Head cannon is that 1/3 of voyager is taken up by a massive shuttle manufactory. It's never discussed but it must be there...Otherwise, none of this shit makes any sense.๐ฌ
Numberone
joined 1 year ago
Yeah, I read the list and fair enough. I mean to go further I'd have to argue each thing and say if I agree that it helps the economy directly or not, who the fuck cares what I think. The Biden admin has been good on anti trust, those are filtering through the courts now right, so no concrete effect yet right? Biden is good on labor too, being like the first president to visit a picket line. That may have legitimately helped the broader economy if that factored into their decision to concede to the UAW and those wage increases filtered out to non Union shops in the south. Almost invariably when people cite "Bidenomics" they mention infrastructure and green spending, which I don't think nearly accounts for what's been happening in terms of unemployment. I wanted concrete examples, you gave me a bunch. That's something to think about, and I appreciate it.
Agreed, presidents can apply pressure but the Fed is technically independent. That probably wasn't fair of me to link Biden to the Fed, sorry. Dems are quick to attribute this gain to the Biden administration. I've heard broad statements about how Biden is good for the economy, but they don't really go into specifics. I'm curious what they're specifically saying he's done to boost the economy to the point that it invalidates Fed interest/employment/inflation models.
What specifically is he doing that is creating jobs? As of February new jobs are being driven by healthcare jobs. There are several other types of work before you get to construction, which could plausably be linked to infrastructure spending. And again, that's held to against the interest rate hikes that are designed to lower inflation by increasing unemployment, or the more appropriate euphomism of softening the labor market.
Best and brightest..
OP is a troll for saying go vegan on an animal cruelty thread huh?...ok...
I had a morning pee, FOR THE GLORY OF THE KLINGON EMPIRE!
Ruin!
Can you elaborate on this? I've always thought that housing is an absolutely terrible "store of value". Given the fact that appreciation at a population level, by definition means housing will be less affordable for the next generation. How is value for one generation balanced against subsequent ones. Also, it's an incredibly inefficient way to build a nest egg or whatever. If you pay a mortgage like most people do, over 15-30 yrs, you're paying something on the level of 150%-200% of its value over time. It seems to me a more rational way to build value is to keep housing costs low, allowing people to invest that difference (mortgage interest) into either investments or savings, rather than paying it to a bank.
I get that the US doesn't really have a culture of saving, but I feel like this is rationalized by the "my house will be more valuable when I retire" crowd. It's so easy to save now, with efficient investment products broadly available to individuals. Maybe it's time to let the house as the bulk of your wealth go, and make housing affordable again.
Good eye!