Chad Sexington posted:

Now that we have the austerity debt ceiling figured out, can we please do something to help landlords!?

https://twitter.com/wealth/status/1661751526770233347

Wraith of J.O.I. posted:

kathie is the goat i love her

https://twitter.com/donnelly_brent/status/1661695254716620802

RadiRoot posted:

https://twitter.com/business/status/1661819177814876161

oops

webcams for christ posted:

AI hype is keeping Number afloat this year

webcams for christ posted:

RadiRoot posted:

https://twitter.com/business/status/1661819177814876161

oops

webcams for christ posted:

she's not gonna gently caress you

webcams for christ posted:

she's not gonna gently caress you

webcams for christ posted:

how it started / how it's going

Willa Rogers posted:

She's hosed me & my ira pretty well, lol.

webcams for christ posted:

how it started / how it's going

Willa Rogers posted:

gdi, another "use our credit card in the next 30 days or we're cancelling it" letter.

Fine, I'll put netflix on it & set up autopay for the same amount, you bloodsuckers. I haven't paid interest on a cc in 10 years & I'm not about to start.

Vox Nihili posted:

They're supposed to offer you a credit or something to entice you.

anime was right posted:

the default is gonna be so stupid and/or funny

Antonymous posted:

yah it's pretty much like that

The theory is that from the perspective of monetary policy inflation and unemployment are 'twin evils' in that one can only be traded for the other. And that there is a difference between inflation and rate of inflation. Historically these usually move opposite from eachother except in the late 70s they moved together so Volker crashed the economy on purpose.

We can print money, or make money cheap by lowering rates, and then certain jobs/businesses which wouldn't be profitable will become profitable and therefore unemployment will go down. At some point, labor will have the power to ask for more pay, because they can't be easily replaced, which will raise prices because wages are a large cost of production, and because demand raises with higher incomes, which will cause them to ask for even more pay because prices went up, and the rate of inflation will take off like a jet engine.

Or we can restrict money and lending, and more jobs will become unprofitable, and people will lose their jobs, and there will be price stability but unnecessary unemployment.

There is a baseline unemployment called 'non accelerating inflationary rate of unemployment' or NAIRU where the most people are employed before that takeoff in wages/prices happens. The fed's existence is tied to a mandate to manage this rate, it's the fundamental reason (on paper) that the fed exists.

And of course there is a strong bias toward price stability at the expense of labor and they will say the NAIRU was 4% unemployment but now it is ~naturally~ 6% unemployment and whatever. The unemployment rate now is 3.4% but that is by America's bullshit unemployment metric which is defined as people who did not work at all and looked for a job in the last month. if you got fired from your career job and did gig work to cover the bills you are not unemployed even though you are looking for work.

Some inflation is good because it encourages consuming now instead of later and makes debts easier to pay off in time. so the target of inflation is usually 2-3%, low enough to be background in labor demanding wage increases but high enough that you don't wait until next year to finance a new car.

Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud posted:

check this out: AI on the blockchain

atelier morgan posted:

this is the orthodox explanation that is an ideological construct to explain away the 70s as if it was some natural economic law rather than a capital strike

inflation is wages not prices

prices going up is good, that's more profits!

but sometimes companies raise wages when prices go up to attract more labor, this is bad and they must be stopped. raising rates obviously does nothing to prices (more money from consumers is always more profit, interest rates don't play a role at all) but penalizes companies for making payroll (which the largest companies that employ the majority of workers do via commercial paper, so higher rates means paying employees is more expensive), that's why raising rates is the only tool the fed has for the purpose, because the role of the fed is making sure wages don't grow

since prices must always go up as the tendency is for the rate of profit to fall its impossible to get every firm on board with zero wage growth even though that would be the ideal (in fact negative wage growth, or zero wages is the actual ideal and as far as companies limited by making material goods rather than inventing bullshit financial instruments or relying on stock bubbles go nobody makes money like prison industries make money, and the firms that come close are agribusiness and producers that heavily rely on migrant labor they barely have to pay) as most firms still like to sell products that need actual people with wages to buy (though again, not the most profitable companies, those just trade novel financial constructs back and forth forever and are far more important than mere physical products) they target the smallest wage growth that can be achieved

Antonymous posted:

sure I like this version. I just wanna share the official logic. either way the fed exists to discipline labor and as insurance for whenever capital fucks up, that's for certain.

silicone thrills posted:

I finally wiki'd cathie wood and lmao that her mentor was Laffer

RadiRoot posted:

https://twitter.com/business/status/1661710454975266821

quote:

Safeway employees in the Bay Area say shoplifting has been out of control, with people walking out with carts full of unpaid merchandise almost daily.

“It’s sad, the state of our society has come to that,” said Chris Wong of San Jose.

One of the first things customers might notice when arriving at the Safeway on Almaden Expressway in San Jose is a big red sign now covering what used to be a second entrance.

Employees said that as of a few days ago, now there’s only one way in and one way out.

Once inside, there’s gates near the doors, gates in every checkout aisle, a fence around the self-checkout section and several workers and security guards greeting and saying goodbye to customers.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Safeway wrote, “Recent changes were made at select Safeway stores in the Bay Area to maintain a safe and welcoming shopping experience for customers and associates given the increasing amount of theft.”

“I think it makes sense unfortunately, I’m sad it's come to that, but I think it's necessary,” said Lucina Layton of San Jose.

It's a change welcomed by many, including Councilmember Pam Foley who represents this district and has heard several concerns regarding the area.

She said police have beefed up their presence in the area.

“My question is why not here? Why not in this store?” said Maricela Cornejo.

She’s the mother of 24-year-old Manuel Huizar who was shot and killed at the Safeway in Willow Glen nearly a year ago and said these measures should become a universal standard.

Especially at a time where she believes crime is increasingly becoming more violent.

“It's not just here, it's the whole U.S.A.” said Cornejo.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

there are so many ways for us to not default it’s fairly insane that there’s at least even odds, if not better, that we do so

Xaris posted:

we're not going to default. dems are salivating at implementing work requirements (because no one wants to work anymore!) and cutting medicaid et al. the mcarthy-biden cuts are going to sail through