185

The economy’s strength and stability — defying many of the most optimistic predictions — represents a remarkable development after seemingly endless crises

As 2023 winds to a close, Powell and his colleagues are far from declaring victory on inflation. They routinely caution that their actions could be thwarted by any number of threats, from war in the Middle East to China’s economic slowdown. Americans are upset about high costs for rent, groceries and other basics, which aren’t going back to pre-pandemic levels. The White House, too, is quick to emphasize that much work remains.

Yet the economy is ending the year in a remarkably better position than almost anyone on Wall Street or in mainstream economics predicted, having bested just about all expectations time and again. Inflation has dropped to 3.1 percent, from a peak of 9.1. The unemployment rate is at a hot 3.7 percent, and the economy grew at a healthy clip in the most recent quarter. The Fed is probably finished hiking interest rates and is eyeing cuts next year. Financial markets are at or near all-time highs, and the S&P 500 could hit a new record this week, too.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Hello_there@kbin.social 149 points 1 year ago

Another narrative: employment was up and workers were gaining power. Out of nowhere, JP Morgan Chase chairperson started going to meetings and talking about a recession, over and over. Other businesses took his lead and started raising prices. After a while we're no closer to a recession, but we have lost a lot in standard of living.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 80 points 1 year ago

When a handful of corporations control entire industries, capitalism stops working.

It's supposed to be a bunch of competitors trying to get as many sales as possible by having the lowest prices or highest quality.

But in the current economy, if a corporation raises their prices across the board, the rest raise their prices. The only times they lower prices, is straight to a loss to force small competitors out of business. The large corporations can deal without profits for six months, smaller companies go under and often have to sell to the giant corporations.

This cycle has been repeating for decades, it's not hard to notice it

The only solution is breaking up those giant corporations. Republicans sure as shit won't do it, but neither will the moderate wing of the Democratic party. It would cut into their donations too much.

If anything in the economy is "too big to fail" the solution is breaking them up, not bailing them out whenever necessary.

[-] Zorque@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago

When a handful of corporations control entire industries... that is capitalism. Capitalism isn't some self-correcting system that benefits all, its a system that supports and benefits those who make the most profit possible. When companies have less competition and more control, they're better able to make money. And thus, are better at capitalism.

This isn't capitalism failing to function, this is capitalism working as intended. The "free-market" is an illusion created on hope and delusion.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

What you're doing is the same as saying universal healthcare and communism is the same thing...

All capitalism isn't "free market". The government (at least supposed to) regulate capitalism. There was a time in America when it would even break up giant corporations who had monopolies. Lots of Americans alive today were even alive when it happened.

Things changed in the 1990s when James Carville convinced people Bill Clinton caused the Dotcom boom with neoliberal economics.

Suddenly both parties were bending over backwards to funnel money to the wealthy at the expense of what's left of the middle class.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

You're demonstrating exactly why capitalism doesn't work. Once corporations capture politicians and grow fat, it is incredibly difficult to get them out. This isn't an aberration. It's inevitable in thew long run.

If Keynesians could implement their policies and hold them indefinitely, capitalism might work. They can't.

Unionize all the things.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

They shouldn't be able to capture politicians the way they have, that's a failure of the supreme court, which was also captured.

Again, probably inevitable as you say, but that was in theory the last chance to stop it.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Unions imply capitalism, so... Sure I guess?

Like the history is wrong, and the reasoning is hellaciously wrong, but unions are indeed good.

[-] Kedly@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

If Russia and China are what real world Communism always turns out to be, North America and Europe are what Capitalism always turn out to be

[-] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

This isn’t capitalism failing to function, this is capitalism working as intended.

Capitalism "working as intended" includes functional institutions that address externalities.

[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago

It also stops working when the vast majority of the population lacks capital. The recent experiments with a UBI in Kenya show this pretty well. Folks who decided on a lump-sum payment rather than monthly invested in creating businesses and were better off.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

I mean, there's been studies in America too.

Give an average American a dollar and it boost the local economy by more than a dollar.

They tend to already have things they're saving up for, and spend it at local businesses.

Give the wealthy a dollar, and they hide it in Panama. Remember that big thing where we found out they all do it and then nothing happened?

That money never gets spent, it sits in a bank somewhere anonymously and is often permanently removed from the economy.

[-] Uranium3006@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Worse is when that rich man's dollar gets dumped into real estate, directly harming everyone else by making housing even more unaffordable

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

We do have to constantly remind ourselves that the ultra rich aren't bound by any boarders and have no loyalty to any government.

[-] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why do people even try to say nothing happened with Panama papers. I'll be the person this time and every time that shows LOTS has happened. From nearly day 1.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers

https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/five-years-later-panama-papers-still-having-a-big-impact/

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

People follow the initial headlines but don't care enough to stay with a story.

Same thing with Biden and the rail workers.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 year ago

There's a rather long history of it taking a recession to stop inflation. That it didn't this time is a very big deal.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

It’s pretty basic supply and demand. Inflation historically goes up in an economy when a lot of people want to buy stuff, and that stuff is in limited supply.

Workers had cash and stimulus money = higher demand

The pandemic fucked with good manufacturing, and transport = reduced supply

When there is less of something, and people have money, they’re willing to pay more to get their hands on the scarce thing. Companies pay more for chips, or to have first dibs on something from the port, and that increased cost is passed along to the consumer.

[-] mrnotoriousman@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Are we really still pretending the "stimulus" money of a whopping1400 actually had an impact for 99% of people?

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No, but 3 years of pent-up demand and crippled supply chain infrastructure did

[-] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

If it was merely an increase in costs, corporate profits should be neutral after they hike their prices to match. Same ratio going in and out.

What we actually saw was corporate profit margins going to record highs. Some sectors did see actual price increases--pandemic supply constraints, the Suez canal being blocked up by a shipping accident, and the war in Ukraine all did cause upward pressure on prices in some sectors. However, none of it could explain the data fully.

Even worse, those corporations saw 15-20% profit margins for the first time ever, and now their public stockholders expect them to keep doing it forever. This is insane. Big tech firms can see that kind of margin, but they're the exception. Not even banks see those margins on the regular. The belief that they can has driven many of the layoffs from otherwise profitable companies this year.

Corporations used world events as a cover for increasing prices. They had a once in a century opportunity to cover their actions and took it. To be honest, it usually is the case that prices don't just go up as a matter of greed. That's not what happened this time.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

If it was merely an increase in costs, corporate profits should be neutral after they hike their prices to match. Same ratio going in and out.

You might see that initially, but all of the little supply and demand changes start to inflate the overall value of the dollar, that starts to show up in profits.

Every company is affected differently during times of high inflation. I work for a fortune 50 company that had their earning take a hit because of inflated prices. That said, profit margins for many companies absolutely can and do inflate with the value of the currency.

Your profits are fuel for future investments, and if your finance team is doing their job correctly, they are making sure that profit is adjusted for inflation.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If it was merely an increase in costs, corporate profits should be neutral after they hike their prices to match. Same ratio going in and out.

You're ignoring both the rise in demand and the increase in available spending money, and misunderstanding the relationship between profits and price.

this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
185 points (92.2% liked)

politics

19248 readers
2159 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS