Officials are trying to understand why consumer spending, the job market and overall growth have not responded to the most aggressive interest rates in decades.

  • spittingimage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Understandable. Nothing’s worse for the economy than a strong economy. /s

    Economics is basically voodoo, isn’t it?

    • garretble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some of my worst grades were in Econ class because it’s really hard for me to get beyond the fact that the answers to Econ questions always have an asterisk at the end since we don’t know what the future will hold.

      It’s like, yeah we say “all things equal” something should happen in a certain way. And in the vacuum of a classroom maybe that’s OK. But it’s really all just educated guesses. And really that’s the best that we can do, and maybe that’s just fine. But when I hear stuff like “economists predict [x]…” I kinda roll my eyes.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Economics 101 is like physics 101. It only makes sense in a vacuum, with no friction, and no vibration. Or to put it in economics terms, it only works with perfect consumer knowledge, no barriers to entry, and if the future is accurately predicted by the past.

        So yeah, voodoo.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And as everyone knows, no actual economist learns anything more than econ 101

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Federal Reserve is like a cat that can’t make up its mind about whether it wants to be inside or outside.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When consumer spending is very high, inflation continues to rise because there is not an increase in supply. (Consumers are spending more to effectively get almost the same amount of things as before).

      This is, obviously, bad if unchecked.

  • MagicShel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Caveat: I’m no economist.

    Despite the clear desire to see mass layoffs and unemployment so we will slow all our damn spending, the usual club to make that happen isn’t working. Labor is strong. Support for unions is strong.

    To explain this, I’d look at what has changed. I believe stock buybacks have been extremely high of late and that would be my guess. The big companies aren’t leveraged so, just like how the rates aren’t affecting recent home buyers who bought before the hike, they also aren’t hurting companies as much as would normally be the case.

    Another possibility is lingering effects of boomers taking COVID as a sign to retire, creating a labor shortage and putting pressure on companies not to have a layoff because they are worried they might have trouble re-hiring folks when the economy cools off.

    If anyone else has ideas, I’d be curious. I might not be right about the cause, but I’m right about looking at what is different right now.

    • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Since the article is quoting some of the top economists in the world, I would t let not being one really limit your options for commenting.

      Here’smy hot take: economists have discussed sticky prices and sticky wages - which is a (imho) crappy way of describing effectively friction in economics. I wonder if what we are seeing here is sticky consumer spending. Normally we’d expect spending to react most quickly to interest rates and inflation, but people have gotten used to a certain level of spending and escalating debt, and so they might simply feel (or need to feel) unaffected by the fed changes.

      Honestly, until we update the idea of an economic rational actor, I don’t think we’re going to get very far. In fact I think we risk getting further afield the longer we persist, and the more difficult it will finally be to realign everything.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly, until we update the idea of an economic rational actor, I don’t think we’re going to get very far. In fact I think we risk getting further afield the longer we persist, and the more difficult it will finally be to realign everything

        I agree. The idea of humans being rational is so divorced from reality it makes me wonder if economists know real people.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Another possibility is lingering effects of boomers taking COVID as a sign to retire, creating a labor shortage and putting pressure on companies not to have a layoff because they are worried they might have trouble re-hiring folks when the economy cools off

      This is so rarely brought up and is such a massive fucking deal that it’s criminal not to discuss it.

  • EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the people aren’t paid, and costs are up, then the 70% of the economy that is powered by spending will not be affected. Wild!