This Is Biden’s Soft Landing, and He Deserves Some Credit
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.
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.
Okay but I’m still gonna buy groceries if they’re cheaper because I need to eat
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.
Pretty sure everybody needs to eat.
...I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.
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.
I swear to god, it's like you cranks are completely illiterate, both economically and actually. The question was:
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Wow. Incredible. Not only do you misread what I wrote, you can't even understand what you're writing. Amazing. 100%, completely illiterate.
Nice deflection turned to insult, such great literary and debate skills on display here folks. Bravo
Technology gets cheaper and better every year. It's inherently deflationary and yet people still buy computers, TVs, phones, etc.
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?"
Alright, then what would people be waiting on to buy in a deflationary environment that they don't wait for in an inflationary environment?
"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.
"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.
Yes, the "Econ 101" example is an oversimplification, it's why it's the "Econ 101" example.
Yes, which is why it doesn't apply to real life. It's an oversimplification.
If you don't understand the point of an oversimplified educational example, I'm afraid I cannot help you.
If you don't understand how an oversimplified example doesn't apply in real life, I'm afraid I cannot help you.
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.