Is the White House trying to engineer a recession? This Wall Street pro explains the vision. (2 Viewers)

[ashurbanipal]

That wasn't the point at all. The rich are going to do what they are going to do. I just told you what they are doing to do. You can make the same play on your scale or you can sit back and cry.

Or the other obvious option, which is that we could pursue policies that would not allow the wealthy to rig the economy in that way.

If we are playing football and I tell you I'm going to pass the ball you can either play pass defense, pass the ball on your downs or you can sit on the bench and cry.

This kind of response isn't well thought-out on your part. You're basically saying something like, "look, this is just the reality. You can either deal with it, or feel sad about it." But that logic can be extended--if it's all just down to force and reality and no other factor enters into the discussion (i.e. factors like justice or morality) than why shouldn't we all just start killing each other and taking what we want? I can think of any number of people who would do quite well in a fight against Elon Musk, for example--perhaps one of them should just twist his head clean off his neck and take his wealth; then if anyone expresses any horror or reservation at what has happened, we can just tell them to go have a nice cry about it and then just face up to reality.

 

[MamboDervish]

Everything right now needs to be corrected.

I dare say, not by firing 17 Inspectors General. That's the opposite of correction.

 

[trumptman]

Or the other obvious option, which is that we could pursue policies that would not allow the wealthy to rig the economy in that way.

It's not rigging it. It's working the problem of human nature.

This kind of response isn't well thought-out on your part. You're basically saying something like, "look, this is just the reality. You can either deal with it, or feel sad about it."

I'm not "basically saying", you have a direct quote.

But that logic can be extended--if it's all just down to force and reality and no other factor enters into the discussion (i.e. factors like justice or morality) than why shouldn't we all just start killing each other and taking what we want?

This is called a logical leap. "You said you'd go to dinner with me so now rape is justified to get what I want since you didn't put out."

You disagree with the morality you portray here in a strawman matter so then you double down on it by adding a logical leap to the strawman.

I can think of any number of people who would do quite well in a fight against Elon Musk, for example--perhaps one of them should just twist his head clean off his neck and take his wealth; then if anyone expresses any horror or reservation at what has happened, we can just tell them to go have a nice cry about it and then just face up to reality.

If the way to acquire wealth were currently by physical battles to the death you might have a point. In fact that model worked to a degree in the past. The reason it fails today is much of the wealth generation is understanding and utilizing more than force. You could twist a million heads off a million people and likely not come up with the talent stack that Elon his circle have.

 

[trumptman]

Not in every case, but in many cases, yes they do, through two avenues. First, companies regularly either split stock or make secondary offerings and sell shares directly on whatever exchanges they've listed, in which case, the sale of those shares raises capital directly. Secondly, and more commonly, companies own a certain share of their stocks directly and can sell those without making a secondary offering. Anything that drives up the price of those shares leads to unrealized gains in their available capital--most usually, companies will simply seek loans against the value of those shares.

Feels like you are attempting to use the exception to prove the rule. Buying and sharing stocks does not give a company money to spend. You are talking about ways they can leverage the value of those shares for liquidity and that is different.

You'll have to define what you mean by "misallocation" before I can comment.

"Everyone knows" they aren't making more land so just keep buying real estate, even when stocks are giving a better return.

"Everyone knows" the internet has changed the rules and revenue and income don't matter for a stock's price now.

By the time "everyone knows" the easy gains in a market are gone. Herd mentality is not rational. You get greed and other variables at play there vs return on investment. When the "crowd" rushes in on a market, it leads to misallocation because you have more dollars seeking a return than would be justified and likewise other areas tend to be undeserved or ignored. That is they are ignored by that same herd. The smart people have already moved on.

The point is most people can do this in different parts of the economy but not in an everything bubble. In an everything bubble nearly all investments are overpriced and will not yield a proper return. The government has been printins and just shoving money everywhere which is why we have so much inflation. There are more and more dollars seeking the same amount of goods.

A correction will be very painful but pop a good number of bubbles.

So the income/wealth gap can be cured by non-economic means? Seems obviously false, but I'll be interested to hear it if you can explain what you mean.

The gap itself doensn't measure anything directly with reagard to economic progress.

If Lebron James can score 50k career points and I have zero points, the NBA point gap is infinite. However that doesn't mean he can't be in the best health ever for a professional athlete and I likewise can be in great health and living longer than all my ancestors.

For example using relative poverty, a child today might be considered desperately poor because their household only has a PS2 while the newest console is the PS5 and might be a thousand times more powerful. A child can enjoy both consoles but also the PS2 can be millions of times more powerful than the computer the wealthiest man might have had a couple decades earlier.

Disparity and gaps do not themselves mean much.

 

[trumptman]

We're already in a "proper long & strong" recovery.

Our "recovery" is like if you lost your job and charged all your living expenses for two years and declaring all is well and you are prosperous.

We are desperately debt financing nearly $2 trillion a year of "growth".

 

[EnigmaO01]

"Traders are starting to price in the possibility that the U.S. economy might fall into a recession — and one Wall Street veteran says that might actually be the Trump administration’s plan.

Charlie McElligott, a strategist at Nomura dubbed Wall Street’s most wired analyst by the Financial Times for his manic missives focused on the options market, laid out the argument in a note to clients.

He said President Donald Trump and his administration need an engineered recession to cause a growth slowdown and disinflation that will translate into Fed rate cuts and a meaningfully weaker U.S. dollar for the next phase of his economic agenda.

In another note to clients on Wednesday morning, McElligott cited remarks made by Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent on a focus on small business and consumers that will require a “rebalance,” as Trump in front of Congress on Tuesday night spoke of being “okay” with a little disturbance from tariffs.

The idea is that Fed rate cuts and supply-side stimulus from tax cuts and deregulation will then be able to build up the economy without the need for government spending."

Link

This is a good, simple explanation of what Trump is trying to do. It's a pretty tall order and I'm not sure that what works on paper will happen in the real world. And indeed, there are many critics of this idea. These are weeds I'm not eager to wade into.

Oh for God's sake this is giving a moron too much credit. He has no plans just chaos.

 

[Chomsky]

Our "recovery" is like if you lost your job and charged all your living expenses for two years and declaring all is well and you are prosperous.

No, our long & strong recovery is like a long & strong recovery.

We are desperately debt financing nearly $2 trillion a year of "growth".

Due to excessive tax cuts, particularly to the wealthy & their corporations.

 

[EnigmaO01]

The very wealthy generally do very well in recession... they buy up distressed properties and distressed businesses

Most definitely true in the last Great Depression. People lost their homes and land due to not having the income to pay their taxes. The rich made out like bandits buying up property. I know it happened in my area.

 

[Cassandra]

"Traders are starting to price in the possibility that the U.S. economy might fall into a recession — and one Wall Street veteran says that might actually be the Trump administration’s plan.

Charlie McElligott, a strategist at Nomura dubbed Wall Street’s most wired analyst by the Financial Times for his manic missives focused on the options market, laid out the argument in a note to clients.

He said President Donald Trump and his administration need an engineered recession to cause a growth slowdown and disinflation that will translate into Fed rate cuts and a meaningfully weaker U.S. dollar for the next phase of his economic agenda.

In another note to clients on Wednesday morning, McElligott cited remarks made by Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent on a focus on small business and consumers that will require a “rebalance,” as Trump in front of Congress on Tuesday night spoke of being “okay” with a little disturbance from tariffs.

The idea is that Fed rate cuts and supply-side stimulus from tax cuts and deregulation will then be able to build up the economy without the need for government spending."

Link

This is a good, simple explanation of what Trump is trying to do. It's a pretty tall order and I'm not sure that what works on paper will happen in the real world. And indeed, there are many critics of this idea. These are weeds I'm not eager to wade into.

Interesting.

I have been wondering if there is some design behind the madness.

The fact is that Trump and friends would like to minimize the burden of Soc. sec. and Medicare/ medicaid on the fed budget, without raising taxes on themselves and their wealthy friends. They cant just outright undermine the programs, so they must use the stealth method. Really, the only way to do it is to convince voters that inflation is lower than it actually is. As the purchasing power of the dollar declines , Americans will passively accept the fact that they are having more difficulty making ends meet, (even as the 1% become ever more wealthy.)

Nixon attempted to bully his Fed chair, Burns, into keeping interest rates relatively low for the purpose of reelection- which created memorable inflation. Carter, bless his heart, nominated Volker who knocked back inflation w high interest rates and ruined Carter's chances of re-election.

So the future looks to me like stagflation unless Powell succumbs to pressure. It will be the only way to deal with the ballooning deficit and its biggest drivers- the promises made to retirees and the ever growing military budget

 

[Geoist]

Often external factors get in the way of diet, exercise and many other improvements.

A number of economists are skeptical of the effectiveness of this policy.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. It's quite possible it could be all pain and no gain.

It'll be pain for average working Americans and gain for Trump's oligarch buddies.

 

[ashurbanipal]

It's not rigging it. It's working the problem of human nature.

The "problem of human nature"? What is that? I don't think there is such a thing as human nature. It seems to me that people tend to differ quite fundamentally. I suppose one can say that we all need to eat, sleep, hydrate, shelter, and so on, but solving the kinds of problems those needs create are very clearly not what the wealthy elite and their allies in government are doing. In fact, quite the opposite for a great many people--they're making obtaining the goods that satisfy those needs even harder.

I'm not "basically saying", you have a direct quote.

Thank you for doubling down, though there is no need for you to make my job here any easier. It's easy enough as it is.

This is called a logical leap. "You said you'd go to dinner with me so now rape is justified to get what I want since you didn't put out."

You disagree with the morality you portray here in a strawman matter so then you double down on it by adding a logical leap to the strawman.

Incorrect. I called attention to the moral dimensions of recent (well, recent in generational time) economic trends, and your response was, basically "stuff it! Deal with reality!" Your response was simply to deny that there is a moral dimension that has any import. So, if that is the case, how can you, in any principled manner, halt the logical next step in that evolution? To put the point differently, if the wealthy not only are but should be, in your view (as you seem to have not only stated but confirmed), free to so arrange the economy that it massively benefits them at the expense, the very painful and sometimes lethal expense, of the lower classes, why should not the lower classes be free to simply kill the wealthy? The wealthy are quite free, in your view, to kill them--according to what you've said in this thread, they ought to have that kind of power. So why would it not work the other direction?

I suppose you could pivot to something like the Han Fei, where the word of the powerful (technically, the Emperor) constitutes the moral good. In response, I'd say that the overwhelming majority of people disagree with such moral intuitions, to the point that it looks like your intuitions are simply flawed. The Western equivalent (the jure divino) was never a fully coherent, nor absolute, doctrine the way the Han Fei was, though if you make that move, it'll be surprising since one of the principles on which this country was founded is precisely a denial of the divine right of kings. So how you could defend a view that there's no moral dimension to how the economy is set up to work is not obvious.

Your counter example--the dinner/rape example--is a non sequitur. There's no denial, in the dinner/rape example, on the part of the person who said they'd go to dinner that there's a moral dimension to their interactions. My violence example goes through because you denied that there is a moral dimension to economic interactions; if there is not, then you can have no objection to violence.

If the way to acquire wealth were currently by physical battles to the death you might have a point. In fact that model worked to a degree in the past. The reason it fails today is much of the wealth generation is understanding and utilizing more than force. You could twist a million heads off a million people and likely not come up with the talent stack that Elon his circle have.

When people live by the rules you're relying on in this exchange for long enough, it always comes down to physical battles to the death. Now, I might agree that's not the best way to generate wealth, sure--but that's not exactly what we're talking about. We're talking about people getting their share of what wealth there is, which is a different point.

As for the Elon-talent thing...you've spoken truer than you purpos'd. I've known quite a few wealthy elite. What I've found is that by and large they are a bunch of dumbasses; they don't work hard, they don't work smart. They play in a rigged game and its made them incompetent. I can think of a few exceptions, but mostly, nah.

 

[trumptman]

Wow, where to start with this mess....

The "problem of human nature"? What is that? I don't think there is such a thing as human nature.

You don't think humans have a nature. Yet you know the nature of every "wealthy elite" down below. Did you read your own words?

It seems to me that people tend to differ quite fundamentally. I suppose one can say that we all need to eat, sleep, hydrate, shelter, and so on, but solving the kinds of problems those needs create are very clearly not what the wealthy elite and their allies in government are doing.

The wealthy are solving them and do so to the point that we have an obesity epidemic and far more wants than needs at this stage.

In fact, quite the opposite for a great many people--they're making obtaining the goods that satisfy those needs even harder.

Government is the primary force that makes obtaining those goods harder. Michelle Obama was more interested in children eating kale and kiwi than having a fifth chicken nugget while worrying they were "fat" but also "starving".

Thank you for doubling down...

I'm restating that which you haven't comprehended as demonstrated by your attempted restatement of what was said. I do not need you to distract with you misdirection. You can just quote me.

Incorrect. I called attention to the moral dimensions of recent (well, recent in generational time) economic trends, and your response was, basically "stuff it! Deal with reality!"

No my response was that your "moral dimensions" were an attempt to distract and digress from the real discussion. You don't like that. So I tell you and anyone else doing the same to stuff it.

Your response was simply to deny that there is a moral dimension that has any import. So, if that is the case, how can you, in any principled manner, halt the logical next step in that evolution?

So there is a moral dimension but no human nature. Again do you read what you've typed. Since part of that moral dimension would be how we manage human nature.

To put the point differently, if the wealthy not only are but should be, in your view (as you seem to have not only stated but confirmed), free to so arrange the economy that it massively benefits them at the expense, the very painful and sometimes lethal expense, of the lower classes, why should not the lower classes be free to simply kill the wealthy?

Have the masses killed the few in the past? If the answer is yes then what is your point? Economic outcomes are often like a giant pyramid. Sure there is someone at the top but the base to support that top has to be massive as well. If it isn't the top just tips over and falls.

The wealthy are quite free, in your view, to kill them--according to what you've said in this thread, they ought to have that kind of power. So why would it not work the other direction?

Where have I said they should have that power. Since I am not the one denying human nature, I'll gladly note that if you mistreat, harm, and oppress a group of people badly enough at some point they will likely kill you. I can say that because I believe in a human nature. You seem to believe there are large groups of people who never follow a norm, all while speaking in generalities about groups of course just to be ironic on your side of this discussion without realizing it.

I suppose you could pivot to something like the Han Fei,......

No need to wander down a digressive rabbit hole when the point you need to comprehend is that this is a digression.

Your counter example--the dinner/rape example--is a non sequitur. There's no denial, in the dinner/rape example, on the part of the person who said they'd go to dinner that there's a moral dimension to their interactions. My violence example goes through because you denied that there is a moral dimension to economic interactions; if there is not, then you can have no objection to violence.

It is an analogy. Showing you how your logical leap is working by applying it in a non-economic but MORAL context since that is what you were digressing with in the first place. You SHOULD say, that would be a ridiculous leap to make and that is what you have done, taken a ridiculous leap.

 

[trumptman]

When people live by the rules you're relying on in this exchange for long enough, it always comes down to physical battles to the death. Now, I might agree that's not the best way to generate wealth, sure--but that's not exactly what we're talking about. We're talking about people getting their share of what wealth there is, which is a different point.

So human's don't have a nature except when you declare they have this nature? This is really, really funny at this stage.

As for the Elon-talent thing...you've spoken truer than you purpos'd......

Weird how you know them, know the game, know the rules, know there is no nature to any of it except what you proclaim and you can solve it but no one magically ever sees your solutions, intellect and ability and wants to apply them.

It's almost like you're every communist in the history of the world who has all the answers, but does none of the work and no one seems to elect them either. Enjoy.

 

[Helix]

Anyone who has raised a toddler knows that immature little idiots break a lot of things when they get angry. Most people eventually grow complete myelin sheaths, stop doing that, and begin to understand that angry children are to be properly raised, not put completely in charge of our national and global fates.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Feels like you are attempting to use the exception to prove the rule. Buying and sharing stocks does not give a company money to spend. You are talking about ways they can leverage the value of those shares for liquidity and that is different.

Well, maybe I wasn't clear, but all that is needed for my point to go through is that when people buy a company's stock, that company tends to have more money to spend.

By the time "everyone knows" the easy gains in a market are gone. Herd mentality is not rational. You get greed and other variables at play there vs return on investment. When the "crowd" rushes in on a market, it leads to misallocation because you have more dollars seeking a return than would be justified and likewise other areas tend to be undeserved or ignored. That is they are ignored by that same herd. The smart people have already moved on.

Yeah, I'm still not sure what you mean. It sounds like you're saying that funds are misallocated whenever they're not invested in what would have given the highest rate of return, had the person doing the investing had perfect (including future) knowledge at the time of the investment. If that's the case, since we generally cannot see clairvoyantly into the future, funds will always be misallocated.

The point is most people can do this in different parts of the economy but not in an everything bubble. In an everything bubble nearly all investments are overpriced and will not yield a proper return.

Again, what's a "proper" return? It sounds like your reasoning on this matter is circular: when funds are misallocated, they don't get a proper return, but we define misallocation by funds not getting a proper return. That, combined with a lack of definition of what amounts to a proper return, makes your point unclear.

The government has been printins and just shoving money everywhere which is why we have so much inflation. There are more and more dollars seeking the same amount of goods.

That's one reason. Another reason is the great resignation; employers are now having to pay more for labor (a good thing in my opinion). Yet another reason is the war in Ukraine and the interruptions to shipping out of the Black Sea. And yet another reason is simple corporate greed.

The gap itself doensn't measure anything directly with reagard to economic progress.

To my mind, it's one of two measures that are of the utmost import. We need to know how much wealth is being generated, and how that wealth is being distributed. I suspect that you and folks who take your view have forgotten why we have an economy in the first place. The reason is because if we try to live entirely on our own, we tend to die pretty quickly. But conversely, living in society with others and trading within an overall framework of cooperation leads to human flourishing--it delivers the human goods we want and need. Clearly, however, that entire motive is subverted if all the goods being produced flow to just one or a few individuals, while everyone else works and get nothing.

Now, that last bit is an extreme--most people in our society get something from working, but things have been skewing toward the oligarchic end of the scale since the late 1970s.

For example using relative poverty, a child today might be considered desperately poor because their household only has a PS2

I can't think of a single person who thinks exactly that. It seems to me that "desperately poor" is usually defined in terms of things like food security, adequate shelter, access to medicine, water, clothing, and so on. I'm reminded here of that interview with Jeff Yass who said that there is no such thing as an income gap because a billionaire goes home, has a beer, watches a little T.V. or maybe reads the news on their laptop, maybe plays a game on that same laptop, reads a book, goes to bed--just like (in his mind) a poor person does. So there's no difference, for him, between the rich and the poor.

Which is absurd. Had I been interviewing him, I'd ask him when was the last time he wasn't sure he was going to be able to afford his rent. When was the last time he was unsure when he'd be able to afford food again. He can stop working right now, and live out the rest of his days in complete luxury. A poor person has no choice but to go to work, even if they absolutely hate their job.

 

[trumptman]

Anyone who has raised a toddler knows that immature little idiots break a lot of things when they get angry. Most people eventually grow complete myelin sheaths, stop doing that, and begin to understand that angry children are to be properly raised, not put completely in charge of our national and global fates.

The country agrees which is why they fired Biden and Democrats.

 

[Helix]

The country agrees which is why they fired Biden and Democrats.

Which country are you posting from?

 

[Econ4every1]

That wasn't the point at all. The rich are going to do what they are going to do.

As wealth increasingly shifts to the top 10% of Americans, those 30 million Americans will increasing use idle wealth for investment (mostly in real estate), the result will be to continue to increase demand for speculative investments as more money shifts into the hands of the top 10%. It's simple supply and demand. Ironically, you seem to believe that austerity will solve the problem through disinflation, but what you're going to find is that it will make it much, much worse (for the bottom 90%) as the result will be even greater amounts of wealth are captured by the top 10% (while this administration is reducing taxes on the top 10%).

The resulting austerity will force those at the margins to sell off what little wealth they have for pennies on the dollar to those that have large surpluses of wealth seeking investment opportunity increasing the number of people without wealth and increasing the amount of wealth in the top 10% who will continue to compete for available investments causing stock and real estate markets to go ever higher as the economy suffers. The wealthy will continue to dominate competition for real property and businesses decreasing competition and creating increased barriers to entry for smaller businesses (that would normally increase competition) into important markets. Meanwhile, those without wealth will suffer economic coercion as this administration works to dismantle the government and public programs. Social Security, education, healthcare all with the goal of creating an increasing number of increasingly desperate people. Desperate people will do more work for less pay, which, surprise, increases profits for those same top 10% (90% of which go to the top 1%).

Share - WID - World Inequality Database

Share The source for global inequality data. Open access, high quality wealth and income inequality data developed by an international academic consortium.

wid.world

Wealth inequality didn't get worse because of government spending and it won't get better reducing subsided or free medical care, education, housing or food, just to name a few.

 

[Econ4every1]

The country agrees which is why they fired Biden and Democrats.

In fact less than 1/2 of all registered voters in the US voted for Trump (77 million of 161 million). To say that the "country" agrees is a stretch, and it's worth pointing out that a lot of those people are already suffering buyers remorse.

But let's revisit this question in 6 months.

 

[What if...?]

So first point, and we have character limits here so remember that, I'm not talking up the stock market nor saying anything about stocks reflect overall economic health. When you purchase a company's stock they don't have more "cash to spend".

Recessions correct misallocation of capital. However in this, the misallocation is the massive printing of dollars to prop up failing and zombie investments through out almost the entire economy, hence everything bubble.



There's a lot of disconnect in what you're saying here. A recession would certainly help stop inflation.



Your concerns here are social, not economic.

The weapons are economic.

 

[trumptman]

Well, maybe I wasn't clear, but all that is needed for my point to go through is that when people buy a company's stock, that company tends to have more money to spend.

You weren't clear but I made it clear how that mechanism works. They can leverage the value of their stock for liquidity. The layperson version of that would be having your home raise in value by $250k. The fact someone would pay more for your home doesn't automatically put money in your pocket but you can go to a bank and ask for new higher mortgage or HELOC based on the higher value and that CASH would be liquidity you can spend or use.

Yeah, I'm still not sure what you mean. It sounds like you're saying that funds are misallocated whenever they're not invested in what would have given the highest rate of return, had the person doing the investing had perfect (including future) knowledge at the time of the investment. If that's the case, since we generally cannot see clairvoyantly into the future, funds will always be misallocated.

Well there is risk and reward of course but most people are seeking the maximum return with the minimal risk for their capital. It isn't about clairvoyance, but if you are a novice in an area and decide to get in because you've heard about the returns then in reality the best returns are likely already past.

Let's make it a bit more concrete. Let's imagine I am tech bro. I might be an angel developer on social media or AI before they become a big deal. I'd make speculative but informed decisions about it well before the public knows about it. I'd get in on the ground floor where the big returns happen. By the time the general public can utter the phrase ChatGPT, it's years and a far smaller return later.

Flip it. Let's say tech is going through difficult times and returns are hard to find. I "hear" that everyone is moving into commercial real estate warehouses. I am a novice here so I try to find some people like myself and invest in the next round of warehouses being built to be leased to an Amazon or equivalent. By the time I "hear" this since it is not my area of interest, the people with real knowledge have probably built and flipped four rounds of warehouses to "investor groups" with each one getting more expensive, as more people hear about it and want to invest and thus generating a less likely positive return.

Most people stick with what their expertise is in and what they do is make great gains when the times are good, and minimize their losses and buy out competitors when times are bad. They stay in their lane and work their strengths.

Again, what's a "proper" return? It sounds like your reasoning on this matter is circular: when funds are misallocated, they don't get a proper return, but we define misallocation by funds not getting a proper return. That, combined with a lack of definition of what amounts to a proper return, makes your point unclear.

A proper return in my opinion is return that returns the initial investment, throws off additional cash and outpaces inflation. If I have a company making 5% a year but the real rate of inflation is 10% then I'm losing purchasing power.

That's one reason. Another reason is the great resignation; employers are now having to pay more for labor (a good thing in my opinion). Yet another reason is the war in Ukraine and the interruptions to shipping out of the Black Sea. And yet another reason is simple corporate greed.

They pay more for some labor. They automate other labor that is no longer price competitive.

To my mind, it's one of two measures that are of the utmost import. We need to know how much wealth is being generated, and how that wealth is being distributed.

However most wealth is not distributed. It is not liquid. If I own a home and you rent an apartment and my home is worth a million dollars and your apart adds zero to your net worth the disparity between us is essentially infinite. However I don't distribute or spend my home. I live in it.

 

[trumptman]

I suspect that you and folks who take your view have forgotten why we have an economy in the first place. The reason is because if we try to live entirely on our own, we tend to die pretty quickly. But conversely, living in society with others and trading within an overall framework of cooperation leads to human flourishing--it delivers the human goods we want and need. Clearly, however, that entire motive is subverted if all the goods being produced flow to just one or a few individuals, while everyone else works and get nothing.

You note that we trade with others and cooperate with others but then "magically" this is all subverted. It isn't subverted. Some people have just gotten very good at trading and others offer little or nothing to trade. At some point all they can trade is their labor and sometimes not even that.

Social media platforms have gotten good at data mining to the point that from the persepctive of their users they are getting everything for the cost of nothing. No one is forcing them to use a Facebook, Instagram or X but they do and do so for free except the cost is the datamined.

They could declare they aren't getting their proper share of the pie but

Now, that last bit is an extreme--most people in our society get something from working, but things have been skewing toward the oligarchic end of the scale since the late 1970s.


I can't think of a single person who thinks exactly that. It seems to me that "desperately poor" is usually defined in terms of things like food security, adequate shelter, access to medicine, water, clothing, and so on. I'm reminded here of that interview with Jeff Yass who said that there is no such thing as an income gap because a billionaire goes home, has a beer, watches a little T.V. or maybe reads the news on their laptop, maybe plays a game on that same laptop, reads a book, goes to bed--just like (in his mind) a poor person does. So there's no difference, for him, between the rich and the poor.

Definition of absolute and relative poverty - Economics Help

Definition of absolute poverty and relative poverty. Also definition of primary and secondary poverty and multidimensional poverty indexes.

www.economicshelp.org

Relative poverty is a real concept.

Which is absurd. Had I been interviewing him, I'd ask him when was the last time he wasn't sure he was going to be able to afford his rent. When was the last time he was unsure when he'd be able to afford food again. He can stop working right now, and live out the rest of his days in complete luxury. A poor person has no choice but to go to work, even if they absolutely hate their job.

Well the point is that you have needs and then wants but beyond a certain level the rate of return with regard to happiness for each dollar spent on those wants does not grow proportional to the spending. I can have a great $40 ribeye or perhaps a $4000 ribeye but I do not believe you could convince me one is 100 times better nor do I believe I would experience that.

 

[trumptman]

Which country are you posting from?

I'm not a fan of doxxing myself. Thanks.

 

[uptower]

"Traders are starting to price in the possibility that the U.S. economy might fall into a recession — and one Wall Street veteran says that might actually be the Trump administration’s plan.

Charlie McElligott, a strategist at Nomura dubbed Wall Street’s most wired analyst by the Financial Times for his manic missives focused on the options market, laid out the argument in a note to clients.

He said President Donald Trump and his administration need an engineered recession to cause a growth slowdown and disinflation that will translate into Fed rate cuts and a meaningfully weaker U.S. dollar for the next phase of his economic agenda.

In another note to clients on Wednesday morning, McElligott cited remarks made by Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent on a focus on small business and consumers that will require a “rebalance,” as Trump in front of Congress on Tuesday night spoke of being “okay” with a little disturbance from tariffs.

The idea is that Fed rate cuts and supply-side stimulus from tax cuts and deregulation will then be able to build up the economy without the need for government spending."

Link

This is a good, simple explanation of what Trump is trying to do. It's a pretty tall order and I'm not sure that what works on paper will happen in the real world. And indeed, there are many critics of this idea. These are weeds I'm not eager to wade into.

I doubt he's smart enough to make it intentional. The GOP may well need more excuses for budget cuts to pay for reduced taxes on the wealthy and thus the party wing could be driving Trump's agenda.

Trump himself though? He doesn't understand economics. He just thinks he's sticking it to all those foreign trading partners for "ripping America off".

And of course for laughing at him for being an idiot.

 

[year2late]

We could have had sane and normal instead of 4 years of chaos.

I am near retirement age.

Not anymore if Trump doesn't stop this crap.

The instability is killing my 401K.

God only knows what he will do to my SS and Medicare.

Friggen agent of chaos.

Frankly.....he didn't get this way without people encouraging him.

But by all means...he should encourage exploding rocket guy to wreak even more havoc.