Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
(Thread IKs: skooma512)
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

Matt Levine's most recent Money Stuff newsletter is frustrating. They essentially blame bank regulators for causing the SVB bankrun through inadequate supervision. They also note that since all US bank deposits are now effectively guaranteed by the Federal govt there is an incentive for bank executives to take even more bad risks. However they again conclude that the govt simply needs to regulate banks more effectively. There's no acknowledgement that govt regulatory oversight was systematically undermined by the industry's own lobbying efforts, or that there's no realistic prospect to effectively regulate the financial industry in the current political system. Presumably a former banker writing for Bloomberg isn't likely to be making those points but they're obvious omissions.

They do have a point that apparently the current US banking system effectively requires all deposits to be insured. Apparently rich people will threaten to knock over the financial system if they risk losing their uninsured deposits and will inevitably be made whole, so might as well treat all deposits as insured going forward. No idea if that's tenable though.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007


From an off-the-record interview with a FDIC aide about the BTFP:

quote:

'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create a new deposit insurance program. And while you're studying that program—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new insurance programs, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'.[2]

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

Mr Hootington posted:

Ah the the $2trillion (not qe) is theoretical. If all the bonds currently on the books as a loss are traded in then it is a $2trillion injection.
https://twitter.com/EpsilonTheory/status/1636347265752133633?t=LLoYiR9rrotvVJYjT079Hg&s=19

I honestly don't see how someone buying a $1 bond, having it drop to $.80 in value, then trading it back for $1 isn't just willing into existence $.20

Not sure I understand this objection. Why would any eligible financial institution with unrealized losses in bonds not take advantage of the program? Even if they're not in any real financial distress it's free money, and not participating is leaving money on the table.

According to the Federal Reserve eligible institutions have until at least March 2024 to apply, so it will be a while before the full amount "loaned" is known:

quote:

Program Duration: Advances can be requested under the Program until at least March 11, 2024.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

It got lost among everything else but this is infuriating even a day later. It's bad enough that desperate migrant children are forced to work, and that even when this labor abuse is uncovered the children and their families often end up in the cross-eyes of the US immigration system. This is all tolerated so it probably shouldn't be surprising that conservative lawmakers are trying to broadly legalize child labor and make it more widespread. But this is evil villain stuff:

quote:

The Iowa legislation is particularly dangerous because it would exempt employers from civil liability in the event of a youth’s injury or death on the job — even in cases of employer negligence — if the teen was participating in a school-approved “work-based learning program.”

Employers already flout child labor laws at record rates, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
What are the obvious consequences of doing that.

Here's the actual text in an earlier version of the proposed bill for reference:

It looks like the liability immunity was weakened in later versions of the bill but it's clear what they want.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

Mr Hootington posted:

Happy Easter.
realtimeinequality.org
Have fun playing with that website full of stats.

Neat site. The wealth distribution plot is fun:

TBH this is a little more static than I though it would be? The US has always been deeply unequal, but would have thought the top 10% would have gained a larger share of total wealth over the last 50 years of destroying labor. edit: I suppose the top 1% managed to grab an extra ~10% of total wealth over that period, that's a lot

Also interesting to see how the bottom 50% went negative total wealth after 2008 and when they just barely got back to net positive after 2020 the Fed's decides to declare war on excess savings. Weird coincidence.

Nocturtle has issued a correction as of 18:36 on Apr 9, 2023

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007


Matt Levine touched on a potential factor causing this in a recent newsletter on the subject of "narrow banking":

quote:

...
A money market fund that parks its cash at the Fed’s reverse repo facility is more or less a narrow bank: It takes money from investors, it promises to return it on demand, it parks the cash at the Fed, it has the right to withdraw it from the Fed on demand, it gets paid interest by the Fed, it passes most of that interest on to its investors and keeps a bit to pay its expenses. Like a narrow bank, it has few of the expenses of traditional banking (no loan officers, no branches, no capital requirements [14] ), so it can pass along a lot of the interest to investors. Like a narrow bank, it can offer investors a better interest rate than most banks. Like a narrow bank, it takes no credit risk or interest-rate risk, and it can tell investors “your money is much safer here than at a regular bank, since we just park 100% of it at the Fed.”

In an environment of rising interest rates — where banks have raised rates much more slowly than the Fed — that is attractive to depositors who want to earn a return. In an environment of banking worries — where banks have failed and uninsured deposits have, briefly, seemed to be at risk — that is very attractive to depositors who want their money to be safe. And so money is leaving banks to go to money market funds that park it at the Fed.

And the Fed’s worries were right! The Fed said no to TNB in 2019 because it worried that it would undermine traditional bank lending and that it would destabilize banks in times of trouble. [15] And now US regional banks seem to be destabilized, because people are worried about their safety and have an attractive safe alternative. And those banks are lending less. The Wall Street Journal reports:

>Banks need deposits to make loans; if deposits fall, lending is almost sure to follow. What’s more, the recent turmoil could spur banks to start paying depositors higher interest rates, crimping earnings >and further cutting into their lending capacities. And the speed of the recent deposit runs—customers withdrew $42 billion from SVB in a day; Signature lost $18 billion—has bankers stockpiling cash.
>
>The likely result, analysts and central bankers said, is a credit crunch.
>
>“If we lose that deposit base to the money-center banks, we can’t grow and lend out future dollars,” said Brian Johnson, chief executive of North Dakota’s Choice Bank. “Communities can’t grow, and >businesses can’t profit.”
>
>Mr. Johnson said that Choice’s bankers and products hold their own against those of the megabanks, but that the lender will never have the too-big-to-fail status that promises to shield depositors from >losses. “How can I compete for new business with that big enchilada out there?” he said.

And the biggest enchilada is the Fed, which didn’t want to compete with the banks for deposits, but which ended up doing it anyway.

And apparently money market funds have been seeing huge growth over the past few year, slowly at first due to rising rates and then more quickly recently as bank stability became an issue:

quote:

Bloomberg
Money-Market Fund Assets at Record $5.2 Trillion as Rates Beckon
Balances have risen by more than $300 billion through March 29

Government money-funds saw assets rise to $4.33 trillion
ByAlex Harris
March 30, 2023 at 3:49 PM EDT

The amount of money parked at money-market funds climbed to a fresh record in the past week as banking concerns continued to rock global markets and attractive rates lure investors.

Money-market funds have been scooping up cash recently, fueled in large part by depositors pulling their money away from US banks. Initially much of that flow was driven by more attractive rates, but concern about the steadiness of some smaller lenders helped turbocharge that this month.
...

All that money and no-where to go.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

Willa Rogers posted:

the uber goon (trad.): neckbeard, insatiable appetite, hypochondriac, hated the church, overconfident in his gaming, fickle with babes (he killed some folxx, and many people)



I saw a set of his armor just today and when you're right you're right:

quote:

Field Armor of King Henry VIII of England (reigned 1509–47)
Italian, Milan or Brescia

ca. 1544
On view at The Met Fifth Avenue in Gallery 371

This impressive armor was made for Henry VIII (reigned 1509–47) toward the end of his life, when he was overweight and crippled with gout. Constructed for use both on horse and on foot, it was probably worn by the king during his last military campaign, the siege of Boulogne in 1544, which he commanded personally in spite of his infirmities.
...
The armor is an early example of the “anime” type, in which the breastplate and backplate are constructed of horizontal overlapping plates connected and made flexible by rivets and internal leather straps. The decoration, consisting of foliage, putti, running dogs, and Renaissance candelabra and grotesque ornament, is typically Italian.
Grotesque ornament.

edit: this is technically thread relevant btw:

quote:

Second invasion of France and the "Rough Wooing" of Scotland
...
Despite the early success with Scotland, Henry hesitated to invade France, annoying Charles. Henry finally went to France in June 1544 with a two-pronged attack. One force under Norfolk ineffectively besieged Montreuil. The other, under Suffolk, laid siege to Boulogne. Henry later took personal command, and Boulogne fell on 18 September 1544.[149][146] However, Henry had refused Charles's request to march against Paris. Charles's own campaign fizzled, and he made peace with France that same day.[147] Henry was left alone against France, unable to make peace. Francis attempted to invade England in the summer of 1545 but his forces reached only the Isle of Wight before being repulsed in the Battle of the Solent. Financially exhausted, France and England signed the Treaty of Camp on 7 June 1546. Henry secured Boulogne for eight years. The city was then to be returned to France for 2 million crowns (£750,000). Henry needed the money; the 1544 campaign had cost £650,000, and England was once again facing bankruptcy.[147]
Modern empires are more sophisticated and won't bankrupt themselves on pointless conflict though.

Nocturtle has issued a correction as of 01:06 on Apr 14, 2023

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007


Haha isn't this a big poke in the eye for the SEC?

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

Orvin posted:

First was the Volt, then came the Bolt. So figure out _olt for the next vehicle and win a prize.

But it’s probably so they can sell more Hummers and electric Silverados. I bet the Bolt production stops just as the Silverado production gets up to full speed.

The article says exactly that:

quote:

Barra said a suburban Detroit plant that has produced Chevy Bolts since 2016 will be retooled in preparation for production of electric Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks scheduled for next year.
...
“When the Chevrolet Bolt EV launched, it was a huge technical achievement and the first affordable EV, which set in motion GM’s all-electric future,” Chevy spokesman Cody Williams said in a statement. “Chevrolet will launch several new EVs later this year based on the Ultium platform in key segments, including the Silverado EV, Blazer EV and Equinox EV. ”
So not really abandoning electric vehicle production, just one particular model (that apparently has been selling better than ever recently).

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

Animal-Mother posted:

why not build bridges over the often used train tracks

This occurred to me as well but reading the article it says the trains regularly obstruct several intersections all at once in a typical American sprawling car-centric suburb. So if you built a bridge over a single intersection it would still be way out of the way for most people and probably not help much, and presumably building them at every intersection would be too costly.

You can search for "Hammond, Indiana" on google maps, the tracks really do cross through a bunch of streets. You can see how constantly parked trains would be obnoxious and effectively cut the community in half:

Possibly relevant the school mentioned in the article is right beside a 10-lane highway.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

Stereotype posted:

according to the earnings report that everyone is freaking out about they have double the cash / liquid cash equivalents than they have uninsured deposits. normal people with checking accounts also aren't doing the bank run, it's just rich people whose money isn't FDIC insured, though maybe now that will change since they are in the news. They don't actually have a crazy about of old treasuries according to this thing

Matt Levine had a plausible sounding explanation:

quote:

But First Republic reported a profit. The problem, for First Republic, is that lots of its low-interest deposits have fled, and it has had to replace their funding by borrowing from the Fed, the FHLB and the big banks at much higher rates. Meanwhile it still has lots of long-term loans made at low interest rates. If you borrow short at 0% to lend long at 3%, and then your short-term borrowing costs go up to 5% while your loans stay the same, you will be losing 2% a year on your loans, and that is roughly the state that First Republic finds itself in. But it is not exactly the state that First Republic finds itself in: It still has some cheap insured deposits, some short-term assets, some floating-rate assets, some fee income, and in fact it has managed to scrape out a profit even as rates have moved against it. Can that last? I mean, maybe not:
...
It wasn't so much the current state but the trajectory.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007


I have a kid around that age and this is horrifying.

The US Dept of Labor has a webpage summarizing the number of child labor violations over time and the fines have been laughably small for years:

The number of violations involving minors in hazardous occupations doubled over the past several years.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

The US threatening to default on its debt probably isn't slowing down de-dollarization.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

I'm (very) slowly reading through Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs" and agree with the premise that a sizable fraction of American and western jobs are self-evidently unnecessary. Interestingly Graeber's definition of a bullshit job doesn't include ones where the worker themself believes the job is necessary or important, so doesn't include the vast number of tech sector workers that think they're doing useful things but are in fact non-essential. Given all this, it's hard to reconcile this to claims that the current inflation issues are due to a fundamental shortfall in the labor supply. There is in fact a huge reserve army of labor, but it's largely doing useless busy-work instead of being jobless. I'm sure this is probably simplistic and demonstrates my ignorance on this topic. OTOH what makes people so sure that it's a limited labor supply that is causing high inflation?

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

Thank you for the responses regarding what evidence is there that a labor shortage is driving inflation.

my bony fealty posted:

what's the best way to buy a car in the doomsday economy. is there a SA thread that will tell me what to do.

skooma512 posted:

I'd also like a guide with the secret goon meta to get a car for cheap.
Just ask in the Ask/Tell AI meets BFC car thread.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

Willa Rogers posted:

a bunch of democrat governors allowed those p.e. ghouls who own nursing homes to write their emergency orders during covid & the ghouls put in indemnity clauses that exempted their liability for malfeasance that occurred even before covid.

and the for-profit care homes are the only ones who take Medicaid; the non-profit ones are those that charge like $10k/month.

My rudimentary understanding on this issue is that you do not want to be in a nursing home funded at the level that Medicaid pays out, the reason being that the quality of care will be very poor. To have a chance at a good quality of life you really need to be in the type of home that costs more than >$10000 per month, as unaffordable as that is. Is this correct?

Makes sense that you generally don't want to be in a for-profit elder care setting at all if you can avoid it. Esp during a pandemic or even just a bad flu year.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007


Yes it definitely moved me to check out these books at some point.

A general question regarding private equity's impacts: my understanding is that what these PE firms are doing is not fundamentally different from normal private sector capitalist behavior, correct? PE owned nursing homes badly mistreat residents to make more money, but that isn't new. The major difference is these PE takeovers typically involve saddling the purchased company with large debts from bank loans used to fund the takeover itself or payouts, on top of the new owners looting everything. It's these new debts that drive the worst of the cost cutting and abuses.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

I think in America to be considered rich you need enough money to not be financially ruined by a health care emergency, developing an expensive medical condition or by requiring long-term care. Not to mention having adequate shelter + food etc. Amazingly $2 million doesn't seem quite enough to cover those kinds of potential expenses.

Can you even buy a marketplace health plan that won't ruin you in the event of developing a serious medical condition requiring expensive treatment?

edit: to be clear potential health care and long term care expenses aside, yes $2 million is rich.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

Mr Hootington posted:

The company went under because it was found out the executives had never paid into the pension fund like they were obligated too and when we're ordered too they just did a company closure lol

If I'm understanding the reporting correctly it looks like Yellow had only missed one payment of $50 million to the pension fund? It doesn't seem to have been a long term thing.

They also didn't make their employee health insurance payment. America!

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

Xaris posted:


economy seems fine to me. ALL TIME HIGHS!

That looks familiar:

Interesting that you can so clearly see the various financial crises on the wealth graph, then the rate of accumulation resuming at a faster pace afterwards. Looks stable.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

My silly pet theory is that the indoor smoking bans only got through because it made restaurant dining/bars more palatable to people that otherwise wouldn't want to deal the smoke. The idea being that it was ultimately better for business and only incidentally aligned with public health considerations. Very possibly wrong about this.

The USDA points out that US food spending has recently been at an all-time inflation adjusted high, and that non-home spending took the lead over the past two decades:

Not sure it supports this hypothesis but that switch seems significant.

Mr Hootington posted:

The nukes are going to be launched and for 25 minutes the stock market will climb to ATHs
Going to buy the dip from my lead-lined bunker, which is what I call the apartment.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

MAID makes some sense as most people understandably want to avoid being an Alzheimer's patient in a long term care ward. However the reality as to how it's implemented in the current context with non-existent social support and a lot of incentives to remove "unproductive" people makes it truly awful. It causes more harm than it prevents, as the early Canadian experience demonstrates.

To be clear the default option of slowly dying under the level of inadequate long term care provided by the state, if any is even available, is also not acceptable but also clearly inevitable under the current system. It is ridiculous to believe the average worker could ever save enough for the costs involved, but that's exactly the expectation in most places.

SirPablo posted:

It is socially beneficial to let people Die With Dignity. Using that as a way to pressure people to die would be hosed up. Painting the fact that the allocation of your remaining resources would be done in a "positive" way isn't by itself bad, really depends on the motive.
It could be but that option isn't on the table right now.

Nocturtle has issued a correction as of 15:35 on Apr 1, 2024

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

You can't discount the random MAID horror stories as isolated incidents. They are an inevitable, incentivized and logical outcome of the current provision of social support and end of life care. It's like seeing a cop murder a black person and concluding it was just a single bad apple.

I used to think MAID was in principle a good idea, in part due to spending too much time volunteering in a lovely retirement/long term care home. The actual implementation in Canada has been so disastrous and I don't support it now. I'm honestly not sure what the solution is even at the personal level, because as mentioned you don't want to end up senile in long term care but a just MAID system isn't possible in our society.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

loquacius posted:

Insurance already does this in many circumstances. The only difference is they generously give you the option of paying for it out of pocket if they decide they won't

I dunno, we're ALREADY in a situation where people who will never meet or speak to you and (notably) are not doctors are deciding what healthcare we do or do not need, they just work for private industry instead of the government

Yes, MAID is generating a lot of headlines and gets a lot of attention for obvious reasons but the alternative is really not much better. Dying painfully with inadequate long-term care is also unacceptable but also a very real possibility for any non-rich person in the current system. Even in places with UHC like Canada or the UK the conditions in the kinds of care homes that can be afforded without significant private savings are terrible. The average worker cannot save enough to guarantee good quality end of life care out of savings.

You can imagine the ideal system from a capitalist perspective is one that will drain any savings from an older person then swiftly dumping their care on the state or pushing MAID when they've run out of money. This appears to be largely what we're getting.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

PoundSand posted:

something I sort of wonder with end of life care stuff is what countries with better health systems are doing. Cause like in america the conventional knowledge is that unless you're just perfectly healthy after you retire up until the point you die peacefully in your sleep overnight it's a crippling amount of money that none but the richest can afford. So if it does realistically cost a gajillion dollars per month for however many years it takes for you to die getting in home care or spending it at a facility how do nationalized places afford it? It seems like particularly with populations skewing older it could get prohibitively expensive. I understand the whole for profit nature of the american system is inflating costs of everything so I'd assume it's cheaper elsewhere, but at the same time I imagine a lot of the costs of those sorts of facility are staffing so presuming it's professionals making a reasonable wage there's somewhat of a floor that's probably pretty high regardless of meds/equipment being more reasonable.

It sounds like Canada is having this issue due to neoliberal rot, so who are good examples of it?

Not an expert but did do a superficial review of this at some point, as unfortunately the cost of long-term care are increasingly relevant. As far as I can tell there are no good examples in the English speaking western world. It's not like Canada is uniquely terrible among western countries, the state + social support system just as threadbare as any other for the usual reasons. The main innovation in Canada is they formalized a process that frankly informally occurs in many places when for example someone requiring long-term care runs out of money or insurance denies coverage etc. In almost all cases end-of-life and long term care is expected to be paid from private savings, and in only some cases will govts step in to provide the cash for a totally inadequate level of care.

Here were my main observations comparing different English-speaking countries:
-United States: individuals must pay, medicare/medicaid will pay an inadequate amount if someone doesn't have enough income or assets
-Canada: province dependent, individuals generally pay costs but for example in Ontario the "co-payment' costs are capped
-UK: people generally must pay for their care themselves but local councils will cover the costs if someone doesn't have enough assets
-Australia: individuals must pay but the govt will cover the costs if someone doesn't have enough income or assets
-New Zealand: individuals must pay for care but the maximum amount any care home is capped and district health boards cover the outstanding costs. Also support for low income, assets people.

It seems like New Zealand is "best" in that they apparently cap the amount that care homes can charge people. I know nothing about how this works out in practice.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007


Yes, implementing an effective maximum income has been done. Not anymore though

A 100% wealth tax over a certain threshold seems more straightforward to be honest, also about as likely going forward

edit: I see this chart lists the tax rate for the richest as 40% currently, lol

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

I was genuinely confused reading reports that the Disney+ streaming service was losing a lot of money. How could they possibly lose money streaming Disney content, they already made most of it decades ago. Maybe most people know already but this Forbes article explained it well, though they took way too many words when it was essentially:

quote:

Instead of being satisfied with its spellbinding performance, Disney doubled down and commissioned dedicated Disney+ shows and movies, spending $33 billion on content in 2022 alone. Driven by ego in a bid to attract more subscribers than Netflix, Disney upped the ante and it didn't pay off.

Pretty much everything that could go wrong for Disney did go wrong. Taxes soared as governments sought to claw back the massive furlough payments made during the pandemic. At the same time, inflation surged due to the war in Ukraine and local factors such as Brexit in the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, consumers were still wary of returning to cinemas due to the risk of catching covid. However, they weren't stuck indoors any more so they had less of a need for streaming subscriptions and less money to pay for them.
As a lazy person this was exasperating to read. They could have made so much money if they just did nothing and let people pay them to stream their content.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007


Let them fight.

However this will likely be a thread-relevant topic going forward as there's some preliminary evidence that using GLP-1 agonists to "cure" obesity might require long-term if not lifelong prescriptions. From a recent Nature news article:

quote:

NEWS FEATURE
16 April 2024
Obesity drugs aren’t always forever. What happens when you quit?
Many researchers think that Wegovy and Ozempic should be taken for life, but myriad factors can force people off them.

...
What happens to weight and health when people quit?
Ozempic and Wegovy are both brand names for the drug semaglutide, which has been prescribed for several years to treat type 2 diabetes (Ozempic) and, since 2021, to those who are overweight or have obesity (Wegovy). The treatment’s aim is to reduce the risk of health complications posed by a large amount of excess body fat, such as heart and liver disease and certain cancers. The drug curbs hunger and food intake by mimicking a hormone, released by the gut after eating, that affects brain regions involved in appetite and reward.

Research has shown what happens when people stop taking GLP-1 agonists. Many regain a substantial amount of what they lost with the help of the medications. The body naturally tries to stay around its own weight point, a pull that obesity specialist Arya Sharma likens to a taut rubber band.

If you take a medication to alter your biology, “the tension of the rubber band is a lot less”, he explains. “But when I take away the medication, that tension is going to come back,” says Sharma, who is based in Berlin and consults part-time for several companies that have an interest in obesity.

For instance, in a trial that studied the effects of withdrawing from the drug, about 800 participants were given weekly injections of semaglutide — as well as making dietary changes, doing exercise and receiving counselling — and lost, on average, 10.6% of their body weight in about 4 months1. Then, one-third of the participants were switched to placebo injections for nearly a year. Eleven months after the switch, those on the placebo had regained almost 7% of their body weight, whereas participants who kept taking semaglutide continued to lose weight. Similarly, participants in an extended semaglutide trial, who lost an average of 17.3% of their body weight after more than one year of receiving the drug and making lifestyle changes, regained about two-thirds of that lost weight after one year without any clinical-trial interventions2.
...
These companies are going to make so much money it's obscene.

Also someone posted the rising obesity rates earlier itt and the GLP-1 agonist revolution is a great example that public health problems tend only to be addressed via technical solutions vs addressing the underlying social factors driving and exacerbating the problems in the first place. People talk about how we finally have a miracle cure for obesity and we've always had a cure for obesity (for most people), it's eating healthy food and getting enough exercise. For some reason it seems like a large and rising proportion of the public can't do those things, must be due to individual moral failings but fortunately there's a pill they can (maybe) buy now.

edit

Acelerion posted:

House and 401k cannot go down. Doubly so in an election year. Best we can do is hold it sideways so wages catch up in 18 years
My totally uninformed opinion is that houses cannot and will not ever be allowed to lose significant value for a variety of reasons. However 401ks are similarly inflated and not nearly as secure. The people that manage rich people's money seem to be increasingly moving it to private equity funds. If the wealthy can successfully insulate themselves from a major stock correction there doesn't seem to be any reason why it can't happen, esp as they can buy the dip after. The (relatively small) subset of workers with 401k retirement savings will be the ones left holding the bag.

Nocturtle has issued a correction as of 17:29 on Apr 18, 2024

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

It's unironically a shame that liberals, including the lib-left can only engage with this in terms of No Body is Illegal or whatever, rather than seeing what's actually going on here.

The Left Case against Open Borders

This is an important topic that will get lost in this thread, too bad the immigration thread is defunct

IMO the main problem with this piece is it ignores the reality that we are and will continue to see large scale mass migration into the west over the next few decades no matter what policy the "left" decides. It's already happening and will continue to happen on ever larger scales, climate change ensures this without even accounting for globalization. The only question is whether these migrants are treated humanely or declared illegal.

It's also disingenuous to say conservatives love immigration as a weapon against labour. They absolutely do for all the reasons the author summarizes, but what conservatives love much more is the current situation of mass migration WITHOUT legal status. That's far more corrosive to labour than treating migrants humanely and letting them work legally. As mentioned we are getting mass migration no matter what, it's not up for debate, and these are the two options.

In particular this part annoyed me:

quote:

With respect to illegal immigration, the Left should support efforts to make E-Verify mandatory and push for stiff penalties on employers who fail to comply. Employers, not immigrants, should be the primary focus of enforcement efforts. These employers take advantage of immigrants who lack ordinary legal protections in order to perpetuate a race to the bottom in wages while also evading payroll taxes and the provision of other benefits. Such incentives must be eliminated if any workers are to be treated fairly.
This is not going address the reality of desperate migrants having to do anything to survive, illegal or not. Frankly it comes across as clueless, like thinking you can win the drug war by only arresting dealers or whatever.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

Danann posted:

https://twitter.com/philippilk/status/1782409654519128497

petty boug meltdown going to be real ugly in the near future

Is this really true? For example Canada uses the low energy Canadian dollar and living standards for normal people are similar to the US. Uncritically interpreting the average national income as a quality of life indicator for non-rich people when the income distribution is highly unequal also seems misguided.

Don't disagree with the main point that the decline of the petrodollar will likely puncture a lot of America's various bubbles.

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

Father Wendigo posted:

FED'S DALY: No more sunrises until the streets run red with the blood of the unemployed.

https://twitter.com/financialjuice/status/1788640909107609872?t=QWWOENPAq8muoLl-ADE3_Q&s=19

It's helpful that Federal Reserve officials explicitly state that they raise rates with the express purpose of putting people out of work, and rates aren't going down until that happens. Here's a Yahoo Finance article with slightly more detail, though I haven't found any kind of transcript of Daly's remarks:

quote:

Fed's Daly favors waiting to gain confidence that inflation is dropping
Jennifer Schonberger·Senior Reporter
Thu, May 9, 2024, 2:51 PM EDT3 min read

San Francisco Fed president Mary Daly said uncertainty about the inflation outlook has increased and made it difficult to make projections for policy until the central bank gets more clarity.
...
Instead Daly outlined two possible scenarios for the path of interest rates. One has inflation resuming its downward trajectory with a cooling job market, and in that case lowering rates would be appropriate.

The other scenario has inflation continuing to stall out as it has during the first three months of this year. If that happens, it would not be appropriate to cut rates unless the job market falters, she said.
...
It's strange Federal Reserve officials can go on national news, repeatedly over several months, to state they're trying hard to put people out of work via rate hikes and yet many people (certain family members lol) still assert that people are unemployed by choice and so don't deserve sympathy. A bit like Cobra Commander going on prime time to reveal their plan to turn people into snakes and everyone is like no those people are turning into snakes because they're LAZY.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nocturtle
Mar 17, 2007

loquacius posted:

Couldn't they fill similar jobs in the single payer bureaucracy

A different version of this plot gets posted every few years and oddly the numbers keep getting larger. This one is from this Forbes article:

There's a lot of graft embodied in that discrepancy of US costs wrt other countries. Single-payer bureaucracies aren't nearly so bloated as the US system so moving to one would cut out a lot of bullshit jobs.

It's not like things are going super great in single-payer countries though, on my last visit back to Canada I was a little shocked at the number of private health insurance television commercials. The UK NHS is self-destructing in real time. The US probably has it worst though as the health care is simultaneously both poor quality and one of the most expensive.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply