This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
While browsing reddit a few days ago I forgot that I wasn't on TheMotte and tried to make a hypothesis post. This led to much screaming and crying and rending of clothes. So I decided to repost it here to see what people think. Am I crazy or am I right?
at leastEdited to "about" 20% within the next 6 months. I have about a 90% certainty in this.Reasoning: The current housing market as it stands is a mirage, not an indicator of growth. The market should have crashed in 2020, but it didn't because COVID. All of a sudden millions of people had the flexibility to move away from their place of employment because of work from home. Fully 60% of the home-buying surge was fueled by this trend according to the Fed, whose numbers I have no reason to mistrust. This sudden surge in home-buying has largely abated. According to RedFin, mortgage rates are their highest since 2002, searches for "homes for sale" are down 35% YoY, the Homebuyer Demand Index is down 25% YoY, and mortgage purchase applications are down 39% YoY. The market is cooling off. I believe the coming crash will be around 20% because historically that's a safe bet. The late-90s crash saw a drop in home prices of 14%, the 08 crash saw a drop of 27%, I think this crash will be somewhere in-between, hence 20%.
We are either in a recession right now, in which case I'm right, or we're about to be, in which case I'm right. Popular opinion defines a recession as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. If that is the case the recession has already started. The National Bureau of Economic Research defines a recession as a "significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and lasts more than a few months". So let's look at a few indicators. Ignoring inflation for the moment, retail and food services sales, total, peaked in May and have been on a slow but definite decline since. The Conference Board Leading Economic Index is down 2.7% since February. The S&P 500 is down 22% YTD. Oh, and almost every single CEO in the country believes there's gonna be a recession.
I predict that this recession will not be "mild", but nor will it be as bad as 2008. Somewhere between the Dotcom bust and 08 is my prediction, which I have about a 70% confidence in.
I predict unemployment will rise by more than 1%, but less than 5%. Somewhere in-between, with about 50% confidence.
These two predictions are functioning from the same basic premise. I'm pulling all my historical numbers from here. The 2008 Recession saw Real GDP fall 8.5%, unemployment reach 10% (a rise of about 6%), and the S&P500 drop 57%. The DotCom crash saw Real GDP fall by 1.6%, unemployment reach 5.9% (a rise of about 2%), and the S&P500 drop 62% (S&P drop pulled from here). I believe that the coming recession (if it happens - see above) will not be as bad as 08 because many of the co-factors that made 2008 so bad do not exist here, but that it'll probably be worse than the Dotcom crash because the Dotcom crash was largely caused by over-speculation on internet companies (hence "dotcom" crash) and low interest rates. We don't have low-interest rates anymore, but I think co-factors here (namely high inflation) will mean this one is going to be worse. My unemployment prediction is similarly predicated on this recession being somewhere between Dotcom and 08 in severity. If we're somewhere between those two numbers (2% and 6%) then a guestimate of between 1 and 5% is reasonable.
corporate, IPEDIT: specifically M&A (bankruptcy could be considered part of the "corporate" umbrella term, and I put IP here by mistake), and tech practice groups will have reduced or frozen hiring.Law firms have taken steps since 2008 to try and avoid mass layoffs. With that in mind, the legal practice has only just recovered from 2008 in terms of raw employment numbers. Recently firms have shifted their recruiting approach. To quote from the Reuters article:
Some practice groups are never busier than during a recession. Bankruptcies surged by just over 30% during the 2008 crash, and firms are preparing for this business to pick up. Similarly litigation is a counter cyclical practice that picks up during periods of a bad economy. It makes sense when you think about it. When the economy is good, people don't want to sue. When times are bad, they do. On the other hand, M&A tends to cool off in a recession.
I was accused of "LARPing as an economist" and "pulling these numbers out of my ass", so I thought I'd post them here for the Motte to give me a more rigorous examination.
I think this undersells the extent to which home prices were a product of the increase in monetary supply. We're looking at increase in M2 from ~$15.5 trillion to $18 trillion in one quarter, then continuing up over $21 trillion in the next few quarters. The United States has never spiked monetary policy to that extent and any naive observer would assume that the money created is going to go somewhere. With the combination of fiscal stimulus and constrained supply of normal goods, I was completely unsurprised when housing prices spiked sharply.
I think you're right that interest rates should suppress the rise and maybe even cause a slight downturn, but I think you're underestimating just how large the impact of adding 30% to the money supply is. I would also expect the change in interest rates to have something of a lock-in effect - sure, the demand for new mortgages is going to drop, but so is the supply.
For some reason any analysis of M2 or money supply I see completely ignores the FED policy of paying interest on reserves that was introduced in 2008 with specific purpose of sterilizing effect of quantitative easing on inflation - which is a stupid policy if you ask me, but it is what it is. Interest on reserves basically turns money supply into substitute for treasury bills and thus renders analysis of most amateur economists who like to show "exponential growth of money printing" moot.
Could you expand on this?
It is really simple. Since 2008 FED pays interest on cash that banks "deposit". So let's say FED buys government bonds from bank by printing money, but it also offers interest on money that the bank deposits with FED. So there is no incentive for banks to do anything with that money such as loan it or buy some other instruments. The cash basically becomes interest yielding vehicle. As you see right now FED pays 3.15% interest to any bank that does not move money from their reserve account. So they don't do it, easy as that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link