The economy’s strength and stability — defying many of the most optimistic predictions — represents a remarkable development after seemingly endless crises
As 2023 winds to a close, Powell and his colleagues are far from declaring victory on inflation. They routinely caution that their actions could be thwarted by any number of threats, from war in the Middle East to China’s economic slowdown. Americans are upset about high costs for rent, groceries and other basics, which aren’t going back to pre-pandemic levels. The White House, too, is quick to emphasize that much work remains.
Yet the economy is ending the year in a remarkably better position than almost anyone on Wall Street or in mainstream economics predicted, having bested just about all expectations time and again. Inflation has dropped to 3.1 percent, from a peak of 9.1. The unemployment rate is at a hot 3.7 percent, and the economy grew at a healthy clip in the most recent quarter. The Fed is probably finished hiking interest rates and is eyeing cuts next year. Financial markets are at or near all-time highs, and the S&P 500 could hit a new record this week, too.
Ending inflation doesn’t mean that prices come down. It means that they stop rising. (or, more realistically, go back to rising at 2% to 3% per year)
Deflation is when prices drop. It’s bad; what happens is that it’s more valuable to hold onto cash than to invest it in starting or expanding a business, so the economy as a whole craters like the US did in the Great Depression. You probably don’t want that.
Are you kidding me? Crash the economy so hard it snaps in two. It’s time we put capitalism out of it’s misery
Seriously! Now tell us how much time you’ve spent understanding how working class Americans lived during the great depression and what parts you’re most interested in seeing repeated
The status quo already has us living in hoovervilles
This is the kind of shit champagne socialists say as they sit back at brunch. Do you have any idea not only how many casualties this would cause, but how badly it would set us back from evolving past capitalism?
How will the people surviving paycheck to paycheck, barely getting enough food on the table, going to survive? An economic collapse means food logistics cease to exist. You can’t just go to the grocery store. What will everyday people eat? What will they drink when they run out of the chemicals needed for clean water?
Not to mention, the collapse would mean all logistics and supply chains stop working. You need a medicine by tomorrow afternoon or you’ll begin to die? Whoops, we have no idea when that’s coming in. Everyone who relies on medication to live will die. Even more who rely on it for quality of life will severely suffer. You’ll have brilliant minds that are incapable of helping design a more equitable system because they’re anxious wrecks. Any new injuries would probably be a death sentence.
Do you understand what this would mean? An economic collapse would be a massacre of the working class and anyone needing consistent healthcare. You need bright minds to develop a better system than capitalism. They’ll all be dead or held captive by their own bodies.
I cannot imagine the level of privilege it takes to unironically make a statement like this. There are no words.
Far too many people think that they’ll survive and lead the masses in a glorious revolution that will fix all of our problems.
For starters, the masses wouldn’t exist. An economic collapse would massacre the working class. Way too many people are already barely making ends meet. They’d all starve to death.
This is the sort of pipedream that only the bourgeoisie think of.
That happened in 1929. Don’t. Do. It. Again.
If that’s what it’s gonna take to get a green new deal then maybe we should. Without a crisis like that, at the current trajectory both parties seem set on selling out the planet for there corporate donors.
The party that does it will end up out of power for a generation because it’s such a bad idea. People can make that mistake out of ignorance, but won’t do it willingly
Are you saying the green new deal will be a bad idea and unpopular or triggering a depression to get it would be unpopular and a bad idea? Because the former I’d say is necessary to stop and help heal both climate change and income inequality, and if it’s anything like the first new deal would bring the party into power for a generation and set a new economic consensus. I think the latter is a bit extreme to accomplish it but idk any other way to get people to completely turn away from the current system and it’ll just be boiling the frog as the planet gets hotter, the rich get richer and the parties lose popularity but retain power.
No, I’m saying that crashing the economy on purpose will result in the party which does it being incredibly unpopular. You can’t do that and expect people to even listen to your next idea.
I studied environmental politics and climate change in grad school. When the global economy went into meltdown in 07/08, a lot of us in academia mused that maybe the great breakdown of existing power structures would free up cognitive space to try to reimagine a better, more sustainable path forward. During our conferences there were a few cynics who repeatedly pointed out that when bills are hard to pay, and when opportunity is scarce, and when systems are stressed, people respond by being less innovative and flexible, not more. When shit hit the fan, it turned out, the cynics were absolutely right:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2009/04/11/environmental-impact-of-financial-crisis-challenges-and-opportunities-event-1328
https://landscapepartnership.org/maps-data/climate-context/cc-resources/ClimateSciPDFs/EmissionsRecessionsnclimate.pdf/app-download-file/file/EmissionsRecessionsnclimate.pdf
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/08/06/lets-not-make-the-same-mistakes-we-did-after-the-2008-crisis/
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2009/12/jones.htm
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/49910
When times get tough, programs like the Green New Deal get shredded and forgotten, because putting food on the table takes immediate precedence over longer-term visions for a different future. If you want to blow a gigantic hole in every environmental initiative that’s generated a modicum of attention over the past few decades and hasten the demise of the clean energy sector in favor of fossil fuel-based industries, then by all means cheer for the collapse of the economy. It’s just about the most surefire thing you could possibly imagine if you’re interested in seeing the Green New Deal relegated to the dustbin of history.
I agree that initially people respond to crisis with conservatism and leaning on the current system, but that conservatism runs out though. If the system is able to solve the crisis, or at least show progress in solving it then it can be re-entrenched. If it can’t and proves utterly incapable of solving it, or even perpetuating it then people start to get radical. In 1929 and 1930 many people still believed laissez-faire could fix the depression but as conditions stayed the same or worsened people started to realize it’s flaws. By 1932 they were ready to give up on it and try anything to end it. 2007 was different as the neo liberal system was able to muster a response to the problem of speculative financial collapse in the form of financial bail outs which did bottom out the recession and start an upward trend.
The crisis I’d “root for”, as much as I can root for something that’d cause immediate suffering to many people, is one that neo liberalism can’t handle and therefore discredits it as a governing system. That crisis will come eventually, just as the depression ended laissez-faire and stagflation ended keynesianism and if that pattern holds up we’ll probably see a swing to the left this time on this metronome of economic consensus.
It’s amazing to me that people can make proclamations like this with absolute certainty and yet have absolutely no evidence to support them. Your hypothetical is just as likely to lead to a fascist dystopia as it is to lead to a leftist utopia. If your pattern doesn’t “hold up”, we all die. Whose life are you gambling with, exactly?
How would a collapse stop that? It would only hasten it. The rich will kill anyone who currently owns food productions and take it for themselves. Corporations will advertise food and shelter, and then use the extremely high number of people desperately trying to live as slave labor. Countries would fall only to be replaced by McDonalds and ConAgra.
And that’s without discussing the massacre of the working class. Not to mention too, the Inflation Reduction Act is an enormous amount of sustainability spending that’s spurred the entire West to do more. It may not be called the Green New Deal, but it sure as hell doesn’t fall far from it.
I think your overestimating how much people will tolerate deprivation before turning on the system. After a certain point people will reject the system, sometimes violently , and seek a new way of organizing society. It’s why the great depression didn’t turn into the corporate hellscape you envision even though companies were just as powerful at the end of the 1920s. Barring some sort of military coup you can’t subject a majority of the population to slavery and poverty without those people revolting.
The system relies on the at least tacit consent of the majority of the population, if you break that it becomes unstable and in that instability new ideas can come in. This is why most successful revolutions follow a crisis, one that discredits the current ruling order and allows something new to take it’s place.
It can be dangerous though, that new thing could be FDR or it could be Hitler, but it’s bound to happen eventually and our best hope now is to lay the groundwork so that when it does we get a leader ready to usher in a new green economy.
I think that’s different from a total collapse of the system. It’s moreso reforms, which I see as different.
That assumes what we are experiencing is inflation. Inflation is part of the equation, but another big part is just corporations are pushing up prices and making record profits. That part can result in prices going down without causing issues.
deleted by creator
Are you a politics mod too?
No, but I I studied a tiny bit of macroeconomics once.
You’re already ahead of 90% of Lemmy with that.
I wonder how many people here would agree with the idea of lowering taxes in order to reduce inflation.
Good, I’d hate for the mods here to delete points of view that they don’t agree with 🤪. Like the Climate sub!
It’s not a matter of disagreement; there’s room for legit disagreement about a lot of things. It’s a matter of joining in a active fossil-fuel-industry disinformation campaign. That gets me to take content down because it’s basically impossible to have a rational discussion when that’s part of it.
Thinking that humans are a net negative to the natural world and deserve the consequences of the climate apocalypse isn’t a fossil fuel industry disinformation talking point, you literally just disagree with my opinions and shadowbanned me without warning or way to appeal. Big difference in “taking content down” and the former.
Doomerism is in fact a fossil fuel industry talking point; it’s part of what they do to discourage action.
If the only solution is suicide, nobody will act.
My solution isn’t everyone killing themselves at the same time. And you’d know that if you didn’t ban me without recourse.
Idk the original discussion but I totally support the ban.
Insufferable people that talk past others are the absolute worst people to try and have a dialogue with - especially when they’re more interested in listening to themselves anyway.
First, seek to understand, then try to be understood