> supply shock
The supply shock you need to be worried about is the shocking oversupply of new dollars competing for the same resources.
The supply shock you need to be worried about is the shocking oversupply of new dollars competing for the same resources.
It’s not a surprise that we’ll hear tons of information saying that printing money isn’t a bad thing, or that it isn’t the cause of any current monetary outcomes.
> As a result, though, many people may now be eligible for substantially more money while unemployed than they made while they were working. A new analysis by Peter Ganong, Pascal Noel and Joseph Vavra, economists at the University of Chicago, uses government data from 2019 to estimate that 68 percent of unemployed workers who can receive benefits are eligible for payments that are greater than their lost earnings. They also found that the estimated median replacement rate — the share of a worker’s original weekly salary that is being replaced by unemployment benefits — is 134 percent, or more than one-third above their original wage. A substantial minority of those workers, particularly in low-wage professions like food service and janitorial work, may end up receiving more than 150 percent of their previous weekly salary.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/many-americans-are-gett...
I used to think this way as well, but after browsing /r/wallstreetbets I am not at all convinced you need to have wealthy or responsible to invest/trade/gamble in the stock market. And unemployment abuse is a larger more complex topic.
Are you arguing people aren’t relocating or something to that effect?
You might say "oh, well the rich are bidding up gas and food prices, poor people can't afford and ummmm drive and eat less". It sounds silly and it should but even if that were happening, and was the sole causal factor, it would mean the food and gas markets were not clearing, and that is clearly also not happening.
And even if that were happening the sellers would be being irrational. For surely they would lower prices after the rich were fed and gassed up so they could sell the remainder of their goods, and make more money. (the profit rate would go down but the total profits would go up.)
No matter how you cut it, the Monetarist story is false and ridiculous given the evidence.
Another example--the federal government enables "easy money" as higher education loans, which has enabled universities to massively overcharge for mostly low quality education.
The data doesn’t seem to support this, at least not yet. The owner occupancy of units has been increasing since 2016 and increased after 2020.
The increase in housing prices has been extraordinary, but seems in large part due to people who actually intend to live in that housing.
The monitarists' conception of inflation is a temporary distortion where all the money stock and flows pick up. What you are describing is a spacial distortion where certain people / goods get unfair treatment. The latter is indeed quite dubious, but it's not the same as the former!
Conventional monetary policy is lame and fairly ineffective, but I have seen claims that raising rates is better at destimulating than lowering is at stimulating. What a tough nuance to convey!
It did go down. Now its back to normal.
Source?
This is what I could find: Personal Consumption Expenditures
Also savings rate has gone back down after a spike that coincided with stimulus payments
Now it could catch up, or Omicron could blow over and we continue fixing supply chain issues.
The traffic jam is just the echo of the initial accident, remember.