this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
276 points (86.5% liked)

politics

18651 readers
4701 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The last time this happened, voters didn’t credit Bill Clinton. That may be a bad omen, or a good one.

If the stock market chose presidents, Joe Biden would be a shoo-in for reelection in 2024. The market rallied this month amid growing optimism about the economy, with the S&P 500 zooming 1.9 percent Tuesday on news that the consumer price index rose only 3.2 percent in October (compared to 3.7 percent in September). Stocks rallied again Wednesday on news that the producer price index fell 0.5 percent. Commentators are no longer debating whether the economy will experience a “soft landing” (i.e., a reduction in inflation without recession). The only question now is when it will arrive. The S&P 500 seems to have decided it’s already here.

But the stock market doesn’t choose presidents. Voters do, and polls continue to show they think the economy is in terrible shape. A Financial Times–Michigan Ross Nationwide Survey conducted November 2–7 is absolutely brutal on this point.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The idea is that with inflation, money today is worth more than tomorrow, with deflation it's the opposite. So, in an inflationary regime, you'll spend money before it loses value, either by buying things, or buying stocks AKA investing. In a deflationary regime, money gains value, so people keep it, nobody buys, nobody invests, and the economy starts shutting down.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Okay but I’m still gonna buy groceries if they’re cheaper because I need to eat

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but you'll buy them even if they're not cheap, because you need to eat. But on a large enough scale, the effects are, well, large.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Pretty sure everybody needs to eat.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

...I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The world does not stop because prices fall, people still have needs and wants. Just because money will be worth more down the line does not mean people will suddenly stop impulse buying or purchasing necessities. It means superfluous spending would drop. Billionaires would loose enormous wealth as people stop playing with futures, it would not kill an economy it would kill the wealth gap and wealth classes. The biggest problem is the US sells its debt but in a deflationary time said debt loses value not gains it. But even that you can reverse to still encourage growth. The biggest "issue" is the common man drives the economy in a deflationary period by purchasing nessacities instead of bullshit waste to drive growth numbers.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I swear to god, it's like you cranks are completely illiterate, both economically and actually. The question was:

I hear about how deflation is supposedly the death knell for an economy,

I give an answer, and you come in with "Wrong! Only superfluous spending would drop". Yes, genius, that is the death knell of the economy. The economy is set up to sell shit, if shit stops selling, moneyed classes pull the plug and everyone gets fired, and then the salary that buys you more stops existing. And then when the market collapses and everything grinds to a halt, you will spend what money you have on groceries, while Bezos will spend his buying shit up on the cheap, and will walk out of the ordeal owning everything. That's what happened in 2008, and you're deluded if you think it won't repeat. And you people will buy it hook, line, and sinker, because you can't understand an explanation that doesn't have a bad guy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

while Bezos will spend his buying shit up on the cheap, and will walk out of the ordeal owning everything

I love how you conviently forgot that these billionaires' values are 90% derived from stock holdings and intangible assets. They won't have money to buy up everything, liquidating their stock options would only work with buyers being able to pay Bezos out of his positions, or you know a bailout like what happened in 2008 but you seem to forget that and associate it with deflationary policies that where not happening at the time.....

That's what happened in 2008

No what happened in 2008 is before the banks that bet bad failed, we bailed them the fuck out setting ourselves up for hyper inflation where riskier and riskier behavior is rewarded at scale due to to big to fail ideologies constantly bailing out failing businesses due to the capital they control.

you people will buy it hook, line, and sinker, because you can't understand an explanation that doesn't have a bad guy.

No one is saying we need a bad guy, we are pointing out the very flawed system we operate in, while you try and defend it saying this is how it should all work, when in reality these principles you think will balance everything are avoided through captured regulatory agencies implementing loopholes for big businesses, like market maker exemptions for naked short selling, or constant bailouts for to big to fail banks.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No one is saying we need a bad guy, we are pointing out the very flawed system we operate in, while you try and defend it saying this is how it should all work,

Wow. Incredible. Not only do you misread what I wrote, you can't even understand what you're writing. Amazing. 100%, completely illiterate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Nice deflection turned to insult, such great literary and debate skills on display here folks. Bravo

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Technology gets cheaper and better every year. It's inherently deflationary and yet people still buy computers, TVs, phones, etc.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because new models come out constantly. If they didn't, nobody would rush to buy. In fact even now the most common dillema is "Do I buy now, or wait for the next gen to come out?"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Alright, then what would people be waiting on to buy in a deflationary environment that they don't wait for in an inflationary environment?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"Econ 101"? Anything that I can get you to not buy by convincing you it'll be on sale in a month or two. New car, a house, electronics, IDK, cookware?

Actual stock market example? Investment is when you put money in now, in the hope that what you get in the future will be worth more than the money. If the value of money goes down, anything that doesn't follow the money as it falls is a good investment. If the value of money goes up, any investment has to not only rise, it has to outperform the currency to be worth it. The idea is that inflation makes saving pointless, so money moves from the piggy-bank into the economy, and is spun into growth, while deflation makes saving pretty smart, and pulls money from the economy into savings. That's why the recession in the seventies was such a big deal: "stag-flation" saw both inflation, and stagnation of the market, which is not typical.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"Econ 101" is an oversimplification and doesn't explain how the economy works practically. People don't put off purchases because their money is supposedly worth 2% more after a year. Similarly, people don't spend just because their money is supposedly worth 2% less after a year. According to you, people would only buy when there is a sale, unless it's an essential good, but it doesn't work out that way. Tell me how well the car and housing markets are going under inflation.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, the "Econ 101" example is an oversimplification, it's why it's the "Econ 101" example.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, which is why it doesn't apply to real life. It's an oversimplification.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

If you don't understand the point of an oversimplified educational example, I'm afraid I cannot help you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

If you don't understand how an oversimplified example doesn't apply in real life, I'm afraid I cannot help you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

If you went through economy classes and didn't realize our fractional reserve system is built on a house of cards and misguided principles there is no point where you would actually understand the concepts we are talking about here. People still have wants and needs. People buy housing whether rates are good or bad, because they need a place to sleep. Yes investment property purchases will drop, but that's not the average american, nor is the average american realistically investing in the stock market beyond regular 401ks because we deregulated bank investments and you can no longer get a savings account for retirement saving. Stop measuring economy health based on manufactured data points like the stock market and you might actually understand how people function in an economy.