USCE 2024: Macklemore Is The New Michael Moore

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2024: Macklemore Is The New Michael Moore

FistEnergy: Nov 3, 2000; DAY CREW: WORKING HARD; Fun Shoe

https://x.com/DeItaone/status/1754520469317861834?s=20

Huge upside miss this morning on the inflation data. Especially non-manufacturing prices, which was a gigantic miss. The market is displeased today. The administration's celebrating and backslapping over the last few weeks appears to have been premature.

# ? Feb 5, 2024 16:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 13:03

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

FistEnergy posted:

https://x.com/DeItaone/status/1754520469317861834?s=20

Huge upside miss this morning on the inflation data. Especially non-manufacturing prices, which was a gigantic miss. The market is displeased today. The administration's celebrating and backslapping over the last few weeks appears to have been premature.

Can you explain more in-depth?

# ? Feb 5, 2024 16:50

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

I Googled:

quote:

KEY TAKEAWAYS
The ISM services survey is part of the ISM Report On Business—Manufacturing (PMI) and Services (PMI).
The ISM surveys non-manufacturing (or services) firms' purchasing and supply executives.
The services report measures business activity for the overall economy; above 50 indicating growth, while below 50 indicating contraction.
The ISM services report contains the economic activity of more than 15 industries, measuring employment, prices, and inventory levels.

And

quote:

The Prices subindex of the ISM PMI/NMI measures the cost of inputs businesses pay for production, including prices of raw materials. Rising costs for raw materials are transferred from the producer to the customer, resulting in inflation. So the Prices subindex of PMI and NMI is a leading index for inflation.

So: economic growth and higher inflation

Rust Martialis fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Feb 5, 2024

# ? Feb 5, 2024 16:55

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

The stats are all showing higher-than-expected increases in prices and wages and overall economic activity. Most people have been wanting inflation data to be lower so the Federal Reserve becomes more likely to cut interest rates, but it looks like that is unlikely.

It is up for some debate how much of these increases are going to affect prices of everyday goods for normal people, but it is a sign (to some people) that the one tool to fight inflation that isn't held hostage by the GOP House and/or a general lack of legislative imagination in our country has not been used enough.

I think that using central bank interest rates to fight inflation or drive economic growth is like using a jackhammer for every situation, regardless of whether you only a small hammer or a hand drill or just a different tool altogether, but this is where the country is right now.

EDIT: a lot of "fixing" inflation is going to have to come from actually making more stuff so it's less scarce and price pressure trends downward. You don't fix that by twiddling with interest rates because making debt too expensive to hold just cuts the fuel for a lot of business activity. In fact, you probably screw up what is supposed to happen in that ideal dream world of economics, which is more people make more stuff to respond to the demand.

Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Feb 5, 2024

# ? Feb 5, 2024 16:55

BonoMan: Feb 20, 2002; Jade Ear Joe

In "social media platforms can't just NOT continue to gently caress up"

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/05/tech/manipulated-biden-video-meta/index.html

There's a video of Joe Biden placing an "I Voted" sticker on his adult grandchild's chest. It's been edited to suggest he's repeatedly touching her inappropriately.

BUT! Meta says the video can stay up because it doesn't fulfill the needs for "manipulated media" under their own rules (a policy they themselves now say is "incoherent and needs to change").

See, in Meta's rules, the video MUST use AI to be manipulated and MUST show the person saying something that they didn't say. It absolutely has to check both of those boxes or it doesn't get removed.

Since the video in question quasi-happened (he placed the sticker) and doesn't include changed audio by an AI...well then it gets to stay!

Jesus Christ.

# ? Feb 5, 2024 17:04

Morrow: Oct 31, 2010

FistEnergy posted:

https://x.com/DeItaone/status/1754520469317861834?s=20

Huge upside miss this morning on the inflation data. Especially non-manufacturing prices, which was a gigantic miss. The market is displeased today. The administration's celebrating and backslapping over the last few weeks appears to have been premature.

One indicator based on a limited survey is not a calamity. Economic signals remain mixed, at worst.

# ? Feb 5, 2024 17:16

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

haveblue posted:

I thought it was always the plan to use a different sequence each time? They don�t want anyone to be First In The Nation permanently and forever (other than New Hampshire, until they change their state laws)

They said they are going to re-vote on the order each cycle, but that doesn't mean they necessarily are going to cycle out every state each primary season.

The article is just noting that the policy means they will be reviewing the order again in 2028 and the current order might not mean anything because 2024 is expected to be mostly uncontested and 2028 is an open primary, so the order for 2028 is the more significant order in practical terms.

# ? Feb 5, 2024 18:08

Gyges: Aug 4, 2004; NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK

BonoMan posted:

In "social media platforms can't just NOT continue to gently caress up"

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/05/tech/manipulated-biden-video-meta/index.html

There's a video of Joe Biden placing an "I Voted" sticker on his adult grandchild's chest. It's been edited to suggest he's repeatedly touching her inappropriately.

BUT! Meta says the video can stay up because it doesn't fulfill the needs for "manipulated media" under their own rules (a policy they themselves now say is "incoherent and needs to change").

See, in Meta's rules, the video MUST use AI to be manipulated and MUST show the person saying something that they didn't say. It absolutely has to check both of those boxes or it doesn't get removed.

Since the video in question quasi-happened (he placed the sticker) and doesn't include changed audio by an AI...well then it gets to stay!

Jesus Christ.

What kind of idiot makes it all the way to AI being able to manipulate videos, and doesn't remember that people can do it by digital hand?

# ? Feb 5, 2024 18:20

Tatsuta Age: Apr 21, 2005; so good at being in trouble

Gyges posted:

What kind of idiot makes it all the way to AI being able to manipulate videos, and doesn't remember that people can do it by digital hand?

The ones that don't want it taken down because it's driving engagement, of course!

# ? Feb 5, 2024 18:21

Xiahou Dun: Jul 16, 2009; We shall dive down through black abysses... and in that lair of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory forever.

Gyges posted:

What kind of idiot makes it all the way to AI being able to manipulate videos, and doesn't remember that people can do it by digital hand?

Nah, the AI took it all away.

That's why they have all those extra fingers.

# ? Feb 5, 2024 18:21

golden bubble: Jun 3, 2011; yospos

Main Paineframe posted:

Low-wage work fundamentally sucks to begin with. Not only is the pay poor, but the working conditions are often terrible. People generally work them because they don't have a better choice. So we don't really need a fancy explanation for why people don't want to work low-wage jobs - we need to explain why they're able to avoid working low-wage jobs.

For the most part, the workers aren't missing. They didn't die off or stop working. While the low-wage labor shortage is still hotly debated, the general cause seems to be that the social and economic changes caused by COVID opened up new opportunities for low-wage workers, giving many of them chances to move up to better-paying jobs.

In particular, two factors come up a lot. First, many older workers saw the disruptions of the pandemic as a reason to retire, accelerating the impact of the aging workforce and creating many vacancies in higher-level jobs those senior employees were vacating. Second, expanded federal benefits gave workers the resources to pursue better options and even risk losing their current job to pursue those options, and those who were furloughed during the lockdowns had plenty of time as well.

All this allowed a significant chunk of low-wage workers to find better jobs, leaving a smaller labor pool for low-wage employers.

I've heard a big part of it is the miserable, costumer facing low level managers finding better jobs. Think about the life of a supermarket department manager in 2017. That person needs to know way more about the store, take on way more hours, and deal with way more karens in return for making a whole $3/hr more than the people under them. And usually they don't even get overtime pay because they are a manager. But since the department hasn't imploded under them, they clearly have the skills do something more. A lot of the wage gain post pandemic is the Subway assistant manager type realizing they don't have to take this poo poo anymore, and finding another job in a completely different industry that sucks less and pays more.

# ? Feb 5, 2024 18:38

metachronos: Sep 11, 2001; When I roll, baby I roll DEEP

I am not an econ expert and am in fact a moron but. It seem like the high interest rates are used as a tool to encourage people to save money or borrow less, thus slowing velocity and reducing prices. But it's hard to see how people are supposed to do that when everyone's money is going towards rent and food which cost a fuckton now.

Is that too reductive?

# ? Feb 5, 2024 18:56

Mooseontheloose: May 13, 2003

metachronos posted:

I am not an econ expert and am in fact a moron but. It seem like the high interest rates are used as a tool to encourage people to save money or borrow less, thus slowing velocity and reducing prices. But it's hard to see how people are supposed to do that when everyone's money is going towards rent and food which cost a fuckton now.

Is that too reductive?

Also, (in theory) it should force businesses to make safer bets as there is less free money floating around.

# ? Feb 5, 2024 19:17

Killer robot: Sep 6, 2010; I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it!; Pillbug

metachronos posted:

I am not an econ expert and am in fact a moron but. It seem like the high interest rates are used as a tool to encourage people to save money or borrow less, thus slowing velocity and reducing prices. But it's hard to see how people are supposed to do that when everyone's money is going towards rent and food which cost a fuckton now.

Is that too reductive?

Also interest rates are only "high" now in a relatively recent sense. They're supposed to average high enough to allow the Fed to drop them in response to economic slowdowns or recessions to juice the economy. We just ended up spending years with emergency-mode zero pr near-zero interest rates even when there was no emergency, leading to an economy that is no longer accustomed to accounting for important safety margins.

# ? Feb 5, 2024 19:26

Morrow: Oct 31, 2010

The Fed interest rate specifically is meant to influence business investment, not consumer spending. Consumer spending is incredibly robust towards outside changes because people will generally go into debt to maintain their lifestyle immediately and hope to ride it out (lifetime consumption theory) rather than just spend some flat proportion of their income.

The chain of events is basically higher interest rates -> higher borrowing costs -> lower investment -> lower demand.

Now, there's a knock-on effect in that a short term reduction in business investment means a longer term reduction in supply, but this generally is less than the lower demand (the opportunities are still there, they're just pursued slower or at more convenient rates). Some of the hullabaloo is about how demand keeps increasing or staying steady despite high interest rates which just drives up prices more, especially since growth of supply will be slower from reduced investment.

Now stepping outside conventional wisdom, my belief is the problem is that most of the inflation is from supply side shocks and monetary policy will do little to reduce that. It will, and is, going away on its own, albeit there's some sticky inflation (one of the biggest contributors to inflation is expectations of inflation since contracts and supply agreements are signed with inflation built in) on top of a hot labor market and some price gouging.

# ? Feb 5, 2024 19:43

020524: Feb 6, 2024

the economy is (in)significantly small, next

# ? Feb 6, 2024 01:42

Josh Lyman: May 24, 2009

metachronos posted:

I am not an econ expert and am in fact a moron but. It seem like the high interest rates are used as a tool to encourage people to save money or borrow less, thus slowing velocity and reducing prices. But it's hard to see how people are supposed to do that when everyone's money is going towards rent and food which cost a fuckton now.

Is that too reductive?

I am an economist, though my expertise is not in macro. The quiet part that often doesn�t get said is that by raising rates, the Fed is trying to slow down the economy, though ideally not to the point of recession. A slower economy necessarily means job losses and less discretionary spending. However, that doesn�t really seem to be happening, other than tech layoffs but that�s a special situation.

Morrow posted:

The Fed interest rate specifically is meant to influence business investment, not consumer spending. Consumer spending is incredibly robust towards outside changes because people will generally go into debt to maintain their lifestyle immediately and hope to ride it out (lifetime consumption theory) rather than just spend some flat proportion of their income.

The chain of events is basically higher interest rates -> higher borrowing costs -> lower investment -> lower demand.

Now, there's a knock-on effect in that a short term reduction in business investment means a longer term reduction in supply, but this generally is less than the lower demand (the opportunities are still there, they're just pursued slower or at more convenient rates). Some of the hullabaloo is about how demand keeps increasing or staying steady despite high interest rates which just drives up prices more, especially since growth of supply will be slower from reduced investment.

Now stepping outside conventional wisdom, my belief is the problem is that most of the inflation is from supply side shocks and monetary policy will do little to reduce that. It will, and is, going away on its own, albeit there's some sticky inflation (one of the biggest contributors to inflation is expectations of inflation since contracts and supply agreements are signed with inflation built in) on top of a hot labor market and some price gouging.

Consumer spending makes up 70% of GDP. The Fed wants to slow business spending, sure, but it absolutely wants to slow consumer spending.

As for inflation, people think of it as this exogenous force but it�s really the result of individual actors along a supply chain choosing to raise prices. There was a supply shock during Covid, yes, but that�s pretty much over now. However, like with baggage fees that were supposed to be a temporary response to increased fuel prices in 2008, companies have realized that they can jack up prices and blame inflation without significantly decreasing consumer demand.

# ? Feb 6, 2024 13:07

Tiny Timbs: Sep 6, 2008

Gyges posted:

What kind of idiot makes it all the way to AI being able to manipulate videos, and doesn't remember that people can do it by digital hand?

Wait til you see what kind of legislation comes out of the complaints about AI-manipulated porn images

# ? Feb 6, 2024 13:33

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Finally, some policy specifics out of this election cycle that is shockingly light on policy specifics. Unfortunately, it is pretty horrible policy.

Trump has released an economic plan that combines steep tariffs with large corporate tax cuts and mass deportations. Big business allies who are usually not in favor of mass deportations or huge tariffs have caustiously signed on to the plan because Trump is promising massive corporate and high-income tax cuts to make up the difference.

Even according to economists from Trump's campaign, the plan will:

- Raise the incomes of U.S. steelworkers by about 11%, but increase unemployment among American factory workers.

- Increase overall inflation by about 1% per year, up to a 3.8% increase to the topline inflation figure over 5 years.

- Increase the costs of goods from China by at least 60% for American consumers.

- Increase the cost to consumers for all goods made outside of America by at least 10%.

- Raise pork and chicken production costs by at least 37% and cause shortages.

- Unspecified, but large spikes in the prices of fresh fruits, construction, and hotels.

- Reduce the corporate tax rate to 15%, remove the new corporate minimum tax rate, cut taxes for people with incomes over $400,000, eliminate the new stock buy-back tax, and make the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent. This would be approximately $6 trillion in tax cuts that would almost entirely go to corporations and the top 20% of households in the U.S.

- Attempt to deport roughly 13 million people in America by targeting people who are here illegally, revoking temporary protected status for others, and conducting a nationwide review of immigrants who have overstayed their visa to search for them.

- Raise prices and impact employment an unknown amount depending on the reaction of other countries to the trade war and tariffs.

https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1754892023860011122

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/01/12/trump-tax-cuts-2024/

quote:

Donald Trump is vowing sweeping changes to the nation�s economy that threaten to reignite inflation � even as the former president blames President Biden for higher prices and says he�ll bring the problem under control.

With a substantial lead in the 2024 GOP presidential primary days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump has proposed imposing unprecedented new tariffs on trillions of dollars worth of imports and deporting undocumented workers on a vast scale. Both campaign pledges risk exacerbating the price spikes that have subsided over the last year, according to liberal and conservative economists alike, in addition to some estimates cited by the former president�s own advisers. If he�s elected, Trump could implement these policies at least in part without needing Congress to act.

Trump�s enormously disruptive policy proposals come as he appears likely to jettison the more cautious and establishment-friendly economic advisers that restrained his most nationalist and confrontational impulses during his first term. These advisers � such as former treasury secretary Steven T. Mnuchin � now find themselves either at war with Trump or receding from his inner circle, potentially empowering more fringe voices.

As president, Trump turned on his own pick to lead the Federal Reserve, Jerome H. Powell. If he returns to the White House, Trump would likely move to replace Powell with an appointee more inclined to lower rates and follow Trump�s whims � which Powell refused to do � according to Fed experts, economists and other people in Trump�s orbit. It�s not clear how such an intervention at the central bank might affect financial markets or the economy; the Fed is tasked with controlling inflation without taking politics into account, but an all-out barrage from Trump may test the central bank.

�I worry there�s not going to be an effective policy check on him. The circle has narrowed so much that in the second term he may hear no dissent, even at the outset,� said Doug Holtz-Eakin, a GOP analyst who served as chief economic policy adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). �And if he really does the trade and immigration proposals he�s discussing, it would be a very big deal � you hope that by then inflation would be under control and you wouldn�t get a wage-price spiral, but there�s no guarantee.�

Trump�s exact intentions on the economy remain hard to predict, in part because his trade proposals as stated would likely prove so unwieldy and painful for U.S. consumers that even some of the former president�s allies say they are unlikely to ever fully go into effect. But they fit a broader pattern of Trump seeking to harness sweeping new executive powers to pursue what critics have termed an �authoritarian� agenda � even as attacking Biden over inflation remains one of his central campaign messages.

If elected, Trump would inherit an economy that has proved surprisingly strong but still remains vulnerable to new shocks. Although voters give the former president higher marks for his economic stewardship than they do Biden, many analysts fear that Trump�s approach � intensifying the impulsive and chaotic management of his first term � could further unsettle an economy still finding its footing after the disruptions of the pandemic.

�The problem is what he�s proposing is so far outside historic experience there�s not even a decent set of estimates about it,� said Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank. �I saw some clip where Trump was attacking Biden about inflation, and it�s like, �You�re going to massively restrict the supply of workers and do a 10 percent across the board tariff?� On the economics, that�s completely insane.�

The Trump campaign referred comment to Kevin Hassett, who served as chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under Trump but is not an adviser to the campaign. Hassett argued that Trump�s other policy proposals � including laxer energy regulation and extending the 2017 GOP tax cuts � would reduce inflation by more than his other policies would increase it. (Many economists believe tax cuts increase inflation, by boosting demand.)

�The three biggest effects on inflation from the proposals on the table are from tax cuts, deregulation, and expanded energy production, followed closely by big reductions in government spending. Those four effects would dwarf the effects of any other policy proposals,� Hassett said. Hassett said it is common for politicians� policy proposals to have varied effects on inflation. �Every presidential candidate in my adult life has put forward a portfolio of policies, and the portfolio of policies won�t necessarily all have the same sign effect on any variable.�

Global trade war could raise prices

During his first term, Trump declared that trade wars �are good, and easy to win,� and ran his presidency accordingly. He imposed tariffs on more than $300 billion worth of imports, leading to retaliatory measures from China, Canada, Mexico and numerous other countries that the former president decided to fight. The Tax Foundation, a conservative think tank that opposes tariffs, found the Trump tariffs � most of which were kept in place by the Biden administration � reduced long-term wages by 0.14 percent and employment by 166,000 jobs.

Despite their destabilizing effects, Trump has vowed to massively ratchet up these trade battles in his second term. He has floated imposing a blanket 10 percent tariff on all imports to the United States, in what he characterizes as a �ring� around the U.S. economy. That would amount to tariffs on more than $3 trillion in annual imports � a more than ninefold increase in the volume of trade hit by tariffs from his first term. Trump also pushes a separate proposal to impose tariffs that would automatically match U.S. import duties to foreign countries� tariffs on products from the United States, which would also amount to a sharp spike in trade barriers.

Both proposals would almost certainly lead to a major expansion of trade hostilities, which would mean not only higher prices for U.S. consumers but also make it harder for domestic producers to sell into foreign markets.

�When companies come in and they dump their products in the United States, they should pay, automatically, let�s say a 10 percent tax,� Trump said on Fox Business this summer. �I do like the 10 percent for everybody.�

He has continued to cite his tariff plans multiple times while campaigning, telling a crowd in New Hampshire last month: �We will impose stiff penalties on China and all other nations as they abuse us.�

Even some Trump allies recognize such moves would likely raise inflation.

Casey B. Mulligan, who served as chief economist for Trump�s White House Council of Economic Advisers, estimated in an interview that Trump�s 10 percent import tariff proposal would add an extra percentage point to inflation, or a quarter percent a year if spread out over four years. The Federal Reserve has been trying to wrestle inflation down from four-decade highs to the more normal level of 2 percent. While the Fed has made significant progress, they are far from declaring victory, and routinely caution that any number of threats could upend their fight. (A new policy that adds a quarter-point per year would be one such threat.)

Some estimates are even higher. Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington-based think tank, estimates that Trump�s 10 percent tariff plan would increase the overall consumer price index by two to three percentage points, which would amount to roughly doubling the current pace of inflation.

Mulligan, who is a member of the board of academic advisers for the America First Policy Institute, echoed Trump�s arguments that tariffs are a useful economic tool to force China to change its behavior without having to resort to military measures.

The Trump campaign referred comment to Robert E. Lighthizer, who served as Trump�s trade ambassador.

�The economists� ideas don�t bear out in the real world,� Lighthizer said. �Sometimes it has literally zero effect and sometimes it has a small effect.�

Lighthizer pointed to the estimates by the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group that supports higher tariffs. That group found that a 10 percent universal tariff would increase inflation-adjusted incomes by 11 percent but also increase inflation by 3.8 percent over about five years.

During his first term, Trump�s protectionist impulses were restrained in part by some Republicans in Congress who have since retired. �I certainly feel like our wing is ascendant,� said Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), a leader of the upper chamber�s Trump backers. Vance replaced retired Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), once one of Congress�s strongest free trade proponents. �I think that�s because the substance [suggests] that people like Bob Lighthizer were right all along, and people like Trump were right all along.�

Deportations may exacerbate inflation

Speaking to a crowd in Iowa in September, Trump said that he is planning �the largest domestic deportation operation� in U.S. history if elected again. The former president has talked of wanting to forcibly deport millions of immigrants, echoing a 1950s enforcement campaign targeting Mexican field workers.

In his first administration, such impulses were often checked by pro-business figures who feared the impact of Trump�s immigration restrictions on the workforce. But Gary Cohn, who had been president of Goldman Sachs before helming Trump�s White House National Economic Council, fell out with the president early in the administration. Jared Kushner, the president�s son-in-law who sometimes had a moderating force on his economic policies, has thus far played little role in the 2024 campaign. Mnuchin, Trump�s treasury secretary, is not seen as likely to return to Trump�s Cabinet, after he explored using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office following the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, according to three former Trump administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive dynamics.

�One of the major differences between now and 2017 is in 2017 he pulled together a coalition that included most of the folks on the right and the business community from New York, which acted as a moderating voice,� said Paul Winfree, an economist who served as director of budget policy during the Trump administration. �A lot of the folks who acted as moderating influences have distanced themselves from Trump.�

This change in personnel could leave Trump free to pursue a mass deportation campaign regardless of its impact on businesses. Although economists are divided on whether restricting immigration would meaningfully increase inflation overall, many economists say mass deportations � beyond their devastating effect on individual lives and communities � would also almost certainly cause price spikes in particular sectors. Labor shortages would quickly emerge in residential construction, housekeeping, and agricultural work, particularly for fruit and other laborious forms of farm work, said Posen, the PIIE economist, driving up costs for consumers.

�It would lead to very sudden spikes in prices of key goods like fresh produce, hotel rooms, and housing repairs,� Posen said.

More than 37 percent of meat and poultry workers are foreign-born, according to estimates by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. Mass deportations could have a devastating impact for businesses in states like Iowa, though Trump is expected to win there handily both in the caucuses and in a general election.

�This would severely impact the ability of the meat and poultry industry to be able to produce the amount of meat and poultry we�re used to in this country. We�d have shortages, which would increase prices,� said Debbie Berkowitz, a fellow at the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University.

Trump has demonstrated disdain for the central bank

The sun was shining over the Grand Teton mountains when Powell took to the podium in August 2019 to deliver his most important speech of the year. At the closely watched policy forum known to Fed watchers simply as �Jackson Hole,� Powell said the economy was in a �favorable� place but was susceptible to �significant risks,� especially from the ongoing trade fight between the United States and China.

That�s when Trump fired off a scathing tweet: �My only question is, who is our bigger enemy, Jay Powell, or Chairman Xi?� The jab � which followed months of Trump practically demanding the Fed to lower interest rates � sent financial markets tanking.

Even now, the story is a cautionary tale about what Trump�s reemergence could mean for the central bank. Officials have been laser-focused on wrestling inflation down to normal levels, staying steadfast in their pledge to bring down inflation at any cost. Policymakers routinely say that letting prices keep increasing rapidly would make households and businesses worse off in the long run than raising interest rates has.

As long as Powell remains chair, the Fed is almost certain to remain impervious to political interference. �Jay Powell would get a few more wrinkles on his face,� said David Beckworth, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. �But at the end of the day, Jay Powell would stick to the mandate Congress has given them.�

But a second Trump term could still at least test the central bank�s independence. Trump is unlikely to reappoint Powell to a third term when his current one expires in 2026 (Biden appointed Powell to a second term that began in 2022). Trump might even try to fire the Fed chair before then � something that has never been tried in the central bank�s history � and replace him with someone who more closely follows the White House�s demands. The legality of such a move is untested.

Either way, Trump would almost certainly choose a new Fed chair to follow Powell. And if elected again, Trump would also have the chance to appoint up to three other leadership positions for the Fed board.

If Democrats retain control of the Senate, they could prevent Trump from stacking the Fed with his acolytes, as they did in rejecting Trump�s 2019 attempt to elevate the pizza magnate Herman Cain to the board. But if Republicans take the majority, Trump could remake the central bank, particularly because some of the GOP officials who resisted his previous picks, such as former senator Patrick J. Toomey (Pa.), have since retired.

�The most successful economic institution in this country is the Fed; we have just seen how their independence and their credibility can work economic miracles,� said Jason Furman, a Harvard economist who served in the Obama administration and stressed Trump could only influence the Fed if he fired or replaced Powell. �If Trump undermined their independence and their credibility � which he has proven he is quite likely to try to do � that could make it very difficult to keep inflation under control.�

Judy Shelton � one of Trump�s five failed Fed nominees � said the Fed�s plans to cut rates again this year after raising them through 2022 and 2023 validate Trump�s belief that the economy can sustain low rates, low unemployment and low inflation all at the same time. (Typically, economists assume that low unemployment drives inflation up as wages rise, requiring higher rates that curb demand.)

�I really think that it vindicates the Trump administration�s position that low unemployment and economic growth � so long that it�s productive � are not inherently inflationary,� Shelton said. �I think what Trump is mentioning these days is he�s concerned both about inflation and about the high cost of borrowing for individual citizens.�

But other economists caution that the Federal Reserve is supposed to be independent for a reason: The central bank must be willing to tackle inflation even if it causes short-term political pain for the nation�s elected leaders. Trump has demonstrated his priority is preserving his own power, regardless of the costs to the Federal Reserve�s credibility.

�Trump has made it very clear he wants to literally run everything, and he doesn�t give a drat about central bank independence,� said Dean Baker, a White House ally and economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a left-leaning think tank. �If Trump is in the White House, the Fed is very likely to not have a free hand to fight inflation if they need to.�

Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Feb 6, 2024

# ? Feb 6, 2024 17:22

Angry_Ed: Mar 30, 2010; Grimey Drawer

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Finally, some policy specifics out of this election cycle that is shockingly light on policy specifics. Unfortunately, it is pretty horrible policy.

*the dumbest poo poo imaginable follows*

And yet somehow the citizens of the US and their goldfish memory think Trump/Republicans are better on the economy.

# ? Feb 6, 2024 17:52

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration has a new study out showing that nearly all automobile deaths in the United States are preventable.

The single biggest contributors to deaths (of car passengers or drivers and not counting pedestrians) are:

1) People not wearing seatbelts.
2) People speeding far in excess of the posted limits.
3) People driving while distracted by a cell phone or intoxicated.

- 91.6% of Americans use a seat belt every time they drive.

- In 2022, 50% of all automobile fatalities where the driver or passenger died came from the 8.4% who were not wearing a seatbelt.

- Buckling up is actually more effective in preventing deaths while in a light SUV or truck than in a sedan.

quote:

Overview

One of the safest choices drivers and passengers can make is to buckle up. Many Americans understand the lifesaving value of the seat belt � the national use rate was at 91.6% in 2022. Seat belt use in passenger vehicles saved an estimated 14,955 lives in 2017. Understand the potentially fatal consequences of not wearing a seat belt and learn what you can do to make sure you and your family are properly buckled up every time.

Consequences

50% PERCENTAGE OF PASSENGER VEHICLE OCCUPANTS KILLED IN 2021 WHO WERE UNRESTRAINED

In 2021, 26,325 passenger vehicle occupants were killed. About 50% of those killed were not buckled (based on known seat belt use.)

Seat belts saved an estimated 14,955 lives and could have saved an additional 2,549 people if they had been wearing seat belts, in 2017 alone.

The consequences of not wearing, or improperly wearing, a seat belt are clear:

1. Buckling up helps keep you safe and secure inside your vehicle, whereas not buckling up can result in being totally ejected from the vehicle in a crash, which is almost always deadly.

2. Air bags are not enough to protect you; in fact, the force of an air bag can seriously injure or even kill you if you�re not buckled up.

3. Improperly wearing a seat belt, such as putting the strap below your arm, puts you and your children at risk in a crash.

The benefits of buckling up are equally clear:

If you buckle up in the front seat of a passenger car, you can reduce your risk of:

Fatal injury by 45% (Kahane, 2015)
Moderate to critical injury by 50%
If you buckle up in a light truck, you can reduce your risk of:
Fatal injury by 60% (Kahane, 2015)
Moderate to critical injury by 65% (NHTSA, 1984)

Buckling up is the single most effective thing you can do to protect yourself in a crash

Seat belts are the best defense against impaired, aggressive, and distracted drivers. Being buckled up during a crash helps keep you safe and secure inside your vehicle; being completely ejected from a vehicle is almost always deadly.

2. Air bags are designed to work with seat belts, not replace them

If you don�t wear your seat belt, you could be thrown into a rapidly opening frontal air bag. Such force could injure or even kill you.

If You�re Pregnant: Seat Belt Recommendations for Drivers and Passengers
If you�re pregnant, make sure you know how to position your seat and wear a seat belt to maximize your safety and the safety of your unborn child. Read our recommendations below or view the instructional diagram version of our seat belt recommendations for pregnant drivers and passengers (PDF 497 KB).

I�m Pregnant. Should I Wear a Seat Belt?

YES�doctors recommend it. Buckling up through all stages of your pregnancy is the single most effective action you can take to protect yourself and your unborn child in a crash.

NEVER drive or ride in a car without buckling up first!

What�s the Right Way to Wear My Seat Belt?

The shoulder belt away from your neck (but not off your shoulder) and across your chest (between your breasts), making sure to remove any slack from your seat belt with the lap belt secured below your belly so that it fits snugly across your hips and pelvic bone.

NEVER place the shoulder belt under your arm or behind your back.

NEVER place lap belt over or on top of your belly.

Should I Adjust My Seat?

YES�Adjust to a comfortable, upright position.

Keep as much distance as possible between your belly and the steering wheel.

Comfortably reach the steering wheel and pedals.

To minimize the gap between your shoulder and the seat belt, avoid reclining your seat more than necessary.

Avoid letting your belly touch the steering wheel.

What if My Car or Truck Has Air Bags?

You still need to wear your seat belt properly. Air bags are designed to work with seat belts, not replace them. Without a seat belt, you could crash into the vehicle interior, other passengers, or be ejected from the vehicle. My Car Has an ON-OFF Air Bag Disabling Switch. Should I turn it off?

NO�Doctors recommend that pregnant women wear seat belts and leave air bags turned on. Seat belts and air bags work together to provide the best protection for you and your unborn child.
What Should I Do if I am Involved in a Crash?

Seek immediate medical attention, even if you think you are not injured, regardless of whether you�re the driver or passenger.

NHTSA is dedicated to eliminating risky behaviors on our nation's roads

As part of NHTSA's mission to help Americans drive, ride and walk safely, we work to educate Americans about how to protect themselves and others on the road through public service campaigns such as Buckle Up America, Never Give Up Until They Buckle Up (promoting tween seat belt use), and Click It or Ticket, (associated with increased seat belt enforcement periods supported by State and local law enforcement across the country).

https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-safety/seat-belts

# ? Feb 6, 2024 17:53

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Angry_Ed posted:

And yet somehow the citizens of the US and their goldfish memory think Trump/Republicans are better on the economy.

If you are in the top 20% of incomes, earn most of your money from corporate profits or business passthrough income, are an American steelworker who is not one of the few that will be laid off due to trade war policies, and aren't an illegal immigrant then these will probably be "better on the economy" for you.

It seems unlikely that those situations apply to most of the roughly 55% of Americans who think that these policies will be better for lowering inflation, though.

Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Feb 6, 2024

# ? Feb 6, 2024 17:57

Xand_Man: Mar 2, 2004; If what you say is true
Wutang might be dangerous

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

If you are in the top 20% of incomes, earn most of your money from corporate profits or business passthrough income, are an American steelworker who is not one of the few that will be laid off due to trade way policies, and aren't an illegal immigrant then these will probably be "better on the economy" for you.

It seems unlikely that those situations apply to most of the roughly 55% of Americans who think that these policies will be better for lowering inflation, though.

Also you live like a monk and will be unaffected by price shocks from the trade war

# ? Feb 6, 2024 18:02

bird food bathtub: Aug 9, 2003; College Slice

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

If you are in the top 20% of incomes, earn most of your money from corporate profits or business passthrough income, are an American steelworker who is not one of the few that will be laid off due to trade way policies, and aren't an illegal immigrant then these will probably be "better on the economy" for you.

It seems unlikely that those situations apply to most of the roughly 55% of Americans who think that these policies will be better for lowering inflation, though.

Alternatively; Republican voters know and/or don't care if it makes them worse off, they're voting to "stick it to them" and prioritize hurting others over helping themselves.

# ? Feb 6, 2024 18:05

The Lord of Hats: Aug 22, 2010; Hello, yes! Is being very good day for posting, no?

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration has a new study out showing that nearly all automobile deaths in the United States are preventable.

The single biggest contributors to deaths (of car passengers or drivers and not counting pedestrians) are:

1) People not wearing seatbelts.
2) People speeding far in excess of the posted limits.
3) People driving while distracted by a cell phone or intoxicated.

- 91.6% of Americans use a seat belt every time they drive.

- In 2022, 50% of all automobile fatalities where the driver or passenger died came from the 8.4% who were not wearing a seatbelt.

- Buckling up is actually more effective in preventing deaths while in a light SUV or truck than in a sedan.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-safety/seat-belts

I know that it's ultimately a generational thing--I grew up with the Importance of Seatbelts being repeatedly hammered home in school, I don't think about buckling the seatbelt, it's pure muscle memory--but it's still wild to me that there's that many people who don't wear them. I feel less comfortable in a car without one, the snugness is nice.

# ? Feb 6, 2024 18:07

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

bird food bathtub posted:

Alternatively; Republican voters know and/or don't care if it makes them worse off, they're voting to "stick it to them" and prioritize hurting others over helping themselves.

Republican voters don't even perceive of politics in terms of policy at all. It's team allegiances, emotional loyalty, and totemic causes; the (economic) weather turned bad because the gods hate democrats and /or we haven't done enough yet to purge democrats.

# ? Feb 6, 2024 18:09

Ravenfood: Nov 4, 2011

Angry_Ed posted:

And yet somehow the citizens of the US and their goldfish memory think Trump/Republicans are better on the economy.

Decades of propaganda about exactly that works, it turns out.

It's infuriating.

# ? Feb 6, 2024 18:11

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Xand_Man posted:

Also you live like a monk and will be unaffected by price shocks from the trade war

If you're in one of those categories, then $6 trillion in tax cuts will do a lot to smooth out a roughly 13.8% increase in prices.

That is about $87,000 per year less in taxes for the top 1% vs. a roughly $47 higher average grocery bill.

Also, according to the Trump campaign economists, deregulation, unleashing American energy production, and the corporate tax cuts will supercharge the economy and raise incomes to combat that price increase. So, it is slightly unfair to say that those policies will result in a 13.8% real income decrease for the average person since there will likely be a non-zero amount they "get back" in tax cuts or economic growth. Although, most of the tax cuts for lower-income households come from making the existing Trump tax cuts permanent, so that isn't actually a net change from right now and is just a net change against a hypothetical 2026 where the tax rates go up.

Still, it is likely going to result in a real income decrease for most people unless the supercharged economy from those policies performs above all expectations and estimates to an astonishing degree. It is also going to depend on your spending habits and what industry you work in as well. It isn't going to be totally evenly distributed in impact.

The Lord of Hats posted:

I know that it's ultimately a generational thing--I grew up with the Importance of Seatbelts being repeatedly hammered home in school, I don't think about buckling the seatbelt, it's pure muscle memory--but it's still wild to me that there's that many people who don't wear them. I feel less comfortable in a car without one, the snugness is nice.

92 out of 100 people wearing a seatbelt every time they drive is a remarkably successful public safety campaign. It is still crazy that there are tens of millions of people who don't wear seatbelts in 2024, but 92% compliance is really good. It was only 11% in 1982.

Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Feb 6, 2024

# ? Feb 6, 2024 18:14

bird food bathtub: Aug 9, 2003; College Slice

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Republican voters don't even perceive of politics in terms of policy at all. It's team allegiances, emotional loyalty, and totemic causes; the (economic) weather turned bad because the gods hate democrats and /or we haven't done enough yet to purge democrats.

Yeah, fair point. With the descent into internally contradictory fascist rhetoric a lot of them probably do hold these views.

# ? Feb 6, 2024 18:21

Kavros: May 18, 2011; sleep sleep sleep
fly fly post post
sleep sleep sleep

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

92 out of 100 people wearing a seatbelt every time they drive is a remarkably successful public safety campaign. It is still crazy that there are tens of millions of people who don't wear seatbelts in 2024, but 92% compliance is really good. It was only 11% in 1982.

The remarkably successful "public safety campaign":

DING. DING. DING. DING. DING. DING. DING. DING. DING. DING. DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING

# ? Feb 6, 2024 18:26

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

bird food bathtub posted:

Yeah, fair point. With the descent into internally contradictory fascist rhetoric a lot of them probably do hold these views.

Right. This new "policy" is just a complicated version of "purge the brown" where "brown" here means "immigrant." It should not be understood as an actual attempt to achieve economic goals; such would be accepting republican pretense rather than rejecting it.

# ? Feb 6, 2024 18:30

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Right. This new "policy" is just a complicated version of "purge the brown" where "brown" here means "immigrant." It should not be understood as an actual attempt to achieve economic goals; such would be accepting republican pretense rather than rejecting it.

Very large tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses paired with sharp reductions in social spending is basically the oldest and purest form of Republican economic goals.

# ? Feb 6, 2024 18:35

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Very large tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses paired with sharp reductions in social spending is basically the oldest and purest form of Republican economic goals.

Goals sure but not economic goals in the sense of shaping the economy.They want those things regardless of their impact on the economy, positive or negative.

# ? Feb 6, 2024 18:37

VikingofRock: Aug 24, 2008

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

The single biggest contributors to deaths (of car passengers or drivers and not counting pedestrians)

This is probably my biggest complaint about the NHTSA: their car safety regulations often ignore pedestrians / bicyclists / people in other cars. Car safety tests are all about how well your car protects you from death, not about how well it prevents death in general, so we get a ridiculous car size arms race. When giant SUVs and pick-ups are rated as "safe", it's because our concept of car safety is "kill the other guy".

# ? Feb 6, 2024 19:01

Xiahou Dun: Jul 16, 2009; We shall dive down through black abysses... and in that lair of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory forever.

VikingofRock posted:

This is probably my biggest complaint about the NHTSA: their car safety regulations often ignore pedestrians / bicyclists / people in other cars. Car safety tests are all about how well your car protects you from death, not about how well it prevents death in general, so we get a ridiculous car size arms race. When giant SUVs and pick-ups are rated as "safe", it's because our concept of car safety is "kill the other guy".

What is this, the Netherlands????

# ? Feb 6, 2024 19:04

Failed Imagineer: Sep 22, 2018

The median new American car weighs half a tonne more than a European car. That would be worth a lol if it didn't directly mean a whole lot of kids getting their skulls crushed.

# ? Feb 6, 2024 19:06

Angry_Ed: Mar 30, 2010; Grimey Drawer

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

If you're in one of those categories, then $6 trillion in tax cuts will do a lot to smooth out a roughly 13.8% increase in prices.

That is about $87,000 per year less in taxes for the top 1% vs. a roughly $47 higher average grocery bill.

Also, according to the Trump campaign economists, deregulation, unleashing American energy production, and the corporate tax cuts will supercharge the economy and raise incomes to combat that price increase. So, it is slightly unfair to say that those policies will result in a 13.8% real income decrease for the average person since there will likely be a non-zero amount they "get back" in tax cuts or economic growth. Although, most of the tax cuts for lower-income households come from making the existing Trump tax cuts permanent, so that isn't actually a net change from right now and is just a net change against a hypothetical 2026 where the tax rates go up.

Still, it is likely going to result in a real income decrease for most people unless the supercharged economy from those policies performs above all expectations and estimates to an astonishing degree. It is also going to depend on your spending habits and what industry you work in as well. It isn't going to be totally evenly distributed in impact.

There's no way prices are going to go down in any appreciable way, when companies are already making continuously increasing profits and then they get another tax cut on top of that.

Failed Imagineer posted:

The median new American car weighs half a tonne more than a European car. That would be worth a lol if it didn't directly mean a whole lot of kids getting their skulls crushed.

That's mostly because Europe doesn't think "douchenozzle truck bro" is a market worth cartering to, thankfully.

# ? Feb 6, 2024 19:08

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Failed Imagineer posted:

The median new American car weighs half a tonne more than a European car. That would be worth a lol if it didn't directly mean a whole lot of kids getting their skulls crushed.

How much of that is due to Americans buying more SUVs? It's not like European cars are much lighter if you compare models like-for-like.

# ? Feb 6, 2024 19:08

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

VikingofRock posted:

This is probably my biggest complaint about the NHTSA: their car safety regulations often ignore pedestrians / bicyclists / people in other cars. Car safety tests are all about how well your car protects you from death, not about how well it prevents death in general, so we get a ridiculous car size arms race. When giant SUVs and pick-ups are rated as "safe", it's because our concept of car safety is "kill the other guy".

They have other studies and their annual safety stats include pedestrian deaths. It's just that in a study about seatbelt efficacy, you are by definition not including pedestrians because they have no seatbelts.

# ? Feb 6, 2024 19:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 13:03

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Angry_Ed posted:

There's no way prices are going to go down in any appreciable way, when companies are already making continuously increasing profits and then they get another tax cut on top of that.

That's mostly because Europe doesn't think "douchenozzle truck bro" is a market worth cartering to, thankfully.

The theory isn't that tax cuts will cause them to lower prices. It's that the tax cuts and deregulation will supercharge the economy and raise wages, so that 13.8% price increase from tariffs (which are tax increases) will be countered by the growth leading to real income increases for Americans despite higher nominal prices.

# ? Feb 6, 2024 19:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2024: Macklemore Is The New Michael Moore

«‹›308 »