a Day Late
Show Top Comments
So a maturing industry grew faster than an mature industry. How is this news?
I mean. Yeah. Newer industries tend to grow faster than industries that have been around a while. Diminishing marginal returns and all that…
Title gore..
Emerging industries grow faster than centuries-old industries, news at 9
1 —> 2 = 100% increase
100 —> 101 = 1% increase
Show Top Comments
Kind of silly that scientists needed to create experiments to figure that one out
Can’t get the rest of the article, but.. what’s the solution? Take kids from poor and uneducated and move them to wealthy households?
” critics who think that poverty results from a defective character concede that poor children, all 13m of them in America today, are not to blame for their plight”
Citation. Needed. IQ is both so strongly heritable and so strongly correlated to income that “poverty causing long lasting effects” is one hell of an assumption. It’s /plausible/ that poverty causes long-lasting negative effects, but it’s equally /plausible/ that low IQ caused those long lasting negative effects. If anything IQ is a better explanation because it’d account for negative outcomes exhibited by poor babies adopted into wealthy families, and because it’d be prima facie strange for negative outcomes to persist for poor people who acquired a windfall (if poverty lead to negative outcomes, winning the lottery or similar wouldn’t end so badly so often).
Show Top Comments
Legislators have been removing regulations to enable 2008 style meltdown.
Capital requirements were increased and stress testing is now routinely done on banks. There are are many things that were not done and some that were badly legislated so not properly implemented but it’s not right to say nothing has changed.
Well it worked out so well last time for those at the top. Why change anything? After everyone lost their houses, wealthy people came in and snapped them off the market for cash and now we have people renting houses. Then the rent goes up and up and up. Where have we seen this pattern before? Hmm. Merci Beaucoup.
Mark Carney was an excellent upgrade over this guy if this is what he thinks. I’m not denying something can happen, but to say nothing has changed is daft.
This is nonsense. The financial system is significantly more safe than it was before the 2008 crisis. Since that time we’ve been through multiple panics including the European debt crisis without falling into recession. We’ve enjoyed a period of unprecedented financial stability because of those fundamental changes. Changes that are still in tact despite some more recent adjustments around the edges on things that we went too far on.
Show Top Comments
Yeah no shit. But the reason it would ruin them is that they have built themselves up to where they need the demand from abusers to sustain their production. There’s nothing about markets that requires this, it’s just a current stable equilibrium. We could adapt to a low drinking or no drinking culture without noticing much as an economy
Not sure how it is in America, but the way they schmooze up to bartenders in aus really promotes a hard culture of drinking 24/7. Tastings, trainings, flights, all designed to load them up and get them selling as much as possible to as many as possible. It’s not sustainable and it’s not healthy
So, the lancet recently did a study that determined that there was no safe level of alcohol. My problem with these studies that include everything from domestic violence to dui, etc, is that it makes it impossible to *just* look at the health effects of drinking.
I drink at home, in moderation, and am responsible. It’s impossible for me to isolate health effects and determine what level of drinking is safe for me. I don’t know how to un-grind that sausage.
They have to promote “Drink Responsibly” or they’ll get the Big Tobacco treatment.
Former and sometimes alcoholic here. 90% of the alcohol industries sales come from 10% of the customers..and believe me when I say these are VERY loyal customers.
There is probably some variance in those numbers…but the 90/10 rule of business still applies.
Show Top Comments
Because worker’s share of profits is at it’s lowest level since WWII?
You have more leverage when the economy’s good. Makes perfect sense to me.
Because they have more ground to stand on. If profits are up and production is high, it’s a fantastic time to ask for more pay/benefits/etc. When the economy is struggling and folks are getting laid off, that’s not normally the time to demand more compensation.
Just because the economy is strong, doesn’t mean that the workers are getting “their fair share.” Sometimes (often times) higher profits don’t trickle down to the little guy. In some industries (like tech), worker mobility drives wage growth. IE, looking for a new job every 2-3 years to get significant raises. In the automotive industry, jumping jobs like that is not nearly as common or practical, so union negotiation, and striking, is their method of getting the wage increases.
“So many workers on strike” – Only one or two major unions on strike at any given time…..
​
Has the NY times even established that this is an abnormal amount of unions on strike? or did the author just read about the GM strike last week and decide to run with it?
​
Considering that a number of collective bargining agreements come up every year, one must assume that if X% of unions decide to strike, there will always be a strike every once in while.
Actually there haven’t been a lot, the public sector are the ones striked the most like teachers. For private sector it’s just a few times with hotels and some auto industry.
Show Top Comments
Those were hardly sexist comments if everything he said was quoted in the article. I wonder if these funds have some clause saying can leave with lower/no notice due to personal misconduct or something and are jumping on this.
This is the dumbest controversy I’ve ever heard of.
It sounds like there was more than just bad manners here – he was implying it was unwise for a money manager to talk about performance – implying it would be like going up to someone in a bar and saying “do you want to have sex?” But the activities are not comparable. Why was he being coy about his company’s numbers?
How is there any controversy over this at all? He was literally giving examples of shit you shouldn’t do and I wouldn’t even say that they’re that rude at all. This PC shit is ridiculous at this point.
Yet theyre still advertising like they are the greatest thing since sliced bread!
Show Top Comments
The “norm?” Not sure I agree. The 30yr fixed is the backbone.
If this puts people in homes that would otherwise be renting I guess it might be a good thing, but it’s probably just going to let people buy homes they wouldn’t be able to afford. This plus low rates and the trend of people putting less down is a recipe for over leverage
So that headline is a lie
Car loans have basically doubled in length (from 3 or 4 years to 7 years), so this wouldn’t exactly be unheard of.
Still, I’m in California where this would make sense, and I’ve yet to hear of anyone getting a 40 year mortgage.
When I moved to Sweden (from the rather risk averse Germany) I was shocked that 50 years is normal and that once under 80% a lot of people don’t pay mortgages at all but just the interest.
Explains how the bubble could get that large.
Show Top Comments
The rich go into debt in order to invest in projects with high returns.
Borrow $10 million at 7% interest to invest in a pipeline with a 9% yields.
The poor borrow money to fuel short term consumption.
Borrow $100 at 32% interest because you need to pay a heating bill.
These aren’t remotely similar in any way and it’s absurd that any system would treat the two as equivalent risk.
Author admits he doesn’t understand debt in the first few paragraphs.
Is this not an economics sub? What is this garbage of an article?
This article is garbage.
The author conflates personal loans with asset-backed loans, glosses over the fact that a good fraction of student debt is voluntary and unnecessary, and accepts the comparison of borrowing cash from a lord during feudalism to modern borrowing under the fractional reserve system.
Opinions are seldom logic and are never facts.
Misleading headline, and the author sounds like an idiot, to wit:
>And then you have rich fuckers like Jared Kushner and his father-in-law taking on millions upon millions in debt (and that’s just the debt we know of) while still sitting pretty (at least, for now)
Garbage.
Show Top Comments
Ray Dalio sticks his hand out the window in a storm and says “It’s raining”.
Is this my daily “recession is coming” reminder?
I see us returning to trend growth 1.5%ish.
As for the world, they’ll need to rely on themselves even more for new demand.
He’s been saying that for what now… 5 years?
Yup and despite the post recession “Obama economy,” the real animal spirits of economic expansion haven’t been realized yet this cycle.
Show Top Comments
I’m not as informed as I should be when making this comment, but doesn’t this mean that Banks used a lot of their cash to buy Treasury bonds only to not have enough leftover to comfortably lend overnight?
The only reason we are not in a recession is bc the administration is pumping billions into economy through various emergency subsidies. Even w this, the Fed is still having to put in billions more. It’s no wonder the federal deficit is growing at it’s fastest rate since the 2007 recession. The current administration is artificially propping up the economy and taxpayers will foot the bill.
New York Fed Injects $104.15 Billion in Short-Term Liquidity
Intervention came in two parts—a term-repurchase-agreement operation that will last 15 days and a one-day repo operation
for The Wall Street Journal
By Michael S. Derby
Updated Oct. 17, 2019 9:56 am ETThe Federal Reserve Bank of New York injected $104.15 billion in temporary liquidity into financial markets Thursday.
The intervention came in two parts. One was via a term-repurchase-agreement operation that will last for 15 days that added $30.65 billion. The other was via a one-day repo operation that totaled $73.5 billion.
Fed repo interventions take in Treasury and mortgage securities from eligible banks in what is effectively a loan of central bank cash, collateralized by dealer-owned bonds. Last month, the Fed ramped up its repo operations for the first time in over a decade to help tame spiking short-term borrowing costs.
This week there has been some upward pressure in short-term rates, which some observers have attributed to the settlement of Treasury debt auctions and other factors. The effective fed funds rate has been, at 1.90% on Wednesday, trading toward the higher end of the fed’s range of 1.75% to 2%.
On Wednesday, the Fed also began buying large amounts of Treasury bills to help expand the size of its balance sheet as part of a longer-term solution for money-market volatility.
Write to Michael S. Derby at michael.derby@wsj.com
There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.
-Ludwig von Mises.
Just waiting for the resident poster that comes in here to belligerently scream and type essays that everything is okay.