You simply have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Of course he has a clue.  He's baiting you.

[Phil1111 1,149]

24 minutes ago, billvon said:

Of course he has a clue.  He's baiting you.

Advanced economics for the clueless.    So its really not his fault.

[gowlerk 2,191]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Of course he has a clue.  He's baiting you.

He clearly is not stupid. So yes, this is most likely.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

He clearly is not stupid. So yes, this is most likely.

I'm not sure I agree. What makes someone stupid? Lack of brain power, sure. Inability to organize information to get a clear picture of the situation, also true. There must also be un-idiot savants, no?