Cryptocurrency is going through its own hyperinflation by [deleted] in EconomicsTheory

[–]Musky 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I think $10 in lottery tickets would have better odds of making you money at this point. The latest rumor is that Binance and Crypto.com aren't solvent.

Cryptocurrency is going through its own hyperinflation by [deleted] in EconomicsTheory

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Yep. It’s a dive roll.

My suggestions, if you have money, invest 10$ is all of it.

If you bought 10$ worth of bit coin back in 09, you’d be a millionaire.

Cryptocurrency is going through its own hyperinflation by [deleted] in EconomicsTheory

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Everyone is getting scammed, u/Hongkongphooey most

Why do shops sometimes end up with empty shelves? by Lastrevio in EconomicsTheory

[–]Lastrevio[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ok but this still doesn't explain why the sellers couldn't just make the TP more expensive until so few people buy it that the amount of it in shelves is the same as before

Why do shops sometimes end up with empty shelves? by Lastrevio in EconomicsTheory

[–]mantra 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The specific reason why TP shelves were empty has NOTHING to do with profiteering or hoarding or even anything the store can control!

It's actually stupider: it's the upstream supply chains and how inflexible, brittle and rigid they are in "modern" 2020 American. This has recently been the most dangerous aspect of major economic disruption: supply chain collapse.

TP isn't even the only example - meat, veggies, etc. all have the same flaw and will empty out because of over or under capacity any time there is a major change in demand. That's why milk is being dumped, cows slaughtered and ground up into fertilizer, and meat shortages are occurring even with slaughterhouses getting back online.

So the problem is that supply chains are "tuned" to work with no more than 5%-20% volume variance. This is because we primarily have "Just In Time" aka JIT supply chains now. The reason we have laser scanners at checkout is to facilitate JIT: nothing is ordered by the store until someone buys the thing. The laser scanner dumps ever purchase into a database and an order for more is only triggered when the inventory hits a threshold point.

And then the same thing happens with the upstream supplier/wholesaler (which might be the same company for big supermarkets or is a generic grocery wholesaler): they will not ship anything until they get an order for a store and they often only fulfill the order once THEIR orders hit a threshold of shipping volume in a geographic area.

And then the same thing happens to them (e.g. with bleach or lysol) where the manufacturer of the product also only ships once they get enough orders to hit a certain shipping volume - often the manufacturer has ZERO inventory and they manufacture the product once they get enough orders.

And similarly the raw chemicals required for bleach or lysol only get ordered once the manufacturing run has been committed and only get delivered by that supplier once the order is in hand, and these suppliers do not manufacture the chemicals for the order until they get enough orders as well. They they have their suppliers doing the same thing.

The key is demand must percolate step-by-step up the supply chain and no one is holding any inventory anywhere along the supply chain. To avoid inventory at any given node, everything is carefully tuned to a volume level that is based on previous order statistics (I had an entire course in this for my MBA).

There are a few exceptions to this for supply nodes that simply can NOT NOT hold inventory or have a long lead time. The classic example is farmers - they are slaved to the season and the weather, and pretty much have to take whatever orders come. For this reason most US farmers now use commodity futures to lock in a price and to "buy insurance" for bad harvests. Another is clothing manufacturers in Asia.

The intent is to have as close to ZERO inventory in the supply chains as possible. Usually each node in the chain has 1% or less inventory. Any inventory you keep is taxed by state and federal governments and subtracts from your profit margin - it's like income tax - and it's avoided at any cost. Plus NO ONE pays you to plan ahead and worry about unpredictable exceptions like a pandemic or war or economic crash. So no one does.

So start with that and now change demand by more than 20%. TP demand changed by 30%-40% this spring due to COVID shutdowns. The inevitable result is the supply chain chokes out on the increased demand.

And the problem is made worse because nearly every supply chain has at least 2 separate product forms. Some have more than 2.

For TP there is industrial and retail product forms with 100% separate supply chains for each of them. Retail is what you buy at the store for your home. I has very specific quality standards and very specific legally-required labeling. The other type, industrial, is very different. It's a different size, it's typically 1-ply, it's labeled differently, etc.

So now you have a pandemic where you have most of the population staying home instead of being at work. At home you use retail TP. At work you use industrial TP.

And because of the supply chain and product differences, you can NEVER substitute industrial for retail due to legal, logistic and customer expectations/preferences differences. So once you shutdown the demand for industrial and push that demand to retail home use, you suddenly have a major retail shortage and major industrial surplus because the supply chains are super brittle and inflexible. But you can NOT sell industrial TP in a retail store. You may have seen labels on products that say "Not for resale" - that's how industrial TP is because of legal and tax reasons.

It literally takes several months to quarters to re-tool the production if you can change over at all.

For example near me is an industrial TP factory - that's ALL they make. They buy 20 foot wide, 8 foot round bulk rolls of 1 ply paper, unroll it, cut it up and roll onto typical 12"-18" TP rolls you see at work or in public restrooms, and all their machines are designed only for that input from THEIR supply chain and they machines can not be changed to make retail TP. And most of the people at this TP plant have been furloughed indefinitely - adding the current super-depression unemployment rate.

This is typically of the level of specialization that now exists in every supply chain in America. Because it profit-maximizes to do it this way. But it can NOT handle disruption and change well. In fact, it's what Taleb would call "Fragile".

Because of similar issues, veggies similarly have retail packaging and wholesales packaging with completely different supply chains once the product leaves the farm. And similarly you can not sell wholesale/restaurant channel veggies through retail stores.

And we actually saw this coming - or should of - basically anyone who truly claims to be surprised is liar or a moron. We saw "supply chain" collapse with Hurricane Katrina. Most grocery/supermarkets only carry 3 days of inventory because of JIT. With Katrina, all the supply chains into Louisiana, Alabama and East Texas completely collapsed in just 3 days. There were plenty of articles about this but not everyone was paying attention.

So this is how we ran out of TP, and hand sanitizer, and other things.

It was made even worse because if you hop more than 2-4 steps up the supply chain, you are suddenly relying on a factory in China. Most of these essentials were intentionally kept from export by China. China knew about the COVID-19 infection far earlier than they publicly claim. The evidence is very clear. So they halted export of PPE masks and gloves, ventilators, chemicals for bleach and hand sanitizer, etc. so they could use them for themselves. This halt came in December.

You can't really blame them. But you can absolutely blame the US and its leadership here for being so stupid as to become that dependent on China! We must recover manufacturing to the US because this is what happens. And we need to change inventory taxation laws to allow larger inventories of critical commodities and create emergency exceptions for things like food sales limits when they are in separate supply chains.

Why do shops sometimes end up with empty shelves? by Lastrevio in EconomicsTheory

[–]rdh2121 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't want to out you if you don't want to say what country you're from, but I bet you do have some sort of law like this on the books.

If you really don't have them, it's possible that store owners chose not to gouge customers who may be in need, which could also encourage theft or even robbery, which would work against the owners. Holes in supply chains due to the coronavirus situation could be playing a part as well.

Why do shops sometimes end up with empty shelves? by Lastrevio in EconomicsTheory

[–]Lastrevio[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In my country there were no such laws IIRC. Also we see shops with empty shelves all the time in other non-crisis scenarios.

Why do shops sometimes end up with empty shelves? by Lastrevio in EconomicsTheory

[–]rdh2121 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This is because we have laws against profiteering during an emergency, with severe repercussions. The answer we usually see, and which we saw during the Coronavirus, is instead limiting purchases to a certain number per person, which is effectively a means of artificially influencing supply to help ensure that there's more to go around.

Fake Capitalism Is A Bigger Threat Than Socialism by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

More to the point: If you knew that this article contained no such theory, why on earth did you post this here? Post it to politics or somewhere else.

Well from how I read the article, and still do, it's not a call to the government to 'go clean up capitalism' but a call out to the market itself.

Fake Capitalism Is A Bigger Threat Than Socialism by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]worm 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, I'm sorry for causing the misunderstanding by using that label. As far as I am concerned, this author isn't interested in economics and is purely interested in furthering his socialist political agenda by disassociating himself from that distasteful political label. He avoids using the word socialism or socialist to describe his policies, yet clearly advocates for policies which most people would regard as socialist.

More to the point: If you knew that this article contained no such theory, why on earth did you post this here? Post it to politics or somewhere else.

Fake Capitalism Is A Bigger Threat Than Socialism by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Instead of defending his argument or raising issues with mine, you have instead ignored the entirety of the theory and simply decided to attack the label I ascribe to his purely political proposals.

Why would I argue for his arguments?

I read your critique and wondered how you came up with

The article argues that since there are barriers to entry, capitalism doesn't work and we need "socialism".

That's all that happened.

Fake Capitalism Is A Bigger Threat Than Socialism by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]worm 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Truth be told, I don't care for the article's conclusions or what sort of label you would prefer that I use for it. His proposals to "clean up capitalism", combined with his rather lacking and uninspired criticism of monopolies, smacks of interventionist and socialist rhetoric to me. If you would like to call it anything else, then let it be so - I would be willing to call it under any label you would ascribe to it, so long as you accept the fundamental point that this article bears little economic theory at all.

I have continually stated that this writer is either too ignorant or too lazy to argue about economic theory, and indeed have invited you repeatedly to propound on why you thought this was perhaps economic rather than political in nature. Instead of defending his argument or raising issues with mine, you have instead ignored the entirety of the theory and simply decided to attack the label I ascribe to his purely political proposals.

Fake Capitalism Is A Bigger Threat Than Socialism by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Conversely, if you want to bring on socialism, just pretend nothing is wrong and stay on the present course.

Fake capitalism isn’t working for most people. Eventually, they’ll demand something else. And they will probably get it too.

Is what it really ends with, but even with your one out-of-context sentence I still can't see your

It is upon these assumptions that it asserts a need for "socialism"

It's clear the author doesn't want socialism and certainly isn't advocating for it in any way. (unless being critical about capitalism equals socialism)

I certainly didn't find any economic theory in this article.

If that was your problem, why not say so instead of making stuff up about this article asserting a need for socialism?

Fake Capitalism Is A Bigger Threat Than Socialism by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]worm 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"If you fear socialism, the best way to stop it is to clean up capitalism," proclaims the article at its conclusion.

I think it is fairly clear that this whole article was an exercise in preconcluded reasoning, whereby one finds issues which aren't there and proposes solutions which are not necessary. The whole issue of monopolies, as he describes it, is not economic theory at all.

I certainly didn't find any economic theory in this article. If you have found some, I'd be glad if you'd point out what's so illuminating about it.

Fake Capitalism Is A Bigger Threat Than Socialism by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is upon these assumptions that it asserts a need for "socialism"

This I disagree with, where did you get that from?

Fake Capitalism Is A Bigger Threat Than Socialism by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]worm 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What do you think is my assumption?

I think this article clearly assumes that monopolies are not natural under capitalism. It also assumes that monopolies are bad for the economy. It is upon these assumptions that it asserts a need for "socialism", whatever that entails.

If you have read that article and come to a different interpretation of it, I'd like to hear your interpretation. From what I can see, the article appears to be written by a man with little interest in economic theory and amounts to little more than political point-scoring.

Fake Capitalism Is A Bigger Threat Than Socialism by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The article argues that since there are barriers to entry, capitalism doesn't work and we need "socialism".

That's taking the article to a long stretch,

The broader point here is that leading “capitalists” are often nothing of the sort, particularly when they use political influence to carve out monopolies.

That’s neither capitalism nor socialism. It is something completely different: crony capitalism, corporatism, corporate statism—the terms vary. It promotes wealth concentration that leads to economic stagnation, political instability and the current discontent… which might bring real socialism.

So if you fear socialism, the best way to stop it is to clean up capitalism.

That means stop letting government policy favor large, influential companies. Let everyone compete on an equal footing, and give consumers and workers freedom to choose what they want.

Conversely, if you want to bring on socialism, just pretend nothing is wrong and stay on the present course.

I really don't see how the above closing words rhyme with your assumption.

Fake Capitalism Is A Bigger Threat Than Socialism by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]worm 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would again suggest that this article was flawed from the very beginning? The man who wrote this needs to familiarize himself with a certain Joseph Schumpeter, and either adopt his points or refute them before stating his own grand theories about where the economy is going.

The article argues that since there are barriers to entry, capitalism doesn't work and we need "socialism".

To get to this argument, it takes a very simplistic model of perfect competition from classical economics, the sort which was proposed initially by Smith and Ricardo, and tries to point out how modern America does not have perfect competition due to barriers to entry by the virtue of scale - in other words, "moats", as Warren Buffet might call them.

The problem, of course, is that we know that economic models are not static as Smith and Ricardo assumed. Schumpeter's analysis of economics demonstrated that the economy is constantly changing: real competition is not only between prices, but also between competing methods of production. It is the drive to find better methods of producing the same goods which leads us to the "gales of creative destruction" which will inevitably tear down any monopoly which does not improve its products over time.

Hence, in Schumpeter's view, there is nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly as long as the gales of creative destruction are active. A monopolist who does not innovate will find his monopolistic advantage lost in time as newer and better methods of production destroy his "moat", and the constant shoring up of such moats by research and development into new technologies is what keeps capitalism (as Schumpeter calls it) effective.

I'm not claiming that Schumpeter's arguments about dynamic capitalism is necessarily an unassailable argument - there are probably academics and theorists out there who disagree. The point I'm making is that the man who wrote this article is either too lazy or too misinformed to even address the obvious answer to his presumptions.

Economists Are Obsessed with “Job Creation.” How About Less Work? by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If we as a society stop buying all but basic necessities, it would be entirely possible that the luxuries market would grind to a halt and employers would consequently start employing less people on fewer hours to produce such luxuries.

I agree on that.

Though this does touch on a kind of 'chicken--egg' scenario for these luxuries goods and the need/want for them. I mean like

if we as a society stop buying all but basic necessities

Could also be:

"f we as a society stop making all but basic necessities"

Economists Are Obsessed with “Job Creation.” How About Less Work? by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]worm 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If I might say so, you seem to have missed the larger picture entirely and focused entirely on a single, hypothetical working man and his choices, instead of why those choices exist in the first place.

If you take a look behind the mechanisms for your hypothetical working man, you will discover that the working man is offered 40 hour work weeks because the employer believes that the 40 hour work week will be profitable for him. The employer in turn believes that it would be profitable for him because he believes that there is a sufficient demand for the products he can create, such that he would extract a maximum amount of benefits from the employee should the employee work for 40 hours for him. The demand which drives his confidence is the reason why the employee is able to work 40 hour weeks and is not on part-time work; and the demand, for the most part, is for goods which previous generations would have considered alien luxuries.

If we as a society stop buying all but basic necessities, it would be entirely possible that the luxuries market would grind to a halt and employers would consequently start employing less people on fewer hours to produce such luxuries.

Economists Are Obsessed with “Job Creation.” How About Less Work? by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The reason we continue to work normal hours is not because of some sort of shambolic work ethic which forces us to put in more hours at work despite producing nothing of value; the reason we continue to work is because our "play ethic" (as the article calls it) demands more work from others to fulfill our ever-increasing demands for goods.

That might be true for middle-class and up.

A problem is that low/underpaid jobs somethings set a max on the hours work because of insurance and other things they have to fix for their employers. A normal paid job is mostly a job you can't haggle your time too much are requires you to work around 40+ hours, else you can pack up an someone will take over that will gives those hours.

There aren't many people who have to freedom to choose semi part time hours and not be a burger flipper.

Economists Are Obsessed with “Job Creation.” How About Less Work? by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So can't we just provide value to each other without money changing hands? Surely that would solve this particular problem. If money becomes worth less and less, then those with a lot of money will have less power. It's unorthodox, to be sure, but it Works in Theory™.

Economists Are Obsessed with “Job Creation.” How About Less Work? by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]fred_red_beans 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think there is a lot that people could do to add "capital" or value to our communities, problem is that they may not be able to earn money for it. Our economy, and those that control our economy, guide or dictate our productive activities.

Economists Are Obsessed with “Job Creation.” How About Less Work? by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We are getting to a point where we're running out of jobs. What should be do about it?

Economists Are Obsessed with “Job Creation.” How About Less Work? by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

if you go to for a second opinion, there's an 80% chance that the second opinion will be entirely the opposite of the first opinion.

Of course, this only applies for certain things. For something like "is it important to eat food" or "should I get my broken leg set", the decision won't be controversial. "Is chemotherapy or radiotherapy a better choice" will probably get you a different answer, if only because it's a false dichotomy.

Economists Are Obsessed with “Job Creation.” How About Less Work? by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]worm 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

May I suggest that the article's reasoning is fundamentally flawed?

The whole basis of the article is that as we have figured out ways to produce as much with less labour, and that this frees us up to have more free time. It argues that the reason we still labour so much is because we are all engaging in unproductive work.

Where this analysis falls down is on the simple fact that where human productive capacity increases twofold, human greed increases tenfold. As our ability to supply ourselves increased, we began to demand more and more things which our ancestors would have considered frivolous luxuries, and even came to regard such luxuries as being inalienable parts of our life - so much so that they are practically necessities.

The reason we continue to work normal hours is not because of some sort of shambolic work ethic which forces us to put in more hours at work despite producing nothing of value; the reason we continue to work is because our "play ethic" (as the article calls it) demands more work from others to fulfill our ever-increasing demands for goods.

Economists Are Obsessed with “Job Creation.” How About Less Work? by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]sodasplash 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It doesn't have to be this way, but while we complain about the conditions imposed upon us by the system, it is also our collective choice to continue to engage in it.

Choose "No."

Exceptionally apt comment. I would also add medical. We are told to not think for ourselves but trust learned individuals. And yet, especially when it comes to something like our own physical well being, if you go to for a second opinion, there's an 80% chance that the second opinion will be entirely the opposite of the first opinion.

This is actually true in many walks of life. Yet so few people realize this because they barely have "time" to get a well informed first opinion.

Opinions are the same as assholes. Everyone has them. Especially doctors and lawyers.

Economists Are Obsessed with “Job Creation.” How About Less Work? by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]fred_red_beans 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Another effect of everyone working so much is that there is much less time for people to communicate with each other. While we are out working we depend on small groups of administrators, politicians, judges, and corporations take responsibility for issues that face us and our communities. Most people have little to no interaction with the workings of our political, judicial, or educational systems. We are only allowed to influence them by proxy via elections. Responsibility is lifted from us by these institutions, and we are much poorer for it. It could be seen as less efficient for groups of people to take the time be able to come to consensus on issues, but if people had more time in the first place, we would all have to learn to take responsibility for ourselves as a group or community. Currently most people are so concerned about just making it and chasing the dollar that they are distracted from other things, that while would take some work, may have a greater value.

Congressmen and senators don't care about what their constituents really think or care about, they only want to know what message will help their re-election and what they can do for their donors.

Most people don't have any idea how many are in their county jail. Shouldn't the people in a community have a say or at least some insight into the how members of their community are being "corrected" and why? Judges are appointed by politicians.

Corporations fund the colleges to ensure they get the next generation of employees they want.

It doesn't have to be this way, but while we complain about the conditions imposed upon us by the system, it is also our collective choice to continue to engage in it.

JPMorgan: We Are Fast Approaching The Point Where Banks Run Out Of Liquidity by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wouldn't know.

How the Worlds Bankers Came to Be - Michael Hudson ((Excerpt)) by Jesus in EconomicsTheory

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The guy on Michael's left looks like he's sitting on something hard and he smirks a lot, just saying.

JPMorgan: We Are Fast Approaching The Point Where Banks Run Out Of Liquidity by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How about AIG and Goldmen Sachs?

JPMorgan: We Are Fast Approaching The Point Where Banks Run Out Of Liquidity by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]send_nasty_stuff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Can't wait.

"Ben Swann ON: Will The Economy Crash In 2020?" by Ben Swann on RT (2019-03-04) by JasonCarswell in EconomicsTheory

[–]Farren 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Jesus Christ... you'd think that market decisions would be based on data and facts, not on the president's buddy phoning up some bankers to tell them that all the numbers they're seeing are wrong, and they should buy stocks and lend money...

Italian voice over. Italian voice overs. Italian voice talent by locutor99 in EconomicsTheory

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ads go in /s/ads please, last warning, thank you.

"Ben Swann ON: Will The Economy Crash In 2020?" by Ben Swann on RT (2019-03-04) by JasonCarswell in EconomicsTheory

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I was sure it was going to hit in 2017. Everyone was saying so.

And then I learned about Presidential Plunge Protection Team. Sounds like a joke but it's legit. Naturally there's diverse propaganda and counter-propaganda on it: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Presidential+Plunge+Protection+Team

"Ben Swann ON: Will The Economy Crash In 2020?" by Ben Swann on RT (2019-03-04) by JasonCarswell in EconomicsTheory

[–]Farren 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

TBH it looked like 2017-18 was primed for a recession what with many major retailers going out of business and auto industry leaning heavily into big trucks but slowing for small cars. But here we are in 2019: unemployment didn't spike, large vehicles are a good wave to ride on, and those who worked at the smaller auto plants that are closing/closed are redistributing to other jobs... Recession could still hold off for a few years, probably just long enough for the US politics to change hands and everything to be blamed on the other side.

"Ben Swann ON: Will The Economy Crash In 2020?" by Ben Swann on RT (2019-03-04) by JasonCarswell in EconomicsTheory

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Another reason to take those Scary assault weapons (all firearms) before the collapse. Oh also, militarize the police.

"Ben Swann ON: Will The Economy Crash In 2020?" by Ben Swann on RT (2019-03-04) by JasonCarswell in EconomicsTheory

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

BEFORE 2030. That's all we really know. That's IF, a big IF, the US can give up her national soverignty to the UN and agenda 2030 can be implemented with a digital currency backed by the SDR.

"Ben Swann ON: Will The Economy Crash In 2020?" by Ben Swann on RT (2019-03-04) by JasonCarswell in EconomicsTheory

[–]hennaojisan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ten years ago the major requirement for a housing loan was getting through the door. Never get a variable-interest loan at the peak of a bubble.

"Recession looms as subprime borrowers default loans" by RT America with prof Richard D. Wolff (2019-02-13) by JasonCarswell in EconomicsTheory

[–]useless_aether 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

as always, get out of debt asap and while you can!

How Millennials Became The Burnout Generation by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's about millennials because they are hitting the 30-levels of age (basically the 'old' age of having all your stuff pretty much figured out like job, house, partner and/or children.). But Gen Z (or whatever) will go through the same unless, unless the house market crashes soon and resets in reasonable waters. AKA unless 'we' fix it soon.

How Millennials Became The Burnout Generation by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]happysmash27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not finished reading the article, but I am 17 and in generation Z, and experience the same type of burnout and paralysis, as I have for a while now.

Edit:

Things that should’ve felt good (leisure, not working) felt bad because I felt guilty for not working; things that should’ve felt “bad” (working all the time) felt good because I was doing what I thought I should and needed to be doing in order to succeed.

Hehe, I'm pretty sure I felt the same way in middle school! This is a familiar feeling.

Edit 2:

While writing this piece, I was orchestrating a move, planning travel, picking up prescriptions…

I would be exhausted even at this point. I guess I get burned out easily.

How Millennials Became The Burnout Generation by Mnemonic in EconomicsTheory

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Screw buzzfeed